>> 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.”
Here is part of Hippolytus's account of Simon Magus. While most of it comes from the writings of Justin Martur and Irenaeus, and later history, the boldened part comes from neither, but from the apocryphal Acts of Peter which tell of a mythical battle between Simon Peter and Simon Magus in Rome, all invented out of whole cloth apparently by Leucius Charinus.
Book VI/CHAP. XV.--SIMON'S DISCIPLES ADOPT THE MYSTERIES; SIMON MEETS ST. PETER AT ROME; ACCOUNT OF SIMON'S CLOSING YEARS.
"The disciples, then, of this (Magus), celebrate magical rites, and resort to incantations. And (they profess to) transmit both love-spells and charms, and the demons said to be senders of dreams, for the purpose of distracting whomsoever they please. But they also employ those denominated Paredroi. And they have an image of Simon (fashioned) into the figure of Jupiter, and (an image) of Helen in the form of Minerva; and they pay adoration to these." But they call the one Lord and the other Lady. And if any one amongst them, on seeing the images of either Simon or Helen, would call them by name, he is cast off, as being ignorant of the mysteries. This Simon, deceiving many in Samaria by his sorceries, was reproved by the Apostles, and was laid under a curse, as it has been written in the Acts. But he afterwards abjured the faith, and attempted these (aforesaid practices). And journeying as far as Rome, he fell in with the Apostles; and to him, deceiving many by his sorceries, Peter offered repeated opposition. This man, ultimately repairing to . . . (and) sitting under a plane tree, continued to give instruction (in his doctrines). And in truth at last, when conviction was imminent, in case he delayed longer, be stated that, if he were buried alive, he would rise the third day. And accordingly, having ordered a trench to be dug by his disciples, he directed himself to be interred there. They, then, executed the injunction given; whereas he remained (in that grave) until this day, for he was not the Christ. This constitutes the legendary system advanced by Simon, and from this Valentinus derived a starting-point (for his own doctrine."
Hippolytus apparently believed the tale told by the apocryphal Acts of Peter were true regarding Peter's confrontation with him in Rome. Yes he was taken in by it as many church fathers were, including Eusebius and Jerome later.
Is it true that a statue of Simon Magus is enshrined in St Peter's Basilica??? Can you explain the reason for that???