Talk:Saint Peter's tomb

message: My comment goes in here because from all that is said below, it's more or less clear none of you know very much about the subject. The article is poor, granted, but that's got little to do with POV. I suggest everyone interested in the subject should read JE Walsh's book in full - it's online and linked - before making smart comments among, inter alia, the animal bones involved, the Lateran skull, or the number of bodies. It's not like ignorance can't be cured. Don't take the Vatican's or Walsh's word for the matter, but *inform* yourselves. As for the 'sarcastic' link some one inserted, well, it's ignorant blather for anyone who actually knows something about the subject. This matter is an interesting archaeological story and trying to make fun of it in an uninformed way makes people sound like idiots. As the 'sarcastical' article, taken btw from a catholic-bashing site, monumentally sounds.
For those actually interested in knowing the truth - yes, the Vatican believes those are the bones of Peter. Yes, the Vatican has no problem whatsoever with the animal bones. No, the Lateran skull is no problem either. Nor are the other bodies found in Peter's original tomb. Yes, the bones that the Vatican believes are Peter's are the same that people believed to be so since the 2nd century. Now, whether that belief was correct may be debated (but not here). The exact unfolding of events that led to the status of the site as found by archaeologists may be speculated upon (*That* is one of the most interesting parts - especially the idea that the tropaion was the first christian altar, once a wooden staircase is placed in front of it). But little of this has to do with the search for the 'tomb of Peter' from the moment one considers the 'tomb of Peter' is what the early christians believed it to be.
But I suppose the possibility that the main religious building of a religious body is built on top of the tomb of its founder is too much for some. In a few centuries, I suppose even the historical existence of Constantine or Charlemagne may be made fun of.
81.84.44.78 (talk) 21:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Defence of article

message: I agreed with most of the negative comments above.  I am not qualified to edit or add to this article though.  I added a link to an article critical of the Vatican with regard to the research of the tomb and the remains.  The article is sarcastic and perhaps not a great source but it seemed to be better than the Wikipedia article.  I wondered if something about the view that St. Peter as represented by the Catholic Church is largely or entirely mythical and there is at least a reasonable chance that he may not be buried in Rome at all should be mentioned in this article.
 Davefoc 07:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I agree 

message: "outside Roman Catholic circles it is not even universally admitted that Peter ever actually went to Rome..." you mean in anti-historical anti-Catholic circles (only) it is adamantly affirmed that Peter never went to Rome.  There is as much evidence that Peter went to Rome as there is evidence that Jesus himself existed.  If you disagree then I guess you'll need to find an unbiased historian who supports this notion.  On the other hand, I suppose there should be a section in this article listing the objections.  I suppose this could include the conspiracy theory that you mention.
By the way the later part of the article contradicts the first more-recent part.  I suggest the existing last two sentences "There are those, however, who think that it would not be impossible... without result." be deleted or edited to reflect the earlier part of the article, given the Catholic Encyclopedia article (from which I assume these sentences were taken) was written before the excavations were carried out.
Atreyu81 04:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I disagree 

message: I took the old article and rewrote it without the extra "stuff" that seemed to stultify it. It had been directly copied from one or more web pages, which brings up a problem of copyright. I would like to brag that I solved this problem completely, but I kept some of the old article. This seemed to answer Wikipedia's request for a rewrite, so I deleted their message.
I left out the temporizing and personalities.
Also put in a few footnotes which it was missing. Student7 00:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: See St. Peter#Death, subsection "Death of Peter." Student7 19:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: St. Peter never being in Rome

message: This really needs to be deleted. There is no scholarly analysis supporting it. There are only references from a) atheists who only yesterday claimed that Peter and Jesus did not exist, and b) various Protestants with an axe to grind. The beliefs of either would not be questioned if the research and the periodical they are quoted in was scholarly. None are.
Second major point - the only way I can answer unscholarly claims is with similiarly unschooled answers! No one educated has bothered to answer these contrivances.
Third. Simon was the most common name of the era. So we have, in effect, a tomb that says "John, son of Bill." Wow! Proof positive? What more does an unbeliever need? Not much, I guess. Scholars need a bit more and so far that hasn't been forthcoming. This is a dead issue. There is no scholarly support for it.
In favor the Rome idea, we have the following.
Clement of Rome, in his Letter to the Corinthians (Chapter 5), written c. 80-98, speaks of Peter's martyrdom in the following terms: "Let us take the noble examples of our own generation. Through jealousy and envy the greatest and most just pillars of the Church were persecuted, and came even unto death… Peter, through unjust envy, endured not one or two but many labours, and at last, having delivered his testimony, departed unto the place of glory due to him."
Saint Ignatius of Antioch, in his Letter to the Romans (Ch. 4) of c. 105-110, tells the Roman Christians: "I do not command you, as Peter and Paul did."Student7 (talk) 01:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Peter buried in Jersusalem?

