You, with your RCC lens, say the article is “rubbish” and offer, in defense of that opinion, unsupported declaratives about what extra-Biblical reports allegedly say to back up the RCC version of history - which I call rubbish.
That's an ad hominem argument. If I did that, the RM would immediately chastise me for reading your mind.
Clement's "Epistle to the Corinthians", Irenaeus' "Against Heresies", and Cyprian of Carthage's "On the Unity of the Catholic Church" are all available on the Internet, and are not "unsupported declaratives".
The are as "extra-Biblical" as this article is.
Would that pass muster ? I like the metaphor.What if that were modified to "viewed through the RCC lens"