Peter or Jupiter?


#1

Just when I thought I was over all those “pagan origin” myths, here’s a new one that I just have to ask about.

It is asserted that the statue (I think in St. Peter’s Cathedral) that is known as the “statue of St. Peter” was actually made by the pagan Romans and was the very statue of one of their gods, Jupiter, that they made and kissed it’s feet. It’s even asserted that on a guided tour of the Cathedral, it will be explained as such.

Now, what’s the deal here? Why would the holy church of God take a pagan idol and kiss it’s feet as if it were the statue of an apostle? I’m just wondering. Maybe some of the Catholics here can be cool with that, but I’m not. That’s way too close to adopting the practices of those who do not know God. Make your own statue, ok, but use a pagan idol? No. What do you say, is it even the same statue?


#2

Rob, doesn’t it seem that you are jumping to a conclusion based on unsupported “assertions” (to quote your quote)?

“. . .the fourth pier to the right is a very important sitting statue of St. Peter, which has been erroneously ascribed to the thirteenth century [by the sculptor Arnolfo di Cambio], but in truth dates from the fourth or fifth. This is no adaptation of another statue, but was intended to be a statue of the Prince of the Apostles.”

From this site:

newadvent.org/cathen/13369b.htm


#3

I can imagine Jack Chick’s wheels turning: “Ah ha! Catholics worship Peter because “Peter” is short for “Ju-Piter”, or “Ju-Peter”! And since Peter was Jewish, the Catholics saw “Ju-Peter” as one of their gods!”


#4

As far as I know, it seems that it is true. The Apostles were apaprently applied to various gods. Matthew was Mithras, Thomas - Tammuz, Mark - Mars, John - Oannes, Peter - Jupiter, Paul - Apollo.

Perhaps it is in the same reign as makeing the Winter Solstice into Christmas, an attempt to turn the pagan methods already established into a Christian one.

For those who make a case that Catholics are idolators, this becomes quite useful.

A Bible passage in Acts has the people believing Paul and BArnabus were gods.

Of course, is the assertation that the statue is really the original Jupiter true?


#5

FCEGM provided the answer at thenew advent cite:

“At the fourth pier to the right is a very important sitting statue of St. Peter, which has been erroneously ascribed to the thirteenth century, but in truth dates from the fourth or fifth. This is no adaptation of another statue, but was intended to be a statue of the Prince of the Apostles”

Seems this statue of Jupiter thing is just a bald faced lie that is spread about on the net as being true.


#6

Found this little bit at new advent here:

The famous bronze statue of St. Peter in the basilica of this Apostle in Rome is by some regarded as a work of the fifth or sixth century, by others as pertaining to the thirteenth. The latter date is adopted by Kraus and Kaufmann among others; Lowrie, however, maintains that “no statue of the Renaissance can be compared with this for genuine understanding of the classic dress”, and, therefore, this writer holds for the more ancient date. **The marble statue of St. Peter taken from the old basilica, now in the crypt of the Vatican, was originally, in all probability, an ancient consular statue which was transformed into a representation of the Prince of Apostles. **

newadvent.org/cathen/12294b.htm


#7

So there is possibly a statue of Peter that was originally Jupiter, but this is apparently kept in the Vatican Crypt now and I don’t know if anyone ever venerates it.

As for the famous bronze statue, it was also believed to be Jupiter, but that has been refuted:

"For centuries this statue has been in existence, and quite a dispute once arose as to its real character and historic value. Its sculptor is unknown. One set of critics maintained, partly because of its sitting posture, and partly for other reasons, that it was an ancient Jupiter Capitolinus, renamed St. Peter and placed in position. Still others declared that it was a recast, made by Pope Leo the Great, to commemorate the deliverance of Rome from Attila. The famous archaeologist and antiquary, Lanciani, of Rome, settled the dispute by proving that it was an original work, cast as a portrait of St. Peter. In the library of the Vatican there was found an oval medallion of the first century, having engraved on it the profiles of St. Peter and St. Paul. The resemblance between the profile on the medallion and the pro-file of the statue is too close to be denied, and Lanciani’s judgment stands. "

oldandsold.com/articles26/pilgrimage-6.shtml


#8

[quote=jdnation]As far as I know, it seems that it is true. The Apostles were apaprently applied to various gods. Matthew was Mithras, Thomas - Tammuz, Mark - Mars, John - Oannes, Peter - Jupiter, Paul - Apollo.

[/quote]

Well, that’s one way to demonstrate that the old religion did have some correct insights: show how the old deities are included and transcended by the new faith. But where did you get these associations (of Thomas and Tammuz, Mark and Mars, etc.)? Looks very intriguing; certainly doesn’t come from a Protestant perspective.


#9

stpetersbasilica.org/Statues/StPeter/StPeter.htm


#10

[quote=jdnation]So there is possibly a statue of Peter that was originally Jupiter, but this is apparently kept in the Vatican Crypt now and I don’t know if anyone ever venerates it.
[/quote]

I don’t know if it is venerated either, but being in the crypt doesn’t mean it is hidden away. It just means you have to tour through the crypt (as I have done) to see it.

tee


#11

[quote=Reformed Rob]It is asserted that the statue (I think in St. Peter’s Cathedral) that is known as the “statue of St. Peter” was actually made by the pagan Romans and was the very statue of one of their gods, Jupiter, that they made and kissed it’s feet. It’s even asserted that on a guided tour of the Cathedral, it will be explained as such.

