Actually according to Irenaeus, Peter and Paul founded the church of Rome, not Peter alone. However, if you read the first chapter of Paul's letter to the Romans, neither Peter nor Paul founded the church of Rome. It was functioning just fine without an apostolic visit of any kind when Paul wrote his letter to the Romans in 56 AD.
But also: Do you remember my question: When did Peter become Bishop of Rome as legend has it?
Read your quote from Irenaeus carefully. Irenaeus says that Linus was the first Bishop of Rome, followed by Clement then Anacletus. So according to Irenaeus Peter was never the Bishop of Rome and there is no indication that he resided there for any period of time.
Actually according to Irenaeus, Peter and Paul founded the church of Rome, not Peter alone. However, if you read the first chapter of Paul's letter to the Romans, neither Peter nor Paul founded the church of Rome. It was functioning just fine without an apostolic visit of any kind when Paul wrote his letter to the Romans in 56 AD.
But also: Do you remember my question: When did Peter become Bishop of Rome as legend has it?
Read your quote from Irenaeus carefully. Irenaeus says that Linus was the first Bishop of Rome, followed by Clement then Anacletus. So according to Irenaeus Peter was never the Bishop of Rome and there is no indication that he resided there for any period of time.
Well, I did read my extract from Irenaeus carefully. And it said:
The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric.
So, according to the extract from Irenaeus, the apostles committed the Church into the hands of Linus, then Anacletus, and then to Clement. So I am not sure where you get from this that Peter was never the bishop of Rome.
Now Irenaeus does not give indications of dates, but Eusebius states:
6. But this did not last long. For immediately, during the reign of Claudius, the all-good and gracious Providence, which watches over all things, led Peter, that strongest and greatest of the apostles, and the one who on account of his virtue was the speaker for all the others, to Rome against this great corrupter of life. He like a noble commander of God, clad in divine armor, carried the costly merchandise of the light of the understanding from the East to those who dwelt in the West, proclaiming the light itself, and the word which brings salvation to souls, and preaching the kingdom of heaven.Eusebius, Church History, Book II, 14.6
The reign of Claudius was from 41-54 AD, so I'd say that Peter arrived in Rome somewhere in that time frame. (By the way, the Acts of Peter and Paul corroborates the relative time frame). Hippolytus, Refutation of all Heresies, Book VI, Chapter 15, also provides corroboration.
So by all indications, it appears that Peter first arrived there and then was joined by Paul. As we all know, Paul arrived during the reign of Nero.