• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

A lineage of Popes in unbroken succession

Status
Not open for further replies.

Trento

Senior Veteran
Apr 12, 2002
4,387
575
AZ. Between the Holy Cross river and the Saint Rit
Visit site
✟30,034.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Linus or Clement?

All the ancient records of the Roman bishops which have been handed down to us by St. Irenaeus, Julius Africanus, St. Hippolytus, Eusebius, also the Liberian catalogue of 354, place the name of Linus directly after that of the Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter. These records are traced back to a list of the Roman bishops which existed in the time of Pope Eleutheru (about 174-189), when Irenaeus wrote his book "Adversus haereses". As opposed to this testimony, we cannot accept as more reliable Tertullian's assertion, which unquestionably places St. Clement (De praescriptione, xxii) after the Apostle Peter. The Roman list in Irenaeus has undoubtedly greater claims to historical authority. Irenaeus claims Pope Linus is the Linus mentioned by St. Paul in his II Timothy 4:21.
 
Upvote 0

OrthodoxyUSA

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 6, 2004
25,292
2,868
61
Tupelo, MS
Visit site
✟187,274.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
There were many Churches in Rome before St. Peter arrived.

Most of them were not united in the faith and argued amongst themselves as to what the dogmatic truth were.

They all had their own local leadership; in fact they had sprung into being without the leadership of the Apostles.

It was many years later (10-15) before a certain amount of unity of belief was reached. This timeframe seems to support arrival of St. Peter from the Church at Antioch.

The Church of Rome's early life lacks clarity because it was led by laity without the help of the Churches of the east, namely Jerusalem (the mother Church) and the Church of Antioch, her first offspring.

The faith of the local Churches of Rome needed attending to, and that was the reason for Sts. Peter and Paul's trip to the city.

The Church of Rome was never and still is not the mother Church. She was given her authority and status because she was the city at the center of the Roman Empire, and that authority was given by the Emperors who wished to rule over the Christian Church.

Forgive me...
 
Reactions: Rick Otto
Upvote 0

Rick Otto

The Dude Abides
Nov 19, 2002
34,112
7,406
On The Prairie
✟29,593.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Jerusalem as "Mother Church" is more metaphoricaly correct, IMHO. Maturity usualy demands we handle responsibilities ourselves as much as is possible & appropriate.

It sure would be interesting to know the story of a church that sprung up w/out an apostle. How they heard, how they met, etc. Fascinating, realy!

Shouldn't the responsibility for clarity fall on the participants? How do you ascribe lack of clarity to lack of Eastern direction?

I'm thinking there is a dangerous seduction in the style of eisegesus, to inflate a metaphor beyond its practical application. Hence my caution toward indulging in the concept of a "Mother Church". Metaphors have a habit of going from being useful linguistics to catalysts for either combustion(anything remotely connected goes) or for solidification(rigid legalism). Moderation is my rule of thumb there.

I find a resitance to the idea that civil power & its motives got intertwined in the formation of ecclesiastical authority.

Perhaps it would be less contentious to say that the Church @ Rome was never the original mother church, tho she serves as one to many. Then we could free-for-all on the quality of that service(LOL)!
 
Upvote 0

Trento

Senior Veteran
Apr 12, 2002
4,387
575
AZ. Between the Holy Cross river and the Saint Rit
Visit site
✟30,034.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married


Contra-Catholic Revisionist History.

