I could be wrong, but my understanding is that the council that recognized the infallibility of the Pope (in certain circumstances) applied it retroactively to all prior Popes. Therefore, I "think", the primacy of the Pope would be something "always and everywhere believed by the Church". That doesn't match the council we're talking about in Acts.
In fact, this is from New Advent under the subsection: (1) The Pope's Universal Coercive Jurisdiction:
Not only did Christ constitute St. Peter head of the Church, but in the words, "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, it shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed in heaven," He indicated the scope of this headship.
The expressions binding and loosing here employed are derived from the current terminology of the Rabbinic schools. A doctor who declared a thing to be prohibited by the law was said to bind, for thereby he imposed an obligation on the conscience. He who declared it to be lawful was said to loose). In this way the terms had come respectively to signify official commands and permissions in general. The words of Christ, therefore, as understood by His hearers, conveyed the promise to St. Peter of legislative authority within the kingdom over which He had just set him, and legislative authority carries with it as its necessary accompaniment judicial authority. (emphasis added)
Moreover, the powers conferred in these regards are plenary. This is plainly indicated by the generality of the terms employed: "Whatsoever thou shalt bind . . . Whatsoever thou shalt loose"; nothing is withheld. Further, Peter's authority is subordinated to no earthly superior. (emphasis added)
The article doesn't appear to address the problem we are discussing. Obviously, the claim is that Peter had full authority from the word Go, yet that's not what scripture reveals.
St. James merely dictates the consensus that St. Peter had formed.
Well, THAT'S a pretty creative interpretation. :) Quoting James:
Acts 15:19 : "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.
Yeah, right. James was just a yes man. Peter was really in charge all along. :)
In fact, Abraham together with his wife, and Jacob were renamed, the father of monotheism and the father of the Jewish nation. This puts St. Peter in a very exceptional company.
Sure, the same company as Paul, a giant in Reformed theology. :) In my opinion, Paul would have had nothing to do with the idea of a Pope. He was a humble servant. It was other Apostles who asked who would be the greatest. Jesus always had the same answer, he who is least. That goes against almost everything associated with the papacy.
If the keys are "preaching of the holy gospel" where is that interpretation suggested in the Scripture? Peter is not even among the evangelists. The Church and St. Peter are mentioned in the passage; the scripture is not.
The Gospel is mentioned. Today, that is contained in its most pure form in the scriptures. ...... The keys metaphor symbolizes that which separates the man from Heaven. Salvation is what crosses that obstacle. Faith comes from hearing, etc. Jesus sent all of His children out to make disciples by preaching the word of God. It's just basic theology 101.
"Thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren" (Luke 22:32) says that Peter will lead the apostles. One who confirms others has the authority to confirm, it seems to me.
The conversion being spoken of here is Peter's repentance of his betrayal of Christ. Once that is done, Christ says Peter should minister to his brothers. It is a message for all of us. The word in my Bible is "strengthen", not "confirm".
If, following the repeated confession of love, Christ wanted to "encourage" Peter, He would not have put him up for another task of feeding and guiding the "lambs", that is, the apostles and the rest of the Church (cf Luke 10:3).
Baptism by fire. God never promised us a cake walk. :) Experience breeds confidence. The encouragement would come with experience. God was in full control anyway, so it was all according to plan.
But St. James did not contradict St. Peter in Acts 15! He presided, over the Council, yes. There is a moment in the scripture where St. Peter is contradicted (on eating separately from the Gentiles), as well as of course he outright betrayed Christ, but there is no instance where St. Peter was teaching something on faith and morals and the Church decided differently, after the Church was formed in Acts 2.
the same company as Paul, a giant in Reformed theology
Saul was not renamed ceremoniously by Christ. In fact, he is called Saul well into his covnerted discipleship. The first time Saul is identified as Paul is matter-of-factly in Acts 13:9 "Saul, otherwise Paul".
It is amusing how the Reformed appropriate St. Paul as if he taught something other than Catholic Christianity. It is especially silly given that it is from the writings of St. Paul that we derive most of your distinctive Catholic features: apostolic and hierarchical character of the Church, sacramental character of the Holy Eucharist, insufficiency of faith alone, equal importance of tradition and scripture.
The Gospel is mentioned
Where? Read the text, don't spin it. I told you what is mentioned: Church, heaven, hell, legislation on matters of salvation.
Peter should minister to his brothers. It is a message for all of us
Exactly; but only Peter is expressly charged with that at the Last Supper, while all of the the Apostles are also given a task to celebrate the Eucharist. Only in the case of Peter the charge is to strengthen or confirm his fellow apostles. This charge was not removed after the betrayal and repeated confession at the end of the book of John, as we can see in the charge to "feed Christ's lambs". This is the primary job description of the Pope, to guide the bishops, who all are primary ministers of the Holy Eucharist in the Church.