Historical fact that Peter ever went to Rome is missing. Show me any evidence that Peter was ever in Rome and I might reconsider my basic protestant argument. After many hundreds of years, Rome has yet to give any proof that Peter ever set foot in Rome.
What Archaeology ProvedWas Peter in Rome?
There is much archaeological evidence that Peter was at Rome, but Boettner, like other Fundamentalist apologists, must dismiss it, claiming that exhaustive research by archaeologists has been made down through the centuries to find some inscription in the catacombs and other ruins of ancient places in Rome that would indicate Peter at least visited Rome. But the only things found which gave any promise at all were some bones of uncertain origin (118).
Boettner saw Roman Catholicism through the presses in 1962. His original book and the revisions to it since then have failed to mention the results of the excavations under the high altar of St. Peters Basilica, excavations that had been underway for decades, but which were undertaken in earnest after World War II. What Boettner casually dismissed as some bones of uncertain origin were the contents of a tomb on Vatican Hill that was covered with early inscriptions attesting to the fact that Peters remains were inside.
After the original release of Boettners book, evidence had mounted to the point that Pope Paul VI was able to announce officially something that had been discussed in archaeological literature and religious publications for years: that the actual tomb of the first pope had been identified conclusively, that his remains were apparently present, and that in the vicinity of his tomb were inscriptions identifying the place as Peters burial site, meaning early Christians knew that the prince of the apostles was there. The story of how all this was determined, with scientific accuracy, is too long to recount here. It is discussed in detail in John Evangelist Walshs book, The Bones of St. Peter. It is enough to say that the historical and scientific evidence is such that no one willing to look at the facts objectively can doubt that Peter was in Rome. To deny that fact is to let prejudice override reason.
At first glance, it might seem that the question, of whether Peter went to Rome and died there, is inconsequential. And in a way it is. After all, his being in Rome would not itself prove the existence of the papacy. In fact, it would be a false inference to say he must have been the first pope since he was in Rome and later popes ruled from Rome. With that logic, Paul would have been the first pope, too, since he was an apostle and went to Rome.
On the other hand, if Peter never made it to the capital, he still could have been the first pope, since one of his successors could have been the first holder of that office to settle in Rome. After all, if the papacy exists, it was established by Christ during his lifetime, long before Peter is said to have reached Rome. There must have been a period of some years in which the papacy did not yet have its connection to Rome.
Why, isn't Bernini's Cathedra Petri evidence enough, to say nothing of the whole cathedral around it? Whether he was there, or not, is irrelevant. Quite a lot of excellent art was specifically created on the assumption that he went there, and for that art we ought to be grateful.
You have the testimony of Ireneaus and Tertullian. Absent evidence to the contrary, that should be enough. Besides, this is as unexceptional as asserting that a Frenchman might go to live in Paris. Rome was a magnet drawing people from all over the world and had a large Jewish population.
What,you want a photograph or a post card, willfull blindness and sophistry on your part, I can not correct.
We might add....Biblical fact as well!