The bones were discovered when a worker lifted up a large marble slab near the medieval altar of the church, which has been closed to the public for 35 years because of structural problems.
He came across two Roman-era pots with inscriptions on their lids indicating that inside were not only bone fragments from St Peter but also three early popes ‚Äď Cornelius, Callixtus and Felix ‚Äď as well as four early Christian martyrs.
The remains have been handed to the Vatican for further study. Without proper analysis, it is impossible to say whether they belong to St Peter. ‚ÄúWe‚Äôre waiting for a detailed study to be undertaken,‚ÄĚ said the deacon. ‚ÄúA DNA comparison between these bones and those kept by the Vatican would shed light on the issue.‚ÄĚ...
The pagan worship of the dead is continued in the hereies of Rome and the Vatican Dogma.
Quote: "It is well known that for ages the papacy has carried on a trade in relics, and that they abound in all parts of the world amongst Catholics, who put the most profound faith in them, and believe them possessed of wonderful supernatural power. These have all issued from the manufactory of the Vatican under authority of the successive popes, and many of them have been expressly blest by them. Notwithstanding that on this system they have two heads of St. Peter in Rome, as many as four, five, six, seven bodies of the same saint in different places, and as much wood of the true cross as would build a navy, these things do not in the least shake the faith of devotees. The priests say, that there being such things only makes the miracle the greater. The Vatican has for ages had a distinct department for the production and dissemination of relics, at the head of which is placed the Pope's vicar. This vicar appoints a superintendent of relics, a Jesuit by-the-way, who pronounces to what saint the body about to be cut up into relics belongs, and these are prepared in the Vatican itself." (CHS)
The John Ankerberg site has a fairly lengthy commentary why Peter was never the Pope and most likely never was in Rome
Dr. John Weldon wrote: Catholic tradition holds that Peter went to Rome and founded the papacy. This would mean that Peter should already be in Rome when the Apostle Paul arrives. But in Acts 27, which involves very specific details about Paul‚Äôs journey to Rome, not a word is said about Peter. In fact, in Acts 28:30 it says that Paul spent two entire years at Rome in his own quarters, welcoming everyone who came to him. Now if Peter were in Rome partaking of the papal office, is it at all conceivable that Peter would not go and visit the Apostle Paul‚ÄĒat least once? If he did, would Paul fail to mention it‚ÄĒfail to mention that he was visited by the head of the Church? Why is it that Luke, the great historian of the early Church, who set down his record in exacting detail also never mentions even a hint that Peter is in Rome or that he has his papal office?