The Papacy - Where Peter is, There is the Church

These words, reflecting on the meaning of the visions in Fatima, were uttered by Sister Lucia, the only surviving witness to the apparitions there. Our Lady of Fatima summons us to convert to a living and authentic faith in the only God of the Trinity, who is truly present in the Eucharist. The Mother of God reminds us that the Pope plays a decisive role in the transmission of the fullness of the faith. The Pope, as the successor to Saint Peter, is the rock on which Christ builds his church (Mt. 16:18). It is to Saint Peter that our Lord Jesus granted full authority to infallibly teach the truths of the faith and to lead and govern the entire church. Saint Peter was the first to establish the bishop’s capital in Rome, and to consecrate it with his own blood, the blood of a martyr. For this reason each successor to Saint Peter in the Capital acquires primacy over the whole Church.

Saint Peter resided in Rome and suffered a martyr’s death there in the year 67 A.D., at the time of the Christian persecutions during the reign of the emperor Nero. The exact place of his martyrdom is unknown. Historians believe Saint Peter was crucified upside down in Nero’s amphitheater, which was situated where the Vatican now stands. He was buried at a nearby cemetery. Many years of excavations underneath the Basilica of Saint Peter led to the discovery of the first Pope’s tomb. The tomb lies directly beneath the Pope’s altar in the Vatican Basilica. This tomb signifies that each bishop of Rome is Saint Peter’s successor and by virtue of his office as "the successor of Christ and the Pastor of the whole Church has full, supreme and universal power over the church" (Christus Dominus 2:9).

For thirteen centuries no one questioned the presence of Saint Peter’s tomb in the Vatican. The first to dispute this were the adherents of the Waldensian heresy, who rejected the primacy of the Pope, maintaining that Saint Peter was never in Rome, let alone that his tomb was there. Likewise, Luther and other leaders of the Reformation denied the existence of Saint Peter’s tomb in the Vatican, at the same time calling into question the primacy and infallibility of the Pope in matters of faith.

Excavation work beneath St Peter’s Basilica began in the spring of 1939 following the death of Pius XI, who had expressed the wish to be buried in the Vatican Grottos. During the digging of his grave, the remains of a pagan necropolis from Roman times were discovered. Hearing of this discovery, Pope Pius XII commissioned a team of research workers to begin excavations and investigations, which after several years lead to sensational discoveries. During the 10 years of archaeological work part of a large cemetery was discovered. Its greatest period of development would have taken place between the 2^nd and the beginning of the 4^th centuries A.D. Sepulchres were discovered along a street, which ran in the vicinity of Nero’s amphitheater. That superbly preserved necropolis is a typical pagan cemetery, and in it are also found Christian graves. To this day one can admire tombs and monuments of unparalleled architectural beauty, which belonged to affluent Roman families.

In the Valerius’ vault a Latin inscription was found: Petrus rogat Iesus Christus pro sanctis hominibus chrestianis ad corpus suum sepultis (Peter prays to Jesus Christ for the Christians buried near his body). In Popilius Herakles’ tomb the following inscription was found; IN VATIC. AD CIRCUM (at the Vatican, near the amphitheater), which confirms the cemetery’s location on the Vatican hills in the vicinity of Nero’s amphitheater. In the main, however, these were sepulchres of families professing a pagan religion.

At the beginning of the 4^th century the cemetery was in full use. According to Roman law the tombs were sacred and inviolable. The only reason the emperor Constantine (280 – 337) was required to break the Roman cemetery law in the case of this necropolis was the necessity of building a Christian basilica on the terrain owing to the great devotion Christians had to the tomb of St. Peter, which was located there. The emperor ordered a so-called congestion terrarum, demolishing the northern end of the cemetery and covering tombs which were found in its southern part with earth. The aim was to obtain a wide flat area on the slope of the Vatican hill at the same level as the tomb of Saint Peter, and to begin the construction of the basilica there in reverence to the first Pope. It bears witness to the tremendous veneration in which the first Christians held the tomb of Saint Peter.

