[Uncle Chip]

The very first mention of Peter in Rome anywhere in any writings comes from the apocryophal Acts of Peter apparently written by Leucius Charinus that was circulating atleast by 150 AD. It appeared after Justin Martur, thus explaining why he makes no mention of Peter in Rome. Several early church fathers like Tertullian and Hippolytus and even Irenaeus were no doubt taken in by some of the stuff in this fraudulent document. Thus the myth of Peter in Rome began to grow.

I'm surprised that there hasn't been a move somewhere in the Vatican for the sainthood of this Leucius Charinus, as he was probably the one who got it all started.

[stfassisi]

The very first mention of Peter in Rome anywhere in any writings comes from the apocryophal Acts of Peter apparently written by Leucius Charinus that was circulating atleast by 150 AD. It appeared after Justin Martur, thus explaining why he makes no mention of Peter in Rome. Several early church fathers like Tertullian and Hippolytus and even Irenaeus were no doubt taken in by some of the stuff in this fraudulent document. Thus the myth of Peter in Rome began to grow.

Perhaps you do not realize that Leucius who was surnamed Charinus was friends with the apostle Saint John and he probably heard that Peter was in Rome from Saint John himself

Keep searching, Dear Brother,eventually, if you're honest with yourself you will become a Catholic someday!

I wish you a peaceful Blessed Day!

[dangus]

>> The very first mention of Peter in Rome anywhere in any writings comes from the apocryophal Acts of Peter apparently written by Leucius Charinus that was circulating at least by 150 AD. <<

St. Clement and Ignatius both make references that are pretty hard to deny refer to Peter being in Rome. And then there’s that whole tomb of St. Peter, built in the mid-2nd century. (Not to be confused with the tomb of Simon Barzilla, falsely ascribed to Simon Barjonah, in Jerusalem.)

>> I’m surprised that there hasn’t been a move somewhere in the Vatican for the sainthood of this Leucius Charinus, as he was probably the one who got it all started. <<

That’s the sort of statement which makes you come off as simply contemptuous. Besides, Leucius’ Acta are regarded as largely romantic (in the classical sense), not dogmatic or deceitful, despite certain gnostic tendencies.