Peter was listed second. Not first, as would be expected IF he were "primus".
"But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me; God accepteth no man's person:)" (Gal. 2:6).
God did not seem to believe Peter was "primus". He is no respector of persons.
Let us put it into context here. Paul was talking about presenting his bona fides to the Apostles. Go back to Chapter 1.
Galations 1: 18 14 15 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to confer with Cephas and remained with him for fifteen days. 19 But I did not see any other of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord. 16
What is the significance here? Paul had to present himself to Peter for acceptance. Notice that he says that he also saw James (the bishop of the church in Jerusalem which would be expected, since James was the bishop in charge). But the emphasis is on Peter. Chapter 2 lists James first, which is proper since James was still the bishop in charge of the area.
If Jesus did not believe that Peter was primus among the stewards of His Church, then why did He change Peter's name? Why was Peter the one who Jesus normally talked to when he was talking to the Apostles, and why was Peter normally the one who replied? Why was Peter the only human being to walk on the water? Why was Peter given the keys to Heaven and the first one the ability to forgive sins? Why was Peter instructed alone to 'feed my sheep'? And many other examples.
No, Peter was sincere, but very fallible. I think that the Passion of the Christ has him scripted very well. He was given responsibilities far beyond his abilities, but as we especially see in Acts, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, he went on to lead the fledgling Church and his successors have brought it to the point where it is today.
It’s interesting.
Another possibility never mentioned about Mary.
God may have buried her to avoid having her body picked apart by idolators.
Gal 1:18
I hate proof-texting. One just ignores the texts of one’s adversary, and plops one’s own text down as if it were the ace of trumps. I saw the pooh-poohing over the number of times Peter is mentioned. It would be more useful to argue why that’s meaningless than merely to scoff. But scoffing seems related to proof-texting.