You think because Paul rebuked Peter, then Peter wasn't the first Pope?<quoted text>
Gal 2:11But when Peter came to Antioch, I had to oppose him to his face, for what he did was very wrong.
11. Peter—"Cephas" in the oldest manuscripts Paul's withstanding Peter is the strongest proof that the former gives of the independence of his apostleship in relation to the other apostles, and upsets the Romish doctrine of Peter's supremacy. The apostles were not always inspired; but were so always in writing the Scriptures. If then the inspired men who wrote them were not invariably at other times infallible, much less were the uninspired men who kept them. The Christian fathers may be trusted generally as witnesses to facts, but not implicitly followed in matters of opinion.
Listen, oh ignorant one, we have never..ever made a claim that our Popes are untouchable because they are Popes..
Francis could technically be publicly rebuked by Cardinal Dolan if he messes up.. This has happened to Popes in the past. This reply is not for you btw. You are one of the most ignorant human beings I've ever encountered. This reply is for anyone else who you might lead astray by misusing Sacred Scripture. We've explained a thousand times what "infallibility" means. Yet, you continuously misrepresent our teachings as if you never heard anything. This is ridiculous what you do. Its just like a conniving little demon. The bottom line is : when it came down to a final decision on matters of faith and morals, Peter didnt error and neither did his 266 successors.