Relics: A Protestant Critique
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 лип 2024
- One of the issues that divides Catholics and Protestants is the veneration of relics. But many people are unfamiliar with the exact nature of the Protestant concern. Here I try to lay out a basic overview of what motivates Protestants on this topic.
Truth Unites is a mixture of apologetics and theology, with an irenic focus.
Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) serves as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai.
Website: gavinortlund.com/
Twitter: / gavinortlund
Facebook: / truthunitespage
Become a patron: / truthunites
My books:
--Why God Makes Sense in a World That Doesn’t: The Beauty of Christian Theism: www.amazon.com/Makes-Sense-Wo...
--Retrieving Augustine’s Doctrine of Creation: Ancient Wisdom for Current Controversy: www.amazon.com/Retrieving-Aug...
--Anselm’s Pursuit of Joy: A Commentary on the Proslogion: www.amazon.com/Anselms-Pursui...
--Finding the Right Hills to Die On: The Case for Theological Triage: www.amazon.com/Finding-Right-...
--Theological Retrieval for Evangelicals: Why We Need Our Past to Have a Future: www.amazon.com/Theological-Re...
00:00 - Introduction
02:52 - The Protestant concern
13:48 - The Historical Record
19:54 - The Biblical Data
22:41 - Final Appeals
![Lp. Последняя Реальность #97 ЧЁРНАЯ МАТЕРИЯ [Анти Скинт] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/k4MjXCzKsYw/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks everybody for the encouraging feedback. One thing I wish I had done better in this video is describe specifically how Trent did seek to curb abuses with respect to relics. While Trent did not address the Protestant concerns about idolatry and superstition sufficiently, in my view, it did condemn a number of other abuses, and I don't want to be unfair in failing to mention that. The last thing I want to do is give an unfair characterization. So I'm leaving a pinned comment up here with the entirety of the second decree of Session 25 of Trent (not 26, I mistakenly referenced it as that). You can read the entire Session here: www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch25.htm
"The holy Synod enjoins on all bishops, and others who sustain the office and charge of teaching, that, agreeably to the usage of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, received from the primitive times of the Christian religion, and agreeably to the consent of the holy Fathers, and to the decrees of sacred Councils, they especially instruct the faithful diligently concerning the intercession and invocation of saints; the honour (paid) to relics; and the legitimate use of images: teaching them, that the saints, who reign together with Christ, offer up their own prayers to God for men; that it is good and useful suppliantly to invoke them, and to have recourse to their prayers, aid, (and) help for obtaining benefits from God, through His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, who is our alone Redeemer and Saviour; but that they think impiously, who deny that the saints, who enjoy eternal happiness in heaven, are to be invocated; or who assert either that they do not pray for men; or, that the invocation of them to pray for each of us even in particular, is idolatry; or, that it is repugnant to the word of God; and is opposed to the honour of the one mediator of God and men, Christ Jesus; or, that it is foolish to supplicate, vocally, or mentally, those who reign in heaven. Also, that the holy bodies of holy martyrs, and of others now living with Christ,-which bodies were the living members of Christ, and the temple of the Holy Ghost, and which are by Him to be raised unto eternal life, and to be glorified,-are to be venerated by the faithful; through which (bodies) many benefits are bestowed by God on men; so that they who affirm that veneration and honour are not due to the relics of saints; or, that these, and other sacred monuments, are uselessly honoured by the faithful; and that the places dedicated to the memories of the saints are in vain visited with the view of obtaining their aid; are wholly to be condemned, as the Church has already long since condemned, and now also condemns them.
Moreover, that the images of Christ, of the Virgin Mother of God, and of the other saints, are to be had and retained particularly in temples, and that due honour and veneration are to be given them; not that any divinity, or virtue, is believed to be in them, on account of which they are to be worshipped; or that anything is to be asked of them; or, that trust is to be reposed in images, as was of old done by the Gentiles who placed their hope in idols; but because the honour which is shown them is referred to the prototypes which those images represent; in such wise that by the images which we kiss, and before which we uncover the head, and prostrate ourselves, we adore Christ; and we venerate the saints, whose similitude they bear: as, by the decrees of Councils, and especially of the second Synod of Nicaea, has been defined against the opponents of images.
