Where Have All the Protestants Gone?

NOR ^ | January 2006 | Thomas Storck

[NYer]

Has anyone noticed the almost complete disappearance of Protestants from our nation? "What!" I can hear my readers exclaim, "Storck has really gone off his rocker this time. Why, just down the street there's an Assembly of God church and two or three Baptist churches and the Methodists and so on. My cousin just left the Catholic Church to become a Protestant and my niece just married one. Moreover, evangelical Protestants have many media outlets of their own and they have great influence in the Bush Administration. They're everywhere." All this, of course, is true. Except that for some time, they no longer call themselves Protestants, but simply Christians, and increasingly they've gotten Catholics to go along with their terminology.

I recall over 10 years ago when I was a lector at Mass, for the prayer of the faithful I was supposed to read a petition that began, "That Catholics and Christians…." Of course, I inserted the word "other" before "Christians," but I doubt very many in the congregation would even have noticed had I not done so. Just the other day I saw on a Catholic website an article about a Protestant adoption agency that refused to place children with Catholic parents. The headline referred not to a Protestant adoption agency but to a Christian one. And how often do we hear of Christian bookstores or Christian radio stations or Christian schools, when everyone should know they are Protestant ones?

Now, what is wrong with this? Well, it should be obvious to any Catholic -- but probably isn't. Are only Protestants Christians? Are we Catholics not Christians, indeed the true Christians? About 30 years ago, Protestants, especially evangelicals, began to drop the term Protestant and call themselves simply Christians as a not too subtle means of suggesting that they are the true and real Christians, rather than simply the children of the breakaway Protestant revolt of the 16th century. This shift in Protestant self-identification has taken on increasingly dramatic proportions. A recent Newsweek survey (Aug. 29-Sept. 5, 2005) found that, between 1990 and 2001, the number of Americans who consider themselves "Christian" (no denomination) increased by 1,120 percent, while the number of those who self-identify as "Protestant" decreased by 270 percent.

But perhaps I am getting too worked up over a small matter. After all, are not Protestants also Christians? Yes, I do not deny that. But usually we call something by its most specific name.

Protestants are theists too, but it would surely sound odd if we were to refer to their radio stations and bookstores as theistic radio stations and theistic bookstores. Language, in order to be useful, must convey human thought and concepts in as exact a way as it can. And, in turn, our thoughts and concepts should reflect reality. As Josef Pieper noted, "if the word becomes corrupted, human existence will not remain unaffected and untainted."

Moreover, words often convey more than simple concepts. A certain word may seem only to portray reality, but in fact it does more. It adds a certain overtone and connotation. Thus, it is not a small matter whether we speak of "gays" or of homosexuals. The former term was chosen specifically to inculcate acceptance of an unnatural and immoral way of life. When I was an Episcopalian, I was careful never to speak of the Catholic Church, but of the Roman Catholic Church, as a means of limiting the universality of her claims. I always called Episcopal ministers priests, again as a means of affirming that such men really were priests, in opposition to Leo XIII's definitive judgment that Anglican orders are invalid and thus that they are in no sense priests. Perhaps because of these early experiences, I am very aware of the uses of language to prejudge and control arguments, and I am equally careful now never to call Episcopal ministers priests or refer to one as Father So-and-So. And I think we should likewise not go along with the evangelical Protestant attempt to usurp the name Christian for themselves. They are Protestants, and public discourse should not be allowed to obscure that fact.

Apparently, though, it is the case that some Protestants call themselves Christians, not out of a desire to usurp the term, but out of an immense ignorance of history. That is, they ignore history to such an extent that they really don't understand that they are Protestants. Knowing or caring little about what came before them, they act as if their nicely bound Bibles had fallen directly from Heaven and anyone could simply become a Christian with no reference to past history, ecclesiology, or theology. The period of time between the conclusion of the New Testament book of Acts and the moment that they themselves "accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Savior" means nothing. Even Luther or Calvin or John Wesley mean little to them, since they can pick up their Bibles and start Christianity over again any time they want. These souls may call themselves simply Christians in good faith, but they are largely ignorant of everything about Church history. They do not understand that Jesus Christ founded a Church, and that He wishes His followers to join themselves to that Church at the same time as they join themselves to Him. In fact, one implies and involves the other, since in Baptism we are incorporated in Christ and made members of His Church at the same time.

