Actually, the life of the church in the NT simply does not testify to it looking to Peter as the first of a line of infallible popes reigning supreme in Rome (nor does early history). Peter instead was the street-level, non-exalted, non-assertive leader among brethren, the first to preach to the Gentiles and use the keys to the kingdom (the gospel), and mentioned in particular as one who was married, and who wrote as one with a general pastoral role, yet was the only apostle to be publicly rebuked, and named 2nd one of the 3 who appeared to be pillars by Paul, after James who provided the definitive judgment in the controversy the ecumenical meeting in Acts 15 settled.
And submission to Peter is nowhere reminded or commended, despite the many commendations and commendations, nor are any preparations for a successor manifest. And whose ministry was eclipsed by Paul after that, and who did not come behind any apostle in power, and did many unique and other things expected of a pope.
daniel1212 I believe you have had this conversation several hundred times here before and if you wish to follow the father of Chaos and believe there is No Authority left here by Our Lord, the Father of Order, continue to your own spiritual demise. For if there is No Authority left here to Guide you/us then Mine is equal to yours, however I will humble myself to that which I know the Lord has Left, the Holy Catholic Church, which by the way right now has the Hounds of Hell at its gates… God Bless