What's with the statue of Peter in St. Peter’s Cathedral?

No, that is not true. That's anti-Catholic propaganda (I've seen and "touched" this statue myself in the summer of 2001):



The right foot of Peter is worn out because of all of the statue worshipping for which it has served its purpose. Come on.. join the crowd of idolators.. we're all doing it!



You know.. because we believe the deity rests in this piece of stone and so we give the adoration due only to God alone to this inanimate piece of stone. Why? Because the Whore of Babylon has commanded all Catholics to do so under pain of excommunication and physical torture.

Oh hail the stone statue!

Man, worshipping statues gives me such a rush.

 

Carson,

You need to add a few more smiley faces, etc. -- it takes a lot to make some folks in this crowd recognize a joke.

"Just a word in the ear" ... can you guess who I'm quoting?

Mark

 

It's one UGLY statue. I do hope that it didn't cost anything. An idea would be to bust it up and sell the pieces as Vatican indulgences.

 

Hey Carson,

I can't get to Rome this year. Is it OK if I just worship some rocks from the backyard? I could paint faces on them first, if that would help.

Sure would make things easy!

 

I suspect ARNOLFO DI CAMBIO would not have been pleased with john6:63 attributing his handiwork to somebody else.
http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/html/a/arnolfo/

 

A_Christian: Cultural barbarian and proud of it.


Di Cambio is a rather important figure in the transition from Medieval art to Renaissance art.

 

mioque:

Sorry, I looked at it again and got no feeling that I was seeing Peter. I like the Nike of
Samothrace. Maybe with a sledge hammer we might do some alterations.

Still an ugly statue, no counting for taste nor
inspiration...

 

Matthew 3:9 says, 'And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father. For I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.'

Carson Weber said, 'I've seen and "touched" this statue myself in the summer of 2001.'

Ray is saying, 'And think not to say within yourselves, We have the pope as our father. For I say unto you, that the Lord God is able to raise up a statue of St. Peter, but He will not.'

Christ is still the only foundation of our faith. [I Cor. 3:11, Matt. 16:18, and Isaiah 28:16] Neither a statue of Peter or Peter himself can get you into Heaven. But the Author of John 3:16 can do exactly this for you.

 

A_Christian
"Still an ugly statue"
Medieval statues are an acquired taste, so that you find it ugly is normal. Speaking from an arthistory perspective it mostly of historical interest (being part of that transition phase between late Medieval art and early Renaissance art).
Judging it purely on it's own merits instead of it's historical significance, I think it's rather boring.

"Maybe with a sledge hammer"
There is a reason certain branches of Christianity got cursed with the inability to create art...
And no I'm not talking about the Catholics. Although they created a remarkable amount of dross next to those masterpieces.

"I looked at it again and got no feeling that I was seeing Peter."
It has a halo, it's a guy and he is holding a key, so it is saint Peter.
basic iconography doesn't get more complicated.

 

"Christ is still the only foundation of our faith. [I Cor. 3:11, Matt. 16:18, and Isaiah 28:16] "

What? So Eph 2:20 is a lie? No Ray, it is not.

 

The statue in St Peter's (photographed in this thread) is strictly a renaissance piece of art. It is documented to the 14th century. The style of art of the early Roman empire (in the days of polytheism) was a dramatically different style. The statue in questions shares none of the earlier artistic characteristics. In other words, no, it's not a reused tatue. It's strictly renaissance in origin.

From my understanding of the early years of Christianity in the Roman empire, most of the statues of the roman gods were destroyed to enforce the new religion of Christianity and erase all traces of the earlier religion. Unfortunately, that also meant that few statues remained to survive to this time, and much of what we know about the craftsmanship of this time has been lost.

 

Comments like these are completely uncalled for and sad to see.

In Christ,
Neal

 

thessalonian,

Is your alleged first pope the chief cornerstone? Your strong point was supposed to be Ephesians 2:20.

'And are built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone.'

Because Christ is the Rock {Isaiah 28:16 & Matthew 16:18} only then do all of the apostles, not merely Peter, who denied our Lord three times, become a ledge including the O.T. voices to the Israelite people. The Greek word for (cornerstone} is (chief) is {akrogoniaiou} meaning the highest rank, of greatest importance; the Latin word is {princeps} meaning first in rank or Head.

Christ is both the Foundation {vs.20a} and the Cornerstone. {vs. 20b} Ed, give God a little credit.

Dr. Matthew Henry says, in "Matthew Henry's Commentary Vol. VI, p. 695,

'We are to understand it of the doctrine delivered by the prophets of the Old Testament and the apostles of the New. It follows, Jesus Christ Himself being the Chief corner Stone. In Him both Jews and Gentile meet, and constitute on church; and Christ supports the building by His strength.'
we

 

Ray,

You're mixing metaphors. Christ as the cornerstone and Peter as the foundation stone are drawn from two completely separate passages with different metaphorical connotations. To place all of your money on one at the expense of the other by mixing the metaphors through the principle of mutual exclusion is to do a disservice to the Bible.

 

If scholars can only speculate, then the "scholars" who say that it is Jupiter can only "speculate."

Thus, you negate that we can know for sure, and at the same time, tell us that we're wrong.

Nice work.