Matthew 16:18

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Roman Catholics claim this verse means Peter was the first Pope.

5 verses later-

Matthew 16:23

But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

In reality, Peter is Cephas and Cephas means pebble. Peter is the pebble and Jesus is the rock and the chief cornerstone and the foundation.

Peter wasn't the first Pope and Linus wasn't the second Pope.

Apocrypha, well thats a neat way to explain away books you discarded from your Bible.

The term Apocrypha is not even a term which originated with the Protestants.

It's a Latin term and it was used by the early Church fathers to describe those 15 books which were included in the 1611 King James version as intertestamental texts, books that were disregarded as canon and divinely inspired.

Funny how you actually agree with the Reformers and don't even know it...

Just because the Holy Spirit did not include a book in the Bible does not mean it is not relevant, it just didn't rise to the level of divinity.

Also, Luther included all of the Apocryphal books in his German Bible except for 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras. You ask on what authority he removed those?

Pope Clement VIII wrote a Papal Bull ordering that 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Mannaseh to be placed in the The Appendix to the Clementine Vulgate, the bible which replaced Jerome's Latin Vulgate as the official bible of the Roman Catholic Church from 1592 until 1979.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixto-Clementine_Vulgate

You kept claiming there were 7 books removed by the Reformers, which is completely inaccurate, because they didn't remove any of them.

In fact, the King James contained 15 Apocryphal books and the Roman Catholic Bible only contains 7 of them, which is why you keep saying 7 books and not 15.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia article "Canon of the Old Testament"-

The terms protocanonical and deuterocanonical, of frequent usage among Catholic theologians and exegetes, require a word of caution. They are not felicitous, and it would be wrong to infer from them that the Church successively possessed two distinct Biblical Canons. Only in a partial and restricted way may we speak of a first and second Canon. Protocanonical (protos, "first") is a conventional word denoting those sacred writings which have been always received by Christendom without dispute. The protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants. The deuterocanonical (deuteros, "second") are those whose Scriptural character was contested in some quarters, but which long ago gained a secure footing in the Bible of the Catholic Church, though those of the Old Testament are classed by Protestants as the "Apocrypha". These consist of seven books: Tobias, Judith, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, First and Second Machabees; also certain additions to Esther and Daniel.

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

Does it matter if you call the books deuterocanonical or use Jerome's Latin term Apocrypha? And considering the Catholic Church admits "the deuterocanonical (deuteros, "second") are those whose Scriptural character was contested in some quarters", and those who disputed their divinity were many of the early Church fathers who Roman Catholic claim as their own, what exactly is the point you're trying to make anyways?

That the Pope has ultimate authority? But not the current Pope, because he's an Anti-Pope?

By the way, all popes go by the term "The Vicar of Christ", which means "In place of Christ" and they are all Anti-christs as far as I'm concerned.