No wonder the Catholic catechism hardly lines up with scripture with that perspective, but yet they will insist on key singular scripture out of context for their doctrines of enslaving the members to the Church.
Your timeline is given out of quote box so the reader can read this.
"Here is the timeline:
Peter starts in Jerusalem. He goes to Antioch and is bishop of Antioch for several years.
At Pentecost we know that there were Jews from Rome and it is likely that some of them took the gospel to Rome. But the Church there needed an apostle to found it properly. And that apostle was Peter. In AD 42 James was killed by Herod Agrippa, who also arrested Peter. But Peter was miraculously released and then it concludes: Then he departed and went to another place.
Catholic tradition says “another place” was a code for Rome."
That is an assumption from which ancient tradition may have based it on and thus without merit. Continuing with your timeline presentation below.
"There is an ancient tradition that Peter went to Rome in 42 AD. Also the
Liber Pontificalis records that Peter’s pontificate in Rome lasted for 25 years. As he was executed in 67 AD that ties in with the date of 42 AD.
In Acts Peter is absent from Jerusalem from about 42 AD until 49 AD when he re-appears in Jerusalem at the Council of Jerusalem.
Why? The answer is that in Rome in 49 AD there was much trouble in Rome and the Emperor Claudius expelled all the Jews from Jerusalem. The Roman historian Suetonius records that the Roman Jews were rioting abort “Chrestus”. Peter would have left as well. In Acts 18:2 we read that Aquila and Prisca were in Corinth “because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome”.
In 54AD Claudius died, after which his edict was repealed, and the Jews returned to Rome. It is possible that Paul’s
Epistle to the Romans was written at this time to reconcile the Jewish and Gentile Christians. It seems that without the Jewish quarrelling about “Christus” the Gentile Christian number had grown. Thus when the Jewish Christians returned the church there was faced with new controversies that Paul’s letter sought to address.
Peter is thus the “other man” when he says to the Romans “thus making it my ambition to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already been named, lest I build on another man's foundation”. "
Again, you are assuming and reading that verse wrong too. Amazing how scripture can be done away with when it does not suit you in order to favor Catholic tradition. You are definitely reading that verse with Catholic tradition's bifocles on. Continuing with your timeline presentation below.
"There are many references in the early writing of Peter and Paul founding the Church in Rome."
You mean early writing ABOUT Peter and Paul founding the Church at Rome. Those references found at this Catholic site below just had them citing Matthew 16 mostly rather than give any historical account.
Early Christian history as seen by the Roman Catholic Church
So basically, the early writings based on reference to Matthew 16 in applying it, established ancient tradition by matter of opinions. Continuing on...
"Finally another interesting point. The Liber Pontificalis says that Peter consecrated two bishops in Rome to assist him in governing the Church in Rome – Linus and Anacletus (Cletus). He also consecrated a third bishop, Clement, to see to oversee to needs of the universal Church.
These are the first three that succeeded Peter – Linus, then Anaclectus and then Clement.
Most of this I have taken from the book “
The Eternal City – Rome and the Origins of Catholic Christianity” by Taylor Marshall, and Episcopalian priest who converted to Catholicism."
Clement did not avoid the appearance of covetousness in his epistle to the Corinth. The dispute was the church at Corinth was not giving anything to the Church at Rome which Clement seems to place authority on them that they have to give; and thus accusing them of jealousy because Cleme nt was making all the churches do this in giving to the church at Rome.
First Clement: Clement of Rome
"1Clem 14:2
For we shall bring upon us no common harm, but rather great peril, if
we surrender ourselves recklessly to the purposes of men who launch
out into strife and seditions,
so as to estrange us from that which
is right."
Paul had written that only a portion from the bounty was given to the support of the saints ministering abroad; jealousy has arisen when the church at Corinth found out that the Church at Rome was not collecting out of need, but from every church to the selfish gains of the church at Rome. Clement was trying to justify the giving to them by using verses about the ones that minister to them, and yet he was not there in person to apply that to himself as one that ministers to them, but sending collectors out for the treasury at the church at Rome. That was why they were jealous.
Also the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes is about having a heirarchy over a chain of churches.
Revelation 2:15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate.16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth
Nicolaitanes as defined meaning "conquer of the laity" where in the doctrine is having a higher authority outside of the Word of God over each local church. So I understand why the church at Corinth was disagreeing with the Church at Rome.
So.. from Clement onward, we can see how the Church at Rome went astray when all roads leads to Rome, and vying for the head bishop over all churches became a covetous position of governership that Jesus spoke against.
Mark 10:42 But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.43 But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:44 And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
Yes, I find it interesting on how Clement began the corruption at the Church at Rome where the gates of hades supposedly would not prevail against it.