And the bishops shall carefully teach this,-that, by means of the histories of the mysteries of our Redemption, portrayed by paintings or other representations, the people is instructed, and confirmed in (the habit of) remembering, and continually revolving in mind the articles of faith; as also that great profit is derived from all sacred images, not only because the people are thereby admonished of the benefits and gifts bestowed upon them by Christ, but also because the miracles which God has performed by means of the saints, and their salutary examples, are set before the eyes of the faithful; that so they may give God thanks for those things; may order their own lives and manners in imitation of the saints; and may be excited to adore and love God, and to cultivate piety. But if any one shall teach, or entertain sentiments, contrary to these decrees; let him be anathema.
And if any abuses have crept in amongst these holy and salutary observances, the holy Synod ardently desires that they be utterly abolished; in such wise that no images, (suggestive) of false doctrine, and furnishing occasion of dangerous error to the uneducated, be set up. And if at times, when expedient for the unlettered people; it happen that the facts and narratives of sacred Scripture are portrayed and represented; the people shall be taught, that not thereby is the Divinity represented, as though it could be seen by the eyes of the body, or be portrayed by colours or figures.
Moreover, in the invocation of saints, the veneration of relics, and the sacred use of images, every superstition shall be removed, all filthy lucre be abolished; finally, all lasciviousness be avoided; in such wise that figures shall not be painted or adorned with a beauty exciting to lust; nor the celebration of the saints, and the visitation of relics be by any perverted into revellings and drunkenness; as if festivals are celebrated to the honour of the saints by luxury and wantonness.
In fine, let so great care and diligence be used herein by bishops, as that there be nothing seen that is disorderly, or that is unbecomingly or confusedly arranged, nothing that is profane, nothing indecorous, seeing that holiness becometh the house of God.
And that these things may be the more faithfully observed, the holy Synod ordains, that no one be allowed to place, or cause to be placed, any unusual image, in any place, or church, howsoever exempted, except that image have been approved of by the bishop: also, that no new miracles are to be acknowledged, or new relics recognised, unless the said bishop has taken cognizance and approved thereof; who, as soon as he has obtained some certain information in regard to these matters, shall, after having taken the advice of theologians, and of other pious men, act therein as he shall judge to be consonant with truth and piety. But if any doubtful, or difficult abuse has to be extirpated; or, in fine, if any more grave question shall arise touching these matters, the bishop, before deciding the controversy, shall await the sentence of the metropolitan and of the bishops of the province, in a provincial Council; yet so, that nothing new, or that previously has not been usual in the Church, shall be resolved on, without having first consulted the most holy Roman Pontiff."
Truth Unites, indeed, Trent confirms the Biblical use of relics, not limited to early Church, but even today, and the power of God working through relics even now. Do you believe this to be true, and do you believe in invoking the Saints who are in the presence of God in Heaven for their intercession on our behalf, as Trent does? You had earlier quoted Saint Augustine and how what he teaches, should be regarded highly. Do you agree with Augustine when teaches prayers for the dead, and how our prayers can aid those who have died in their sufferings for their sins? Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
You come off very condescending "your making great progress". It is not even fruitful to dialogue with you because your so nasty and rigid.
God had His purpose for Ark as a portable temple...Jeremiah verse i quoted shows it will no longer be needed or remembered so how is your Joseph reference about bowing to the ark applicable for the new Covenant Christian today?
Its like you try to find 1 or 2 example and say that settles it in my favor without context or application...basically what Dr. ORTLUND Said some Catholics do.
Also your attacks and ad hominem suggest your really not genuine about your claims to pray for me..."I will pray for you" tends to basically be a round about insult people use against someone that they disagree with or dislike.
Sorry if 2 Kings 18:4 has been cited in the comments already, but that courageous act of Hezekiah to smash the bronze serpent which had become an object of superstitious worship would have been condemned as iconoclasm by many church folk. I mean, talk about a super class A relic!
