The Apostle Peter was Never in Rome:

Paul wrote the book of Romans and was the apostle to the Gentiles. Peter eventually left Jerusalem and took the gospel to Babylon, a place of many Jews. Somewhere in the time frame of 45 A.D. the apostle Peter was cast into prison by king Herod at Jerusalem (Acts 12:3, 4) at that time the apostle James the greater, the son of Zebedee, was executed.. In 51 A.D Peter was still in Jerusalem present at the first Jerusalem Summit. In About 53 A.D., he was in Antioch where he got into a dispute with Paul because he wouldn’t sit or eat with Gentiles (Galatians 2-15) It would seemingly be very odd that the supposed elder at Rome would have nothing to do with Gentiles. Peter was not in Rome, he was still an elder in Jerusalem in 53 AD. Some make the claim that he came to Rome after Paul’s death, but once again this is very unlikely. Later in about 65-67 A.D. Peter was in Babylon this was probably where he was most likely killed.

Paul the apostle to the Gentiles

Timothy 1:11: "Whereunto I {Paul} am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles

 It was Christ who had chosen him "to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed."  Romans 15:18

 For He that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision,{the Jews} the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:" Galatians. 2:7-8

"And when James, Cephas {Peter}, and John, who seemed to be pillars, {these were the 3 “pillars”, original apostles} perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision" (Gal. 2:9). Paul and Barnabus to the Gentiles and James and Peter unto the Jews. This James was the son of the fisherman Alpheus, the head elder at the church in Jerusalem.

Paul declared clearly by writing to the Gentile Romans that he was chosen to be their apostle, not Peter. 

"I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable" (Romans. 15:16).

 Paul himself writes that he was going to be the one to establish the church at Rome. Paul established the church at Rome in approx. 59-60 AD. Yet the RCC makes the claim that Peter was already there since 45 AD. If that were true, how then could Paul have later established the church at Rome some 15 years later?

I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established" Romans. 1:11.

Paul also said; not to build on another man’s work. How could Paul have built the foundations of the gospel in Rome if Peter had already done this? This would have been completely out of character for Paul and building upon another mans work. In Romans chapter 16 Paul greets approx. 28 different individuals, but he never mentions Peter one time! How could this be? Answer; Peter was not in Rome. When the Christian community in Rome heard of Paul’s arrival on the Apian way, they all went to meet him. "When the brethren {of Rome} heard of us, they came to meet us" Acts 28:15. No mention of Peter at all by Luke, yet Luke always made a point to mention the Pillar Apostles in the book of Acts prior to this. When Paul did come to Rome, the very first thing he did was to summon "the chief of the Jews together" (Acts 28:17) to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God in vs. 23.

The Jewish elders that were present at that time claimed they knew very little even about the basic teachings of Christ. If this were true, which it is> then how could Peter have been present there for 15 years yet they knew almost nothing? All they knew was this; ‘‘as concerning this sect, we know that everywhere it is spoken against" Verse 22 At that time Paul started to teach them the basic doctrine of Christ. However, few of them believed and the majority didn’t.

After the rejection of the Jewish elders, Paul remained in his own hired house for two years. During that time he wrote epistles to the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Colossians, Philemon, and to the Hebrews. And while Paul mentions others as being in Rome during that period, he nowhere mentions Peter. With the expiration of Paul’s two year’s imprisonment, he was released. But about four years later (near 65 A.D.), he was again sent back a prisoner to Rome. This time he had to appear before the throne of Caesar and was sentenced to die. Paul describes these circumstances at length in II Timothy. Simon Peter VS Simon Magus Dr. E. L. Morton. http://www.reformation.org/simon_peter_versus_simon_magus.html

 
After Paul’s trial said in II Timothy 4:16.  "At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men [in Rome] forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge." {Peter would have certainly been there with Luke, one would think. More proof that Peter was never in Rome}. Furthermore, Paul writes in his letter to Timothy> "Only Luke is with me" in 2 Tim. 4:11