Posted on 06/18/2017 2:20:09 PM PDT by narses
The veneration of relics is so obviously just a late medieval corruption of the faith, right? Actually, it comes from the Bible and the first Christians.
A speck of bone, their childhood shoes, even a drop of blood? If anything is distinctive of the devotional practices of the Catholic Church compared to Protestant Christians, it’s the Church's practices surrounding relics.
Relics are the remains of those recognized as saints, whether it is a part of their body (first degree relic), something they owned (second degree relic), or even, though less impressive, objects that have touched a first or second degree relic (third degree relic). Catholics carefully preserve relics, honor them, and even sometimes claim miracles in connection with them.
Catholics insist they are honoring Jesus' servants and in doing so are honoring Jesus. But to many Protestants, the whole practice seems at best very strange, at worst idolatrous, and, either way, in the very least, easily dismissed as just another late medieval corruption of the Catholic Church.
So Protestants (and Catholics) may be surprised to learn that the Church’s beliefs and practices surrounding relics actually come from the Bible and the early Church.
Relics in the Bible
In the Old Testament book 2 Kings, we find an curious story in which God works a miracle through the dead remains of one of his holy servants:
Elisha died and was buried. Now Moabite raiders used to enter the country every spring. Once while some Israelites were burying a man, suddenly they saw a band of raiders; so they threw the man’s body into Elisha’s tomb. When the body touched Elisha’s bones, the man came to life and stood up on his feet. (2 Kings 13.20-22) In the New Testament, we find two instances of God working through objects related to holy people. The first comes from the Gospel of Mark and is related to Jesus:
When she heard about Jesus, she came up behind him in the crowd and touched his cloak, because she thought, “If I just touch his clothes, I will be healed.” Immediately her bleeding stopped and she felt in her body that she was freed from her suffering. (Mark 5.27-29) And the second comes from the book of Acts and is related to the Apostle Paul:
God did extraordinary miracles through Paul, so that even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and their illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left them. (Acts 19.11-12) We can see in both the Old and the New Testaments the precedence for thinking that God could work miracles through each of the kinds of relics: a first degree relic in the case of Elisha’s body, a second degree relic in the case of Jesus’ clothes, and a third degree relic in the case of the the items Paul had touched. Technically, the Church holds any object related to Christ to be a first degree relic since Jesus is, after all, God incarnate, but the point here is that there is a clear precedence in Scripture for thinking that God could work a miracle through the belonging of a holy person.
Relics in the Early Church
But did the first Christians really take those Scriptures to mean they should start preserving people’s bones?
Yes. St Polycarp, a disciple of the Apostle John and the bishop of Smyrna, was martyred in Rome around the year A.D. 155 and an account was composed soon after known as the Martyrdom of Polycarp, in which we find this passage:
[After Bishop Polycarp was martyred in a Roman stadium] But when the adversary of the race of the righteous, the envious, malicious, and wicked one [Satan], perceived the impressive nature of his martyrdom, and [considered] the blameless life he had led from the beginning, and how he was now crowned with the wreath of immortality, having beyond dispute received his reward, he did his utmost that not the least memorial of him should be taken away by us [Christians], although many desired to do this, and to become possessors of his holy flesh. For this end he [Satan] suggested it to Nicetes, the father of Herod and brother of Alce, to go and entreat the governor not to give up his body to be buried, lest, said he, forsaking Him that was crucified, they begin to worship this one. This he said…being ignorant of this, that it is neither possible for us ever to forsake Christ, who suffered for the salvation of such as shall be saved throughout the whole world (the blameless one for sinners ), nor to worship any other. For Him indeed, as being the Son of God, we adore; but the martyrs, as disciples and followers of the Lord, we worthily love on account of their extraordinary affection towards their own King and Master, of whom may we also be made companions and fellow disciples!
Notice that it is the pagan Roman official, at the suggestion of the Devil, who doesn't want the Christians to take relics because the Christians might end up worshiping Polycarp instead of Jesus. And it is the Christians who, while fully conscious of the fact they worship God alone, still want to honor His servants by honoring their relics.