So let us not go along with the widespread practice of calling our separated brethren simply Christians. They are Protestants. Let us begin again to use that term. It is precise. It implies Catholic doctrine in the sense that it suggests that such people are in protest against the Church. Moreover, it forces them to define themselves in terms of, rather than independently of, the One True Church. And if we do resume referring to our separated brethren as Protestants, perhaps a few of them might even be surprised enough to ask us why -- and then, behold, a teachable moment!

[Jaded]

Not really.

[Campion]

WITH OUR FREEDOM OF RELIGION (unavailable in any Roman Catholic country until the USA).

You can delete the "Roman Catholic" from that statement, if you want to be fair and accurate. Freedom of religion was pretty much invented by Catholics in Maryland and Baptists in Rhode Island.

[magisterium]

"Dobson has never voiced any disaproval of Rome and counts catholics amond some of his best supporters."

Indeed. But that's the very reason why he's not too openly critical about Catholicism! On the other hand, he virtually never references Catholic sources or opinions to buttress his sociological arguments (though he often could with no disservice to either Catholics or himself), and his personal theology, as he lets it out on, for example, his "Focus on the Family" radio show, is relentlessly "un-Catholic." An intangible by rather telling piece of evidence for his lack of real esteem for Catholicism is the fact that, when JP II died last April, he never even mentioned it! It's as if it didn't happen.

Anyway, he and Colson, while hardly openly anti-Catholic (and I don't think Colson is anti-Catholic at all), nevertheless are most definitely "pro-Evangelical." To that extent, their observations about relativism among Evangelicals is certainly legitimate.

[markomalley]

Gee...I guess you must be excommunicated then...

In the New Testament anathema no longer entails death, but the loss of goods or exclusion from the society of the faithful. St. Paul frequently uses this word in the latter sense. In the Epistle to the Romans (ix, 3) he says: "For I wished myself to be an anathema from Christ, for my brethren, who are my kinsmen according to the flesh", i.e. "I should wish to be separated and rejected of Christ, if by that means I would procure the salvation of my brethren." And again, using the word in the same sense, he says (Gal. i, 9): "If any one preach to you a gospel besides that which you have received, let him be anathema."

- From the Catholic Encyclopedia

Anathema (Greek Word: meaning 1. to be formally set apart, 2. banished, exiled, excommunicated or 4. denounced, often misinterpreted to mean accursed).

- From the Wikipedia definition.

a detested person; "he is an anathema to me"; a formal ecclesiastical curse accompanied by excommunication

- From the Princeton Wordnet definition

a thing devoted to God without hope of being redeemed

- From the Blue Letter Bible definition

anything devoted to evil, an accursed thing

- From the Lidell-Scott Lexicon definition

---

Now if you insist on consigning your own soul to hell, that's your business. I'm not telling you where to go. The God I worship is merciful and longsuffering. But if you choose to condemn your own soul, that's your business.

---

By the way, it would be better if you actually pasted over the entire Canon, rather than your extract:

CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

That's a little bit different than the extract you posted:

CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified...let him be anathema."

There's a lot of info contained in that ellipse you used... In fact, you may wish to read all of the Canons and Decrees of the Sixth Session of Trent. You may actually be surprised with what it says if you read it, rather than propaganda about it.

---

As to what you'd like to be called, happy to oblige. As to what you'd like to call me, it doesn't really matter now, does it?

[NYer]

In fact, even her adherents, most of which are born into it, not converted, do not even know if they are saved, because Rome forbids that.

All baptized catholics are saved. Are you suggesting that Rome forbids them from knowing that they were baptized?

[AnalogReigns]

I am talking about the magisterial Protestants, with the exception of Ulrich Zwingli, a contemporary of Luther.

Your theology, and much of that of most American evangelicals is Zwinglian, though most have never even heard the name. It denys that Jesus' grace through faith can be given to anyone with tangible means. Interestingly Zwingli was a great Humanist in his day, relying on Aristitolean logic nearly as much as he did scritpture.