Protestan Patristic scholar J.N.D. Kelly in his classic work Early Christian Doctrines sums up how unanimous the Church was in the patristic period, evidence becomes overwhelming for the primacy and authority of the Romean Church --
"Everywhere, in the East no less than the West, Rome enjoyed a special prestige, as is indicated by the precedence accorded without question to it....Thus Rome's preeminance remained undisputed in the patristic period. For evidence of it the student need only recall the leading position claimed as a matter of course by the popes, and freely conceded to them, at the councils of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451). We even find the fifth-century historians Socrates and Sozomen concluding...that it was unconstitutional for synods to be held without the Roman pontiff being invited or for decisions to be taken without his concurrence. At the outbreak of the Christological controversy, it will be remembered, both Nestorius and Cyril hastened to bring their cases to Rome, the latter declaring that the ancient custom of the churches constrained him to communicate matters of such weight to the Pope and to seek his advice before acting. In one of his sermons he goes so far as to salute Celestine as 'the archbishop of the whole world' .....It goes without saying that Augustine [c. 354 - 430 AD] identifies the Church with the universal Catholic Church of his day, with its hierarchy and sacraments, and with its centre at Rome....The student tracing the history of the times, particularly of the Arian, Donatist, Pelagian and Christological controversies, cannot fail to be impressed by the skill and persistence with which the Holy See [of Rome] was continually advancing and consolidating its claims. Since its occupant was accepted as the successor of St. Peter, and prince of the apostles, it was easy to draw the inference that the unique authority which Rome in fact enjoyed, and which the popes saw concentrated in their persons and their office, was no more than the fulfilment of the divine plan." (Kelly, pages 406, 407, 413, 417)


Protestant scholar John Lawson’s work The Biblical Theology of St. Irenaeus had this to say about the Bishop of Lyons and his view of the Roman church and its primacy:


[W]hat church can compare with Rome? She is the life-work of the two greatest Apostles, known of all and knowing all, she is a supreme witness to the unified voice of the Church. If it is necessary for each and all to consent to the voice of the whole Church, how necessary is it for all to consent to Rome? To S. Irenaeus Rome was most certainly an authority none must question, as she cannot be imagined as ever in error. The word ‘infallible’ to some extent begs the question, for the use of it imports into the discussion the results of later definition. It is nevertheless a word which is difficult to do without. With this proviso we may say that Irenaeus regarded Rome as the very corner-stone and typification of a whole structure of ecclesiastical infallibility. The Church and Infallibility by B.C. Butler pgs. 136-137 (c. 1954




Protestant Historical scholar Harnack recognizes the original teacher here.



Ignatius is our first external witness in regard to the Roman Church in 110AD. After making allowances for exaggeration of language in his letter to the Romans, it remains clear that Ignatius assigns a de facto primacy to the Roman Church among its sister churches and that he knew of an energetic and habitual activity of this church in protecting and instructing other churches. The Church and Infallibility pg. 140 (c. 1954


Taking into account the phenomenon of development, the notion of primacy needs to be established first. The Church of Rome enjoyed a Primacy over the other Churches from the earliest period for which we have records with indications that this priority was not an innovation. Dr. Harnack claimed that "The Roman Church from the end of the first century possessed a de facto primacy in Christendom" (Mission und Ausbreitung pg. 398).




Phillip Schaff Protestant Patristic and historical scholar-- HISTORY of the CHRISTIAN CHURCH
CHAPTER IV:
In the external organization of the church, several important changes appear in the post apostolic period before us. The distinction of clergy and laity, and the sacerdotal view of the ministry becomes prominent and fixed; subordinate church offices are multiplied; the episcopate arises; the beginnings of the Roman primacy appear; and the exclusive unity of the Catholic church develops itself in opposition to heretics and schismatics. The apostolical organization of the first century now gives place to the old Catholic episcopal system.

Protestant J.B. Lightfoot Church historian scholar-- commenting on Clements letter to the Cornithians A D 90
'It may perhaps seem strange to describe this noble remonstrance as the first step towards papal dominion. And yet undoubtedly this is the case'
St. Clement of Rome, pg 698.


I cited the testimony of Protestant Historical scholars acknowledging that the Catholic position was the one espoused in the ancient Church of the late first Century and throughout much of the 1500 years before the Reformation
 
Upvote 0

OrthodoxyUSA

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 6, 2004
25,292
2,868
61
Tupelo, MS
Visit site
✟187,274.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican

I was speaking of the time before St. Peter had arrived.

From 33AD - 42AD there was no Apostolic presence in Rome. Nine years is a long time.

