![\"CrossRelic\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2016\/05\/CrossRelic.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
Relic of the True Cross, Decani Monastery, Serbia<\/span> [Wikimedia Commons<\/a> \/\u00a0 Creative Commons<\/a> Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported<\/a> license]<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n Ken\u2019s words will be in<\/span> blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n * * * * *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Paul Hoffer noted:<\/span><\/p>\n The Martyrdom of Saint Polycarp<\/span>, written in 155-157 AD clearly shows that the Church practiced the veneration of relics very early in Church history:<\/span><\/p>\n Accordingly, we afterwards took up his [St. Polycarp\u2019s] bones, as being more precious than the most exquisite jewels, and more purified than gold, and deposited them in a fitting place, whither, being gathered together, as opportunity is allowed us, with joy and rejoicing, the Lord shall grant us to celebrate the anniversary of his martyrdom, both in memory of those who have already finished their course, and for the exercising and preparation of those yet to walk in their steps. (Chapter 18 )<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n Yes, the quote from the Martyrdom of Polycarp shows the ancient of practice of honoring his bones; and they rejoiced and celebrated.<\/span><\/p>\n But, nowhere does it say that they kissed them or bowed down to them or put money on his grave, etc. or prayed to his \u201cspirit\u201d or his \u201cperson\u201d or his \u201csoul\u201d (in heaven) that is the metaphysical reality behind the physical bones left here on this earth.<\/span><\/p>\n Even if it did say that they kissed them or bowed to them or prayed to Polycarp, they would be wrong, based on Scripture. But because it does not have those practices with the ancient text of 155-156 AD; then the wrong aspects of the way RCC handles relics is not \u201cdeeper in history\u201d. <\/span><\/p>\n So, just remembering a great saint and martyr \u2014 nothing wrong with that. That aspect is good; and archeology and history and recording the lives and martyrdoms of great Christians is a great thing. <\/span><\/p>\n Graves stones are fine, to visit and remember the dead. But there should be none of the other later practices of praying to the dead and kissing relics and touching them and believing one will get a blessing or power or healing etc from the physical substance; as if power would come out from them, etc. These things are all clearly wrong.<\/span><\/p>\n Really? How interesting, then, that Elijah\u2019s mantle parted the Jordan River (2 Kings 2:11-14). Elisha\u2019s bones raised a man from the dead (2 Kings 13:20-21). How odd that Paul\u2019s \u201chandkerchiefs or aprons\u201d were used to heal the sick and cast out demons (Acts 19:11-12).<\/span><\/p>\n Once again you (ultimately) have profound problems with God\u2019s inspired revelation, not with Catholicism. We follow the Scripture on this. You do not, and instead substitute the dead traditions of men (no pun intended).<\/span><\/p>\n Isn\u2019t it too much work and effort to be at odds with the Bible?<\/span><\/p>\n Yes, those things happened in Scripture and in Scriptural history; we all agree that they are true and they are in the historical narrative. <\/span>We know the historical narrative in Kings and Acts is true, because it is inspired, God-breathed Scripture.<\/span> But there are no teaching sections in Acts, etc. nor in the Epistles that tell us to copy these practices. <\/span><\/p>\n The RCC as also Pentecostals and Charismatics and the word of faith movement, need to know the difference between historical narrative Scripture and the teaching\/didactive portions of Scripture. Both camps make the same mistakes and interpret and apply the Scriptures wrongly.<\/span><\/p>\n But there is no command or principle to try and copy those things; God does miracles when He wants to; not when we think we can manipulate Him into doing them. That is why Benny Hinn is just as goofy and wrong as the RCs who visit graves and touch and kiss and leave money on the grave sites, thinking and hoping they will be a blessing, etc. (popular Muslim folk Islam does the same things, and has a lot in common with Marian practices, relics, visiting graves, Fatima, etc. with RCC popular religion.)<\/span><\/p>\n This is all wrong, and I have no problem with the Biblical record on this. So, you are soundly refuted.<\/span><\/p>\n You simply assume that all Catholic use of relics is manipulation of God. That is hogwash. Obviously, we believe that any power therein comes from God. That\u2019s why we show the reverence that we do, because God uses matter to spread grace. He does so in the sacraments and did in the Incarnation itself.<\/span><\/p>\n In this case you directly contradict the Bible, no matter how much you desperately special plead and claim otherwise. You wrote:<\/span><\/p>\n there should be none of the other later practices of. . . kissing relics and touching them and believing one will get a blessing or power or healing etc from the physical substance; as if power would come out from them, etc. These things are all clearly wrong.