Was Peter rebuked for what he was teaching or what he was doing?
Distinction without a difference. Theology is by nature practical. If we make a strict division of "doctrine" and "actions" we are missing the point of the Gospel. Right theology doesn't save any more than right actions. If this doesn't make sense, I can try to clarify my thoughts on the matter.
Excuse me? Are you saying that Truth can not be told of, even if in practice we can't live up to it? A man who commits adultery can know that it is wrong and can preach against it. Man's words will never live up to his ideals, but that does not mean that ideal should be abandoned?
SD
The Catholic Encyclopedia, and all other Catholic publications I have seen, list Peter as Pope - reign 32-67. I have seen no caveat suggesting he was Pope while Bishop of Antioch, while traveling, or any place other than Rome. It seems reasonable to me there must be some evidence to prove this claim. On a scale of 0-10 "Legend" is worth "0".
Well 32-67 sounds like the time from after the resurrection, or when Jesus charged Peter, until his death some years later.
I think part of the confusion here is that people seem to think that Peter was Pope because he was Bishop of Rome. Rather, the Bishop of Rome is Pope because it was Peter's office.
Peter could have been bishop of Rome for one day and it would still be true. Peter was Pope wherever he was, and he settled and was martyred in Rome. But he was always Pope.
SD
Not at all. I simply see no more of an excuse for wrong living than wrong teaching. To say "well, he wasn't teaching something wrong, he was just doing something wrong" is a distinction without a difference. As Emerson said, "Your actions are so loud, I cannot hear what you are saying."