An inscription, found on a first century coffin bearing the sign of the cross, reads: "Shimon Bar Yonah" = "Simon [Peter] son of Jonah".
Posted on 11/23/2003 3:39:24 AM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
JERUSALEM, Israel - Does your heart quicken when you hear someone give a personal testimony about Jesus? Do you feel excited when you read about the ways the Lord has worked in someone's life? The first century catacomb, uncovered by archaeologist P. Bagatti on the Mount of Olives, contains inscriptions clearly indicating its use, "by the very first Christians in Jerusalem."
If you know the feeling of genuine excitement about the workings of the Lord, then you will be ecstatic to learn that archaeologists have found first-century dedications with the names Jesus, Matthias and "Simon Bar-Yonah" ("Peter son of Jonah") along with testimonials that bear direct witness to the Savior. A "head stone", found near the entrance to the first century catacomb, is inscribed with the sign of the cross.
Where were such inscriptions found? Etched in stone - in the sides of coffins found in catacombs (burial caves) of some first-century Christians on a mountain in Jerusalem called the Mount of Olives.
An inscription, found on a first century coffin bearing the sign of the cross, reads: "Shimon Bar Yonah" = "Simon [Peter] son of Jonah".
Like many other important early Christian discoveries in the Holy Land, these major finds were unearthed and the results published many decades ago. Then the discoveries were practically forgotten. Because of recent knowledge and understanding, these ancient tombs once again assume center stage, and their amazing "testimonies in stone" give some pleasant surprises about some of the earliest followers of Jesus.
The catacombs were found and excavated primarily by two well-known archaeologists, but their findings were later read and verified by other scholars such as Yigael Yadin, J. T. Milik and J. Finegan. The ossuaries (stone coffins), untouched for 2,000 years, as they were found by archaeologist P. Bagatti on the Mt. of Olives.
The first catacomb found near Bethany was investigated by renowned French archaeologist Charles Clermont-Ganneau. The other, a large burial cemetery unearthed near the modern Dominus Flevit Chapel, was excavated by Italian scholar, P. Bagatti.
Both archaeologists found evidence clearly dating the two catacombs to the first century AD, with the later finding coins minted by Governor Varius Gratus at the turn of the millenium (up to 15/16 AD). Evidence in both catacombs indicated their use for burial until the middle part of the first century AD, several years before the New Testament was written.
The first catacomb was a family tomb investigated by archaeologist Clermont-Ganneau on the Mount of Olives near the ancient town of Bethany. Clermont-Ganneau was surprised to find names which corresponded with names in the New Testament. Even more interesting were the signs of the cross etched on several of the ossuaries (stone coffins).
As Claremont-Ganneau further investigated the tomb, he found inscriptions, including the names of "Eleazar"(="Lazarus"), "Martha" and "Mary" on three different coffins.
The Gospel of John records the existence of one family of followers of Jesus to which this tomb seems to belong: "Now a certain man was sick, named Lazarus, of Bethany, the town of Mary and her sister Martha. (It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick)..." (11:1,2)
John continues by recounting Jesus' resurrection of Lazarus from the dead. Found only a short distance from Bethany, Clermont-Ganneau believed it was not a "singular coincidence" that these names were found.
He wrote: "[This catacomb] on the Mount of Olives belonged apparently to one of the earliest [families] which joined the new religion [of Christianity]. In this group of sarcophagi [coffins], some of which have the Christian symbol [cross marks] and some have not, we are, so to speak, [witnessing the] actual unfolding of Christianity." A first-century coffin bearing cross marks as it was found by archaeologist P. Bagatti in the catacomb on the Mt. of Olives. The Hebrew inscription both on the lid and body of the coffin reads: "Shlom-zion". Archaeologist Claremont-Ganneau found the same name followed by the designation "daughter of Simon the Priest."
As Claremont-Ganneau continued to investigate the catacomb, he found additional inscriptions including the name "Yeshua" (="Jesus") commemoratively inscribed on several ossuaries. One coffin, also bearing cross marks on it, was inscribed with the name "Shlom-zion" followed by the designation "daughter of Simon the Priest."
