What does the RCC officially teach regarding Mary?

[Yeshua1]

Yeshua, the question was: "If anybody can prove that Jesus left us with a Bible Church first and not a Teaching Church first ' . now I wait for your answer

Jesus left us with the Day of pentacost, on which the holy Spirit came in His new ministry of starting the church age, and that was built NOT upon either peter or the RCC, but upon chief cornerstone jesus Christ!

Do you even know what the bible states is real salvation and the true Gospel of the Cross of christ, not the false Rome version?

 

[lakeside]

The Church that Jesus built was on his Apostles.

 

[DHK]

The Church that Jesus built was on his Apostles.

As was already posted just a couple of posts previously:

You are deceived.
The Lord gave us the Bible, the Scriptures. His apostles were the authors of the NT, as his prophets were the authors of the OT. The Holy Spirit inspired each and every book, and the RCC had nothing to do with it.
The Bible indicates that Christ loved "his assembly," never the RCC. His "assembly" started off with 12 apostles and grew to 120 disciples on the Day of Pentecost, which had another 3,000 added to them on that day. Such was that particular church (The First Baptist Church at Jerusalem). Many other churches were started afterward.

 

[Darrell C]

The Church that Jesus built was on his Apostles.

I would say it is better to say "The Lord is building His Church and that the roles of the Apostles was an important aspect in the establishing of the Church."

We have to remember on Whom the Apostles rest:


Ephesians 2:19-21

King James Version (KJV)

19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:


And Paul makes it clear:


1 Corinthians 3:10-11

King James Version (KJV)

10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.

11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.



That even an Apostle does not place his important function above the only Foundation, and that is Christ. Paul does not suggest here that he "laid the foundation" which is Christ.

He is simply acknowledging that his ministry was, as his wont was to preach, Christ, and Christ crucified.

Nothing else.


God bless.

 

[lakeside]

Darrell C, I agree, why wouldn't I ? I believe in the Holy Bible as much as anybody, it's just that I do not limit God as much as some people do, and I go by the One Interpretation that God applied to His Holy Bible. I truly believe that the Christian fFth is very unique from all other World religions because Christianity is more than just a holy book religion. The Christian Faith that Jesus left us with is different in that all the major World Religions are only of a book religion, not only in that respect, but also it tells us the Good News of man-kind's only Savior Our Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ [ Jesus before and then called Christ after the Sacrifice on the Cross]. Jesus never left us a holy book, His Church which He loves gave us the Holy Bible with the guidance of the Holy Spirit and it never came with a built in Table of Contents or with a patent -leather cover. I know who gave us those Holy Books that we as Christians all believe is the inerrant Word of God, but you won't believe me. No place in any Canonical Book of the Bible did it originally define which books from the great volume of books at the time of compilation does it [ The Holy Bible ] indicate which books are Canonical or non-Canonical.

 

[DHK]

Darrell C, I agree, why wouldn't I ? I believe in the Holy Bible as much as anybody, it's just that I do not limit God as much as some people do, and I go by the One Interpretation that God applied to His Holy Bible.

You have a hard time explaining what that interpretation is, and why or how it is Biblical.

I truly believe that the Christian fFth is very unique from all other World religions because Christianity is more than just a holy book religion. The Christian Faith that Jesus left us with is different in that all the major World Religions are only of a book religion, not only in that respect, but also it tells us the Good News of man-kind's only Savior Our Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ [ Jesus before and then called Christ after the Sacrifice on the Cross].

It is different because we don't have a religion; we have a relationship. Until you come to an understanding of that you will never understand what Biblical Christianity is all about.

Jesus never left us a holy book, His Church which He loves gave us the Holy Bible with the guidance of the Holy Spirit and it never came with a built in Table of Contents or with a patent -leather cover. I know who gave us those Holy Books that we as Christians all believe is the inerrant Word of God, but you won't believe me.

The Bible itself tells us where the Bible came from. Who should we believe? You or the Bible? I believe God's Word is of greater authority than your word.