Perhaps you could explain the presence of Christians in Rome before 42 AD? We know they were there; St. Paul wrote to them. St. Peter was the Bishop of Antioch before leaving for Rome in 42AD, so who's leadership were the under? Who taught them?

It is a fact that many Churches with different beliefs about Christianity existed in Rome and debated amongst themselves about the dogmatic truths, until the arrival of the Apostles Peter and Paul.

Christian communities existed in Antioch before the Apostles reached there too.. and in the same way they also argued about what must be done for salvation, which was not settled until the Church of Jerusalem sent men to them to correct them after the leadership of Jerusalem had made the decisions listed in ACTS 15.

I did not know that The Church of Rome denied this.

Forgive me...
 
Upvote 0

OrthodoxyUSA

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 6, 2004
25,292
2,868
61
Tupelo, MS
Visit site
✟187,274.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The confusion of who succeeded whom before or after St. Peter is because there was more that one Church in Rome at the time.

Rome was a large place and Christians were gathered in small pockets of different groups. The different historian account of who followed who are two pieces of the same puzzle that lay side be side not in linear fashion, but rather parallel.

Forgive me...
 
Upvote 0

OrthodoxyUSA

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 6, 2004
25,292
2,868
61
Tupelo, MS
Visit site
✟187,274.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
How do you ascribe lack of clarity to lack of Eastern direction?

Just as the first council of Jerusalem, recorded in the book of ACTS, decided what must be done for those gentiles who were being asked to follow Jewish custom by the Antiochians... all the Churches look to Jerusalem and the Apostles for the answers during these early formative years.

The Church of Jerusalem is the eldest of the Churches and St. James was her first appointed Bishop.

Forgive me...
 
Upvote 0

Trento

Senior Veteran
Apr 12, 2002
4,387
575
AZ. Between the Holy Cross river and the Saint Rit
Visit site
✟30,034.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Linus, Anacletus and Clement were all contemporaries and while they were all leaders of the Church in Rome there is zero evidence that any one of them, while the other two were around, had any kind of hierarchical authority over them.


No kidding how can they when they were dead? Every Pope for the first 300 years died for Christ under Roman persecution.
 
Upvote 0

Ethan_Fetch

Veteran
Mar 2, 2006
1,265
79
Detroit Area
✟1,801.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
No kidding how can they when they were dead? Every Pope for the first 300 years died for Christ under Roman persecution.

I am not sure what your point is here.

I was merely saying that they were contemporaries (they all flourished at the same time).

There doesn't seem to be any reason to suggest that they didn't die in order (Linus, Anacletus, Clement).

All I am saying is that there isn't any evidence to conclude that, while they all lived Linus had the episcopacy, then when he died it passed to Anacletus and to Clement when Anacletus died.

The only text which supports such an idea is the Liber Pontificalis which cannot be dated earlier than four hundred years after the deaths of these men. This book is, according to wikipedia "under intense critical scrutiny" meaning that scholars are generally agreed that it's accuracy is highly questionable due to the critical naivete not only of those who make reference to it but of the compilers themselves.

All we know for sure is that they all lived at roughly the same time in Rome and that they were all leaders in the Church having (in all likelihood) been disciples of the Apostle Peter.

It seems just as likely that in the first and at least into the middle part of the second century, the Church in Rome was governed by a presbyterial collegium.

This is given force by the known fact that Rome was an extremely cosmopolitan city with churches located in her precincts populated by Christians of a great many ethnic and cultural backgrounds. It is eminently reasonable to assume, especially after the death of Peter that some sort of synodical government would have prevailed.

None of which would obviate the strong likelihood that direct disciples of Peter (like Linus and Clement, less is known of [Ana]Cletus which may be a surname since it means "one who is called back")would have a certain pride of place and accepted prestige within that collegium.

What all this means for the larger argument involving the adduction of "pedigree lists" is that it is just about useless since it rests on extremely questionable testimony not only at the level of the first century record but doesn't seem to gain any real contemporaneity and therefore any real degree of reliability until, again, the fifth or sixth century.

And no one argues that there wasn't a papacy in the sixth century AD.
 
