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.
Yes. It is denied and it is the underlying disagreement of most of the arguments here.
A more profitable discussion would result in focusing on this doctrine and what the Protestant version is or rather versions are.
thanks for your post..
bumpus ad summum
.
My point was simply that the age of a practice or idea has nothing to do with its truth. Heresies began in NT times. That's old. As you observed, it goes back even to the Garden.
The only issue, for the Christian, is whether the practice is Biblical.
I think the point of this article was lost on a great many people. ARCHEOLOGISTS (who happen to work for the Vatican, but why wouldn't they when you consider that a great many sites that have archeological interest in Italy are owned by the Catholic Church) discovered what they believe to be the tomb of the Apostle Paul. The historical belief has always been that Paul was buried on this site, which is one reason that churches have been built there (granted the first real church probably was not built until a couple hundred years after Paul's martyrdom, but we need to remember that Christians had to meet in secret because of Roman persecution -- THEY COULDN'T BUILD "REAL" CHURCHES). So these archeologists (not theologians) believe that this is quite possibly the tomb of Paul, this is a major HISTORICAL discovery that also happens to have religious significance. And as you noted, while we accept things on faith, proof that events we hold to be true really happened makes it more difficult for the naysayers.
There are a great many threads here where it makes logical sense to debate the theological tenets of Catholicism and Protestantism, but why should this be one of them. This is significant for all Christians, Paul's martyrdom in Rome is something upon which there has NEVER BEEN DISAGREEMENT. For some to come into a thread and turn it into a theological debate when the thread HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THEOLOGY is both petty and in complete contrast to Christ's command that we love one another.
give a defense of our faith.
They don't sound certain to me that this is the right spot, anyway. They are certain of something that dated back to 390 AD.
They're not certain of what they're certain of.
Sounds like an earlier commission dug someone up, placed it in a box, and called it Paul. Now they're certain they've got that box.
Not jack-in-a-box; the island of misfit toys...they've got Charlie-in-a-box.
Your post is spot on, but I fear it will be lost to many on this thread.
But what do I know...I'm just a Mary-worshipping idolator ;)
Good points, as always :-)
Here is another popular tourist attraction in Wittenberg, Germany:
It's also interesting how many statues there are in the Wittenberg Cathedral and how it certainly appears that people are "honoring" Luther's tomb (or else the flowers have been there for a long time).
I posted some pictures of a different tomb in 411, the inscription is in Latin and it's in a cathedral that's full of statues and stained glass, it must be one of those sites that heretical Catholic idolators go and worship dead people.
It would only need to be biblical if one assumes that Holy Scripture alone is the source of Christian doctrine). [As you know Catholics and Orthodox Christians beleive that both Holy Tradition and Holy Scripture are the sources of doctrine, and that both are preserved through the Holy Spirit].
That said nothing in Holy Tradition can contradict Holy Scripture, and vice versa. You may find individuals in the Catholic and Orthodox churches who are unclear of the church's doctrine and profess what are misinterpretations of the doctrine of the church, however the canon of the doctrine in Holy Tradition does not contradict Holy Scripture. (Your mileage on that may vary slightly with the Roman church which has indeed made some innovations which could be considered a deviation from the doctrine of the Apostolic church, but that's a debate for a different time and place)
I have no doubt that venerating icons, and relics took place in the very same churches St Paul himself began, though one must understand that when venerating these Catholic and Orthodox Christians are not praying to or revering the physical objects, but the efforts and struggles of the Saint involved, hoping to commit themselves in the same way the saints did to the faith.
Can't you just hear the objections coming: We don't know that's Luther's tomb because he died 460 years ago. For all we know that's just Charlie-in-a-box.
And there is even a STATUE of a man PRAYING TO A STATUE! The horror!
No, no, no...didn't you get the memo? We RC's are so good at brainwashing folks into worshipping dead people that we tricked the Protestants into building these sites. If you didn't get your decoder ring to read that memo, just email the Vatican and they'll send you one! This post will self-destruct in 30 seconds...
Honoring the servant's of Christ in a church? Why they should rip all those statues out and fill the church with statues and tomb's of their secular statesman. But wait, that would be the same thing.
I think it is generally held by historians that by ther mid secnd century, Christians were making pilgrimages to visit the tombs of Peter and Paul.
I think that many unbelievers better understand the practice of cherishing relics than you imagine. Look at the cult of Elvis. Protestantism has got so dualistic that they have forgotten Paul once compared the human body with a temple. Luckily when Fundamentalists are not wearing their iconoclastic hats, they actually remember the doctrine of the Resurrection of the Dead.
I don't need to stare at dead bodies to remember the Resurrection of the Dead. I confess it every Sunday.
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.