"super class A" lol 😂
The kids today would call it an S tier relic
@@survivordave divine grade +10 holy atk +10 crit AOE dmg +10
@@bowlineastronomenov5507 -20% curse +15% crit chance against demon type creatures
He removed the high places, and brake the pillars, and cut down the Asherah: And he brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made; for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it; and he called it Nehushtan. - 2 Kings 18:4
Groves. The people were now more obedient, being terrified at the chastisement of Israel, (Calmet) though Samaria was not taken till the sixth year of this good king; who carried his reform rather than most of his predecessors, (Haydock) in destroying the high places which had been unlawfully (Calmet) retained, as consecrated to the true God. See ver. 22. (Haydock)
Yet Josias had still some to remove. (Menochius)
Nohestan; that is, their brass, or a little brass. So he called it in comtempt, because they had made a god of it. (Challoner)
Before, this image had been treated with due respect. When any relic or image becomes the occasion of abuse in the Catholic Church, it is thus taken away, or the error is otherwise corrected. See St. Augustine, City of God x. 8., Ser. 14., de Verb. Ap. (Worthington)
Some of the ancients assert, that Ezechias suppressed many books of Solomon, on account of similar abuses. But this seems not to be well attested. We know that he made a collection of some of some of his sentences, Proverbs xxv. 1.
- George Leo Haydock
Read more commentaries at catenabible.com/com/5735e1a3ec4bd7c9723bd50d
Hello dr ortlund. I was an ex mormon. Now i am searching for the truth. I was baptized evangelical wasnt very interested in religion, made it through a hard time and then came in to the mormon church through missionaries. In this i learned to love christ and wanted to know the truth. Now i am out of the lds church and now i am searching a solid trinitarian church. I am now considering to be a protestant again aftergoing to catholic mess and listen to apologetics like trent horn, scott hahn and so forth. Your channel leads me more and more to go back to my old faith. I really thank you for your hard work and videos.
So glad the videos have been helpful! May the Lord guide you and bless you.
You might find that Wisconsin or Missouri Synod Lutherans strike the right balance for you. Maybe Anglican Church in North America. Those specific denominations, if you want to feel rooted in liturgy and in faith.
As Matt Fradd put it (as a joke)
"Catholics are always banging on and on about the sanctity of life, but if you're holy and you die, they put you in the chipper."
I’m a Catholic, life long, and have been living with the early church fathers for the last 5 years. When I brought up this question, about limits, when it comes to veneration as to the use of statues to pray through not to saints to Pints with Aquinas, as he requested questions from his viewers. My question was dismissed. I think the question of acceptable limits within the act of veneration is a legitimate concern & I know its a real objection I hear from Protestants when I dialogue in real life.
The line between worship and veneration should be clear in ones conscience to the very minimum. If your conscience accuses you. Stop immediately. It is that simple.
Because Church teaching, we condemn the worship of statues, but approve them as aids to worship. However, unless you see someone sacrificing a lamb or calling a statue "God" its really hard to draw a line especially in culturally different areas.
Trent Horn from the
The Counsel of Trent youtube channel did a video
"REBUTTING Gavin Ortlund on relics and venerating the saints" I think is helpful.
Icons and relics are clearly the resurgence of dead idols made of wood and stone.
@@rooforlife I like Trent Horn as an apologist (and during my formation/decrement period relied on both he & Jimmy Akin alot), but I find Trent’s language and wording when it comes to moral teachings to be lacking. Like he’s stuck in the culture/zeitgeist of 15 years ago. He also, sometimes speaks out of both sides of his mouth. In one video condemning or cautioning a discipline or practice when addressing Catholics but then defending that same act or discipline when addressing protestants, and when he speaks to atheists he suddenly sounds like a free theists. I get that he’s a trained apologist, so he’s tailoring his words to his perceived audience, but I find this inconsistency to make him unreliable as a source, at best his is a single opinion to be weighed & considered. He’ll go from sounding like a Traditional Catholic, to an Eastern rite Catholic, to Father Casey (breaking the habit) depending on his topic and whom he is answering. It is mildly disheartening. But I still think the Catholic Answers crew are the best Catholic apologists out there, no disrespect intended. I can’t do what they do, & I’ve tried. I have the wrong temperament for apologetics. But Trent’s inconsistencies make the lines that he draws on the veneration vs worship of relics and saints to be arbitrary and vague.
