Good question and it should be pursued. There is very little in the writings of the early church fathers regarding Peter being in Rome. Uncle Chip
In Acts 8 we read of another "Simon"....Simon Magus who was a counterfeit.....perverted the gospel....was a descendant of Babylonians [II Kings 17:24].....spent most of his latter years in Rome known as Father Simon or Simon Pater.
I think there is probably some historical confusion about Simon Magus and Simon Peter.
Bingo. There is substantial historical evidence that Simon Magus went to Rome in 42 AD, just as Jerome and Eusebius claim, and became a favorite of Emperor Claudius, and died there in 67 AD --- amazingly the same time span that the RCC assigns to Simon Peter in Rome. He was called "Simon", like Simon Peter, and according to Justin Martur performed magic that could be interpreted as miracles from God. And after his death there was a substantial cult left behind using his name, and years later you have a church in Rome corrupted by a practice known as "simony" --- the buying and selling of church offices. Coincidence?????
While there is no evidence that Simon Peter was in Rome, other than Eusebius and Jerome's claim magically pulled out of thin air, there is substantial credible written evidence that Simon Magus had a major impact on Rome's subsequent spiritual development.
There is no evidence to support this speculation. It is no coincidence that Peter went to Rome when Simon Magus did, because the trouble Simon Magus was causing there (in Rome) was precisely what brought Peter to Rome. Likewise, according to the tradition, Simon Magus died on the very same day as Peter and Paul, in conflict with them before Nero. Again, at a deeper level, the reason it is no accident that they were in Rome over the same period is that Simon Magus was the type of the Antichrist at that time, and it is no accident or coincidence that the Vicar of Christ would be in direct conflict with him at the very center of the political center of the world.
-A8