Posted on 02/03/2012 3:51:42 PM PST by Gamecock
Our confidence that the account of the flood and Noah’s ark happened in space, time, and history is grounded in the Bible, not in remnants of ancient timber.
For centuries, an inordinate and unhealthy attention has been directed to certain items claimed to be relics of Christ, Christian leaders, or illustrious Christians. The veneration of relics has been a major feature of Roman Catholic popular piety since the earliest centuries of its history, reaching its highest official sanction in 787, when the Second Council of Nicaea decreed that every church should have some relic at the altar.
Now, much attention is being paid to the first public display of the so-called “Shroud of Turin,” in Italy. As David Farley explained in USA Today, “The Catholic Church’s most famous (and infamous) holy relic is being exposed to the faithful for the first time since the year 2000. The Shroud of Turin, on display until May 23 in the handsome northwestern Italian town, can be shown by permission only from the pope.”
Evidently, more than 1.5 million people signed up for reservations to see the shroud during its brief display. Clearly, the artifact means something to many people — indeed, it means a very great deal.
The shroud is but the most famous of the relics held to be holy by so many Catholics. Various churches hold items claimed to be portions of the crib of Jesus, items from the disciples and prominent saints, and various body parts of leading figures. David Farley recently wrote a book on what must certainly go down as the most bizarre claim concerning a relic — the claim of a church in the tiny Italian village of Calcata to hold the remains of Christ’s infant circumcision. Of course, the special status of this relic was the fact that, according to the claim, this skin was the only remnant of Christ’s body on earth.
As Farley documents, eventually there were many churches and communities that claimed to possess this special holy relic. Eventually, the Roman Catholic Church became embarrassed by the claims, and Pope Leo XIII threatened excommunication to any Catholic who even mentioned the relic. That did not end the fascination.
The veneration of relics, still a part of popular piety among many Roman Catholics worldwide, is a grotesque distortion of biblical piety. The authority for our faith is not based on the evidence of relics, but on the fact that God has spoken to us in his Word. We are to trust the truthfulness of the Bible, not the existence of some relic, authentic or not.
Of course, most of these relics are not authentic — a fact easily determined by even a casual review of the story behind the item. Furthermore, the existence of contradictory claims, such as were made by competing villages with respect to the circumcision remains of Christ, demonstrates the embarrassing fact that these claims cannot be trusted.
The best evidence concerning the “Shroud of Turin” is that it dates to the medieval period and is probably an artifact of human artistry. In David Farley’s words, “a medieval fake.” Nevertheless, more than a million and a half people are lining up to see it, representing far more than historical curiosity. Farley also reports that relics associated with St. Therese of Lisieux went on a 28-city tour of Britain last year, also drawing huge crowds. Clearly, interest in and veneration of relics is not a thing of the past.
In his essay, Farley acknowledges that many people retain belief in the power and authenticity of relics such as the “Shroud of Turin,” and then comes to this conclusion:
If they accept the shroud as the real deal, then, in their minds, in their hearts, in their conceptions of heaven and the afterlife, it is the real thing. They will pray in front of it and it will give them happiness and relief.
And isn’t that what we all want, for ourselves and for each other? Which is exactly why holy relics and the Shroud of Turin still matter in this world.
No, that is not what we are to want. The “happiness and relief” found in these relics is empty and delusional. Christians are to find happiness and relief and infinitely more in Christ alone. The obsession with relics comes at a grave cost — the confusion of the Gospel, the marginalization of Christ, and the subversion of the Bible’s sufficiency.
The leadership of the Roman Catholic Church has failed its members and betrayed the Gospel by embracing and allowing various forms of the veneration of relics, and this particular feature of Catholic piety and theology cannot be isolated from the larger project of Catholic doctrine.
Evangelical Christians observing the veneration of relics by Catholics are rightly horrified by the practice, but may be wrongly satisfied that nothing like this marks evangelical piety.
This temptation should be checked by the realization that many evangelicals fall prey to similar modes of thinking. Consider the attention given in recent days to the claim that remnants of Noah’s ark had been found on Mount Ararat in Turkey. A team from “Noah’s Ark Ministries International,” based in Hong Kong, claimed that wood found on the mountain came from Noah’s ark — with a certainty of “99.9 percent.”
Archaeologists remain skeptical about the claims, and the controversy is likely to continue for some time. But Christians should not give too much attention to such claims in the first place. Our confidence that the account of the flood and Noah’s ark happened in space, time, and history is grounded in the Bible, not in remnants of ancient timber.
If archaeologists later agree that the fragments are indeed from Noah’s ark, that will be a matter of real interest to Christians, but this should add nothing to our confidence in the Bible. If the fragments are determined to be authentic or, most likely, if there is no consensus at all, this will not detract anything from the truthfulness, authority, and sufficiency of the Scriptures.
