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.

Clement V and his successors were legitimately elected by the Cardinals in conclave. See Phillip Schaff's History of the Christian Church here.

Did you actually read the page that you linked to? It is the proof of my position and has NO information in it that refutes a single position that I take.

Departing from the policy of his predecessor, he capitulated to the state and put an end to the conflict with Philip the Fair.
...
Benedict’s death, after a brief reign of eight months, was ascribed to poison secreted in a dish of figs, of which the pope partook freely.
...
After an interval of nearly eleven months, the French party won a complete triumph by the choice of Bertrand de Got, archbishop of Bordeaux, who took the name of Clement V.
...
Transplanted from its maternal soil, the papacy was cut loose from the hallowed and historical associations of thirteen centuries. It no longer spake as from the centre of the Christian world.
...
If Boniface VIII represents a turning-point in the history of the papacy, the Avignon residence shook the reverence of Christendom for it. It was in danger of becoming a French institution. Not only were the popes all Frenchmen, but the large majority of the cardinals were of French birth. Both were reduced to a station little above that of court prelates subject to the nod of the French sovereign.
...
The morals of Avignon during the papal residence were notorious throughout Europe. The papal household had all the appearance of a worldly court, torn by envies and troubled by schemes of all sorts. Some of the Avignon popes left a good name, but the general impression was bad—weak if not vicious. The curia was notorious for its extravagance, venality, and sensuality. Nepotism, bribery, and simony were unblushingly practised. The financial operations of the papal family became oppressive to an extent unknown before. Indulgences, applied to all sorts of cases, were made a source of increasing revenue. Alvarus Pelagius, a member of the papal household and a strenuous supporter of the papacy, in his De planctu ecclesiae, complained bitterly of the speculation and traffic in ecclesiastical places going on at the papal court. It swarmed with money-changers, and parties bent on money operations. Another contemporary, Petrarch, who never uttered a word against the papacy as a divine institution, launched his satires against Avignon, which he called "the sink of every vice, the haunt of all iniquities, a third Babylon, the Babylon of the West." No expression is too strong to carry his biting invectives. Avignon is the "fountain of afflictions, the refuge of wrath, the school of errors, a temple of lies, the awful prison, hell on earth." corruption of Avignon was too glaring to make it necessary for him to invent charges.
...
By the fall of an old wall during the procession, the duke, a brother of the pope, and ten other persons lost their lives. The pope himself was thrown from his horse, his tiara rolled in the dust, and a large carbuncle, which adorned it, was lost. Scarcely ever was a papal ruler put in a more compromising position than the new pontiff. His subjection to a sovereign who had defied the papacy was a strange spectacle. He owed his tiara indirectly, if not immediately, to Philip the Fair. He was the man Philip wanted.
...
The terms on which the new pope received the tiara were imposed by Philip himself, and, according to Villani, the price he made the Gascon pay included six promises. Five of them concerned the total undoing of what Boniface had done in his conflict with Philip. The sixth article, which was kept secret, was supposed to be the destruction of the order of the Templars. It is true that the authenticity of these six articles has been disputed, but there can be no doubt that from the very outset of Clement’s pontificate, the French king pressed their execution upon the pope’s attention.
...
Clement issued one bull after another protesting the innocency of the offending parties concerned in the violent measures against Boniface. Philip and Nogaret were declared innocent of all guilt and to have only pure motives in preferring charges against the dead pope.
...
And to fully placate the king, he ordered all Boniface’s pronouncements of this character effaced from the books of the Roman Church. Thus in the most solemn papal form did Boniface’s successor undo all that Boniface had done.
...
To gain this point, and to save his predecessor from formal condemnation, it is probable Clement had to surrender to Philip unqualifiedly in the matter of the Knights of the Temple.
...
The destruction of the Templar order was relentlessly insisted upon by Philip the Fair, and accomplished with the reluctant co-operation of Clement V. In vain did the king strive to hide the sordidness of his purpose under the thin mask of religious zeal. At Clement’s coronation, if not before, Philip brought charges against it. About the same time, in the insurrection called forth by his debasement of the coin, the king took refuge in the Templars’ building at Paris. In 1307 he renewed the charges before the pope. When Clement hesitated, he proceeded to violence, and on the night of Oct. 13, 1307, he had all the members of the order in France arrested and thrown into prison, including Jacques de Molay, the grand-master. Döllinger applies to this deed the strong language that, if he were asked to pick out from the whole history of the world the accursed day,—dies nefastus,—he would be able to name none other than Oct. 13, 1307. Three days later, Philip announced he had taken this action as the defender of the faith and called upon Christian princes to follow his example. Little as the business was to Clement’s taste, he was not man enough to set himself in opposition to the king, and he gradually became complaisant.
...
The end of Jacques de Molay, the 22d and last grand-master of the order of Templars, was worthy of its proudest days. At the first trial he confessed to the charges of denying Christ and spitting upon the cross, and was condemned, but afterwards recalled his confession. His case was reopened in 1314. With Geoffrey de Charney, grand-preceptor of Normandy, and others, he was led in front of Notre Dame Cathedral, and sentenced to perpetual imprisonment. Molay then stood forth and declared that the charges against the order were false, and that he had confessed to them under the strain of torture and instructions from the king. Charney said the same. The commission promised to reconsider the case the next day. But the king’s vengeance knew no bounds, and that night, March 11, 1314, the prisoners were burned. The story ran that while the flames were doing their grewsome (sic) work, Molay summoned pope and king to meet him at the judgment bar within a year. The former died, in a little more than a month, of a loathsome disease, though penitent, as it was reported, for his treatment of the order, and the king, by accident, while engaged in the chase, six months later. The king was only 46 years old at the time of his death, and 14 years after, the last of his direct descendants was in his grave and the throne passed to the house of Valois.
...
Clement V.’s subserviency it is easy to explain. He was a creature of the king. When the pope hesitated to proceed against the unfortunate order, the king beset him with the case of Boniface VIII. To save the memory of his predecessor, the pope surrendered the lives of the knights. to Pontius Pilate.
...
All that he could well do, Clement did to strengthen the hold of France on the papacy.
...
After Clement’s death, the vast sums he had received and accumulated suddenly disappeared.
...
Clement’s private life was open to the grave suspicion of unlawful intimacy with the beautiful Countess Brunissenda of Foix. Of all the popes of the fourteenth century, he showed the least independence. An apologist of Boniface VIII., writing in 1308, recorded this judgment: elected, who was more concerned about temporal things and in enriching his relatives than was Boniface, in order that by contrast Boniface might seem worthy of praise where he would otherwise have been condemned, just as the bitter is not known except by the sweet, or cold except by heat, or the good except by evil." Villani, who assailed both popes, characterized Clement "as licentious, greedy of money, a simoniac, who sold in his court every benefice for gold."

