Christ Did NOT make Peter the head of the church

[guanophore]

I believe you jumped to a false conclusion here, that in no way relates to what you have assumed a false pretense from my post.

It certainly would not be the first time!

My post does not deal with the political arena, to which you suggested. My post points to the historical facts…,

On the contrary, it was political influence that helped the See of Rome to establish authority, and that political influence continued to influence the Church after the Capital was transferred to Constantinople.

The above has nothing to do with my posts. Although, the Christian Emperor who removed himself from the title of Pontiff, released his authority to preside as Pontiff over pagan Rome religion. For clarification. The Christian Emperor never has authority to give anything to Peter other than what God had already given to Peter; the keys to the kingdom of heaven. If one can simplify this imperial action, the Christian Emperor has bowed it’s knee before Peter and surrendered his religious crown to Peter over his secular kingdom.

It seemed more a case of the entire collapse of the Roman government. When the seat of the Empire was moved to Constantinople, there was no structure remaining in the city of Rome to manage the civil affairs more organized than the Church, so the Emperor transferred civil responsibility by default.

As far as surrendering crowns to Peter, indeed there were centuries where, in both East and West, attempts were made to conflate the Kingdom of God with the Holy Roman Empire. The installation and deposition of secular rulers was a major focus of the Apostolic Sees in both cities.

This Pontiff title the Emperor surrenders to the Bishop of Rome, should silence any Orthodox opinion of questioning or contesting the Chair of Peter’s authority over the whole Church, when the Emperor surrendered his religious authority over to the Bishop of Rome.

Hogwash. It was a way of keeping the plumbing working.

It is here, where the autocephalous (independent) Orthodox church’s today confuse themselves with the Universal Catholic Church as a whole, whom Peter possesses the Keys and authority to bind and loose ON EARTH. While those equal to Peter in their domestic Church’s possess the same keys and authority to bind and loose on the local level.

This statement seems to be getting dangerously close to abrogating the authority of Eastern Bishops, something your own Church has not done.

In summary, this contesting or questioning the Chair of Peter’s divine authority Jesus gives him, is a novel idea that is never questioned until Heretical Eastern Emperors’ and appointed Patriarch’s of Constantinople begin to attack the authority of the Popes from Rome, when they had the secular power to do so. Yet the gates of hell never prevailed over the Chair of Peter.

Your post implies that the Successor of Peter was free from political influence and hubris as well, which is not the case.

It must be noted that the Eastern Churches have also been preserved by the Holy Spirit for 2000 years. There is no institution originating in humanity that can make such a claim. As the Holy Father has said, the Church needs to breathe with both lungs, and reconciliation with our Eastern brethren must be a priority.

Peace be with you

and with you also

 

[guanophore]

 That's true of Antioch who owes it's Bishopric to Peter as does Alexandria who owes it's prestige to St. Mark a disciple of Peter. The result of all this reveals that these have fallen into heresy,

The validity of the Apostolic Sees other than Rome has nothing to do with those that fell into heresy. This is a non-sequitor.

when the gates of hell prevailed over them, in fact all other apostolic sees, have fallen in and out of some form of heresy.

The corruption of the Sucessors of Peter in Rome, as a major factor in the Reformation, has fomented more heresy than all the rest of the Sees put together.

Anyway, gates are stationary, they don’t move. The illustration of the Gates is that the Church militant will take over the territory claimed by hell, bringing salvation to souls.

The only Apostolic see, that has never fallen into heresy is; the Bishop of Rome direct apostolic successor to Peter. This is not man or the Latin Church making this claim, it is **by divine providence and the warning and promise Jesus gives to Peter here; "the gates of hell will come against you, but ****they will never prevail**.

This is debatable, but I certainly agree with your point that God has kept His promises to Peter, and to the Church built upon him. This is not an occasion for flaunthing it over the validity of the other Apostolic Sees.

 

[Karen107]

Your post implies that the Successor of Peter was free from political influence and hubris as well, which is not the case.

In the end Peter made the right decisions, but they were not always the decisions which were his first thought as he was originally a Jew who thought in a more Jewish way. St. Paul had the wisdom to help him open his eyes to see something else, and Peter the wisdom to understand and the authority to implement them which became the framework for the Church doctrine as we know today. All this being the divine intervention of God in the creation of His Church.

