Jesus’ chief disciple examined
(also called Simon Peter or Cephas), has been associated with Rome for nearly 2,000 years. The earliest testimony to the apostle Peter’s presence in Rome is a letter from a Christian deacon named Gaius. Writing probably toward the end of the second century C.E.—so, around 170 or 180 C.E.—Gaius tells about the wondrous things in Rome, including something called a (see below for more) where Peter established a church—in fact, Church, the Roman Catholic church at the site where St. Peter’s Basilica is today. But there are other traditions besides Peter’s . One early Christian text, the , recounts many things that Peter did in the city. At one point in , Peter is taunted by a flamboyant heretic, Simon Magus. Simon challenges Peter to a flying contest around the Roman Forum, but Peter’s prayers make Simon crash to the ground, proving that Simon’s powers are not as great as his own. At the end of this text, Peter, not wishing to be martyred for his faith, flees from Roman authorities on the Via Appia leading out of the city. Rather unexpectedly, Peter meets , who is traveling in the opposite direction. He asks Jesus, “Where are you going?” Jesus tells Peter that he is going to Rome “to be crucified again.” Peter realizes, from this, that he cannot flee from his fate. “Where are you going?” in Latin is and there’s a medieval church in Rome called the Church of Quo Vadis at the spot where Peter met Jesus. To prove that his vision was real, you can still see there a bit of marble pavement which the faithful say miraculously preserve Jesus’ footprints.
Interestingly, the Bible says nothing about Peter ever traveling to Rome. When the gospels end, Peter is in Jerusalem. It’s the same in the Book of Acts. , in his letters, also talks about meeting Peter in the eastern Mediterranean. After Jesus’ death, Paul says that , and Peter are the co-leaders of the “church,” or assembly, of Jesus-followers in Jerusalem. In short, there is no early textual evidence for Peter in Rome, so for some people, it’s very hard to believe that he ever traveled there. Not only is it a very long way, according to the New Testament, Peter was a fisherman who was not very educated and who spoke only Aramaic; he was not the type of person that might travel widely across the Roman Empire to a large city where Latin and Greek were the dominant languages. The absence of connection between Peter and Rome in the New Testament, the lack of references to him in our earliest Roman Christian literature, and what we know of Peter’s background and character all combine to make it unlikely, to my mind, that he ever went to Rome.
There is no solid evidence—textual or even archaeological—that Peter died in Rome. Starting around the end of the second century, Christian pilgrims went to see Peter’s . But a is not a tomb. The word itself is very unusual; sometimes translated as “trophy,” it means something like a war memorial or a cenotaph (i.e., an empty grave). It’s not the word used in the Roman Empire for a burial place. Yet this spot—which was originally in the middle of an ancient cemetery—was quickly understood as the place where Peter was buried. When it was excavated in the 1950s, archaeologists were shocked to find that there was no grave and no bones under the . Only later were some bones produced from that excavation, and it’s a fascinating story we talk about in . Are these Peter’s bones? That appears to be a matter of faith. The official Vatican position, first stated in 1968, is that they be.
This is another fascinating thing we explore in in the early Middle Ages, most of them prayers to Peter and Paul, the joint patron saints of Rome. It certainly looks like people believed that Peter was buried there, but excavators found no evidence of a tomb there, either! As far as I can tell, this leaves us with two options: Either Peter’s body was at both these sites at one point and moved from one to the other, or Peter’s body was never at either site, but people still associated him with the site. It didn’t always take a body or a tomb for a site to be sacred, after all.. Most people know about Peter’s traditional burial site at St. Peter’s. But it turns out that there’s a second site in Rome where pilgrims went for hundreds of years, which was known as the (the Memorial to the Apostles). It’s off the Via Appia at the modern site of the Catacombs of San Sebastiano, and you can still go and visit it today, although the memorial itself is largely built over. What’s amazing is that the site preserves around 600 graffiti scrawled by
Recently Discovered In Jerusalemby F. PAUL PETERSON
"While visiting a friend in Switzerland, I heard of what seemed to me, one of the greatest discoveries since the time of Christ—that Peter was buried in Jerusalem and not in Rome. The source of this rumor, written in Italian, was not clear; it left considerable room for doubt or rather wonder. Rome was the place where I could investigate the matter, and if such proved encouraging, a trip to Jerusalem might be necessary in order to gather valuable first-hand information on the subject. I, therefore, went to Rome. After talking to many priests and investigating various sources of information, I finally was greatly rewarded by learning where I could buy the only known book on the subject, which was also written in Italian. It is called, "Gli Scavi del Dominus Flevit", printed in 1958 at the Tipografia del PP. Francescani, in Jerusalem. It was written by P. B. Bagatti and J. T. Milik, both Roman Catholic priests. The story of the discovery was there, but it seemed to be purposely hidden for much was lacking. I consequently determined to go to Jerusalem to see for myself, if possible, that which appeared to be almost unbelievable, especially since it came from priests, who naturally because of the existing tradition that Peter was buried in Rome, would be the last ones to welcome such a discovery or to bring it to the attention of the world.
In Jerusalem I spoke to many Franciscan priests who all read, finally, though reluctantly, that the bones of Simon Bar Jona (St. Peter) were found in Jerusalem, on the Franciscan monastery site called, "Dominus Flevit" (where Jesus was supposed to have wept over [pg. 4] Jerusalem), on the Mount of Olives. The pictures show the story. The first show an excavation where the names of Christian Biblical characters were found on the ossuaries (bone boxes). The names of Mary and Martha were found on one box and right next to it was one with the name of Lazarus, their brother. Other names of early Christians were found on other boxes. Of greatest interest, however, was that which was found within twelve feet from the place where the remains of Mary, Martha and Lazarus were found—the remains of St. Peter. They were found in an ossuary, on the outside of which was clearly and beautifully written in Aramaic, "Simon Bar Jona".
I believe that St. Peter was never in Rome for all the reasons outlined above by Professor Denzey Lewis.
There is absolutely no Biblical evidence that Peter was in Rome or died in Rome.
The uneducated Peter could not speak the languages spoken in Rome.
The 1950s study reported to the Pope, also show that Peter was buried in Jerusalem and not in Rome.
The Roman Catholic INSTITUTION was founded by the Roman Emperor Constantine.
That was a political and military empire.
When that Rome fell - another Rome emerged - The Roman Empire Mk 11 - the RC institution.
In the beginning, it too was a political, military and religious empire.
Gradually over the centuries it ceased more and more to be a military and political empire and became more of a religious empire.
In the late 1800s, the Pope lost all his land and he went into the Vatican where he tried to bolster his religious empire with the claim of papal infallibility.
In 1929 the dictator Mussolini, in return for Vatican support gave the Vatican land and money in a concordat.
The man coming to Ireland in August is not the successor of Peter. He is the current RC Bishop of Rome and the current "emperor" of the Roman Empire Mk 11.
76% OF IRISH WILL NOT ATTEND THE POPES MASS
According to a poll on journal.ie yesterday 76% of the Irish do not wish to attend Pope Francis; Mass in the Phoenix Park in Dublin.
19% said that they would attend.
4.8 % said they did not know.
I will be one of that 76%.
Ireland has indeed changed and will be changing more as time goes on.
The Death Knell is sounding for the Irish RC Church. And this is payback for the hundreds of years for the priest-ridden country perpetrated by the Irish bishops and priests.
It is payback for all the abused children, women and men.
It is payback for the Tuam Babies.
It is payback for the Magdalens.
It is payback for the thousands of children secretly exported by nuns.
It is payback for the dead orphans in unmarked graves in convents and institutions.
It is payback for Sean Brady and Brendan Smith.
It is payback for hundreds of years of sexual domination by priests with all it's guilt, misery, fear, denial.
It is payback for the Tyranny of the Confessional and Pulpit.
It is payback for all the unbaptized babies buried in family gardens.
It is payback for the hundreds of thousands of gay people who had to flee Catholic Ireland for Pagan England.
It is payback for Useless Amy, Dictatorial Dermo, Horney Casey, Kildorrery Crane, Donal Giro, Nasty Phonsie, Maynooth, Magherafelt Gates, Gorgeous, Puck, etc, etc.
The Irish People have RISEN!