i have been to rome. the article makes some false statements that severely inhibit its credibility. For example, it discusses the roman practice of internment of the dead and later moving the corpse, which is how they account for the tomb in jureusalem. HOWEVER, romans didnt believe in intering the dead, they cremated 100% of their dead. not surprisingly, a visit to rome will yeild countless miles of christian catechombs and no roman burial grounds prior to the conversion of Rome to christianity.
Next, Eyewitness historical accounts in themselves deny the rumor. THOUSANDS of people saw peter crucified in rome. Peter’s journey to rome is even recounted in the bible. we know he was there because all historical evidence points to it.
Finally, the premise of successful determination is the presence of the name on the tomb. I’ve google searched my name before and can’t find a single page on me amid the literally thousands of people who share the same name. one can’t even be sure that the tomb dates from exactly the same period as peter’s death, since the article claims that the body was moved to a new tomb after original internment. HOWEVER, simon bar jona was no longer KNOWN as simon. There is no reason ANYBODY connected to him in such a way as to ensure his proper burial rather than cremation would ever have put his OLD name on the tomb when he had a new name which he had fully adopted and used since his time with Christ.
for providing many great Catholic links to his readers who “accidently stumble” onto his web site.