[Uncle Chip]

I was at St. John Lateran, but didn’t see anything about the skull of St. Peter. It would surprise me that it was there, however, since St. Peter’s tomb had no skull in it and the skull you refer to at St. John Lateran had been there since at least the ninth century. Why do you ask?

Well that would be curious since visitors to St John Lateran from the 1860's onward went there to venerate the supposed skull of Peter, but it doesn't match any of the bones that turned up under St Peter's Basilica.

So then which bones are they now claiming to be Peter's: the skull bones at St John Lateran or those skeletal bones under St Peter's Basilica??? They can't have it both ways especially in this age of DNA analysis. Well, I guess you can though if you're the Vatican magisterium.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“So then which bones are they now claiming to be Peter’s: the skull bones at St John Lateran or those skeletal bones under St Peter’s Basilica???”

Who is “they”? Is there any official Catholic teaching about any of these bones? No, none. So who is “they”?

“They can’t have it both ways especially in this age of DNA analysis.”

Again, who is “they”?

“Well, I guess you can though if you’re the Vatican magisterium.”

There’s no such thing as the Vatican magisterium. It’s just the magisterium. If you’re going to attack something wouldn’t help if you knew what you were talking about?