Ahwatukee,
I understand what Rome states. You should know that the whole theory is based on the false Credals of Isidore and Constantine.
The fact that they use the word "Pope" has nothing to do with the supremacy of the papacy. They will also argue that "Primacy" means absolute universal authority over the whole Church. However, theologically and historically that has never occurred prior to their splitting after 1054.
The Pope never presided over an Ecumenical Council. In fact was absent from several.
Every early Church has a list of its bishops which is what the Pope was before 1054.
Also, Peter was never a bishop and if he would have been, Jerusalem would have been the seat, or secondly Antioch. The ONLY reason that Rome became the seat of Primacy is that it was the capital of the Empire. It has nothing to do with any theological reason nor with Peter.
You have been beguiled by Rome. You are not the only one. The entire western world was fooled and beguiled by them long before they actually split. The division did not begin with Constantine, but with the fall of Rome in 476. That one single event began the total isolation of Rome from the rest of the Roman Empire. In the chaos the only recognizable entity that had some authority was the Bishop of Rome. Because of the vacuum he assumed political power and began the geographic hegemony as well. It is because he exercised secular control absolutely, he thought that it could extend to the Church as well. The Church had been conciliar from the beginning with each and every bishop of equal status. Rome attempted to change it and the Pope's placed themselves above Christ as head of the Church and gave themselves the autority that belongs to Christ.
So, I suggest that you go back to your study of history since you have both been quite incorrect.
Next time don't make your ignorace so bold.