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.
1. The word "angel" means "messenger".
2. Eternity is a long, long time.
HTH
We didn't invade someone else's thread with tiresome accusations of idolatry and putting someone other than Christ in first place, did we?
He had a conversation with two deceased men. He TOLD THE TRUTH. His truth happens to be that He is God. When I have a conversation with someone and I tell the truth, then I am not a liar.
So, my prayer to a 'popular' saint might not get around to being heard for several millenniums? Ouch! That's not comforting... What if I needed an answer now? Hmmm... I think I'll make the call right to an omniscient God who hears and answers on the first ring, with no long on-hold queue.
Will no one address this?
Why didn't the wedding party at Cana approach the Lord instead of relying on Mary to intercede on their behalf? And why didn't Jesus take the opportunity to scold them for such an insulting act? Instead, He performs the first miracle of His ministry on their behalf.
Discuss.
God is 'allowed' to do things WE are not allowed to do. Parents can do things that their children can not. You still don't understand that?
Yes, but that difference is irrelevant to the point in question. The point in question is whether we should ask anyone but the Head (i.e. Christ) to pray for us. You say that people who ask departed saints to pray for them "keep wanting to pray to the knee instead of the Head". But then you think it is fine to ask earth-bound believers to pray for you. So when you ask earth-bound believers to pray for you, you are going to the knee instead of the Head.
Therefore, you have an inconsistency in your position, by allowing going to the knee in the case of earth-bound believers, but prohibiting going to the knee in the case of departed saints.
-A8
Don't forget the awesome event when the KJV of the Bible dropped out of the hands of angels directly into the grasp of the Court of King James I.
First of all. It was the very first miracle performed by Jesus. Up until then, he had no reputation for them to approach him. I mean a good chunk of the miracles in the gospels were due to people approaching Jesus, not vise versa. And that only occurred because of the "signs & wonders" news that spread among the people.
Take any miracle where somebody approached Jesus and try moving it to John 2 early in his public ministry and guess what? You probably wouldn't have a miracle? Why? Because Jesus was a total unknown to them at that time.
Secondly, you are the one who inserted "relying on Mary" into the text in John 2. It isn't there. Nobody approached Mary to do anything about the problem. It simply says, "Jesus' mother said to him, 'They have no more wine.'" (verse 3). Yes, Mary DID intercede with Jesus (verse 4 and following). Yes, Mary DID exercise authority over the servants (verse 5). But nowhere does it show any person approaching Mary to do something about the problem. She took the initiative herself.
Some saints (disciples) healed folks. But it was never according to their own power. At times, Jesus almost seemed to convey to us that if you truly want a miracle done, don't ask a disciple. Look at Luke 9 re: a bread & fish miracle: "You [meaning his disciples] give them something to eat" (Luke 9:13). He said this prior to doing any miracle! Their response? "We have only five loaves of bread and two fish--unless we go & buy food for all this crowd." Jesus told them to physically intercede for the people and they failed to do so, demonstrating that once again, it was left to the realm of His initiative.
Because their contact with the Head is vital, and when one part of the body prays to the Head, it represents the entire body (just like when one part of the body hurts, all of it hurts). I'm not praying to the knee my asking them to pray. No, instead, they are praying to the Head.
Do you think we're stupid enough to think that saints who got to heaven by the grace of God work miracles through their own power? Kindly give us some credit ... we've only been thinking about this stuff for 2000 years.
Just shaking my head in amazement. What this amounts to saying is that when you do X, Y, and Z, it's okay. When Catholics do X, Y, and Z, it's not. I give up.
Precisely! Now you understand exactly what Catholics are doing when we ask a departed saint to pray to the Head, i.e. Christ, on our behalf!
-A8
God transcends time. A prayer made a million billion years from now may have been granted yesterday.
You just did. You can only believe in a church run by sinless men, I take it?
Will no one address this?
No, because it's a phony version of the story.
3 And when the wine failed, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.
Nowhere does it say the wedding party 'petitioned' Mary. Plus, they would not 'know' to ask Jesus for a miracle, since as he replied to Mary, "mine hour is not yet come".
NO, you are asking more people to go to the head.
I've had very limited FR time for the last few years, it's refreshing to see you still taking folks out behind the woodshed.
I've always enjoyed, and learned alot, from your posts.
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.