[drstevej]

***I question the veracity of the list. It doesn't appear valid, not that that stops anyone here.***

Question it if you wish. There is no rational basis to do so. FACTS sometimes sting don't they.

Do you question that Popes had illegitimate kids too?

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

There are no facts here. If these alleged relics were real they would be sitting in Rome today.

Do you think Maria Monk was a great author too? Hey, I heard a Pentecostal say the nuns used to wear big robes to hide all their pregnancies, then they killed the babies and hid the bodies in the basement. Why don't you spread that rumor around today?

Sure some Popes had illegitimate kids. They were condemned. Sure Mahony is a heretic. He is condemned. The problem with Luther is that he was a heretic who denied the words of Christ and preached a false gospel. He was condemned by the Church but embraced by Protestants. Why do you think a man who says the things I've quoted is qualified to lead a Christian revolution?

I hear much about the errors of Catholicism but I've yet to hear the truth of Protestantism. The biggest claim to fame seems to be that you're not Catholics. Neither are Mormons (of whom you have more in common than you want to admit).

[NYer]

FACTS sometimes sting don't they.

Indeed they do! Here's a bit of history for you! Given the fact that you have still not responded to my post on another thread ..

Fundamentalists and Catholics Whose Bible is it, anyway?

which seriously questions your purported ability to 'interpret' scripture.

Moving right along, however, you not only posted seriously questionable links on that thread regarding highly questionable relics, you have moved on to posting a thread devoted solely to this topic. Once again, you demonstrate your poor understanding of history and the early church fathers.

Keep in mind what the Church says about relics. It doesn’t say there is some magical power in them. There is nothing in the relic itself, whether a bone of the apostle Peter or water from Lourdes, that has any curative ability. The Church just says that relics may be the occasion of God’s miracles, and in this the Church follows Scripture.

The use of the bones of Elisha brought a dead man to life: "So Elisha died, and they buried him. Now bands of Moabites used to invade the land in the spring of the year. And as a man was being buried, lo, a marauding band was seen and the man was cast into the grave of Elisha; and as soon as the man touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood on his feet" (2 Kgs. 13:20-21). This is an unequivocal biblical example of a miracle being performed by God through contact with the relics of a saint!

Similar are the cases of the woman cured of a hemorrhage by touching the hem of Christ’s cloak (Matt. 9:20-22) and the sick who were healed when Peter’s shadow passed over them (Acts 5:14-16). "And God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his body to the sick, and diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them" (Acts 19:11-12).

If these aren’t examples of the use of relics, what are? In the case of Elisha, a Lazarus-like return from the dead was brought about through the prophet’s bones. In the New Testament cases, physical things (the cloak, the shadow, handkerchiefs and aprons) were used to effect cures. There is a perfect congruity between present-day Catholic practice and ancient practice. If you reject all Catholic relics today as frauds, you should also reject these biblical accounts as frauds.