Talk:Old St. Peter's Basilica

Something missing?
"In 846, Saracens sacked and destroyed the basilica, causing retaliation by Lothar.[3]

However the church was falling to ruin by the 15th century..."

Something seems to have dropped out between these two paragraphs. Was it rebuilt after 846? --Jfruh (talk) 03:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree the above sack of Rome may well have destroyed the original basilica. But where is the evidence of it? How about the sack in 1527? Does there exist any information concerning the basilica? And just where can one/anyone find any representations of this very famous and spectacular edifice? It seems that no one kept even one engraving or painting or fresco, etc. of this structure for about 1,000 years. I find this totally impossible to believe. It seems that what may be the oldest representation of the basilica might well be found to be no older than 1457 CE.96.19.159.196 (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes

It is amazing that you (or anyone) can believe the currently accepted time -line!
Am I to believe that any of you in charge of this site can still believe that the original Basilica made mostly of wood, survived for over 1,000 years? If so, I have some great beach-front property for sale! I just know that most of you are not idiots, like the majority of the population of this planet, both Catholic and other. But it seems that you "religiously" follow the Vaticans view about this building. Based upon the information provided by the New Advent, etc., and other sources showing representations of the first "Basilica" until its destruction over 1,000 years later is, as I am ready to show, is "bull s---!"!! With the plethorea of diagrams, drawings, etc. found upon the "net" there exists a few that show some of the problems but not one that shows all of the possible views of the site in the middle of the 15th century CE. Since none of you would ever consider any source provided by A. T. Fomenko, then I can only refer you to a "better?" source which might well be Anthony Grafton! He has published/edited a book concerning Rome and the Vatican, entitled "ROME REBORN, The Vatican Library & Renaissance Culture" ISBN= 0-300-05442-4. If any of you have the guts, then peruse pages 102-104, and examine a man made drawing of St. Peter's, identifed as plate 84, in the supposed year of 1457 AD/CE!, and thus the very period that the "New St. Peter's" was being built! Please note that this view into the past has, it seems, never made its way into the mainstream of history! Can any of you explain why? It seems to show a near perfect "Gothic" church, overlooking Rome! Almost any of you brains can identify a few of the things in the background, such as the "fortress" or the Tomb of Hadrian/Adrian, and the Pantheon or the "Ara Coeli", without much trouble! And as well it seems also easy to identify the "Passeto". if one cares to try, the river is easier. Here is a visual aid I did not find until now. Little regards to you, the defenders of the "status quo"!96.19.159.196 (talk) 02:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes


 * The article says that the roof gables were wood; the walls, floors & roofing were certainly not. There is plenty of roof timber 800-900 years old in good condition in cathedrals etc, & if it is not, it can be replaced relatively easily. Johnbod (talk) 11:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. And yes I agree that wood timbers can be replaced easily if one has the inclination to do so. But it seems that for seventy or so years, there existed little inclination to do so, since there existed different Popes located in differing places, and in Rome, we are told the head church waas not St. Peter's but the Lateran. And, if you would, please explain why it seems, their exists "no" paintings of the original basilica?, as far as I know, since I have searched far and wide for them. That is the reason I suggested that the site I listed above might well be the "only" possible representation of the original. And it seems that in 1457 CE, it shows not a "basilica" of the type found in the 6th or 7th century but it seems representative of the "Gothic" style, I.e. 12th C. CE!. Regards, 96.19.159.196 (talk) 18:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes Perhaps this site can, even with its rough English, make your response reasonable? Thus; http://www.egodeath.com/newchronology.htm Regards! 96.19.159.196 (talk) 03:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes

Can we assume that "Old St. Peter's" was built in the "Romanesque" style? Certainly the representation shown on the main page seems to indicate such, and I believe that this was the usual style when it was erected. Some excellent representations of this style can be found here; http://www.paradoxplace.com/Perspectives/Sicily%20&%20S%20Italy/Puglia/Puglia_Cathedrals/Around%20Puglia.htm But, again the representation shown in the reported 1457 CE representation does not in any way look similar in style to it, and as there seems to be a strange lack of any portraits of the original existing anywhere, then why do you show only the Romanesque design? Regards, Ronald L. Hughes96.19.159.196 (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't see the 1457 image, but I'm also not seeing any problem. The design in the various images we do have seems entirely consistent with the many other other Late Antique churches that survive. Romanesque was much later. Johnbod (talk) 21:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Dear Johnbod, while I appreciated your kind response, it does not seem to match the information found within Wiki, under the heading "Romanesque architecture", in the first paragraph, you find these words; "Romanesque architecture is an architectural style of Medieval Europe characterized by semi-circular arches. There is no consensus for the beginning date of the Romanesque architecture, with proposals ranging from the 6th to the 10th century. It developed in the 12th century into the Gothic style, characterised by pointed arches." Please note that Wiki ssys that there exists no consensus for the dating of the Romanesque style, proposals vary from 6th century CE to the 12th, wherein repears start to become Gothic in style. As far as the reported 1457 representation, I can only say that it appears to be Gothic in style. Perhaps your local Library can order you a copy of the book in question, so you can see for yourself. The book is exceptionally well done, and you might well enjoy it for other reasons! Regards, 96.19.159.196 (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes

Further more you actually wrote these words in your last response, and I just cannot believe the cavallier attitude you presented, thus "I can't see the 1457 image, but I'm also not seeing any problem..." Well obviously one cannot see a problem they cannot see or refuse to see. How about a restatement of your response? Not really impressed by your defense as yet. Ronald L. Hughes96.19.159.196 (talk) 00:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Read it again, more carefully. But I'm losing interest in this frankly. What you or I think is not important, it's what WP:RS say that is. Johnbod (talk) 02:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The aversion of site administrators to the introduction of new and possibly controversial "facts".
Dear Johnbot, et. al., just why should you as a "historian" and a fan of Encyclepedias, resond that you are tired of this topic. I have shown to you all a site, that is has some bonifidies, and dates (1547 CE) with an entirely "Gothic in style" church right on the land now occupied by a relatively New Basilica. You seen to consider that all that needs to be known is "known !" That attitude is very anti-academic and also very anti-Encyclopedic!! Certainly you and your fellows are not without the ability to actually view my respected sources, or do you merely ignore information that challenges the current lack of academic curiosity that is part and parcel of a respected scholar. Thus if you have not actually viewed the "source" and its verifibility, then you are either brain dead, or merely you don't care about the truth? So, which is it? I can give no "regards" to you at this point.96.19.159.196 (talk) 19:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)Ronald L, Hughes
 * What site? You have just referred to a book, without saying clearly what it says. I am not an administrator. Johnbod (talk) 19:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

My esteemed Johnbod! Well there is not a "site" but there exists this. "I can only refer you to a "better?" source which might well be Anthony Grafton! He has published/edited a book concerning Rome and the Vatican, entitled "ROME REBORN, The Vatican Library & Renaissance Culture" ISBN= 0-300-05442-4. If any of you have the guts, then peruse pages 102-104, and examine a man made drawing of St. Peter's, identifed as plate 84, in the supposed year of 1457 AD/CE!, and thus the very period that the "New St. Peter's" was being built! Please note that this view into the past has, it seems, never made its way into the mainstream of history! Can any of you explain why? It seems to show a near perfect "Gothic" church, overlooking Rome! Almost any of you brains can identify a few of the things in the background, such as the "fortress" or the Tomb of Hadrian/Adrian, and the Pantheon or the "Ara Coeli", without much trouble! And as well it seems also easy to identify the "Passeto". if one cares to try, the river is easier. Little regards to you, the defenders of the "status quo"" Certainly if one has a desire to respond to my postings here, then one must have a natural inclination to find out if what I conjecture is true, then you might well do as did I and purchase said book, or get it in a inter-library loan, etc.  Desire for the truth is all I seek, how about you?  Regards, Ronald L. Hughes96.19.159.196 (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

And I apologize since you asked for the source, I should have known that you wanted the "original" source! So, it is to be found in an illumination variously called "Panoramic view of Rome, from Euclid, ''Geometry." Vat. Lat. 2224, fol. 98 recto. Phttp://libcat.slu.edu/search~S5?/tElements.+Latin.+1457./telements+latin+1457/-3%2C-1%2C0%2CB/frameset&FF=telements+latin+1457&1%2C1%2C Perhaps this will help you? http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/vatican.exhibit/exhibit/b-archeology/images/arch10.jpg A visual aid at last. Regards, 96.19.159.196 (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes
 * That really isn't at all clear, is it? There is a nice clear engraving of the east end on p. 32 here, where it doesn't look at all Gothic. I'm really not interested in pursuing this conversation, as you can't produce any RS that support your view. Johnbod (talk) 21:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear John, you are correct, it isn't really clear at all. But to use "Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources" to deny my source and site is remarkable. This book and its representation are a part of the Vatican Library and I even gave you the address of the site, etc. And since my site predates yours it might well have a significant edge on your source, which is late 17th century. After all about 150 years separate the two representations. Lots of changes can happen in that amount of time, and I see no reason to trust the Church itself to tell the truth. Just read this. http://www.romepilgrimage.org/to-st-peters-basilica/the-destruction-of-old-st-peters Regards, Ronald L. Hughes96.19.159.196 (talk) 01:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It is entirely compatible with our article. Johnbod (talk) 02:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Well then John, look at this site please. http://www.academia.edu/2764021/The_Making_of_St._Peters_Basilica_Vatican_draft_paper_ And especially this one; http://saintpetersbasilica.org/Plans/Architecture.htm   Lots of choices found here; http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Old+St+Peters+in+Rome&qpvt=Old+St+Peters+in+Rome&FORM=IGRE&id=129A101B5A1FE5D68A3EF54CBAB2CDBE5FE17A67&selectedIndex=758 96.19.159.196 (talk) 02:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes
 * You look at them! None of them support a Gothic building at all. Enough of this. Please stop. Johnbod (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry John, I cannot stop! All of the secondary evidence, not regarded by the authorities of the Church and most historians, points to the existence of numerous versions of St. Peters, or maybe only to the existence of only two or at most three versions other than the two currently accepted! I support the two or three versions over a period of 700 years at the most. There certainly exists information no matter how vague it might be, that the Basilica might well have been destroyed at least two times. I certainly see no reason for any artist to accurately draw very accurate representations of the Ara Coeli, the Tomb of Hadrian/Adrian, and the special wall called the Passeto, (all of them located in the correct attitudes/angles/directions from St. Peters) and basically illustrate a church/basilica in a totally different manner than the "one" that must have occupied the space and place now occupied by the New St. Peter's Basilica. It seems certain that our currently accepted timeline, does show the building of the New Basilica was began just a few decades after this representation was published. 96.19.159.196 (talk) 04:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes

