Posted on 04/26/2013 1:28:31 PM PDT by NYer
Yup, our "organization" does use the Holy Scripture as our guideline. This is the practice I recommend to all.
So, you bowed humbly before some bones, that you rely on ‘tradition’ to be whose bones they say they are?
I have no reason to disbelieve my Church which gave me the Holy Gospel of my salvation.
imo.
What makes you think your opinion has any value, especially since no one asked you for it?
That this council mandated relics placed underneath altars of all Catholic churches in the eighth century in no way makes such actions nor the requirement of such a "Christian" practice. The Catholic church mandated many things that were nowhere found within the early church of the Apostles' lives nor of that even a few centuries later. What we DO know is that, even in the Apostles' days, there were wolves creeping in to scatter the flock. That superstitions crept in along with them should be no surprise. It is beyond question that the early church did NOT call upon martyred saints, nor worship them, much less presume their remains were imbued with supernatural powers so that they had to be preserved under altars. Worldly pagan ideals crept into the church and were absorbed in the idea that more souls could be converted. It didn't take long before many of the pagan practices became absorbed and then embedded too deeply to be purified out of Christianity.
We know from the book of Acts that neither St. Stephen, the first Christian martyr, nor St. James, who was killed by Herod, were invoked by the Apostolic church in any manner, because, if they had been, there would have been mention of such an important matter seeing as other events of less importance were mentioned. If such a practice was in conformity with the Apostolic doctrine, it would have been brought forward in the epistles of St. Paul and the other Apostles, yet there is nothing said about it. Even in the writings of the early church fathers such as Clement and Polycarp, there is nothing spoken about invoking the aid or intercession of the saints. It is always to God that believers are encouraged to pray to so that, if they are found in the same circumstances as the martyrs, God may grant them faith, peace, patience, wisdom and strength. So we know that this was a later innovation and not something taught by the Apostles.
It's interesting that you mention the martyrdom of Polycarp because the believers of whom he was bishop, rather than take up his remains to venerate, said in an epistle which was issued by the church of Smryna states:
Even in the fourth century, the orthodox Christians considered worship of every created being as idolatry. Polycarp's remains were treated respectfully and buried and the date of his martyrdom marked and remembered for the edification of other Christians. It did not mean, however, that they gathered his bones to venerate or to place them somewhere where he could protect them or provide some kind of power.
In the same book, Calvin had this to say about Marian devotion and relics:
This http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/search?q=relics article goes into further detail about the many ways faithful Christians have been hoodwinked and fooled out of their money and, sadly, of their faith, when scams are discovered. So-called relic "miracles" were counterfeited and the devil laughed at the gullibility and vain seeking for signs. Calvin puts it well:
You may want to read the above document further as it speaks about the origin of the veneration of relics and the superstitions, legends and myths that people who are actually weak in faith need to cling to for strength rather than through faith in Christ - who rewards those who diligently seek him and says that they are blessed who believe even when they don't see. It is not "girlish squeamishness" that compels me to speak, but a hatred of the false gospel that snares the unknowing into believing lies based upon tricks. We are better served by heeding the sacred Scriptures than the rationalizations of men.
As to the St. Polycarp story, it is clear that the Christian community wanted to preserve his relics.
You cannot expect every practice of the Early Church to be mentioned by St. Paul. The reference to the relic under the altar in the Apocalypse is there, -- you ignore it. The Epistles mention things that were controversial. Veneration of relics was not controversial, -- it was common to non-Christian as well, -as you yourselves discovered.
Mary Magdalene came to the tomb to do -- what exactly in your opinion?
**Yup, our “organization” does use the Holy Scripture as our guideline. This is the practice I recommend to all.**
Yup, just like the Mormans.
**I have no reason to disbelieve my Church which gave me the Holy Gospel of my salvation.**
The Word is the bread of life. Who delivers it is beside the point. Ravens brought bread and flesh to Elijah.
