That most original name is available, and no other faith community dare reuse it ...
face your assertions right here on FR, and destroy them by concurrently applying the same remedy of Pauline/Petrine Sola Scriptura, sole fide that has brought as many as will to salvation, and deflected as many as won't back to their old false and deceitful doctrines (2 Peter 3:14-18).
Ah yes, the Thirty Years War redux
Have you heard the Gospel of Grace yet?
The Scripture record of Jesus' particularly chosen words was that He did not offer them up for debate. They were a memo describing the context and his intent with figurative-literal language to draw attention to His Authority and the rock-solid unbreakable foundational principle upon which His authority would be exercised through the assembled and organized bodies, each of which He was the Head, Lord, and Master at that moment, as well as throughout the continuing generations to come.
He was not debating with Simon as to who was that Head. The specificity of the demontrative pronoun "this" in number, case, and gender refers to the figurative indestructible doctrinal statement, "Thou art the Messiah"; which was already assumed and known by all the disciples in company with Jesus.
Jesus indicated that The Father had given this concept to Simon, but He did not say just when this truth had been imparted to the group Simon was in. It cannot be said that this was a novel idea just then crystallizing in Peter's mind, because the idea was already known and acted upon, the basis of their association with Jesus as Rabbi and ring-leader, they thought a leader to overcome the hated Gentile domination.
What we can say is that Simon, without the trepidation and cautionary hesitation of his fellow disciples, was outspoken in declaring the accepted fact. That is all. Simon was not the rock-like doctrine of massive import upon which Jesus was to build his vast spiritual house of human disciples.
Nor, actually, was Simon quite so incautious as to His belief in Jesus as Messiah on the night of Jesus' trial, was he? Why do you think he wept bitterly after his six denials of The Christ/Messiah within three hours of verbal challenges by the staff of the high priests? Regarding your claim, the only debate in history about this vignette is the gross misuse of Levi's passage, by reading into it something that is not there--eisegesis--whilst obscuring that which is plainly and grammatically there--via proper exegesis--and understood by all present and all those to whom the document was addressed.
It is worthy of note that neither the account of John Mark (Peter's disciple; Mk. 8:27) nor that of Luke (Paul's disciple; Lk. 9:18) made much of Simon Peter's role, either positive or negative. Peter merely vocalized the belief that all present had in common. Jesus asked, "But whom say y'all that I am?" To which Peter obstreporously answered, before anyone else could open their mouth, "The Messiah of God!"
Please take a moment to consider that when Jesus indicated that when he said Simon would be delegated keys and a measure of authority to bind and loose, He most certainly did not day that it was to Peter alone that these administrative duties would be delegated (compare Mt. 18:18 which is plural); else why at the time of the last supper would they still be arguing as to which of them would be the greatest in what they presumed would be an ecclesiastical episcopacy?
But, of course, that was not then, and never has been the form of church polity that Jesus' true church would ever take.
An episcopacy is the form of the anti-christ's church government, according to what I read (2 Thess 2:3,4; Rev. 2:6,13:8,12-16).