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.
That's what's great about Our Lady, she loves her children so much she petitions her Son before they even ask.
Yes, that's why I pray to Him. Deceased humans are not omniscient and omnipresent. That why I personally do not pray to them.
So the first hit is free?
Look at Luke 9 re: a bread & fish miracle: "You [meaning his disciples] give them something to eat"
Sounds like Jesus wanted the Apostles to intermediate the miracle of the loaves and fishes.
Jesus told them to physically intercede for the people and they failed to do so
But they did physically intercede. The miracle wouldn't mean much if they didn't actually distribute the loaves and fishes. And He certainly need the Apostles to intercede. So why didn't He just have it fall from the sky like manna instead of involving them? You know - to demonstrate that only direct interaction with Him is acceptable.
I've made a distinction in many posts on this thread, so let me try to offer it up one more time. Let me put it this way:
If I ask someone in the body of Christ to pray for me, the rather extreme likelihood is that I've already (and am continuing) taking that very same request directly to Christ/the Father. It's not an either/or proposition. It's both.
I know with many RC folks, praying to the saints to them is likewise a "both" issue: They pray to God; they pray to saints; some pray to angels. They cover all bases, so to speak.
If my requests of the Body of Christ to pray for me ever becomes a substitute for me praying directly to God, then I've got "substitute" problems (what the Bible frames as "idolatry").
All I'm saying, based on those newspaper ads (and keep citing them because that's the only "scientific" judgment I can make about RC w/out judging others' hearts), is that there appears to be a "substitute" issue. Do you agree or disagree?
Saints, in this world or the next, are not omnipotent. Nor are they omniscient. And when a certain portion of RC convey the message to the world that their reliance is upon saints for deliverance of some type, it's not the message of the Bible. It's not the gospel.
So she can see into the future? Just like God the Father? That's scary theology.
Correction: He certainly DIDN'T need the Apostles to intercede, but He clearly WANTED them to.
All who are in paradise are experiencing the beatific vision. They know the future because they are beholding God, who is imparting all His wisdom to them in perpetuity. First and foremost, the Blessed Virgin Mary, --spouse of the Holy Spirit, mother of Jesus.
When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained. They called out in a loud voice, "How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?" Then each of them was given a white robe, and they were told to wait a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and brothers who were to be killed as they had been was completed.Apoc 6:9-11 (emphasis added). It is not merely coincidental that the remains of St. Paul, martyr, are under the altar of a church that bears his name, just as the remains of St. Peter, martyr, are under the altar of a church that bears his name. The practice of venerating the saints and their relics is indeed apolostic, and it is attested by Scripture.
Benedictus Deus in angelis suis et in sanctis suis.
She saw that there was no more wine, and did something about it. And Jesus responded to her request.
I can understand praying to Mary rather than Jesus, since she would be more inclined to hear my pray, having died a horrible death just for me... Whoops.. Did I get that backwards?
Note this carefully: I did not raise the issue of men & sin. You did! You crafted the canonization of saints to be at such an elevated level, it almost sounds like we're talking about unquestionably pure men of God. And I'm telling you that every one of those saints was a sinner in need of a holy God and a Holy Spirit and a Holy Jesus who saved them and separated them from their sin.
I've got further news for you: every person who has been part of "canonizing" past saints is a "sinner" too. Are you trying to tell me that they have inerrantly canonized every person and made not a single mistake?
So, what if I had said, in response to your mention that the Church who canonized people, that I said what you said: "You can only believe in a church run by sinless men, I take it?"
Final question: Where in the NT did the disciples "canonize" the saints of the OT other than giving them recognition like Hebrews 11? Recognition is super. But, given that Rahab was a prostitute who was included in Hebrews 11, I somehow think that the Rahabs of the world are not among the elite list found in the canonization to which you refer. (I'm open to being enlightened on that, tho).
You mean it's possibly that a few Ted Haggard's could have slipped by with "secret sin" and got cannonized? :)
3 And when the wine failed, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.
It doesn't say that Jesus was wearing any clothes, either, but logic dictates that He was.
And when the wine failed, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.
Why did she say "they" have no wine? Shouldn't it have been "we" have no wine? Seems to me "they" is specific to someone or some people asking for her help and not Mary just going to Jesus of her own accord. Otherwise, she would have said "we" have no wine.
Er, the infallible Old Testament itself canonized Elijah and Enoch, and arguably Moses, too.
No, because it was THEIR wedding. When you go to someone else's wedding, do you say "they" had a great wedding or "we" had a great wedding. Do you say "they" served great food or "we" served great wedding?
I'm thankful that I have 2000 years of Catholic teaching, saints, Popes, miracles, holy men and women, the liturgy.
It's a beautiful thing.
I feel sorry for the narrow minded who put God in a box, who limit Him to "if it ain't in the Bible I don't believe it."
Fruit of the Protestant revolt.
Oh I bet it must feel great and free to make stuff up as you wish and not be bound to some 'confining Bible'.
Yes, of course, but they flunked the test. in Luke 9:1, "Jesus...gave them power and authority to drive out all demons and cure diseases, and...to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick." Having this new authority, what did they do w/it when it came time to feeding the masses? When commanded to take up that same authority and give them something to eat, they took no further initiative.
But they did physically intercede. The miracle wouldn't mean much if they didn't actually distribute the loaves and fishes. And He certainly need the Apostles to intercede. So why didn't He just have it fall from the sky like manna instead of involving them? You know - to demonstrate that only direct interaction with Him is acceptable.[Rutles4Ever]
Okay, we keep getting away from my objection at the get-go of this thread. Folks keep wanting to claim that asking an earthly saint to pray & intercede is no different than asking a heavenly saint to pray & intercede.
If you sum up the argument made over & over by folks, that is the main one, right?
Well, if that's the case, why don't we have newspaper ads regularly identifying (and thanking) earthly saints for answering their prayers?
I mean thousands of effectual, righteous intercesssors exist around the globe. Why no appeal to them to pray for specialized areas? Why no thanksgiving lifted up to them?
Now, let's go the next step: Imagine the message the world would receive from us if we began to identify and thank all of these earthly intercessors with thousands of ads (and Web sites & who knows what)?
Why, some might begin to think like the Islanders who saw Paul shake off a snake w/no ill effect: "they changed their minds & said he was a god." (Acts 28:6)
When healing power is sourced in a less-than-divine person, the worldly tendency is to see that person as a "god." When that happens, the intercessor cuts into the glory of God. I mean, look at how our schools treat Thanksgiving as a holiday w/out meaning (exactly WHO are we thanking?). Likewise, when saints become the object of thanksgiving, we need to ask: Exactly WHO are we thanking?
If you don't know what the church teaches, haven't read it, how can you make a decision?
That's pretty ignorant.
And, why do you bother with this thread? You've been given biblical examples of why we believe what we do. If you choose not to believe it, that's fine. Find a football thread or something else to talk about.
At the very least find a convincing argument that you can put forward to defend your position.
Yes. (And BTW, that doesn't negate what God has done in any godly man's life. Look at Samson and David. The Holy Spirit came upon Samson at times. Yet he also slept with a prostitute, etc. And David's Bathsheba episode is also obvious. We could all probably agree that God has worked through every saint canonized; but that doesn't mean that all of them steared clear of hell).
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.