As one ordained in the Apostolic Succession, I must say that I don't think it holds up to historical scrutiny. As for Peter being the Rock on which the Church was built, the facts are that James the Just, brother of Jesus (whose Feast Day is today) was the actual head of the Church, being the head of the Church in Jerusalem, which was the first church. So, San is right that the Roman Church used this passage as the means of establishing their dominance. This doesn't mean that I agree with San's mystical reading of the passage; frankly, I think the purpose of the passage is to establish Peter as head of the Church over James, and was part of a power struggle between different factions of the Jerusalem Church. I don't think the event really took place, it's just part of the agenda of the author of the gospel attributed to Matthew.Actually, until the split in 1054 between the Church of the West (which became the Roman Catholic Church) and the Church of the East (which became the Eastern Orthodox Church) there were five Patriarchates: Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, and Constantinople and they were equal in authority. The Patriarchates of Antioch and Alexandria disagreed about Christology and were quite nasty to each other. The Patriarchate of Rome was considered "first among equals" but the Pope was simply the Partriarch of Rome, not the Vicar of Christ. I'm not one to see the Pope as head of the Church, but I don't buy into the anti-Catholic stuff San has posted in the past, either.
As far as my opinions on scripture and Church history are concerned, San and I have never agreed, and certainly won't start now.