Also notice that the practice is not regarded as novel or controversial among the Christians. In fact, Satan is portrayed as being aware of the fact that Christians preserve and venerate the remains of martyrs, which is why he tries to stop this from happening with the remains of St Polycarp. All of this implies the practice predates St Polycarp’s martyrdom. Since St Polycarp was martyred around A.D. 155, and the last Apostle, John, died somewhere around A.D. 90 to 100, it’s quite possible that the practice of preserving and venerating the remains of the martyrs dates back to the time of the Apostles, and may have had their explicit approval (otherwise, if they had known about the veneration of relics, and if it had been wrong, they would have told people not to do it).
There are many other examples from the early Church of Christians preserving and venerating the relics of Christians who had died, but St Jerome in the 4th century sums of the sentiments of the early Church the best:
We, it is true, refuse to worship or adore, I say not [just] the relics of the martyrs, but even the sun and moon, the angels and archangels, Cherubim and Seraphim and every name that is named, not only in this world but also in that which is to come. For we may not serve the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Still, we honour the relics of the martyrs, that we may adore Him whose martyrs they are. We honour the servants that their honour may be reflected upon their Lord who Himself says:— “he that receives you receives me." […] If the relics of the martyrs are not worthy of honour, how comes it that we read “precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints?” (Letter 109, 1, 2) The early Christians saw the veneration of relics not only as not in competition with their unique worship of God but as an important part of it.
So What’s Really the “Late Corruption”?
The Catholic beliefs and practices surrounding relics are based firmly on Scripture and the practices of the early Church. Catholics venerate relics today just as Christians have be doing since the earliest times of the faith. Ironically, this means the Protestant rejection of relics is the late corruption of the faith, while the Catholic practice is in fact representative of original Christianity.
No doubt, as with anything good, the veneration of relics can be abused, but the wholesale rejection of it by Protestants is an overreaction, “throwing out the baby with the bathwater.” Catholics, on the other hand, should confidently carry on with their good and holy veneration of relics – and perhaps reintroduce their Protestant brothers and sisters to the ancient Christian practice.
How many poor, benighted southern Americans have been hoodwinked by fake snake handling preachers over the centuries, I wonder? Did they attribute miracles to snake handling preacher PT Barnum showmanship?
You do yourself no favors with your comparison, but don't appear to realize this.
Yawn.....
Sounds as if you’re just a tad too comfortable and complacent. I suggest a good hard pew in a Primitive Baptist Church.
When Catholics pray to Mary they are not worshiping her, rather they are honoring her and asking for her intercession on their behalf — in fact, more than praying “to” her, we pray “with” Mary, asking her to pray with and for us. Do Catholics Worship Mary?
1Ti_2:5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
So, no, one should not pray to Mary to ask Christ for our needs. We are told in scripture to go directly to the Son. Saul tried an intermediary and it didn't go very well for him.
And, btw, according to your definition:
Would you really pray to someone who fits these qualifications? Your father perhaps? Your mother? Ronald Reagan? Me? :O)
‘They will still claim that when a Catholic does it it is idolatry, when a prod does it - if they believe, well then it is OK.’
This is akin to liberal logic. They take some action—perhaps a crime—in which conservatives are not engaged, and they set up a hypothetical wherein conservatives are committing that action. Then they devolve into an orgy of speculation and condemnation re conservatives for committing this deed—which in fact conservatives haven’t committed.
Same here. You postulate that the Ark of the Covenant still exists. (It likely doesn’t.) Then you posit that its discovery will cause non-Catholics to venerate it. This is probably projection. At a minimum, it’s worthless speculation. You see the world through Catholic eyes. You have no idea how non-Catholics would react to a historical item that you would be inclined to venerate. You fail to understand that we reserve worship and veneration for God alone.
Isaiah 42:8
“I am the Lord, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images.
I often have prayed at the request of others and they have when I ask. Your word warbling aside - and synonyms are NOT definitions - but you knew that, right - you are trying to claim that what we do as Catholics is what you claim we do. That is just ludicrous. BTW if that word is to big, try funny - as in stupid.
I can get along at a real Baptist service, they generally get the Bible readings right and usually have a pretty good idea of the moral code that governs Christians. They have no understanding of the Sacraments or the nuances of Grace, but among the heretical prods they come about as close to Catholic as I have seen. That said, they have pews very similar to the ones in the convent chapel I often attend - hard and designed to avoid drowsiness.
