Enjoy (relics)

[Brother Adam]

Not that I actually promote violence, but they seem to be perpetuating some myths, so that isn't cool. Although they did bring some interesting things to my attention that I didn't know about the Catholic faith (they linked to New Advent)

http://itisfinished.vze.com/

[IcePrincessKRS]

Although they did bring some interesting things to my attention that I didn't know about the Catholic faith (they linked to New Advent)

Like what? (I'm curious.)

[ironmonk]

I think Augustine said it best...

City of God -Book 18

CHAPTER 51 -- That the Catholic Faith may be confirmed even by the dissensions of the heretics.

There are so many anti-Catholics, and they all have "facts" about the Catholic faith, that conflict with one another....

I like to call them keystone cops...

Some anti-Catholics believe in Purgatory, some don't

Some anti-Catholics believe Mary as our spiritual Mother, some don't

Some anti-Catholics believe Mary Ever Virgin, some don't

Some anti-Catholics believe in the Trinity, some don't

Some anti-Catholics believe the Catholic Church was first and Peter was the first Pope, some don't

Some anti-Catholics believe using statues, some don't

Some anti-Catholics believe the Eurcharist, some don't etc....

But they all attack the Church... why??? Because it was first and it is true. It's almost comical how the anti-Catholics have real info about other religions such as mormon, Jehovah's witnesses, etc.... but they are totally wrong on the what and why of the Catholic Church...

The simple fact that for every anti-Catholic argument against the Church, there is an anti-Catholic to believe the Church to have the truth.... Helps the Catholic Church....

So many anit-Catholics make it their life saying that the Catholic Church is wrong, instead of saying they are right,

You'll never see the Catholic Church attacking any other church, the Catholic Church teaches us to respect everyones beliefs.....

[nippy316]

Oh my, this one sent horrifying chills up my spine:

"I do have this to say this to anyone out there who was raised with Catholicism ingrained into their souls: If you are truly looking for something better; if you are tired of being made to feel guilty and having no concrete hope of salvation, get into the Bible."

Lord, grant me patience and strength.

nippy316

[hyperdulia again]

I think Augustine said it best...

City of God -Book 18

CHAPTER 51 -- That the Catholic Faith may be confirmed even by the dissensions of the heretics.

There are so many anti-Catholics, and they all have "facts" about the Catholic faith, that conflict with one another....

I like to call them keystone cops...

Some anti-Catholics believe in Purgatory, some don't

Some anti-Catholics believe Mary as our spiritual Mother, some don't

Some anti-Catholics believe Mary Ever Virgin, some don't

Some anti-Catholics believe in the Trinity, some don't

Some anti-Catholics believe the Catholic Church was first and Peter was the first Pope, some don't

Some anti-Catholics believe using statues, some don't

Some anti-Catholics believe the Eurcharist, some don't etc....

But they all attack the Church... why??? Because it was first and it is true. It's almost comical how the anti-Catholics have real info about other religions such as mormon, Jehovah's witnesses, etc.... but they are totally wrong on the what and why of the Catholic Church...

The simple fact that for every anti-Catholic argument against the Church, there is an anti-Catholic to believe the Church to have the truth.... Helps the Catholic Church.... 

So many anit-Catholics make it their life saying that the Catholic Church is wrong, instead of saying they are right,

You'll never see the Catholic Church attacking any other church, the Catholic Church teaches us to respect everyones beliefs.....

[ironmonk]

Here's the whole chapter...

City of God -Book 18

CHAPTER 51 -- THAT THE CATHOLIC FAITH MAY BE CONFIRMED EVEN BY THE DISSENSIONS OF THE HERETICS.

