Because Jesus instituted a physical church which needs a leader… And yet Peter still lives, or do you not believe that? Do you not believe that Jesus is also physical and the head of the church? If Jesus is the head of the church, and he's alive and leading along with the holy spirit, and he's also not "here," then Peter doesn't need to be "here" to be the rock upon which the church is built. I'm not trolling. I just can't believe that catholics can't bother to figure out pretty simple stuff like this. Judas was replaced because of the betrayal, not because the 12 apostles needed to be succeeded in perpetuity. The Apostles will sit in judgment of the 12 tribes. The Apostles. Not anyone else. That's their role, other than obviously filling the great commission. There has never been any indication in scripture (that I'm aware of) that The Church is in need of a singular human leader. Following the lead from the OT, kings were NOT what God preferred for His chosen nation. I can and do equate the pope to a self proclaimed king (yeah, yeah, he's elected, BFD) which is, IMO, anathema to how God wants His people to be "ruled." What you are saying is, IMO, much to materialistic and also does not follow the precedents set by God in the example of Isreal (the people from the Bible, not the current state gubment) and how He wishes them to be. I don't really care how narrowly defined papal infallibility is or is not. It's an idiotic concept prima fascia. The whole of the papacy is incorrect. The whole hierarchical structure of the church is incorrect. Much of the doctrine is directly in conflict with scripture (used in a fairly broad sense here), and therefore is, IMO, heretical. It might seem like I'm trolling, but I'm not. I place no faith in men. I place less than no faith in those that claim some sort of power over me. I have no king but Christ. Anyone who would Shephard me better be local and strong, and I don't consider the pope to be either.