The Monument of St. Peter in Rome. No city has ever claimed to be the burial ground of St. Peter from early Christian time but Rome.
At nasa history din 1914 tinatag ng isang Tao ang Iglesia ni Kristo. Ang tanong panu naging iglisya ni Kristo nkipagmeet ba c Jesus Christ ky Felix Manolo? Anghel? Bat nMatay? Nyet nyet. Hahaha
—
In 1958, Peter’s tomb is found in Jerusalem. This was a more definitive and exciting find. Why? Because the tomb had an inscription… Peter’s actual name. Simon Bar Jonah. It was found in a Christian burial ground, and get this… Pope Pius XII was convinced by documentary evidence that it was indeed Peter’s tomb.
http://www.aloha.net/
Pero anong magagawa ng Papa… if he declares the Jerusalem site as the actual tomb of Peter, mapapawalang-bisa ang pagka-Papa niya. Since the Papacy is rooted in the false belief that Peter died in Rome. Did they move forward with this? Of course not… Kahit pa in the back of their minds, alam nilang nasa Jerusalem ang totoong puntod.
1968 nang ideklara ni Pope Paul the VI na ang puntod na nasa Roma ang kay Pedro. Kahit pa walang katibayan.
Isn’t Pope Paul VI a “saint” now?
Imagine that, a lying saint.
“But there is no good reason for saying that ‘Babylon’ means ‘Rome,’” insists this anti-catholic. But there is, and the good reason is persecution. The authorities knew that Peter was a leader of the Church, and the Church, under Roman law, was considered organized atheism. (The worship of any gods other than the Roman was considered atheism.) Peter would do himself, not to mention those with him, no service by advertising his presence in the capital—after all, mail service from Rome was then even worse than it is today, and letters were routinely read by Roman officials. Peter was a wanted man, as were all Christian leaders. Why encourage a manhunt? We also know that the apostles sometimes referred to cities under symbolic names (cf. Rev. 11:8).
In any event, let us be generous and admit that it is easy for an opponent of Catholicism to think, in good faith, that Peter was never in Rome, at least if he bases his conclusion on the Bible alone. But restricting his inquiry to the Bible is something he should not do; external evidence has to be considered, too.
In the same book, Tertullian wrote that “this is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter.” This Clement, known as Clement of Rome, later would be the fourth pope. (Note that Tertullian didn’t say Peter consecrated Clement as pope, which would have been impossible since a pope doesn’t consecrate his own successor; he merely ordained Clement as priest.) Clement wrote his Letter to the Corinthians perhaps before the year 70, just a few years after Peter and Paul were killed; in it he made reference to Peter ending his life where Paul ended his.In his Letter to the Romans (A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did, such a comment making sense only if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome.Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.” A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peter’s successor, that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome.
Clement of Alexandria wrote at the turn of the third century. A fragment of his work Sketches is preserved in Eusebius of Caesarea’s Ecclesiastical History, the first history of the Church. Clement wrote, “When Peter preached the word publicly at Rome, and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed.”
Lactantius, in a treatise called The Death of the Persecutors, written around 318, noted that “When Nero was already reigning (Nero reigned from 54–68), Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked by that power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God.”