Talk:Saint Peter's tomb
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Who is Guarducci, and why is she important, but not important enough to be mentioned after the second paragraph? 70.106.200.29 03:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
This article is highly POV - not surprisingly since it is taken from a Catholic encylopedia! In fact there is I believe considerable doubt as to the location of the two bodies, and outside Roman Catholic circles it is not even universally admitted that Peter ever actually went to Rome. The article is also out of date since it does not mention the more recent excavations at the Vatican that have discovered a skeleton considered by some to be possibly that of Peter. Finally it is surprising that there is no mention of the reliquaries hanging in the Lateran church that reputedly contain the heads of both Peter and Paul. rossb 21:31, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
it is not very well written either - clear english please cut the waffle
Contents |
[edit] A Tomb believed to be that of Saint Peter is under St.Peters in Vatican
Yesterday, January 26, 2006, I went on the tour of the excavations under Saint Peter's in Rome that includes a visit to the alleged tomb of Saint Peter. Although this tour has a long wait-list, its existence is well-published in the popular tour guides of Rome, and it is no secret. The excavations were begun by Pius XI and continued by Pius XII. The Vatican provides guides who lead the tour and provide their version of the history supporting belief that the tomb is that of Saint Peter. The tour raises many questions, of course; but there is no doubt that the Church actively supports the statements of its guides.
The message is clear. The Church guides state that Saint Peter was crucified in the Vatican Hill area, and that he was removed to a tomb near the walls of Nero's Circus, outside of the city walls. The guides do not state that any specific set of bones found near the tomb are definitely those of Saint Peter, although various sets of bones were believed to be Saint Peter's at various times in the past.
At least two other sites are thought to be the resting place of Saint Peter. I would advise readers to do more research rather than accept the existing Wikipedia entry as even reasonably complete. -DB
For some retarded reason, this is a page about one persons (St Peters) tomb, yet for some reason it concerns many tombs. Im trying to do my bloody assignment and all i can figure out is that because sum retard just copy and pasted from a catholic website, A tomb was discovered by SUM roman during the late 200
[edit] I agree
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)
[edit] I disagree
"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)
[edit] Rewrite
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)