While these discoveries were of great interest, even more important was another catacomb found nearby and excavated by archaeologist P. Bagatti several years later.
One of the first-century coffins found on the Mt. of Olives contains a commemorative dedication to: "Yeshua" = "Jesus". Bagatti also found evidence which clearly indicated that the tomb was in use in the early part of the first century AD. Inside, the sign of the cross was found on numerous first-century coffins.
He found dozens of inscribed ossuaries, which included the names Jairus, Jonathan, Joseph, Judah, Matthias, Menahem, Salome, Simon, and Zechariah. In addition, he found one ossuary with crosses and the unusual name "Shappira" - which is a unique name not found in any other first-century writtings except for the Book of Acts (5:1).
As he continued his excavations, Bagatti also found a coffin bearing the unusual inscription "Shimon bar Yonah" (= "Simon [Peter] son of Jonah").
An inscription, found on a first century coffin bearing the sign of the cross, reads: "Shimon Bar Yonah" = "Simon [Peter] son of Jonah".
Copyright © 1998 Jerusalem Christian Review
Below are Ten major New Testament proofs, which completely disprove the claim that Peter was in Rome from the time of Claudius until Nero. These Biblical points speak for themselves and ANY ONE of them is sufficient to prove the ridiculousness of the Catholic claim. Notice what God tells us! The truth IS conclusive!
PROOF TWO:
Paul specifically told the Gentile Romans that HE had been chosen to be their Apostle, not Peter. "I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable" (Rom. 15:16). How clear! Paul had the direct charge from Christ in this matter. He even further relates in Romans 15:18 that it was Christ who had chosen him "to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed." PAUL Established The Only TRUE Church at Rome.
PROOF THREE:
We are told by Paul himself that it was he -- not Peter -who was going to officially found the Roman Church. "I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established" (Rom. 1:11). Amazing! The Church at Rome had not been ESTABLISHED officially even by 55 or 56 A.D. However, the Roman Church would have us believe that Peter had done this some ten years before -- in the reign of Claudius. What nonsense!
PROOF FOUR:
We find Paul not only wanting to establish the Church at Rome, but he emphatically tells us that his policy was NEVER to build upon another man's foundation. "Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, LEST I SHOULD BUILD UPON ANOTHER MAN'S FOUNDATION"(Rom. 15:20). If Peter had "founded" the Roman Church some ten years before this statement, this represents a real affront to Peter. This statement alone is proof that Peter had never been in Rome before this time to "found" any church – because Peter was not in Rome.
PROOF FIVE:
At the end of Paul's Epistle to the Romans he greets no fewer than 28 different individuals, but never mentions Peter once! See Romans 16 --read the whole chapter! Remember, Paul greeted these people in 55 or 56 A.D. Why didn't he mention Peter? -- Peter simply wasn't there!
PROOF SIX:
Some four years after Paul wrote Romans, he was conveyed as a prisoner to Rome in order to stand trial before Caesar. When the Christian community in Rome heard of Paul's arrival, they all went to meet him. "When THE brethren [of Rome] heard of us, they came to meet us" (Acts 28:15). Again, there is not a single mention of Peter among them. This would have been extraordinary had Peter been in Rome, for Luke always mentions by name important Apostles in his narration of Acts. But he says nothing of Peter's meeting with Paul. Why? Because Peter was not in Rome!
PROOF SEVEN:
When Paul finally arrived at Rome, the first thing he did was to summon "the chief of the Jews together" (Acts 28:17) to whom he "expounded and testified the kingdom of God" (Verse 23). But what is amazing is that these chief Jewish elders claimed they knew very little even about the basic teachings of Christ. All they knew was that ``as concerning this sect, we know that everywhere it is spoken against" (Verse 22). Then Paul began to explain to them the basic teachings of Christ on the Kingdom of God. Some believed -- the majority didn't. Now, what does all this mean? It means that if Peter, who was himself a strongly partisan Jew, had been preaching constantly in Rome for 14 long years before this time, AND WAS STILL THERE -- how could these Jewish leaders have known so little about even the basic truths of Christianity? This again is clear proof Peter had not been in Rome prior to 59 A.D. There is no mention of Peter in Paul's Letters.