Every word of this site, particularly the ones I copied, reinforce my position. Clearly I have been selective in my quotes, but I find NOTHING on this site to contradict in any way the postion I have taken. I don't see anything that says Clement, or his successors, were legitimately elected and lots that says they were not. Tell me where I'm wrong.

Thank you for the reference, by the way, it's one I hadn't bumped into before. Since I read it as confirming my preconceived notions, of course I like it (g)

The conclave met in Perugia, where Benedict died, and was torn by factions. After an interval of nearly eleven months, the French party won a complete triumph by the choice of Bertrand de Got, archbishop of Bordeaux, who took the name of Clement V.

Read the rest of the piece, about the makeup of the college, of the motives and actions of the participants and of the Popes and hierarchy that they spawned.

That doesn't pass the smell test.

Yep, he was elected. Where does it say that the election was legitimate? Where is one statement made, other than the fact that he won the "vote," confer legitimacy on his election? Everything in the article screams about the corruption of the entire hierarchy of the church during this process, including the complete corruption of the process by which the pope was elected. The site explicitely states that Clement V was Philips chosen pope. Nowhere does it say that he was God's.

the French party won a complete triumph

That doesn't sound like a divine endorsement to me.

That's the whole problem. Blind obedience to corruption when it claims the mantle of The Church. That is the way Satan will come to you. You must look at the actions, motives and outcome and decide accordingly, not base your judgement on the assertion of Earthly authority.

There is only one Authority, none other.

The earlier citation of Jeneut (sp?) arguing that the "acceptance by the universal church" was all the legitimacy needed to "prove" an election was valid could very well point to the divisions that grew into the Protestant Reformation, the final call by the universal church for the corrupt institutions to repent and turn away from the path of deception and evil.

Perhaps the universal church spoke in the Gods' own time.

Fair enough, but can I ask why? Eusebius and other early historians give the list from Peter to the 300s A.D., and from then on I'm pretty sure we have contemporary documentation in every century till the present.

Not quite. The list has been modified several times over the centuries and was certainly "backfilled" to Peter.

For example:

Corrections Made to Official List of Popes

Revelations of "Pontifical Yearbook 2001"

VATICAN CITY, JUNE 5, 2001 (Zenit.org).- New historical research has prompted almost 200 corrections to the existing biographies of the Popes, from St. Peter to John Paul II.

The discoveries are included in the opening pages of the new edition of the "Pontifical Yearbook 2001," the "who's who" of the Catholic Church published by the Vatican Press.

The 13 pages entailed are the most rigorous study to date on the history of the papacy, confirming the uninterrupted succession of the Bishops of Rome. Researchers, however, are uncertain of the exact dates of the first pontificates and, in one case, doubt the exact order. This is why the yearbook does not assign a succession number to each pontiff.

Including Karol Wojtyla, there have been 264 Popes, but 266 pontificates. Benedict IX reigned three times between 1032 and 1048. The first time, his pontificate was interrupted by the intrusion of Sylvester III. After he returned to Peter's Chair, Benedict IX resigned and was succeeded by Gregory VI. Then, following Clement II's death, Benedict IX returned to the papacy for the third time.

The yearbook has notable improvements, including a new graph that has done away with 500 pages. The new volume has 2,068 pages.

The most interesting corrections to papal history correspond to the chronology of the first two centuries. Exact dates of the pontificates are uncertain. A dozen Popes have been given two possible dates, in keeping with historical calculations.

The family name of one Pope has been corrected, and the listed birthplaces of nine Popes have changed.

Spain lost claim to a native-born Pontiff. St. Damasus (366-384), whose literary work is testified by the catacombs, and who was considered a native of the Iberian Peninsula, was, in fact, born in Rome.

The corrections result from the enormous work carried out by historian Giovanni Maria Vian, member of the Pontifical Committee of Historical Sciences, who was also a scientific adviser of the "Encyclopedia of Popes," published last year by Treccani, Italy's most prestigious literary publishers.

Vian explained the corrections to the Italian newspaper Avvenire. He said that in the second half of the 20th century, historical research has taken some important steps, "therefore, the chronology of the Popes of the first two centuries is more uncertain."

The most significant historical doubt affects Peter's second successor. After Linus, Cletus (80-92) or Clement could have been Pope, either between 68 and 76; or between 92 and 99. Therefore, one could have been Pope before the other.

Yet, "the new discoveries of those years reinforce the credibility of the succession of the Bishops of Rome," Vian concluded. The "Pontifical Yearbook 2001" may be purchased on Internet at http://www.ixtmedia.com.

ZE01060504

Corrections To The List Of Popes

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.