The Holy Bones of the First Holy Father

Aleteia ^ | 11/27/13 | Fr Dwight Longenecker

[marshmallow]

What sort of religion keeps dead people’s bones, puts them on display, and expects people to kiss them? Catholicism - and it's awesome.

What sort of religion keeps dead people’s bones, puts them on display, and expects people to kiss them? This weekend’s news reminds the world that the veneration of relics is still very much part of the Catholic faith. As a fitting climax to the Year of Faith, Pope Francis put on display for the first time the bones of St. Peter, the first Pope.

The news headlines focused on the sensational, and many journalists asked the obvious questions, often missing the point and skimming over the facts to report superficially. There are some excellent questions that arise from the reports of St. Peter’s bones being produced: What are relics and why are they important to Catholics? Why do Catholics kiss the bones of dead people? Are Catholics really so gullible as to believe in the authenticity of relics (we know they’re fake, right)? Could those bone fragments really be the remains of Peter the Apostle?

A relic is anything associated with a person who has been canonized as a saint or beatified as blessed. There are three categories of relics: a first class relic is some part of the person’s mortal remains. The relic could be a fragment of bone, hair, skin, or blood. The relic is taken when the body of the saint is exhumed as part of the canonization process.

A second class relic is some object or part of an object which was regularly used or worn by the saint during their earthly life. There are many second class relics. These might include the saint’s belongings, clothing, furniture or a part of these things. Second class relics of Pope John Paul II, for example, include.......

[narses]

[Hegewisch Dupa]

Beautiful!! I love when scripture is brought up how some here believe it’s practically illegal for anyone but themselves to do so, and therefore have nothing in their limited arsenal with which to respond.

[Petrosius]

You misunderstand the place of the testimony of the early Church Fathers. They indeed are not divinely inspired but their joint testimony shows what the early Christians taught and practiced. The canon of the Scriptures that we have today is based on the practice of these early Christians. Their judgment is either reliable or it is not. But this reliability must be spread to all their teachings and practices and not to the question of the canon. If we cannot rely on their teachings and practices then we also cannot rely on their judgment on the canon. This, in effect, would mean that there is no canon and each individual must make his own determination of what is Scripture. But then any appeal to Scripture would loose any authority since it would be pure tautology, an appeal to what only the person himself had previously determined was Scripture.

BTW I find it ironic when Protestants try to use the singular judgment of Jerome against the consensus of the church to disprove the Deuterocanonical books.

[CynicalBear]

If you wish to even appear relevant it would be wise to have modicum of understanding about what you are replying to. The person, on his home page, calls himself a “Roman Pagan”. I rather doubt that has anything to do with the Roman Catholic Church. In the future I would suggest that it would be wise to have an inkling of what is being discussed or risk being viewed as totally irrelevant.

[Petrosius]

Those who trust GOD to preserve His word realize that HE did it.

But where does God give the list of the canon? Catholics do trust in God by trusting in the church that he established.

The fallacy is that the closer in time people were to the actual events, the more reliable they were in recording it and therefore, the more certain we can be of them being correct.

But this is not the Catholic position. Rather it is the reliance on the infallibility of the church as established by Jesus Christ. The appeal to the early Christians is just an appeal of what this infallible church has always taught.

[Petrosius]

It is considered a courtesy to ping anyone that you mention in your posts. And no, I do not call myself a "Roman Pagan" on my homepage. Indeed the only thing that appears there is the following:

Petrosius hasn't created an about page.

Anyone who has followed my post can easily see that I am a devout Catholic.

[CynicalBear]

I do owe you an apology. I am truly sorry. It was donmeaker who describes himself as a Roman Pagan. I had the wrong person in mind when I posted my comment to you. My bad.

[Just mythoughts]

I guess burying Moses hid his bones. Not surprisingly, Satan wanted Moses’ body, now why would he want that?

Given that Satan is the ultimate deceiver, my thinking is, that God spared Moses the ultimate humiliation of having his bones be used for satanic religious purposes. Moses was after all present on the Mount of Transfiguration with Christ.

[metmom]

Catholics do trust in God by trusting in the church that he established.

Trusting the church does not equate to trusting God.

The body of Christ is an organism, not an organization.

[Petrosius]

Apology accepted. : )

[Petrosius]

Trusting the church does not equate to trusting God.

The body of Christ is an organism, not an organization.

In your opinion.

You still have not answered where God gives us the list of the canon.

[roamer_1]

You still have not answered where God gives us the list of the canon.

Perhaps you could show me where God gave a 'list of canon' for the Old Testament. You can't because 'canon' is a foreign concept.

[narses]

[narses]

[narses]

[metmom]

Guessed right.

I should maybe buy a lottery ticket.

[narses]

[narses]

:)

[metmom]

We know you are.

You don’t have to keep telling us that.

[narses]