[/quote]

It’s worse than that! Sunday was actually the day which belonged to and is dedicated to the worship of the pagan god Sol. How can they take a day that belonged to a pagan god and worship on it.

It was the day of the god of the sun, now it is the day of the Son of God.


#12

Thank you, all that was very interesting. I did not get my assertions from an internet article, rather I read it in a book that was given (loaned) to me by a woman who used to be catholic. She wants to keep me from being catholic (I’m sure many of you can relate to that!).

Anyways, it’s called “fossilized customs” and there’s a website of the same name. It’s by a “Messianic Nazarene Israelite” guy. I have a hard time taking him serious, since he specifically denies the Trinity!!

I was hoping to find solid, or at least reasonable refutations of such a claim. Thank you for setting them forth.

Things like that are right along with saying that veneration of relics and icons of saints was condemned at Constantinople 4, and then reinstituted at Nicea 2. While in actuality, Constantinople 4 was a false council of iconoclasts, and a large portion of the church was not represented, and Nicea 2, on the other hand, was truly ecumenical and orthodox.

Thanks for aiming to set another “Protestant Myth” or in this case “Messianic Nazarene Israelite Myth” to rest. :clapping:

Rob


#13

[quote=Ignatius]It’s worse than that! Sunday was actually the day which belonged to and is dedicated to the worship of the pagan god Sol. How can they take a day that belonged to a pagan god and worship on it.

It was the day of the god of the sun, now it is the day of the Son of God.
[/quote]

Yeah, Ignatius>>

The same author makes a big to do about that too!! Wow, how astray the whole church is today!!

Well, be that the case or not, I’m not convinced that the Apostles were subdued by pagan superstition when they “came together on the first day of the week.” Wait, weeks, calendars, aren’t they pagan too???


#14

[quote=jdnation]Found this little bit at new advent here:

The famous bronze statue of St. Peter in the basilica of this Apostle in Rome is by some regarded as a work of the fifth or sixth century, by others as pertaining to the thirteenth. The latter date is adopted by Kraus and Kaufmann among others; Lowrie, however, maintains that “no statue of the Renaissance can be compared with this for genuine understanding of the classic dress”, and, therefore, this writer holds for the more ancient date. **The marble statue of St. Peter taken from the old basilica, now in the crypt of the Vatican, was originally, in all probability, an ancient consular statue which was transformed into a representation of the Prince of Apostles. **

newadvent.org/cathen/12294b.htm
[/quote]

Hey JDNation,

That link has a quote from Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical history:

The historian Eusebius informs us that he had heard of “likenesses of the Apostles Peter and Paul” as well as of Our Lord, being preserved in paintings (Hist. eccl., VII, xvi).

In Eusebius’ work, that is Book 7 Chapter XVIII entitled
*The Statue Which the Woman with an Issue of Blood Erected.

*[size=2]not chapter 16 (xvi).
Maybe it’s been numbered differently at different publications?
Just thought anybody interested in looking that up might like to know the correct reference.

Here’s the whole chapter

[/size] 1 Since I have mentioned this city I do not think it proper to omit an accountwhich is worthy of record for posterity. For they say that the woman with an issue of blood, who, as we learn from the sacred Gospel,138 received from our Saviour deliverance from her affliction, came from this place, and that her house is shown in the city, and that remarkable memorials of the kindness of the Saviour to her remain there. For there stands upon

2 an elevated stone, by the gates of her house, a brazen image of a woman kneeling, with her hands stretched out, as if she were praying. Opposite this is another upright image of a man, made of the same material, clothed decently in a double cloak, and extending his hand toward the woman. At his feet, beside the statue itself,139 is a certain strange plant, which climbs up to the hem of the brazen cloak, and is a remedy for all kinds of diseases. They say that this statue is an image of

3 Jesus. It has remained to our day, so that we ourselves also saw it when we were staying in the city. Nor is it strange that those

4 of the Gentiles who, of old, were benefited by our Saviour, should have done such things, since we have learned also that the likenesses of his apostles Paul and Peter, and of Christ himself, are preserved in paintings,140 the ancients being accustomed, as it is likely, according to a habit of the Gentiles, to pay this kind of honor indiscriminately to those regarded by them as deliverers.

That’s pretty cool to think about!! Anyways, yay for Eusebius!!


#15

St Peter = jupiter!!!

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_11_1.gif

where do they get these things?!!!:frowning: :mad:


#16

[quote=antiaphrodite]St Peter = jupiter!!!

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_11_1.gif

where do they get these things?!!!:frowning: :mad:
[/quote]

Gee Willikers!! I wanna know where you got THAT THING!!

Actually, somebody here was getting me going on those smiley things, never got around to it though!! One Day!!!

In all honesty, it was the anti-Catholic that was saying that the Catholics called the old Roman statue of Jupiter the “statue of St. Peter.” So it would actually be the Catholics that would have to answer “where do they get these things?” But I think it’s been answered. Whether it was made in the 4th/5th century, or in the 13th century, (the later date may be better) it would seem to be made for the church, not adapted from Roman use to Christian use.


#17

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.