The New Testament: In Medio Ecclesiae

Catholic Faith ^ | Jan 2001 | Thomas Storck

[markomalley]

The New Testament: In Medio Ecclesiae
by Thomas Storck

---

One of the strangest things about the theology of Protestants and of others, such as Jehovah's Witnesses, who claim to base their doctrine on Sacred Scripture, is their use of Scripture as a judge, even an enemy, of the Catholic Church. That is, by treating Scripture as independent of the Church, instead of as something produced by the Church, they erect the Bible, particularly the New Testament, into something it was never intended to be, an entirely independent source of sacred doctrine. In this article I intend to show from the text of the New Testament, especially from the Acts of the Apostles, that invaluable history of the Church in the early Apostolic era, that the text of the New Testament must always be viewed in medio ecclesiae, in the midst of the Church, something of, by and for the Church, a book that cannot be understood apart from the Church and which can never rightly be separated from the Church, let alone made into a judge of the Church.

---

The first thing to understand, and a fact that can hardly be denied, is that the creation of the Catholic Church preceded the creation of the New Testament. Thus all the documents of the New Testament, the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, all the various epistles, and the Book of Revelation (Apocalypse), were written by members of the Church, presuppose the existence of the Church, and reflect her teaching and liturgical practice. In the Acts of the Apostles we possess an account of the spread of the Gospel from the time of the Ascension of our Lord until shortly after St. Paul's arrest and detention in Rome. Any open-minded reader of Acts must see that from the very beginning it focuses on the work of the Church. Although all the details are by no means clear to us, the fact of the Church appears on every page of the book of Acts and must be obvious to anyone who looks at it without prejudice. Let us take a tour through that book to highlight some of the major points which reflect or presuppose the existence and doctrine of the Church.

Before doing so though, it would be well to say a word about when the Acts of the Apostles was written. For if it is not, in fact, an historical account of the earliest life of the Church, compiled from contemporary accounts, in fact written by St. Luke, companion of St. Paul, then its historical value is much less. The traditional date of the composition of Acts is about 63 A.D., that is, a mere thirty years after our Lord's Ascension. Thus concerning those events which Luke himself did not witness, such as the Ascension or the day of Pentecost, he was able to interview the participants themselves. Therefore we need have no hesitation about accepting the work as a perfectly reliable historical document. With this in mind, let us begin our journey through Acts, focusing on those elements which in some way involve the place and role of the Church.

At the very beginning of Acts, right after Jesus's Ascension is narrated, we have the account of the selection of Matthias to take the place of Judas among the Apostles. We should note here that it was Peter who initiated Matthias's selection, but for the purposes of this article, we will concentrate on the fact that already this early band of followers of Jesus Christ is acting, not only like a corporate body, but a body with officers and procedures, and at least some sense of its future mission. It was not simply some unorganized band of men who were inspired by the teachings of Jesus or who individually received enlightenment from the Holy Spirit, but a regularly constituted organization. In other words, here already we have in germ the Catholic idea of the Church, a body with officers, created by God and which received from him its authority to carry out the work of making disciples of all nations and bringing the means of grace to the human race.

Next follow the events of the day of Pentecost, when God the Holy Spirit came upon the early Catholics and endowed them with the power of preaching the Gospel throughout the world. Here also the institution of the Church is apparent: Peter preaches the first Catholic sermon, and "those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls" (Acts 2:41). Added to what? To the Church, of course, and added by means of an external and public rite, Baptism, not by a merely subjective salvation experience. And what did these new converts do? They "devoted themselves to the apostles's teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers" (Acts 2:42).

Here we would do well to pause and look more closely at this last phrase, "to the breaking of bread and the prayers." What exactly does this mean? We, of course, can be sure that it refers to the Eucharist, to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. But does the text say this exactly and without any doubt? No, for this is just one example of how the New Testament presupposes knowledge of the Church's practices in order to be fully understood. Were we "Bible-only" Christians, and seeking to emulate the life of the Jerusalem church, what would we do? Break up pieces of bread while we engaged in prayer? The point is that the book of Acts, like the rest of the New Testament, does not explain a very great amount of what it mentions or alludes to, simply because St. Luke was assuming that its readers, faithful Catholics, would understand it in a Catholic sense. We will see this happen many times as we proceed with our discussion.