The "magisterial" Protestants are those groups, Lutheran, Reformed (this includes Presbtyerian), and Anglican of which magistrates (governments) took up their cause, hence the title. I know there are many very liberal-bible-rejecting members of these groups today--(just as there are not a few Baptists that way too), and I am not writing about the away-from-the-bible theology of those groups, but of the old classical theologies these groups have held for 400+ years, based, very thoughtfully with thorough scholarship on the Bible.

When Jesus said, "This is my body, take eat..." and "this is my blood shed for many...drink" I think He meant it, no hint of metaphor there, however Zwinglian theology, being overly rational and lacking faith, in my opinion, insists one must think a "symbol for" be inserted there. Menno Simons, founder of the pacifist Mennonites, also thought Jesus was speaking in metaphor, because he could not understand it otherwise.

I don't understand it as well, but I do accept Jesus' description as is...and I don't accept the complex Greek-philosophical-Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation either. The classical doctrines taught by Lutherans, Anglicans, and Presbyterians, ALL ascribe everything to grace through faith, since of course as do the scriptures. Just because we believe scripture teaches God can use bread and wine (and water too) to help fill us through faith with His grace, and you deny that He does...does not make us somehow less reliant on faith.

To me, if you can't understand something in the Bible...so much so that "symbol for" has to be imagined in the text, just so your mind can accept it, that is a failure of faith. I certainly admit Baptists and others as my brothers, however, I think for biblical reasons, they are wrong for denying God will use tangible means to give us His grace, which of course must be received through the gift of faith.

[blue-duncan]

"The first Bishop of Antioch was St. Peter the Apostle and the third was St. Ignatius of Antioch; it was from Antioch that Saint Peter and Saint Barnabas set out on their great missionary journeys, a tradition that marks the history of the Church of Antioch"

The Antioch church was evengelized by escapees from the Jerusalem church sometime before 48 A.D., the date Paul and Barnabas were commissioned as missionaries. Twice before that date Paul went to Jerusalem to visit James and Peter so it is safe to assume Peter was not the "Bishop" of Antioch during that time. Peter was not at the commissioning nor was he there when Paul returned from the second missionary journey app. 52 A.D.. During all of that time the church was operating as a self governing body. Peter being the "super star" of the apostles, one would assume there would be some mention or deference to him if he was at Antioch, like Paul mentioned him in Galations 1 & 2.. If he was the "Bishop" it would have to be between 52 A.D. and app. 66 A.D. when he is alleged to have been martyred.

None of the writers of the New Testament, including Peter, mention this.

[pegleg]

The false Cardinal Hosius quote reappears on yet another thread. Here’s old an old thread you may wish to read. You can’t believe everything you read in “Trail of Blood“ .

Cardinal Hosius

[NYer]

Your source?

[Jaded]

8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

[magisterium]

"Many are called, but few are chosen." Matthew 22:14

I don't doubt for a second that many, many so-called Catholics are headed down the "broad way" rather than the "narrow way" these days. We orthodox Catholics see evidence of this weekly in endlessly long communion lines and virtually non-existent confession lines. Unless this remarkable set of circumstances derives from the notion that we are all, in fact, pillars of sanctity with no need to confess our sins, St. Paul tells us that such many Catholics stand in peril (1Corinthians 11:23-30). So, on those grounds alone, I don't doubt what you imply.

But you arrive there falsely, for you suppose that the Catholic Faith is itself the "broad way," and inherently evil. We would BOTH do well to avoid playing the "numbers game," these days! All of Christianity suffers from terminal mediocrity and lack of true conviction, especially in the West. That the institutional Catholic Church here is not, in many cases, teaching the fullness of its own doctrine, does not militate against that doctrine. It only says that there are many unworthy leaders and teachers in the Church today. Yet, even here, there is evidence that the next generation of Catholic priests (within which is contained the next generation of bishops!) is much more solid in its understanding and transmission of the Faith. If, in fact, the long prayed-for "restoration" occurs because of such men, to what extent will your citation of Matthew 7:13 apply then?

[NYer]

Rome doesn't have the marks of the Body of Christ.

If we wish to locate the Church founded by Jesus, we need to locate the one that has the four chief marks or qualities of his Church. The Church we seek must be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.

Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth

[NYer]

?

[Uri’el-2012]

NY>?

I think it is a simple question.

Do you believe that Y'shua is the Holy Word of G-d?

