The Papacy - Where Peter is, There is the Church

Catholic Legate ^ | September 23, 2004 | Father M. Piotrowski

[NYer]

"Where Peter is, there is the church … he who is not with the Pope is not with God, and who desires to be with God must be with the Pope."

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.

Cross section of necropolis below the Bernini altar

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’."

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.

Father M. Piotrowski, Society of Christ
September 23, 2004

[Rokke]

You have an interesting discussion style. First, you tell someone to "go away". Then you ask them a question (in Latin!?!). I hope you don't mind if I provide an answer in English.

I suppose the answer you are really searching for concerns the words "one" and "catholic". The one church is Christ's Body. Christ is its head. His church is catholic, which means "universal".

[Rokke]

"As a Protestant you can lay claim to neither Christ, nor his message (which you ignore) nor the Bible...the best you can manage is Martin Luther."

Can you, as a Catholic lay claim to Christ? And can the Catholic church lay claim to the Septaugent, from which it selectively chose books for the Old Testament? Or to the Gospels, prepared by men selected by Jesus Christ?

Honestly, if you are going to accuse people of attacking the Catholic Church, you certainly don't help your cause by making statements such as the ones you made in your post.

[Rokke]

"Or, more originally, "Eis mian, agian, katholikeen kai apostolikeen Ecclesiam""

Well, it should mean the same thing whether it is written in Greek, Latin or Egyptian hieroglyphics. Is there a reason we can't just use "We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church"?

[Rokke]

"You seem to deny both the Church Christ founded and Apostolic Tradition contained within the Church Christ founded? How can obedience to the Church Christ founded and adherance to Apostolic Tradition be blasphemous or deny salvation through Christ as Christ taught and intended?"

I deny that the church Christ founded is the Roman Catholic Church. The church Christ founded is His Body. He is the Head of His church. I am therefore obedient to Christ, the Head of the church. Not the Pope. I believe it is blasphemy to say "he who is not with the Pope is not with God, and who desires to be with God must be with the Pope." Christ said HE is the way and the truth and the life. Christ is not the Pope. To say the Pope is the way to God is to deny Christ's words. Can you explain why that isn't true?

[Rokke]

"How unfortunate that some guests have used it as an opportunity to bash the Catholic Church. Catholic freepers show respect for those from other religious denominations."

NYer, I hope you weren't directing this at me. As a result of our long series of personal e-mails, I think you know exactly where I'm coming from, and that I do not "bash" the Catholic Church. My goal is to understand the Catholic Church. If you can find "Catholic Bashing" in my posts, please let me know where. That isn't my intent. Conversely, when you say "Catholic freepers show respect for those from other religious denominations," I think you need to review the posts on this thread. I'll assume CouncilofTrent is Catholic. His first post to me was "Go away!" Pio's post was clearly disrespectful. And I haven't read the rest of the thread after your post. But clearly, "bashing" is not unilateral.

I found the archaelogical background on St. Peter's interesting. But when the article is led by a quote such as the one that led off this article, it is kind of hard to ignore.

[Rokke]

"Upon this Rock I will built my Church"

I mentioned in an earlier post that... "The debate concerning the primacy of Peter is endless and will not be resolved on FreeRepublic". I still believe that. However, I am not sure what relevence your post has to whether or not "he who is not with the Pope is not with God, and who desires to be with God must be with the Pope." Could you explain what you mean?

[DBeers]

To say the Pope is the way to God is to deny Christ's words. Can you explain why that isn't true?

Yes -because it incorrect to interdict the Pope between an individual and Christ in regards to salvation. If one accepts salvation through Christ as sound teaching -why does one not accept the same source of sound teaching regarding the One Church Christ established and the authoritative authentic teachers he put in place? One Church with authentic teaching authority comprised of both revelation and Apostolic Tradition.

Why suggest that Christ's Church and His Apostles' teaching authority precludes salvation -maybe this is the only way of keeping your argument from falling apart?

Research Apostolic Tradition -then look around and ask yourself -where is the Church and Apostolic Tradition located?

Rather than interpret with an end in mind or repeat what you are told -do the reserach work yourself with an open mind and Faith leading if you really want to find Truth.