The next incident in Acts that we will look at is the institution of the order of deacons in chapter 6. When confronted with a disagreement between Greek-speaking and Aramaic-speaking Catholics, the Apostles created and ordained the first deacons to take charge of the distribution of food. Here again the Apostles act with consciousness of their own authority. They clearly consider the Church to be one body of believers over which they rule. And all this happens, we should note, before any book of the New Testament exists. Unlike Protestants, they do not "search the scriptures" to find out what they should do, because either by command of Christ Himself, given to them orally when He was on earth, or by the continuing inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they, as rulers of the Church, know what to do to meet the needs and continuing crises of her existence. They clearly claim an authority that derives immediately from Jesus Christ, not simply from Jesus Christ by means of the written Scriptures, as Protestants today perforce would. The question of the creation of deacons, moreover, is akin to the question of the Sacrament of Confirmation or the conferring of the Holy Spirit. Let us look at how Acts treats this subject.

Chapter 8 of Acts contains the account of the visit of Peter and John to Samaria so that the new converts there "might receive the Holy Spirit" (8:14-15). The way St. Luke recounts the experience of various new converts with the reception of the Holy Spirit is a good example of how the bare text very often cannot be understood apart from knowledge of the Church's doctrines and practices. On the day of Pentecost God the Holy Spirit came upon the Apostles and the other members of the Church (chap. 3), and Peter promises the three thousand who were about to be baptized that they "shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (3:38), but nothing is said about there being a sepa-rate rite for this. What can we conclude from that? Nothing really, though the "Bible-only" Christian might wonder about the correct manner that the Holy Spirit is to be given to believers. Indeed, in the account of the Ethiopian eunuch who was baptized by Philip (Acts 8:27-39), there is no mention of the newly-baptized receiving the Holy Spirit. Though after Paul is converted he is told that he is to be "filled with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 9:17), again nothing is said about a separate rite for this, only that he was baptized (verse 18). And finally, in chapter 10, Cornelius, a gentile, together with his friends and relatives, receives the Holy Spirit while Peter is preaching, and immediately afterwards they are baptized by Peter's command. So here we see accounts of people being baptized with no mention of their receiving the Holy Spirit, and yet of others who receive this gift before their Baptism. But in chapter 8, as I said, Peter and John are expressly sent to Samaria because the Holy Spirit "had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." And those Apostles then "laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit" (Acts 8:17). Now what can these various narratives teach us?

I think that the "Bible-only" Christian would be perplexed here, or at least he ought to be. If he seeks to follow the teaching and practice of the New Testament Church, how is he to handle the matter of receiving the Holy Spirit? Is this for everyone or only for some? And who can confer the Holy Spirit? If only apostles, then is there anyone living today who can do this? But Catholics, knowing the practice of the Church, can see that Luke simply omits to mention the conferring of the Holy Spirit on the three thou-sand converts of the day of Pentecost or on the Ethiopian eunuch. There is no implication here that receiving the Holy Spirit is optional or simply a part of baptism. And although the early Church undoubtedly witnessed many supernatural charisms that no longer are given or are no longer common, in this matter of receiving the Holy Spirit we can see the current Catholic practice of the Sacrament of Confirmation (or chrismation). All the newly baptized are to receive the Holy Spirit, which is the reason Peter and John were sent to Samaria. And since, at this early date, it is likely that the Apostles had not yet ordained or consecrated anyone else to the priesthood, there was no one else able to confer Confirmation, which is why they had to ask Jerusalem to send someone to administer this sacrament. And if in any particular account of someone's conversion the reception of the Holy Spirit is not mentioned, this is simply an oversight by the author, it does not imply that this is optional or unimportant. But the reader of Acts who does not have the framework of the Church's teaching to help him understand has no way of knowing this. He would be in doubt about who is to receive the Holy Spirit, when (before or after Baptism), and by whom the Holy Spirit is to be conferred.

This same confusion about the sacraments is reflected in the interpretation of some Protestants (the Berean Baptists) about I Corinthians 1:17. There Paul is deploring the divisions in the church of Corinth and he states that he is grateful because he himself had baptized very few of the Catholics there. Then he says (verse 17): "For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel." From this these Protestants have concluded that baptism is optional or unnecessary and that the Church in the time of St. Paul did not regard it as obligatory. Again, looking at this passage with the Catholic fullness of faith, we recognize simply one of St Paul's characteristic overstatements. But how are Protestants, using only the bare text of Holy Scripture, to deal with this objection?

