Yes that was one of the posts that made no sense. and I believe I asked for HISTORICAL proof. I also cited examples of what would be considered HISTORICAL proof.
You cited two sources, neither of which would be considered historical sources. One, the New World Encyclodpedia is a different version of Wikipedia. A lot of it gives the appearance of having been written by catholics. Nothing in the article noted Peter was the founder of the church in Rome.
The Encyclopedia Britannica is not a historical document. It's an encyclopedia.
I searched the following: did Peter start the church in Rome and read the articles, Saint Peter the Apostle.
From the article, Saint Peter the Apostle
The claims that the church of Rome was founded by Peter or that he served as its first bishop are in dispute and rest on evidence that is not earlier than the middle or late 2nd century.
I cited scholarly work.
As previously noted, there is no historical proof Peter started the church in Rome.
I think those pigeons are getting the best of you again.