Posted on 12/06/2006 6:18:21 AM PST by NYer
Vatican archaeologists have unearthed a sarcophagus believed to contain the remains of the Apostle Paul that had been buried beneath Rome's second largest basilica. The sarcophagus, which dates back to at least 390 A.D., has been the subject of an extended excavation that began in 2002 and was completed last month, the project's head said this week.
"Our objective was to bring the remains of the tomb back to light for devotional reasons, so that it could be venerated and be visible," said Giorgio Filippi, the Vatican archaeologist who headed the project at St. Paul Outside the Walls basilica.
The interior of the sarcophagus has not yet been explored, but Filippi didn't rule out the possibility of doing so in the future.
Two ancient churches that once stood at the site of the current basilica were successively built over the spot where tradition said the saint had been buried. The second church, built by the Roman emperor Theodosius in the fourth century, left the tomb visible, first above ground and later in a crypt.
When a fire destroyed the church in 1823, the current basilica was built and the ancient crypt was filled with earth and covered by a new altar.
"We were always certain that the tomb had to be there beneath the papal altar," Filippi told The Associated Press in a telephone interview.
Filippi said that the decision to make the sarcophagus visible again was taken after many pilgrims who came to Rome during the Catholic Church's 2000 Jubilee year expressed disappointment at finding that the saint's tomb could not be visited or touched.
The findings of the project will be officially presented during a news conference at the Vatican on Monday.
All kidding aside who cares about the bones of St Paul? We are to worship Christ not a casket. Just another way for the Vatican to make a buck. I wouldn't pay to see a nice looking casket of anyone excepting maybe an open casket of the cordite infested remains of Bin "Leaden."
They don't typically charge admission for stuff like that, to my knowledge. If you have information to the contrary, post it.
BTW, did you know the Testudian origins of the engagement ring? Seriesly: Testudo, the Great Turtle, is a Diamondback Terrapin. It is in honour of his diamond-studded back that we give a diamond ring to our intended, when we ask her hand in marriage ...
;'}
We're everywhere ... you can run, but you can't hide.
Answer this very straight forward question. Are 'saints' in glory omniscient, just like God? If so, wow!!!! If they are not, then how on earth can they hear and process several hundred million (i.e. a rough guess of the number of Catholics praying to them at any given moment) prays at the same time?
"Testudo, the Great Turtle, is a Diamondback Terrapin. It is in honour of his diamond-studded back that we give a diamond ring to our intended, when we ask her hand in marriage ..."
Please quit giving away the sacred secrets of the IOT.
Nobody claims that saints are somehow powerful apart from God, but nobody should claim either that anything is impossible with God.
All kidding aside, does McKeldin deserve this worship due only to the Great Turtle? All Maryland alumni will one day have to answer for this to the Great Turtle.
"If they are not, then how on earth can they hear and process several hundred million (i.e. a rough guess of the number of Catholics praying to them at any given moment) prays at the same time?"
You forgot to add in the several score million Orthodox and Coptic Christians and several million Protestant Christians who also venerate the Saints of God.
Christians have venerated icons, and remains since the days St Paul walked the earth...
This basilica along with Many other Catholic sites in and around the Vatican have been huge tourist draws for centuries and they generally don't charge admission (IIRC many accept donations, just as every other museum or historic landmark does). Talk to non-Catholics you know who have been to Rome or Italy in general and they will tell you that most of the biggest attractions there are Catholic related.
It's interesting how we never heard these kind of objections from non-Catholics when the discovery of the ossuary of James the "brother of Jesus" was first announced.
While your question is a good one to raise in response to my specific questions, in the realm of the original discussion, it falls short. Why? It presents Paul's requests to living saints to pray for him on the same plain as praying directly to saints.
If I make an appeal for you to pray for me, yes, that's intercessory work that is linked to Jesus as Intercessor...but the bottom line is: I am NOT praying to you to then go & intercede for me. If we take your comment at face value, then you are saying Paul "prayed" to his fellow earthly saints. Is that what you're now claiming?
Show me where in Scripture anyone is ethically (meaning not communicating via a medium) communicating with beings in heaven that are not God or angels. (Even with angels, there was not to be even any hint of worshiping an angel--a "fellow servant"--Rev. 19:10; 22:8-9).
Basically, you keep ignoring the lack of Scriptural precedent for any kind of open communication between deceased saints and earthly pilgrims: Jesus told of the begging request of "the rich man" that a dead saint, Lazarus, should go to his earthly "father's house" to warn his five brothers. He concluded that "if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent." (Lk 16:27-28,30) But Abraham's response was: "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead." (v. 31).
Without disputing your claim, how old is the first damnable heresy?
Irrelevant. Saints in heaven are every bit as alive as saints on earth.
If I make an appeal for you to pray for me, yes, that's intercessory work that is linked to Jesus as Intercessor...but the bottom line is: I am NOT praying to you to then go & intercede for me.
Funny how you were arguing from the etymology of the word "venerate," before ... go look up the derivation and meanings of the word "to pray". "To pray" means precisely to make a request, so saying you are "appealing" to me to pray for you, and saying you are "praying" me to pray for you, are two ways of saying the same thing.
Jesus told of the begging request of "the rich man" that a dead saint, Lazarus, should go to his earthly "father's house" to warn his five brothers.
Again, that's another irrelevant issue. Nobody's proposing sending any saints back to appear to the living to convince them of anything.
That's a fact.
Yes, of course 1 Tim. 2 strongly encourages intercessory prayer. But how would my interpretation render it "prohibitive?" Because you think I say go direct to the source that this means we would have to go directly to the Father, bypassing Jesus?
But this ignores the trinitarian reality that Jesus is God, Himself. Indeed, He is Mediator and Intercessor. But Jesus says, "If you've seen me, you've seen the Father." Likewise, if we go to Him, we are going to the Father.
You argue in a circle: You say on the one hand, that the fact that we go to Jesus first proves that multiple mediators are okay. And then on the other hand, you claim that going to multiple mediators is okay because it's tied to Jesus' role as mediator.
-A8
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.