The very fact that the apostles had an argument among themselves shows they did not understand that Peter was to be prince. Also, the occasion of the argument was the night of the betrayal--the last night of the Lord's earthly ministry--and yet the apostles still did not understand that Christ had given Peter a position of primacy. The Lord settled the argument, not by stating that He had already made Peter head, but by declaring that the Gentiles have their heads, "But not so with you." Thus, Jesus very plainly taught that no one would occupy any such place as a Benefactor (or Pope) to exercise authority over the others.
Amen.
"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" -- 1 Timothy 2:5
The Bible has many passages where the offices of the church are listed, not one mentions the office of pope. One would think the "primary " office that would be fill by succession would surely have been noted but the office of Pope is never mentioned in all of scripture.
Paul wrote several letters to and from Rome, naming many people there and never once did he send greetings to Peter. There is no contemporary or historical mention of peter as Pope until much later in church history . If there was a pope or bishop of Rome, why would Paul need to write a doctrinal thesis to them ? They would have been under the teaching of the pope. Paul confronted Peter openly, something one would never do If he understood that Peter had headship of the new church in fact in Galations he indicates there was a joint leadership among the apostles
Gal 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we [should go] unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.