Facing the people
The claim that the celebrant faced the people is dubious (though I left it in). Some liturgical historians suggest that the entire congregation faced east, at least during the consecration. Another theory, in keeping with current practice, introduces the concept of "liturgical east," in which the altar end of a church is treated as de facto east. (Note that side chapels are usually oriented differently than the central nave of a church anythow.) JediKnyghte (talk) 02:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC) JediKynghte

Defaultsort
I question the following addition:  since you did not use an edit summary, please justify your change here or you will be reverted. I feel that this article should be sorted under its name, not the arbitrary "Rome". Elizium23 (talk) 07:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Look at my edit. Old Saint Peter's is sorted under its name in the categories it needs to be, and is sorted as the default sort property everywhere else. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  07:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , why is the default sort property "Rome"? Elizium23 (talk) 07:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm in the process of reorganizing all the categories in Category:Churches by century along those lines. If you'd like, I can change the edit here to limit this to just Category:4th-century churches. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  07:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, because none of the other categories are sorted by city location and it makes this article stick out like a sore thumb. Please use edit summaries so that your intentions are clearer. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 07:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , so to further query your decisions, where was consensus set that you would overhaul the categories you mentioned, in the way I have observed? It seems that city location is an altogether arbitrary way to sort these churches. What about their patron saints? What about other features?
 * Surely you spoke about this with other editors and formed consensus for the overhaul. Elizium23 (talk) 07:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The consensus was formed elsewhere in these categories, but most especially in the mass of articles for churches in the British Isles. I confess that I do not know if there was a discussion, though there likely was based on this current interaction, because I didn't look for it. It seems to me not at all arbitrary, but rather natural, to categorize churches in this fashion. Who would have disagreed? A church is found where it is found. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  07:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * First of all, I question the need to sortkey anything here, because I do not see any such guideline in the MOS that encourages it. Sorting first and foremost by the name of the article seems natural and expected behavior, and the easiest way to find an article in a large category page. If I don't know the location of the church but only its name, how do I find it then?
 * Secondly, if we decide that yes, we'll have alternate sortkeys, then I could suggest a number of plausible alternatives to city location. They could be denoted by the diocese they are in, which is a more closely-related territorial designation than the secular city name. They could be denoted by their patron saint, in which case you could usually find the article by knowing its name, still.
 * There are multiple alternatives and I'd like to see them explored before we go modifying thousands of articles per an individual whim. Elizium23 (talk) 08:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I notice you've executed several thousand edits without the sortkeys. Are you waiting for comment? Do you still intend to implement them? I can start an RFC if so. Elizium23 (talk) 04:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am waiting for comment/consensus, but I'm not in much of a rush to implement them. At the moment, I am just sorting and breaking down bloated categories. It would be a "bruh moment" as we say if I were to append the sortkeys per my vision now, with this discussion as of yet unresolved. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  04:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks so much. I have designed an RFC in User:Elizium23/sandbox. Do you have any input before I post it? I was thinking on WT:CHRISTIAN with pointers on other WikiProjects. Elizium23 (talk) 04:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Whether or not to further break down church categories into dioceses may come up, especially as a compromise for sorting. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  04:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , well, let's put it this way. This could be a narrowly-focused question on the issue of sortkeys and which ones, or it could be an all-encompassing referendum on a grand reorg of the churches categories. I don't predict that we'd have enough participation to forge a consensus in the latter case. What do you suggest? Elizium23 (talk) 05:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks so much. I have designed an RFC in User:Elizium23/sandbox. Do you have any input before I post it? I was thinking on WT:CHRISTIAN with pointers on other WikiProjects. Elizium23 (talk) 04:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Whether or not to further break down church categories into dioceses may come up, especially as a compromise for sorting. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  04:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , well, let's put it this way. This could be a narrowly-focused question on the issue of sortkeys and which ones, or it could be an all-encompassing referendum on a grand reorg of the churches categories. I don't predict that we'd have enough participation to forge a consensus in the latter case. What do you suggest? Elizium23 (talk) 05:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

We could post a notice at the village pump and ask for participants for the latter, or put it aside for now. That's all that's coming to my mind as I write this, though, so I think I'm ready to proceed. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  05:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thanks again. RFC is up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard and pointers are up at WPs Rome, Architecture, and Catholic. If you know more locations, feel free to place a neutral notice there to help drive participation. WP Christian and WP Catholic are low-traffic. Elizium23 (talk) 05:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Plan of the Necropolis.jpg