 

[guanophore]

Ought we not have a leader? Or we’d all be doing our own thing, and bishops could anoint whoever they want to be bishop, make up their own rules, etc…

All the secular meddling in the structure of the Church aside, this much seems clear.

 

[OurLadysServant]

Well, that is what a lot of Protestants believe, but since it probably is of no interest to anyone around here, I will just let this little thread die a lonely,miserable death. Sigh.

One of the origins of Protestantism is Henry VIII of England who denounced authority of the pope only because he was married and wanted to marry someone who would bear a child, and he ended up beheading a lot of his wives. That’s a far cry from the church Jesus founded, and a very different founder from loving Jesus who said ‘What God has brought together let no man seperate.’ All for the sake of divorce. All for the sake of wanting to make up his own rules so he didn’t have to keep the commandments. And then he martyred so many good catholics because they wouldn’t support his heresy. Thou shalt not kill.

I prefer the Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ Himself under the guided authority of Jesus temporal representative in an unbroken line from the apostles:

 

[Karen107]

It must be noted that the Eastern Churches have also been preserved by the Holy Spirit for 2000 years. There is no institution originating in humanity that can make such a claim. As the Holy Father has said, the Church needs to breathe with both lungs, and reconciliation with our Eastern brethren must be a priority.

I believe we will always be united through Jesus Christ Our Lord as long as we both are on the side of Christ…

 

[Denise1957]

The corruption of the Sucessors of Peter in Rome, as a major factor in the Reformation, has fomented more heresy than all the rest of the Sees put together.

Could you explain the corruption of the Successors of Peter in Rome, please? There’s a big difference between making very poor decisions, and outright corruption.

 

[Karen107]

Could you explain the corruption of the Successors of Peter in Rome, please? There’s a big difference between making very poor decisions, and outright corruption.

God is forever faithful to His people and the Church has withstood the test of time. That doesn’t mean God left it, in fact the Church had it’s own reformation to change some of the things that caused the corruption at the Council of Trent but that doesnt mean it went away from itself. The Church needed some changes for the good of it’s spiritual health but it always remained the same “Church” guided by the Holy Spirit. Psalm 100:5 For the LORD is good and his love endures forever; his faithfulness continues through all generations.

This is the Church of the living God and it is a living organism which Jesus said the gates of hell cannot prevail over (though it may try as Jesus also said ), Eph. 2:19-22; 4:11-16; 5:23-33; 1 Cor. 12:12-27 These are the Words of God!.. I’m not making excuses for failings but I will say let those who are without sin cast the first stone…This is exactly the reason why we must all come to repentance each and every time we sin, not just one time but whenever the need arises which is on a regular basis (Unless we are perfect which we are not). We must acknowledge our faults where we fail and bring them to God for His forgiveness and mercy and learn from them… We should also acknowledge where we are successful in bringing the love of God to others…There is not a day goes by that we don’t pray for Our Church and the power of prayer is powerful indeed!

 

[Denise1957]

God is forever faithful to His people and the Church has withstood the test of time. That doesn’t mean God left it, in fact the Church had it’s own reformation at the Council of Trent but that doesnt mean it went away from itself. It has always been the same “Church”. Psalm 100:5 For the LORD is good and his love endures forever; his faithfulness continues through all generations.

This is the Church of the living God and it is a living organism which Jesus said the gates of hell cannot prevail over (though it may try as Jesus also said ), Eph. 2:19-22; 4:11-16; 5:23-33; 1 Cor. 12:12-27 These are the Words of God!.. I’m not making excuses for failings but I will say let those who are without sin cast the first stone…This is exactly the reason why we must all come to repentance each and every time we sin, not just one time but whenever the need arises which is on a regular basis (Unless we are perfect which we are not). We must acknowledge our faults where we fail and bring them to God for His forgiveness and mercy… We should also acknowledge where we are successful in bringing the love of God to others…There is not a day goes by that we don’t pray for Our Church and the power of prayer is powerful indeed!

Thank you for your response, but I can’t see how it applies to my question for guanophore. Guanophore accused the Popes of corruption, and he concludes that it was a major factor in the Reformation. I think that he needs to qualify the statement, and explain exactly how the Popes at that time were corrupt.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

guanophore;12456462
On the contrary, it was political influence that helped the See of Rome to establish authority, and that political influence continued to influence the Church after the Capital was transferred to Constantinople

.

