[kosta50]

Our divergence begins, NYer, at the very beginning because the fact is that while Peter was singled out to be the cornerstone of the Church, that distinction, that honor and prestige is not power over and above other Apostles. They did not come to him. He did not empower them. He did not discipline them. In other words, he was no Pope in the modern sense and in the way Papacy evolved.

[NYer]

at the very beginning because the fact is that while Peter was singled out to be the cornerstone of the Church, that distinction, that honor and prestige is not power over and above other Apostles

No one ever suggested it was. This explanation from Stephen Ray, makes the distinction:

"Each bishop, in his own diocese, has the equivalent authority of the Pope over his jurisdiction. When the Pope acts in his capacity as Bishop of Rome, he is no different, other than a "first among equals," than the rest of the bishops over their own jurisdictions. The Pope does also have another title, "Vicar of Christ" wherein he stands in Christ's place here on earth, over Christ's Church. This authority is clearly given to St. Peter when "The Good Shepherd" told Peter, "Feed My lambs...Tend My sheep...Feed My sheep" (John 21:16-17). In this sequence, Jesus is speaking directly to Peter, and not to any of the rest of the Apostles, all of whom are also present (minus Judas). So there is something special about Peter, and the see that he would occupy. This isn't the position of a tyrant, a king, or a dictator, but a shepherd. Clearly Jesus left one of the Apostles "in charge" to "tend (His) sheep," and that one Apostle is St. Peter. This is not an exclusive authority over the other Apostles - just an added responsibility for Peter and his successors. Having one Apostle to hold this position is the unifying factor for all true Christians.