[OLD REGGIE]

Metmom: 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*.

Evidently you missed post 3058 by Deo Volente where :

Matt. to Rev. - Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times. Peter is also always listed first except in 1 Cor. 3:22 and Gal. 2:9 (which are obvious exceptions to the rule).

A quick search on Google with the name "Barack Obama" shows approximately 203 million results.

A search on Ronald Reagan shows approximately 11,600,000 results.

Clearly Barack Obama is more important to the history of the United States.

It's a rather stupid conclusion isn't it?

[small voice in the wilderness]

Especially in light of the fact that the Jewish people tradionally list names from the oldest first, in HONOR OF THEIR ELDERS> Peter WAS the oldest. But I’m sure this make too much SENSE to be right...

[Cronos]

You're comparing google to the Bible?

As Peter is mentioned 155 do read scripture and see that he is mentined at quite important times. In contrast check for St. Thomas. What does this suggest? It means the same as when you check on how many times Joseph is referred to as compared to say Reuben. And, in the end, what kind of leadership did Joseph have over his brothers? More a first among equals, which is Peter's position among the disciples and is the Patriarch of Rome's position among the other Patriarchs and bishops.