I very much appreciate the irenic approach! Is it fair to assert that Trent doesn't warn against abuses involving relics when Session 25 says the following: "Moreover, in . . . the veneration of relics . . . *every superstition* shall be removed, all *filthy lucre* be abolished; finally, all lasciviousness be avoided; in such wise that . . . the visitation of relics be by any perverted into revellings and drunkenness; as if festivals are celebrated to the honour of the saints by luxury and wantonness."
Hey Jimmy. Fair point. Earlier today I put up a pinned comment with the entirety of this section because I realized I had kind of overlooked/downplayed this passage. My bad.
@@TruthUnites Thanks! BTW, in the video you speak of furthering dialogue on this issue, and you ask a hypothetical Catholic interlocutor a bunch of questions (e.g., do they acknowledge this concern, where would they draw lines). If you'd like to pose those questions to a knowledgeable, orthodox Catholic, I'd be happy to come on and have you put whatever questions you like on this subject to me.
@@JimmyAkin would definitely love to talk sometime, whether on this or something else. I'll follow up by email.
@@TruthUnites please make this happen, Jimmy is an amazing Catholic theologian and I’m sure can explain official Catholic teaching better than most…
@@TruthUnites make this happen. One year latter. Has it taken place yet?
One relic I'd like to see: C.S. Lewis' wardrobe, which I think is at Wheaton College.
Such a very well articulated video on relics. I love that you tackling these subcategories that often get missed out or overlooked in protestant apologetics. Great job! 🔥
Thanks a lot! Yeah this is one of those topics sometimes we overlook!
@@TruthUnites it’s overlooked because it just isn’t even an issue for Catholics. It’s silly to us that you would see this as idolatry. We have a different mindset, these pious practices lead us TO God, not get in the way of God. If you can’t see it, I guess you’ll just have to trust in good faith that we don’t worship relics, Saints, or Mary - only Jesus Christ.
Worship of this or or that is not the only concern...there is HYPERDULIA
Definition according to RCC
The special veneration due to the Blessed Virgin Mary. It is substantially less than the cultus latria (adoration), which is due to God alone. But it is higher than the cultus dulia (veneration), due to angels and other saints. The RCC has a way of making layers of categories to keep themselves (in their own minds) impervious from criticism.
I think you missed the main point for us protestants especially going back to Luther. The main complaint is all the stuff we might consider sacred is hard to verify as true. I'm sure they've got plenty of sliced and diced old priests but can we really be sure about something like the shroud of Turin? Just looking up how many cups, nails, images of Edessa, pseudo veils of Veronica, etc they have even now is mind blowing. They even claim to have pieces of wood from the manger. Just to put that in context we have less from Caesar or Alexander and Greece and Rome loved those men.
So the issue is mainly is any of this stuff real?
I enjoy all your explanations and appreciate the research you do on all these tough topics.
Excellent video and well articulated regarding why Protestants are apprehensive about relics. I totally agree we need to be really careful and have clear boundaries. Thankfully I believe we as Protestants err on the right side and see Christ as sufficient.
Jotlink, Jesus Christ is indeed sufficient, yet, just as many in the early Church sought the mediation and intercession of mere human beings like Peter and Paul and their prayers and shadow and handkerchiefs, (Acts 5:15, 9:38-40, 19:11), so too even now, for those who believe in God, shall do even greater things, and God is glorified in His Angels and Saints, and as Catholic Christians, we acknowledge the Biblical basis for relics, past, present and future, and the power and great Mercy of God working through His Holy ones! Indeed, we are God's coworkers as Holy Scripture teaches! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Nowhere in our interaction have i explicitly stated the claims you are making agaisnt me.
Oh that's right, you cant quote back to me anywhere that i explicitly state to you any of the claims you are making agaisnt me.
@@Adam-ue2ig OH, that is right, you made the absurd claim that John bowing down to worship didn't help my cause! Lol! I still love you very much in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink! You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth
John Himself says he bowed down to worship...read the verse.
Wow Dr ortlund, I'm thoroughly impressed with your videos. Found you through your dialogues with Dr Cooper. :) Keep it up, you're very gracious.
