[Petronski]

I didn't claim that it came from Matthew 16. I just said that it was there somewhere and I don't have access to a bible at present.

And yet, Matthew 16 (which you did not cite), is one place where the gospels describe the event, despite misinformed protests from other corners.

[Havoc]

Matthew 16 is not where Peter's name was changed. That's the point I made. If you're trying to argue that Peter was head of the Church because of Matthew 16, History doesn't show it, nor does scripture. And with all due respect, I'm not going to beat that dead bag of bones again here. I know it's an issue you guys think establishes something. Like everything else, there is much written on it and it is easily debunked. Reggie pointed out the 25 years claim earlier - easily shot down with nothing more than scripture. Which I presume is why Catholics in the know tend to run from that one now days. It is a peculiar thing to fall back on when your position is less than favorable. But have at it..