[Stubborn]

You are right, he didn't say he would give the keys to all the apostles, but don't fall into the trap of believing that the verb forms don't make a difference.

Thats fine, but forget about the words for a moment and consider a simple argument, namely, the sequence of events, for example of the first 100 years after the keys were given to whoever.

There were five popes in the first 100 years. If the Church is wrong in declaring that St. Peter was the one who actually received the keys, then what is to be said of the first five popes? St. Peter (32-67), St. Linus (67-76), St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88), St. Clement I (88-97), and St. Evaristus (97-105) - can we honestly believe that it was screwed up from the get-go?

Regardless of verbs, nouns, adjectives etc., the *actions* speak volumes IMHO.

[Kolokotronis]

Perhaps I am missing the point of your post. The Orthodox would not question that there were five popes in Rome in the first 100 years of the Church or that +JP II is in the Apostolic Succession from St. Peter, or that St. Peter was the first in honor among the Apostles just as his successors are among the bishops and Patriarchs. There were also three bishops of Antioch, four of Alexandria (also called Pope), and two in Jerusalem. Rome and Antioch were established by St. Peter, who was the first bishop of each city, Alexandria by St. Mark and Jerusalem by St. James. In the early Church, the term Pope wasn't used at all. By the 5th century it had gained a certain amount of currency and was applied to the bishop of Rome, but it was also used for certain other bishops. The Patriarchial Sees of Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria are all older than that of Rome. I'm now sure I've missed something in your post.