-Yes, the words of Jesus appointing St.Peter to "lead my sheep, feed my sheep" are very plain.
So why don't you comprehend their significance?
In especially solemn fashion Christ accentuated Peter's precedence among the Apostles, when, after Peter had recognized Him as the Messiah, He promised that he would be head of His flock.
Jesus was then dwelling with His Apostles in the vicinity of Caesarea Philippi, engaged on His work of salvation. As Christ's coming agreed so little in power and glory with the expectations of the Messiah, many different views concerning Him were current. While journeying along with His Apostles, Jesus asks them: "Whom do men say that the Son of man is?"
The Apostles answered: "Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets". Jesus said to them: "But whom do you say that I am?" Simon said: "Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God". And Jesus answering said to him: "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven". Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ (Matthew 16:13-20; Mark 8:27-30; Luke 9:18-21).
By the word "rock" the Saviour cannot have meant Himself, but only Peter, as is so much more apparent in Aramaic in which the same word is used for "Peter" and "rock".
His statement then admits of but one explanation, namely, that He wishes to make Peter the head of the whole community of those who believed in Him as the true Messiah; that through this foundation (Peter) the Kingdom of Christ would be unconquerable; that the spiritual guidance of the faithful was placed in the hands of Peter, as the special representative of Christ.
This meaning becomes so much the clearer when we remember that the words "bind" and "loose" are not metaphorical, but Jewish juridical terms.
It is also clear that the position of Peter among the other Apostles and in the Christian community was the basis for the Kingdom of God on earth, that is, the Church of Christ. Peter was personally installed as Head of the Apostles by Christ Himself.
This foundation created for The Catholic Church by its Founder Jesus Christ could not disappear with the person of Peter, but was intended to continue and does continue (as actual history shows) in the primacy of the Roman Church and its bishops.
Can you refute any of that will actual fact?.
-Just on the subject of succession..
What of successors who were not fit to kiss Peters FEET, ie Birgia,pope, or when there was confusion of who was pope. I had learned the Holy Spirit decides through the Cardinals, I don't think He causes confusion or makes mistakes. This is troubling ..
RoSesz, I'd like to add .. what of popes who were quite clearly and purely evil? the ones who boldly pushed the limits of evil? the one who sanctioned the Inquisition and all those following who kept it in place? How COULD Holy Spirit screw that up so badly? and wouldn't that necessarily produce a big gaping hole in the 'succession' claims? and so it stands to reason that the whole "lineage" and "succession" argument falls completely apart.
Liam, Cisco Kid, Regina ... the succession argument is only as strong as its weakest link.
Pull out all the weakest links and the entire claim to lineage falls apart.