So you deny that Peter was the first Pope and granted an office by Christ himself?
Your issue is with scripture, not history.
As for Catholicism in England, yes you are correct that for a time, maybe a hundred years or so, there wasn’t much contact, but both before and after, they did. Why do you think the Pope sent missions out that way? And how do you think Christianity got there in the first place? Why do you think they were writing to the Empire to get help defending themselves?
If I go back to the sources, why don’t I see the term ‘biblicist’ from any of the Church Fathers? That’s the hallmark of revisionism, imposition of modern terms on ancient times.
NOPE.
Holy Spirit inspired faith in Christ was and is the foundation of Christ’s church of all believers in His Salvation, Blood, Redemption, Resurrection life.
Correct: I deny that Peter was the first pope of anything like the Roman Catholic Church. Incorrect: I do not deny that Peter was "granted and office," and keys to the kingdom of heaven, which the Roman Catholic Church definitely is not, never was, and never shall be., although it misrepresents itself to be something akin to the kingdom of heaven---so it has a king (pope) and its own city state, and has ruled and ruined kings for centuries.
Wherever the Roman Catholic Church got to in Europe, there were already Christians there when the Vaticanist missionaries arrived. The means was stated in my original post.
"Biblicist" simply means having a faith based on the Bible. it does not designate any particular named group. Because there have always been, since the Apostles' ministries, true Christians which based their faith on the Scriptures rather than evolving forms of traditions like those of the RCC, Vaticanism has always been forced to use the Bible (almost always messing it up, of course), to try to make people think it is legitimate, which it is not. It is an impostor, a mere caricature, a religious buffoon.