The Roman viewpoint =
the VERY EDITED AND ANNOTATED pseudo-"facts."
My view of the historical record is that the
Roman edifice
did not even begin until at least 200 years after Paul died.
Like most historians, I’m still waiting for proof that Peter ever ventured to Rome. Why would he, he had already shown that he was unworthy by denying Christ three times. And after denying Christ, we don’t hear about him much. So this has been , denier (sp) of Christ went on to Rome and became the first pope . Excuse me if I don’t buy into this whole thing.
The "Roman edifice" --- whatever you mean by that--- is really tangential. There is nothing magical, mystical, or even magisterial about the city of Rome, per se. All that could be put aside, Rome could be nuked to smithereens, and the successor of St. Peter could be a barefoot, blind fellow with a beggar's bowl wandering about Ravenna or Avignon or Aix la Chapelle (or Milwaukee or Rio) and still St. Peter's successor --- the beggar --- would be the pope.
This was determined by Jesus, not geography.