What do Protestants think about the recent analysis on the remains of Saint Paul?

Article

Just wondering what some Protestants think about this recent discovery. Do you think about why and how his tomb is under a Catholic Church? Where is the disconnect among Protestants when it comes to believing the Catholic Church is the one, true Church founded by Jesus Christ? Saint Paul was Catholic at the time of his death. That is why the Catholic Church has constantly possessed his tomb. Same with Saint Peter and others.

What do you mean? Are you asking us whether or not it should be in the catholic church grounds? Are you saying that we should feel that we should have it off of catholic grounds because we believe that our denominations are Jesus Christ church too?

Yeah, that and just why you think the Catholic Church possesses his tomb.

Okay, umm… …because he was a catholic? So he should be there… :o

I’m not biting your bait am I? :stuck_out_tongue:
Never mind, very soon you will be bombarded by millions of **anti - catholic protestants **that will debate this with you until kingdom come!:wink:
So have fun with them! I’m not a protester against the authority of the one and only holy catholic church. But there are many that are, so just wait foe them to come!

xXX zundrah XXx

I don’t think that Protestants have any issue with accepting the fact those bones are from Paul, who was a Catholic. Or why the Church in in possession of them. This has very little to do with the validity of the Catholic Church. It just tells us what we already knew that the Church extends back into the time of Paul. However, there has already been examples of the Church’s existance that pre-dates even Paul.

So it’s more like supporting evidence, really. It doesn’t really help us in our quest to evangelize Protestants.

You’re probably right.

His remains were found buried at the site which was a Catholic holy-place – venerated by Catholics from the 1st century. It was preserved during the era of persecutions, and then Constantine built the Basilica that still stands there today (rebuilt).

This finding does have great apologetical value. The claims of the Catholic Church are validated again. This is “non-scriptural” evidence – the existence of a church dedicated to St. Paul, veneration of relics and the martyr’s tomb, very early painting of St. Paul found on the same site, the construction of a basilica on the site with full support from all the Chrisitans in Rome (no protestants objected to it), the placing of the altar over the tomb (offering the Eucharistic Sacrifice) … all of these things stand as a testimony to the truth of the Catholic Faith.

Well that was nicely stated too.

Do you think about why and how his tomb is under a Catholic Church?

The reason he is under a Catholic Church is because a church was built above his remains. That says absolutely nothing about whether his teachings found in his letters are the present teachings of the church you go to.
Essentially three large groups survived: Orthodox, Catholic, Oriental Orthodox.
BUT
There were always small dissenting groups; some outright heretical; some not.
Bible believing Christians are not Landmarkists. In other words, we do not believe that historically it is necessary to have one specific group. Let me give an example. Through apostolic succession groups like the Roman Catholic Church and groups like the Liberal Catholic Church International all claim to have the faith of the apostles and Christ. I have to evaluate that claim againt the one thing that I believe does contain their teaching: the Bible. While I can read the ante-Nicene writers, and have, I know from my experiences on this board that we they agree with your doctrine, you cite them. When they disagree, you ignore them.
I cannot reconcile the teachings of Paul, Peter, Jesus Christ, James, Jude, John with what you teach now. So it means nothing. EXCEPT…that IS really a wonderful thing that hard evidence points that it was his tomb.

Which one of these is subordinate to the Roman Pontiff?

What teachings can’t you reconcile?

Who interprets their teachings in the Bible for you?

ALL of the early church fathers believed in the Catholic faith.

That’s a fruit of private interpretation.

To borrow reggieM’s words:

His remains were found buried at the site which was a Catholic holy-place – venerated by Catholics from the 1st century. It was preserved during the era of persecutions, and then Constantine built the Basilica that still stands there today (rebuilt).

This finding does have great apologetical value. The claims of the Catholic Church are validated again. This is “non-scriptural” evidence – the existence of a church dedicated to St. Paul, veneration of relics and the martyr’s tomb, very early painting of St. Paul found on the same site, the construction of a basilica on the site with full support from all the Chrisitans in Rome (no protestants objected to it), the placing of the altar over the tomb (offering the Eucharistic Sacrifice) … all of these things stand as a testimony to the truth of the Catholic Faith.