[Rokke]

"Yes -because it incorrect to interdict the Pope between an individual and Christ in regards to salvation."

Not sure what you mean here. If you are saying it is incorrect to put the Pope between man and Christ, I agree. But I have a feeling you mean something different.

"If one accepts salvation through Christ as sound teaching -why does one not accept the same source of sound teaching regarding the One Church Christ established and the authoritative authentic teachers he put in place?"

I accept all of what you said here. Except, you and I disagree on what the "One" Church Christ established is. You believe it is the Catholic Church based in Rome. I believe it is Christ's body. On this point, we will have to agree to disagree.

"Why suggest that Christ's Church and His Apostles' teaching authority precludes salvation"

When and where have I done that?!?

"Research Apostolic Tradition"

I have. Many of the traditions of today's Catholic Church have nothing to do with traditions mentioned by apostles like Paul. Nor are they inspired Word of God. I prefer to rely on the inspired Word of God.

[DBeers]

Be aware, the only reason I respond is my feeling that you genuinely are seeking Truth...

Not sure what you mean here. If you are saying it is incorrect to put the Pope between man and Christ, I agree. But I have a feeling you mean something different.

No, I don't mean something different.

I prefer to rely on the inspired Word of God.

You are free to prefer whatever you wish; however, as I have stated before, the "inspired Word of God" alone is not the complete deposit of teaching... If you prefer to ignore Apostolic Tradition -again, you are free to prefer whatever you wish; however, as such I do not think you really did the work to research Apostolic Tradition. Why?

For starters, look in your Bible in 2 Thessalonians: 2 Thes 2:15, "Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours."

This verse is telling you to honor the Apostolic Traditions which have been handed down by word of mouth from generation to generation. Where is this the "Christ's body" church and where is this handed down tradition in the "Christ's body" church?

As an aside, an 'apparent' Bible conflict with 2 Thessalonians 2:15, is Colossians 2:8, "See to it that no one captivate you with an empty, seductive philosophy according to human tradition, according to the elemental powers of the world and not according to Christ."

From this it is clear that there are referred to two types of 'Tradition', human 'tradition' (small 't') handed down by men and not after Christ (as stated in Col 2:8), and Apostolic 'Tradition' (capital 'T'), handed down from the 'Word of GOD'(as stated in 2 Thes 2:15), the teachings of Jesus Christ Himself, and the on going teaching of the Catholic Church.

Note: The condemnations of tradition in Mt 15:3, Mk 7:9, and Col 2:8 refer to bad human traditions. 2 Thes 2:15 refers to Apostolic Tradition, the 'Word of God'

[Hibernius Druid]

Petrus rogat Iesus Christus

A question about Latin grammar: Anyone know why the nominative case "Iesus Christus" is used here instead of the expected accusative case "Iesum Christum"?

[Kolokotronis]

"Is there a reason we can't just use "We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church"?"

No reason at all, if you really believe this. If you are a Roman Catholic, a member of a Church in communion with Rome, Orthodox or a Non Chalcedonian Christian, you can certainly proclaim this and mean it. But if in your church, your bishops, if they exist, are not demonstrably within the apostolic succession, then by definition, you are not part of the "apostolic" Church nor of the "catholic" Church. If you are not a member of the "apostolic" and "catholic" Church, then you are not a member of the "one" Church as defined as early as 98 AD. Now I suppose that outside of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church, whether a church is "holy" is rather in the eye of the beholder, so I can't comment on that. Perhaps you are a member of a "holy" church and you should say just that.

[netmilsmom]

>> You sent me to the Default Error Page. Thanks.<<

Google search is your friend. That's what I did with the disgusting, lewd, slanderous link you posted. It cross referenced with only one other site with the exact wording and no references.
Begone Anti-Catholic Troll

[netmilsmom]

>>Am I the only Catholic who finds charges of "Catholic-bashing" and "Anti-Catholic" intensely distasteful? You don't find St. Peter calling the Romans Christian bashers. If people come in to disrupt, then let's in charity correct. And correct. And correct again. :)<<

As I said, as soon as I see them "ministering" to the Jews on one of their threads, I will feel that it is sincere and not Catholic Bashing.

