Hmmmm...Calvin's remarks intrigued me so I'm doing a bit of research on this. Calvin plainly states that the dates given by the early church fathers are off and it's impossible for Peter to have been in Rome given the timeline. However based on newadvent, the Catholic Church states the dates are suspect because the fathers place Peter at Rome. Calvin seems to feel this is wrong based upon the dates but I'm at a lost as to why Calvin would believe the dates to be more accurate than the location.
I will have to look into this more but it's obvious there are some discrepancies here on one side or the other. It most likely will not be solved (otherwise it would have been) but it appears that the early church fathers writings are in conflict with themselves as to where Peter was and the dates of the building of the Alexandria Church and the martydom of Mark and Peter under Nero. I couldn't accept what the early fathers have to say about Peter's location simply because it most likely was handed down and could have been wrong.
Calvin feels the fathers dates are more accurate than the location of Peter. The Catholic Church feels the location of Peter is more accurate than the dates. Which do you choose?
I have absolutely no interest in knowing what Calvin feels about anything, least of all when his effort to vandalize the Church of Jesus Christ is transparent.