It is true that St. Peter did not preside over that council. No one claims he was Pope at that time. No one claims that the word "Pope" was in use that early either. Popes today also face significant opposition and promulgate their agenda often with great difficulty. It is in fact remarkable that a vision from God alone was sufficient for the Jerusalem council to abandon the centerpiece of Mosaic law, the dietetic rules. If St. Peter was not recognized as one with the special commission from Christ, he would not have been able to stand Mosaic Law on its head just because he had a dream. But pope he was not, at the time.
Babylon has always been a metaphore for temporal evil. Surely historical scripture refers to the actual Babylon, but it does not prevent St. Peter to refer to Rome, the center of evil temporal power of his day. It is certainly reasonable that he would use a code word to describe his whereabouts in times of persecution.
There is a firm record of St. Mark, St. Peter's secretary, martyred in Rome.
Whether any of that amounts to solid historical proof, matters little. We don't have a solid historical proof of many events we nevertheless know from the Holy Tradition. If you refuse to listen, that is your loss.
Of course it is claimed that Peter was the pope from the time the "keys" were given to him.
Except Peter did not do that except he was called to accountability by Paul. Read Galations, Peter was a part of the problem originally, Paul was the one that stood in the correct position.
Babylon has always been a metaphore for temporal evil. Surely historical scripture refers to the actual Babylon, but it does not prevent St. Peter to refer to Rome, the center of evil temporal power of his day. It is certainly reasonable that he would use a code word to describe his whereabouts in times of persecution.
Any contemporary proof of that ? Any contemporary PROOF he was ever IN Rome at all?
There is a firm record of St. Mark, St. Peter's secretary, martyred in Rome.
Where is it recorded that Mark was the secretary of Peter in contemporary writings? How does one say that their is EVIDENCE of Marks death in Rome but not the Popes? Doesn't that seem strange to you that the "secretary's" death would be recorded and not the pope? My studies on this say there is no imperial evidence that Peter was hung upside down on a cross or that it occurred in Rome. What there is a belief in that as a tradition but no contemporary writings to prove it
Whether any of that amounts to solid historical proof, matters little. We don't have a solid historical proof of many events we nevertheless know from the Holy Tradition. If you refuse to listen, that is your loss.
It may not matter to you, but to those of us that find truth as primary it is of importance.
Protestans are often criticized for our belief in salvation by faith alone. But it seems that things like Peters papacy and even his death must be taken on faith alone by Catholics. Seeing that the Catholic church teaches it is the means of salvation, it would seem to me that a Catholic must believe that on faith alone too. Maybe we are not that far apart on faith alone as it might seem :)