In a similar vein, the question of who is the proper subject of baptism has also been a controversy between Catholics and many Protestants. That is, can infants be baptized? Does the New Testament say anything about this one way or the other? In fact, the text of the New Testament is not clear on this matter, but we might pause and look at a phrase that occurs in connection with Baptism, namely that someone is baptized `and all of his household' or a similar phrasing. Does `all his household' include children below the age of reason? From the text of the New Testatment, we do not know definitely, for some Protestants would argue that, just as the statement, "All the family enjoys reading books," excludes infants, so here there is no implication that infants are included either. The point is, that the New Testament text is not definite. But would Jesus Christ leave his followers in doubt about a matter of such great importance? Would he leave his followers merely a book, a book that can and has been interpreted a thousand different ways? Without the existence of the teaching, believing and worshipping Church, we would be in the dark about not only Baptism but about many equally important questions of faith and practice.

To return to the Acts of the Apostles, in chapter 13 we begin to read of Paul's various missionary journeys. And here again we see the Church in action, for Luke states that Paul, and his companion St. Barnabas, returned to the cities where they had preached the Gospel and "appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting . . . " (14:23). Now who are these "elders?" They are previously mentioned in Acts 11:30, but, unlike the order of deacons, no account is given of their creation. And to make matters more confusing, they are sometimes equated with another office, that of bishop (e.g., Acts 20:17 and 28, Titus 1:5-7). What can one conclude from this? If one looks at the names of the officials who lead various Protestant congregations today, sometimes one will find a pastor, sometimes an elder, occasionally even a bishop. For, again, the text of the New Testament does not set forth clearly a system of church government. A Christian who seeks to rely solely on the Bible would be confused by the variety of titles and functions. But we Catholics know that whatever names may have been used in the early Church, there are three distinct orders of ministry, bishops, priests and deacons, that are of divine institution. But from this we can see two important facts: First, that the New Testament church regarded itself as an institution which required officials, and that these officials were not free-lance agents nor did they receive their authority from their congregations; and secondly, that the bare text of the New Testament does not allow us to make any certain judgment about the powers and authority of bishops or elders and their relationship with the Apostles. Again, only our knowledge of the Church and her teachings and our recognition of the fact that, despite our inability always to understand the meaning of some of the New Testament passages, we have in the constant practice of the living Church a sure method of interpretation, allows us to avoid the confusion that ought to exist for one seeking in the biblical text alone all his theological and ecclesiastical knowledge.

In the next chapter of Acts (chap. 15) occurs one of the great events of the Apostolic Church, the Council of Jerusalem, called to decide whether the newly-converted had to submit to circumcision and keep the Mosiac law in order to become Christians. Or in other words, whether all Catholics had first to become Jews. This event alone ought to be enough to put to rest forever Protestant notions of ecclesiology, for in this serious crisis about what Christians must believe and how they are to act, it is not by consulting the Scriptures nor by individual prophecies from the Holy Spirit, but by the hierarchy meeting together and listening to the Apostles, particularly Peter, that a decision is reached. And when a decision is reached, not only is it imposed on the whole Church authoritatively, but the actual decree that is sent out begins: "For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us . . . "! (15:28). What group of Protestant pastors would ever presume to speak in the name of God the Holy Spirit himself? Yet here the Catholic Church does so with no hesitation or hint of embarrassment. And to this day the Catholic Church continues to speak with authority and the world is still astonished by it, much as it was astonished at that Church's Founder "for he taught them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes" (Matthew 7:29).

Although there is much else that might be mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, Msgr. Ronald Knox sums up well the career of the Church as it is recounted in that book:

From the very outset of the Acts, you have the impression that the Church has sprung into being ready-made. Not that it has no lessons to learn from experience, needs no fresh revelations to guide it. But it knows already how to deal with each fresh situation that arises, and does so with a wonderful sureness of touch.

