P
psychiatrist
Guest
I’m debating with an anti-Catholic fundamentalist on another forum and need some help to refute the following (thanks in advance):
"Yes, IMHO Peter was in Rome. However, that doesn’t make him a pope or the single one and only bishop of Rome as the RCC claims.
Instead of giving me all the catholic rhetoric, why don’t you cite some of the ECF’s that write about a single bishop of Rome presiding over all other bishops in the second century.
I have provided evidence that there were multiple bishops in Rome. I showed you where Cyprian flat out told Stephen of Rome that he was not above the other bishops, and that was around 250 A.D., long after Peter’s death.
The burden of proof is on you, my friend, to show me that there was a pope or single bishop over all others in the second century."
"Yes, IMHO Peter was in Rome. However, that doesn’t make him a pope or the single one and only bishop of Rome as the RCC claims.
Instead of giving me all the catholic rhetoric, why don’t you cite some of the ECF’s that write about a single bishop of Rome presiding over all other bishops in the second century.
I have provided evidence that there were multiple bishops in Rome. I showed you where Cyprian flat out told Stephen of Rome that he was not above the other bishops, and that was around 250 A.D., long after Peter’s death.
The burden of proof is on you, my friend, to show me that there was a pope or single bishop over all others in the second century."