The excavations carried out in the central area of the basilica, under the pope’s altar, lead to the sensational discovery of the tomb and relics of St. Peter. First to be discovered was a huge cuboidal marble reliquary almost 3 yards wide. It had been built by the emperor Constantine in the years 321 – 324. A small tombstone, in the shape of a hollowed-out chapel, was found inside the reliquary and was supported by two columns and set in a red-plastered wall. Since this tiny memorial had been enclosed in the reliquary it must have been of extraordinary significance. The research workers had come upon the most important section of the Vatican Basilica and the entire underground necropolis. It became evident that this was the first monument to be erected, in the 2^nd century, on St Peter’s tomb. The first Christians considered the tomb of St. Peter a victorious trophy. Since the earliest information concerning the ‘trophy-tomb’ of St. Peter comes from the Roman priest Gaius, this tombstone was called Gaius’ Trophy. Early in the 2^nd century the Roman Christian community built the ‘trophy-tomb’ on the unexpectedly modest grave of St Peter, which had quite simply been dug in the ground. On its western side a red plastered wall enclosed it. This wall surrounded a small burial ground about 8 x 4 yards. Many common and simple graves were found there, placed around St. Peter’s grave, on top of which sat Gaius’ Trophy. The tomb of the Apostle Peter was particularly highly venerated, to which the many inscriptions on the so called ‘g – wall’ bear witness, including a large inscription in Greek: "Peter is here at the ‘red wall’."

The research undertaken over many years by Professor Margherita Guarducci led to the discovery of the meanings of the many inscriptions on the ‘g – wall’. They were written by the one person responsible for that place, according to established principles of mystical cryptography, and were both spiritually as well as logically ordered. As an example, we know that the letters u - á mean a transition from the end, that is from death to the beginning, to the fullness of life.

Aside from the names of the dead the name of St. Peter appears, linked with the names of Christ and Mary, as well as the profession of belief in the Blessed Trinity; that Jesus Christ is true God and true man; that he is the second person in the Blessed Trinity, the Son of God, the Beginning and the End, the Life, the Light, the Resurrection, Salvation, Peace and Victory etc. In this manner Christians professed their faith in the Blessed Trinity, Christ’s Divinity, the intercession of Mary and eternal life and prayed for their dead.

This is extremely important testimony indicative of the fact that since the very beginnings of Christianity there was a very deep faith in the Blessed Trinity, Christ’s divinity, the intercession of the Mother of God and eternal life, as well as the primacy of St. Peter.

It is also worthwhile to mention at this point the inscription hoc vince (with this you shall conquer) near Christ’s monogram. It is the Latin translation of a famous Greek inscription ôdoôu íéeáM, which the emperor Constantine saw in the sky, together with a cross, before his victory in the Battle of Milvian Bridge against Maxentius’s armies on October 28 in the year 312.

Archaeologists were very surprised when they failed to find the relics of St. Peter in the grave dug in the ground. They were later found just over 2 yards above the original grave in a recess in the ‘g-wall’. The recess containing the relics was discovered on October 13, 1941. It transpired that the emperor Constantine had transferred the relics of St. Peter from the original grave to the specially prepared recess in the ‘g - wall’ during the construction of the marble reliquary.

The relics became the subject of anthropological studies of many years duration. Initially the studies were headed by Professor Galeazzi Lisi, then by Professor Correnti. The results of the studies were printed in 1965 in a book published by the Vatican: Le reliquie di Pietro sotto la Confessione della Basilica Vaticana.. The bones of St. Peter, placed at the time of the emperor Constantine in the ‘g-wall’ recess, were wrapped in a valuable purple cloth interwoven with pure gold.

The anthropological studies revealed that the bones belonged to one person, a male of stocky build, aged between 60 – 70 years and 5 feet 5 inches tall.

The scientific confirmation of the authenticity of the relics of St. Peter was an extremely important event. During the general audience on June 26, 1968 Pope Paul VI officially announced the discovery of the relics of St Peter. The following day, during the course of formal celebrations, 19 receptacles holding the relics of the first Pope were laid to rest in the recess of the ‘g-wall,’ where they remain to this day.

I've only had time to skim the document you linked in #176, but it would appear some Papal Bulls have retroactively been declared "ex cathedra pronouncements" based on the "new" dogma of the Catholic Church formalized for the first time at Vatican I. The criteria for what makes something an "ex cathedra pronouncement" was not formally spelled out until 1870. Short of clairvoyance, it is clear the Pope's who produced the Papal Bulls prior to 1870 were probably not aware they were preparing "ex cathedra pronouncements". The fact that Papal infallibility as described at Vatican I remains such a contentious issue within the Catholic church implies it wasn't a universally accepted concept. Yet, it is a concept of such profound significance I can't imagine why the Catholic church took 1800 years to define its specifics. If all tradition is revealed, I'm surprised this one escaped careful attention for so long.

