Even if your tried to articulate an argument, Acts 1:14-15, like other texts, simply shows Peter as the initial non-assertive ground-level leader among brethren, not one all looked to as the first of a line of supreme exalted infallible heads, which were like the pope of Rome. Which is what you must support, even if Scripture does not.
And in which the Peter calls for the only apostolic successor manifest in Scripture, as none is named for James, (Acts 12?:1,2) which was to maintain the original 12, thus only one was chosen, and which was by the nonpolitical OT means of casting lots (Prov. 16:33)
Instead, as said in my larger reply to the OP you must have missed but should read first, her elections have often involved political machinations, resulting in, among other things, wicked men being elected, and conveying that God is a respecter of persons in favoring Italians. Moreover, a qualification for an apostle seem to require a literal personal discipleship by the Lord Himself. (Acts 1:21-22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12,17)
• Acts 2: 14-41; 4:8-21 shows Peter as the first one to use the keys to the kingdom, that obviously being the gospel, as by faith in it and its Christ souls are "translated into the kingdom of his dear Son." (Col 1:13) But again, this is not an issue and does not translate into a infallible Perpetuated Petrine papacy, esp. that of Rome.
And in contrast to Rome, Peter preaches a simple gospel message in which are born again in the same hour as they heard it, not after months of indoctrination about Rome being One True Church®, and Mary, etc. which is the norm.
And in which no one titled "priest" meted out penance, and unlike Rome's infant sprinkling, having confessed personal repentant faith the Lord Jesus in baptism, (Acts 2:38; Rm. 10:9,10) as this is the required condition for it, (cf. Acts 8:36-38), then in contrast to the institutional gospel of Rome, these souls manifest true evangelical conversion. • Acts 5: 29-32 likewise shows Peter as the leader among brethren, and in contrast to the Roman papacy which sanctioned torture and killing of Christians, Peter and the apostles were the subject of such carnal warfare, and responded by spiritual means, not seeking the sword of men which Rome used until it was finally taken away. Unjustly RCs think.
Of course, you left out Acts 5:1-10 in which Peter is the instrument of discipline by spiritual means, while in contrast to a true apostle, Peters suppsd successors, seeking the same effect, had to rely on the sword of men in the past, while today even impenitent murderous prosodomite pols can be blessed, as Benedict did to manifestly impenitentTeddy K. with no apparent censure at all.
In Acts 9:32-42 God is doing miracles thru Peter, as He also did abundantly thru Paul, which does not make either a pope, except in Roman reasoning. But which abundant supernatural attestation and virtue is in stark contrast to the sppsd successors of Rome. See #9 in my main post on this issue, by Gods grace. Those who claim much must have corresponding attestation, which Rome does not, nor Muhammad despite his victories and the longevity of his religion.
• In Acts 10:30-48 we once see the keys to the kingdom being used, though these were also given to the rest, but once again this provides not support for Rome's papacy, but a contrasting reproof it it.
For not only does Peter refuse to allow even a yet unsaved man bow down to him, but preaches a simple evangelical gospel message, culminating in
"To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." (Acts 10:43)
And which the Gentiles heard and believed, being born again, and thus were baptized. And which faith Peter testified purified their hearts. (Act 15:9) And which Rome only allows as an exception, under her contritio caritate perfecta (perfect contrition) clause, which is contrary to her formal teaching which holds that the act of baptism works to regenerate a soul, even without personal faith, and so even an unbeliever can salvifically baptize one, resulting in such being formally justified by the interior holiness of their soul.
Thus having begun with justification being based on the level of interior holiness, the salvation process ends with souls becoming good enough in purgatory to enter Heaven, as they sinned afterward baptism and did not cooperate fully with the grace Rome dispenses thru her ritualism.
Instead, Peter preaches faith in the risen Lord Jesus to save by His sinless shed blood (1Pt. 2:24; 3:18) purifies the heart, and results in holy character and works.
• Acts: 12:6-18 records Peter being supernaturally sprung from prison in answer to prayer, even if they did not seem have much faith, but which is not the only story in Scripture of supernatural deliverance, and that of Paul and Silas resulted in a household conversion. (Acts 16:30-34
• As for Acts: 15-1-11, this further reveals your habit of simply pasting things as answers, as i just refuted this attempt to wrest support for Peter as the first of a line of supreme exalted infallible heads. And which even Catholic scholarship testifies to lack of evidence for .
Interesting.
Catholics claim that whatever is bound on earth by the OTC is bound in heaven.
Therefore, this pronouncement of Peter's binds in heaven the gospel of salvation by faith in Christ. Simply by believing.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.