The Catholic Encyclopedia, and all other Catholic publications I have seen, list Peter as Pope - reign 32-67. I have seen no caveat suggesting he was Pope while Bishop of Antioch, while traveling, or any place other than Rome. It seems reasonable to me there must be some evidence to prove this claim. On a scale of 0-10 "Legend" is worth "0".
Well 32-67 sounds like the time from after the resurrection, or when Jesus charged Peter, until his death some years later.
I think part of the confusion here is that people seem to think that Peter was Pope because he was Bishop of Rome. Rather, the Bishop of Rome is Pope because it was Peter's office.
Peter could have been bishop of Rome for one day and it would still be true. Peter was Pope wherever he was, and he settled and was martyred in Rome. But he was always Pope.
SD
Did Jesus pre-exist His human Incarnation as the Logos? If so, who was His mother then? What we object to is the idea that a human (mother) could bring God into existence, thus making her some kind of a greater God. Mary had nothing to do with bringing the Logos into existence (because the Logos had no beginning), thus, she is NOT, in the true meaning of the word, the mother of God.
Iowegian here rejects a false conception of what Theotokos means. I wonder if he would agree with us if he knew what we mean by it.
SD
Then why couldn't the bishop of Antioch lay equal or greater claim to the office of Peter?