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.
I think it's important to let the Bible speak for itself
This is impossible of course. Unless you think it speaks differently to different people. Which would make the statement meaningless.
Also, if you appeal that "historically and traditionally, "communion" is rather primarily defined by the Lord's Supper" you would also have to allow the Communion of Saints' "historical and traditional" definition in order to remain consistent.
So "other dimension saints" = "saints in heaven"?
I appreciate the agreement that saints in heaven and saints on earth are all part of the Body of Christ.
The biggest rift between Protestants and Catholics in this area has traditionally been that Catholics and their tradition have tended to define "saints" as "super-Christians" in history; whereas Protestants and the Bible define "saints" as all true Christians--all who have been set apart in Christ, the Pure and Holy One.I was responding to your post that some "saints" who have died may not be in heaven. I think we both we agree that is contradictory. And I think you have a common misconception of Catholic saints. The church acknowledges that the great majority are never recognize and that yes, those so recognized are outstanding. That is part of the reason for recognizing saints - so that we may know and study and take comfort and inspiration from remarkable people who led outstanding holy Christian lives, very often giving their lives for their faith.
These saints are in no manner suggested to be the 'only' saints.
The rest of your post on communion of saints and asking others in the Communion of Saints, one with us in the Body of Christ, to pray for us, has been answered in several places along with your denial of 'scriptural reference.' I can post others if you'd like.
thanks for your reply.
I want to make a clarification here that I think Campion also misunderstood. I don't deny that heavenly saints are interceding for earthly saints. That's not my objection. You better believe that when I die, I'll talk to the Holy Trinity about my family and friends remaining on earth!
The issue is rather
(a) What inter-dimensional communication channels God has left open. [And can you tell me from Scripture the authority you claim to have a precise answer on this?] and
(b) What I have repeatedly brought up and I'll now frame it this way: You and I have both cited Heb. 12:1 about being "surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses," but what does Heb. 12 go on to zero in on? "Let us fix our eyes on Jesus" (Heb. 12:2)
"Our eyes look to the Lord as servants to their masters" (Ps. 123:2).
Are our eyes "fixed" on Jesus? Are we "looking to the Lord?" Or has our gaze strayed to peripheral spirits?
No, not "impossible, of course." "For the word of God is living...it penetrades even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart." (Heb. 4:12)
Does it speak differently to different people? Yes. Why? Something "objectively" flawed with the Bible?
No. But even if I go to another land today, and every word I speak is translated well by an excellent translator, what I say has the potential of being interpreted in different ways. Why? For one, I may use a phrase relevant to American culture, but it's a totally unknown concept to most of my hearers. There was nothing wrong w/what I said; there was not wrong w/the translation; but folks not understanding the culture I come from will miss out on some things.
When we're talking about Scripture and spiritual concepts, there's also another concept that has nothing to do with the plain meaning or objective presentation of Scripture. It's the concept of spiritual illumination.
1 Cor. 2:10-16: v. 10: "God has revealed by his Spirit..." v. 12: a Spirit of understanding. v. 13: "words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words." v. 14: "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he CANNOT understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."
So, you're right on at least one count: In one sense, the Bible doesn't stand alone. It doesn't only speak for itself. The Holy Spirit helps us interpret and understand it properly.
I'm thinking what you mean by what you wrote is that it takes an authoritative church to properly pronounce what is and isn't true.
First of all, some traditions are biblical. Some aren't. Secondly, when I say "historically" that can include OT/NT times and practices. The Bible is, after all, an historical document.
Finally, Protestants and Catholics hold some traditions in common, correct? We don't need to wrangle over what we hold in common. So I was appealing to that common ground.
I guess I can't even appeal to common-ground tradition without somebody seeing an inconsistency.
You seem to be consistently opposed to intercessory prayer. Is this just for yourself or for every Christian?
Or has our gaze strayed to peripheral spirits?
Have the saints in heaven devolved to "other-dimensional" and now "peripheral spirits"? Is the body of Christ now divided with a section called "perepheral spririt"?
I agree w/your term "recognition" as the true meaning of the phrase canonization. That is a good term. And the purpose may be worthwhile. It's just that, inevitably, there are negative consequences. Allow me to explain.
