Ok a logical argument. Then we should surmise from John being given Mary as mother of the church should logically conclude John should have been the first pontiff.
Illogical conclusion. That role was given.
Let's play another logical argument... Protestants like to say that Mary is not ever-virgin and Jesus had siblings, right? So, how is it seemly for Jesus to give into the care of a non-family member if He has siblings who could (and should) care for her? The answer is it is not... unless He was doing something else from the Cross.
So... logically... do you fall into the "no siblings" camp or the Mother of the Church camp?
“Ok a logical argument. Then we should surmise from John being given Mary as mother of the church should logically conclude John should have been the first pontiff.”
No. Mary’s standing as mother of the Church is dependent upon Christ not John. And John’s standing as Mary’s son through Christ’s Church and His gift to him of a mother doesn’t take anything away from Christ’s previous gift to Simon when He changed his name to Peter as the Rock of the Church. John was chosen because he - as the youngest Apostles (”whom Jesus loved” 13:23) and the only Apostle to be present at the crucifixion - was representative of the whole Church in her youth and love of Christ.
Our mainly pathetic excuses for godly lives pale compared to those of Mary, Peter, James, John, and the other Apostles (excepting Judas who seems more like us). I can scarcely believe some of us have the Spirit of God; how could one not love Miriam and be inspired by her faith, courage, holiness, and undying loyalty to her son, the Son of the Highest; it is as if the basest instincts take over and there is no understanding of the majestic grace bestowed on her.
We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.