Quit apart from Roman Catholic tradition Scripture teaches something completely different concerning apostolic succession. Paul and Barnabas personally laid their hands upon the successor of their choice and ordained them...This biblical procedure has never been followed with regard to successors of bishops of Rome or the popes.

Raygun, I don't understand how you can claim this procedure is not followed, when you are describing the Sacrament of Holy Orders to a tee:

1573 The essential rite of the sacrament of Holy Orders for all three degrees consists in the bishop's imposition of hands on the head of the ordinand and in the bishop's specific consecratory prayer asking God for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and his gifts proper to the ministry to which the candidate is being ordained.

This is exactly what happened in Acts is it not?

It is important to note that almost all of the Apostolic churches were in the West.

Frankly, I'm not sure where you're getting this. St. James was in the East (Jerusalem). St. John was in the East (Asia Minor). St. Thomas was in the East (India). I'm sure there were others. Around 190 or thereabouts, during the famous "Easter controversy" Pope Victor almost excommunicated all of Asia for not keeping Easter strictly on a Sunday, as the rest of the Church did. The problem was, St. Polycarp maintained that the tradition in Asia WAS Apostolic--that he had gotten the tradition from St. John himself.

St. Irenaeus was the one who convinced Victor he was wrong to cut off a whole branch of the Church because of this, and that they should (as his predecessor Anicetus did) just agree to their respective practices on this point "not caring to quarrel over this matter".

There's no record that Peter was ever Bishop of Rome, therefor no Bishop of Rome could possibly be his successor (its non-sequitor not to mention illogical). Iraneus, Bishop of Lyons, provided the first list of 12 Bishops of Rome. Linus appears first on this list. Eusebius of Caesaria, the Father of church history, never mentioned Peter as Bishop of Rome. He simply states that Peter came to Rome "about the end of his days" and was crucified there.

I would check your sources again here, because wherever you got these facts was wildly incorrect.

Irenaeus's list of the bishops of Rome is contained in his Against Heresies III.3. Here's the passage that you are probably referring to:

The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric...

Starts with Linus? Actually it starts with the "blessed Apostles" handing off the office of bishop to Linus. And who were those blessed Apostles? Here's the paragraph right before this one:

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority -- that is, the faithful everywhere -- inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere.

Not only does Irenaeus specifically mention Peter and Paul "founded and organized" the Church of Rome, but he says that every Church should agree with the Church there "on account of its preeminent authority". So for a scholar to cite him as evidence against the office of papacy continuing past Peter is, to say the least, seriously odd.

There's much more about Peter in Eusebius than being crucified at the end of his days, particularly in the 2nd and 3rd books.

Eusebius in one part does mention "After the martyrdom of Paul and Peter the first man to be appointed bishop of Rome was Linus." (History of the Church 3:2). He also says, supporting your argument, that "Clement..became the third bishop of Rome". Eusebius therefore seems to be counting from Linus, and not from Peter.

However, Eusebius also calls Linus

"the first after Peter to be appointed Bishop of Rome".

And elsewhere:

"Meanwhile At Rome, when Evarestus had completed his eighth year, Alexander took up the Bishopric as fifth successor to Peter and Paul." (4:1)

Clearly, whether Eusebius actually called Peter "Bishop of Rome", he envisioned a continuing office of bishop that was established by Peter and continued through Linus, Anacletus and Clement.

Bear in mind that Peter had a far more dignified office than mere bishop--he was an Apostle. We don't call Bush governor of Texas anymore, because he has achieved a higher office--likewise, it may well be that the Fathers did not think of Peter as a bishop, but rather an Apostle. But it is clear, as the above quotes indicate, that the bishopric in Rome (as elsewhere---Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria) came directly from his Apostolic office.

Very good post.

How would you address the following, as it pertains to the question of a broken apostolic sucession?

If this is supposed to mean that the Pope is paramount because his authority descends from Peter, there's a little problem. The problem is that the link was broken in the 13th century by Philip Le Bel and Guillaume de Nogart who kidnapped and killed one Pope, assassinated another and then stole the Papacy and moved it, lock stock and Earthly power, to France. Thus began the Avignon captivity. (don't bother to damn the French - they already are)

I believe that there have been truly holy men who have occupied the Papacy since it was returned to Rome. There have also been great sinners. Regardless, I believe the link to Peter has been irrevocably broken.

