James Was The Head Of The Church Of Jerusalem, Not Peter

Acts 15: 13-21 - [13] And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying: Men, brethren, hear me. [14] Simon hath related how God first visited to take of the Gentiles a people to his name. [15] And to this agree the words of the prophets, as it is written:

[16] After these things I will return, and will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and the ruins thereof I will rebuild, and I will set it up: [17] That the residue of men may seek after the Lord, and all nations upon whom my name is invoked, saith the Lord, who doth these things. [18] To the Lord was his own work known from the beginning of the world. [19] For which cause I judge that they, who from among the Gentiles are converted to God, are not to be disquieted. [20] But that we write unto them, that they refrain themselves from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. [21] For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him in the synagogues, where he is read every sabbath. 

Protestant Christian Understanding: Proof that Peter was never the head of the Church at Jerusalem, the first Church, James was. 

Catholic Christian Understanding: First, this objection again contradicts all the objections we have been talking about previously.  We have been discussing if there even was a "Head of the Church" and the Protestant position has made it clear that ALL the Apostles were the same in equality and that Peter was no different from James and James from Peter.  The Protestant position has also stated we are all equal believers in Christ and there is no authority on earth one person over another, all believers are equal.

The objection in this passage is completely contradicting that position in all the other topics by admitting that there was a Bishop or "Episcopas" and claimed it was James, not Peter.  This recognition concedes that all the Apostles were not equal and that there was at least a Head authoritative position.

The first question to be asked toward this objection would be, "what doctrine of the Church is this statement being pulled from, where James was head of the Church of Jerusalem?"  This understanding needs some proof or doctrine to back it because it is saying. A) James had more power than the rest of the Apostles B) James was in fact the Head of the Church and not Peter.  This entire objection is completely contradictory to everything else we have been studying so there needs to be more explanation on why this particular verse holds such significance against Peter's power as the Head, or Pope, instilled by Christ.  This is a situation, in all intellectual fairness, that let the burden of proof fall on the accuser.

Most Protestant sects agree that Peter was the Head of the church and when he leaves Jerusalem he left James in charge.  During this time period, Peter laid his hands on James and gave him power as a deputy while he was away in Antioch.  (It is important to note Peter put his hands on James because that is the sign or act that happens when a form of power is passed from a person in power within the Church.  The Catholic Church does the same when ordaining priests, etc.)

But we have to read on to the later verses 7,8,9,10,11, where Peter stands up and tells all that the gentiles were no longer be bound by Jewish law.  It is important to recognize that after Peter makes this profound statement, the council falls silent and all obey Peter without question.  Peter again leaves with the final say and authority.  The narrative shows in these verses, if you read on, that when Peter speaks in the end, no one objects and all take it as the final word.  

Also, no where in this verse and no where in the bible does it support that James was the Head of the Church and no where in the bible does it give James any special authority or call him the Head of the Apostles, like it does Peter.  When the bible refers to the Apostles Peter's name always comes first in sequence.