[Galatians 2:9] And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. Peter had no more authority than any of the other Apostles. Paul.....here, makes that very clear.
Paul.....here, absolutely confirms it: [Galatians 2:11] But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. The chief of the Apostles would not have accepted a public criticism such as this: [verse 14] But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
Peter was not a chief Apostle....the keys were given to them all [Matthew 18:18].. The only special thing Peter ever did (by himself) was receive a command from the Holy Spirit [Acts 10:19] to visit Cornelius....and that was because Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, was still in Arabia [Galatians 1:17] sorting things out. In fact, Peter has never been pinpointed in Rome. He was told by Our Saviour [Matthew 10:5-6] not to go there. That's why you only find him in Asia....in Babylon [ Peter 5:13] and in the vicinity of Judea and Syria [Galatians 2:11]. Tradition does say he was in Rome and since tradition here.....goes against Holy scripture, we know it to be in error.
People in positions of authority make mistakes (Abraham, Moses, Saul, David, Solomon, etc.) but their human failings do not erase their authority.
Peter was not a chief Apostle
Of course he was.
He is mentioned first in every Apostolic list, Scripture literally telling us that he was first among them. He speaks on behalf of the Apostles. Christ gave him alone the commission to feed the flock. Christ named him alone the rock on which He built His church. The Father revealed first and only to him the truth of who Jesus was. He was the Apostle that Christ first revealed Himself to in His glory. He led the Apostles in their public witness.
No serious student of the Scriptures can deny that Peter was the leader of the college.
The reader is free to interpret 1 Peter 5:13 as Peter writing of the Church in the abandoned and desolate ruins of the literal Babylon OR as Peter's commentary on the state of human affairs in Rome, from which he wrote.
That instruction was given to the Apostles for their first mission, before Christ's death and Resurrection.
Later the Risen Christ instructs them to go and teach all nations. Matthew 28:19-20
I agree with you in principle about Peter, however Matt. 10:5 cannot be understood as a blanket prohibition for Peter to never go to Rome—as this was Jesus for a temporary time sending out the 12 to do ministry before the cross.
Tradition may well be right that Peter was executed in Rome—as this does not contradict scripture. However, we know for sure Peter was not the 1st Overseer (Bishop) of Rome, simply because if so it would be unthinkable that Paul’s letter to an established Church there makes no mention of Peter.
The whole attachment-as-bishop of Peter to Rome was an historical revision hundreds of years later to make everyone respect the authority of the Bishop of Rome more.
In the centuries that followed the generation of Peter and the Apostles, Rome’s bishop quickly became the most important because apostles had been martyred there, and more importantly, simply because Rome itself was the most important city of that world.
The proof asserted for that super-authority of Rome was the Tradition of Peter being it’s 1st bishop (and passing his apostleship on...) along with the misunderstood proof-text of Matt. 16:19.
I’m sure glad my Church rests on Christ Himself, not on those two shaky “authorities.”