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?
It’s too bad he wasn’t one of the “incorruptible saints”. I’d be interested to see what he looked like.
INCREDIBLE! Lightning fast payment! Super buyer! WOW!! AAAAA+++++++++++++++++++++++++
As a Catholic the idea of any mortal being "incorruptible" in death strikes me as a romantic notion which I would like to believe, but of which I have my doubts. Although all things are possible through God, it has always been my feeling that the manner of burial had more to do with the preservation of the body than much else. Poor Saint Bernadette, for instance, was disinterred innumerable times and the record of what was found does sound pretty remarkable, but because everyone involved were no doubt people of strong faith, their testimony could have been somewhat colored. I will admit though it makes an interesting read.
St. Bernadette in death-
Story of disinterments of Saint Bernadette of Lourdes-1909-1919-1925
OK, those definitions make sense - but - most of the relics I’ve seen have seemingly become iconic through lavish religious and artistic embellishment(i.e., crusted with gold and gems, adorned caskets, etc.). Now, when you want to draw a line between veneration and worship, again, I think it’s a hard one to draw. Picking up my Funk & Wagnalls practical dictionary from 1928, its main definition concludes that ‘veneration’ is the act of venerating; reverence. Secondly, it informs me that it is the act of worshiping; worship. From experience, I’d have to say that this is true. In various places around the world, I have witnessed the literal truth of this as common people were induced to worship objects regardless of what notion they were presented under.
Seeing nothing in scripture that would instruct me or anyone else to venerate or worship an object (and seeing multiple warnings against this practice), I would conclude that it’s probably best to let sleeping bones lie right where they are. From dust to dust . . .
St Paul’s tomb ‘may be opened’
Italy Mag | 27 June 2009 | Italy
Posted on 06/27/2009 4:34:40 PM PDT by BGHater
Pope: Scientific analysis done on St. Paul’s bones
The Detroit News Online | Jun 28, 5:30 PM EDT | NICOLE WINFIELD
Posted on 06/28/2009 4:07:41 PM PDT by Not gonna take it anymore
Oldest Icon of St. Paul Discovered
Posted on 06/28/2009 11:54:12 AM PDT by Mighty_Quinn
Rome Catacomb Reveals “Oldest” Image Of St Paul
Reuters | June 28, 2009
Posted on 06/28/2009 3:06:32 PM PDT by Steelfish
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google ·
· The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·
Not at all hard. And your "Funk and Wagnalls" is the wrong place to look.
"Seeing nothing in scripture that would instruct me or anyone else to venerate or worship an object (and seeing multiple warnings against this practice), I would conclude that its probably best to let sleeping bones lie right where they are."
Deliberate blindness is no excuse. See "brass serpents" in Exodus, images of cherubim and seraphim in multiple places, the ornamentation on the Ark of the Covenant, the decoration of Solomon's temple with many images, and many, many more. Lots of things venerated by the Hebrews "back in the day" (and still today).
St Vincent De Paul is uncorrupted.....my parents saw his body in some Cathedral encased in glass.
What you and I might discuss in cyber-parlors is one thing. The abject reality of what goes on for too many people who actually believe objects have sacred powers is another. Christ is the central point of Scripture and the narrative leading up to His work. All worship is due Him and no other - objects or persons.
“Im guessing Paul wouldve thought dimly of his remains becoming iconic.”
For sure. The flesh profiteth nothing; it is the Spirit that giveth life.
Paul admonished those inclined toward hero worship - he reminded them that it was Jesus Christ who died for their sins, not “Paul or Appollos”.
Peter never even went to Rome. He was the apostle to the “circumcision”.
“Hillary Rodham Clinton visited the image at Guadalupe Mexico. She asked Who painted it?
The guides reply: G-d.
The same G-d who forbade the making of images?
“I don’t know what he would have thought about his remains becoming relics.”
I do. Paul was a Christian.
