The Bishop of rome (pope) was not the sole authority or "final say" of the church.

Splendid. My opponent seems to ensue on a "Church Fathers" War, which I would rather not take. So to avoid it, I will detract myself from employing anymore of the Church Fathers. It is a fact that the Church Fathers disputed amongst each other on countless issues, not just Peter's authoritative role. The St. Ambrose quote and the many others from the other Church fathers that my opponent has utilized, I ask he cite so I can further study them. Their is a reason why I would like to study them: Misinterpretation or other interpretation can occur. Let us take St. Augustine as an example. My opponent used him. Quote: "St. Augustine, one of the "doctors" of the ROMAN church, considered peter and paul equal. He puts these words in Pauls mouth "i am in nothing inferior to Peter, for we are ordained by the same God for the same ministry. St. Augustine also referred to Peter's primacy, but he does not understand this to mean power over the church. He quoted, "He had not the primacy over the disciples, but among the disciples. His primacy among the disciples was the same as that of Stephen among the deacons"" But this interpretation by St. Augustine can be taken another direction: St. Augustine in several places tells us that Peter received the keys as representing the Church -- e.g. "In Joan.", tr. 1:12: "Si hoc Petro tantum dictum est, non facit hoc Ecclesia . . .; si hoc ergo in Ecclesia fit, Petrus quando claves accepit, Ecclesiam sanctam significavit'(If this was said to Peter alone, the Church cannot exercise this power; if this power is exercised in the Church, then when Peter received the keys, he signified the Holy Church); cf. tr. 124:5; Serm. 295. It is argued that, according to Augustine, the power denoted by the keys resides primarily not in Peter, but in the whole Church. Christ's gift to His people was merely bestowed on Peter as representing the whole body of the faithful. The right to forgive sins, to exclude from communion, to exercise any other acts of authority, is really the prerogative of the whole Christian congregation. If the minister performs these acts he does so as delegate of the people. The argument, which was formerly employed by Gallican controversialists, however, rests on a misunderstanding of the passages. Augustine is controverting the Novatian heretics, who affirmed that the power to remit sins was a purely personal gift to Peter alone, and had disappeared with him. He therefore asserts that Peter received it that it might remain for ever in the Church and be used for its benefit. It is in that sense alone that he says that Peter represented the Church. There is no foundation whatever for saying that he desired to affirm that the Church was the true recipient of the power conferred. Such a view would be contrary to the whole patristic tradition, and is expressly reprobated in the Vatican Decree, cap. 1. (Catholic Encyclopedia) It is utterly futile to use the Church Father's as a supreme authority in this debate because they can be interpreted in many ways, as I have shown above. Not only did Christ constitute St. Peter head of the Church, but in the words, "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, it shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed in heaven," He indicated the scope of this headship. The expressions binding and loosing here employed are derived from the current terminology of the Rabbinic schools. A doctor who declared a thing to be prohibited by the law was said to bind, for thereby he imposed an obligation on the conscience. He who declared it to be lawful was said to loose). In this way the terms had come respectively to signify official commands and permissions in general. The words of Christ, therefore, as understood by His hearers, conveyed the promise to St. Peter of legislative authority within the kingdom over which He had just set him, and legislative authority carries with it as its necessary accompaniment judicial authority. Moreover, the powers conferred in these regards are plenary. This is plainly indicated by the generality of the terms employed: "Whatsoever thou shalt bind . . . Whatsoever thou shalt loose"; nothing is withheld. Further, Peter's authority is subordinated to no earthly superior. The sentences which he gives are to be forthwith ratified in heaven. They do not need the antecedent approval of any other tribunal. He is independent of all save the Master who appointed him. The words as to the power of binding and loosing are, therefore, elucidatory of the promise of the keys which immediately precedes. They explain in what sense Peter is governor and head of Christ's kingdom, the Church, by promising him legislative and judicial authority in the fullest sense. In other words, Peter and his successors have power to impose laws both preceptive and prohibitive, power likewise to grant dispensation from these laws, and, when needful, to annul them. (Catholic Encyclopedia) Let us move on to my opponents argument that their was a transference of power from the Apostle Peter to the Bishop of Rome, and from the Church in Jerusalem to Church of Rome. Although Christ established the perpetual office of supreme head (assuming Peter), Scripture does not tell us that He fixed the law according to which the headship should descend. Granting that He left this to Peter to determine, it is plain that the Apostle need not have attached the primacy to his own see: he might have attached it to another. Some have thought that the law establishing the succession in the Roman episcopate became known to the Apostolic Church as an historic fact. In this case the dogma that the Roman pontiff is at all times the Church's chief pastor would be the conclusion from two premises -- the revealed truth that the Church must ever have a supreme head, and the historic fact that St. Peter attached that office to the Roman See. This conclusion, while necessarily connected with revelation, is not part of revelation, and is accepted fide infallibili. According to other theologians the proposition in question is part of the deposit of faith itself. In this case the Apostles must have known the law determining the succession to the Bishop of Rome, not merely on human testimony, but also by Divine revelation, and they must have taught it as a revealed truth to their disciples. It is this view which is commonly adopted. The definition of the Vatican to the effect that the successor of St. Peter is ever to be found in the Roman pontiff is almost universally held to be a truth revealed by the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and by them transmitted to the Church. Now the transference of power between Jerusalem and Rome was inevatible. Unfortunately, very early on in the history of the Christian Church, the faith was politicized. Meaning the Roman State would be intertwined with the Christian Church. And since Rome was the Capital of the world at that time, the Roman Church would take supreme authority of the other Churches within the empire. As history serves us, the Jewish Revolt in Jerusalem in the middle of the 1st century, devastated the power of the early Jerusalem Church. It was the conversion of the Gentiles throughout the empire, especially in Rome, that truly strengthened the Faith. Constantinople was't established until half a century later. Point: Any Church matter was political. And since the Roman State was the World Power of the time, the Roman Church had supreme authority nonetheless. Brush aside the theology and scripture; it was historical fact that Roman Church became the supreme power of the Roman Empire. My opponent assumes that he knows when Peter died. Their is no scriptural or empirical evidence that shows definitely when St. Peter died. All that can be inferred is that Peter spent most of his Christian life in Rome. I've run out of characters. I shall wait for my opponent!