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

Splendid. I guess I'll outline why the "Bishop of Rome" i.e. the Pope, is supreme vicar of Christ. As Aristotle so wisely preached, it is important to define terms: What is "Supreme Vicar of Christ"? It simply means the chief pastor of the entire Christian Church, including those denominations as Eastern Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, and Protestant Splinter Sects; the Pope "acts and speaks for Christ on earth" ("The Many Faces of Faith" by Richard R. Losch) What right does Rome have in saying that their Bishop is in charge of all the other Bishops? Well, let me state my criterion for this entire debate- "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" 2 Timothy 3:16 The key words I want to emphasize is "reproof" & "correction." I am full aware that the writer of 2 Timothy (pressumably Paul) was most likely talking about the Old Testament (The Jewish texts). But since Christian Orthodoxy claims that both Old and New Testament are on equal footing, for each depends on each other, we can wisely apply this quote to the New Testament as well. But what is meant by "reproof" and "correction"? Well I believe those two terms speak for themselves. Unlike Protestants, who depend completely on "Sola Scriptura" in attaining doctrine, it is important to note that Catholics (Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics) rely on tradition, Scripture, and reason equally ("The Many Faces of Faith). So if my opponent hopes to prove his stance solely on Scripture, he will be deemed a heretic by his own and, well, will lose this round also. We must also understand that at The Council of Trent (1546-63), Roman Catholics affirmed that tradition and Scripture bear equal authority. Eastern Orthodoxy and Aglicanism agree on such concept, but disagree on the traditions of Roman Catholocism. Thus we must focus on these supposed "traditions" that Catholics proclaim while other Christians denounce Let us move to the part of the Bible in which Roman Catholics heavily depend on to show their direct lineage to St. Peter: "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:18) The word for Peter and for rock in the original Aramaic is one and the same; this renders it evident that the various attempts to explain the term "rock" as having reference not to Peter himself but to something else are misinterpretations. It is Peter who is the rock of the Church. (Catholic Encyclopedia). But besides the literal translation of Peter to rock, we have much evidence in Paul's epistles to infer that even Paul called Peter "Cephas" (which means Rock). Look at 1 Corinthians 1:12, 3:22, 9:5, 15:5, and Galatians 2:9. And by Gospels account, by inference and explicitness, we can agree that Peter was made the head of the Christian Church once Jesus was gone. It is important to note that the Roman Catholic Church is the only Christian Church who has ever claimed direct lineage to Peter, in whom Christ said He would build his Church on. This claim has scriptural validity. In Acts, we are told that all Jews were expelled from Rome by Claudius. Why were they expelled? Most likely because these Jews were a fanatical sect within Judaism, later known as Christians. It makes sense to assume that the Jews were expelled beause Christianity was being spread throughout the Imperial City, in which posed much of a great danger to the Roman Elite. With the idea that Rome was being infiltrated by Christians, we can possibly assume that it was Peter who was in charge of it, since Peter was in charge of the Christian Community (according to Matthew) and Rome was in charge of the world. I think we can also infer another important fact from Acts: In Acts 15:6-28, Barnabas and Paul approach the "elders" of the Christian community, whose headquarters was still located in Jerusalem. This event is also known as the "Jerusalem Decree." Paul and Barnabas were trying to convince the Apostles and other elders that the Christian faith should be extended to Gentiles, and not be strictly a Jewish faith. If we analyze the whole chapter, we notice not once is Peter mentioned as the decision is made by the elders. Why is that? We can most reasonably assume that Peter was abroad converting. And it can be wisely pressumed that Peter was in Rome spreading the Word. Why? Because although Paul and Barnabas were still trying to convince the other Apostles of converting Gentiles, Peter was ALREADY doing so. In Acts 10:34-48, Peter is preaching to Cornelius, a ROMAN Centurian. I think the most straightforward implicit evidence that we have to show that Peter was predominantely in Rome is in 1 Peter 5:13: "She who is in Babylon, elect together with you, greets you; and so does Mark my son." Assuming that Peter wrote this epistle, it is most obvious that Peter must have been in Rome, for the ancient Biblical Code for "Babylon" meant Rome. "Babylon is a code-word for Rome. It is used that way multiple times in works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1). Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that It is said that Peter's first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon." Catholic Encyclopedia. As you have might have noticed, I have not relied on any "myth" accounts of Peter being in Rome (e.g. Peter being crucified upside down in Rome). But I think another important source of evidence that shows that Peter lived most of his Christian life in Rome is by inferring the Christian Apogryphal accounts, especialy the Acts of Peter. For it says in the Apocryphal account that Peter was challenged by a Heretical magician, in the City of Rome, in a power dual. Of course Peter wins the battle, but then eventually gets killed by the Emperor Nero. Whether the story is true or not is not the point, but the fact that the author writes a story of Peter in Rome is crucial in outlining and hypothosizing what Peter's life entailed, since it is not explicitly mentioned anywhere in the Biblical Account. Why is it so crucial to show that Peter was in Rome? Simple: Because if Peter is the head of the Christian Church (which I have showed evidence through reason and scripture) then he has ultimate hearsay of what is said to happen. And since Rome was the superpower of the ancient world, it makes alot of sense to pressume that if Peter wanted to extend the Christian faith across the entire Roman Empire, he had to do so from the brain of the empire: Rome. It was inevetible that the Christian Church would be politicized, as we can see from the Conversion of the Roman Emperor Constantine. Once Christianity was fused with the Roman Empire, it only made sense that the Church of Rome would hold supreme control over all the other Churches. And since the political power of the Church grew before the Great Schism between East and West, we understand that the East (i.e. Eastern Orthodoxy) fully acknowledged the political power of the Church. It was only until the Roman Catholic Church interpreted "traditions" differently, did the East become enraged. But as I said at the outset of this debate, in 2 Timothy 3:16, Reproof and Correction are completely acceptable in proclaiming Christian doctrine, belief, interpretation, and TRADITION. Have Fun!