[Uncle Chip]

I think there is probably some historical confusion about Simon Magus and Simon Peter

Bingo. There is substantial historical evidence that Simon Magus went to Rome in 42 AD, just as Jerome and Eusebius claim, and became a favorite of Emperor Claudius, and died there in 67 AD --- amazingly the same time span that the RCC assigns to Simon Peter in Rome. He was called "Simon", like Simon Peter, and according to Justin Martur performed magic that could be interpreted as miracles from God. And after his death there was a substantial cult left behind using his name, and years later you have a church in Rome corrupted by a practice known as "simony" --- the buying and selling of church offices. Coincidence?????

While there is no evidence that Simon Peter was in Rome, other than Eusebius and Jerome's claim magically pulled out of thin air, there is substantial credible written evidence that Simon Magus had a major impact on Rome's subsequent spiritual development.

[wmfights]

"While there is no evidence that Simon Peter was in Rome, other than Eusebius and Jerome's claim magically pulled out of thin air, there is substantial credible written evidence that Simon Magus had a major impact on Rome's subsequent spiritual development."
________________________________

I have never given it a lot of thought one way or the other, why does it matter whether Peter was the founder, or Bishop, of the Roman Church? Is it tied to the idea that they have supreme leader, who was above all other Apostles?