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

I will state again that the orthodox church does recognize a role that was given to better, but what authority does role give him? The patristic is that no Father of the Church has seen, in the primacy of peter, any title of jurisdiction or absolute authority in church government. The LATIN church father St. Ambrose taught that peter and paul were equal. He quotes: " Is it proper that Paul should go to see Peter? Why? Was peter superior to him and the other apostles? No, but because, of all the apostles, he was the first to be entrusted by the Lord with the care of the churches. Had he need to be taught, or to receive a commission from Peter? No, but that peter might know the paul has received the power which had also been given to himself" St. Ambrose also taught that peter's primacy was not one of honor or rank, but of faith and confession.He quoted: "As soon as peter heard these words 'whom say ye that i am?' remembering his place, he exercised this primacy, a primacy of confession, not of honor, a primacy of faith, not of rank" Another problem with the Latin premise is with the claim that an exclusive transference of power occurred from the apostle peter to the bishop of rome, and from the church in Jerusalem to the church of Rome. The orthodox church will point out that all bishops are successors of the apostles and that the bishop of rome, the pope, does not therefore have exclusive rights to peter. Since peter died before the apostle John, this would mean, according to papal doctrine, that the beloved apostle peter would have been under the universal role of the bishop of rome(at that time) thus reversing the intended order of rank. Third, Peter ordained several bishops in rome. (Irenaeus and Eusebius write that he ordained Linus, and Tertullian states that he ordained clement.) How could they be the successors and have universal rule over peter if he was still alive?? Fourth, Jerusalme had a unique authority in the church. It was the mother of all Churches but it never attempted to lord over the other churches as its supposed successor did. Fifth, (i'm getting to the main point soon! Stick with me!) If we admit a succession from apostle to bishop and from Jerusalem to rome, then there would be a decrease in authority, due to the unique place of the apostle and of jerusalem. Rome, however, claimed more authority then peter or jerusalem ever claimed! Sixth, another problem is the roman catholic assumption that papal primacy has existed and been practiced since ancient times. To refute this assumption, i will quote the ancient witness Pope Gregory, (540-604 a.d.) one of the greatest of all the ROMAN popes! Pope Gregory was deeply concerned that the Patriarch of Constantinople, St. John the Faster, had accepted that title of Ecumenical (or universal) Patriarch. He immediately condemned any such title with the following quote: "I say it without the least hisitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is by his pride the precursor of the anti-Christ because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of the anti-Christ. For as that wicked one wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whosoever would call himself sole bishop exalteth himself above others" Pope Gregory also demonstrated that such a title would be harmful to the church. He quotes: "It cannot be denied that if any one bishop be called universal, all the church crumbles if that universal one fall" Pope gregory didn't stop there! ( hang in there folks, i know this is alot of reading!) Pope Gregory refused the title for himself because he believed that he was equal to the other patriarchs. He wrote to the bishop of Alexandria these words: " Your Holiness has been at pains to tell us that in addressing certain persons you no longer give them certain tiles that have no better origin than pride, using this phrase regarding me 'as you have commanded me.' I pray you let me never again here this word command; for i know who i am and who you are, by your position you are my brethren; by your virtue you are my fathers. I have, therefore, not commanded; I have only been careful to point out things which seemed to me useful. Still i do not find that your Holiness has perfectly remembered what i particularly wished to empress on your memory; FOR I SAID THAT YOU SHOULD NO MORE GIVE THAT TITLE TO ME THAN TO OTHERS; and lo! in the superscription of your letter, you gave to me, who have proscribed them, the VAINGLORIOUS TITLES OF UNIVERSAL AND POPE. May your sweet Holiness do so no more in the future. I beseech you; FOR YOU TAKE FROM YOURSELF WHAT YOU GIVE EXCESS TO ANOTHER. I do not esteem that an honor which caused my brethren to lose their own dignity. My honor is that of the whole Church. My honor is the unshakable firmness of my brethren. I consider myself truly honored when no one is denied the honor due to them. IF YOUR HOLINESS CALLS ME UNIVERSAL POPE, YOU DENY THAT YOU ARE YOURSELF WHAT I SHOULD BE ALTOGETHER. GOD FORBID! FAR FROM US BE WORDS THAT PUFF UP VANITY AND WOUND CHARITY." These words came straight through the mouth of one of the greatest roman popes to ever live. How much more evidance do you need then those quotes above?!? He clearly demonstrated that he had no more power then the other patriarchs. Was pope gregory unaware that peter had universal authority over the whole church? NO, because that view never existed or else pope greogry wouldn't of made the comments he did and just accepted himself as the universal authority of the church. Even catholic theologians admit that the papacy as it exists now is of late origin. Catholic theologian W. Devries admits, " throughout the first ten centries, Rome never claimed to have been granted its preferred position of jurisdiction as an explicit privilage." Avery Dulles considers the papacy to be a historical accident! He quotes: "The strong centralization in modern catholicism is due to historical accident. It has been shaped in part by the homogeneous culture of medieval Europe and by the dominance of ROME with it's rich heritage of classical culture and legal orginization" Still not convinced? It's ok, i have more quotes from the early fathers that i will post in the next round, but let me refute a point that my opponent made. My opponent made the following demonstration of peter's authority: "So when they had eaten breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of Jonah,[a] do you love Me more than these?" He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You." He said to him, "Feed My lambs." He said to him again a second time, "Simon, son of Jonah,[b] do you love Me?" He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You." He said to him, "Tend My sheep." He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of Jonah,[c] do you love Me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You." Jesus said to him, "Feed My sheep." -John 21:15-17 This is an extremly flawed demonstration of peter's authority on my opponent's part. Was this responsibility for peter not required for all the other disciples? Absolutely not! Any one with an authoritive position has this moral responsibility that Jesus demonstrated to Peter. My opponent pointed out some valid points in the earlier round, but he still failed to demonstrate that peter actually practiced this authority. No where in scripture or apostolic teaching will you ever hear of peter exorcising his supposed authority over the whole church! You won't hear or read it because it does not exist! I have more to say but will do so in the next round...i am slowly running out of room! Sorry for such a long post! I can only hope that you can stick with me and read it all!