**What makes you think your opinion has any value, especially since no one asked you for it?**
And what is the going price for your opinion that you are gladly giving on this thread? ;)
Yeah, yeah, we know...Calvin was bad, Luther was bad, Wycliffe was bad, everyone BUT Roman Catholics are bad...blah, blah, blah. Seems like most of the hate and ignorance is coming from those who find it impossible to believe anyone can actually be saved outside of "their" church. At least men like Calvin and Luther acknowledged the grace of God could reach anywhere, even to the halls of the Vatican and that some Catholics really could be saved. It seems no matter what us non-Catholic Christians testify to about our faith in Jesus Christ, we are treated worse than the pro-abortion, pro-homosexual Catholic politicians who demonstrate NO genuine Christ-likeness at all! Does calling Calvin derogatory names absolve you from reading anything he might say no matter how true it is??? Good thing I don't follow that practice.
As to the St. Polycarp story, it is clear that the Christian community wanted to preserve his relics.
No, they wanted to give him a proper Christian burial. Didn't their own words make it clear that they did not worship anyone but Christ? Show me anywhere in Scripture where Christians are told to venerate the remains of "saints". Show me where anyone was instructed to divvy up body parts so everyone got equal access to God's ear through them.
You cannot expect every practice of the Early Church to be mentioned by St. Paul.
If it was anything worthwhile, it would have been. I would think teaching about an avenue to God's special graces would be more important than telling some guy about how long his hair should be, don't you? There sure were a lot of martyrs Paul could have used as examples, but not one word from him, or Peter, or John - who lived longer than all the Apostles. John took care of Mary, right? How come he neglected to say a word about her death, or her assumption, IF that happened?
The reference to the relic under the altar in the Apocalypse is there, -- you ignore it.
No, I don't. Someone already answered you about that. By the way, it speaks of the "souls" of those slaughtered for their testimony of faith in Christ - NOT anything about their physical bones/relics. On that passage in Revelation 6:9-
The Epistles mention things that were controversial. Veneration of relics was not controversial, -- it was common to non-Christian as well, -as you yourselves discovered.
Yeah, it was common to PAGANS. It wasn't even mentioned among Christians until several centuries AFTER the Apostles had all died off yet, we already know that thousands of Christians had been martyred during those first few centuries. The Romans and the Greeks all had some form of hero worship and they had what could be easily called "relics" of them. They already had the same ideas about these relics BEFORE Christians started getting them around the fourth century. Gee, I wonder how that happened?
Mary Magdalene came to the tomb to do -- what exactly in your opinion?
Is this a trick question? Mark 16:1, tells us what Mary Magdalene was doing there: "When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome brought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body." Luke 24:1 repeats that, "On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb." That was a common burial procedure, one that they would have done thoroughly when Jesus was first laid in the tomb, but it was too late and the Sabbath was starting so they had to wait until after the Sabbath was over. Luke 23:56 tells us, "Then they went home and prepared spices and perfumes. But they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment." We know that Joseph of Arimathea had hastily wrapped Jesus' body and used some embalming spices when he was first laid in the tomb, the spices now brought by the women were intended to complete the preceding operation. It was a common Jewish practice not a whole lot different than what dead bodies get today. It is interesting that, because Jesus rose bodily from the grave, there wouldn't BE any body relics of him, but that sure didn't seem to stop all the others scams that went on during the middle-ages - THE nails that pierced Jesus, splinters from THE cross, THE shroud that covered Jesus' body in the tomb, THE cloak the Roman guards gambled over, THE crown of thorns Jesus wore on his head, etc. etc. Don't you ever wonder why we don't have any of THE epistles personally written initially by Paul or Peter or John or James, Matthew, Mark, Jude? Something tells me, if they HAD been preserved by some miracle, they would have been worshiped more than their very words were obeyed. Just human nature.
Thank you for your opinion. I agree with you that it is just another man-made practice to help people feel religious. Jesus told us that we are MORE blessed when we believe without seeing.
It is exactly the point since you are asking me why I trust the Church.
your opinion
My opinion is worth little, but I am here giving you the mind of the Church, on the thread explaining the history of the Church, against the sneering of Protestants who, we know, don't have any interest in authentic Christianity, yet make it their job to vandalize anything they don't understand. I am speaking of your religion in general, nothing personal against anyone who actually has posted on this particular thread.