That was the point that the Cathars had in mind.

The reason I ask is that I think this is quite an important point, and IMO has not been successfully defended against in this thread.

I'm not capable of defending against it because I don't know enough, but from reading your posts, and having confidence in Tantumergo I thought you guys might be able to.

Oh, and to the three folks who have posted to me on this topic, simply stating, repeatedly, "your argument makes no sense" and then not providing anything remotely related to the point I was making causes your "arguments" to be completely bogus. Assertion does not make for debate.

Your assertion that you do not have to answer the responses because [they] assert by implication "your argument makes no sense" is simply dodging the obvious flaw in your assertion regarding authentic apostolic succession. As such, rightly stated there is no debate -your assertion is flawed and not even defended by even you.

Quit spouting dogma and learn a little history.

ROTFLMAO -you are here arguing with the 'history' -trying to revise the 'history' by turning it on its head... The 'history' stares you in the face... -you failingly argue against what you dismiss -why argue then? LOL

Your post is somewhat on the level of "bubble, bubble, toil and trouble."

It might better be thought of as "full of sound and fury.. signifying nothing"

Please cite an error in history that I made or any point at which I " revise the 'history' by turning it on its head."

But I guess you never heard the one about going into a battle of wits when you are unarmed?

I will argue facts with anyone. I will not deign to argue with folks citing childhood indoctrination without any reference to fact.

And quoting "learned (Catholic) theologians" in this type of situation is about like Osama quoting the Ayatollah Khomeni. Not really contributing to the furtherance of anything except 500 years of prejudice, oppression and hate.

"How would you address the following, as it pertains to the question of a broken apostolic sucession?"

This whole argument misunderstands the concept of Apostolic succession. There is no tactile succession from one Pope to the next for the simple reason that the previous Pope is generally rather dead before the next one is elected!!! ;)

Whoever is elected the bishop of Rome by the Church of Rome, or later the College of Cardinals, is by definition the Pope - no matter what sort of person he is (as long as he's male!) and no matter where he is. Does JPII cease to be Pope when he's not in Rome?

Each Pope receives his place in the apostolic succession by being consecrated as a bishop by other bishops who are in the Apostolic succession. If he is a bishop before he is elected Pope, then the mere fact of his election and coronation means that he is the Bishop of Rome or Pope. If he is not a bishop at his election (such as the Deacon Gregory who became Gregory the Great) then he is ordained as priest and bishop by bishops in the Apostolic succession before his Papal coronation.

Every time a Pope dies we have a situation of sede vacante, until the next one is elected. But there has never been a time when there has been a "broken apostolic succession" in Rome, because Rome has existed for the entire Christian era and it has always had a bishop even if he has not been resident there for good or bad reasons.

The only way that you could have a "broken succession" in a particular Pope is if someone who was elected Pope did not have valid orders received from bishops in the Apostolic succession. Should such a situation ever arise (extremely unlikely as the Cardinals would never elect a man who they knew to have invalid orders) then it would be rectified when the next Pope with valid orders was elected.

This is why a terrorist attack against the Pope would be a pointless waste of time - if someone killed him we'd just elect another one. And as long as there is a single Catholic bishop left alive in the world, we will always have a Pope.

Remember the Pope doesn't receive the Keys from the previous Pope - he receives them from Christ.

Your assertions do not require "learned (Catholic) theologians" -simple logical deduction more than adequately addresses your assertion. It is obvious objective fact that YOU are arguing against something that you suggest is not historically sound. Based alone upon the the fact that your argument solely relies upon arbitrarily expunging ALL Catholic historical theologians it necessarily follows that your argument is historically unsound and but mere censorship of all that does not bolster your argument.

I can do nothing for you if reality is unpleasing. Fraternally I do again state that your dissent and are objectively dubious and fatally flawed. ;) As stated -this is nothing new -historically many have and will dissent and challenge the Church -none can succeed...

Believe your error all you want -what is your incessant need to have followers on your wide path? You do know that Christ founded one Church and Truth is not consensus -that you find yourself outside the Church and demand the Church come to you should be a wakeup call...

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.