Replies

Many anti-Catholics argue that Peter was not the first leader of the Catholic church because James was the bishop of Jerusalem. If James was the bishop of Jerusalem, where was Peter at the time? Why did the Catholic church move from Jerusalem to Rome? Was there a power struggle between Peter and James? Did James accept Peter as Pope of Christ's church?

Gosh, maybe for the partial answer to these questions you should consult the great Eusebius in Church History; Book III; Ch22:

"At this time, Ignatius was known as the 2nd bishop of Antioch, Euodius having been the first. Symeon likewise was at that time the 2nd ruler of the Church of Jerusalem, the brother of our Saviour having been the first."

Golly gee, I wonder who that could have been? Hmmmm.Try Galatians 1:19: "But other of the apostles saw I none, except James, the Lord's brother". Yes, James, one of Jesus's four brothers, son of Mary [Mt 13:55]. There goes your postulation and that legend of perpetual virginity in one fell swoop.

Paul in Galatians describes his meeting with the three pillars of the Church in Jerusalem: James[bishop? maybe], Cephas [Peter the Apostle], and John [the Apostle?]. Is that 2 Apostles and a Bishop? We take your Queen.

Not only do you guys not believe the Holy Scriptures but you don't even believe your own Ante-Nicene Fathers. Where do you get these great pontifications? Maybe you should meditate on the great Catholic scholar F.A. Sullivan who explained in From Apostles to Bishops, that apostles were not bishops and bishops not apostles, and that the Church in Rome until atleast the middle of the 2nd century was run by a college of presbyters. Yes, my dear deceived brethren, the first church in Rome was Presbyterian. And you have the audacity to call them "separated brethren". You all should return to the First Presbyterian Church of Rome, the church of your fathers, and quit this nonsense