Replies

"The Catholic Church with its beginnings in Jesus Christ is the ONLY true authority for Jesus’ church. We have the complete Bible divinely inspired many centuries before a lunatic decided he would correct God...we have the traditions from first hand accounts. The tens of thousands of Protestant variations on the “truth” of God’s Word is at best a mockery of God."

Which is argument by mere assertion, parroting refuted propaganda (again and again) and rather than "a lunatic decided he would correct God" in holding to the most ancient Hebrew canon we have a doctor of your church joining with some other scholars in expressing their own -non-binding judgments as they could, without rebuke, since there simply was no indisputable complete canon for RC until after the death of Luther (see my lengthy post above) - and whose judgment Protestantism did not wholly follow anyway.

"Peter’s grave being under the Basillica is not in dispute by any reputable sources. Its just Protestant propaganda that politicized Gods words and acts."

Actually while it remains that Scripture nowhere interpretive of Mt. 16:18 affirms that Peter is the rock upon which the church is built, versus the Rock of his confession, the assertion that "Peter’s grave being under the Basillica is an example of confirmation bias, in which "reputable sources" for each side can only be that which confirms what you want. The Smithsonian reports "So how does the Catholic Church know these bones belonged to St. Peter? In 1968, Pope Paul VI said that the connection was “convincing,” but no scientific evidence has been available to shore up the claim." (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/are-these-the-bones-of-saint-peter-180947833/) Instead, the evidence Pope Paul VI said that the connection was “convincing" is circumstantial. And while the Smithsonian references a report by Kathy Schiffer writing for Patheos, a religious website, she states, "On one graffiti wall, amid Christian symbols and petitions, the name of Peter is carved at least twenty times, usually accompanied by prayers for the dead person," which reveals that these were not NT Christians, since there is not one one example where anyone prayed to anyone in Heaven but the Lord, amid the approx. 200 prayers the Holy Spirit recorded for us in Scripture.

Moreover, it seems there was politics and bias involved in deciding what inscriptions meant. As the Atlantic reports,

In 1939 workmen preparing a tomb below the high altar for the recently deceased Pius XI unearthed a stretch of ancient masonry, part of a sumptuous Roman building. The scholarly new pontiff, Pius XII, ordered a systematic excavation of the site by Antonio Ferrua and three distinguished colleagues. It was a courageous decision (previous popes had prohibited such exploration), though courage had its limits. All four excavators were Vatican habitués, who worked under a vow of secrecy. The decade-long investigation, which brought to light, along with the necropolis, the aedicula thought to mark Peter's grave, was closely overseen by Pius XII's longtime collaborator Monsignor Ludwig Kaas, and the actual digging was done by the sampietrini, the hereditary corps of Vatican City workmen. It was an inside job.

In 1951, after twelve years of silence from the excavators and feverish speculation in the world outside, Ferrua and his colleagues published their official report. It caused an immediate uproar. Critics accused them of faulty and haphazard archaeology and the loss of valuable artifacts. Evidence emerged of a running feud between the four excavators and Monsignor Kaas, and of nocturnal meddling at the work site. Kaas had even begun cutting the power to the dig when he and the sampietrini were absent, to prevent the archaeologists from making any unsupervised discoveries.

Given the inherent difficulty of the site, Ferrua and his colleagues had in fact worked with remarkable objectivity: despite intense pressure from the Vatican community, they reported no trace of Peter—not one inscription that named him, not even amid all the graffiti on his supposed tomb. Strangest of all, they discovered that the earth directly beneath the aedicula was empty.

Pius XII soon authorized further research in the necropolis by Margherita Guarducci, an eminent classical epi-graphist and another fervent Catholic. Guarducci rapidly overturned the previous findings and admitted a sultry breeze of Italian-style polemica. She discovered inscriptions and drawings in Peter's honor that Ferrua and his colleagues had, in her view, inexplicably omitted from their report; the most important of these, an inscription near the aedicula that she read as "Peter is within," she claimed Ferrua had removed from the site and secreted in his monastic cell. In the snarl of graffiti on Peter's tomb she discerned a "mystic cryptography," with countless coded messages about the Apostle. At length she even produced Peter's remains. A sampietrino had shown her a wooden box of bones, she explained, which were inside the masonry surrounding the aedicula when the archaeologists first discovered it. Somehow they had overlooked the precious relics, and Monsignor Kaas later tucked them away for safekeeping. Scientific tests arranged by Guarducci indicated that the bones had been wrapped in a cloth of royal purple stitched with gold, and were those of a man of sixty to seventy years and a robust physique—the bones, she argued, of the Apostle.

Guarducci's results, which she published in a steady stream of articles and books, were criticized by the scholarly community in tones ranging from derision to outrage. Her mystic cryptography was widely questioned, as was every scrap of logic and science she had used to link the bones in the box to Peter. Her most caustic critic was Antonio Ferrua, who subjected each of her publications to a withering (and frequently hilarious) review. "Thus one can either commiserate with or admire the illustrious Authoress for her immense exertions, carried out with commendable passion and ingenuousness, and indeed with a faith that ought to move mountains," he wrote of Guarducci's three-volume exposition of the coded graffiti at Peter's tomb. "But all this cannot suffice to make us accept a work that is fundamentally wrong." Some time after Guarducci announced that she had found Peter's actual remains, Ferrua wrote a ferocious memorandum to put Pope Paul VI on his guard. Having methodically dismantled Guarducci's account, he reviewed with high irony the contents of the famous box, which in addition to human remains held sheep, ox, and pig bones, and the complete skeleton of a mouse.