PROOF EIGHT:
After the rejection of the Jewish elders, Paul remained in his own hired house for two years. During that time he wrote Epistles to the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Colossians, Philemon, and to the Hebrews. And while Paul mentions others as being in Rome during that period, he nowhere mentions Peter. The obvious reason is -- the Apostle to the circumcision wasn't there!
PROOF NINE:
With the expiration of Paul's two year's imprisonment, he was released. But about four years later (near 65 A.D.), he was again sent back a prisoner to Rome. This time he had to appear before the throne of Caesar and was sentenced to die. Paul describes these circumstances at length in II Timothy. In regard to his trial, notice what Paul said in II Timothy 4:16. "At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men [in Rome] forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge." This means, if we believe the Romanist Church, that Peter forsook Paul, for they tell us Peter was very much present at Rome during this time! Peter thrice denied Christ, but that was before he was indwelt by the Spirit at Pentecost. To believe that Peter was in Rome during Paul's trial, and FORSOOK Paul as he forsook Christ, is absolutely untenable. Peter did not forsake Paul; PETER WAS NOT IN ROME.
PROOF TEN:
The Apostle Paul distinctly informs us that Peter was not in Rome in 65 A.D. -- even though The Romanist Church says he was. Paul said: "Only Luke is with me" (II Tim. 4:11). The truth becomes very plain. Paul wrote TO Rome; he had been IN Rome; and at the end wrote at least six epistles FROM Rome; and not only does he NEVER mention Peter, but at the last moment says: "Only Luke is with me." Peter, therefore, was never Bishop of Rome!
Near 45 A.D., we find Peter being cast into prison at Jerusalem (Acts 12:3, 4). In 49 A.D., he was still in Jerusalem, this time attending the Jerusalem Council. About 51 A.D., he was in Antioch of Syria where he got into differences with Paul because he wouldn't sit or eat with Gentiles. Strange that the "Roman bishop" would have nothing to do with Gentiles in 51 A.D.! Later in about 66 A.D., we find him in the city of Babylon among the Jews (I Pet. 5:13). Remember that Peter was the Apostle to the CIRCUMCISED. Why was he in Babylon? Because history shows that there were as many Jews in the Mesopotamian areas in Christ's time as there were in Palestine. It is no wonder we find him in the East…. scholars say Peter's writings are strongly Aramaic in flavor, the type of Aramaic spoken in Babylon. Peter was accustomed to their Eastern dialect.
At the times the Romanists believe Peter was in Rome, The Bible clearly shows he was elsewhere. There are, of course, many supposed historical accounts of Peter in Rome -- but none of them are first-hand accounts, and none of them should be put above the many accounts of The Bible.
The Sword of the Spirit: On the Apostles Peter and Paul
"There is a hundred times more evidence that Peter was buried in Jerusalem than in Rome." ~~ Rev. Father J.T. Milik, Roman Catholic Priest and archaeologist
"Well, we will have to make some changes... but for the time being, keep this thing quiet." ~~ Pope Pius XII, the Bishop of Rome
Keep looking. The SSPX has a few pages up.
This presupposes several grevious errors of logic.
1) Jesus foresaw the utter destruction of Jerusalem (actually, His own divine punishment of Jerusalem). It is unlikely, and an implicit denial of His omniscence and soveriegn Providence, that He would have indicated to His Church to set up shop in a location that was about to be leveled by a Roman siege.
2) Conversely, it ignores the very reason He caused Himself to become incarnate into the Roman Empire at the very beginning of its existence, and not say, the Persian and Alexandrian Empires - the opportunity for the Church to spread across a large portion of the world in a peaceful environment.
3) It ignores the well documented historical practice of the Church conforming its adminsitrative districts to the imperial divisions, which also explains the primary missionary targets of the Apostles and their immediate successors being the administrative capitals of various Roman provinces - Antioch, Ephesus, Alexandria, Rome, Carthage, etc. The idea being obviously that a well formed plan of conquering the the provincial capitals and then radiating the faith outwards from them into the countryside, as raids are made from a secure fortress. With a large base population in a major city, it is only to be expected that the Christians would travel out to the countryside and spread the faith by their travels. It also gave Christians an easy method of making themselves invisible, since Christian traffic to and from the major cities would be unnoticed, while sudden massive focus upon obscure outposts would bring immediate suspicions.
4) It ignores the basic progression seen in the Gospels - the journey of Christ from Galilee to Jerusalem to die; and in Acts - the journey of the faith from Jerusalem to Rome to be spread everywhere.
But nature abhors a vacuum, and into this gap stepped the nascent Church at Rome – a candidate for central recognition given its placement at the capital of the Empire. It was known, after all, that Paul had come to his martyrdom at Rome; and considering that the great Vaticanus pagan cemetery likely contained quite a few “Peters” (being a common title given to the high prophets and magicians of the pagan mystery religions), it’s hardly surprising that a tradition would develop (a century-and-a-half or two later) as to “Peter’s” burial at Rome. That, however, does not vouch for the authenticity of the tradition.
Actually, it was known both Sts. Peter and Paul had died there, as the Epistle of St. Clement makes clear. Are you going to address this?
Also, please present your evidence about "Peter's" in Rome.
1) Jesus foresaw the utter destruction of Jerusalem (actually, His own divine punishment of Jerusalem). It is unlikely, and an implicit denial of His omniscence and sovereign Providence, that He would have indicated to His Church to set up shop in a location that was about to be leveled by a Roman siege.
This is ridiculous.
It's like saying that Jesus would not have incarnated into a population which would generally reject His teachings and whose leaders would, ultimatly, collude with the Romans to kill Him on the cross.
Obviously, Jesus knew something that mere logic couldn't predict.
It is an error to think carnally in regards to the Church ... the Church is a spiritual entity ... founded upon the death of its leader (to the eyes of the world) ... and spread by the persecution of its followers.Acts 8:1 And Saul was consenting unto his (Stephen's) death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.
Acts 11:19 Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only.
20 And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus.
21 And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord.
22 Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch.
23 Who, when he came, and had seen the grace of God, was glad, and exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord.
24 For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord.
25 Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul:
26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
Are you really here defending the proposition that a Church which holds high standards, which many scandalously fail to meet, is inferior to a church who has tossed out any semblance of standards?
Really?
Have you joined with the modernists who hold that only hypocrisy is sinful nowadays? Since Democrats aren't obsessed with fidelity, only Republicans can be "guilty" of adultery?
SD
Crusader threw the first mud.
I was merely demonstrating the folly of such action.
I think you'll find OP posted this lying nonsense to begin with. First stones, as well, are in the eyes of the beholder.
That said, I agree that such is folly.
SD
http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:kJwZgvyaE-EJ:sxws.com/charis/pope-17.htm+%22There+is+a+hundred+times+more+evidence+that+Peter+was+buried+in+Jerusalem+than+in+Rome%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
I then asked him, "Surely you are aware of the affair between Pope Pius XII and his housekeeper?" Many in Rome say that she ran the affairs of the Pope and the Vatican as well. ...The following was taken from the book, Races of Mankind, page 161: "Strained attempts to have Peter, the Apostle to the Hebrews of the East, in Paul's territory at Rome and martyred there are unworthy of serious consideration in the light of all contemporary evidence. At his age (eighty-two), that would not have been practicable. In none of Paul's writings is there the slightest intimation that Peter ever had been or was at that city. All statements to the contrary were made centuries later and are fanciful and hearsay. The Papacy was not organized until the second half of the 8th century. It broke away from the Eastern Church (in the Ency. Brit., 13th Ed., vol. 21, page 636) under Pippin III; also the Papacy, by Abbe Guette."
