Posted on 06/07/2007 4:07:42 AM PDT by markomalley
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.
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.
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.
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.
-A8
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/
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.
Whine all you like, but what proof do you have that St. Peter is buried on the Mount of Olives as you claimed?
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?
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
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.
-A8
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.
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???
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
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.
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???
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.
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.