So, the Orthodox arguments in this thread stop at the "get thee behind me" remark and act like the rest of Peter's life never happened?
Yes, that's what I said (since I'm the only Orthodox member to respond between your two posts), except for the bits where I didn't.
What does that have to do with the Roman Catholics?
Probably the bit where you (Roman Catholics) base your entire authority on Peter and his actions.
Bogdan also implied that St. Peter's orthodoxy was in doubt. That explains all the Orthodox churches named after St. Peter, and the icons I see of St. Peter in church...
It was at times, like when he was preaching Judahism prior to the Council of Jerusalem. But like a good Christian, he accepted rightous correction.
There was no argument against 'supremacy' going on, just a reductio ad absurdam. That's not a proof. That's a fallacy.
There was also no discussion of infallibility going on. Wyatt claimed, however, that the Council of Jerusalem is used to argue against it, it isn't, it is used to argue against the even more base supremacy. Naturally if supremacy is wrong, infallibility is as well, so it is an indirect argument. Nonetheless, it is your co-religionist who is bringing this up out of nowhere.
This is how St. Peter died for Christ:
He died a Christian death.
That can't make up for anything else, can it?
Of course not, it is by God's grace that we are saved, however as I mentioned in my previous post, in such a way did he pass the test which had led to him being commanded to "feed my sheep".