Upvote 0

DArceri

Exercise daily -- walk with the Lord.
Nov 14, 2006
2,763
155
✟18,756.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
This is a bit confusing to me. Why is Peter considered the first Pope when in Acts, THE biggest decision the church would ever make (matter of salvation), was sent to James juridiction for his final judgement on the matter. I thought Peter was the "rock" based on Catholic teaching? Here James makes the all important final statement...(ACTS 15:19- 29)
 
Upvote 0

OrthodoxyUSA

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 6, 2004
25,292
2,868
61
Tupelo, MS
Visit site
✟187,274.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican

You are correct...

and

I am not Catholic (RCC), I'm Orthodox.

St. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome and never a Bishop of Jerusalem.

At the time of the first council in ACTS 15 Peter was not yet a Bishop.

St. Peters first Bishopry was at Antioch.

St. James was the first Bishop of Jerusalem, and Jerusalem was the first Church, hence... St. James was the first Bishop.

Forgive me...
 
Upvote 0

DArceri

Exercise daily -- walk with the Lord.
Nov 14, 2006
2,763
155
✟18,756.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Was Peter ever first to preach in any area of the church. It seems to me that Acts 15:35 suggests that Paul remained in Antioch for awhile preaching the Gospel. Also, Paul went to Rome before Peter to preach the Gospel there also (if Peter went at all).
 
Upvote 0

Trento

Senior Veteran
Apr 12, 2002
4,387
575
AZ. Between the Holy Cross river and the Saint Rit
Visit site
✟30,034.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married

When we see Paul and Peter together in the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:6-29), we observe that Peter has an authority that Paul doesn't possess. We are told that "after there was much debate, Peter rose and said to them . . . " (15:7). The Bible records his speech, which goes on for five verses. Then it reports that "all the assembly kept silence" (15:12). Paul and Barnabas speak next about "signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles" (15:12). This does not sound like an authoritative pronouncement, as Peter's statement was, but merely a confirmation of Peter's exposition. Then when James speaks, he refers right back to Peter, passing over Paul, "Simeon has related . . . " (15:14). He basically agrees with Peter. Why did James skip right over Paul's comments and go back to what Peter said? That doesn't seem consistent with a notion of Paul being "above" or "equal" to Peter in authority. But it's perfectly consistent with Peter having a preeminent authority. James shows how Peter's words coincide with Scripture. He doesn't mention what Paul said.


Eminent Protestant Bible scholars F.F. Bruce and James Dunn (neither has ever been accused of being an advocate of Catholicism, as far as I know -- Bruce calls himself a "Paulinist") give an account of Peter's role in the Jerusalem Council not inconsistent with mine:

According to Luke, a powerful plea by Peter was specially influential in the achieving of this resolution . . . James the Just, who summed up the sense of the meeting, took his cue from Peter's plea.

(F.F. Bruce, Peter, Stephen, James, and John, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979, 38)


Paul . . . made no attempt to throw his own weight around within the Jerusalem church (Acts 21; cf. 15.12f.)

The compromise, however, is not so much between Peter and Paul . . . as between James and Paul, with Peter in effect the median figure to whom both are subtly conformed (James -- see acts 15.13ff. . . . ). Is this not justifiably to be designated 'early catholic'?

(James D.G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament, London: SCM Press, 2nd edition, 1990, 112, 356)


Jerusalem :

St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem (c. 63

Teaching us all orthodoxy and destroying all heresy and driving it away from the God-protected halls of our holy Catholic Church. And together with these inspired syllables and characters, I accept all his (the pope's) letters and teachings as proceeding from the mouth of Peter the Coryphaeus, and I kiss them and salute them and embrace them with all my soul ... I recognize the latter as definitions of Peter and the former as those of Mark, and besides, all the heaven-taught teachings of all the chosen mystagogues of our Catholic Church. (Sophronius, Mansi, xi. 461)
 
Upvote 0

sheina

Born Crucified
Mar 30, 2007
1,042
188
Mississippi
✟24,514.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
If Peter had been in Rome, Paul certainly would have mentioned him in his epistle to the Romans. Since Peter was never in Rome, he could not be the first Pope (or Bishop of Rome). There is no Apostolic Succession. God calls pastors and deacons, not Popes.
 
