Santa Filomena The Controversy
has been much serious discussion on the theme of the little Saint and a lot of nonsense. I think we need to talk about presenting the most recent archaeological findings, of which no more bitter critics are capable of doubt. Had
controversy Filomena studied in local, as the great archaeologist P. Bonavenia sj (rather than later) had not said so much superficial.
To inform the reader of the "Controversy about Filomena" has to do with historical and archaeological analysis of heading LUMENA-PAXTE-CUM-FI, discovered on May 25, 1802 in the Catacombs of St. Priscilla in Rome. The "loculus" that for 15 centuries ended the body of our little Saint, was sealed with three terracotta tiles above the caption written in red letters.
The first word, definite and clear, written on a single tile. PAXTE tile is in the middle, and CUM-FI in the past. As soon as it was discovered and read the caption FILUMENA \u200b\u200bPAX TECUM.
Immediately the reader may ask: "Why this transposition? In response, beginning with a brief analysis of archaeological and historical interpretation, by Father SJ Bonavenia "The undertaker could not write the full name on the first tile to maintain the proportions of the letter, he continued writing the initial FI and LUMENA \u200b\u200bthe last tile in the first. As often the custom in the Catacombs start heading in the second tile, the undertaker in his care not to cause a misunderstanding of those who were going to read, wrote in the tomb of the Saint of the way ". As mentioned above Bonavenia says writing has a clear and comprehensive sense, and that the tiles of the third century, as a unanimous all archaeologists say, there were no transposition. Surely with the current thinking, would not agree with what he did the gravedigger. But we think, not with the mentality of our age, but with the time when the writer lived.
During the first 20 years of this century, an archaeologist, O. Marucchi, caused widespread outrage because of its irrational and harmful conclusions regarding the question of Filomena. Supported a hypothesis that the tiles that sealed the tombs were re-used in other, and this would be what happened to the Santa Filomena. Marucchi
Mugnano never visited, with only studying the heading of photos, concluded that the body of Santa's tomb in 1802 found it was not addressed under the heading of the photos. According to him, tiles were the fourth century, a time of religious peace, and had been re-used with good results.
As the Lord said, is true that the children of the shadows are wiser than the light . In fact, the theory of the archaeologist who perverted the minds of many scholars who accepted the adoption of Delehaye.
Dante Baldoni, in the "Bibliotheca Sanctorum" Vol 6, is the biography of the saint, sometimes giving the impression of an inadequate understanding of the Question of Filomena. Limited to the mention of the theory of Marucchi disturbing the conscience of believers and others who want the truth.
hypothesis by Marucchi, tiles re-used has been the basis for denying the identity of the person of Filomena. For this, we reach a conclusion on. However, subsequent investigations Ferrua Father, SJ, has nullified the conclusion thus also relative. Here is the full report:
A report under the heading LUMENA \u200b\u200bPAXTE-CUM-FI
I have carefully examined the three tiles "mezzi-bipedali (bipedali are Roman tiles tile, two feet square, these are a half the size) with which sheltered the tomb of St. Philomena. I reached the following conclusions: writing with a brush on the ground, ie, before putting on grave, and before sealing them with lime. This is demonstrated by the fact that in many places the limestone covers the edges of the letters. This easily explains why the three tiles could not be arranged later in the tomb in the wrong order, ie to one of three first rather than last. "
Surely the gravedigger who closed the tomb could not read or write, so mistakes and this type of disorder is seen frequently in the tombs of the catacombs. Often it becomes clear that the undertakers did not know Latin. Marucchi hypothesized that the tiles were taken from another tomb, which were used back to points of order, does not prove that the title not apply to her:
1. Because in that case would be seen a second application of lime. So far everyone who has seen the tiles and many say that the tomb was closed only once.
2. If the tiles were used twice would flake at the edges. In particular, two tiles are of a "bipedal" complete, cut in half. Edges are still completely intact over the fracture line.
3. Valuable marble slabs, often used twice. It was the same in the case of tile, if it were written. Anyway, to avoid an error would have taken the precaution of putting the writing on the inside. (As they used to do with tables). In this way would have eliminated the inconvenience of covering the old and new.