The inevitable point is that no matter how well meaning this canonization process is, the fact is that when you include some, you exclude others. Some are recognized as "official" saints. The rest remain "unofficial." Off the books.
Now, I'm not worried about the fact that the Church concedes that many worthy saints have been left off of their canonization listings. I'm concerned that the overwhelming majority have been!
A saint is not the elite of the elite. Every heavenly person is a saint. Every earthly born-from-above person is a saint! It's a person who was/is re-created in the image of our Holy Lord. It's one who was set apart from eternity to be with Him for eternity. That's a saint!
I was responding to your post that some "saints" who have died may not be in heaven. I think we both we agree that is contradictory.
I posted your comments in the above order for a reason. That reason is that I think most RC think that "sainthood" is a "church stamp of approval" issue. So, of course, to a RC for me to say that some saints aren't in heaven is nonsensical...contradictory. I mean, to a RC, the saints are the elite of the elite.
Well, I've got news for you. There are millions of living saints on this earth! They don't need a "canon" to designate them as such! And there are a whole lot more than that in heaven.
Bottom line: You yourself concede that many NOT deemed a "saint" by the RC are in fact one. And my point is that the reverse is also true: Some souls who have been deemed a "saint" by the RC church are in fact not so.
We both agree that the canonization process is incomplete, not comprehensive, and flawed. So why the mild guff?
The guff was yours. And as I said the Church is clear that the vast majority of saints are never canonized.
But you would have us not have any. Because it worries you about the vast majority not being canonized. I suppose you would have us do without canonizing one because we cannot canonize all. You must see this is a logical hairpin.
We agree the list of saints is incomplete, the Church agrees. You see this as a flaw, we see this as reason to be grateful for what we do have.
The Holy Spirit helps us interpret and understand it properly.
Of course many claim the Holy Spirit helps them interpret it differently than others claim the Holy Spirit helps them interpret it. So, again, a difference without distinction in discussion of what is "scripturally correct."
I'm thinking what you mean by what you wrote is that it takes an authoritative church to properly pronounce what is and isn't true.
It wasn't but it applies. Many of the questions resolve down to one of authority to define the canon, meaning, doctrine and dogma.
There is a German phrase: "Herr Pastor." You can look it up on Wikipedia, where it says: "The leadership style of the Herr Pastor was, to some degree, a benevolent dictatorship in the sense that the Herr Pastor held supreme decision making authority."
Here is an example where an earthly saint, someone who likely (tho surely not all) wound up in heaven. But, in their time here on earth, they operated as a "peripheral spirit." They assumed the role of a "benevolent dictator"--filling a perceived vacuum where there was none.
There is one Lord in the Church. That role has not been evacuated. Jesus Christ is the Head of the church. That role has not been evacuated. Jesus Christ is the true Pope of the church. The pope is not the head of the church; and the priest or pastor of any local church is not the head of that church. Everybody else is simply a servant-leader operating with delegated authority.
So, is the invisible Body of Christ as an organism divided? (No!) Is the visible Body of Christ that manifests itself in organizations and institutions divided? (Often!)
If you haven't seen what it's like when a pro player or a youth association/league player starts acting like they are the coach and takes matters into their own hands, then I can understand why you don't understand this concept of organizational divisiveness and "peripheral spirits."
If a player doesn't know his proper role & steps into a hat they are not meant to don, their sideline and on-the-field antics distract the rest of the team from following the authority of the coach. That player may eventually get his act together and the team becomes re-unified as one.
When the play clock is winding down, you as a quarterback don't have time to send 3 players to the sidelines to talk to the coach on your behalf. You need to look to the sideline coach play-caller and signal back & forth as to what the play is going to be.
When you're waiting to step into the batter's box, you don't have time to go through a sign language routine several times to communicate to other players on the bench to talk to the coach on your behalf. Get the signal from the third base coach; if you don't understand it, call time out and go talk to him (not the players on the bench).
My point is we all have limited time on this earth. Are we praying enough to God? Jesus? No!!! So why be further distracted by praying to spirits who will never answer our prayers! God will!
