Skip to comments.Pope: St. Paul's Remains Found in Basilica
Posted on 06/28/2009 9:11:39 PM PDT by conservativegramma
Pope Benedict announced on Sunday that fragments of bone from the first or second century had been found in a tomb in the Basilica of St Paul in Rome, which he said confirmed the belief that it housed the apostle's remains.
"This seems to confirm the unanimous and undisputed tradition that these are the mortal remains on the Apostle Paul," the pontiff said at St Paul's-Outside-the-Walls, on the eve of the Feasts of St Peter and St Paul celebrated on Monday.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
There are probably enough pieces of bones from the apostles and enough pieces of the cross to fill a small basilica.
Paraphrasing Paul: I must decrease and Christ must increase.
I’m guessing Paul would’ve thought dimmly of his remains becoming iconic.
Bone Fragment from St. Paul -- NICE!!!!
You are bidding on an ancient bone fragment from the tomb of St. Paul, believed to be a toe bone of the Apostle himself. These are very rare pieces to find! A nice fragment! Condition is good. There is no restoration, 100% as found. This would make a fabulous addition to any collection.
Winning bidder will pay $125.00 shipping and handling (continental U.S.) which includes insurance and careful packing. Please inspect all photos carefully before bidding. Please bid responsibly. Check my feedback!!!
I can't disagree with that. However, I highly doubt it is of any Apostle.
On Paul's Dealings With Peter
On Paul and the Other Apostles
On Paul, an Apostle of Christ
St. Paul's Faith Based Not on Conversion of Thought, but Personal Meeting With Christ, Pope Says
Paul's Teaching on the Church
Vatican archaeologists unearth St. Paul's tomb
Paul's Teaching on the Holy Spirit
Paul of Tarsus, Continued: He Lives From Christ and With Christ
Paul of Tarsus: Be Imitators of Me, As I Am of Christ
NOT that it matters!
How would you tell this is actually St. Paul?
It turned out to be a thorn.
That was Twain’s impression. I always wondered what these “relics” are supposed to be good for anyway. Near as I can tell they’re good for nothing, beyond drawing the faithful to the offering plate. Either J.C. got the job done—and all done—or he didn’t. Everything else in Christendom is pretty much the sideshow.
Didn't St. Paul say that he saw dimly through a glass? If so, I suppose that means that he thought dimly as well.
I don't know what he would have thought about his remains becoming relics. Relics and icons are both objects of veneration. But is a relic iconic? I have always thought of relics and icons as being quite different objects. But perhaps you have a point. How do you conceive a relic as being iconic?
Maybe I was being imprecise, but I thought icons were objects of veneration and, sure as shooting, that is what his remains (if they are that) will become. Seems to me that nearly all relics become icons - at least in the minds of people I’ve seen around the world worshipping them. I think Paul would’ve favored mouldering away.
Yes, we agree that both relics and icons are objects of veneration. But does that mean that a relic is the same thing as an icon?
After much reading it is clear to me that Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox make a clear distinction between worship and veneration. Only God is worshiped. Relics and icons are venerated. It seems to me that Protestants do not make this distinction between worship and veneration since neither relics nor icons play a role in Protestant churches (well, the vast majority of Protestant churches).
It seems to me that an icon is a piece of religious art, either painted or sculpted by a human hand. But relics are the remains of a deceased saint. The icon is created by a human being. The relics were once a living human being. They are both objects of veneration. But does that mean a relic is an icon?
Twain saw the skull of St Anne in two churches. He asked why the seond one was so much larger than the first.
“That one was when she was a child.” came the practiced response.
I like what Geoff. Chauncer said of the Simoner...That he carried around with him pig’s bones which he passed off to the gullible as relics.
Big claims need big proof. Until the studies are done showing that the bones are human, the unfounded assertion of the Pope is just that. After they are proven to be human, the question is open: Which human. Good luck on proving that.
Hillary Rodham Clinton visited the image at Guadalupe Mexico. She asked “Who painted it?”
The guide’s reply: “G-d.”
I wonder where that would fit in your definition of icons and relics.
First of all, the person who replied said "God". When people speak, they enunciate the vowels.
As for that particular icon, I believe the tradition says that the original image appeared on the cloak. There is a much older tradition that Veronica wiped the face of Jesus as he made his way to Calvary. She wiped his face, and the cloth retained an image of his face. But most icons are fashioned by human hands. I guess we would need to make a special category for those icons that are not fashioned by human hands.
That subject of these icons not made by human hands is interesting. But the question I have is this: Is a relic an icon?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.