Bones of St. Paul confirmed

Rod,

You're assuming that the AP knows enough about Christianity to get even the major points right, let alone the minor or esoteric ones -- and that's much more than ought to be assumed.

Well, his body is in a Roman Catholic Basilica and the Roman Catholic Church is doing all the leg work in verifying the accuracy of Roman Catholic Tradition. I imagine that is the source of the confusion. I.e. the story is about some goings-on of the Roman Catholic Church.

May I suggest asking the question from the editor's POV?

What organized relgion claimed Paul as its leader during his lifetime? What organized religion canonized Paul?

Later Christian sects "borrowed" from the RC church, did they not? That the church welcomed such "borrowing" would seem to me the root of "he's a saint for all Christians", changing nothing of the circumstances of Paul's life, work, and canonization.

Really, Rod, it's the same problem you have in blogging: Efficiency in usage creates problems. How many times have you used a word or phrase that set off a firestorm of semantics arguments? I submit that it's just reasonable to think "that's close but not enough" to go with the editor's choices around brevity.

But how odd that the AP would call St. Paul a "Roman Catholic saint." Actually, he's a saint for all Christians.

Certainly for Lutherans, as I learned well while attending St. Paul's Lutheran Elementary School.

I visited the basilica in question on a recent trip to Rome, and I think it'd be way cool if this were really the tomb of one of the top ten most influential people who ever lived. Then again, I'm reminded of the old joke: Did you know that Homer's plays weren't really written by Homer? They were written by a different guy who also happened to be named Homer.

Scott,

Thanks for the explanation. I was hoping someone would offer one. As one whose faith has been misrepresented by just about everybody, I do understand the sensitivity around such things.

Just out of curiousity: Would just about any qualifier be problematic? Would non-(modern)Catholics bristel at "the Catholic saint..."? Would some take any offense at "the Christian saint..."?

It's o.k., I think, to refer to him as a Roman Catholic saint when you're specifically speaking about actions being taken by the Vatican; if you found references to him in documents from the city of Tarsus, you could legitimately call him the "Saint of Tarsus." Neither of these would preclude other titles--former Pharisee, student of Gamaliel, near-sighted apostle, Damascus Road saint, the guy who stood up to Peter and James, patron saint of grumpy old bowlegged bald men, professional tentmaker, the guy who circumcised Timothy ("Uh sir, are you sure you've done this before?" "Relax, boy, and have a little more wine for your stomach)

I wouldn't exactly call that proof in and of itself.

The title of the post is belied by the quote from the Pope. Dating the bone fragments to the first or second century does not appear to me to be conclusive and indeed Benedict only says "seems to confirm." This is of course the margin of error inherent in the carbon-14 dating technique.

Re the "Roman Catholic" saint designation: while many Christian sects regard Paul as a saint, it was only the Roman church which, under persecution, preserved his remains. He ran afoul of the Jews and the Romans in Jerusalem; Antioch and Alexandria were not yet "patriarchates." Byzantium was a bywater little more noted than Tomi which at least hosted Ovid, not yet the city of Constantine and the iron fist of Caesaropapism. Paul was in Rome because he appealed to the Emperor. Civis Romanus sum.

Of course, de mortuis nil nisi bonum, but that civis Romanus, erstwhile persecutor of Christians, was accorded the more merciful death by decapitation, which though he did not disdain it, entered him in a painless instant into the Divine Presence. Peter the Denier, who, fleeing, met the Lord on the Appian Way, returned to the Urbs Aeterna to face the excruciating and slow death as the Lord. It was of course to Peter alone that Christ gave the Keys.

It is thus not to be marveled at that ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia. The Second Rome is a captivating concubine and prisoner of the Turk; the Third Rome a hoary harridan bedaubing her wrinkled countenance with new cosmetics. The First Rome, the City of Peter, the Bride of Christ stands resplendent in her nuptial raiment anciently, presently and eternally, unto the ages of ages.

"Confirm" might not be the right word, but the Church is happy that they didn't turn out to be the bones of some unlucky twelfth century peasant who happened to get lost. It's still a tradition.

Franklin, to answer your question, people will take offense at anything. I know Orthodox who bristle at the mention of St. Francis ("He's no saint! He's post-schism!") and I also know Orthodox who venerate many "Catholic" saints. Were you to visit our icon corner, you would find the Virgin of Guadalupe, which is about as Catholic as there is, along with a picture of Benedict XVI, a gift from a Catholic friend, which I use as a reminder to pray for unity and the healing of the schism. I don't have an icon of St. Francis, but I love him dearly.

The bones are old, but there's no way to ever prove to whom they belonged, unless we have some confirmed Pauline DNA hiding somewhere.

Though I'm now an atheist, I maintain the view of my Protestant upbringing that the Catholic and Orthodox fixation on relics is rather strange and slightly occultic.

Fixation on relics is strange. Strange. Ask anyone.

Are these in fact the bones of Paul of Tarsus? There's no way to know, and who cares? A lot of people I guess, but why??

I know Orthodox who bristle at the mention of St. Francis ("He's no saint! He's post-schism!")

I mean, call me weird, but the real reason I haven't explored Orthodoxy is this very fact: there are any number of poisonous articles about Francis of Assisi on the web, courtesy of Orthodoxy sites, and I was raised by Franciscan nuns, the very embodiment of the spirit of Christ. Citations upon request.