2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
--The Bible did not come by the "private interpretation" of the RCC.
--The Bible did not come from the will of man of the RCC.
--The Bible came from holy men of God (prophets and apostles) as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (not the RCC).

No place in any Canonical Book of the Bible did it originally define which books from the great volume of books at the time of compilation does it [ The Holy Bible ] indicate which books are Canonical or non-Canonical.

I trust the apostles and prophets, but you don't. You put your faith in a corrupt organization instead of in God. That is the difference.

 

[lakeside]

DHK,Jesus didn't think then or now that it is corrupt, but satan has attempted to destroy it and is constantly throwing everything he has against it including some people. It is to be expected because what some did to Jesus they now try and do against His apostolic church. In Acts 9: 4 Jesus Himself refers to His church as " me".

 

[DHK]

DHK,Jesus didn't think then or now that it is corrupt, but satan has attempted to destroy it and is constantly throwing everything he has against it including some people. It is to be expected because what some did to Jesus they now try and do against His apostolic church. In Acts 9: 4 Jesus Himself refers to His church as " me".

You said: "Jesus didn't think then or now it was corrupt."
Prove your statement to be true.
Here is why it is false.
The RCC is built on a lie. Peter was never the first Pope. There is no evidence that he was ever in Rome and even less that he was ever the bishop or leader of any church in Rome.
The best evidence we have of the origin of the RCC is when, in the 4th century Constantine used Christianity for his own political means and made it a state-religion. The marriage of the state to Christianity was the beginning of the RCC and the introduction of much of paganism into Christianity. That is where the RCC began from. Its very beginning was a foundation of paganism, not Christ, not Peter, not the Bible, but from a pagan emperor who made it a state-religion for his own political agenda.
One of the first things on his agenda was murder. He began the crusades--crusades to conquer other regions by force, by murdering others simply for the purpose of greed.

This was not of Christ, or the way of the cross that Constantine claimed.
The RCC was founded on a lie and perpetuated on a series of lies.
It was never "of Christ."

 

[McCree79]

You said: "Jesus didn't think then or now it was corrupt."
Prove your statement to be true.
Here is why it is false.
The RCC is built on a lie. Peter was never the first Pope. There is no evidence that he was ever in Rome and even less that he was ever the bishop or leader of any church in Rome.
The best evidence we have of the origin of the RCC is when, in the 4th century Constantine used Christianity for his own political means and made it a state-religion. The marriage of the state to Christianity was the beginning of the RCC and the introduction of much of paganism into Christianity. That is where the RCC began from. Its very beginning was a foundation of paganism, not Christ, not Peter, not the Bible, but from a pagan emperor who made it a state-religion for his own political agenda.
One of the first things on his agenda was murder. He began the crusades--crusades to conquer other regions by force, by murdering others simply for the purpose of greed.

This was not of Christ, or the way of the cross that Constantine claimed.
The RCC was founded on a lie and perpetuated on a series of lies.
It was never "of Christ."

Good points DHK. I have been reading Baker's Christian History. The early chapters have done a great job showing how the RCC did not bring much of the corruption into Christianity, but how it is the result of these corruption's. Built upon pagan beliefs that bleed into the early church. Such as Fetishism, Sacramentalism, Sacerdotalism, Professionalism and how they copied other pagan religions by introducing Mary as an object of adoration and worship.

 

[lakeside]

DHK, you said: " The RCC is built on a lie. Peter was never the first Pope. There is no evidence that he was ever in Rome and even less that he was ever the bishop or leader of any church in Rome."

So now DHK,show me from the Bible where it says that above which you wrote.

Once you show me that from the Bible, then show me from the Bible where Jesus commands future { approx. 1500 years later } mere-men to form many churches different from His. I'll patiently wait for your answers.

 

[McCree79]

DHK, you said: " The RCC is built on a lie. Peter was never the first Pope. There is no evidence that he was ever in Rome and even less that he was ever the bishop or leader of any church in Rome."

