"Whoa RC person,
Prove based on reliable evidence that these Early Church Fathers knew St. John? I doubt it very much. Church legend may say it. Legend can be true but it is not proof. I'm also thinking about Six Degrees of Separation. When I read ancient documents, the church conferences and fathers are primarily Middle Eastern and Northern African. Rome would also make sense since it was home of IMperial Rome. Today, NY, London, Paris, Tokyo and Beijing would have importance.
I respect the RC Church but most adherents believe ancient legend (most of it from the Middle Ages). It stuns me when I look at medieval and Renaissance art that the museum has to translate tons of extraBiblical legends and plant/floral designations. The Church itself has acknowledged that much of its history is fabricated.
I don't believe we would have a church today in a universal sense without the Roman Catholic Church for good and bad. Much of it is attractive to me. In fact, I am Anglo-Catholic. There is no proof Peter was bishop of Rome. Paul's letters show Rome was central. The UN is NY, not Ohio."
You are certainly entitled to believe what you want about the early church fathers. The research that I've done has satisfied me, and it has for many anti-Catholics that have converted to the Catholic Church. You certainly have not been the first to question their veracity. I would suggest visiting New Advent or Catholic Answers to research this more deeply.
I don't mean to be rude to anyone here, but my intent was to dialogue with Godrulz. I really can't devote the time necessary to respond in kind to all of the posts. Have a good night everyone.
May the peace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with all of you