You only confirm what my post indicate. First it is Jesus Christ who establishes the Kingdom of God not the Caesars’ or secular powers to which you wrongly address as do the Orthodox posters.

Secondly, in the Apostolic era, there is no political influence over Peter and the infant Church when Peter is persecuted and pursued by secular powers to destroy the Church.

It is not until Constantinople that the authority of Peter and all other apostolic sees come under attack by the Eastern Emperor’s power he gives to the Patriarch of Constantinople. This is where my post start and end. For it is from this point in history the secular powers vie to usurp, destroy, unite and influence the Popes authority.

You appear to confuse the battles of Peter being infected by secular powers, which is always the Orthodox and protestant position. What you neglect to understand my point here deals with the divine revelation, “that no man can put asunder what God has joined together.” Sure the Church militant is always under attack by powers and principalities.

It took many centuries for the Chair of Peter to remove herself from secular powers and influence. The Bishop of Rome today has returned to first Apostolic Church period when she is free of secular powers. When the Orthodox remain under the authority and influence by her secular powers.

You pretend to believe that those men who occupied the office of Peter infected the divine office Jesus builds upon Peter and the apostles. St. Augustine thought clears this up, for it is never the disposition of the man who makes the holy orders holy, when it is God Himself who makes the Consecrated office of Bishops’ to be Holy. It is the finger of God that comes upon us through His sacramental economy not by the man.

Thirdly, No Pope has taught officially heresy from the Chair of Peter to the Whole Church. Peter’s office remains untainted, and uninfected with heresy. You appear to be implying the office of Peter has fallen into heresy, due to the men who occupied Peter’s Chair when they fell into sin. Here is awake up call for you and the Orthodox posters’. Simon Peter did the worse sin before any successor could ever do, Peter denied Jesus publicly three times. Yet, Jesus after the resurrection commissions the sinful man of Peter to tend and feed His flock until Jesus returns, only after Peter repents of His Love for God three times.

The bad men who occupied the office of Peter, never infected the Chair of Peter with heresy. Never the less, the great Saints who occupied the Chair of Peter are rarely mentioned in these discussions.

It seemed more a case of the entire collapse of the Roman government. When the seat of the Empire was moved to Constantinople, there was no structure remaining in the city of Rome to manage the civil affairs more organized than the Church, so the Emperor transferred civil responsibility by default.

Too many circumstances here to comment on that derails the thread. Simply your point is debatable and generalizes a subject immense. The Roman government was strong when Constantine moved his capital to the new Rome. Constantine was a soldier and feared the political powers of Pagan Rome, thus he moved away from Rome.

As far as surrendering crowns to Peter, indeed there were centuries where, in both East and West, attempts were made to conflate the Kingdom of God with the Holy Roman Empire. The installation and deposition of secular rulers was a major focus of the Apostolic Sees in both cities.

**This Utopia you speak of; integrating secular powers with religious powers was an invention by the Eastern Church leaders that proved a disaster, which the Popes and early Church Fathers rejected such an idea. Which brings us full circle to my main point. It is from this history the authority of Peter’s Chair comes into question and under attack from Constantinople. **

The Eastern Emperor surrenders his Pontiff title to the Chair of Peter. History disproves your hogwash view. I have no idea where you get the protestant reformation would not have taken place. if? the Pope did not accept this universal religious title “Pontiff” of the Roman Empire? When protestants did not exist during this exchange. I have trouble giving any credence to Protestant argument’s of a history of which they never exist to comment on as if they were present. I won’t ask you, how you can conclude to such a view, because it has no merit, except for clarification.

This statement seems to be getting dangerously close to abrogating the authority of Eastern Bishops, something your own Church has not done.

Never, I merely hold to what is divinely revealed by Jesus and taught by the Church pre-Constantinople, which has never changed the Church Jesus builds upon Peter.

Your post implies that the Successor of Peter was free from political influence and hubris as well, which is not the case.

No, that is the Orthodox take from my post which point to the beginnings of their rejection of authority from Peter’s Chair. Peter is never free from the persecution by political secular powers. This is His battle for centuries. Did the Popes lose some battles? Yes, Did the Popes ever lose the War? Never will as per Jesus Christ our Lord promised.

It must be noted that the Eastern Churches have also been preserved by the Holy Spirit for 2000 years. There is no institution originating in humanity that can make such a claim. As the Holy Father has said, the Church needs to breathe with both lungs, and reconciliation with our Eastern brethren must be a priority.