It would be beyond the scope of this article to review the entire New Testament in the same manner in which we have just reviewed parts of the Acts of the Apostles. But I would like to call attention to two more passages, Colossians 4:16 and I Thessalonians 5:27, each of which also illustrates something of the Catholic nature of the New Testament Church. In these passages St. Paul commands the letters he has just written to be read aloud in the congregations. In Colossians he writes: "And when this letter has been read among you, have it read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you read also the letter from Laodicea." And in I Thessalonians, "I adjure you by the Lord that this letter be read to all the brethren." Now what seems interesting to me about these verses, is that very likely the practice of reading such letters aloud was common and was carried out in the case of all of St. Paul's letters, even though only twice does he specifically mention it. And what does this mean? It means that, unlike the Protestant notion of biblical interpretation, the Pauline letters were meant to be read in the context of the local church by the local clergy, and no doubt commented upon and the difficult passages and expressions explained for the benefit of the faithful. There was no notion of each believer taking his Bible into his study, reading it and coming up with his own interpretation. The Scriptures were read and interpreted within the local church. In fact, doubtless at least some of those in the congregations Paul addressed could not even read. So here again, when we actually look at the practice of the Church of the New Testament, far from seeing in it Protestant ideas and Protestant practices, we see ample evidence of Catholic faith and practice, often, it is true, not fully grown, but existing in germ. And in many other passages, we have allusions to practices and deeds which are not explained by the passage, and leave the reader in doubt about what the Apostolic practice really was. In both these cases the Catholic Church is the key to understanding the New Testament. As Catholics we must learn to see the New Testament as the prime book produced by the Church, a book that is in many ways unintelligible without the Church. If we do this, then we can rejoice with the Apostles and St. Paul, as we repeat:

Now to him who by the power at work within us is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations for ever and ever. Amen. (Ephesians 3:21)

---

1. The Catholic Church in the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation of the Second Vatican Council, Dei Verbum, nos. 9 and 10, teaches that "Sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God, which is entrusted to the Church . . . It is clear, therefore, that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others."

2. Catholic Biblical Association, A Commentary on the New Testament (Catholic Biblical Association, 1942) p. 365; John E. Steinmueller, A Companion to Scripture Studies, (New York : Joseph F. Wagner, c. 1943), vol. 3, p. 219. John A. T. Robinson, in his important book, Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, c. 1976), suggests a date of "62 or soon after" (p. 92). Robinson in this book carefully reexamines a hundred years of biblical scholarship and reaches surprisingly traditional conclusions about the dates of the New Testament books. On the other hand, Richard J. Dillon and Joseph A. Fitzmyer in The Jerome Biblical Commentary (Englewood Cliffs, N.J. : Prentice-Hall, c. 1968) give a late date of 80-85 A.D. for Acts, which depends on their late date for Luke (p. 165). But their whole argu-ment seems to me vitiated by a fallacy of positing the consequent. Cf. pp. 118-19.
3. Although this article does not explicitly deal with the primacy of the Apostle Peter, I will just note here that it is impossible not to see, from the text of the New Testament, that Peter was the leader of the apostles, and ipso facto, of the entire Church.
4. Catholic writers would do well to apply the term Catholic more often to the earliest Christians, for if we truly believe that it was Jesus Christ who founded the Catholic Church, and no other church, then it follows that the apostles and the earliest Christians were Catholics, and rightly called by this name, although the name itself did not come into use, as far as we know, until some time later, St. Ignatius of Antioch (early 2nd century) making the first recorded use of the term.

5. This occurs in Acts 16:15, 16:33 and I Corinthians 1:16.
6. It is generally thought that in the early Church the titles bishop and elder were used interchangeably for the same office (that of priest) until approximately the time of the death of the Apostles. Elder in Greek is presbyteros, that is presbyter or priest.
7. If someone were to read a diocesan newspaper without knowing anything about the Church, he might be confused by the use of the terms pastor, associate pastor, parish priest, monsignor, parochial vicar, curate, etc., and might conclude that they referred to different offices of ministry. And to make matters more confusing, in many countries monsignor is a term of address for a bishop.
8. Ronald Knox, The Belief of Catholics (Garden City, N.Y. : Image, 1958) p. 119.

---

Thomas Storck writes from Maryland.

---

[Diego1618]

It does not prove that Simon Peter was NOT in Rome....

I wondered why something as important as this was never mentioned in scripture until it dawned on me that he wasn't there....wasn't anywhere near there....at any time, and the whole idea was generated in an attempt to prove up Catholic doctrine. It's laughable now.....as most fairy tales are to me.

The laughable part, of course....is you folks telling us that Babylon is Rome.....and ignoring what scripture really tells us about Peter's whereabouts.

[GCC Catholic]

It's laughable now.....as most fairy tales are to me.

Good; glad it makes you feel warm and fuzzy.

and the whole idea was generated in an attempt to prove up Catholic doctrine.