Thanks Roberto, glad to be connected to you!
Gavin I admire your balanced approach to these issues
Thanks a lot, so glad to hear that!
If I may be so bold I have a playlist on my channel of Timothy Kauffman critiquing veneration of relics. His main complaint is that like many Roman Catholic practices you can’t find strong evidence for it prior to the second half of the 4th century AD
Thanks for mentioning that!
@@TruthUnites Let me post the link. If it doesn’t show up it’s because YT filters
@@TruthUnites ua-cam.com/play/PLeVscMuOAz_L6ziUIA5HQ9-Dmh6yySXId.html
This is simply untrue. Almost all Catholic practices were established by the end of the second century. Polycarps relics were venerated in 150 AD. The Catholic liturgy is clearly described in Justin Martyr’s First Apology, as is the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Clement in 110AD is clear about apostolic succession. Ignatius, Bishop of Rome, writes with authority to settle disputes in other churches (papacy). Infant Baptism was widely practiced in the early church. These are not inventions after 300 or 400 AD. If you truly want to learn about the early church, read “the apostasy that wasn’t” by Rod Bennett, or watch this video (if you dare…) 👇🏼
ua-cam.com/video/z_r1hZYWOqg/v-deo.html
Just visited Maria Stein Shrine in Ohio where it has the second largest collection of saint relics in the U.S. (I just so happen to live in Ohio, too). Went with a couple of my catholic friends and was kind of taken aback, haha! Great video and I love your balanced and clear approach to this. This channel is easily becoming one of my favorites!
Gavin, Protestant here. Enjoyed the video. I think your request on Catholics to clearly identify where "the line is" between orthodox veneration/honor/respect and superstition concerning relics is well said. However, there is a reverse corollary to that request: namely, that it is merited for Protestants like yourself to clearly delineate what constitutes proper veneration/honor/respect of relics and the saints generally. What usually happens is, in an effort to avoid superstition (real or perceived), Protestants make shipwreck of the doctrine of the communion of the saints. We don't wish to emphasize Christ's sole mediation with the Father to such an extent that it crowds out any acknowledgment of the blessedness of the intercessions of the Church's members, dead and alive. (Otherwise, why ask others to pray for you?) Subsequently, there is little concept in Protestantism today of our temporal worship being joined "with angels and archangels and all the company of heaven" (Rev. 7:9-10) in their heavenly worship before the Father. I would be interested in a video on this subject, where you express the positive teaching of Protestantism on the communion of the saints, rather than merely the Protestant polemic against the Roman cult of saints.
The problem is how can you know dead people can hear your prayers.
When we ask people to pray for us or with us, we do not do so because we believe their prayers in and of itself can do something for us. It's all by the grace and mercies of God.
I just have a hesitancy when someone is scared to emphasize Christ “too much” lest the focus of Christ overshadow a human being. You shouldn’t be scared to over emphasize anything about Christ, how could you possibly over emphasize the one who is and was and is to come. The alpha and omega. The author and finisher of our faith.
I saw the video and The Office thumbnail - instant approval lol. I appreciate these concerns a lot. I especially like your argument of, "okay, so WHEN does it go too far?" I think that question does not get answered enough by apologists. It's the same with the arguments about praying to/through the saints. I read John of Damascus, I know the veneration/hyperveneration/worship distinction, but I worry the lack of a ceiling on those practices boils it down to basically, "it's worship when you think you're worshipping." That can't be tenable for Christian practice, in my view. Thank you for the thought provoking content!
Excellent video! Thank you
Bro have you listened to the Lord of Spirits Podcast, it’s from the Orthodox tradition? I’m a little behind but the next episode on my list is the episode about relics, it’s entitled “Can These Bones Live”.
God bless you!
interesting, will keep my eyes peeled! Thanks.
You’re welcome. Here’s the UA-cam link for it if you’re interested: ua-cam.com/video/3TfYukw-VKE/v-deo.html
As a Protestant, I admittingly don't often think of relics. But, I do find the Shroud of Turin to be very fascinating relic; I am not 100% committed to it being the actual burial cloth of the Lord, but the analysis I've seen seems to indicate it is a special item with a distinctly supernatural touch.
