[Grn_Lantern]

Well, for example, there's no real physical evidence that St. Peter is actually in St. Peter's.

Really, I didn't mean anything nasty in the comment. I mean, it's a matter of faith, I think. There's not a ton of physical evidence for a lot of stuff, yet we believe and are justified by it anyway...

[Betis70]

Ah Ok I see what you mean. I didn't think you meant anything nasty, it was an honest question on my part.

I think the long-standing traditions of pilgrammage spots extending back to the beginning of Christendom really support a lot of these sites, but you are right. The physical evidence is often lacking.

[Flying Circus]

There is a big difference between having a Basilica in the wrong place and having no evidence if the place is right or wrong (and I would disagree with you about there being no evidence for St Peter's). Your comments implied that the Church usually had these wrong, but so far you have mentioned St Luke's (where it is proudly recorded that it was not the original location) and St. Peter's (where you backed off saying there is no evidence to back the claim).

Right now you are 0 for 3 for Basilicas built on incorrectly identified sites. Do you care to offer any more examples or would you like to be honest and say that you were wrong and that the where there is evidence the Church has it right?

[mother]

I think you better check your sources on that statement ...