I don't recall denying that. Of course it came from God. Peter's office, like that of all the Apostles, did not come from anything intrinsic to himself. But I might ask you to ponder why God chose Peter to be the recipient of this revelation and why Christ then granted him with the amazing authority that he did.
Peter was an Apostle of Jesus Christ and an Elder/Bishop in his local congregation (I Peter 1:1;5:1), no more, no less. He was never the "Bishop of Rome" or the Pope.
Every historical account we have maintains that he was in Antioch for a while then he went to Rome and headed up the Church there. Have you not read Eusebius' history of the Church? Or Irenaeus of Lyons? It's all very very clear there.
The power to "bind and loose" given to Peter in Matt. 16:19 was given to the other apostles in Matt. 18:18.
Indeed it was. But note that Peter got one special thing that the Apostles didn't get--the "keys to the kingdom of heaven".
The Catholic Church has grabbed one verse which might possibly indicate that Peter was superior to the other Apostles, while ignoring every verse which absolutely denies this fact.
I think you should read Benedict's speech again....it does not rely on one verse but argues that Peter is always granted pre-eminence in the NT.
Incidentally, it was 300 years after the fact that the Catholic Church made this determination. For 300 years Peter was never considered to be a Pope until the Catholic church decided to make him one in order to support another of their false doctrines which is the doctrine of Apostolic Succession.
It is not only the Catholic Church that holds to the doctrine of Apostolic Succession. The Eastern Orthodox, the non-Chalcedonians (Copts, etc), many Anglicans and the Lutheran Church of Sweden also hold to it.
Now if you claim that the bishop of Rome was never called the Pope during the first 3 centuries, I might be inclined to agree with you. However, let's look at what Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons said in the year 170 or so:
Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority -- that is, the faithful everywhere -- inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere.Now this is around 160-180 A.D.--and a clear statement of both the pre-eminence of Rome and the necessity of other Churches conforming to its teachings. That is the papacy in its very essence.
You have chosen to ignore most of the scriptures in my post and attempted to refute clear Bible teachings with the writings of ordinary men (your Catholic Fathers) which were written 100 to 130 years after the fact. That is a very lame approach but undoubtedly one that you have been taught by the Catholic Church