AMEN!, so be it, I believe this also.

 

[guanophore]

Could you explain the corruption of the Successors of Peter in Rome, please? There’s a big difference between making very poor decisions, and outright corruption.

Yes, there is a big difference. Here is a short list to begin your historical inquiry:

Honorius I, 625-638
Pope Formosus 891-896
Pope Stephen VII 896-897
Pope John XII 955 - 964
Pope Benedict IX 1032 -1048
Pope Alexander VI 1492-1503
Pope Paul III 1534 - 1534 - 1549
Pope Julius III 1559 -1555

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Thank you for your response, but I can’t see how it applies to my question for guanophore. Guanophore accused the Popes of corruption, and he concludes that it was a major factor in the Reformation. I think that he needs to qualify the statement, and explain exactly how the Popes at that time were corrupt.

I second the motion:thumbsup: of How the sin of a man can change( like Peter’s denial of Jesus) or infect what Jesus has built and established Himself united to the office of Apostle in His Church?

We don’t need to know the sins of unfaithful men. How does a sin from man change what God has joined together?

 

[Denise1957]

Yes, there is a big difference. Here is a short list to begin your historical inquiry:

Honorius I, 625-638
Pope Formosus 891-896
Pope Stephen VII 896-897
Pope John XII 955 - 964
Pope Benedict IX 1032 -1048
Pope Alexander VI 1492-1503
Pope Paul III 1534 - 1534 - 1549
Pope Julius III 1559 -1555

I will not be making any inquiry, since it is up to YOU to show that the Popes were corrupt, since YOU made the assertion that they were corrupt. You should show specifically how they were corrupt (naming the specific Popes, and their supposed “corruption,” and what it has to do with the Reformation).

 

[guanophore]

Thank you for your response, but I can’t see how it applies to my question for guanophore. Guanophore accused the Popes of corruption, and he concludes that it was a major factor in the Reformation. I think that he needs to qualify the statement, and explain exactly how the Popes at that time were corrupt.

The papal conflation of temporal powers with spiritual resulted in the popes becoming embroiled in European politics and royal dynaties. During the Middle ages, the See of Peter was treated like an Imperial Throne including the vying for occupancy of it. A study of the Borja family is a good place to start,

Suffice to say there was plenty of fuel for “protesting” the role of the Pope, Cardinals and Bishops by the time it burst out into the Reformation.

 

[Denise1957]

The papal conflation of temporal powers with spiritual resulted in the popes becoming embroiled in European politics and royal dynaties. During the Middle ages, the See of Peter was treated like an Imperial Throne including the vying for occupancy of it. A study of the Borja family is a good place to start,

Suffice to say there was plenty of fuel for “protesting” the role of the Pope, Cardinals and Bishops by the time it burst out into the Reformation.

What Popes were corrupt, and why?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

A_Lurker;12456271]While it is true that politics factored in a lot of things back in those days, Rome was certainly not immune either. You talk about meddling Monarchs, The Imperial Veto was not abolished by the Latin Church until Pius X in the 20th Century. Let’s not go into the Borgias, the Papacy being bought and sold, manipulated, and tossed to Avignon, then tossed back to Rome…

Your comment only proves that the Apostolic See comes under attack by secular powers and principalities and that Providence always gains the upper hand when men fail God.

Such attacks aren’t very nice, are they?

So long as Truth is spoken here, I have nothing to fear here. I never shrink when Truth is revealed as Truth apart from opinions by one’s view of history.

The facts you present only reveal the Popes battles. Even St. Paul questions the discipline of St. Peter who neglected to eat with the Gentiles. Yet St. Paul goes to visit Peter to confirm His Gospel message with Peter, he receives from Jesus .

The historical period I presented to you, only points to the time, when the Apostolic Sees, authority come under usurpation and attack post Constantinople.

The Authority of Peter is always reverenced and never comes under question pre-Constantinople.

Let us allow the facts to present themselves as they are, without opinions, then the Orthodox should not fear Truth in a discussion. The view of history is taken by both the one being persecuted and the one applying the persecution. This is what is presented in our discussion.