So now DHK,show me from the Bible where it says that above which you wrote.

Once you show me that from the Bible, then show me from the Bible where Jesus commands future { approx. 1500 years later } mere-men to form many churches different from His. I'll patiently wait for your answers.

Haha! Really, that is your argument?!? That the Bible doesn't day Peter wasn't Pope. It doesn't say he wasn't in Rome???

That is non sense. If the "Bishop of Rome" was over all the churches since the beginning, why in the first universal council of 325, did the churches deny that? In 325 the Bishop of Rome tried to claim himself first. The other churches noticed the inserted language and decried fraud!


Where did Jesus say to "bring pagan practices into my church and change the means of salvation"? That is what the RCC is made of. Your claim is that you are the true church, when in all reality, the RCC was never the " church". Born of pagan beliefs and leading people astray from the beginning. The Reformation wasn't a separation from the church. It was a return to it.

 

[lakeside]

Mc Cree, documentation please.

 

[McCree79]

Mc Cree, documentation please.

Christian History, Baker, page 74 3rd edition. The forged sentence was inserted into the Roman Bishops copy of the creed. It I was discovered when being compared to other copies of the creed.

The link below is a summary of the counsel by White. Who shows, per cannon 6 the bishop of Rome was on par with other bishops.
http://www.equip.org/article/what-really-happened-at-nicea/#christian-books-1

 

[DHK]

DHK, you said: " The RCC is built on a lie. Peter was never the first Pope. There is no evidence that he was ever in Rome and even less that he was ever the bishop or leader of any church in Rome."

So now DHK,show me from the Bible where it says that above which you wrote.

Once you show me that from the Bible, then show me from the Bible where Jesus commands future { approx. 1500 years later } mere-men to form many churches different from His. I'll patiently wait for your answers.

I already have in many different places. I will mention a few of them again.
Paul wrote in ca. 57-58 from the city of Corinth to Rome.
In the first chapter he writes:
Rom 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
Rom 1:7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
--"to all that be at Rome..." No mention is made of the great apostle Peter; not in the introduction.

There is not one mention throughout the entire book, all 16 chapters.
Then we come to the last chapter, chapter 16:
Rom 16:1 I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:
Rom 16:2 That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also.
Rom 16:3 Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus:
Rom 16:4 Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles.
Rom 16:5 Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my wellbeloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ.
--Greetings are given primarily to Aquilla and Priscilla, two mature believers who Paul met in Ephesus. Now a church meets in their house in Rome. It is possible that they came to Rome to start the church.

Now he gives greeting to a whole list of members of those in Rome:
om 16:6 Greet Mary, who bestowed much labour on us.
Rom 16:7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.
Rom 16:8 Greet Amplias my beloved in the Lord.
Rom 16:9 Salute Urbane, our helper in Christ, and Stachys my beloved.
Rom 16:10 Salute Apelles approved in Christ. Salute them which are of Aristobulus' household.
Rom 16:11 Salute Herodion my kinsman. Greet them that be of the household of Narcissus, which are in the Lord.
Rom 16:12 Salute Tryphena and Tryphosa, who labour in the Lord. Salute the beloved Persis, which laboured much in the Lord.
Rom 16:13 Salute Rufus chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine.
Rom 16:14 Salute Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermas, Patrobas, Hermes, and the brethren which are with them.
Rom 16:15 Salute Philologus, and Julia, Nereus, and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints which are with them.
Rom 16:16 Salute one another with an holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you.
--But Peter is not among them.

Note in verse 16: "The churches of Christ salute you." There was no such thing as "The Church." Paul had established many churches, up to 100 of them. He sends greetings from "churches," not "The Church." That is significant. Even among "the churches," Peter is not mentioned. It is as if he is insignificant.

In fact, the only place Paul mentions Peter is in his epistle to the Galatians:
Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
--Peter was playing the part of a hypocrite and going against the decision that the apostles, including Peter, had made in Acts 15. Paul sternly rebuked him for disobeying the Word of God.

