[pgkdan]

The only other questionable choice, from a historical point of view, is the almost total exclusion of Peter, who was in Rome at the same time and was the head of the church. It’s an understandable plot device that serves the need to focus attention on Luke and Paul, but audiences will see it as a plot hole [see update below rating]. Peter only gets mentioned once in an affectionate remembrance between Luke and Paul.

What history? History doesn't place Peter in Rome and neither does scripture. Tradition places Peter in Rome.

[Salvation]

Peter died in Rome. Check it out.

[daniel1212]

What history? History doesn't place Peter in Rome and neither does scripture. Tradition places Peter in Rome.

And is not even mentioned among the 30+ people who are named in Paul;s letter to the Romans, leaving RC to spuriously postulate that Paul did not mentioned him out of concern for persecution, yet who thus endangered multitude of believers he did name.

The closest Catholics can come to for support is that of "The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son," (1 Peter 5:13) and Peter exercising a general pastoral role in that letter, but not in addressing not churches but to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, (1 Peter 1:1)