In differentiation, there are two separate words being used in the verse to punctuate what Jesus is saying. If he had chosen The self same two words and not made a differentiation, you *might* have something. That is the uphill battle you must fight against the scripture, not against other factions, sects or denominations (depending on your choice of words); but against scripture. That the words do not mean the same thing is illustrated in their definitions. Their definitions are different - substantially.
Further, the entire subject being discussed is the importance of Jesus and of the proclamation of faith in him.. not Peter. The congregation was not built on Peter, it was built upon a Confession of faith in Jesus being the son of God. That is the church. Peter was one among many charged with the responsibility of laying that foundation. After that, God built upon it and the congregation grew from house to house, city to city, province, country to the world. Peter is not the foundation of any church - nor was he meant to be.
And it cannot be said that Peter alone was handed the 'keys to the kingdom'. That is your reading of it. Go back and read the whole chapter. Taking a single sentence from George Bush speaking to the nation not too long ago doesn't paint the entire intent and meaning in the speach. One cannot yank a single verse out of the Bible and read it in such a fashion either - though many wish to do so regularly. I think you'll find that the RCC teaches the self same thing. We just don't find it practicing such things when it presents a problem to foundational belief - that all goes straight out the window in favor of philosophical tenets.
When you start changing the focus of individual pieces of scripture, it changes the meaning of everything around it as well - robbing the meaning and diminishing the rest of the work. It reduces knowledge to knowledge of philosophy and ignorance of the word of God. Lack of knowledge of God's word causes people to perish. Thus the ultimate result of playing word games with scripture is condemning people to hell because ultimately they are destroyed for lack of knowledge of God's word. And that is precisely why twisting scripture for personal agendas is so sickening and outlawed expressly in the texts of the Bible. It is why so many warnings are given against false doctrine that even at the time of Peter, Paul and John as creeping - even flooding in. And much of what is described in II Peter about false doctrine sounds an awful lot like what we can still see even today - and not just in the RCC.
As a Catholic I have always accepted the teaching of the Church on Peter because it made sense and because the scriptural passages used to support it seemed pretty clear. I have thought about it more over the past few years because of the world situation and the concomitant attack on the Church. It seemed quite clear that there was an attack on the Church from within and without that seemed intent on destroying it. Consequently heavy fire has been aimed at the Primacy of Peter. What better way to obliterate something than to destroy its head or leader or spokesman. It seemed to me if man wanted to enslave his fellow man,it would be imperative to ensure that nothing greater had the allegience of the soon to be enslaved,thus the authenticity of the Catholic Church and the truth of its teaching and the legitimacy of its leader has been targeted with increasing ferocity. Destroy the repository of the faith and you can confuse the messages Christ wanted to have taught to all nations.
So using a unique system of scholarly research that I put together myself based on a combination I figured out from responses that non_Catholics seem to rely on in the Neverending thread, I offer you my findings re the Papacy based only on parts of the New Testament I choose to use as well as the Havocian proofs of proof by non existence of documentation.
For starters,none of the apostles were married and Jesus was not inclined to ask married men to go out and teach all what He taught them. (No mention of any wives in the Gospels)
Peter was to be head of the Church Christ established to be visible on earth until the end. Only Mark does not seem to vest in Peter this authority and the reason is that Mark is recording Peter's teachings,Peter knew that the first must be last or in other words humble,so he couldn't very well go around blatting about how he was the big cheese among the apostles of Jesus. This explains why that is the shortest Gospel because the other ones gave him the honors and responsibilities that Christ gave him but his humility prevented him talking about it. So it doesn't matter whether it was first,second or third the big tahoo about its placement does not make a whit of difference, its the content and the reason for it that counts.
Jesus told him to feed his sheep,fish for men,gave him the keys and changed his name to a name that meant rock. You don't think Jesus knew what He was doing?
Jesus also rebuked him and that was to let him know that he was not to try to divert God's Will which must be done.This was quite possibly the most important direction that Christ gave to Peter with regards to leading His Church.
Peter also fell asleep,followed at a distance,warmed himself by the fire and denied knowing Jesus. These human failings which we all stumble into were for us,reading and hearing the Gospel all these many years later would know that Popes were also prey to human failings. It was only after all of that that Christ again confirmed that Peter was to feed Christ's flock. Yes, I think the Gospels clearly point to the Primacy of Peter and the Papacy as instituted by Christ for a reason. Well, this may sound incoherent by now since its pretty late but I am going to send it to you. Hope to hear from you.