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n \u201cClearly,\u201d huh? The Bible says, over against you:<\/span><\/p>\n Acts 19:11-12<\/b> 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.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n You are perfectly willing to directly contradict Scripture, if only you can disagree with Catholicism. Nothing here says that these practices were bad or wrong or that folks thought these hankies had magic powers apart<\/i> from God. There is not the slightest hint of that. In fact, the very next passage gives an example of those who indeed twisted God\u2019s power for their own purposes:<\/span><\/p>\n Acts 19:13-16<\/span> Then some of the itinerant Jewish exorcists undertook to pronounce the name of the Lord Jesus over those who had evil spirits, saying, \u201cI adjure you by the Jesus whom Paul preaches.\u201d Seven sons of a Jewish high priest named Sceva were doing this. But the evil spirit answered them, \u201cJesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are you?\u201d And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, mastered all of them, and overpowered them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Therefore, if the Bible condemns this, then it certainly would have the other practice too, if indeed it had been improper. But it did not at all. In fact, it virtually equates the handkerchiefs and aprons with \u201cthe hand of Paul\u201d as well as \u201cextraordinary miracles\u201d by God. So the logic is:<\/span><\/p>\n 1) God brings about miracles.<\/span><\/p>\n 2) He does so by the hands of Paul.<\/span><\/p>\n 3) Even objects associated with Paul\u2019s person are so used as direct instruments of these miracles from God through Paul (so Scripture says) \u2014 these are secondary relics.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n We believe the same. You are absolutely incorrect in your attempt to pretend that this historic practice ought not be imitated.<\/span><\/p>\n To the contrary, Jesus told His disciples that they should be able to heal and cast out demons just as He did. Paul often says to imitate him (1 Cor 4:16; Phil 3:17; 2 Thess 3:7-9). We don\u2019t need literal written instruction for everything<\/span>. We have the written instruction from Paul, to \u201cimitate\u201d him as he imitates Christ (1 Cor 11:1; 1 Thess 1:6). Therefore, since we have this example, and it is presented positively, it is perfectly acceptable to believe the same about relics and objects associated with other holy men.<\/span><\/p>\n If you found (theoretically, for the sake of argument) a piece of the cross, would you burn it in a fireplace as if it were no different from any other piece of wood? What if you had a vial of Jesus\u2019 blood? Would you toss it in a dumpster? Or His robe, or the cup He used at the Last Supper? How about bulldozing Calvary and turning it into a parking lot or a drug store?<\/span><\/p>\n This is an area that Roman Catholics have a lot in common with Pentecostals and Charismatics \u2013 wanting to touch and feel and experience in order to confirm belief. <\/span><\/p>\n I don\u2019t trust most of the \u201crelic\u201d claims in history. Sorry; they just don\u2019t pass the smell test. The miracles and those things in Scripture; we know are true and happened in history; but I cannot trust much of the subsequent claims in history. Of course, I don\u2019t know all that much and don\u2019t know about all of them. God choses to sometimes do a miracle; but many times there is no miracle. Miracles come from God doing and power and breaking into natural laws; not from the matter itself; but again; matter is good in itself.<\/span><\/p>\n It is actually the ECF like Jerome and Augustine and especially Clement of Alexandria and Origen and Simon Stylites that came very close to condemning matter and came pretty close to saying that sex, even in marriage is evil; or always tainted by sin and evil lusts. . . .<\/span><\/p>\n I am more confident on that the Protestant position is closer to the truth. (on relics, etc. \u2014 leave it up to God to do miracles; yes He can use things; but don\u2019t make it into a business or magic formula or relic. When the Israelites did that with the bronze serpent, God rebuked them and had a king destroy it. Somewhere in Kings or Chronicles. Biggest problem is your hermeneutics \u2014<\/span><\/p>\n historical narrative must be interpreted differently <\/span><\/p>\n than <\/span><\/p>\n didactic\/principles\/teaching\/commands sections of Scripture.<\/span><\/p>\n Your scriptural texts in favor of relics are from historical narrative. That means that it happened; but it does say or command us to try and copy that; that is the problem.<\/span><\/p>\n I answered that already, Ken. As so often, you skip over my answer (in this case, a huge portion of my reply) and simply repeat the same thing. This gets very wearisome. But it does show that your argument is extremely weak and desperate. My answer was (I\u2019ll even flesh it out<\/span> a bit since you ignored it):<\/span><\/p>\n 1) No condemnation of the practice itself is in the text.<\/span><\/p>\n 2) The text does condemn an abuse that is described right after the mention of healing hankies and aprons.<\/span><\/p>\n 3) If our example was also an abuse, then it would have been condemned alongside the other, but it was not.<\/span><\/p>\n 4) Therefore it is a biblically sanctioned practice.<\/span><\/p>\n 5) Besides, Paul commands us to imitate him.<\/span><\/p>\n 6) It\u2019s an inference, but a very plausible one, that Paul agreed with folks taking his handkerchiefs and aprons for the sake of healing and casting our demons.<\/span><\/p>\n 7) Therefore, to do this today would be imitating the apostolic practice of Paul, as he himself urged.<\/span><\/p>\n 8) Jesus said we would cast out demons and heal in His name anyway, and this text gives us a concrete example of same.<\/span><\/p>\n 9) Ergo: the objection collapses because it is superseded by the immediate sanction of the practice in the text and Paul\u2019s instruction for us to imitate him.<\/span><\/p>\n 10) Ergo: secondary relics are expressly sanctioned by Holy Scripture.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n 1) No condemnation of the practice itself is in the text.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n I did not say there was a condemnation of the practice in those contexts. <\/span><\/p>\n I know, but you have argued that this was not<\/span> <\/i>\u201cdidactic\/principles\/teaching\/commands sections of Scripture,\u201d so that supposedly it could be dismissed as having no import for later Christianity.<\/span><\/span> My ten points completely overcome this objection, in my opinion. Sometimes this can be a helpful distinction, but you have to recognize, too, that nothing in Scripture explicitly commands this hermeneutical approach.<\/span><\/p>\n Obviously, I believe God did the miracles just as the sacred text says He did, through the axe head, bones of Elijah, the handkerchiefs and aprons of Paul, and the shadow of Peter (Acts 5:13-16); and you left out another example \u2014 the hem of Jesus\u2019 cloak. (Luke 8:43-48.)<\/span><\/p>\n I left it out because I suspected that it might be dismissed as a special case (i.e., because Jesus was involved, making it unique). But it is also relevant. All of this shows that relics are an explicitly biblical concept. Funny, then, that it has been so missed by Protestantism.<\/span><\/p>\n 2) The text does condemn an abuse that is described right after the mention of healing hankies and aprons.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n For the believers\/Paul\/apostles (Acts 5:12), you are right, there is no condemnation of this act in the historical narrative in Acts 19:11-13; but for the unbelievers (the Jewish exorcists, as you rightly pointed out; they were not able to perform a miracle just by saying the phonetic sounds of \u201cJesus\u201d, etc. (Acts 19:13-16). <\/span><\/p>\n We agree.<\/span><\/p>\n 3) If our example was also an abuse, then it would have been condemned alongside the other, but it was not.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n All through history, people try to repeat miracles by the aid of physical things considered holy things or relics. <\/span><\/p>\n Since such a practice is explicitly sanctioned<\/span> in Holy Scripture (the biblical evidence I\u2019ve provided in this very exchange) and never condemned, we would expect<\/span> to see people following the example of holy prophets and apostles and Jesus. We also would expect to see abuses of same, because all good things are abused and distorted and mimicked by the devil. But let\u2019s not throw the baby out with the bathwater (one of the most common fallacies that folks commit).<\/span><\/p>\n Most of the time nothing happens, and at most the pilgrim gets \u201ca warm feeling in his\/her heart\u201d. <\/span><\/p>\n Then that was either quackery or God\u2019s will not to heal, even if it wasn\u2019t tomfoolery.<\/span><\/p>\n Sometimes, something extra-ordinary happens, at least it is claimed that by historical writings of miracles. But since those are not God-breathed Scripture, there is no way to have absolute proof that a real miracle took place. <\/span><\/p>\n By eyewitness testimony (precisely as with the biblical miracles) and medical confirmation. It\u2019s not absolute (very few things are) but this is very strong corroboration.<\/span><\/p>\n Though I have noticed that the RCC does a much better job of investigating and testing for confirmation of a real miracle than the modern Charismatics and Pentecostals. (some things; they seem to let Marian zealots do whatever they want in all sorts of contexts.)<\/span><\/p>\n Neither here nor there; we are straying from the subject proper . . .<\/span><\/p>\n They (Charismatics) usually think any kind of testing or asking questions is automatically a lack of faith. No, in this the RCC is closer to the Biblical injunction, \u201ctest all things\u201d and \u201ctest the spirits\u201d. ( I Thess. 5:21; I John 4:1ff).<\/span><\/p>\n A distorted understanding of certain charismatics thinks in this fashion, yes. Not all<\/span>, by any means.<\/span><\/p>\n In none of these responses to my #3 have you overcome my counter-reply that the example has relevance for us today because it was not condemned, whereas this other abuse was, in Scripture. You\u2019ve simply talked about abuses in charismatic and supernatural elements.