Peace be with you

 

[guanophore]

It is not until Constantinople that the authority of Peter and all other apostolic sees come under attack by the Eastern Emperor’s power he gives to the Patriarch of Constantinople. This is where my post start and end. For it is from this point in history the secular powers vie to usurp, destroy, unite and influence the Popes authority.

While I don’t dispute your statement here, there have been plenty of efforts to usurp, destroy, and influence the See of Peter quite apart from Constantinople. The ruling families in Rome, for instance, vied for control of the papal throne for centuries.

You appear to confuse the battles of Peter being infected by secular powers,

Perhaps you are right. What battles do you think I am confusing?

It took many centuries for the Chair of Peter to remove herself from secular powers and influence. The Bishop of Rome today has returned to first Apostolic Church period when she is free of secular powers.

Yes, by the grace of God.

You pretend to believe that those men who occupied the office of Peter infected the divine office Jesus builds upon Peter and the apostles.

I don’t know if “infection” is the best word. there were certainly plenty of successors of Peter that brought disgrace to the office.

St. Augustine thought clears this up, for it is never the disposition of the man who makes the holy orders holy, when it is God Himself who makes the Consecrated office of Bishops’ to be Holy. It is the finger of God that comes upon us through His sacramental economy not by the man.

I agree, but it is curious that you do not apply this principle to the other Bishops.

Thirdly, No Pope has taught officially heresy from the Chair of Peter to the Whole Church. Peter’s office remains untainted, and uninfected with heresy. You appear to be implying the office of Peter has fallen into heresy, due to the men who occupied Peter’s Chair when they fell into sin.

No, setting Honorius aside, what I am saying is that the bad behavior of the popes fed the fires of rebellion that eventually resulted in the Reformation. The Reformation is what has spawned the inumerable heresies, even reviving many of those defeated in the early years of the Church.

The bad men who occupied the office of Peter, never infected the Chair of Peter with heresy.

They did so much to damage the reputation and dignity of the office that people were driven to look for purity elsewhere.

Never the less, the great Saints who occupied the Chair of Peter are rarely mentioned in these discussions.

Maybe that is because they did not drive people away from the faith?

The Roman government was strong when Constantine moved his capital to the new Rome. Constantine was a soldier and feared the political powers of Pagan Rome, thus he moved away from Rome.

I am curious to see your source on this.

**This Utopia you speak of; integrating secular powers with religious powers was an invention by the Eastern Church leaders that proved a disaster, which the Popes and early Church Fathers rejected such an idea. Which brings us full circle to my main point. It is from this history the authority of Peter’s Chair comes into question and under attack from Constantinople. **

I think you will find that I am the last person here who will ever be mistaken for considering the integration of religious and secular powers to be any kind of “utopia”, though I am sure that is what those who participated in such ideas believed they were creating.

I don’t disagree with your assertion that the political elements in Constantinople influenced the East/West division. I am just saying that the other three fingers are pointing back at Rome. If you think that the Popes rejected this “integration” then I urge you to read up on the origins of the Holy Roman Empire, which was the Western solution to the fall of Constantinople.

The Eastern Emperor surrenders his Pontiff title to the Chair of Peter. History disproves your hogwash view. I have no idea where you get the protestant reformation would not have taken placef?

I got it from my studies in Western Civilization. Wheh we look at the political, economic, ,and religious factors that laid the foundation for the Reformation, the conflation of roles (both secular and religious power) and corruption of the Popes both play a significant part.

if the Pope did not accept this universal religious title “Pontiff” of the Roman Empire?

This was the beginning of the road into secular power. Some of the Medieval Popes were so concerned about secular matters they gravely neglected the Church.

Never, I merely hold to what is divinely revealed by Jesus and taught by the Church pre-Constantinople, which has never changed the Church Jesus builds upon Peter.

Well, at least we can agree on something.

 

[Denise1957]

I second the motion:thumbsup: of How the sin of a man can change( like Peter’s denial of Jesus) or infect what Jesus has built and established Himself united to the office of Apostle in His Church?

We don’t need to know the sins of unfaithful men. How does a sin from man change what God has joined together?

I agree. A man’s personal sins do not change what God has joined together. Even if that man happens to be a pope. Take, for example, one of the Borgia Popes, Pope Alexander Vl, who had mistresses, and children by them. He was indeed guilty of going against Church teaching of priestly celibacy. However, he was never found guilty of other things that he’d been accused of.