One little problem: The early Christians (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Eusebius, and many others) give testimony that Peter was in ROME, not the literal city of Babylon. They had the Scriptures, and could read that Peter said that he wrote from "Babylon." Yet the Fathers were already saying he was in Rome at a time before Christianity was legal and before anybody was challenging that Peter was in Rome; there was not a pressing need to "prove Catholic doctrine" as you claim... instead it was to spread the Faith and to defeat the random heretical movements cropping up.

I think Marshmallow's explanations about the presuppositions that we bring into these discussions applies to you as well. See post #149.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Now that is an interesting statement: “his cult originated very early in Rome”. One would not use that to describe the church founded by the apostle Peter, but it would be fitting to use it to describe the followers of Simon Magus, who came to Rome during the reign of Claudius and had a 25 year bishopric.”

(sigh) The word “cult” is not used to describe the Church. It is used to describe the veneration of St. Peter. Every saint or martyr’s veneration can be referred to by this word: cult. It has no connection to the modern use of the word “cult” and no one should ever make the mistake you did and confuse a reference to the cult of a saint with a reference to the Church itself.

“And since Vatican Hill was a pagan graveyard where sorcerers, magicians, soothsayers, and seers, like Simon Magus were buried, one would expect to find his body buried there -— not Peter’s.”

Wrong again. I was in Rome in February and had the privilege of taking the Scavi tour. If you’ve never done it (and I am willing to bet money you haven’t), it is an amazing experience. Under St. Peter’s there is indeed a cemetary. It is a Christian one. But the Christians were not the first ones there. First it was a pagan cemetary. Later, Constantine turned it over to Christians (after the Roman pagans had a chance to retrieve the remains of their pagan ancestors to re-locate them elsewhere. Some of the tombs are largely intact. You can see how they were once pagan tombs, named after famous families, but were later taken over by Christian families who buried their loved ones there and left behind numerous Christian symbols. A priest I know (who was an artist and art historian before becoming a priest) gave tours there over the last year or so. The profusion of Christian symbols and wall writing was amazing.

“Peter’s bones are in an ossuary at Dominus Flevit on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem where you would expect them to be.”

Nope. I saw St. Peter’s bones. They are underneath St. Peter’s basilica right where they were always claimed to be. Even the wall writings give credence to that. You might want to read Walsh’s book on the bones of St. Peter.

[Uncle Chip]

Nope. I saw St. Peter’s bones. They are underneath St. Peter’s basilica right where they were always claimed to be. Even the wall writings give credence to that. You might want to read Walsh’s book on the bones of St. Peter.

You mean this book reviewed here: The Bones of St. Peter by John E. Walsh.

“In response to mounting demand, however, Pius finally permitted rigorous scientific examination of the bones in 1956. It emerged that the remains were actually bones of three different people, along with scores of animals. Of the humans, two were men in their 50s, and one was a woman in her 70s. Clearly, these were not the fisherman’s bones....

"As this disappointment unfolded, another scholar, Margherita Guarducci, worked to decipher some strange graffiti found on a necropolis wall. One day in 1952, she inquired about a nearby cavity, the one previously emptied by Kaas. Segoni, still laboring away on the project, led her to the bones he’d placed in a storeroom years before. She made nothing of them, simply recommending that the specialists take a look.

"A decade later, those bones were identified as those of a man 5 feet 7 inches tall, of heavy build, age 60 to 70. The hollow of the bones contained soil, suggesting they had lain in a bare earth grave. Stains suggested the bones had been wrapped in a purplish, gold-threaded cloth.

"In the meantime, Guarducci pieced together a partial inscription by the cavity as Petros Eni, which in ancient Greek could mean “Peter is within.” The bones gathered from the cavity by Kaas, she concluded, must be those of Peter – moved out of the tomb 1,800 years ago, perhaps during a persecution.

"Guarducci presented her theory to Paul VI in 1964. After additional tests, the pope was convinced, despite dissent from three of the original four archaeologists. Paul announced that the bones of Peter had been identified 'in a manner which we believe convincing.' On June 27, 1968, Paul reinterred them, stored in 19 Plexiglas cases, in Peter’s tomb."

[http://www.catholicdigest.org/stories/200105052a.html]

Three out of four archeologists agree that you saw the bones of someone shorter and younger than Peter --- not the Apostle Peter.

[adiaireton8]

How do you know how tall St. Peter was?