Upvote 0

Trento

Senior Veteran
Apr 12, 2002
4,387
575
AZ. Between the Holy Cross river and the Saint Rit
Visit site
✟30,034.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married


This is your personal interpretation of this. as we can see by a host of contemporary Protestant scholars and the Unanimous consensus of the Early Church fathers beginning In 90 A D.


"[In the second] year of the two hundredth and fifth Olympiad [A.D. 42]: The apostle Peter, after he has established the church in Antioch, wentt to Rome, where he remains as a bishop of that city, preaching the gospel for twenty-five years" (The Chronicle [A.D. 303]).


Protestant J.N.D. Kelly, distinguished Church historian and Principal of St. Edmund Hall, Oxford.

"It is certain that Peter spent his closing years in Rome. Although the NT appears silent about such a stay, it is supported by 1 Peter 5:13, where 'BABYLON' is a code-name for ROME, and by the strong case for linking the Gospel of Mark, who as Peter's companion (1 Pet 5:13) is said to have derived its substance from him, with Rome. To early writers like Clement of Rome (c. 95), Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107), and Irenaeus (c. 180) it was common knowledge that he worked and died in Rome."EARLY CHRISTIAN CREEDS, EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES,


Protestants Shotwell and Loomis. the authors of the massive study THE SEE OF PETER.
"The First Epistle of Peter has been the fundamental text for the contention that Peter was in Rome. Its closing salutation, 'The church that is in Babylon....saluteth you' (1 Peter v,13), refers UNDOUBTEDLY to Rome. Babylon was then in ruins, and there was no tradition for five centuries that Peter had been there, whereas the tradition connecting him with Rome is one of the STRONGEST in the Church. Babylon is used for Rome in the Sibylline Oracles and in Revelation (14:8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2,10)..... "Upon the whole, there seems nothing improbable in the tradition and the belief of Catholic writers in St. Peter's early labors in Rome. His martyrdom there, at a later period, is vouched for by a fairly continuous line of references in the documents from Clement on." NY: Octagon Books, 1965) by James T. Shotwell and Louise Ropes Loomis, p. 56-57, 58-59



Editors of the Evangelical NEW BIBLE COMMENTARY 21st Century Edition (1994).
"In 5:13 the writer sends greetings from 'she who is in Babylon, chosen together with you'. This seems like a reference to the local church in Babylon, but it is unlikely that Peter would have gone to the former capital of Nebuchadnezzar's empire.
"By Peter's time it was a sparsely inhabited ruin (fulfilling Isaiah 14:23). In Rev 16:19 and 17:5 'Babylon' is used as a cryptic name for Rome, and Col 4:10 and Phm 24 (most likely written in Rome) show that Mark was there with Paul. In 2 Tim 4:11 Mark is in Asia Minor, and Paul sends for him to come, most probably to Rome."
"The fact that neither Peter nor Paul mentions the other in the list of those sending greetings from Rome merely suggests that they were not together at the time of writing their letters. All this points to the theory that Peter was writing from Rome, which is supported by the evidence of Tertullian (praescrip haeret, 36) and Eusebius (Eccl History, 2.25.8; 2.15.2 and 3.1.2-3)."



Liberal Protestant scholar Adolph Harnack
"...to deny the Roman stay of Peter is an error which today is clear to every scholar who is not blind. The martyr death of Peter at Rome was once contested by reason of Protestant prejudice."
Adolph Harnack cited in THE SEARCH FOR THE TWELVE APOSTLES by William Stuart McBirnie (Tyndale House, 1988), p. 63