<\/span><\/p>\n 4) Therefore it is a biblically sanctioned practice.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Now, you made a big jump; by taking a historical narrative passage, and turning it into a command to try to repeat and practice. The nature of history and narrative and miracles are that the purpose of the text is to tell us what happened; and that God is in control and does miracles when He wants to; not when we want Him to do them.<\/span><\/p>\n Exactly. I completely agree with your last clause. But you have proven neither that 1) we are not to repeat these edifying apostolic examples, or 2) that miracles have ceased altogether, and that God, after 100 A.D. stopped working miracles, changed His mind, and became a good cessationist Baptist (if not a deist god, who no longer interferes in human affairs).<\/span><\/p>\n 5) Besides, Paul commands us to imitate him.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Yes, but now you have jumped from Acts 19 (or Acts 5) to I Cor. 4:16 (disciple others in the faith, and don\u2019t be arrogant); <\/span><\/p>\n This was not merely a specific application, but a general one, as we clearly see in context (RSV):<\/span><\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 4:14-17 <\/span>I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel. I urge you, then, be imitators of me. Therefore I sent to you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach them everywhere in every church.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n I Corinthians 11:1 (follow what I do and the principles I follow in I Corinthians 10 and glorify God in whatever you do, whether eating or drinking; don\u2019t be a stumbling block to other cultures, Jews or Christians, etc.); <\/span><\/p>\n This is general, too:<\/span><\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 11:1-2<\/span> Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n One could envision the following hypothetical conversation taking place between a follower of Paul (we\u2019ll call him \u201cJoe\u201d) and the great Apostle, walking down the streets of Corinth one sunny afternoon, sharing the gift of gab:<\/span><\/p>\n Joe:<\/span> Master Paul: is it true that your handkerchiefs and aprons were instruments for healing and casting out demons? <\/span><\/p>\n St. Paul:<\/span> Yes.<\/span><\/p>\n Joe:<\/span> And you agreed with this practice?<\/span><\/p>\n St. Paul:<\/span> Yes, of course. Why wouldn\u2019t <\/span>I? If I had disagreed it wouldn\u2019t have been recorded as it was in Holy Scripture, without any condemnation, as a good thing.<\/span><\/p>\n Joe:<\/span> [a bit intimidated by Paul\u2019s slight vehemence and piercing look] Just asking. So we Christians ought to imitate<\/span> this?<\/span><\/p>\n St. Paul:<\/span> Yes. There would be nothing wrong with that, though God can heal in any way He so chooses, because I have stated more than once and in different ways that what you see me doing and teaching, you ought to imitate, as it all comes from the Lord, Who called me to be an apostle of His grace. Did not our Lord say that His disciples could and should cast out demons and heal people in His name?<\/span><\/p>\n Joe:<\/span> Yes.<\/span><\/p>\n St. Paul:<\/span> And did not a woman get healed simply by touching His robe?<\/span><\/p>\n Joe:<\/span> Yes.<\/span><\/p>\n St. Paul:<\/span> Therefore, since you saw that my handkerchiefs functioned in the same manner, and since Christ Jesus our Lord enjoined us to go out and heal, and even in His own case someone was healed by merely touching His clothes, then this is perfectly proper.<\/span><\/p>\n Joe:<\/span> Could we then conclude that this is part of the apostolic tradition that you have received and passed down to us?<\/span><\/p>\n St. Paul:<\/span> Absolutely. Tradition is not mere words, or dead, but a living, active thing, including acts. We are to love each other as our Lord loved us, and this includes healing in His name and in His power. The power comes from Him alone, not in some self-generated \u201cmagic\u201d of hankies and robes.<\/span><\/p>\n Joe: <\/span>So we are to apply this example of yours, even though you didn\u2019t expressly teach: \u201cgo out and use physical objects to heal people\u201d?<\/span><\/p>\n St. Paul:<\/span> [somewhat frustrated] Why would such a separate command be necessary<\/span>? The example is recorded in Holy Scripture, by our brother Luke, in the Acts of the early Church. Why should anyone need to see a command<\/span>, since it is already understood that Christians are to imitate me, as an apostle of God, just as I (by His grace alone) imitate Christ?<\/span><\/p>\n Joe:<\/span> Okay, master. One of my Christian brethren was questioning this, so I just wanted to make sure.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
\n<\/span>I would place visiting a gravesite more in the realm of simply \u201cremembering\u201d a loved one rather than relics. Catholics (we must clarify!) would not say that there was grace present to be obtained through physical means, failing a great sanctity in the person. But Ken might very well say that touching the stone is some terrible unspiritual thing.<\/span><\/p>\n