Our confidence is in the Bible as the Word of God, not in gopher wood.
Not sure what you mean. Several years ago, the casket of Therese of Liesieuw was exhibited at a convent near my city. Famous is the uncorrupted boy of Bernardette. We are not to blame for the protestant attitudes of some of our bishops. And the beatific vision is no more than a theological expression of John’s vision of the New Jerusalem.
If archaeologists later agree that the fragments are indeed from Noah’s ark, that will be a matter of real interest to Christians, but this should add nothing to our confidence in the Bible
It may surprise whoever wrote it, but I as a Catholic can say the same thing, and with greater precision. That a particular relic one day proves archaeological true or false will be of real interest to me but this will not either add to or subtract from my confidence in the Faith and doctrine of Jesus Christ given me by the Catholic and Orthodox Church. Further that one, or very many, relic may be a hoax does not add credulity to the Protestant charlatans and their idiotic and counter-scriptural doctrines.
You wrote:
“You know you are shooting yourself in the foot.”
Pointing out your errors in no way injures any part of me. Getting history right doesn’t effect my ability to walk in the least.
“My attacks on protestants for abandoning and sneering at the patrimony of the ancient and undivided Church are more effective when it is clear that I am not a Latin.”
Attack Protestantism all you want. I do it often enough. Your effectiveness or lack thereof has more to do with knowledge and preparation than your religious affiliation.
“And drawing a sharp distinction is important.”
Being correct on the facts is the bedrock of making sharp distinctions. You failed with both. Try again.
“By way of brief answer: Note that Abp. Seraphim was suspended, the Greek priest cited was defrocked.:”
By way of brief rejoinder: how does their pedophilia show the Orthodox DON’T have a problem with pedophilia?
“It is precisely because the “pagan” (actually mixed religion — some of the Mongol hordes were pagan, some Buddhist, some Nestorian Christian) Mongols did not interfere with religion — the Mongol Empire was the first large-scale political entity with general religious toleration — that Nevsky allowed Novgorod to become tributary to the Mongols, but fought the Teutonic Knights, who were blessed by the Pope to reduce the “schismatics” to Papal jurisdiction. Actually not fighting the Mongols, whose only interests were worldly is a sign of Nevsky’s sanctity as much as fighting the Crusaders.”
Nevsky has somethings to recommend about him, but he was still kowtowed to pagan Mongols. Not much else he could do I suppose. His hero status among Russians is in sharp contrast to many of the actual actions of his life, however.
“Yes, the last catechism shifted a lot of teaching ‘eastward’, but for over 1000 years, the “beatific vision” stood at the height of Latin teaching on salvation,”
That doesn’t change the Church’s teaching on theosis on bit.
“and the basis for the veneration of relics as the bodies of deified men and women was missing.”
No, actually it wasn’t. You’ve never read Council of Trent (session XXV) have you? Yeah, it shows.
“(If you teach the same, why are your bishops giving away relics?)”
What does the one have to do with the other? We have given relics back to Orthodox churches (relics stolen by the Crusaders and others) and have given the Orthodox FREE churches no less.
Now, you were wrong on all counts. Deal with it.
And Catholics are not all Roman either.
I am a member of the Church of Rome. I am Catholic. I am NOT Roman Catholic. That is a term invented by Protestants. Even the Catholic Church uses the term only out of convienece sake - which I think is a huge mistake.
Our doctrines are those of the Apostles. The tradition of the Holy Fathers of the Seven Councils we scrupulously keep.
As for your words we do not listen to them and we do not want your doctrine.
(By way of friendly advice: don’t go horseback riding on any frozen lakes.)
[:-)====
you wrote:
“Our doctrines are those of the Apostles.”
So you say.
“The tradition of the Holy Fathers of the Seven Councils we scrupulously keep.”
Again, so you say.
“As for your words we do not listen to them and we do not want your doctrine.”
Fine. Just get your history right. Don’t post falsehoods.
“(By way of friendly advice: don’t go horseback riding on any frozen lakes.)”
I’d rather take my chances with the lake, then kowtow to pagans and Muslims as your history is replete with.
[:-)====
I have not found any scriptures that tells us that the gifts have ceased. I have heard the arguments, but none are on point, nor convincing. I am willing to learn if I am wrong. Tell me where Scripture clearly tells us gifts which the Bible says are without repentance have ceased. Please use only Scripture and please do not wrest it to fit a previously conceived doctrine.
________________________________________________
Ephesians 4:7 But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.
Eph 4:8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
_________________________________________________
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.