[Cronos]

So, the Catholic interpretation is supported by the linguistic, syntactic, contextual, historic, symbolic, and scriptural evidence. Your interpretation rests solely on a flawed translation. Which way to go, which way to go? I think I'll stick with the literal Catholic interpretation.

Havoc prefers conjecture to facts...

[Havoc]

No, Havoc prefers scripture to hearsay and philosophy and prefers facts to vacant claims. There is a two or three year old standing request in the Christian Chronicles to provide one single undeniable irrefutable solitary evidence that Peter ever was in Rome. Tax records, record of arrest, record of trial, record of purchase of property - things which btw exist in the archeological realm for Paul; but, amazingly not for Peter who your clergy claims to have been there for 25 years (in one of the many versions). Nada. I've been through these debates endlessly and not merely on this forum. I'm used to the cut and paste tracts that you guys post endlessly as though they mean something because they were authored by your clergy and reference statements that cannot be either corraborated nor supported.