>> It could correctly be interpreted in good faith (or twisted by evil, whatever you feel most comfortable with) to mean P.Romanus will be the one to lead his flock to the slaughter. <<
Preposterous. Feeding a lamb has nothing to do with leading it to slaughter! If he had written "lead them amid," one could have taken him to mean, "lead them into." But as it was written, your assertion has nothing to do with what was written.
OK... what do we know:
(1)There will be many tribulations.
(2)Peter will feed his flock amid these tribulations.
Now, would a Catholic use the name of "Peter" to describe a wicked Pope? Not hardly: the Catholic tradition is that Peter was the first and greatest Pope. Further, there is an apparent reference to "Peter, feed my lambs." from the Resurrection narrative of the gospel of John, so Peter the Roman is likely doing the will of Christ by feeding his lambs. Lastly, the Catholic take on "feeding" the flock is a eucharistic take... in other words, Peter is offering them Jesus Christ, showing himself to be a true priest and no sort of apostate or heretic.
If there's one thing I may have presumed without sufficient grounding, nothing says the tribulations are the Church's and not Peter's. It just seems to me that with all the suffering various Popes have endured, it seems unlikely to me that -- given the end of the Church an all -- the suffering of a Pope would be so newsworthy.
Peter was not a pope, he was an APOSTLE, the word pope is not even in the bible. In the bible the Apostles are not voted on by a 2/3 majority , they are chosen by the Lord and ascended from the 12 APOSTLES. When the leader dies, the NEXT or number 1 apostle becomes leader, and a new 12th apostle is chosen by the Lord. That is the way Christ set it up and it remains the same today ! Your only claim to the see is that Peter lived and died in Rome, so he MUST have left the keys there ! Your own literature states that the keys was TAKEN not given by Peter.