Replies

Who says that Peter was a "pope"? The papacy is a historical. development.

Doesn't the RCC say Peter was the first Pope? I certainly didn't.
-----------------------------------------------------------

The wandering preacher's successors became also the successors to Caesar in Rome, as pontifix maximus, but that could change in the course of time. John Paul II deliberately put away the imperial trappings and his successors may even move away from the Vatican, for these are non-essentials. The appointment of bishops is likewise a historical devlopment. To keep the Church from becoming a toy of monarchs, like the Russian Church, the pope finally won the right to "rule" the church after a thousand year struggle with Catholic princes, ironically after he lost a thousand year battle to remain a territorial prince. But his relationship with the organizational church will undoubtedly change. although in unforeseeable ways

You had better be careful. Not out of "Catholic Answers".
------------------------------------------------------------

In answer to your question, why didn't Peter--the undoubted leader of the Twelve--appoint James? Well, that wasn't Peter's job.

We're in partial agreement. It wasn't Peter's job.

Whether he was the undoubted leader, whether he was pre-eminent, all are beside the point. He was just another Apostle. No more, no less.

Hegesippus (c. 100 - 160 CE), Bk 5:

"Control of the Church passed to the Apostles, together with the Lord's brother James...."

and.... the Apostles chose James the Righteous as Bishop of Jerusalem. That was their job.