***That Peter was the initial leader of the apostles and church early church in Jerusalem, (Acts 5) and who overall exercised a pastoral office (1Pt. 1:1) should not be a matter of dispute. Rather, it is the type and degree and perpetuity of that office that is at dispute. ***
The perceptions of non Catholics may be a tad off from the reality of the office.
***Peter is manifest as a brethren type leader, and is not presented or declared to be a supreme, singular infallible head, nor venerated as a type of demi-god, which Rome has essentially and historically made his supposed successors. ***
That is not the papal office as it has been created or occupied.
***And most critically, no formal provision is given in the New Testament for that particular office to be perpetuated, such as is seen in the Old Testament, with only elder/bishops (same office: Titus 1:5-7, the division between the two was a later development) and deacons being ordained.***
If the office was created, it needed to be perpetuated. Other non Scriptural writings give evidence to that fact. But even on the face of it; leadership is required in any human institution. And the Church, although the earthly Creation of Jesus, is still an institution of men.
***Rather than the establishment of a perpetuation of a supreme head being manifestly established or expected, what we do see is the ordination of men like Timothy, (1Tim. 4:14) and the LORD building his church using such “stones”, who like Peter, effectually confess who Christ is, and faith in Him according to the apostolic gospel of the grace of God.***
The only supreme head that the Catholic Church recognizes is Jesus Christ. Individual men, according to their abilities and their performance, fill their posts within the Church. Nobody thinks of the Pope as God, except perhaps those who do not understand the Church.
>That is not the papal office as it has been created or occupied.<
No, as you must well know, for hundreds of years the Pope reigned or sought to reign as a type of Caesar (as Boniface VII distinctly asserted), over those within her body and without, and while you may disagree that the level of exaltation and authority that it claimed (i can supply quotes) and enjoyed when it could constitutes a demi-god, i submit that even having your feet kissed by underlings (which only recently ceased), while seated in a royal palace with its accompaniments, is too close for spiritual comfort, as being contrary to Scripture. That applies to Benney Hinn as well.
I might add that the spiritual manner in which Christ constituted the church, and the commands for it, and its N.T. example, (1Cor. 5:12,13; 1Pt. 2:14; Eph. 6:12; 2Cor. 6:1-01; 10:4) disallows the use of physical punishment in disciplining it members, such as was sanctioned by Rome in the Inquisitions, or establishing theocracies where the church ruled over those with it (even Pilgrims transgressed here), which was what was behind the Crusades, nor the use carnal force to defend or expand its rule.
>If the office was created, it needed to be perpetuated.<
Acceptable, but not always in the same manner. The priesthood of the O.T., though not necessarily analogous here, ceased with Christ’s death, with the N.T. priesthood of believers (not a separate class of sacerdotal priests) being the form in which it exists.
Yet the real issue is that an especially infallible and supreme human head of the church is not established, much less its Roman manifestation (the absence of the supernatural signs of an apostle also testifies against the pope). However, (hold on) i think a true to God central authority, as that of the apostles in Jerusalem, could be welcomed by real believers, though this could not be enforced, except by spiritual power, as the original were, and Rome is not even in the running, due to its works-merit gospel, and other manifestly false doctrines.
Moreover, the church being essentially a spiritual entity, its authenticity is not based upon formal ecclesiastical linkage to one organic body, for the authenticity of a true church, like that of a true Jew, (Rm. 2:28,29) is based upon apostolic faith in the gospel, not physical or formal ecclesiastical lineage, for it is by faith in Christ that the church exists, and overcomes, and that souls become part of the body of Christ. (1Cor. 12:13; Eph. 1:13)
Therefore, unlike the theocratic earthly kingdom of Israel, the body of Christ is not restricted to one formal organic union, and if one of the latter becomes corrupt, or institutionalized, the church that holds to essential salvific doctrine and effectual salvific faith, which the apostles and prophet laid, overcomes by faith in its chief cornerstone and head.
In addition, apostles and prophets were evidently not ordained by men as a line of lineage, like as the Levitical priests were (though Elijah case his mantle upon Elisha: 1Kg. 19:19), or elder/bishops and deacons regularly were, but appear to be sovereigly called and manifest. And if you are able to receive it, i would submit the Luther (among others) was a type of apostle or prophet, imperfect, but used of God to reprove Rome, and lead people into Reformation which has resulted in the great modern increase in the kingdom of Christ, to God be the glory, though it (and i) come much short of the prima N.T. church in purity, power and passion, and for which i need to seek more.