But the devil, seeing the temples of the demons deserted, and the human race running to the name of the liberating Mediator, has moved the heretics under the Christian name to resist the Christian doctrine, as if they could be kept in the city of God indifferently without any correction, just as the city of confusion indifferently held the philosophers who were of diverse and adverse opinions. Those, therefore, in the Church of Christ who savor anything morbid and depraved, and, on being corrected that they may savor what is wholesome and right, contumaciously resist, and will not amend their pestiferous and deadly dogmas, but persist in defending them, become heretics, and, going without, are to be reckoned as enemies who serve for her discipline. For even thus they profit by their wickedness those true catholic members of Christ, since God makes a good use even of the wicked, and all things work together for good to them that love Him. For all the enemies of the Church, whatever error blinds or malice depraves them, exercise her patience if they receive the power to afflict her corporally; and if they only oppose her by wicked thought, they exercise her wisdom: but at the same time, if these enemies are loved, they exercise her benevolence, or even her beneficence, whether she deals with them by persuasive doctrine or by terrible discipline. And thus the devil, the prince of the impious city, when he stirs up his own vessels against the city of God that sojourns in this world, is permitted to do her no harm. For without doubt the divine providence procures for her both consolation through prosperity, that she may not be broken by adversity, and trial through adversity, that she may not be corrupted by prosperity; and thus each is tempered by the other, as we recognize in the Psalms that voice which arises from no other cause, "According to the multitude of my griefs in my heart, Thy consolations have delighted my soul." Hence also is that saying of the apostle, "Rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation."

For it is not to be thought that what the same teacher says can at any time fail, "Whoever will live piously in Christ shall suffer persecution." Because even when those who are without do not rage, and thus there seems to be, and really is, tranquillity, which brings very much consolation, especially to the weak, yet there are not wanting, yea, there are many within who by their abandoned manners torment the hearts of those who live piously, since by them the Christian and catholic name is blasphemed; and the dearer that name is to those who will live piously in Christ, the more do they grieve that through the wicked, who have a place within, it comes to be less loved than pious minds desire. The heretics themselves also, since they are thought to have the Christian name and sacraments, Scriptures, and profession, cause great grief in the hearts of the pious, both because many who wish to be Christians are compelled by their dissensions to hesitate, and many evil-speakers also find in them matter for blaspheming the Christian name, because they too are at any rate called Christians. By these and similar depraved manners and errors of men, those who will live piously in Christ suffer persecution, even when no one molests or vexes their body; for they suffer this persecution, not in their bodies, but in their hearts. Whence is that word, "According to the multitude of my griefs in my heart;" for he does not say, in my body. Yet, on the other hand, none of them can perish, because the immutable divine promises are thought of. And because the apostle says, "The Lord knoweth them that are His; for whom He did foreknow, He also predestinated [to be] conformed to the image of His Son," none of them can perish; therefore it follows in that psalm, "Thy consolations have delighted my soul." But that grief which arises in the hearts of the pious, who are persecuted by the manners of bad or false Christians, is profitable to the sufferers, because it proceeds from the charity in which they do not wish them either to perish or to hinder the salvation of others. Finally, great consolations grow out of their chastisement, which imbue the souls of the pious with a fecundity as great as the pains with which they were troubled concerning their own perdition. Thus in this world, in these evil days, not only from the time of the bodily presence of Christ and His apostles, but even from that of Abel, whom first his wicked brother slew because he was righteous, and thenceforth even to the end of this world, the Church has gone forward on pilgrimage amid the persecutions of the world and the consolations of God.

[jasJis]

I didn't bother reading the whole thing. Right off the bat, the statements about doing good works to "earn" heaven is off base.

Brother Adam (or any others),

Tell us the questions you have. Give some learned Catholics a chance to explain. I don't ask Catholics to explain Baptist doctrines to me.

[FreeSoul]

I didn't even read the site.

I don't trust sites with midi music on it. lol

[Brother Adam]

The Alter Cavaties were confusing me. Why on earth a church would make a box and put dead peoples bodie parts in it kindof grossed me out until Grant was able to explain it to me a bit better.

[ironmonk]

Relics baby... Relics.... Dates back to the Old Testament...

Again I say... every attack on the Catholic Church can be answered by the Truth, and the Catholic Church will always come out shining... Why? Because Christ built it.

Here's an article that I think might help you understand...

Relics

Many non-Catholics particularly shy away from the sacramental aspects of Catholicism—and not from the seven sacraments only. What they dislike is the mixing of spirit and matter, the gift of something spiritual—grace—by means of physical things. That, after all, is what the sacraments are. This tendency to drive a wedge between spirit and matter stems from age-old heresies known as Dualism, Marcionism, and Manichaeanism. Marcion in particular taught that the God of the Old Testament was evil in creating matter, but the God of the New Testament is a different and good God, who raises us to the level of spirit. The less one is entrapped by matter, the closer one is to God. Needless to say, this does not fit well with the sacraments—or with the incarnation!