Now, the Orthodox are for example, very good because theirs is an authentic Church, and they preserved most of the Holy Relics from destruction. Also, they never allowed the Protestant error in their midst. The reason Protestant thinkers can be dismissed summarily is because they have no historical continuity with the Early Church and in fact oppose most ancient practices, including this one.
Didn't their own words make it clear that they did not worship anyone but Christ?
A good example why talking to a Protestant is waste of time. No one worships relics. I don't. The students of St. Polycarp didn't. If you want to be taken seriously, understand the topic you are trying to opine about.
There sure were a lot of martyrs Paul could have used as examples, but not one word from him
I already gave you St. John's quote. Veneration of saints is referenced approvingly by St. Paul (Hebrews 10:35-40, 11:1-2). Veneration of relics, specifically, no, albeit his relics were gathered and he did not object (Acts 19:12).
Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible
Another charlatan explaining clear text with Protestant fables.
It wasn't even mentioned among Christians until several centuries AFTER the Apostles had all died off yet
I gave you St. Polycarp example. He was a student of Apostle John.
Mark 16:1, tells us what Mary Magdalene was doing there
Right, with the Myrrh-bearing women. But then she came alone, St. John tells us, to the tomb she already knew to be empty. Why?
THE nails that pierced Jesus, splinters from THE cross, THE shroud that covered Jesus' body in the tomb
These were discovered by Emperor Constantine and St. Helena, and preserved. It is the vandals of the Reformation in the West, and the Muslim vandals in the East that, through their looting, made the provenance hard to prove. Why do you defend these criminals? Shouldn't the mere behavior of Reformation scum be repugnant?
Here are some Scriptural accounts of relics being used for healing.
The hem of Jesus’ garment heals a woman:
“And Jesus rising up followed him, with his disciples. And behold a woman who was troubled with an issue of blood twelve years, came behind him, and touched the hem of his garment. For she said within herself: If I shall touch only his garment, I shall be healed.” Matthew 9:19-21
“And there was a certain woman having an issue of blood twelve years, who had bestowed all her substance on physicians, and could not be healed by any. She came behind him, and touched the hem of his garment; and immediately the issue of her blood stopped.” Luke 8:43-44
Peter’s shadow heals people in the streets:
“Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that when Peter came, his shadow at the least, might overshadow any of them, and they might be delivered from their infirmities.”
Acts 5:15
Paul’s handkerchiefs and aprons heal many people:
“And God wrought by the hand of Paul more than common miracles. So that even there were brought from his body to the sick, handkerchiefs and aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the wicked spirits went out of them.” Acts 19:11-12
Clothing pieces are considered relics. (I don’t know how one would classify Peter’s shadow, but evidently it had healing properties, too.) I can’t imagine that those who were healed would have given Paul’s handkerchiefs and aprons back to him. They probably would have passed them along to other Christians who were sick. This would be one of the first instances of the use of relics - and surprise - it’s recorded in Scripture!
The only snippet of your recent comment that is worth a reply, though barely - the rest being just more of the typical bigoted reactions common to the dark ages over which the Roman Catholic Church presided and supported.
Spitting out the word "Protestant" whenever ones religious persuasion is criticized and presuming it is adequate justification to disregard anything associated with the Reformation, shows a dismal lack of understanding or charity, possibly, even a Christian immaturity. Rather than insist the Reformers had "no historical continuity with the early church", the truth is that they were MORE in line with early church doctrines and attitudes than what the Roman church had become by the sixteenth century. If some Catholics refuse to acknowledge this fact and prefer the dream, or myth rather, that "their" church was the ONLY one Christ established and it remained infallible and untouched by human vice and depravity, then they pretty much will believe anything - up to and including that slivers of body parts from supposed "saints" carry special blessings from God. It's one thing to honor and remember the example of those who exhibited spiritual strength and grace in times of great testing and tribulation, but it's another to imagine some "relic" which might be associated with them obligates God to grant whatever request is conjured. Such action smacks of hero and idol worship not unsimilar to that the ancient heathens and pagans of Rome and Greece practiced. If God forbid the chosen people of Israel from adopting those rituals common to the worshipers of false gods and demons, how could He not also the chosen generation of holy people set apart by the grace of God in Jesus Christ?
