Catholic FAQ


Help support Catholic Answers!

Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #1  
Old Feb 6, '07, 9:42 am
Returnee Returnee is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: April 11, 2005
Posts: 101
Religion: Catholic
Default Gli Scavi del Dominus Flevit

Dear Fellow Catholics,

I have been away from this forum for quite some time, by choice, as I have chosen to attempt apologetics elsewhere. This in no way is an attempt to detract from the wonderful work done here, as I believe it is vital. I have found fruitful fields elsewhere however, and thus, hope to further the cause of Christ in less than friendly environments.

In the course of my cyber-travels, I have come across a little known work by a 20th century Franciscan monk named P. Bagatti, who's excavations at Dominus Flevit have caused much controversey, at least to the relatively better read among our Protestant bretheren. This work, the title of this thread, Gli Scavi del Dominus Flevit, has caused some to believe that there is a conspiracy in the Church to hide the final resting place of St. Peter. They claim that Fr. Bagatti's work conclusively showed, back in 1958, that St. Peter was actually buried in an ossuary underneath Dominus Flevit, rather than in St. Peter's basillica in Rome.

I am posting this thread since it is exceedingly difficult to find proof to the contrary on the Internet, with merely a cursorary examination of the facts. I hope to show that, given the links I shall provide, this is an extrodinary claim that is demonstratively false, as well as some apologetic answers that may be useful in your endeavors. Thus, I hope this thread will prove useful to you my bretheren.

First, while the following site is, unfortunately, framed in a rather "tongue and cheek" way, it clearly demonstrates that in the majority of both Catholic AND Protestant scholarship, the notion that St. Peter is buried anywhere else than in Rome is a near anathema, to use a theological term.

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num13.htm

The sources there may be of use in future apologetics.

Second, regarding the claim that Gli Scavi del Dominus Flevit is irrefutable proof of a "Papist Conspiracy", this is hardly the case as the following article demonstrates:

http://www.leaderu.com/theology/burialcave.html

Note the following sentences from the article above, which are critical for this apology (unless one can understand Italian, which is the original language of Gli Scavi del Dominus Flevit)

Other than its existence among the burial tombs of some of the very first Christians, no conclusive evidence was found to identify this stone coffin as that of the disciple and close companion of Jesus, Simon Peter.

From this point on, it is the task of the opponent, not the Catholic apolgist, in any hypothetical argument, to prove that Gli Scavi del Dominus Flevit shows conclusively that "the coffin bearing the unusual inscription "Shimon bar Yonah" (="Simon [Peter] son of Jonah")" is, in fact the grave of St. Peter.

As for the oft repeated phrase, ""There is a hundred times more evidence that Peter was buried in Jerusalem than in Rome." ~~ Rev. Father J.T. Milik, Roman Catholic Priest and archaeologist", (Fr. Milik is a co-author of Gli Scavi del Dominus Flevit) again, it's the task of the opponent, not the Cathoic apologist, to prove the authenticity of this quote. This site:

http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm

NOT withstanding. Why do I say that? It's simple. That article is the source of the quote! Also, beyond all the bluster and remarkable claims made in that site("this preist told me this, and that priest told me that"; there are no other names given other than Milik's and the one below, thus no way to substaintiate those claims independently), there is one substaintiated claim made which clearly refutes the author (of that site) to whit:

I regard Father J. T. Milik as a first class scholar in the Semitic field." He added, "I do not consider that names on ossuaries are conclusive evidence that they are those of the Apostles." Nelson Glueck, John Hopkins University in Baltimore.

One must be very careful when reading the above article by F. Paul Peterson. I submit, that if one reads it with an objective, open mind, given the weight of evidences above, one can clearly see that Mr. Peterson has very little evidence to provide for his remarkable claim. IOW, he states Fr. Milik told him the remarkable quote above, but we only have Peterson's word for it.

The main point to remember is that the majority of scholars, even if we believe Fr. Milik said what Peterson claims he said, say that simply the name of St. Peter on the coffin does not prove his presence there. One priest can be wrong; preists are human too. The weight of archeology differs, and indeed, archeological evidence has shown conclusively that there is at least a "Peter" buried in Rome, so that, combined with the historical and traditional evidence, in any court of law, would effectively demonstrate the diggings at Dominus Flevit, while a remarkable demonstration of the earliest roots of Christianity, are not proof of St. Peter's final resting place.