In the sacraments, common material things, such as water, wine, bread, oil, and the imposition of hands, result in the giving of grace. Related to the sacraments are the sacramentals, objects such as medals, blessed palms, holy water, and ashes. Their use can lead people to receive or respond to grace. Many non-Catholics wrongly believe that the Church teaches that these sacramentals actually provide grace. But one of the biggest problems for non-Catholics are the relics of saints—the bones, ashes, clothing, or personal possessions of the apostles and other holy people which are held in reverence by the Church and sometimes associated with miraculous healings and other acts of God.

This is how Bart Brewer, ex-priest and head of Mission to Catholics International, phrases the complaint in his autobiography, Pilgrimage From Rome:

"Another dogma that has bothered Catholics for centuries is the veneration of relics and the claims that they have magical powers. Even Martin Luther wondered how there could be twenty-six apostles buried in Germany, when there were only twelve in the entire Bible! It is said that if all the pieces of the cross displayed in Catholic churches were assembled together, it would take a ten-ton truck to carry them. It is clear that most ‘relics’ are frauds. Furthermore, there is nothing in the Bible that supports the veneration of relics, even if they are genuine" (page 132).

This is a unique paragraph in that each sentence in it contains one or two blunders. Let’s go through them.

The first is the claim that the veneration of relics has "bothered Catholics for centuries." Considering the high regard Catholics have had for relics throughout the years, this is absurd. It hasn’t been Catholics who have been bothered—it has been non-Catholics (and ex-Catholics).

What’s more, the Church does not claim that relics have "magical powers." Note that Brewer cites no Catholic work which makes such a claim—because there isn’t any. The sacramental system is the opposite of magic. In magic, something material is regarded as the cause of something spiritual; in other words, a lower cause is expected to produce a higher effect.

No Magic in Sacraments

The sacraments (and, derivatively, sacramentals and relics) don’t compel God to work in a certain way. Their use depends on God, who established their efficacy, so their effects are divine, not natural, in their origin. It is God who sanctions the use of relics; it is not a matter of men "overpowering" God through their own powers or the powers of nature, which is what magic amounts to.

When Jesus healed the blind man in John 9:1-7, did the Lord use magic mud and spittle? Was it actually a magic potion he mixed in the clay, or was it simply that Jesus saw fit to use matter in association with the conferral of his grace? The Lord is no dualist. He made matter, he loves matter, and he had no qualms about becoming matter himself to accomplish our redemption.

In the next sentence Brewer casts ridicule on relics by referring to Luther’s comment, but the rejoinder should have been obvious to him. Apart from the fact that there are more than twelve apostles mentioned in the Bible (there are at least sixteen, counting Paul, Barnabas, James the Just, and Matthias), there is no reason to think that the whole of a saint’s skeleton must be kept in one reliquary. In fact, from what we know about the way early Christians preserved the bones of those killed during the persecutions, that would be unusual. More commonly, the saint’s bones were divided up, so various communities could have a portion of his relics: the skull here, a hand there, other bones elsewhere. So it would be proper for several cities to claim to have the relics of a single saint.

Ten-Ton Truck or Warship?

Now for the classic argument. As Brewer phrases it, if all the alleged pieces of the True Cross were gathered together, "it would take a ten-ton truck to carry them." That’s a modern way to put the charge. It used to be said the pieces would be enough to build a warship, but warships aren’t made out of wood any longer.

Either way, the charge is nonsense. In 1870 a Frenchman, Rohault de Fleury, catalogued all the relics of the True Cross, including relics that were said to have existed but were lost. He measured the existing relics and estimated the volume of the missing ones. Then he added up the figures and discovered that the fragments, if glued together, would not have made up more than one-third of a cross. The scandal wasn’t that there was too much wood. The scandal was that most of the True Cross, after being unearthed in Jerusalem in the fourth century, was lost again!

Brewer’s next charge is this: "It is clear that most ‘relics’ are frauds." It isn’t clear at all. Certainly nothing he said indicates that. Have there been any frauds? Sure. But in most cases, relics are either known to be genuine or there is some reason to think they may be genuine, even if complete proof is impossible.

Take the famous Shroud of Turin, which scientists have been examining for some years. The scientists admit their experiments cannot establish that the Shroud is the actual burial cloth of Christ—they admit that is impossible—but they also say they might be able to eliminate the possibility of forgery. That is, they apparently are demonstrating that the Shroud was a burial cloth that was wrapped around someone who was crucified in the same manner as Christ, perhaps at about the same time he was crucified (there is considerable dispute about the age of the Shroud, and the carbon-14 tests that have been performed on the Shroud have been defective), and in the same area he was crucified.