The book quoted would appear to be some sort of Theosophist or Racialist source. And do you really believe that Pius XII had an affair with a Nun?
http://sword_of_the_spirit.tripod.com/id99.htm
"The pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, but he is Jesus Christ himself, hidden under a veil of flesh." The Catholic National, July 1895 ...There is no doubt that Simon Magus was called a god nor that the papacy claim that the pope is God on Earth. The list of blasphemies of the papacy are too numerous to count. ...
We saw early that Simon Magus went to Rome to start a Universal Church.
We also see that Simon Magus was a self proclaimed God were the title of Peter was given. There are also several traditions that do not fit with The Bible but are common today with the papacy. What is the link that I hope to show with Simon Magus and the title of Peter? That Simon Magus was called Simon Peter " Simon the self proclaimed God", after he moved to Rome and setup a false universal religion with himself as the head of that church. I believe that it would be safe to say that Simon Magus is the Simon Peter of Rome that is called the first pope of the Roman Catholic Church and not the apostle Simon Peter of The Bible.
I believe that the above quotes say it all. They say that the Simon Magus "Peter" who proclaimed to be a false Messiah "God" with the cover of Christianity to set up a Universal "catholic" church. This is the catholic first pope and the beginning of the church of Babylon that has affected history. Paul saw this also "Thess 2:7-1O, "...the mystery of iniquity doth already at work...".
So your proudly referenced website says Simon Peter was really Simon Magus and that the Pope claims divinity.
http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:goHP1AEF9HoJ:www.historicist.com/articles2/peterrome.htm+%22PATORS+or+PETERS%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Notice what Bryant, in his work "Ancient Mythology" says: "Not only the gods, but the Hierophantae [special priests], in most temples; and those priests in particular, who were occupied in the celebration of mysteries, were styled PATRES" (vol. 1, p. 354).This is significant! The word PATRE is the same as PATOR or PETER in meaning and pronunciation.
Bryant continues: "PATRE was undoubtedly a religious term . . . . the same as PATOR and PATORA."
The ancient pagan gods, the priests who were their ministers, and their sacred sanctuaries -- their temples -- were ALL called PETORS or PETERS (either spelling is acceptable since vowels are fluid in all languages -- especially the Semitic). ...
Notice Genesis 41:8. Davidson shows in his Hebrew Lexicon that the consonantal word P-T-R (PETER) signifies "to interpret" or "interpretation" (p. 638; of Brown, Driver, Briggs, p. 837; and Gesenius, p. 877 and p. 843). Bryant points out that "the term always related to oracle interpretation" (p. 308).
Laying aside the validty of the references, it is an enormous leap to go from Patre and Pator to Petrus/Petros, especially seeing as it is a translation of Kepha in Aramaic. Setting up a false equivalent between English Peter and some supposed pagan Pator, swingin gratutiously back and forth between English, Latin and Hebrew, then transporting it back to Rome seems to be the heights of absurdity. From the same:
Lucilius doesn’t exhaust the list. In fact, he leaves out JUPITER, the "Father" of the Roman gods. But it was unnecessary to mention him as a "PETER-god." Due to his high rank, the title PETER was actually incorporated as a part of his name. He was called JU-PETER.
Uh ... actually, he was called Jove.
More of this trash can be found here, apparently one of the sites you quoted your ten proofs from:
http://www.remnantofgod.org/pope1.htm
This sort of junk is just plain lies and garbage. Why do you drag yourself down to this level? Or is this the level you really operate from?
LOL. Not to be consfused with JEW-PETER, right? What a crock.
SD
OP began a civil discussion concerning speculation as to the burial place of Peter.
Now, ... notwithstanding the implications of such a discussion, it was characterized by the, rather civil, proferring of various opinions on the subject matter ...
... until Crusader tossed in his ad hominem.
I, simply, felt that such a thing had no place in the civil discussion ... and responded in that light.
The immediate trouble that I have with that is that when Josephus meant Selucidae, he said Selucidae (as is recorded several other times in his work). Furthermore, if one grants your "irony" hypothesis, you still run into the same trouble with the Epistles of Peter -- if one historian (Josephus) could refer to a Jewish presence in "Babylon" and expect that his audience would understand that he was speaking of Selucidae or Mesopotamia in general, then how would we be able to say with confidence that Peter (if preaching in Mesopotamia at the time) did not employ a similar metaphor?