“St Vincent De Paul is uncorrupted.....my parents saw his body in some Cathedral encased in glass.”
So? Lenin’s body is preserved, too.
Thank you, sir.
And I say "so what". The teaching of the Church is pellucidly clear. If some people don't understand it, or ignore it, whose fault is that. If folks in your church don't follow church doctrines, do you blame the doctrines?? I think not.
"Christ is the central point of Scripture and the narrative leading up to His work. All worship is due Him and no other - objects or persons."
Study up on what the Catholic Church TEACHES, not what your Protestant propaganda spouts, and you will see that Church teaching is exactly that. That is precisely what the terms "latria" and "dulia" are all about. Go read the link I posted. No Catholic worships any image, period.
Nope. God never forbade the "making of images". In fact, he frequently commanded them to be made. Re-read your WHOLE Bible. You will find "images" pretty much everywhere, from the brass serpents in Exodus, to the Ark of the Covenant, to the decorations in the Temple, and many more.
And you'll even find miracles performed by "relics" (witness the bones of the prophet that, when dug up, brought the dead back to life).
“God never forbade the “making of images”.”
” Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
5: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them” - Exodus 20:4
That’s pretty emphatic.
Once you’ve read the “whole Bible”, get to know its Author. He’ll interpret it for you.
The body being thrown onto the Prophet’s bones and springing to life is no reason to venerate pieces of corpses. Leave dead religion behind and come to a relationship with the Almighty.
“Study up on what the Catholic Church TEACHES, not what your Protestant propaganda spouts, and you will see that Church teaching is exactly that. That is precisely what the terms “latria” and “dulia” are all about. Go read the link I posted. No Catholic worships any image, period. “
Study to show thyself approved unto God; a workman rightly dividing The Word. The “Church” won’t be there when you stand before The Judge. Priests can’t show you the way of salvation - most of them aren’t even saved themselves.
Acts 19:11 - 12
 And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul:  So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them.
Not an exhortation to venerate or worship relics, but definite Biblical evidence of the value of such.
Yes, it is. And you get the intepretation you do because Protestants have misquoted the Commandment. Obviously, given all the examples I gave, God has no problem with images, so it must be the worship thereof that is the problem. The correct Commandment is separated as the Catholic Bible gives it, with those two clauses in a single statement. Luther and Calvin were nuts.
The Church will be all around me, just as it is today. Take your Protestant BS and throw it at someone else who is more gullible. I started out Protestant, read the Bible and the Church Fathers, and "jumped ship" across the Tiber.
I think this does boil down to definitions. And it seems that different people have different definitions. That was what I was trying to determine. I would say that in the Catholic/Orthodox churches a relic is not a icon, even if the relic has embellishments. An icon is an image of a human form made by painting or sculpting. But I think this is a difference that is not distinguished in Protestant definitions.
Now, when you want to draw a line between veneration and worship, again, I think its a hard one to draw. Picking up my Funk & Wagnalls practical dictionary from 1928, its main definition concludes that veneration is the act of venerating; reverence. Secondly, it informs me that it is the act of worshiping; worship.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language says that venerate is to regard with respect, reverence, or deference. It says nothing about worship. For the word worship it lists several meanings, the first of which is to honor and love as a deity. So that would not describe the veneration of a relic. No one worships St Paul as a deity. The second meaning is to regard with ardent or adoring esteem. It seems to me that the second definition would have the same meaning as veneration. So it does come down to which definition you use.
Seeing nothing in scripture that would instruct me or anyone else to venerate or worship an object (and seeing multiple warnings against this practice), I would conclude that its probably best to let sleeping bones lie right where they are. From dust to dust . . .
That is indeed a matter of interpretation. I don't think veneration of relics is a requirement.
From that statement, there could be several conclusions, including the following:
1. Paul was a Christian. Therefore, he would approve of the veneration of relics.
2. Paul was a Christian. Therefore, he would not approve of the veneration of relics.
The conclusion will depend on the beginning assumptions.