Most relics cannot be fakes because most relics are the bones of ordinary saints of history who were well known and whose remains were never lost in the first place.

The Church has never pronounced that any particular relic—even that of the cross—is genuine. But, the Church does approve of honor being given to the relics that can with reasonable probablility be considered authentic.

Is There Room for Doubt?

Will there always be room for doubt for those who seek it? Sure. And if that is the case with the Shroud of Turin, it is more the case with most other relics.

The skeptic will always be able to say, "This might not have been so-and-so’s," or "You might be mistaken," and we’d have to admit that’s true. There might have been a mistake, or fakes might have been substituted for the real relics.

We evaluate relics the same way we evaluate the bona fides of anything else. Did George Washington really sleep in a particular bed? We have to do some detective work to find out. We may never know for sure. We may have to rely on probabilities. On the other hand, we might have incontrovertible proof, that could be disbelieved only by the skeptic who insists George Washington never existed at all.

It’s the same with relics. Some are beyond doubt. Others are so highly probable that it would be rash to doubt. Others are merely probable. And some, yes, are improbable (though we wouldn’t want to toss out even most of those, in case we err and toss out something that really is a relic).

No Veneration?

Finally, Brewer claims that "there is nothing in the Bible that supports the veneration of relics, even if they are genuine." Again, not so.

One of the most moving accounts of the veneration of relics is that of the very body of Christ itself. Rather than leaving his body on the cross, to be taken down and disposed of by the Romans (as was the customary practice), Joseph of Arimathea courageously interceded with Pilate for Christ’s body (Mark 15:43, John 19:38). He donated his own, newly hewn tomb as Christ’s resting place (Matt. 27:60). Nicodemus came and donated over a hundred pounds of spices to wrap inside Jesus’ grave clothes (John 19:39), that amount of spices being used only for the most honored dead. And after he was buried, the women went to reverently visit the tomb (Matt. 28:1) and to further anoint Christ’s body with spices even though it had already been sealed inside the tomb (Mark 16:1, Luke 24:1). These acts of reverence were more than just the usual courtesy shown to the remains of the dead; they were special respect shown to the body of a most holy man—in this case, the holiest man who has ever lived, for he was God Incarnate.

Relics in Early Christianity

The veneration of relics is seen explicitly as early as the account of Polycarp’s martyrdom written by the Smyrnaeans in A.D. 156. In it, the Christians describe the events following his burning at the stake: "We 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."

In speaking of the veneration of relics in the early Church, the anti-Catholic historian Adolph Harnack writes, ". . . [N]o 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 Manichaeans" (Harnack, History of Dogma, tr., IV, 313).

In the fourth century the great biblical scholar, Jerome, declared, "We do not worship, we do not adore, for fear that we should bow down to the creature rather than to the creator, but we venerate the relics of the martyrs in order the better to adore him whose martyrs they are" (Ad Riparium, i, P.L., XXII, 907). `

Relics in Scripture

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.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Relics.asp

[jasJis]

Excellent post, IronMonk. I think this is one for the archives. Good clear and thorough explanation.

[dominicansoul]

Wow back in the day Phatmass had some very good debates.  Iron Monk, whoever he is, was amesome!  And Brother Adam must not have been Catholic yet...

 

now most of the debates are idle blabber... let's bring back these type of discussions!

[Anomaly]

I miss all those people.  

Phatmass doesn't have decent debates because people don't discuss as respectfully, mannerly, or honestly. I believe it is more common and more accepted to be bitingly snarkier on the inter-webs.  

And Max (Iron Monk) actually would make Socrates seem like an Obama supporter.  I don't think he'd last a week if he started posting again. 

Edited October 2, 2015 by Anomaly

[Didacus]

croutons! I thought I was the only one that ressurected old threads...

It's like I just 'lost my thing'...

[dairygirl4u2c]

i am also know for resurrecting old threads. usually old threads started by me. 

iron monk was a radical. not in a good way. but i respect him for giving me soemthing to think about when i was young and dumb. i only wish he still posted cause almost on every topic we disagree with i guarantee i would be the one schooling him.