The only mention of Paul by Peter is in 2Peter:
2Pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
--Peter verifies that some of Paul's writings were hard to understand. But he also verifies that they were just as much scripture as other scripture, that is as the writings of the prophets, and they were to treat them as inspired. There were some that didn't. They were unlearned in the scriptures and wrest the scriptures to their own destruction.

This same epistle (2Peter) was written about a year after his first epistle, ca.67-68 A.D., and from the same place, Babylon. Peter was an apostle to the displaced Jews he mentions in the 1Peter 1:1,2. In this epistle he mentions:
2Pe 1:15 Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance.
--Peter knew that he would shortly die. Death for him was imminent. Remember these things after my death he is saying. I won't be with you much longer. He is writing from Babylon, not Rome. It is not known if he ever made it there for he died less than a year afterward.
The destruction of Rome was in 70 A.D. Check all of history.
Peter definitely was dead before that time. He died before the Temple was destroyed. That happened only two years after he wrote Second Peter from the city of Babylon. He wasn't in Rome.

 

[lakeside]

Babylon was the early code word for Rome

 

[lakeside]

DHK,
the Bible does allude to Peter's being in Rome. Peter concludes his first epistle with a cryptic greeting from "Babylon." This was the early Church's code word for Rome. The term didn't mean the city of Babylon which figures so greatly in the Old Testament, though the code word was chosen precisely because of what ancient Babylon had done to the Jews--the Romans were doing likewise to Christians.

Why did the early Christians, in their letters, write "I'm in Babylon" instead of "I'm in Rome"? Because the authorities were hunting for them--the Church was being persecuted--and mail delivery was unreliable.

You never knew when a Roman official would confiscate one of your letters. So, if you didn't want to advertise your whereabouts to the disloyal opposition, you used code words.

The scriptural evidence may not convince you of Peter's presence in Rome. Fair enough. But you ought to look also at other early writings and at the archaeological evidence. (You owe it to yourself and to Catholics to examine all the available evidence.)

Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said Matthew wrote his Gospel "while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome." Dionysius of Corinith, about A.D. 170, referred to "the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome."

What about the archaeological evidence? In the middle decades of this century scientists conducted digs under St. Peter's Basilica to verify or disprove the tradition that the church had been constructed over Peter's tomb.

And what do you think they found? That's right: the tomb. Pope Paul VI was able to announce that conclusive proof had been discovered.




Neighboring crypts on which were written grafitti such as, "Buried near Peter." For a popular account of the excavations, read John Evangelist Walsh's The Bones of St. Peter.

 

[lakeside]

Jesus used the word "church " twice in the Gospels, both in Matthew. He said, "I will build my Church" (Matt. 16:18). He didn’t say "churches" or " ekklesias " as though He were building subdivisions, nor did he imply that it would be an invisible church made up of competing groups.[ as like today with over Thirty- Thousand competing churches all with a different interpretation of Scripture ] Jesus was going to build a visible, recognizable Church, as shown by the fact that he appointed Peter to lead it in his absence. And in Matthew 18:17, Jesus said that if one brother offends another they were to take it to "the Church." { even if church is rightly called ekklesia it still means " assembled members " out of which are taken many doing different positions i.e. teachers, deacons etc } Notice in that verse "the" referring to a specific entity. Not "churches" but one visible, recognizable Church that can be expected to have a recognizable leadership with universal authority. Now,if you would kindly turn to Luke 10:16 and read where Jesus already having given Peter and his successors the "Authority," Peter being the chief Apostle chosen by Christ ,to lead His Church on Earth ,so in this verse we see where Jesus said : " He who hears you hears me , and he who rehects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me". I hope you can understand that Jesus unequivacally is saying that Peter and the other qualified "teachers with authority " as Jesus was a "Teacher with Authority " all this authority from Jesus was given to His "teachers with authority " thus to His One Teaching Universal Church. If Jesus taught His Apostles everything that is needed for Salvation and that His Church teaches as the Apostles taught wouldn't that Church alone be the One Holy Church as prescribed by Christ as can be further proven even further by these two more verses Romans 16: 17-18 and 1 Cor. 1 : 10.

