Didn't Paul found the church at Rome to?

[piety101]

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church FOUNDED AND ORGANIZED at Rome BY THE TWO MOST GLORIOUS APOSTLES, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

 

[The_Augustinian]

Of course, the Church in Rome was founded by both Peter and Paul. However, Paul was not the bishop of Rome, Peter was (since Paul was under house arrest he probably was unable to minister, rather only to advise). So we as Catholics, although we acknowledge Paul’s contribution to the founding of the Church, follow the successor of Peter.

 

[Sacramentalist]

Actually, in his Letter to the Romans, Saint Paul says specifically that he did not found the Roman Church:

I have fully preached the gospel of Christ, thus making it my ambition to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already been named, lest I build on another man’s foundation, but as it is written, “They shall see who have never been told of him, and they shall understand who have never heard of him.” This is the reason why I have so often been hindered from coming to you.

{Romans 15:19b-22}

Rome is “another man’s foundation.” Some scholars have taken this (“another man”) to be an oblique reference to Saint Peter.