Any church with this kind of stuff on official or quasi-official sites cannot be in the spirit of Christ.

No, really. Anyone who can reassure me authoritatively re St. Francis will be doing a service to me and to Orthodoxy. I cannot join any church which disses this man.

Anon: "I'm pretty sure "occult" would mean the same thing in an atheistic context as in any other context: pertaining to secret knowledge of supernatural forces."

That definition would seem not to be obviously applicable, since it is not clear how the veneration of sacramentals in Catholicism might be said to be predicated on "secret knowledge." (The theology is clearly spelled out for all to read in the Catechism and elsewhere, and the traditions attesting the authenticity of various sacramentals are almost always available for public investigation.)

I might hazard a guess that you could have used the word due to lingering Protestant sensibilities in relation to resonances around magic and superstition ... but why the veneration of sacramentals might be, from an atheistic perspective, any more "magical" or "superstitious" than, say, baptism or praying for the sick is unclear to me.

I think I would still opt for beheading. It is certainly preferable to being a torch for Nero's garden parties.

Yes, always look on the bright side of life.

Re: These relics were used to gain control over these communites

Good grief no! How would that work anyway? If anything these hoards of bogus relics were the result of local communities seeking to cash in on the medieval tourist trade-- the religious pilgrimmage to a saint's shrine. Hence towns tended to invent relics, and even manufacture saints, sometimes from some fairly disreputable people. There's one tale of a drunken monk who was killed in a tavern brawl whom the nearby town promoted as a martyr, even besieging their bishop in his mansion to force him to give his imprimatur to the cult. This is why Rome took over the canonization process in the 13th century, to prevent such abuses.
As for the rest of your post, about worshipping idols and the like, telic ignorance like that is not even worth arguing with. I will leave you to your Jack Chick disinfomatsiya.

The "Roman Catholic Saint" description caught my attention, as well. ??

It is not surprising that Pope Benedict would consider Saint Paul a Roman Catholic.

I do not think it is the AP that said this. They were quoting the Pope... this can be seen with this: "...Pope Benedict XVI said Sunday."

Anon: What does "plausibility" have to do with the dictionary definition of "occult" you cited?

RJohnson,

Good evening. Long time no se. Hope you are well. Per usual, you give me much to chew on.

"Such is the nature of faith, Gerard. Once we have evidence, we no longer need faith. Without faith it is impossible to please God, so is it reasonable for him to provide us evidence?"

While there is much truth in what you say, I offer the following to temper a too much reliance on faith. With the incarnation, God dramatically ratcheted up his signs designed to instill belief. There is a place for the miraculous, and for confirming Scriptural texts.

Imagine that 2,000 years from now, much of our knowledge and record of Western Civilization having been lost in a catastrophe similar to the burning of the library at Alexandria, our descendants question whether Abraham Lincoln actually existed. Was the Civil War real? The Emancipation Proclamation? Gettysburg Address? All of which have come down through the remnants of a people who still believe in the antiquated notion of democracy and representative government. Some textual critics doubt the historicity of such documentation, the originals of which cannot be accounted for after so long.

The stories about the burial of Lincoln, the disappearance of the body, retrieval, identification decades after his death and final burial under tons of concrete and metal all seem to be an elaborate construct of a legend that is highly suspect.

Then archeologists unearth a body from the reputed burial site, from under tons of concrete and metal, and carbon dating establishes the bones to date to the 19th or 20th centuries. Further, the bones are of a male of the same height as reported by the disciples of this man who stood for the dignity of the individual-a concept in tatters two millennia later. Would this not electrify the community of believers in the historical reality of Abraham Lincoln, and add one buttress to the body of literature ascribed to him? Sure it isn't a DVD, but momentous in light of the withering scepticism. No?

Well, that's my 2 cents worth for the day. Be Well.

Hepzibah July 24, 2009 3:01 PM "Saint" Paul is not a Roman Catholic saint. Paul was a Jew and I find it such hypocrisy by the Catholic Church that they would revere Peter's, Paul's or any other remains from the members of the first church yet hold the Inquistion against their possible descendants. I am still asking myself - so whose DNA did the church compare the DNA of these bones - the Pontiff's? Yes Paul is a Roman Catholic Saint first, as all people beleaving in Jesus were all catholic in the time in question. As in today from city to city there were lots of different understanding’s and caused divistions. As the letters of Paul showed us so clearly. Still there had been, no decisive church splits until 300 years later. As per the Jews they were killing the catholics of that time. Paul himself was murdering Catholics of that time. Before his convertion. The larger testamonil here is the proven line of unbroken apostalic sucsession. That is needed with transtanistion of the holy eucherist. The funny thing here is man is always telling God how he is willing to worship, instead of serendering to HIS teaching. Hence the splits of the Church. Other reasons have brought devisions lines of comunication broken, war’s, greed, power. All leading to the cause of political take over of different clurgy. Streching over time of many millinea. Trace able yes very requires a lot of reading and study time. However it is better that having so many questions. History and tradition combined with testing leads to the path of truth. I believe these are St Pauls remains. And He is a St to all yet Catholic first.