 

[Zenas]

Christian History, Baker, page 74 3rd edition. The forged sentence was inserted into the Roman Bishops copy of the creed. It I was discovered when being compared to other copies of the creed.

The link below is a summary of the counsel by White. Who shows, per cannon 6 the bishop of Rome was on par with other bishops.
http://www.equip.org/article/what-really-happened-at-nicea/#christian-books-1

I don't know who your Baker person is but James R. White is about as anti-Catholic as they get. He will go out of his way to prove Catholics wrong whenever he can. He is very bright but very biased in his views.

 

[DHK]

Babylon was the early code word for Rome

So says very unreliable tradition. It really wasn't.

 

[DHK]

DHK,
the Bible does allude to Peter's being in Rome. Peter concludes his first epistle with a cryptic greeting from "Babylon." This was the early Church's code word for Rome.

According to the RCC, not according to others. I trust God when I read the Bible.

The term didn't mean the city of Babylon which figures so greatly in the Old Testament, though the code word was chosen precisely because of what ancient Babylon had done to the Jews--the Romans were doing likewise to Christians.

Here is what the scholars Jamieson, Faucett and Brown say:

13. The . . . at Babylon--ALFORD, BENGEL, and others translate, "She that is elected together with you in Babylon," namely, Peter's wife, whom he led about with him in his missionary journeys. Compare 1Pe 3:7, "heirs together of the grace of life." But why she should be called "elected together with you in Babylon," as if there had been no Christian woman in Babylon besides, is inexplicable on this view. In English Version the sense is clear: "That portion of the whole dispersion (1Pe 1:1, Greek), or Church of Christianized Jews, with Gentile converts, which resides in Babylon." As Peter and John were closely associated, Peter addresses the Church in John's peculiar province, Asia, and closes with "your co-elect sister Church at Babylon saluteth you"; and John similarly addresses the "elect lady," that is, the Church in Babylon, and closes with "the children of thine elect sister (the Asiatic Church) greet thee"; (compare Introduction to Second John). ERASMUS explains, "Mark who is in the place of a son to me": compare Ac 12:12, implying Peter's connection with Mark; whence the mention of him in connection with the Church at Babylon, in which he labored under Peter before he went to Alexandria is not unnatural. PAPIAS reports from the presbyter John [EUSEBIUS, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39], that Mark was interpreter of Peter, recording in his Gospel the facts related to him by Peter. Silvanus or Silas had been substituted for John Mark, as Paul's companion, because of Mark's temporary unfaithfulness. But now Mark restored is associated with Silvanus, Paul's companion, in Peter's esteem, as Mark was already reinstated in Paul's esteem. That Mark had a spiritual connection with the Asiatic' churches which Peter addresses, and so naturally salutes them, appears from 2Ti 4:11; Col 4:10.
Babylon--The Chaldean Babylon on the Euphrates. See Introduction, ON THE PLACE OF WRITING this Epistle, in proof that Rome is not meant as Papists assert; compare LIGHTFOOT sermon. How unlikely that in a friendly salutation the enigmatical title of Rome given in prophecy (John, Re 17:5), should be used! Babylon was the center from which the Asiatic dispersion whom Peter addresses was derived. PHILO [The Embassy to Gaius, 36] and JOSEPHUS [Antiquities, 15.2.2; 23.12] inform us that Babylon contained a great many Jews in the apostolic age (whereas those at Rome were comparatively few, about eight thousand [JOSEPHUS, Antiquities, 17.11]); so it would naturally be visited by the apostle of the circumcision. It was the headquarters of those whom he had so successfully addressed on Pentecost, Ac 2:9, Jewish "Parthians . . . dwellers in Mesopotamia" (the Parthians were then masters of Mesopotamian Babylon); these he ministered to in person. His other hearers, the Jewish "dwellers in Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, Pamphylia," he now ministers to by letter. The earliest distinct authority for Peter's martyrdom at Rome is DIONYSIUS, bishop of Corinth, in the latter half of the second century. The desirableness of representing Peter and Paul, the two leading apostles, as together founding the Church of the metropolis, seems to have originated the tradition. CLEMENT OF ROME [First Epistle to the Corinthians, 4.5], often quoted for, is really against it. He mentions Paul and Peter together, but makes it as a distinguishing circumstance of Paul, that he preached both in the East and West, implying that Peter never was in the West. In 2Pe 1:14, he says, "I must shortly put off this tabernacle," implying his martyrdom was near, yet he makes no allusion to Rome, or any intention of his visiting it.

