Peter was in Rome
As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out.” Clement of Alexandria, fragment in Eusebius Church History, VI:14,6 (A.D. 190)
‘You have thus by such an admonition bound together the plantings of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth.” Dionysius of Corinth, Epistle to Pope Soter, fragment in Eusebius’ Church History, II:25 (c. A.D. 178).
“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:1:1 (c. A.D. 180).
You also said....
“”Peter was never in charge of any churches, either””
The Early Church Fathers don’t agree with you
“ I think it my duty to consult the CHAIR OF PETER, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul The fruitful soil of Rome, when it receives the pure seed of the Lord, bears fruit an hundredfold My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the CHAIR OF PETER. FOR THIS, I KNOW, IS THE ROCK on which the CHURCH is built! This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails.” Jerome, To Pope Damasus, Epistle 15:1-2 (A.D. 375).
“Supposing, as you assert, that some offence rested upon those persons, the case ought to have been conducted against them, not after this manner, but according to the Canon of the Church. Word should have been written of it to us all, that so a just sentence might proceed from all. For the sufferers were Bishops, and Churches of no ordinary note, but those which the Apostles themselves had governed in their own persons For what we have received from the BLESSED APOSTLE PETER, that I signify to you; and I should not have written this, as deeming that these things were manifest unto all men, had not these proceedings so disturbed us.” Athanasius, Pope Julius to the Eusebians, Defense Against the Arians, 35 (A.D. 347).
Dear Friend,
Are you suggesting these guys are lying?
You had better hope they were not liers,because they were involved in the Bible Canon process
I have no opinion of or about them, one way or another as nothing they ever did or say, affects my salvation one whit. I do know from the bible that God never lies, and from it I see no evidence of a Peter-built truck of a church
I don't doubt that Peter may have traveled to Rome. I also don't doubt that Peter may have help Paul estblish some churches in Rome. All of this is, of course, speculation built on hearsay of church fathers. But that doesn't matter. What you have to establish is that Peter actually ruled from Rome as head of the Church in a Pope-like capacity. You will find the church fathers to be silent about this since up until the 4th century many of the churches ruled themselves. And, while Peter was adored by the fathers, the biblical evidence indicates that James was head of the Jerusalem Council-not Peter.
It is interesting in my mind that the second Pope after the dead of Peter was not John as one would naturally suppose since he was the last living Apostle. Rather (if memory serves me correctly) it was Linus. Why didn't the Church elect the last apostle to be Pope?
BTW-With the seven churches listen in Revelations, who's failings was it? The Church who commanded them?