All I'm saying to you is Peter was not in charge of the Council of Jerusalem. He did not give the final sentence, James did. James was president of the council.
And unless it was Pope humor, James did not address Peter as the name the Lord gave him at the time he was supposed to have been made the vicar of Christ.
The fact that James calls Peter, Simeon, says a lot.
excerpt:
Read Acts 15. This gives an account of the first Church council, the Council of Jerusalem. Called at the request of St. Paul, this council met to decide whether Gentiles had to follow the Law of Moses as well as the Law of Christ. Notice that there was much discussion among the Apostles and presbyters. However, after Peter spoke, the assembly fell silent. His statement ended the discussion. This council obviously considered St. Peter’s authority final. Some may claim that Acts 15 shows that James, not Peter, was the head of the Church. Since James the Lesser (not James, the brother of John) gives the concluding remarks at the council of Jerusalem and also recommends some marriage and dietary regulations for the Gentiles, they conclude that James must be the head of the Church. All I can do is tell those people to read the Gospels, where St. Peter is unmistakably presented as a leader among the Apostles, whereas James the Lesser is not.
Read the first twelve chapters of Acts, which describe the early Church in Jerusalem. Every chapter (except 6 and 7, which describe Stephen’s martyrdom) shows St. Peter in a leadership position while St. James appears only briefly, and never in a leadership role. In Galatians 1:18-19, we are told that Paul went to Jerusalem after his conversion specifically to confer with Peter. He stayed with Peter 15 days. In contrast, Paul visited James only briefly during this time. At the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, it was St. Peter’s statements that settled the serious doctrinal dispute that was the reason for the council. As we saw earlier, St. Peter’s statements silenced the assembly of presbyters and the Apostles (including St. James). We know from Church history that St. James was the Bishop of Jerusalem and, as Acts 21:15-25 describes, he was concerned for Jewish Christians in Jerusalem who felt their ancient customs threatened by the great number of Gentile converts. This background explains why St. James made the concluding remarks at the council and asked Gentiles to respect certain Jewish practices. People are grasping at straws when they claim that Acts 15 proves that James, instead of Peter, was the head of the Church.
http://www.aboutcatholics.com/worship/proof_reason_papal_office/
There is NOTHING in the entire NT outside that one verse in Matthew that that gives even the slightest indication that what Catholics say Jesus meant about Peter being the rock on which His church would be built or being in any position of authority over the other *church fathers*.
Especially there is nothing in Peter’s own writings that support that. On the contrary, Peter himself calls Christ the rock on which His church is being built. Peter never makes that claim for himself. If he really thought that that was what Jesus meant, he certainly could have and should have made mention of it in his epistles and he did not.