[netmilsmom]

>>"Catholic freepers show respect for those from other religious denominations," I think you need to review the posts on this thread.<<

You seem sincere.
We get people on the Catholic thread ALL the time telling us how wrong we are. We get tired of it. We don't go onto a Protestant thread and try to convert, but we are free game.

It's frustration. And as with Liberals constantly slamming Conservatives, when we fight back, we are in the wrong.

[CouncilofTrent]

great pic for the new ping.

[Rokke]

"Be aware, the only reason I respond is my feeling that you genuinely are seeking Truth..."

Then rest easy.

"No, I don't mean something different."

Then I am confused. From your original post to me, I assumed you believe the statement "he who is not with the Pope is not with God, and who desires to be with God must be with the Pope." is doctrinally sound. Do you believe that statement is not doctrinally sound?

"If you prefer to ignore Apostolic Tradition"

I don't. But I question apostolic succession. And the verses you provided are a good reason why. When Paul the Apostle offers instruction by oral statement or letter, he is acting as a chosen Apostle of Jesus Christ. He was designated by God for that role. And his references to tradition are in the past tense. He says, "...hold to the traditions which you were taught by us". Never does he or any other apostle say something along the lines of "and hold to the traditions that will be taught to you by those who follow us." This is simply a fundamental difference between Protestant and Catholic theology. I believe God's inspired Word (including the traditions offered by His apostles) is sufficient. Catholics believe in the concept of the living magisterium. I think the problem most Protestants have with living magisterium is the fact that it seems to trickle out from the Catholic church in response to current events. And it seems to change over time. I'm a little uneasy with "clarifications" offered by the Catholic church to explain evolving dogma. And I believe I have company in that regard within the Catholic church. Traditionalists are obviously very uneasy with Vatican II. Rumors of the Pope changing the criteria for determining Sainthood are obviously very controversial in the Catholic church. The Bible, on the other hand, has proved both consistent and unchanged. Ancient manuscripts are the same as modern translations. And not subject to shifting political tides and world events. In short, the Bible offers consistency. Apostolic Tradition seems subject to our evolving culture.

One final note...your insistence that I study Apostolic Tradition implies that once I do, I will agree with you. I have told you that I already have. I am being honest. But after much study, prayer and reflection, I don't agree with Catholic doctrine on the subject. Wiser men than me have done the same thing and come up with similar conclusions.

[CouncilofTrent]

I beg the differ sir. I have seen inconsistencies between Catholic and Protestant Bibles, both in interpretation and in the actual number of books in the Bible. One can translate all they want from the original texts, but if one interprets it incorrectly, how can one be correct?

[Rokke]

"then you are not a member of the "one" Church as defined as early as 98 AD"

Actually, the "one" church was defined well before then. The "one" church, the "only" church is The Body of Christ. And while I thank you for the lecture on Catholic ideology, it appears your familiarity with the Catechism is a little weak. You may want to spend a little more time studying it before you attempt further interpretations to non-Catholics.

[Kolokotronis]

I'm not a Roman Catholic and I most certainly was not talking about the Roman Catechism.

[Rokke]

"We get people on the Catholic thread ALL the time telling us how wrong we are. We get tired of it. We don't go onto a Protestant thread and try to convert, but we are free game. "

In all honesty, I have never seen a Protestant thread. There is a very active community of Catholic Freepers and I have learned a lot on threads started by folks like NYer. I have a deep appreciation for many aspects of the Catholic Church. I have sincere disagreement with many of its doctrines. However, in a search for unity within Christ's body, I think it is important for us to understand our differences, not just reject each other's differences.

I think the very defensive mindset of many Catholic Freepers does serious damage to your cause. Leaping into a defensive crouch at the first sign of trouble is a sign of insecurity, not strength. Anyone who reads these threads can tell who is trying engage in constructive conversation, and who is just trying to stir up trouble. The Religion Moderator is also very pro-active. I have learned an incredible amount about my own faith through discussions with Freepers like NYer, Cronos, and DBeers. None of us are looking to "convert" each other. None of us need conversion. But if we can't discuss areas of disagreement we will never understand each other.