message: 1. Only Pope Pius XII's radio announcement about the finds is referenced.  Why isn't the more recent statement of Pope Paul VI in 1968 referenced.
2. The sources listed for Pope Pius XII radio statement aren't working or don't provide evidence that Pope Pius XII said this.
3. The on-line sources that I found don't seem to agree with what the article says the Pope Pius XII said.
An excerpt from Pope XII's radio broadcast (from this site: http://www.remnant-prophecy.com/topic-Library/RCC-History/relics-Peters-Bones.pdf)
A second question . . . concerns the relics of the saint: have they been found? . . . New investigations, most patient and accurate, were subsequently carried out with the results that we, comforted by the judgment of qualified, prudent and competent people, believe are positive. The relics of Saint Peter have been identified in a way we believe convincing.
It looks like the author of the first paragraph has intentionally changed the slant of what Pope Pius XII said to make the Pope's claims about the identification of the relics of Saint Peter seem more equivocal than they were given the hindsight knowledge that a later Pope was going to declare a different set of bones to be those of St. Peter.  Why wasn't the Pope Pius' original phrase used ("The relics of Saint Peter have been identified in a way we believe convincing.")?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davefoc (talk • contribs) 07:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  More problems with the opening paragraph 

message: The lede as recently modified by 98.148.212.56:
Saint Peter's tomb also known as Confessio is a Christian burial site located under Saint Peter's Basilica. According to Roman Catholic belief, the discovered site is the tomb of the first Pope, making the tomb one of the holiest sites in the Roman Catholic Church and has limited access to the general public.
1. The issue of Roman Catholic belief about the site should be a separate sentence about the issue of public access to the site. (This change was made.)
2. The purpose of referring to it as a discovered site is not clear. The site was obviously discovered since we know about it. I suppose the term implies that the tomb was lost and then at some point discovered but this seems like an awkward way to make this point. (discovered was deleted from the sentence.)
3. Is St. Peter's tomb referred to often enough as the Confessio to justify referring to that in the lede? Confessio seems to be a general term that even when applied to St. Peter's Tomb may not exactly refer to the site that is known as St. Peter's tomb. This site describes it as "a type of crypt which consists of a series of linked passages". http://www.pitt.edu/~medart/menuglossary/confessio.htm There are very few internet references to the term and fewer still that reference St. Peter's tomb as confessio. If the lede is going to continue to claim that the site is also known as confessio then a link should be provided.
4. Is the site a Christian burial site? The bones that were originally found were a mixture of human and animal. Apparently burying people with animals was a pagan custom. Maybe the original purpose of the site was pagan? I suppose it could be argued that today it is a Christian burial site because the graves of several popes are believed to have been buried in the near vicinity or that it is a Christian site because of the scratched messages on the graffiti wall that post date the original grave by a few hundred years. But even if one accepts that argument the purpose of referring to it as a Christian burial site is not clear. What information is the reader expected to infer from this description?
5. Is Roman Catholic belief identical to proclamations by the Pope? In this case at least two Popes have made specific claims about the site. Is what they say equivalent to Roman Catholic belief or should the lede state what is absolutely true, that Roman Catholic Popes have made claims about the site and not make the leap that this represents Roman Catholic belief?
--Davefoc (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  98.148.212.56's changes to the lede. 

message: 217.122.195.150 added trophy after the word aedicula in the lede.
The implication of the edit is that trophy is the same thing as aedicula. This is certainly not the case in the general sense of the word, trophy. And even in the very specialized sense of the word, trophy, with respect to St. Peter's tomb the edit is not quite right.
Saint Peter's memorial has been referred to as a trophy because of this statement by Gaius: "And I can show the trophies of the apostles. For if you choose to go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Road, you will find the trophies of those who founded this church." I don't believe it is known for sure what he meant but the general view seems to be that he was referring to memorials for Peter and Paul as the trophies of the apostles. So even in this context, trophy refers to the overall memorial and not a particular part of the memorial such as the aedicula.
In addition, to the above problem with the edit, Gaius' quote already appears in the article and explaining the significance of the quote to St. Peter's tomb is perhaps beyond the level of detail that is appropriate for the lede. 
Based on the above, I have undone the good faith edit. --Davefoc (talk) 05:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  217.122.195.150 edit -  addition of parenthetical ''trophy'' 

message: :On top of that was laid a gold cross weighing 150 pounds and featuring an inscription, which translates from Latin as "Constantine Augustus and Helena Augusta This House Shining with Like Royal Splendor a Court Surrounds."
Is there any good reason that we can't translate whatever the cross said into idiomatic English? Marnanel (talk) 13:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation of text on cross 

message: Is Peter's skull in good enough condition to do a facial reconstruction?173.58.96.84 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 21:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facial reconstruction 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Saint Peter's tomb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090429160005/http://www.saintpetersbasilica.org:80/Necropolis/MG/TheTombofStPeter-4.htm to http://www.saintpetersbasilica.org/Necropolis/MG/TheTombofStPeter-4.htm#necropolis
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090507135933/http://www.saintpetersbasilica.org:80/Docs/RemainsofPeter.htm to http://www.saintpetersbasilica.org/Docs/RemainsofPeter.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified