Thing is that even if we concede the Petros/petra point, nowhere else in Scripture is the primacy of Peter mentioned at all.
In fact, in Galatians, Peter is deliberately and publicly challenged and opposed by Paul, because Peter was allowing his behavior to be influenced by those who contradicted the Word.
Paul shows here that it’s God’s Word that is paramount, and should anyone, even Peter, teach in opposition to it, that person should not be obeyed. In fact, Paul says that anyone preaching a different Gospel than what Paul preached should be ‘anathema.’
Which is why on this thread I’ve pointed out Scripture so much; that is the most accurate message of the teachings of the Apostles—which are the teachings of Jesus—that we have.
If we are to follow the example of the Apostle Paul, that means that we are bound to oppose Roman Catholics every single time that they preach a different Gospel than what Paul preached.
The guy we say is the current successor to Peter is picking up a few deserved rebukes.
I kinda like the idea that -- within the overarching consideration that IHS and faith in him are primary and that the Holy Scriptures are an anchor and canon -- the general run of popes would be, at best, uneven characters, as cantankerous as Paul, as passionately and impulsively oafish as כיפא.
After all, even with our peacock panoply of popes and cardinals and bishops (and our chaste and somber, black-and-white Dominic) it is God alone who sanctifies and directs us. Even if he gives, as we assert, certain gifts and guarantees to those in certain offices and ministries, still it is he upon whom we rely.
After the (as I see it) blessings of JP2 and PapaBenXVI, I suspect it's probably to my benefit to have a pope who gives me the hives almost every time he opens his mouth. It's like when I was driving a trailer full of sheep in a snow storm -- a great boost the the fervor of my prayers.