[small voice in the wilderness]

Acts 16:1-16. This is a list of greetings from Paul to the saints in Rome.

Note: Peter is NOT mentioned. Not once. According to the papal catalogue of bishops of Rome, Peter was in Rome at this time. Since he is NOT once mentioned by Paul, seems like Peter was not there. IF Peter had been at Rome as the bishop, he would have been the FIRST one Paul would have referred to. Don't you think? Hmmmm....

Once again, this seems to make the very foundation of apostolic succession by the Roman bishops fall...to..the..ground...

Maybe there is a good reason that someone can fill me in on, but there may be a chance, or maybe even likely that Peter was never in the city of Rome in all his life..

[Deo volente]

Was St. Peter in Rome?

[OLD REGGIE]

Acts 16:1-16. This is a list of greetings from Paul to the saints in Rome.

Note: Peter is NOT mentioned. Not once. According to the papal catalogue of bishops of Rome, Peter was in Rome at this time. Since he is NOT once mentioned by Paul, seems like Peter was not there. IF Peter had been at Rome as the bishop, he would have been the FIRST one Paul would have referred to. Don't you think? Hmmmm....

Once again, this seems to make the very foundation of apostolic succession by the Roman bishops fall...to..the..ground...

Maybe there is a good reason that someone can fill me in on, but there may be a chance, or maybe even likely that Peter was never in the city of Rome in all his life..

He might well have been in Rome at some time. History is not clear on that and it is necessary to rely on legend.