The second text is Luke 22:32, in which somehow the prayer of the Lord that the faith of the street-level leader among brethren would persevere, and strengthen his brethren, is asserted to mean, via extrapolative RC imagination, that Peter was the exalted infallible head whom all the church looked to as the first of a line of infallible popes ruling from Rome.
Yet the primary evangelist and church planter is the apostle Paul, who preached Christ as being the Son of God immediately after his conversion and the laying on hands by "a certain disciple, Ananais. (Acts 9:10-20) And who theologically received the gospel of grace by direct revelation. (Gal. 1:12)
While the Roman pope stands above all other bishops in both actions, dress and ascribed powers, Paul presents Peter as just one of them who appeared to be pillars, and does not even list Peter first among the three, and makes it clear it made no difference to him what they seemed to be, as God looks at the heart and sees what men in position really are.
“The Pope’s authority is unlimited, incalculable; it can strike, as Innocent III says, wherever sin is; it can punish every one; it allows no appeal and is itself Sovereign Caprice; for the Pope carries, according to the expression of Boniface VIII, all rights in the Shrine of his breast. As he has now become infallible, he can by the use of the little word, 'orbi,' (which means that he turns himself round to the whole Church) make every rule, every doctrine, every demand, into a certain and incontestable article of Faith. No right can stand against him, no personal or corporate liberty; or as the Canonists put it -- 'The tribunal of God and of the pope is one and the same.'” - Ignaz von Dollinger, in “A Letter Addressed to the Archbishop of Munich”, 1871 (quoted in The Acton Newman Relations (Fordham University Press), by MacDougall, pp. 119 120 and here.
It is Peter who first provides brief key testimony and sound counsel in Act 15, affirming the evangelical gospel, "purifying their hearts by faith," before baptism. And who briefly urges this counsel to be accepted versus the gospel of the Judaizers. Yet it is James who provides the (approx. 175 word) conclusive decree on what is to be believed and done.
And in all the church epistles and the rest of the the NT, Peter is never singled out as an object of universal obedience as the head of all the churches, nor is such obedience to him as the universal head commended or the failure to do so faulted, nor mentioned as solution to their problem, even in the Lord's critique to all the churches in Rv. 2,3. Not once is even prayer specifically for him exhorted (though he was prayed for, as others were). And which conspicuous omission, along with the manner of Petrine leadership that is recorded, is incongruous in the light of the Roman construance of Peter's leadership.
And which in principal forces the church (us) to continually manifest itself as the church of the living God, versus the institutionalized version of Catholicism and much of Protestantism. Not that I think I am giving great witness to the resurrection either, but as a former weekly mass-going RC what I do know is the profound contrast between Biblical regeneration and that of Roman ritualism.