Replies

This "archaeological proof" STILL doesn't state that Peter was starting churches or presiding in Rome. Paul was executed in Rome but even your proof only says Peter "likewise was crucified under Nero". Nero, as emperor over all of the Roman empire (which included many other countries than just Italy) might have issued the edict to execute Peter, but there is no such evidence that he did so IN Rome. And, even IF he had been martyred in Rome, his bones were never recovered. The bones found in the place thought to be in a general area where Peter's body was cast contained multiple bodies of humans as well as animals so no real confirmation exists that THE Apostle Peter's "relics" reside under the altar in the basilica. It was wishful thinking and used in the middles ages to bilk pilgrims from their money to get the chance to peek at Peter's "grave". There is much legend and very little "proof" that Peter was in Rome much less that his actual remains are what is buried there.

It was wishful thinking and used in the middles ages to bilk pilgrims from their money

You just jarred my memory. In grammar school, I was being honored for something and they gave me a relic in a box. It was some piece of bone from some saint. I remember the class gathered around to see it. I forget what it was for and I forget what 'saint' I was told it was from. Just more idolatry pushed by Rome. Now that was something you jarred from my memory - not from the middle ages but close ; - that I can now release and, also, laugh at.

Catholicism is all about man, even giving honor to dead men - and use a piece of their bone as a prize. I don't remember showing it to anyone expect my family when I got home. I'm thinking my parents gave it the heave ho.

>>This "archaeological proof" STILL doesn't state that Peter was starting churches or presiding in Rome.<<

That was that game that Catholics play to obfuscate and avoid the real issue. It’s the RCC teaching of start with a smidgen of truth and build something that suits our needs.