You can ponder the answer to that or, if expected, summarily dismiss it as just more Protestant "error". I, on the other hand, will continue to respect and obey the word of God and follow the guidelines He chose to reveal.
**vandalize anything they don’t understand.**
The original Church history (Acts thru Revelation) records no hanging on to, displaying, venerating, etc., parts of dead bodies, or entire dead bodies. They were respectfully buried if circumstances allowed (exception: burned at the stake).
**authentic Christianity**
...never drags dead mens bones around to try enhance a religious stature. One could say: “See, we’re the Church of the living God because we have these relics in our possession.” The original Church didn’t display dead bodies as part of their dedication to God. It’s really that simple.
Oh, there are plenty of items that were used for miracles: Aaron’s rod, Gideon’s fleece, Elijah’s mantle, are examples.
The dead are to be left buried (except for relocation, such as Joseph’s command concerning himself. That’s the command and tradition of the Word. Bury them, but don’t bury something unclean in a place of worship, for heaven’s sake.
The final miracles of Elisha’s ‘double portion’ came after he was long dead, when a dead man was dropped into his tomb and came in contact with his bones. Being it was an unclean thing to handle the dead, no one is recorded to have retrived those bones to display at the temple.
>
later
Trouble is the older you get the harder they seem...you need more and more milk to wash them down.
Yeah, riiiight. Veneration of saints, veneration of holy images and holy relics, the Eucharist as real presence of the sacrifice of Christ, penitential practices, monasteries, "do nothing without your bishop", all that -- real dead-ringer Protestant.
If God forbid the chosen people of Israel from adopting those rituals common to the worshipers of false gods and demons, how could He not also the chosen generation of holy people set apart by the grace of God in Jesus Christ?
That would be because the Heaven and the communion of saints were not open to the Hebrew dead; they had to wait for the Easter of Our Lord.
The Acts do not describe veneration of first class relics (bodies of saints), because the Communion of saints was just filling in. The Acts do describe veneration of second-class relics (handkerchiefs of the Holy Apostles), which were available. The Apocalypse describes "souls of saints" embedded in altars. To know the real Church history fully, however, you need to go beyond the Acts and read the Fathers of the Church.
We [the Smyrnaeans] took up his bones, which are more valuable than precious stones and finer than refined gold, and laid them in a suitable place, where the Lord will permit us to gather ourselves together, as we are able, in gladness and joy, and to celebrate the birthday of his martyrdom. (Account of the death of St. Polycarp, 2c, already cited).Harnack's [a learned Protestant historian's] tone in referring to this development is that of an unwilling witness overwhelmed by evidence which it is useless to resist. "Most offensive", he writes, "was the worship of relics. It flourished to its greatest extent as early as the fourth century and no Church doctor of repute restricted it. All of them rather, even the Cappadocians, countenanced it. The numerous miracles which were wrought by bones and relics seemed to confirm their worship. The Church therefore, would not give up the practice, although a violent attack was made upon it by a few cultured heathens and besides by the Manichæans" (Harnack, "Hist. of Dog.", tr., IV, 313).
All quotes from Catholic Encyclopedia, Relics. Nothing prevented you to read about the matter upon which you attempt to opine; I already gave this reference on this thread.
Wow...funny you should mention this film. We were just talking about it last night at dinner and I ordered it last night on Amazon.
Yes, I thought there were a lot of bits and pieces here and there. It puts in mind a comment by Mark Twain after a trip through the holy land...something to the effect that they had seen enough fragments of the “true cross” to build a cathedral. It seems to me these carcasses (or fragments thereof) are of little value other than as props for an organization or individual church to use in laying claim to the faith and any inherent authority resulting from that claim. That’s why I’m suspicious. It’s very convenient, and no doubt very powerful in an age of of pervasive illiteracy and superstition.
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.