Before I click on to your ‘link’, is it from scripture? Because if it’s not, you’re wasting my time. And yours.
Also from Catholic Answers:
Jerome
"Simon Peter, the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion . . . pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord" (Lives of Illustrious Men 1 [A.D. 396]).
Eusebius of Caesarea
"[In the second] year of the two hundredth and fifth Olympiad [A.D. 42]: The apostle Peter, after he has established the church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains as a bishop of that city, preaching the gospel for twenty-five years" (The Chronicle [A.D. 303]).
Of course Peter was in Rome. Fact is, he spent 25 years there.
***********************************************************
For another view:
As to the question of whether Peter was ever at Rome, the Roman claim is that he suffered martyrdom there with Paul, after a pontificate of twenty five years. This would have to be in the period from A.D. 41 to 66. But let us note the evidence from the Scriptures:-
1. In A.D. 44 he was imprisoned in Jerusalem (Acts 12).
2. In A.D. 52 he was at the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15).
3. In A.D. 53 Paul joined him at Antioch (Galatians 2).
4. In A.D. 58 Paul wrote to the Romans, but he does not mention Peter. In Romans 1:11, Paul wants to impart special gifts to the believers in Rome; and in 1:15 he is ready to preach there. In this Roman letter he sends greetings to twenty seven persons, but none to Peter. It is inconceivable that Paul would not have referred to the presence of one who was one of the foremost apostles.
5. In A.D. 61 Paul is conveyed a prisoner to Rome, and certain brethren go to meet him, but not Peter.
6. When Paul writes to the Galatians, he mentions Peter, but not as having been in Rome, or as having been Pontiff there for twenty years. Indeed, the circumstances in Antioch were such that Peter was sternly rebuked by Paul, whose authority was much greater than Peter's. (Galatians 2:11).
7. The Epistles to the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and to Philemon were all written from Rome; but while others are mentioned as being his associates, or sending greetings, Peter is never once mentioned.
8. From Rome also Paul's last letter is written (2nd Timothy). He says, "At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me" ((2 Tim. 4:16). So if Peter was in Rome he enjoyed a immunity which was not accorded to Paul, and is guilty of having forsaken the Great Apostle.
9. And finally, in this very epistle, written from Rome immediately before his martyrdom, Paul says, "Only Luke is with me" (2 Tim. 4:11). This is conclusive.
Paul had written to Rome: the last years of his life were spent in Rome: and his last letters are all written from Rome. Not only does he never once mention Peter, but emphatically, at the last moment declares "Only Luke is with me." Peter, therefore, was never Bishop of Rome.
Published by "Grace and Truth," 28 Burlington Rd., Sherwood, Nottingham England NG5 2GS Tel. 0115 -962 6346