That said, I think you make a reasonable argument against the literal Babylon -- one which causes me to lean even more strongly towards the "Babylon" elsewhere mentioned in the New Testament -- i.e., Jerusalem.
It is interesting that Jerusalem experienced an earthquake, and three factions, as did the city of Babylon. I don't buy the assertion that hail meant that people were throwing stones at them, however. And of course you knowthat those events aren't juxtaposed like that in Josephus' writings, so it is hardly conclusive. On the other hand, there are many dissimilarities between Jerusalem and Babylon. You're the first Protestant I've ever heard suggest that. (And frankly, I'm rather relieved you don't buy the argument that Rome is the whore Babylon!) The largest problem against the assertion that Jerusalem = Babylon is that there's no metaphorical meaning; the Christians in Asia minor would have no reason to feel oppressed by Jerusalem; it was hardly the capital of an empire; and no-one would be in exile *in* Jerusalem, or *from* Jersualem. Again, Babylon = exile.
Yeah, I don't buy that "Rome = whore Babylon". Frankly, the references in Josephus to events of the Jewish Wars, and specifically in and around Jerusalem, which fulfill the prophecies of Revelation (up to about chapter 19) could be multiplied; I could do a whole thread on that subject alone (probably will, at some point).
To be blunt, I don't know why there's even any doubt on the matter -- Apostle John tells us specifically that the "Great City" (Revelation 11:8, 18:10) is Jerusalem (which is also identified with "Egypt", although it wasn't holding the Christians of Asia Minor captive, either -- "Egypt" and "Babylon" here have to do with implacable hostility towards God, not captivity or exile).
So, knowing that the New Testament specifically identifies "metaphorical Babylon" as Jerusalem, if we throw out the literal Babylon, we're left with Peter's authorship of his Epistles at metaphorical "Babylon" -- that is, Jerusalem.
Which, now that I think about it, gives a deeper flavor to 1 Peter 4:12-17; the "fiery trial" was indeed about to engulf Jerusalem and the surrounding regions; the literal "house of God" (Jerusalem Temple) was about to be destroyed, providing a warning to the metaphorical "house of God" (Christendom in general) as to God's judgment upon covenant-breakers.... hmmm.
Knowing that Peter wrote the Epistles towards the end of his life, and that he wrote from "Babylon" (i.e., Jerusalem), I'm not surprised that the burial cave of Simon bar-Jona was discovered in-country.
You seem to be creating a distinction between James the Less and James the Righteous where most of us think none exists. Mark 6.3 lists the brothers of Jesus as James, Joseph, Jude, and Simon. Mary of Cleophas is listed as being mother of James the Less and Joseph. Acts 1 notes that Jude is the brother of James the Less. I suppose you maintain this is simply a coincidence, that James the Less had brothers Jude and Joseph, and James the Just did too.
However, the "brother" usage in the New Testament was written originally in GREEK, therefore using Old Testament Hebrew idiom to interpret the context of New Testament Greek is absurd.
On the contrary, the historical evidence is that St. Matthew wrote in Aramaic and translated into Greek, that St. Mark translated St. Peter's sermons for his Gospel (or perhaps translated his Gospel after writing the sermons down), and that St. Luke used both of them as a source.
The whore of Babylon is Jerusalem, then?
SD
Not at all. Jesus was born to die for us. But he gave us the Church to stand forever, not to be subsummed in the destruction of Jerusalem.
Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.
Are you telling me that sources which claim as God's truth that Pope Pius XII and MANY OTHER POPES carried on affairs with their Nun housekeepers are "trustworthy" on other points?
However, the point of whom to trust in evaluating evidence is still valid. Substitute, if you will, acceptance of contraception instead of homosexuality and the point is made. One Church has been consistent throughout.
SD
I don't see how Pius XII would have time for that, what with his busy Jew-killing schedule. ;-)
SD
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.