4. Finally, if you used the tiles back have been odd and surprising move all the same tomb.
In conclusion, the hypothesis Marucchi abstract orientation is unlikely and contrary to the ordinary methods of procedure for the gravediggers of the old days. As discussed
, and all the facts, you can not believe in this hypothesis as true.
Fr Delehaye has done a great disservice to the good name of archeology saying "Le Savant Archeoloque written rein n'a mieux" (Anal Boll. 24 (1905) p. 120).
In other words, the controversy that arose about this point between Bonavenia and Marucchi, Bonavenia is vindicated. (Cf G. Bonavenia The controversy about the wording of Santa Filomena Rome, 1906). We also have a question
archaeological, historical and archaeological controversy Filomena (Rome 1907). This same conclusion was carried out by two archaeologists, and Mustilli Prandi (unknown) with the approval of M. Guarducci. (Graffiti di S. Pietro, 1, P501. Seal signed and dated, Rome, November 29, 1963).
Finally, the historian, George Maute Markhof, in his commentary on the book: Filomena Miracle uncomfortable, Vienna, 1981, against a Marucchi says: "I think the trial of Italian archaeologist Marucchi, superficial and spiteful extremely surprising considering the great popularity it enjoyed.
obviously had some prejudice against Santa Filomena and did not behave as a scientist to investigate the matter objectively.
Nevertheless, there are still many mysteries about Santa Filomena. I believe that among the Catholic saints with exception of Our Lady, is presented as an extraordinary phenomenon.
Thus, it is possible to conclude by saying that Filomena is a person who exists, and is the Saint and miracle-worker yesterday and Today, God uses the simple and humble to confound the pride of the scholars.
The greatest miracle that God does, in favor of Santa, is the continuing spread of his cult throughout the Catholic world.
Santa Filomena, the martyr of chastity and faith in Christ, can stop the spread of materialism and rationalism cold today, through a spirit of ardent faith.
CONTROVERSY ON THE SAINT PHILOMENE
Serious There has-been much discussion on the topic about the little Saint and a lot of nonsense. I think we Need to talk about Presenting the Most Recent Archaeological Findings, of Which Not Even the Critics Are Resentful MOST capable of Doubt.
If they had studied Philomena's controversy on the premises, as the great archaeologist P. Bonavenia s.j. (rather than later) had not been stated so many things superficialy.
To inform the reader the "Controversy over Philomena " has to do with historical and archaeological analysis of the heading LUMENA PAXTE CUM-FI discovered on May 25, 1802 in the Catacombs of St. Priscilla in Rome. The "loculus" which for 15 centuries locked the body of our saint, was sealed with three terracotta tiles with the aforementioned caption written in red letters.
The first word, definite and clear, is written on a single tile. PAXTE tile is in the middle, and CUM-FI at last. As soon as the item was discovered was read PAX TECUM FILUMENA.
Immediately the reader may ask "Why this transposition?" In response, beginning with a brief analysis of archaeological and historical interpretation, by Father Bonavenia s.j. "The gravedigger could not write the full name on the first tile to preserve the proportions of the letter, he continued writing the initial FI and LUMENA the last tile in the first. The most common practice at the Catacombs start heading into the second tile, the gravedigger in his care not to cause a misinterpretation of those who would read, wrote in the tomb of the Saint that way"
From the above Bonavenia says that writing has a clear and comprehensive sense, and that the tiles, in the third century, as all archaeologists say unanimously, suffered no transposition. Surely with the current thinking, we would not agree with what he did the gravedigger. But we argue, not with the mentality of our age, but by the time the writer lived.
During the first 20 years of this century, an archaeologist, O. Marucchi, caused general indignation because of its irrational and harmful conclusions regarding the question of Philomena. He held a hypothesis that the tiles that sealed the graves were returned to use in others, and that this would be what happened to that of Saint Philomena.
Marucchi never visited Mugnano, with only studying the caption for photos, concluded that the body of the Saint's tomb found in 1802 was not the addressee of the subtitle of the photos. He said that the tiles were the fourth century, a time of religious peace, and had been re-used with good results.
