Read their statements again. Neither of them place Peter in Rome.
Irenaeus's statement does put Peter there in Rome but only when Paul was there as well. But Irenaeus was also writing after the works of Leucius Charinus [the Acts of Peter] were circulating. He may have believed them and Leucius Charinus to be credible, especially since he lists a whole lot of gnostic teachers and their false beliefs, but does not list Leucius Charinus or the Acts as being among them.
We do know that Hippolytus was taken in by the fiction [romance] of Leucius Charinus and his Acts of Peter. So the church fathers were not immune from gullibility.
>> We do know that Hippolytus was taken in by the fiction [romance] of Leucius Charinus and his Acts of Peter. So the church fathers were not immune from gullibility. <<
How do you mean that? I know Augustine though the source to be St. Peter, but I can hardly imagine that the believed the cross actually spoke, for instance. How do you mean Hippolytus to be “taken in?”
>> Neither of them place Peter in Rome <<
Read their statements again. They refer to him in a manner that’s hard to reckon he was elsewhere. Notice the deliberate wording I made: “St. Clement and Ignatius both make references that are pretty hard to deny refer to Peter being in Rome.”
You trust them to give witness that the Bible is the word of God though, because the the scriptures are not signed by the Apostles.
You’re going to continue to paint yourself into a corner by using this type of argument.
Strip away all of the consistent writings and beliefs of the Early Church fathers and you’re left with nothing to trust,only you're own imagination becomes truth!
I’ll pray for you.