I almost missed this. You say that Peter got his "infallibility" at Pentecost. If that's the case, how do you explain Paul's comments in Galatians 2?
11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.
Peter, wrong on a doctrinal matter? There goes your infallibility theory!
Peter, afraid of the circumcision crowd? Would Paul deign to speak to the high and mighty vicar of Christ in such a manner? There goes your pope Peter theory, too.
There's more correction to be made in your post, I just don't have the time right now. Frankly, I doubt that it will matter. It's clear that a quest for the truth this isn't.
How many thousands of times will that canard be thrown out?
Peter was NOT wrong on the doctrinal matter. Paul very plainly asserts that what he is upholding is Peter’s own doctrine. Peter was faulted for failure to ACT to uphold the doctrine. Rather, Peter was permitting others to act in a manner inconsistent with that doctrine.
May I ask you, specifically you, to explain Apostolic Authority for me ... was such authority passed to any who were made bishops and ministers in groups of believers built from receiving the message of Salvation in Christ?