-A8

[Uncle Chip]

Here is another objectively informative article:

In Search of St. Peter's Tomb by Dr. Steven Hijmans

On December 23, 1950, in his pre-Christmas broadcast on radio, Pope Pius XII announced the discovery of St. Peter's tomb far below the high altar of St. Peter's basilica in the Vatican. This was the culmination of 10 years of archaeological research under the crypt of the basilica, carried out by two Jesuit archaeologists and their colleagues. Monsignor Ludwig Kaas, the administrator of St. Peter's, had overall authority over the project and reported about it directly to the Pope himself.

Between 1939 and 1949 this team had uncovered an impressive complex of mausoleums under the foundations of the church, dating to the 2nd and 3rd centuries. From their perspective the most spectacular find was, beyond doubt, the small monument under the present altar of the church which, all evidence suggests, was built as early as AD 160 to mark the tomb of St. Peter below it.

But from a scholarly perspective many other aspects of this complex are equally fascinating. It is striking, for instance, that although the monument above St. Peter's tomb is unequivocally Christian, all the mausolea in the necropolis around it were pagan. Accustomed as we are to associating the Roman Empire before Constantine with the persecution of Christians, it is interesting to note that Christians were apparently able to erect such a monument in an otherwise pagan area at this time.

The numerous mausoleums in the necropolis, often quite intact and well-preserved, are also of obvious interest. One mausoleum, designated mausoleum M, has sparked much debate because of the mosaics with which it is decorated. One figure in particular, depicting the sun-god, is often interpreted as Christ. This would make the mausoleum the single exception to the rule that all mausolea in the necropolis are pagan. However, this mausoleum has been the focus of some of my own research that deals with the Roman sun god, and I question the Christian interpretation given to its mosaics. But it is through this mausoleum that I became interested in this complex as a whole.

Returning to the tomb of St. Peter, its discovery immediately raised the question of the remains of the apostle. Did the excavators find them in the tomb under the monument? This is what Pope Pius XII said in his radio broadcast:

The tomb of the Prince of the Apostles has been found. Such is the final conclusion after all the labour and study of these years. A second question, subordinate to the first, refers to the relics of Saint Peter. Have they been found? At the side of the tomb remains of human bones have been discovered. However, it is impossible to prove with certainty that they belong to the apostle.

Little did he know what a bizarre episode in Christian archaeology lay ahead when he spoke these words. The whole subsequent story has been clearly set out by Dr. J. Curran in the journal Classics Ireland but I will summarize it here. Although the scant remains of bones found in the tomb were initially identified as those of a man in his late sixties, more extensive study later revealed that they actually belonged to an older man, a younger man, a woman, a pig, a chicken, and a horse.

This was disappointing, but meanwhile Margherita Guarducci, an epigraphist studying the graffiti on the monument above the tomb, had discovered that there had actually been a second burial associated directly with the monument. The excavators were unaware of this second burial through no fault of their own. The problem was that these archaeologists, as scholars, had dealt with their finds--including human remains--as archaeological data. Monsignor Kaas, a cleric rather than a scholar, thoroughly disapproved of this and as a result there had been a growing rift between the excavators and their superior. Increasingly, Kaas had taken to visiting the site alone, when the others were gone, guided by workmen sworn to secrecy.

On one such visit, in 1942, he had noticed this second tomb in the monument, newly uncovered but as yet unopened, and had ordered the workman accompanying him to open it. The tomb was not empty, and convinced that this was yet another burial that would soon be desecrated by the Jesuit archaeologists, Kaas had ordered the remains removed and stored for safekeeping. Guarducci discovered these events by pure chance, and by that time Kaas had died. So when Paul VI, a family friend of the Guarduccis, was elected pope, she informed him of her belief that in fact these remains were the true remains of Peter. The bones were found where Kaas had stored them and when testing revealed that they did indeed belong to a man in his sixties, Paul VI officially announced, on June 26th 1968, that the relics of St. Peter had been discovered.

Numerous scholars, including Curran, are by no means convinced that Guarducci was right and that these bones are indeed those of St. Peter. There are in fact numerous cogent arguments against that suggestion. However, none of the alternative hypotheses put forward are convincing either, and this leaves us with two tombs, a monument, and no relics.

Does that matter? It is true that we will probably never know with certainty which of the various bones--if any--belong to St. Peter, but while scholars puzzle over the nature of these remains, is it not enough that under the high altar of St. Peter's we have identified the remains of a monument marking a tomb that has drawn Christian worshippers continuously for over 1850 years? It is in that, one would think, that the true importance of this monument lies.