As the Lord said is true that the children of darkness are wiser than the children of light. In fact, the theory of this archaeologist who perverted the minds of many scholars who accepted the approval of Delehaye.
Dante Baldoni, in the "Bibliotheca Sanctorum" Vol 6, follows the biographical summary of the saint, sometimes giving the impression of an inadequate understanding of the Question of Philomena. merely mentioning the theory of Marucchi disturbed the conscience of believers and others who want the truth.
The Marucchi‘s hypothesis, of reused tiles has been the basis for denying the identity of the person of Philomena. for this, we reach a relative conclusion. However, subsequent investigations of Father Ferrua, SJ, have also canceled so the relative conclusion. Here is the full report:
A REPORT OF EPIGRAPH: LUMENA PAXTE CUM-FI
I have carefully examined the three tiles "mezzi-bipedali (bipedali are Roman tiles, two feet from side-these are a half in size) that were enclosing the tomb of St. Philomena. I have reached the following conclusions: they were written with a brush on the ground, ie, before putting them on the grave, and before sealing it with lime. This is demonstrated by the fact that in many places the limestone covers the edges of the letters. This easily explains why the three tiles could not be arranged later in the tomb in the wrong order, ie to put one of three first instead of last. "
Surely the gravedigger that closed the tomb could not read or write. So errors like that were often in the tombs of the catacombs. it is clear that often the gravediggers did not know Latin. Marucchi hypothesis, that the tiles were removed from another tomb, which were used again with the letters in disarray, don’t shows that the epigraph does not apply to it:
1. Because in that case would be observed a second application of lime. So far everyone who has seen the tiles and many say that the tomb was closed only once.
2. If the tiles were used twice would flake at the edges. In particular, two tiles are of a "bipedal" complete, cut in half. There are still completely intact edges along the fracture line.
3. Marble slabs, very valuable, were often used twice. It was not the same in the case of tile, if it were written. anyway, to avoid an error, would have taken the precaution of putting the inscription inside. (As they used to do with tables). In this way would have eliminated the inconvenience of covering the old with the new.
4. Finally, if the tiles were used again would have been strange and surprising take all of the same tomb.
In conclusion, Marucchi’s hypothesis is abstract in orientation is unlikely and contrary to the ordinary methods of procedure for the gravediggers of the old days. By the examined, and all the facts, you can not believe in that hypothesis as true. Fr Delehaye has done a great disservice to the good name of archeology saying, "Le Savant Archeoloque written rein n'a mieux" (Anal Boll. 24 (1905), p. 120).
In other words, in the controversy that arose about this point between Bonavenia and Marucchi, Bonavenia is vindicated. (G. Bonavenia Controversy about the Saint Philomena’s Epigraph Rome, 1906). We also have a question, historical and archaeological in the Philomena’s Controversy (Rome 1907). The same conclusion was finally carried out by two archaeologists, Mustilli and Prandi (unknown each to the other) with the approval of M. Guarducci. (Graffiti di S. Pietro, 1, P501. Label the date and signed, Rome, 29 November 1963).
Finally, the historian, George Maute Markhof, in his commentary on the book "Philomena The Uncomfortable Miracle" , Vienna, 1981, against Marucchi says: "I relieve Italian archaeologist Marucchi’s Judgement, shallow and spiteful, extremely surprising considering the excellent reputation he enjoyed. Of course he had some prejudice against Saint Philomena and did not behave as a scientist to investigate the matter objectively.
Nevertheless, there are still many mysteries about Saint Philomena. I believe that among the Catholic saints, with the exception of Our Lady, is presented as an extraordinary phenomenon.
It is possible to conclude by saying that Philomena is a person that exists, and is the Saint and miracle-worker of yesterday and today, God uses the simple and humble to confound the pride of the learned.
The greatest miracle that God does, for the saint, is the continuing spread of her devotion throughout the Catholic world. St. Philomena, the martyr of chastity and faith in Christ, can halt the spread of materialism and cold rationalism of today, through a spirit of ardent Faith.
0 comments:
Post a Comment