Was Saint Peter ever in rome?

Question

If Saint Peter was never in Rome, then the claim of authority from Peter peters out, so to say. Therefore, it is necessary for apostolic succession to be true that Peter have visited Rome.

Like other Protestants, Fundamentalists say Christ never appointed Peter as the earthly head for the simple reason that the Church has no earthly head and was never meant to have one. Christ is the Church’s only foundation, in any possible sense of that term.

The papacy, they say, arose out of fifth- or sixth-century politics, both secular and ecclesiastical; it has no connection with the New Testament. It has not been established by Christ, even though supposed “successors” to Peter (and their defenders) claim it was. At best the papacy is a ruse; at worst, a work of the devil. In any case, it is an institution designed to give the Catholic Church an authority it doesn’t have.

A key premise of their argument is the assertion that Peter was never in Rome. It follows that if Peter were never in Rome, he could not have been Rome’s first bishop and so could not have had any successors in that office. How can Catholics talk about the divine origin of the papacy, if this is a lie?

Tertullian, in The Demurrer Against the Heretics (A.D. 200), noted of Rome, “How happy is that church . . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John’s [referring to John the Baptist, both he and Paul being beheaded].” Fundamentalists admit Paul died in Rome, so the implication from Tertullian is that Peter also must have been there. It was commonly accepted, from the very first, that both Peter and Paul were martyred at Rome, probably in the Neronian persecution in the 60s.

In the same book, Tertullian wrote that “this is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter.” This Clement, known as Clement of Rome, later would be the fourth pope. (Note that Tertullian didn’t say Peter consecrated Clement as pope, which would have been impossible)

Answer 1

I first thought of putting an insert here but that would not do justice in answering your question so follow this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_peter

Answer 2

Fact is, Paul wrote a letter to the Roman believers...this PROVES there were ALREADY Christians living IN Rome, BEFORE any Apostle went there.
So, Peter did NOT start the church in Rome.
It is thought, and rightly so, that during the persecution, many Christians traveled to (among many places) Rome.
Whoever started preaching in Rome and began the church there is unknown. What we do know is that it took root.
Peter did in fact end up in Rome, where he was crucified.
Paul was beheaded there, since he was a citizen of Rome, The Romans would not crucify a fellow Roman.

Answer 3

Yes He was...

So, now that you know that Peter was indeed in Rome, does this convince you of Apostolic succession? Shouldn't you accept the truth that the Catholic Church has held true to for centuries?

You probably won't...

Just another truth from the Catholic Church that the Protestants refuse to accept...

Answer 4

He died in Rome. He was an Apostle, the Senior Apostle. He was not the bishop of Rome. His position as Senior Apostle would have gone to James, the brother of Jesus. When all the apostles died, there was no longer an any authority.

Answer 5

Yes he was martyred there by being crucified upside down. He was ordered killed by Nero in Rome.

Answer 6

Yes! He was also crucified there in Rome!

Answer 7

Prove he wasn't...why should people have to prove that he was there nearly 2000 years after the event.

Answer 8

When you go knocking on his door ask him and let us know.
"had visited Rome"

Answer 9

Check his robe for a spaghetti stain. That is a tell tale sign.

Answer 10

He Actually Was.