For the sake of discussion, I would like rephrase your statement a little differently. "I cannot reconcile [my personal and fallible interpretation of] the teachings of Paul, Peter, Jesus Christ, James, Jude, John with what the CC now teaches. Your statement implies several fallacies that I wish to address.

First: the Catholic Church has always taught what it now teaches and I challenge you provide proof to the contrary. We are talking dogma here - not customs, vestment colors, etc.

Second: On what authority do you claim to have the correct interpretation of scripture? Does it come from you? Your preacher? The Holy Spirit? Jesus built his Church (the Catholic Church) on Peter and said that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. And guided by the Holy Spirit, the Catholic Church has persisted for 2000 years, building most of what we now call Western Civilization along the way. Thus, why should I believe your interpretation of scripture over 2000 years of teaching provided by Christ’s original church?

Third: How is it that you accept the authority of the Catholic Church to establish the canon of the New Testament yet cast aside that same Church’s magisterial teaching? I think you have placed yourself into an untenable position.

Good question. That same Holy Spirit that guided the Catholic Church in determining the Canon of Scripture also guided/guides Her in all Her doctrines and dogmas.

=tmac1956;5387720]For the sake of discussion, I would like rephrase your statement a little differently. "I cannot reconcile [my personal and fallible interpretation of] the teachings of Paul, Peter, Jesus Christ, James, Jude, John with what the CC now teaches. Your statement implies several fallacies that I wish to address.

First: the Catholic Church has always taught what it now teaches and I challenge you provide proof to the contrary. We are talking dogma here - not customs, vestment colors, etc.

In my sixteen hundred posts, I have at one time or another addressed them in detail. It is not my habit to engage in a substantive request, which yours is, half-heartedly.

Second: On what authority do you claim to have the correct interpretation of scripture? Does it come from you? Your preacher? The Holy Spirit? Jesus built his Church (the Catholic Church) on Peter and said that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. And guided by the Holy Spirit, the Catholic Church has persisted for 2000 years, building most of what we now call Western Civilization along the way. Thus, why should I believe your interpretation of scripture over 2000 years of teaching provided by Christ’s original church?

Yes it is my interpretation. I believe that everyone engages in interpretation to determine which authority they follow. While a Catholic comes to a personal interpretation to support the interpretation of the Catholic based upon their understanding of scripture, tradition, reason, historical analysis, I have done the same thing to come to a different conclusion. I believe the Bible. The reasons are numerous, and once again, I posted at length on my reasons previously. I do not believe that your churches teachings are 2000 years old. I am answering the OP and defining my beliefs since you asked. A through defense of any of the issues would result in a very long thread, which once again I have done before and am not particularly interested in doing right now.

Third: How is it that you accept the authority of the Catholic Church to establish the canon of the New Testament yet cast aside that same Church’s magisterial teaching? I think you have placed yourself into an untenable position.

I do not believe the Catholic Church had the authority to establish the canon. In fact, I do not think that is your official position either:

  1. These books the Church holds to be sacred and canonical **not because she subsequently approved them by her authority **after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the Church.

I do not believe that the regional synods held at Carthage and Hippo were infallible. I do not believe you teach that either though.
I believe that God’s providence and sovereignty gave us scripture. Scripture does not teach that the canon is established by human hands. The NT quotes authoratively from scripture defined by whom? When Paul writes that all scripture is inspired, in reference to the existing scripture and certainly we hold to future scipture, there were no earthly authorities that had defined that scripture tmac. The Jews recognized what God had done. There was no official pronouncement. You see that is one of the historical errors that most people make. The council of Jamnia did not canonize the Jewish scriptures; they merely discussed some specific books and essentially agreed with previous views.
There is even still a myth of an “alexandrian canon” something that a simple junior college course on OT studies would dispel.
Now, absolutely it depends on what side you fall on. Your canon, the Orthodox canon, and my canon differ. I do not recognize your authority to establish the canon and I would be curious if you could find an ante-nicene writers who holds a different view than the one I hold.

Of course. But it is not my presupposition that subordination to a Roman pontiff was taught by the apostles. In fact, can you find anyone in the first 100 years after Christ that does not specifically teach Peter AND Paul as having equal authority in establishing the church. Even Irenaeus, bad historian that he was (Paul and Peter did not found the church at Rome as the Bible clearly teaches), stated that the church of Rome was admirable in their doctrine because of two men; not some Roman pontiff.

“I believe that God’s providence and sovereignty gave us scripture” through synods you reject as non-binding and non-authoritative? Those synods came up with the list of canonical books. I think you’re engaging in very blatant intellectual dishonesty here.

I do not believe the synods gave us scripture. No. In fact, I do not think you will find writers around 400 to 500 AD who assert that. Long before, there were synods, Clement, Ignatius, Papias, and Eusebius wrote about the NT writings as scripture. I do believe the regional synods were possibly influential specifically when it came to specific books like Revelation and Hebrews POSSIBLY. I do not think that can be historially ascertained.
As far as calling me dishonest, you are bearing false witness against me. Who are you to call me dishonest? You might not agree with me and I do not agree with you but I do not call you dishonest.
I would think a person who would have a signauture speaking of love would conduct themselves in that manner and not call someone dishonest.

Half-heartedly? So you say. However, it would be intellectually honest to provide a link to at least one of those sixteen-hundred posts. That should be relatively simply.

Taking this approach a little further… Your interpretation differs from mine. Therefore ,who resolves the issue? The Bible states that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth. The CC is guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth. Yet the protestant position is to simply agree to disagree and split-off into yet another one of the 30,000+ denominations that currently exist.

Oh – I see – it’s just too complicated, so take my word for it. You made the statements, so defend them if you can. Links will work!

Yet, guided by the Holy Spirit, that is precisely what She did!

So, God went to all of the trouble to reveal the canon to those councils, only to wait 1300 additional years and state “…WAIT, this not the correct canon!” thereby leaving millions of Christians in error and hell?

Poppy-cock! The canon did not simply float down from heaven. Of course it was established by human hands - that were guided by the Holy Spirit. That 's like saying that the authors of scripture did not write with human hands!

Oh really – no defined existing scripture? I believe it was called the Septuagint.

That’s an amazing statement! How do the RCC, Orthodox, and YOUR New Testament canons differ?

If you use the Church Fathers as authority, then you must become Catholic, because they all believed in the Catholic Faith.

Can you find anyone in the first 100 years after Christ that teaches once saved always saved, scripture alone or faith alone?

We look to Rome because Jesus Christ, through Peter and his successors, established the Church in Rome. We don’t look to Rome because Paul (or even Peter) was martyred there. This is why, in the book of Romans, Paul writes his letter but stresses that he does not want to “build on another man’s foundation.” Paul was referring to Peter, who was the bishop of Rome and the head of the Church. It has nothing to do with politics, or culture, or future martyrdoms. It has to do with Christ’s choice to build His Church upon the “rock” of Peter, in Rome. Peter is not just “the first among equals.” Peter is the “first and foremost” (which is why Scripture describes him with the Greek protos). The other bishops derive their authority from the keys which only Peter holds.

They are both venerated in the Catholic Church. But, remember, only Peter was given the keys (not Paul). When the Orthodox realize the significance of the keys, they soon become Catholic. The keys of the kingdom cannot be overlooked in this argument, because they go to the very question of authority and dynastic succession. That is what they represent, and that is what they have effected for 2,000 years. This is why, In Galatians 1:18-19, it says Paul went to visit Peter in Jerusalem and examine (Greek, historesai) him for 15 days. Even though James was the bishop of Jerusalem, Paul chooses to examine Peter, not James. Why? Because Peter was the head of the Church.

To answer your question, “Can you find anyone in the first 100 years after Christ that does not specifically teach Peter AND Paul as having equal authority in establishing the church?”,yes I can. How about the succession of Popes starting with Peter? To whom did this authority pass? I’ll tell you: to Linus, Anacletus, Clement, Avaristus, etc. Why did the early Church know that the keys represented Christ’s desire for dynastic succession (and history proves this), but you don’t? Did the early Church have it all wrong? I don’t think so. That is the real issue here, and the burden is with you to disprove what history has already proven. Why would Christ give Peter this supremacy during his life, but not pass it on to successors?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.