great apostacy

[Hemidakota]

I highly doubt that Peter body will be found under the alter....if you don't believe me, have someone dig up the grave. You are not going to find the body.

[abqfriend]

Here is some historical evidence from a neutral source:

<I>Inside the Vatican</I>:<BR>St. Peter's Basilica

Here is some evidence from a non-neutral source:

CNS STORY: Vatican completes restoration of mausoleum under St. Peter's

Here is some evidence on the burial in Rome of both St. Peter and St. Paul

Catholic Culture : Catholic World News Feature Stories : Archeologists discover St. Paul's tomb

People in archeology and similar have exactly done what you suggest-excavate in an archeological manner the graves under St. Peter's Basilica and The Vatican-see above links

-Carol

I highly doubt that Peter body will be found under the alter....if you don't believe me, have someone dig up the grave. You are not going to find the body.

[rameumptom]

It is very likely someone is buried underneath. It is highly unlikely that if we dug the person up, we'd be able to definitively determine it is Peter. Sometimes a person has to go on faith.

I have no problem with Peter being buried there. It becomes an ancient relic for people to focus their faith upon, just as the LDS have the grove of trees where the First Vision occurred. We cannot prove anything happened there, but that does not dismiss the spiritual experience many have as they sit quietly in that spot.

[jimuk]

I saw a program on the tv about a year back, and it was revealed that the catholic church done the archeological dig, "behind closed doors", and nobody from outside of the church was called to be witnesses to what should have been the greatest discovery for the church in these days.

This may be of interest

Between 1939 and 1949 the "Vatican-led" archaeological team overseen by Monsignor Ludwig Kaas, who had overall authority over the project[5], had uncovered a complex of undoubtedly pagan mausoleums under the foundations of St. Peter's Basilica, dating to the 2nd and 3rd centuries.[6] Construction of Constantine's Old St. Peter's Basilica and of foundations for Bernini's Baldacchino destroyed most of the vaulting of these semi-subterranean burial chambers. Among them was the so-called "Tomb of the Julii" with mosaics that appeared to be Christian. No mausoleum had ever been built directly beneath the present high altar of St Peter's, which did however contain shallow burials, one dated by an impressed tile to the reign of Vespasian; they had been attended with care, as later burials clustered round but did not encroach upon the space.[7] Most impressive was the small niched monument built into a wall of ca 160.

Here you can read the whole article.

Saint Peter's tomb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edited September 23, 2008 by jimuk

[Misshalfway]

I was studying today about the great apostasy and other times of apostasy in biblical history. It seems that one of the indicators of these times of rejecting the gospel is the rejection and persecution of the prophets. They were mocked, stoned, and even killed. It seems to me that the Jews at the time of Christ were following a similar pattern. They were in error with their beliefs and as the Lord corrected them and fulfilled the Law of Moses....in short, gave them modern revelation, they rejected the doctrine and the Savior himself. If the stoning and killing prophets is a sign of apostasy, then certainly killing the Savior would be a huge warning sign of a great falling away. And then of course, the 12 were killed too. That feels like a huge rejection of the truth to me! Is there anything else that could be more profound than not only denying the Christ, but killing him as well and then hunting down any leader or follower???

It is also clear to me that Paul spent his days trying to keep the doctrine pure among the different congregations of those who did believe. But even he dealt with leaders who wanted power more than truth and who twisted doctrine to fit their personal designs.

I also wanted to highlight that it was John the Baptist himself that visited Joseph Smith as an angel and gave authority to baptize. Peter, James and John also visited Joseph and place their hands on his head to give the higher authority.

It really is only one of two scenarios. Either Peter passed on the authority by ordaining a new apostle who went into hiding ( which then begs the question why are there no more apostles) or he died and came to Joseph. It seems to me that if the church were to remain.....why did it fall into disorganization for hundreds of years? Why weren't the apostles preserved? Why wasn't the structure of the church maintained? If the church hadn't been persecuted, the twelve would have continued to run the church and preach the gospel, wouldn't they? And wouldn't Christ visit them again as he did after his resurrection?? The only reason the Lord would stop communicating with prophets or giving man authority was because of apostasy and rejection of the truth and that seems to have happened here in profound ways.

Edited September 23, 2008 by Misshalfway

[abqfriend]

Where St. Peter is buried is not a doctrine of our faith. We do believe he was our first Pope. For much of 2000 years, Popes did not live in the Vatican. The first Catholic Church expressly for the Pope-whose official title is Bishop of Rome-was at St. John Latern Cathederal in Rome. A Cathederal is where a bishop resides. Generally a bishop is over many churches. This St. John Latern Church church was built by Constantine. Many Christian pilgrims were going to an area to what is now the Vatican to the grave of St. Peter and other early Christians. Constantine had a shrine built there. This holy site eventually became The Vatican with St Peter's at the center. Theologically-St Peter's is not a Church or a Cathederal. It is a basilica-a Catholic designation for special places of worship within the Catholic Church.

Historical evidence is sometimes sketchy on events that happened 2000 years ago. The article link you gave is a good one-I urge the readers to read it and make their own judgement along with the links that I provided. The link you provided comes with a warning at the top of it-it says: "The Neutrality of this article is disputed."

Here is another link providing a good discussion on the issue giving both sides of it-not that it ultimately matters.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Tomb of St. Peter

I have no idea about witnesses or no outside witnesses-but you are talking about a very Holy Site in Catholic teaching-so I beleve my spiritial leaders are truthful -just as an LDS member may believe their spiritial leaders on the testimony of LDS witnesses to your sacred events, places and Temples.

I saw a program on the tv about a year back, and it was revealed that the catholic church done the archeological dig, "behind closed doors", and nobody from outside of the church was called to be witnesses to what should have been the greatest discovery for the church in these days.

This may be of interest

Between 1939 and 1949 the "Vatican-led" archaeological team overseen by Monsignor Ludwig Kaas, who had overall authority over the project[5], had uncovered a complex of undoubtedly pagan mausoleums under the foundations of St. Peter's Basilica, dating to the 2nd and 3rd centuries.[6] Construction of Constantine's Old St. Peter's Basilica and of foundations for Bernini's Baldacchino destroyed most of the vaulting of these semi-subterranean burial chambers. Among them was the so-called "Tomb of the Julii" with mosaics that appeared to be Christian. No mausoleum had ever been built directly beneath the present high altar of St Peter's, which did however contain shallow burials, one dated by an impressed tile to the reign of Vespasian; they had been attended with care, as later burials clustered round but did not encroach upon the space.[7] Most impressive was the small niched monument built into a wall of ca 160.

Here you can read the whole article.

Saint Peter's tomb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia