No one is contending that Peter didn’t preach various places. Why the obfuscation? The RCC contends that Peter was the first Pope but it’s been proven otherwise.
“No one is contending that Peter didn’t preach various places. Why the obfuscation? The RCC contends that Peter was the first Pope but it’s been proven otherwise”
Where does your source say that Linus was the first Bishop of Rome? They sll say that he was a bishop, but none of them say that he was first.
All the lists of the ‘Bishops of Rome’, place Peter first.
The Catholic church contends that the first Bishop of Rome was St. Peter.
You have already stated (erroneously), that the Catholic church teaches that the Church began at Rome. False. The Church began at Jerusalem, when Jesus proclaimed the 12, and gave them the Great Commission. Then at Pentecost was the first public appearance of the Church, to the people at Jerusalem.
The reason that the Catholic church teaches that St. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, is not because he was ordained the Bishop of Rome. Peter was given the authority that he held over the Church (as you see he is listed first), by Jesus Christ. This authority extends everywhere, not just Rome. He, and his office predates that of the Church at Rome.
Why would Hippolytus advance the lesser claim, but still proclaim that Peter was the first among the apostles, (and of the Church as a whole), by listing him first? Why did you fail to mention him at all in your citation?
He lists Paul as first, and foremost as an Apostle. Which is the right way of looking at it. He was Bishop of Rome, secondly. If you want to prove that Paul was not first, then you have to cite a list of the Bishops of Rome that does not list him first. Good luck.
Why hide that Paul was first among the Apostles?