Sincerely,
Returnee
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old Feb 6, '07, 12:04 pm
Marilena Marilena is offline
 
Join Date: October 16, 2005
Posts: 2,386
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Gli Scavi del Dominus Flevit

what exactly are you trying to prove? that peter was not the first pope because his bones were allegedly buried outside of rome? that article states that pius xii accepted the so called evidence that the bone box found under the mount of olives with the inscription, shimon bar jonah was indeed the bone box of the saint, and that it ought not to be discussed further or not revealed publicly? what is the point of all this? do you seem to think that we do not have the truth because back in 53 they found this burial site that has bone boxes with names on them that state, lazarus, martha, mary and shimon bar jonah on them? how do you know we don't have the truth?
are you saying that there is no such thing as apostolic succession because the bone box bearing his name on it was not found under the basilica but in jerusalem? that saint peter was not martyred in rome but jerusalem? that he never travelled outside the area to rome? what is the point of all this may i ask? or have i completely lost the point your trying to make?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old Feb 6, '07, 1:26 pm
Loy Loy is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 2005
Posts: 255
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Gli Scavi del Dominus Flevit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marilena View Post
what exactly are you trying to prove? that peter was not the first pope because his bones were allegedly buried outside of rome? that article states that pius xii accepted the so called evidence that the bone box found under the mount of olives with the inscription, shimon bar jonah was indeed the bone box of the saint, and that it ought not to be discussed further or not revealed publicly? what is the point of all this? do you seem to think that we do not have the truth because back in 53 they found this burial site that has bone boxes with names on them that state, lazarus, martha, mary and shimon bar jonah on them? how do you know we don't have the truth?
are you saying that there is no such thing as apostolic succession because the bone box bearing his name on it was not found under the basilica but in jerusalem? that saint peter was not martyred in rome but jerusalem? that he never travelled outside the area to rome? what is the point of all this may i ask? or have i completely lost the point your trying to make?
I think if you go back and read the Original Post post very carefully, you'll find that Returnee places confidence in the Catholic claim of a Roman burial, not the Jerusalem alternative. Returnee is trying to say that Petersen's claim of a Catholic conspiracy appears unsubstantiated, largely supported by undocumented "quotes". Returnee points out that anti-Catholic apologist Petersen expects us to trust that he has truthfully and accurately quoted unpublished oral statements. Returnee also reminds us that if some priests believe that St. Peter was buried in Rome, even priests can make mistakes. Moreover, Returnee quotes an admirer of Fr. Malik who casts seeds of doubt against the Jerusalem burial thesis.

Catholics who place their trust in official Church pronouncements that St. Peter is buried in Rome may rest assured that the archeological community is not prepared to disprove it.

Last edited by Loy; Feb 6, '07 at 1:37 pm.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old Feb 6, '07, 1:47 pm
Marilena Marilena is offline
 
Join Date: October 16, 2005
Posts: 2,386
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Gli Scavi del Dominus Flevit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loy View Post
I think if you go back and read the Original Post post very carefully, you'll find that Returnee places confidence in the Catholic claim of a Roman burial, not the Jerusalem alternative. Returnee is trying to say that Petersen's claim of a Catholic conspiracy appears unsubstantiated, largely supported by undocumented "quotes". Returnee points out that anti-Catholic apologist Petersen expects us to trust that he has truthfully and accurately quoted unpublished oral statements. Returnee also reminds us that if some priests believe that St. Peter was buried in Rome, even priests can make mistakes. Moreover, Returnee quotes an admirer of Fr. Malik who casts seeds of doubt against the Jerusalem burial thesis.

Catholics who place their trust in official Church pronouncements that St. Peter is buried in Rome may rest assured that the archeological community is not prepared to disprove it.
good to have that cleared.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old Feb 7, '07, 8:06 am
Returnee Returnee is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: April 11, 2005
Posts: 101
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Gli Scavi del Dominus Flevit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marilena View Post
what is the point of all this may i ask? or have i completely lost the point your trying to make?
The point of my post was, as I'm sure you are aware by now (but if I may state for the record), to deposit a useful apologetic in this forum for use in the future. I decided to do so because when faced with the issue of Gli Scavi del Dominus Flevit, on another forum, I found no rebuttals for it on the Internet, even after nearly exaustive searches based on combinations of the name, the author(s) of the work, and most surprisingly, here on catholic.com and the forum.

Thus, after spending two days researching this topic, I thought I'd share my findings with fellow Cathoics, so that, if the issue arises here or elsewhere, a nice resource to rebutt the outlandish claim "Peter isn't buried in Rome" could be found via a search of the forum. If anyone knows of a better rebuttal, I would appreciate it, as I'm always looking for better apologetics.

I apologize for any confusion or consternation this caused.

Sincerely,
Returnee
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old Feb 7, '07, 9:08 am
Loy Loy is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 2005
Posts: 255
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Gli Scavi del Dominus Flevit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loy View Post
Returnee also reminds us that if some priests believe that St. Peter was buried in Rome, even priests can make mistakes.
Ulps! I meant to say "if some priests believe that St. Peter is not buried in Rome, even priests can make mistakes.

Thanks for the info, Returnee!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old Mar 19, '10, 10:25 pm
roman_cat roman_cat is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Posts: 5
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Gli Scavi del Dominus Flevit

http://kmerian.blogspot.com/2007/07/...us-flevit.html
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8026Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: 3DOCTORS
4816CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: 77stanthony77
4286Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: lsbar
4027OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: fencersmother
3810SOLITUDE
Last by: Prairie Rose
3358Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: RJB
3183Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: CountrySteve
3145Poems and Reflections
Last by: PathWalker
2959For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: Kellyreneeomara
2679Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: Amiciel



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:41 am.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2013, Catholic Answers.