Saint Peter's Bones

[Fake Messiah]

{snip}

Moderator Notice
Snipped plagiarized text. Full text from the original author can be found here. Plagiarism is a HUGE rule breaker, and this will be dealt with more in-depth once quorum is met.

Here's Francis kissing bones of animals that he thinks are St Peter's bones.

[Crossless2.0]

Drowning men will grasp at the slenderest of reeds.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

No argument that Pius was a terrible human being, that the myths regarding Peter's bones are just that, and that the Church has long perpetuated this (and other) deliberate frauds. HOWEVER...

That doesn't excuse you, FM, for copying verbatim someone else's work and passing it off as your own. You lifted this from 'God's Bankers', by Gerald Posner. Shame on you.

Boru

[Randy Carson]

The OP contains a number of factual errors, distortions and inuendos that need to be addressed in the interest of accuracy and fair play.

The full text of an accurate account of the excavation and discovery is available for free online here:

The Bones of St. Peter
The First Full Account of the Search for the Apostle's Body
by John Evangelist Walsh
http://stpetersbasilica.info/Necropolis/...eter-1.htm




Now, let’s examine this OP in some detail.

{snip}

First, what does this opening paragraph have to do with the bones of St. Peter? Nothing. It simply serves as anti-Catholic propaganda masquerading as an introduction to the real subject of the thread.

Second, aside from the obvious fact that everyone needed some form of escape from the grim realities of World War II, the prophecies of St. Malachy are considered to be a forgery by the Catholic Church. If the OP has any supporting documentation of the statement that “Pius wholeheartedly embraced them”, it would be appropriate to post it.

Third, wouldn’t it be true that ANYONE who is elected pope might believe that he had a “divine destiny” as leader of the universal church?  That seems intuitively obvious, doesn’t it?

{snip}

A few points are in order here. First, it would be more accurate to say that Jesus was the founder of the Catholic Church and that Peter was simply the first head of that Church (cf. Mt. 16:18-a9).

Second, there is nothing particularly sinister about the Catholic Church quietly undertaking an archaeological excavation of the necropolis which does exist under the high altar of St. Peter’s Basilica.

Third, asserting that searching for the body of Peter is “the Catholic equivalent of the mythical hunt for the Holy Grail” is needlessly pejorative. On the one hand, the Church has never been on such a quest because the tomb of Peter has ALWAYS been assumed to be under the altar of St. Peter’s Basilica—after all, that’s why Constantine built his basilica there in the first place! And on the other hand, any search for the Holy Grail would itself have been a Catholic hunt since the Catholic Church was the ONLY Christian church in existence at the time of the great Arthurian quests. So, this was the “Catholic equivalent” of what? Another Catholic quest? This is empty rhetoric.

{snip}

It is true that Constantine built a church over the site of Peter’s tomb. You can take a virtual tour here: http://www.vatican.va/various/basiliche/...glish.html and there are map and cross-section drawings here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_Necropolis

However, the Catholic Church does not need Peter’s tomb to justify its existence, and Peter’s presence in Rome is not essential to the authority of the Catholic Church nor to the apostolic succession of the papacy. Skeptics and Protestant controversialists notwithstanding, the fact that Peter was in Rome and was martyred there is a matter long-settled by historical accounts and by Peter’s own words (cf. 1 Peter 5:13).

{snip}

The account above is an error-filled distortion of what actually happened. Joseph Richardson provides a better explanation at his blog here:

Finally, in 1956, at the request of Pope Pius XII, Venerando Correnti, a leading anthropologist and professor at Palermo University, examined the Red Wall bones. Correnti’s meticulous examination and testing took over four years. In the end, his findings were disappointing: these were almost certainly not the bones of Peter. The pile contained the bones of as many as four individuals: two men in their fifties, a man in his forties, and an elderly woman in her seventies, as well as an assortment of animal bones. The animal bones were not a great surprise: the ancient necropolis was known to have been near the emperor Nero’s circus and stables, and discarded animal carcasses may have left their bones strewn all throughout the area.

The bones that had been the objects of hope for over a decade — the bones found in, or at least to the side of, St. Peter’s grave — were not the saint’s relics at all. But that is not the end of the story. Another set of bones had been discovered at the site, that Correnti now prepared to examine.

It is this second set of bones which is consistent with what we know of Peter’s age at the time of death.

In addition to Walsh’s book referenced above, you can read the details of the discovery of Peter’s bones at Richardson’s blog, The Lonely Pilgrim, here:

The Tomb of St. Peter
http://lonelypilgrim.com/2012/05/14/the-...-st-peter/

The Grave of St. Peter
http://lonelypilgrim.com/2012/05/15/the-...-st-peter/

The Bones of St. Peter
http://lonelypilgrim.com/2012/05/17/the-...-st-peter/

Moderator Notice
Snipped the text not attributable to FakeMessiah. The original text can be found in the link in the mod edit of the OP.

[dyresand]

The pope know's there is chicken bones inside of that box

[Wyrd of Gawd]

When will they find the talking donkey's bones?

[Minimalist]

The pope know's there is chicken bones inside of that box

There's chickenshit in that box.  Catholics are among the dumbest of creatures.

[abaris]

Nice to see you're back, Randy.

And how would you go about proving these to be the bones of Saint Peter? Is there any kind of Peter DNA analysis I'm not aware of?

And no, I'm not looking up what John Evangelist Walsh wrote in 1982. That's a lot of water under the bridge since then. And the name hints at just a little bit of bias. There were up to 18 prepuces attributed to Jesus. So either Jesus had a prick to make an elephant proud or the whole relique business is just what it looks like - a lucrative way to rip people off.

[vorlon13]

18 prepuces ?

[swoon]

[Minimalist]

What about St. Peter's Boner?