Peter was but an Apostle, the "senior" one, but one with equal authority to the others.
Who called the "Council of Jerusalem"?
Who presided at this Council?
JAMES!, that's who.
ACTS 15:19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God,
The list of popes is without interruption from St. Pater.
The "list" is fiction, retroactive history, with many "corrections" over the years, with many gaps exceeding several years, and many Anti-Popes.
We don't see that "equal authority" in the scripture do we? St. Peter is one given a new name and the keys, on whome the Church is to be built, one for whom Christ has a special prayer as regards the others
[31] ...Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: [32] But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren. (Luke 22)
It is truethat all the bishops of the Church are sovereign princes of their own domain. The Church is not a dictatorship.
Who called [and presided at] the "Council of Jerusalem"?
But it is St. Peter who makes the winning argument. Since the council was local in Jerusalem, the bishop of Jerusalem presided, and he was St. James. This episode illustrates the model of Catholic episcopacy very well. It is conciliar in its nature and not dictatorial.
You could make the same argument that the Orthodox make: that the Early Church model gives St. Peter's chair primacy but not supremacy. With that I will not argue: the authority of the Pope in the Latin Church is indeed stronger than in other local Churches in communion with Rome (e..g Melkites, Ukrainian, Byzantine, etc). This is probably how it will be with the Orthodox also one day.