Does the king of the universe know the Tanach?

I think the spin of Aramaic is from haSatan.

b'shem Y'shua

[Nihil Obstat]

I don't know where you got that idea about the Catholic church supporting communism but I hope it wasn't from a comic book. The Catholic Church has always been against communism.

Pius IX, in 1846 pronounced a solemn condemnation, which he confirmed in the words of the Syllabus directed against "that infamous doctrine of so-called Communism which is absolutely contrary to the natural law itself, and if once adopted would utterly destroy the rights, property and possessions of all men, and even society itself."

That was in 1846. Very insightful.

Leo XIII, in 1878 in his Encyclical Quod Apostolici Muneris, defined Communism as "the fatal plague which insinuates itself into the very marrow of human society only to bring about its ruin."

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_28121878_quod-apostolici-muneris_en.html

Also, Pope Pius XI wrote DIVINI REDEMPTORIS (On Atheistic Communism) in the 1930's.

From Divini Redemptoris (Divine Redeemer):

"3. This all too imminent danger, Venerable Brethren, as you have already surmised, is bolshevistic and atheistic Communism, which aims at upsetting the social order and at undermining the very foundations of Christian civilization .

4. In the face of such a threat, the Catholic Church could not and does not remain silent. This Apostolic See, above all, has not refrained from raising its voice, for it knows that its proper and social mission is to defend truth, justice and all those eternal values which Communism ignores or attacks. Ever since the days when groups of "intellectuals" were formed in an arrogant attempt to free civilization from the bonds of morality and religion, Our Predecessors overtly and explicitly drew the attention of the world to the consequences of the dechristianization of human society."

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P11DIVIN.HTM

[Coleus]

I've noticed that many protestant churches in my area are closing and those that are open have very limited congreations who are hurting for money and now we are seeing different congregations use the same building.

protestanism is a result of the humanism movement that swept through Europe.

[magisterium]

We just got through a massive thread where St. Peter's presence and martyrdom in Rome was amply attested by early witness. If you won't accept their witness to this fact, why do you bother accepting their witness to, and continuing transmission of, Scripture? Here are some citations:

Dionysius of Corinth



"You [Pope Soter] have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time" (Letter to Pope Soter [A.D. 170], in Eusebius, History of the Church 2:25:8).


Irenaeus



"Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church" (Against Heresies, 3, 1:1 [A.D. 189]).

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the succession of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church [of Rome], because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3, 3, 2).

"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the letter to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anacletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. ... To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded . . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherius. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us" (ibid., 3, 3, 3).


Gaius



"It is recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and Peter, likewise, was crucified, during the reign [of the Emperor Nero]. The account is confirmed by the names of Peter and Paul over the cemeteries there, which remain to the present time. And it is confirmed also by a stalwart man of the Church, Gaius by name, who lived in the time of Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. This Gaius, in a written disputation with Proclus, the leader of the sect of Cataphrygians, says this of the places in which the remains of the aforementioned apostles were deposited: ‘I can point out the trophies of the apostles. For if you are willing to go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way, you will find the trophies of those who founded this Church’" (Disputation with Proclus [A.D. 198] in Eusebius, Church History 2:25:5).


Clement of Alexandria



"The circumstances which occasioned . . . [the writing] of Mark were these: When Peter preached the Word publicly at Rome and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed" (Sketches [A.D. 200], in a fragment from Eusebius, History of the Church, 6, 14:1).


Tertullian



"But if you are near Italy, you have Rome, where authority is at hand for us too. What a happy church that is, on which the apostles poured out their whole doctrine with their blood; where Peter had a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John [the Baptist, by being beheaded]" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 36 [A.D. 200]).

"[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter" (ibid., 32:2).

"Let us see what milk the Corinthians drained from Paul; against what standard the Galatians were measured for correction; what the Philippians, Thessalonians, and Ephesians read; what even the nearby Romans sound forth, to whom both Peter and Paul bequeathed the gospel and even sealed it with their blood" (Against Marcion 4, 5:1 [A.D. 210]).


The Little Labyrinth



"Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter" (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).