I suppose that’s as close to a compliment as I’ll ever get from you in these theological mud wrestling matches, so thank you.
It’s a fact.
So, I assume you're elevating yourself to the same status as Mary????
As far as "word warbling", there isn't much to warble about. There isn't a clear definition of what precisely "venerate" means within the Catholic Church. They just know-hey-it means something special (keep reading).
On one hand Catholics state they're to pray to Mary to intercede with Christ. According to the US Catholic organization, there are over 10,000 venerated saints. Why pick on Mary? She must be busy. What makes her so special?
On the other hand we have the above remark that veneration is no different than asking a neighbor to pray for them. That then again ask the question "Why Mary?"
From the Catholic dictionary:
This has to be one of the most stupid (e.g. ludicrous) statement of belief on New Advent that I have read. I can't even begin to parse this dribble. The idolater credits the image he reverences???? Does anyone REALLY believe that people of old actually thought that a stone statue of Baal or Zeus was, in fact, Baal or Zeus? When people prayed to an idol they were putting their faith in what that idol represented. During Elijah's time they prayed for Baal to come down from heaven-not that the stone statue of him would pop to life. Much to the Baal priests (oops-interesting term) sadness, it didn't work. And this definition of idolatry doesn't fit with what the scriptures states what idolatry actually is-faith in something other than Christ.
Sadly, there isn't any difference between praying to Baal or praying to Mary. But then Elijah had a difficult time convincing his crowd-even when God threw down fire from heaven.
” I can’t even begin to parse this dribble. “
Indeed.
‘Sadly, there isn’t any difference between praying to Baal or praying to Mary.”
ROTFLMAO! You are really going there? What a drooling and idiotic simile. But fitting.
Ahhhhh....such logic and reasoning. I’m sure the early church fathers would be proud of such elocution. However, you may have to translate ROTFLMAO for them as it’s not in the Greek.
Doesn’t the Catholic idea of asking Mary to intercede turn prayer into something more complicated than it needs to be? Or perhaps to express it more accurately, does it not seek to downplay the love God has for each one of us individually?
I’m assuming Catholics believe God is both omniscient and is love [see vs below]. That is what the Bible teaches.
If this is true, then God knows your prayer from the moment you conceive of it. [Strictly speaking, He knew about it from eternity, since He is above time and knows the end from the beginning.]
So imagine you offer a prayer to Mary, with the request that she intercede with God on your behalf.
God knows all this in advance. He knows your thoughts, your words, your feelings, etc. So how does Mary approach Him? Does she say, ‘That prayer that Narses prayed—the one you’ve already heard. I just want to especially urge You to answer it,’?
How does this not backfire? It implies that Mary cares more for you than your heavenly Father. It suggests that He might not adequately listen or respond without her intercession.
Jesus gave us a series of teachings under the rubric, ‘how much more,’. Here’s one of them:
Matthew 7:11
If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!
A need for Mary’s intercession suggests a deficiency in this teaching. Namely, that it should read, ‘How much more will your heavenly Father give to those on whose behalf Mary intercedes!’
This is simply not the case. God answers our prayers because He is good/He loves us. It all depends on Him—not on us, not on Mary, and not on anyone else.
Look at it like this. You need an intermediary when the party you’re trying to reach is too busy, or perhaps doesn’t know you personally and doesn’t love and care for you sufficiently. For example, let’s say you’re one of a dozen children. Your father is very busy, and anyway, you’ve always suspected he cares more for one or two of your siblings than for you.
One day you have a burning, urgent request. To make certain it gets the most favorable hearing, you ask your mother to present it to your father. He adores her, after all—and you’ve never doubted her love for you.
In real life this is a possible scenario. With God it isn’t. There’s no possibility of God’s love being insufficient for any one of us. If He did not withhold His only begotten Son from death on the cross, then His love is unconditional. Any other belief simply reflects a lack of faith in God’s goodness and love.
1 John 4:
We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.
1 John 5:15
And if we know that He hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests which we have asked from Him.
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.