Assuming that Jesus meant Peter (which no one has ever "plainly" proved), please tell us where:
1. Peter is described as a "pope".
2. An unbroken line of so-called successor "popes" is described or promised by Jesus.
3. The Roman Catholic cult is named by Jesus as the owner of this "line".
4. Why according to the New Catholic Encyclopedia, "...it must be frankly admitted that bias or deficiencies in the sources make it impossible to determine in certain cases whether the claimants were popes or anti-popes"? It is plain that the RC cult has multiple lists of the hypothetically "fornicating" successors.
5. If they are appointed by Jesus, why the whore Theodora of Rome and her daughter Marozia brought Anastasius III and Lando to your thrones?
6. The Roman Cult cannot even make sense of the epistles to which they lay claim, where it plainly says according to Paul that the choice of the rescued lies in God's hands...not through some self-aggrandizing, self-promoting, self-congratulating homemade religion, like Rome?
Given that posts like this are large collections of vituperative mouth-foaming (as evidenced by your repeated use of the word “cult”—no bias there, eh?), I’m not sure that the benefit-to-annoyance ratio of any reply to comments like it would be anything but a waste of time, falling on deaf ears of those who simply like to hear themselves talk.
Now, if commenters would like to dispense with at least the more spittle-flecked and rabid anti-Catholic rants (and instead ask questions in a manner which isn’t reminiscent of those preferred by those in the liberal MSM), maybe I could find some willingness to put some time into an answer. Otherwise... no, thank you; I gave up “spitting in the wind” and “throwing pearls before swine”, for health reasons.