Oy vey. LOL. Yes! That's the extent! And what's the extent of him not being in Rome? What's the extent of the evidence disproving/arguing against all this lineup I posted? Where are the contrary voices?
The Fathers wrote what they knew. And what they knew was more--by far--than what you or I know. Nobody contradicted them...nobody said, nah, Peter was never in Rome. It was simply accepted.
He leaves no footprints, no monuments,
The Tropaion of Gaius at the Vatican is not a monument? It went up probably in 170-180 A.D. Peter's logo is scratched all over the place down there...in the form of a key made of a P and and an E.
And St. Peter's is not a monument? It was purposely--and with no small effort mind you--built overtop of what just happens to be a first century graveyard. The grave area under the altar was left intact, and tons and tons of soil were used to fill it up so that it would not be disturbed. Another part of the Vatican hill was flattened. With the result that Constantine built the main altar DIRECTLY over a particular grave which, according to you, had no importance whatsoever.
no church named after him, no decrees, no relics, and no bones ---- just claims that turn out later to be unverifiable.
LOL...my goodness, Rome is practically an entire monument to Peter!
We're not sure about the bones. They may be Peter's, they may not. And as for decrees, what do you think Peter's Epistle was, chopped liver?
Irenaeus is incorrect here. Paul's letter to the Romans demonstrates that for the church of Rome was founded and established before Paul had even visited it as he wrote in his letter circa 56AD.
So Uncle Chip judges Irenaeus incorrect. Nice. Somehow Uncle Chip knows more about the founding of the Roman See than a guy who knew some of the very people who were there when it happened.
Some sources indicate that Peter was in Rome for 25 years. He is believed to have gotten there around 42 or so. In any case, it's no skin off of anyone's nose to say that there were Christians in Rome prior to his getting there. The point is that when he got there, his Apostolic Authority gave it a dignity it didn't previously have.
And here's another bit of evidence, since you bring up Paul. Paul says in Romans 15: "Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation But as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand. For which cause also I have been much hindered from coming to you.
Somebody was preaching in Rome before he wrote this!
And they knew a lot of things but little to nothing about Peter's alleged sojourn in Rome. And after nearly 2000 years even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits: "...we possess no precise information regarding details of his [Peter's] Roman sojourn."
So Uncle Chip judges Irenaeus incorrect. Nice. Somehow Uncle Chip knows more about the founding of the Roman See than a guy who knew some of the very people who were there when it happened.
Irenaeus knew nobody who was there when it supposedly happened or he would have named and quoted him. Even Catholic scholars like F. A. Sullivan readily now admit this:
"Irenaeus focuses on the church of Rome which he describes as 'greatest, most ancient and known to all, founded and established by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul.' Here we must acknowledge a bit of rhetoric, as the church of Rome was obviously not so ancient as those of Jerusalem or Antioch, nor was it actually founded by Peter or Paul." [Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, pp. 35,147]).