Dr. Steven Hijmans is a professor of history and classics and also a member of the Religion and Culture Network at the University of Alberta. This article was written in conjunction with a lecture series, "Exploring Our Past: Historical Perspectives on Christianity", that was co-organized by the Faculty of Arts and McDougall United Church. See the ExpressNews What's On - Lectures section for more information about this lecture series, which continues until June 14, 2001.

The U of A Department of History and Classics Web site: http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/~histclas/ The U of A Department of Comparative Literature, Religion, and Film and Media Studies Web site: http://www.humanities.ualberta.ca/comparative_studies/

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Three out of four archeologists agree that you saw the bones of someone shorter and younger than Peter -— not the Apostle Peter.”

No, I saw the bones of St. Peter. They were in the tomb marked as such. They were in the area always known to be his burial place.

Also, since we have every reason to think Peter was about the same age as Jesus, there’s no reason to think 70 was too young and that is the age range you just provided.

[vladimir998]

Whine all you like, but what proof do you have that St. Peter is buried on the Mount of Olives as you claimed?

[Uncle Chip]

Also, Eusebius' complaints only make it clear that Simon Magus was in Rome and had heretical followers. It does not prove that Simon Peter was NOT in Rome, and it does not prove that the See of Peter, as led by Linus, Clement, and others, were the followers of Simon Magus. Besides, you missed my point, namely that many modern historians would probably love to use your argument to undermine Christianity in general and the Catholic Church specifically, yet they don't.

For some things there is no argument --- only facts that cannot be dismissed. Here is what even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits about Simon Magus under the section called Impostors:

"[W]e may recognize in the Simon Magus of whom we read in Acts viii 5-24, the first notorious impostor of Christian church history. He offered St. Peter money that he might have power to impart to others the gifts of the Holy Ghost, and the Acts do not tell us very much more about him than that he had previously practised sorcery and bewitched the people of Samaria. But Justin Martyr and other early writers inform us that he afterwards went to Rome, worked miracles there by the power of demons, and received Divine honours both in Rome and in his own country. Though much extravagant legend afterwards gathered round the name of this Simon, and in particular the story of a supposed contest in Rome between him and St. Peter, when Simon attempting to fly was brought to earth by the Apostle's word, breaking his leg in his fall, it seems nevertheless probable that there must be some foundation in fact for the account given by Justin and accepted by Eusebius. The historical Simon Magus no doubt founded some sort of religion as a counterfeit of Christianity in which he claimed to play a part analogous to that of Christ."

Isn't that the part the Pope plays: the Vicar of Christ. And didn't the Papacy, laying claim to a part analogous to that of Christ, take root at the time that the disciples of Simon Magus were pouring into the Church in Rome?

[adiaireton8]

Chip,

Your unstated but implied thesis is that the Catholic Church is founded on Simon Magus instead of on Peter. Here is the dilemma for that thesis: either the gates of hell prevailed over the true Church when Simon Magus took the reigns, or you are blaspheming the true Church. Which is it?

-A8

[Uncle Chip]

Your unstated but implied thesis is that the Catholic Church is founded on Simon Magus instead of on Peter. Here is the dilemma for that thesis: either the gates of hell prevailed over the true Church when Simon Magus took the reigns, or you are blaspheming the true Church. Which is it?

Well, first of all, John 10:33 clearly gives the definition of "blasphemy" as "a mere man, claiming to be God".

Doesn't the Roman Catholic Church claim that the Pope is not just a mere man, but Christ himself, hidden under a veil of flesh. What makes you think that such a church that practices such blasphemy by making a god out of a mere man is the "True Church".

The True Church are those who hear the Word of God and keep it ---- like these from Matthew 24:4,5:

"And Jesus answered them and said unto them, take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying 'I am Christ', and shall deceive many."

The True Church would not be deceived by one who blasphemes God and claims to be Christ or the Vicar of Christ.

[adiaireton8]

Did the gates of hell prevail over the true Church when Simon Magus [allegedly] took the reigns? If not, then where was the true Church for 1500 years?

-A8

[RobbyS]

Doesn't the Roman Catholic Church claim that the Pope is not just a mere man, but Christ himself, hidden under a veil of flesh. What makes you think that such a church that practices such blasphemy by making a god out of a mere man is the "True Church". When did you get this crazy idea? We don't even think of the pope as a prophet. He is known as the successor of Peter, the vicar (which is best translated as "deputy.")of Christ. His role is that of Peter, but without Peter's personal charisma. In any case, he is but a man.

[tiki]

When did you get this crazy idea?