Dr. George Salmon protestant Biblical and Patristic scholar
Some Protestant controversialists have asserted that Peter was NEVER at Rome...I think the historic probability is that he was; though, as I say, at a late period of the history, and not long before his death....[but some] Protestant champions had undertaken the impossible task of proving the negative, that Peter was NEVER at Rome. They might as well have undertaken to prove out of the Bible that St. Bartholomew never preached in Pekin."
"For myself, I am willing, in the absence of any opposing tradition, to accept the current account that Peter suffered martyrdom at Rome. We know with certainty from John xxi that Peter suffered martyrdom somewhere. If Rome, which early laid claim to have witnessed that martyrdom, were not the scene of it, where then did it take place? Any city would be glad to claim such a connexion with the name of the Apostle, and NONE but Rome made the claim."
"If this evidence for Peter's Roman martyrdom be not deemed sufficient, there are few things in the history of the early Church which it will be possible to demonstrate."
THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH : A Refutation by George Salmon, D.D. (Baker, 1959, orig 1888), p. 348,349


Protestant scholar F.F. Bruce
"That Peter as well as Paul was put to death at Rome under Nero is the UNANIMOUS testimony of Christian tradition so far as it touches this subject."
"That Peter and Paul were the most eminent of many Christians who suffered martyrdom in Rome under Nero is CERTAIN; that they were claimed as co-founders of the Roman church and that this, together with their martyrdom there, conferred great religious (as distinct from political) prestige on that church, is likewise CERTAIN...."
NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY (Doubleday and Co, 1971) by F.F. Bruce, p. 403,410




Protestant German historian and archaeologist Hans Lietzmann.
LIETZMANN: "ALL the early sources...clearly suggest to us, namely, that Peter sojourned in Rome and died a martyr there. Any other hypothesis regarding Peter's death piles difficulty upon difficulty, and cannot be supported by a single document."
PETER AND PAUL IN ROME cited in Bruce, p. 404



Protestant Church historian Jaroslav Pelikan.
PELIKAN: "The martyrdom of both Peter and Paul in Rome....belongs to [Christian] tradition. It has often been questioned by Protestant critics, some of whom have even contended that Peter was NEVER in Rome. But the archaeological researches of the Protestant historian Hans Lietzmann, supplemented by the library study of the Protestant exegete Oscar Cullmann, have made it extremely difficult to deny the tradition of Peter's death in Rome under the emperor Nero.
"The account of Paul's martyrdom in Rome, which is supported by much of the same evidence, has not called forth similar skepticism."
THE RIDDLE OF ROMAN CATHOLICISM (Abingdon Press, 1959) by Jaroslav Pelikan, p. 36-37



Famous anti-Catholic critic of last century Bishop Charles Gore of England.
GORE: "[It is] quite certain that he [Peter] died there [Rome] a martyr's death in the persecution under Nero (about A.D. 65)."
ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS (Longmans, Green and Co, 1920 11th ed) by Charles Gore, p. 93-94



THE BONES OF ST. PETER : The First Full Account of the Search for the Apostle's Body (Doubleday, 1982) by John Evangelist Walsh, cover flaps of book

LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS
1 Start of excavations beneath St. Peter's Basilica
2 The roofless Caetennius tomb after clearing of the interior
2a Tomb of a second-century Roman merchant
3 Water accumulation beneath St. Peter's Basilica
4 The narrow street between the two rows of second-century Roman tombs under the basilica
5 The street between the tombs, looking east
6 Crudely sketched heads on the wall of the Valerius tomb
7 The Christ-Helios mosaic on the ceiling of the Julius tomb
8 Monsignor Ludwig Kaas
8a Father Engelbert Kirschbaum
9 Sketch reconstruction of the original shrine erected by the Emperor Constantine
9a A later remodeling of the original Constantinian shrine and the high altar area
10 The present high altar of St. Peter's Basilica
11 The Niche of the Pallia
12 The front wall of the underground chapel
13 The north side of the shrine beneath the high altar
14 The second-century graffiti wall
15 Remaining portion of Peter's grave in the original soil of Vatican Hill
16 The ceiling of the central chamber beneath the high altar
16a Some of the human bones found beneath the red wall
17 Overhead view (sketch reconstruction) of the red wall complex
18 The original second-century entrance to the alleyway behind the red wall
19 The alleyway behind the red wall after excavation
20 The alley side of the red wall, which cuts across Peter's grave
21 A few of the second- and third-century graves
22 A model reconstruction of the Tropaion
23 The graffiti wall standing beside and above Peter's grave
24 Close-up of a portion of the graffiti wall
25 Dr. Margherita Guarducci
25a The wooden box in which the bones from the graffiti wall were preserved
26 Sketch of an inscription from the graffiti wall
27 The chunk of plaster from the red wall containing Peter's name
27a The interior of the marble-lined repository hidden in the graffiti wall
28 Skeletal remains identified as St. Peter's
29 Skeletal remains identified as St. Peter's
30 Skeletal remains identified as St. Peter's
31 The bones of St. Peter returned to the repository in the graffiti wall
32 The bronze grillwork doors guarding the entrance to the shrine and grave beneath the high altar
ILLUSTRATIONS IN THE TEXT
1 Side view of the basilica showing approximate extent and depth of the excavations
2 Outline of the two basilicas, ancient and modern
3 The succession of second- and third-century Roman tombs leading toward the high altar
4 Cross section side-to-side (north-south) of the basilica
5 Plan of the basilicas lower level
6 Plan showing location of the red wall and the graffiti wall
7 Side view beneath the high altar showing the relation of the red wall and the Tropaion to the remaining portion of Peter's grave
8 Plan of the second century red wall complex
9 Sketch reconstruction of the alleyway running behind the red wall
10 Front view of the red wall
11 Overhead view of Peter's original grave
12 The red wall complex isolated from adjacent structures
13 Surviving parts of Peter's skeleton

 
Upvote 0

sheina

Born Crucified
Mar 30, 2007
1,042
188
Mississippi
✟24,514.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The fact of Peter not being in Rome is NOT my opinion--it is fact. All that you post about Peter's bones proves nothing---the RCC will go to any lengths to prove Peter was the first Pope (BTW--Pope is not even biblical).

The Word of God is the final authority and it never teaches about Popes--or that Peter was the first one.


BTW, of what value are Peter's bones (if they are indeed Peter's bones)? Do you worship them?
 
Upvote 0

Trento

Senior Veteran
Apr 12, 2002
4,387
575
AZ. Between the Holy Cross river and the Saint Rit
Visit site
✟30,034.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
The fact of Peter not being in Rome is NOT my opinion--it is fact. All that you post about Peter's bones proves nothing---the RCC will go to any lengths to prove Peter was the first Pope (BTW--Pope is not even biblical).

Amazing I cited the testimony of Protestant Historical scholars acknowledging that Peter was in Rome.Because I seek to support each of the particulars of my argument with Protestant scholarly backing, precisely because the constant accusation is that Catholic positions lack biblical support. If we are accused by Protestants of straining at gnats in our biblical arguments for the papacy, we go cite worthy exegetes and commentators such as France and Carson, or (e.g., concerning the canon), respected experts such as Bruce or Schaff or the various evangelical Protestant reference works and commentaries (which I love and consult all the time, and learn much from). Why is this so hard to understand? It's called "hostile witness" or "logic" or "cumulative argument.You ignore Christian History even by non Catholic Scholars.

The Word of God is the final authority and it never teaches about Popes--or that Peter was the first one.

The evangelical/fundamentalist/Protestant ethos is not based in logic, for it specifically denies logic. It is not based in moral absolutes, because anyone can interpret Scripture as they wish, and who can deny the correctness of a sola scriptura interpretation? Rather, their ethos is based in the remnants of Catholic culture they have managed to maintain and hand down from generation to generation, a dwindling store of cultural imperatives which cannot be justified in Scripture and which they refuse to acknowledge as Tradition.
Thus, we have the trinity of positions we see today. Those of the Protestant tradition essentially claim culture as their absolute standard, the gold standard against which everything is measured. Those of the secular atheist tradition claim faulty human reason as their absolute. Those of the Catholic tradition claim the fullness of divine revelation, both spoken and written, as the only True Absolute.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.