ProAmerican,
Is it that you dont think he was in Rome at all? Theres lots of evidence that he was:
Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul;...
Irenaeus, 2nd Bishop of Lyons, Againt Heresies (inter AD 180/199)
That both Peter and Paul suffered martyrdom at the same time is affirmed as follows, by Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, when writing to the Romands: You have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time.
St. Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, Letter to Soter of Rome (fragment in Eusebius, History of the Church, Bk. 2, Ch. 25) (A.D. 166/174)
It is recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and Peter likewise, was crucified, during the reighn of Nero. The account is confirmed by the names of Peter and Paul over the cemetaries there, which remain to the present time.And it is confirmed also by a stalwart man of the Church, Gaius by name, who lived in the time of Zephyrinus, Bishop of Rome. This gaius, in a written disputation with Proculus, the leader of the sect of Cataphyrygians, says this of the places in which the remains of the aforementioned Apostles were deposited: I can point out the trophies of the Apostles. For if you are willing to go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way, you will find the trophies of those who founded this Church.
Caius, Presbyter of Rome, Disputation with Proclus (fragment in Eusebius, History of the Church, Bk. 2, Ch. 25) (A.D. 198/217)
How happy is that church . . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like Johns.
Tertullian, The Demurrer Against the Heretics (A.D. 200)
Perhaps you may defer to the words of Peter himself:
The Apostle Peter said:
The Church here in Babylon, united with you by Gods election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark
1 Pet. 5:13
I imagine that youll object that these documents are of late origin, that they are of Catholic origin, and that they dont use the word Pope. I find all of these objections to be quite unreasonable.
Theres no evidenciary reason to say that documents written after 125 AD are to be automatically discounted, and to artifically apply that as a cut-off date violates the rules of historical evidence.
Only a Christian would have really been interested in recording the whereabouts of Peter (other than to kill him), and since the Catholic church was the only act in town then by definition all of the documents would be of Catholic origin. One exception would be any Roman civil documentation of his arrest and execution, but since the Romans wouldnt have regarded him as particularly worthy of note they wouldnt have gone to any lengths to copy or preserve such records (if they existed at all).
And to top it all off, the site that Gaius referred to in the quote above has indeed been found in the catacombs of Rome. You can visit it today if you like, and see the tomb of St. Peter with your own eyes. You may want to get a book entitled "The Bones of St. Peter", by John Evangelist Walsh.
If youre hung up about the word Pope, then as eoe has said youre making much out of nothing. The authority of Peter and his successors has nothing to do with what he is affectionately called; it has everything to do with the office to which Jesus promoted him.
Pope is an English rendering of the word papa, and English didnt exist at the time. Youre essentially asking us to produce documents written in a language that would falsify their authenticity.
Papa means father, and priests and bishops have been called father since the beginning of Christianity. The date of the first use of the word as a title for the Sucessor to St. Peter is quite irrelevant to the question of Papal authority. And if you're hung up about the use of the word "father", see how the Apostles characterized themselves as "fathers":
"Therefore I sent to you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ" (1 Cor. 4:17)
"To Timothy, my true child in the faith: grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord" (1 Tim. 1:2)
"To Timothy, my beloved child: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord" (2 Tim. 1:2).
"This charge I commit to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophetic utterances which pointed to you, that inspired by them you may wage the good warfare" (1 Tim 1:18)
"You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 2:1)
But Timothys worth you know, how as a son with a father he has served with me in the gospel" (Phil. 2:22).
"To Titus, my true child in a common faith: grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior" (Titus 1:4)
"I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment" (Philem. 10)
You may be intersted in this thread:
http://www.christianforums.com/t2381861-why-i-believe-in-the-magesterium-of-the-catholic-church.html