Paul VI apparently believed Guarducci, for he soon announced that Peter's authentic relics had been found. But Padre Ferrua had the last laugh. Shortly after Paul's death, in 1978, Guarducci was banned from the necropolis, and subsequently from the basilica archives. The presumed relics, which had been reinstalled with great fanfare in the masonry surrounding the aedicula, were removed. In later writings a bitter Guarducci criticized Paul's successor John Paul II for his lack of attention to Peter's remains, and implied that the forces of darkness, in the person of Antonio Ferrua, were sabotaging her work in the necropolis—her "apostolate," as she called it. Nonetheless, Vatican guides today refrain from reading mystical meanings into the graffiti on Peter's grave, and make no comment about his bones.

This is only the most recent episode in the age-old mystery of Peter's tomb. In 1624 Pope Urban VIII ordered that the deep foundation work for Gianlorenzo Bernini's towering bronze canopy over the high altar begin. No sooner had ground been broken, however, than the excavators started dropping dead. Urban himself fell ill, and all Rome whispered of Peter's curse, said to strike down those who disturbed the Apostle's rest. Meanwhile, horrified eyewitnesses watched a steady stream of pagan relics issue from the Church's holiest soil, some so scandalous that the Pope ordered them dumped in the Tiber. One of the finds, a funerary statue of a man reclining bare-chested on a dining couch with a gentle epicurean smile, fortunately survived the papal wrath, together with its inscription:

Tivoli is my home town, Flavius Agricola my name—yes, I'm the one you see reclining here, just as I did all the years of life Fate granted me, taking good care of my little self and never running short on wine. Primitiva, my darling wife, died before me, she too a Flavian, chaste worshipper of Isis ... Friends who read this, do my bidding. Mix the wine, drink deep, wreathed in flowers, and do not refuse to pretty girls the pleasures of sexual intercourse. When death comes, earth and fire devour all.

In Urban's time speculation about what lay beneath the high altar was already a thousand years old. Writers of the early Middle Ages mentioned the terrifying apparitions that haunted those who dared to meddle with the Apostle's tomb. Others alluded to caves and secret passageways beneath the church, and to the odd notion that Peter lay buried in a pagan temple. Such ideas may have stemmed in part from chance discoveries in the pagan necropolis that we now know underlies the basilica. But they also arose from a deeper uncertainty about where Peter died and was buried that is rooted in the Bible itself. - https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2003/10/inside-job/302801/

"Where your cracker hacks interpretations fall short is not only within the Bible itself (especially the true bible) but in historical and traditional facts themselves. Like uour disrespect for Mary, mother of God’s importance during Jesus time on earth and now even portrayed in Revelations."

The actually "cracker hacks" is that of distinctive Catholic teachings which are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels).

"Like uour disrespect for Mary,"

What disrespect for Mary? Mary was a holy, virtuous instrument of God, but of whom Scripture says relatively little, while holy fear ought to restrain ascribing positions, honor, glory and powers to a mortal that God has not revealed as given to them, and or are only revealed as being possessed by God Himself. But like as the Israelites made an instrument of God an object of worship, (Num. 21:8,9; 2Kg. 18:4) Catholics have magnified Mary far above what is written. (cf. 1Cor. 4:6) and warranted and even allowed, based on what is in Scripture.

In which the NT church Never recorded a women who never sinned, and was a perpetual virgin despite being married (contrary to the normal description of marriage, as in leaving and sexually cleaving: Gn. 2:24; cf. Ruth 3:9) and who would be bodily assumed to Heaven (despite lack of evidence) and exalted (officially or with implicit sanction) as,

• an almost almighty demigoddess to whom "Jesus owes His Precious Blood" to,

• whose [Mary] merits we are saved by,

• who "had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin,"

• and was bodily assumed into Heaven, which is a fact (unsubstantiated in Scripture or even early Tradition) because the Roman church says it is, and "was elevated to a certain affinity with the Heavenly Father,"

• and whose power now "is all but unlimited,"

• for indeed she "seems to have the same power as God,"

• "surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven,"

• so that "the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse."

• and that “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus,"

• for indeed saints have "but one advocate," and that is Mary, who "alone art truly loving and solicitous for our salvation,"

• Moreover, "there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose,"

• and who has "authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven,"

• including "assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels,"

• whom the good angels "unceasingly call out to," greeting her "countless times each day with 'Hail, Mary,' while prostrating themselves before her, begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests,"

• and who (obviously) cannot "be honored to excess,"

•

"You can cherry pick Bible verses to try to fit God into your belief system, but it will not get you closer to God. "

More mere false assertions while as shown, it is Catholics who compel Scripture to support their church-god, like an abused servant! ,

"Learn actual Catholic doctrine from good Catholic sources."

If you actually read my posts more you would see that I actually rely on "good Catholic sources" which provided the rope that hangs them.

" I had a near death experience in which I was in a state of Purgatory "

Appeal to a delusional subjective unScriptural experience only further indicts your claims as deception.

"You can banter all you like and quote individual Bible verses out of context "

More mere fallacious spitwads, and thus the more you flail away then the more you have provides an argument Catholicism

May God peradventure grant you "repentance to the acknowledging of the truth." (2 Timothy 2:25) Before it is too late.