It has become quite obvious to me that certain people are deluded about the Catholic Church because they want to be. The truth doesn't matter because they WANT to believe we're destined for hell and that they are so holy and enlightened or else they are just flat stupid, or God has truly closed their eyes. I, for one, am tired of it.

There are religions out there that I don't believe in but I don't have to tell lies about what they believe to refute them.

These people just want to WIN...and in their own name, not Christ's.

It is one thing that they disagree with the Catholic faith but an entirely other when they misrepresent the teaching.

I will continue to answer their slanders occasionally but only through a Catholic. I refuse to speak to any of them again.

[Uncle Chip]

When did you get this crazy idea? We don't even think of the pope as a prophet. He is known as the successor of Peter, the vicar (which is best translated as "deputy.")of Christ. His role is that of Peter, but without Peter's personal charisma. In any case, he is but a man.

Are you saying that no Pope, or Roman Catholic source, has ever claimed that the Pope was anything more than a mere man???

Are mere men infallible when they speak and write and pontificate on religious matters??? Are we all infallible just like the Pope???

[adiaireton8]

Are mere men infallible when they speak and write and pontificate on religious matters???

Do you deny either that the Apostles were infallible when they wrote the books that became part of the NT, or that they were mere men?

-A8

[Uncle Chip]

Did the gates of hell prevail over the true Church when Simon Magus [allegedly] took the reigns? If not, then where was the true Church for 1500 years?

Wrong question. Read your history about Simon Magus. He did not [allegedly] take the reigns of the Church in Rome or anywhere during his lifetime, but he did leave behind a counterfeit Christianity with an ecclesiastical structure parallel to that of the Church there in Rome.

Several of the heresies of this counterfeit Christianity began to surface in the Church of Rome after the 4th century, including a leader playing a part "analogous to Christ", aka the Roman Pontiff or Vicarius Christi.

The true church didn't go along with this.

[Uncle Chip]

Do you deny either that the Apostles were infallible when they wrote the books that became part of the NT, or that they were mere men?

The Apostles' writings were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Are you going to tell us all that the Pope's words are likewise inspired by the Holy Spirit and thus equivalent to the Gospels and Epistles???

[OLD REGGIE]

You can complain all you want, but Ignatius’ letter to the Smyrneans is genuine.

You can bluster all you want but there is no proof whatsoever the "originals" ever existed. The copies which do exist, both the "long recension" and the "short recension" were made hundreds of years after the death of Ignatius.

The oldest collection of the writings of St. Ignatius known to have existed was that made use of by the historian Eusebius in the first half of the fourth century, but which unfortunately is no longer extant. It was made up of the seven letters written by Ignatius whilst on his way to Rome ; These letters were addressed to the Christians

of Ephesus (Pros Ephesious);
of Magnesia (Magnesieusin);
of Tralles (Trallianois);
of Rome (Pros Romaious);
of Philadelphia (Philadelpheusin);
of Smyrna (Smyrnaiois); and
to Polycarp (Pros Polykarpon).

We find these seven mentioned not only by Eusebius ("Hist. eccl.", III, xxxvi) but also by St. Jerome (De viris illust., c. xvi). Of later collections of Ignatian letters which have been preserved, the oldest is known as the "long recension". This collection, the author of which is unknown, dates from the latter part of the fourth century.

It contains the seven genuine and six spurious letters, but even the genuine epistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of its author. For this reason they are incapable of bearing witness to the original form...

Catholic Encyclopedia - Ignatius Of Antioch - Collections

Please note:

"For this reason they are incapable of bearing witness to the original form..."

You have nothing going,except wishful thinking, for your claims.

[OLD REGGIE]

What saddens me when it comes to threads such as these and there is argument on Bible or Church related issues is that we Christians are still fighting over issues that really have no place in the 21st century. The sad irony is that at this time in other parts of the world there are Christian believers, be they Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox that must defend their faith in Jesus against both the atheistic secular progressives and the Isalmofacists, often to the point of giving their very lives up for both Jesus and the Gospel. My plea for all the Christian posters here at FR is to please end the flaming because it does not contribute to contructive and fruitful talk. Thank-you.

And while we're at it let's end the divisive two party system in the United States.

We would be much better off with a "benevolent dictatorship" speaking with one "approved" voice wouldn't we?

Better yet, why don't we join into a "One World" government administered by the United Nations. (Sarcasm intended.)

Methinks we're much better off with the arguments, flaming, and even worse, than we would be in your dreamland.