Posted on 05/03/2018 3:32:33 PM PDT by NRx
A small leather case containing a fragment of bone claimed to be a relic of St Clement, a pope who was martyred almost 2,000 years ago, has been found in rubbish collected from central London.
The waste disposal firm is now appealing for suggestions from the public for a more suitable final resting place for a saint than a bin.
The box, originally sealed with red wax and tied with crimson cords, contained a scrap of bone under a glass dome, with a faded strip of paper labelling it “Oss. S Clementis” – bone of St Clement.
St Clement is a somewhat obscure figure, and details of his life are hazy and contradictory. However, he is said to have been martyred around the year 100 – just short of his own centenary – by the Roman emperor Trajan, by being tied to an anchor and thrown into the sea off the Crimea: his fate made him a patron saint of mariners.
He was an early Roman convert to Christianity, said to have been made a bishop by St Paul himself and in time became bishop of Rome, which made him the third pope after the martyrdom of the saints Peter and Linus. He is said to have written important letters of spiritual guidance to the Corinthians who gave St Paul so much trouble.
The little box ended up in the hands of the Enviro Waste firm, which collects both commercial and domestic waste. The case was found after a run that included several different sites in central London, and so the firm cannot pinpoint where the relic came from. It was spotted when employees were sorting through the load to separate out anything that could be recycled.
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
Glad they got it back. I’ve got three nails from Jesus’ cross and I know I’d be devastated if I lost one of those.
His constant answer in the NT was to believe in Him.
Moses was buried by God so no one would know where his bones were so they would not worship them. There is no biblical justification if read in context that justifies the RC idolatrous practice of “venerating” these things....many of which are highly suspect.
speaking of unbiblical practices, I’ve read it cover to cover 5 or 6 times and I’ve never found the passage that says “upon this rock I’ll print my bible” It has to be in there.
“passage that says “upon this rock I’ll print my bible” It has to be in there.
It does not.
Why not? If you lambast every practice of the Catholic Church because it is not "biblical", why can't we question why "Sola Scriptura" cannot be found in the bible?
Where in the bible did Christ say "go and write a book, call it the bible, and base your faith only on what is written in it?
What purpose does scripture serve, Shethink13? Is it just a nice inspirational book of stories, or is it meant to guide people to salvation and Christians ever closer to God? Why do you think that scripture can be disregarded and entire new practices put into place that have no precedent, scripturally speaking?
“why can’t we question why “Sola Scriptura” cannot be found in the bible?”
You can.
The principle of the highest authority of God- breathed Scripture is everywhere in Scripture.
Perhaps you are not clear on the meaning of Sola Scriptura?
Also, sounds like you should review how God gave us Scripture and Christ’s words concerning Scripture.
Best.
Sola scriptura (Latin: by scripture alone) is a theological doctrine held by Christian denominations that the Christian scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith and practice.
This doesn’t say it’s the highest authority, it says it’s the sole authority.
Perhaps you’re not clear on the meaning, so I’m trying to help.
It’s the defining principle you go buy, but is unbiblical itself, which means you can’t follow it, since it isn’t in scripture. Scripture does say to follow both written and oral teaching, however. I’m sorry I went from memory, I know we should always google, copy and paste scripture.
Rome did not incorporate any of these writings in the canon at Trent when Rome formalized its canon. That Rome didn’t is telling.
Do you allow the Mormon their beliefs as valid? The Muslim?
They also base their beliefs on writings not found in Scripture.
Roman Catholicism tells everyone their "Sacred Tradition" does not contradict Scripture and that their beliefs can be found in Scripture.
However, that is not the case. Take the Immaculate Conception as an example.
The Catholic Encyclopedia Online, which advertises itself as: "the most comprehensive resource on Catholic teaching, history, and information ever gathered in all of human history." has this to say about the IC.
No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.
One of the few times the pope has spoken ex cathedra cannot be found in Scripture.
Staying with this topic...to further illustrate why Scripture is superior to "Tradition" the Catholic Encyclopedia offers examples of the contradictory positions of the various ECFs regarding the IC. They call these error. If you are aware of the ECFs these are not light weights in Roman Catholicism.
From the CE: In regard to the sinlessness of Mary the older Fathers are very cautious: some of them even seem to have been in error on this matter.
Origen, although he ascribed to Mary high spiritual prerogatives, thought that, at the time of Christ's passion, the sword of disbelief pierced Mary's soul ; that she was struck by the poniard of doubt ; and that for her sins also Christ died ( Origen, "In Luc. hom. xvii").
In the same manner St. Basil writes in the fourth century: he sees in the sword, of which Simeon speaks, the doubt which pierced Mary's soul (Epistle 259).
St. Chrysostom accuses her of ambition, and of putting herself forward unduly when she sought to speak to Jesus at Capharnaum ( Matthew 12:46 ; Chrysostom, Hom. xliv; cf. also "In Matt.", hom. 4).
The CE calls these "stray private opinions".
I don't care to debate the Immaculate Conception in this thread.
I merely use it as an example of a "Tradition" Rome claims to be true that is not found in Scripture and is contradicted among the very ECFs Rome leans upon.
https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=6056
Where in the bible did Christ say "go and write a book, call it the bible, and base your faith only on what is written in it?
Perhaps an interesting exercise would be to do a word study on "it is written" and "write" to see how many times and in what context those words are used.
The Psalmist wrote these words:
11Your word I have treasured in my heart, That I may not sin against You. Psalm 119:11 NASB
It was the order of Eggs Benedict which threw him off the track.
Kind of odd that I didn’t get a reply regarding the nonbiblical origin of sola scriptura. Hmmm..
See my post 73.
says nothing about it except to count the number of times ‘it is written’ in the bible, which means exactly what? Nothing.
Where, specifically, and cite scripture, does it say that the only thing that matters is scripture period, which is what sola scriptura means. I have read it and it ain’t there! I do, however, remember this one.
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter. Sola scriptura is nonbiblical, in other words, for ones of limited comprehension, it isn’t in the bible.
What are the “traditions” Paul is writing about?? Specifics.
answer my question! Specifics
Jesus said before those that take credit. For recording the evolving New Testament Mark 13:23. But take ye heed: Behold, I have foretold you all things.
Now there is a warning to those that add or take away from the Word.
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.