Skip to comments.Remains of Apostle Paul May Have Been Found
Posted on 12/06/2006 4:29:58 PM PST by HAL9000
ROME (AP) - 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 A.D. 390, has been the subject of an extended excavation that began in 2002 and was completed last month, the project's head said this week.
~ snip ~
(Excerpt) Read more at christianpost.com ...
Wrong. Notice the "us" in the verse...plural...not "she".
This does not connote just Mary, but all believers. John in Revelation says Christ was crucified from the foundation of the Earth; all believers were actually sanctifed before time began in a way.
However, all created humankind are sinners while living in Adam's fallen world in time. The scripture you pointed out does NOT delineate Mary as special.
Yeah, what she said!
In the MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS, Pope Pius XII writes...
"Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith."
"It is forbidden to any man to change this, our declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash attempt, to oppose and counter it. If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."
I'll try and find the specific reference to salvation requiring belief in Marian stuff, but this right here is pretty amazing. According the Pope Pius XII, I've completely fallen away from the diving and the Catholic Faith, and I'm going to incur the wrath of God, Peter and Paul. Amazing.
Or not accepting former persecutors!
Her comment about the Ephesians verse doesn't make sense.
But it is not true that according to the Church one must believe in Mary's Immaculate Conception in order to be saved.
Makes as much sense as any other Scripture quoted today.
Yes, the scripture makes sense.
Her explanation of it does not.
Well, they were written by Gnostics and they purport to recount the words and/or actions of Jesus, so yes, they would be called "Gnostic Gospels". Not sure what you think that has to do with my post.
I reiterate: that is Tradition.
At first I thought you mistakenly assumed I was thinking of Cardinal Newman when I mentioned "history", but apparently now you insist on misreading any knowledge of the past as Tradition with a capital T. The only reply I can think of is to ask you to stop being silly.
Excuse me if this seems nit-picky, but we have to agree, one way or another, on what we mean by the word.
Either I'm not putting the question right or you're trying to dodge it. Ignore the word "Canon". Does the Church add anything or recognize what already exists?
The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a process stimulated by disputes, both within and without the Church, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definitions of the Ecumenical Councils.
The last line is inaccurate. The first ecumenical (or "ecumenical" for the EOs out there) council that said anything about the Canon was Trent. The only counciliar definitions before that were local. So the final form of the New Testament Canon preceeds the "dogmatic definition" by over a thousand years.
Which means (and this must seem an irony for someone in your position) that Christians throughout most of history have used a Canon with exactly the same basis Protestants still believe ours has.
I've always been mystified why anyone would take [the Lerins quote] seriously. If that's how you define orthodoxy, then by the surviving history (in the sense I intended that phrase in the first place) there's no orthodoxy at all.
I'm at a loss to understand what you mean by that. Orthodoxy is the truth that has been handed down to us. It is still being handed on: by word of mouth, in writing, in the example and lives of the Saints.
It would probably help if you read what Vincent said. I had assumed you knew, since you not only introduced him to the discussion but quoted him in Latin and English.
It's not a perfect analogy. That's why I included the formal definition.
An indulgence is the extra-sacramental remission of the temporal punishment due, in God's justice, to sin that has been forgiven, which remission is granted by the Church in the exercise of the power of the keys, through the application of the superabundant merits of Christ and of the saints, and for some just and reasonable motive.The debt is "payed back" by drawing on the merits of Christ. In a sense, God is paying back Himself, through His Church.
(114) Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life." Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."Dan Brown, believes that the "patriarchal church" suppressed this supposed gospel. What a maroon.
So salvation requires that you don't reject the Immaculate Conception after learning about it?
Weird how the apostles never mention such complications for salvation.
The Apostles were the foundation of the Church (a living organism), they were not merely the source of a set of dead doctrines. Dogma is clarified and made explicit over time by the Church. Did first century Catholics have to accept formally the doctrine of the Trinity in order to be saved? No. That doctrine was not made formally explicit until the First Ecumenical Council, 300 years after Christ ascended. And likewise with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. It was not made formally explicit until 1800 years after Christ ascended.
The very fact that some verses of Scripture says that none are sinless, none are "just," none are holy but God; and others say, for instance, that Joseph was "a just man" and God chose "us" to be holy and blameless before Him, means, at the very least, that we need to interpret these Scriptures in a wide and authoritative context.
Which is just what you (or I) who do proof-texting by one-liners cannot do.
Catholics and Orthodox --- and others, if they wish to --- do well to pay close attention to how the earliest disciples and successors of the Apostles came to understand and interpret these texts. This is called "Sacred Tradition,"-- its study comprises Patristics (the study of the Fathers) and it is of particular importance to Catholic and Orthodox theology; many Protestants study and benefit from it as well.
Be careful, though. The further back you go, back to the Third, the Second, the First Christian centuries ---Clement of Rome, Mathetes, Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch, Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Andrew of Crete --- the more Catholic and Orthodox your thinking will become.
Fair warning, my FReeper friends.
"...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
In any case, we know from hsitory that the ermpoeror Constantine's mother, Helena Augusta, found the remains of Christ's cross on her quest to the province of Palestine in 327-328 AD. You may be skeptical about this, but it is as well-attested historically as anything we know about the ancient world, e.g. Julius Caesar's war in Gaul.
I think you are reading it wrong.
It says the remains of THE TOMB. It does not say St. Paul's remains.
There is a difference, one is talking about a sarcophagus, the other is talking about human remains.
What they intend to display is the sarcophagus, kind of like the one I pictured in #198.
Wow! Are you saying that without the RCC to add to the theology of the apostles that the faith is dead?
I know you believe that the RCC isn't adding to the faith, but seriously... How long is the list of things that can't be denied so that salvation is guaranteed?
I'm curious how much longer it's going to take to clarify and make explicit the requirements and stipulations of salvation.
I guess that's the difference. I believe that everything required of salvation can be found in the Bible. I also believe that the Bible isn't a dead document without the RCC.
Weird, but this reminds me of the debate over the constitution's interpretation and intent.