Their evidence is overwhelming.

Why did the early Christians, in their letters, write "I'm in Babylon" instead of "I'm in Rome"? Because the authorities were hunting for them--the Church was being persecuted--and mail delivery was unreliable.

Your argument is laughable in light of the fact that Paul sent a rather large letter (16 long chapters--all written on scrolls of course), by the hand of a woman, Phoebe, who seemed to be in no danger at all. And she was coming from one of the most wicked cities in the Empire--Corinth. It was worse off than Rome. At least there was law and order in Rome. Paul addressed his letter "to all that are in Rome," not Babylon. The scripture doesn't lie, and it is not written in secret code.

You never knew when a Roman official would confiscate one of your letters. So, if you didn't want to advertise your whereabouts to the disloyal opposition, you used code words.

Right! And they never knew when a UFO was going to land in front of their house either. :laugh:
You are arguing from silence. You can read anything into the Bible you want when an argument is from silence.

The scriptural evidence may not convince you of Peter's presence in Rome. Fair enough. But you ought to look also at other early writings and at the archaeological evidence. (You owe it to yourself and to Catholics to examine all the available evidence.)

The only archaeological evidence there is, is that his bones may have been taken there for burial, and that is it.

Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said Matthew wrote his Gospel "while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome." Dionysius of Corinith, about A.D. 170, referred to "the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome."

He is wrong.
Again Jamieson, Faucett and Brown give this information:

. Its Hebraic structure and hue, though they prove, as we think, that this Gospel must have been published at a period considerably anterior to the destruction of Jerusalem, are no evidence in favor of so early a date as A.D. 37 or 38--according to some of the Fathers, and, of the moderns, TILLEMONT, TOWNSON, OWEN, BIRKS, TREGELLES.
On the other hand, the date suggested by the statement of IRENÆUS [Against Heresies, 3.1], that Matthew put forth his Gospel while Peter and Paul were at Rome preaching and founding the Church--or after A.D. 60--though probably the majority of critics are in favor of it, would seem rather too late, especially as the second and third Gospels, which were doubtless published, as well as this one, before the destruction of Jerusalem, had still to be issued. Certainly, such statements as the following, "Wherefore that field is called the field of blood unto this day" (Mt 27:8); "And this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day" (Mt 28:15), bespeak a date considerably later than the events recorded. We incline, therefore, to a date intermediate between the earlier and the later dates assigned to this Gospel, without pretending to greater precision.

Most scholars date Matthew ca. 50-55 A.D., as the above quote would as well.

What about the archaeological evidence? In the middle decades of this century scientists conducted digs under St. Peter's Basilica to verify or disprove the tradition that the church had been constructed over Peter's tomb.

And what do you think they found? That's right: the tomb. Pope Paul VI was able to announce that conclusive proof had been discovered.

Like I said, that proves nothing. His bones may have been moved there,
or secondly it may be conceded that he may have died a martyr's death there as did Paul. But by no means was he ever there long enough to be a bishop of a church. No one can give that kind of evidence.

Neighboring crypts on which were written grafitti such as, "Buried near Peter." For a popular account of the excavations, read John Evangelist Walsh's The Bones of St. Peter.

Buried! But he didn't live there.