The Poem Against the Marcionites



"In this chair in which he himself had sat, Peter in mighty Rome commanded Linus, the first elected, to sit down. After him, Cletus too accepted the flock of the fold. As his successor, Anacletus was elected by lot. Clement follows him, well-known to apostolic men. After him Evaristus ruled the flock without crime. Alexander, sixth in succession, commends the fold to Sixtus. After his illustrious times were completed, he passed it on to Telesphorus. He was excellent, a faithful martyr . . . " (Poem Against the Marcionites 276–284 [A.D. 267]).


Eusebius of Caesarea



"[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, is sent to Rome, where he remains as a bishop of that city, preaching the gospel for twenty-five years" (The Chronicle [A.D. 303]).


Peter of Alexandria



"Peter, the first chosen of the apostles, having been apprehended often and thrown into prison and treated with ignominy, at last was crucified in Rome" (Penance, canon 9 [A.D. 306]).


Lactantius



"When Nero was already reigning, Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked . . . he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God. When this fact was reported to Nero . . . he sprang to the task of tearing down the heavenly temple and of destroying righteousness. It was he that first persecuted the servants of God. Peter he fixed to a cross, and Paul he slew" (The Deaths of the Persecutors 2:5 [A.D. 318]).


Cyril of Jerusalem



"[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him. . . .While the error was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set the error aright. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their like-mindedness in prayer against the Magus, and struck him down to earth. It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was there—he that carries about the keys of heaven. And it was nothing to marvel at, for Paul was there—he that was caught up into the third heaven" (Catechetical Lectures 6:14 [A.D. 350]).


Optatus



"You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).


Epiphanius of Salamis



"At Rome the first apostles and bishops were Peter and Paul, then Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, the contemporary of Peter and Paul" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 27:6 [A.D. 375]).


Pope Damasus I



"Likewise it is decreed: . . . [W]e have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic churches spread abroad through the world comprise one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it.

"In addition to this, there is also the companionship of the vessel of election, the most blessed apostle Paul, who contended and was crowned with a glorious death along with Peter in the city of Rome in the time of Caesar Nero. . . . They equally consecrated the above-mentioned holy Roman Church to Christ the Lord; and by their own presence and by their venerable triumph they set it at the forefront over the others of all the cities of the whole world.

"The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it. The second see, however, is that at Alexandria, consecrated in behalf of blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and an evangelist, who was sent to Egypt by the apostle Peter, where he preached the word of truth and finished his glorious martyrdom. The third honorable see, indeed, is that at Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed apostle Peter, where first he dwelt before he came to Rome and where the name Christians was first applied, as to a new people" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).


Jerome



"Simon Peter, the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion . . . pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord" (Lives of Illustrious Men 1 [A.D. 396]).


Augustine



"If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of having been, what has the chair of the Roman church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today?" (Against the Letters of Petilani 2:118 [A.D. 402]).

End of citations.

Discount them if you must. But to say that Peter was never in Rome because the New Testament doesn't say so is no argument. First, the NT doesn't even *attempt* to provide a complete travelogue for any apostle. Even Acts doesn't mention a tenth of the places St. Paul undoubtedly visited. Second, St. Peter was not a well-loved man by the pagans or the Jews within the Roman Empire. Sporadic persecution of the Church had already begun long before the first large-scale proscription by Nero. He would have done well to conceal his whereabouts. As, indeed, he did in 1Peter 5:13, where he describes himself in Babylon. That usgae of "Babylon," because of the implications of vice and degeneracy, was code for "Rome." Babylon itself was virtually uninhabited at the time.

The lack of scriptural voice to the whereabouts of the APostles in general means little. The fact that there is MUCH tradition, originating contemporaneously and often written down in a similar timeframe, concerning this very thing should mean a lot to you. That you evidently reject *all* extra-biblical sources as irrelevant is your loss, not mine.

Finally, the bones of St. Peter were found in the 1940's exactly where tradition said: under the high altar of Constantine's St. Peter's Basilica, which, in turn, is directly under the present high altar at the modern St. Peter's, built, of course, on Vatican Hill just across the Tiber River from the ancient city of - Rome. If you are willing to be objective, I would recommend that you read "The Bones of St. Peter," Image (Doubleday) 1985, by John E. Walsh. It tells you the whole story in a very straightforward and compelling way.

[topcat54]

Pass the