This argument is just silly, -- as if giving Peter his defined role took something away from Christ the Giver.
It is only made silly because the assertion that Peter was given a role of Pope is unsubstantiated and has been refuted countless times over the ages, here in this forum, and by yours truly just recently.
Since I haven't seen any effort to counter what I previously posted, I consider the observations uncontested and thus agreed to. What then is the problem? Isn't it silly to keep asserting as true what has been demonstrated to be false?
Given a new name, given the keys to the Kingdom of heaven, told to feed Christ's sheep and told to confirm his brethren. That points to primacy of St.Peter in the apostolic college. Whether modern papacy is an exact implementation of Petrine office, or it has developed historically as the Church reacted to heresies, is a valid question, but I'd rather discuss that with the Orthodox who understand the issue.
I haven't seen any effort to counter what I previously posted
If you think I diod not couinter something "you reviously posted", show me what is it.