Not long before his death, Pope Alexander Vl was trying to reform the curia, including reform of the sale of Church property, and planned reforms for stricter moral codes for clergy, which seems ironic, given his moral failings. He also had a relatively benign treatment of Jews. I think, too, that he died repentant of his sins. The bottom line is that he did not change or corrupt any Church teaching (except on a personal level), and he did not mess with the Deposit of Faith at all, despite his moral failings. Also, he has been accused of nepotism, but it might also be the case that he wanted to appoint men in his family that he could trust.

It should be mentioned, too, that Pope Alexander’s uncle, Pope Callixtus lll, wasn’t such a bad Pope, from what I’ve read. One of the things that he did which may not have been a good thing was to appoint his nephew, Rodrigo Borgia, to the Cardinalate, since it was this nephew who later became Pope Alexander the Vl.

Another Pope who went against the church teaching of priestly celibacy was Pope Paul lll. He has a mistress and three children when he was a young priest. However, it was this Pope who called for the Council of Trent. One of the things that he wanted addressed was the allowance for caring for children of a Pope by the Church (the Church financially supported these children, from what I understand). He thought that it should no longer be allowed, so he must have been repentant of his immoral deed of having a mistress and children. Again, as with Pope Alexander Vl, Pope Paul lll did not corrupt or change Church teaching, despite his moral failings, nor did he mess with the Deposit of Faith. The main duty of a Pope is to pass on the Deposit of Faith. Even if some have done so in a weak manner, it not disqualify them from being a Pope, nor does it disqualify the office of the Papacy.

Yes, the Popes and Bishops were involved in political intrigue and sometimes emeshed in dealings with the local monarchs or emperors, but this was also the case too with the EO; in fact, it was much worse with the EO. None of these reasons given above are sufficient to provoke a Reformation, IMO. I expect others to disagree.

 

[Karen107]

The papal conflation of temporal powers with spiritual resulted in the popes becoming embroiled in European politics and royal dynaties. During the Middle ages, the See of Peter was treated like an Imperial Throne including the vying for occupancy of it. A study of the Borja family is a good place to start,

Suffice to say there was plenty of fuel for “protesting” the role of the Pope, Cardinals and Bishops by the time it burst out into the Reformation.

Fuel for protesting the Pope or those near the Pope does not mean leaving the Church and starting a new church… That’s not what the scriptures say… The Scripture says that God is forever Faithful to His people and the gates of hell shall not prevail over His Church. Here it stands still today… A living organism bound together by the Holy Spirit… The body of Christ who is the bride…It endured through tribulations just as Jesus said it would and still it stands and continues to GROW!!! That’s how we know God is forever faithful to it despite those who try to take it down because of their actions or inactions…God is still producing holy souls through it each and every day!

Ephesians 5: 29 For no one ever hates his own body, but he nourishes and tenderly cares for it, just as Christ does for the church, 30 because we are members of his body.** 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” 32 This is a great mystery, and I am applying it to Christ and the church.**

 

[spina1953]

I would like to point out that while there have been bad Popes not once did they add new doctrines or new dogma’s different from what the deposit of Faith is or of Scripture. Human nature being what it is, there will always be those who will vie for an office or power, and or riches and do what they will contrary to what the office is.

We have had bad priests, Bishops and Popes throughout since the founding of Christianity. Yet, for the most part, the CC has remained. Why? because there are those who listen to the will of God and do as they are called. If reform is needed they try and work towards it removing what is or who is the causes that prompts reform.

Peter was set apart from the rest of the Apostles, though he was equal to them. Peter was given the authority to hold the Church together and make sure that Jesus passed on to all of them was proclaimed to all. Jesus told Peter to strengthen his brethren in the faith, meaning that there might be times when one grows weak and needs Peter to help strengthen them and keep them on the right path. If Peter was not the leader, He would not have made Linus his successor.

Peter in many ways was a humble man, but also stubborn at times. Peter was also very zealous in his love for the Lord. He led differently because the rest of the Apostles were united with him. As time went by, there came a time when some Bishops were not united with Peter’s successor’s, much due to outside influences. But anyway on read Scripture especially Matthew 16, it seems very plain that Jesus made Peter the head, the foundation of the Church Jesus was going to build. iow’s, On Peter, Jesus is going to build His Church. he did not say that he was going to build His Church on all of the Apostles but only on Peter, with the rest of the Apostles in unity with Peter.