Well, yes, it is inconsistent when coming from a Sola Scriptura voice. I welcome it of course, and hope to expand it for you incrementally. :)
Thanks for your reply.
Do you not understand what intercessory prayer means?
I think you're still missing my point here (which I deem my fault).
Imagine that you are a pro baseball writer who inducts players into the Hall of Fame. By the rules of the process, you can only vote for someone who's been retired X number of years. Now who does that automatically eliminate?
It eliminates those who been retired less than whatever that "magical" number is, plus it eliminates current players (not only in the US but Japan as well), plus it eliminates t-ballers who are going to eventually make it big in the Big Leagues.
Now if I complained about this process, your response might be: "So you're saying that we shouldn't vote any players into the Hall of Fame just because our criteria excludes so many. You're saying that because our criteria or knowledge of certain players is flawed or incomplete, we shouldn't do it at all."
And my response is, "No, that's not what I'm saying. I am saying that anyone who has, is, or will be in the 'Big Leagues' in any country is defacto a special, set-apart player!!! (Do we realize how few make it this far?)"
My point is that all true Christians (no matter where they are right now) are the bride of Christ! They are set apart for a special eternal holy purpose! They are betrothed to the Son of God for eternity!
I am saying that the average Roman Catholic grassroots member, rather than envisioning themselves as wearing the same wedding garment as the "super-saint" of the past, instead they see a spiritual caste system. When you ask them, "are you a saint?" They reply, "What? No way!"
All true Christians are saints and need to be recognized (your word for canonization) as such!
Your attempt at imagining "grassroots members" is in error. I can't count the times I have heard "s/he is a saint; my mother is/was a saint.." We ARE in the Communion of Saints after all. We have our saints, non-canonized saints in heaven as part of our Church, now with us in communion. We speak often of them - saints, canonized and non; we ask them to pray for us - canonized and non-canonized saints.
I would argue completely the opposite, the non-canonized saint in heaven is much more a part of Catholocism than Protestantism. And I think your posts illustrate this extremely well.
In short, canonized Saints = all saints is Protestant confusion, not a Catholic one.
You have illustrated this well also.
Catholic saints are indeed, "super-saints," but don't confuse the canonized saints with saints in general. All Saints Day is set aside for all those saints "known but to God."
People used to be a lot less squimish about the dead than we are. One reason for the increasing popularity of cremation is that people want to forget about the dead.
Do you understand what intercessory prayer means? [D-fendr, #474]
Each time I highlight how overfocusing on the "great cloud of witnesses" can possibly crowd out the One who will return on the clouds, I get this same response thrown up: "That I just don't understand intercessory prayer." (A response that Campion and perhaps others kept surfacing earlier in this thread).
So, again, let me highlight what several of us agree/disagree on:
We agree intercessory prayer (having fellow saints lift up your concerns) is vital [tho D-fendr & Campion deem me as "suspect" in this area].
We seem to agree that this complements rather than replaces praying directly to God [we agree on in this in theory; I think we might disagree on how this actually plays itself out in the practice realm].
We agree that heavenly saints intercede on behalf of earthly ones [we disagree on whether they are privvy to all/most of our prayers being lifted up to heaven].
This last point applies to earthly saints as well as heavenly ones! Just because we all agree that it's important for our fellow earthly saints to lift up prayers on our behalf, doesn't mean that 99.9999% of earthly saints have access to them!!! Imagine if you told me that 99.9999% of earthly saints don't access your prayer petitions & I responded the way D-fendr & Campion have responded to me: "You just don't understand intercessory prayer."
It doesn't matter if we each agree of the import of including the saints in intercessory prayer! If saints, whether they be above OR below, can't access those prayers, then it's a mute point [pun unintended].
Our differences of opinion, then, are boiled down primarily to the issue of what dimensional barriers exist--barriers that affect communication access. But the foundation that this difference sits upon is ultimately bigger: Scriptural guidance.
You seem to step out in faith minus Scriptural guidance. And I say, if this was important enough for us to do, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, or the apostles would have guided us to do so in Scripture. The Holy Spirit promised us to "lead us into ALL truth" (John 16).
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.