We Catholics, if we really take our Faith seriously, know what relics are supposed to be and how we ought to venerate them and to what purpose is its veneration. We know that their veneration serves a good purpose in the spiritual life of the follower of Our Lord Jesus Christ and ultimately redounds to the glory of God. We believe in the communion of saints. We know that those who have been perfected by their cooperation with the graces God has given them in this life now share in the life of God in Heaven and therefore now belong to God both in soul and body. Therefore their relics bear that glory that comes from God. We also know that God works through his holy saints to grant graces and miracles to those of us who are still in the Church Militant on this earth. If there are Catholics who are superstitious they are not practicing what Holy Mother Church teaches and therefore what Christ teaches. Why do Protestants think Catholics adore relics when we do not and we would rather give our lives if necessary than to commit idolatry. Are there not always in every generation those who disobey God and turn from the Truth? You know the proper place for the veneration of relics and agree that they have spiritual value. Your argument against relics is that the Church does not point out where the danger lies. The Church does warn us Catholics against the dangers of inordinate attachment to things and the dangers of worshiping anything or anyone other than God. Relics, as well as many other things such as loved ones, country, money, our habits, food, etc, can become our gods. We Catholics know that. It is in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Well done, Dr. Ortlund. One other question or issue I would have concerning relics and those who venerate them is how certain are they that such a relic is actually the object some claim it to be? For example, Dr. Ortlund shows what is purported to be St. Peter's chains. What is the evidence that these are actually his chains?
This question brings to mind the reports from Medieval times of so many claiming to possess a piece of wood from Jesus' cross or similar item.
Excellent video!
Thanks for this, excellent job. Looking forward to a treatment of Icons!
Thank you for expressing and putting into words exactly what I've tried to explain to my son about some of these practices. Once again, eloquently spoken. I thank God for you!
Glad it was helpful Vickie!
Yes, thank you for specifically addressing each obstacle to Catholicism so directly, thoroughly and fearlessly! Where were you when I was struggling with these issues? 🤔 Oh yeah, you were in diapers. 😉
There are a lot of hard feelings about relics, and I just want to share my philosophy, which I hope people will find useful when struggling through divisions created by differing opinions.
“My philosophy is basically this, and this is something that I live by. And I always have. And I always will--- Don’t ever, for any reason, do anything to anyone, for any reason, ever, no matter what. No matter where, or who, or who your with, or where you are going… or where you have been… ever. For any reason, whatsoever.”
This just felt appropriate to leave here considering the title of this video. #wisewords
@Daniel Smith Yes. The title of the video was borrowed from the television show, “The Office.” My quote is from one of the characters named Michael Scott.
Indian here. The Church does does not venerate relics as an object of spiritual/magical value in itself. As a practicing Catholic, there might've been three or four instances when I have venerated a relic. (I'm 30 years old) Personally, I wouldn't hesitate to kiss or bow my head while saying a little prayer in front of a relic, which I do in remembrance/honor of the saint as we're a sacramental people. But I do not expect any spiritual/material favors by simply venerating a relic; although miracles do happen.
Yes, many Catholics (especially in the middle ages) did cross a line to the point of superstition - probably even saints - but those are personal devotions/opinions and not official Church teaching on relics. I appreciate your charitable approach on addressing these topics.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment!
@Christos Kyrios Yes and no. I was baptized in the Syro-Malabar church, an Eastern rite in full communion with Rome.
Thank you!
Thank you for this video. I can't wait for the video on icons. I've been struggling with the issue as to whether or not icons of Christ are acceptable, especially in a worship setting, which can be different from an educational setting.
Glad it was useful for you!
ua-cam.com/video/kmATf28ODBo/v-deo.html - First Century Icon usage.
@@ReyWho I don’t find that convincing at all
@@arminius504 what do you need convincing of?
The Seventh Ecumenical Council in 787 firmly validated the role of Icons in Christian worship.
Concerning the charge of idolatry: Icons are not idols but symbols, therefore when an Orthodox venerates an icon, he is not guilty of idolatry. He is not worshipping the symbol, but merely venerating it. Such veneration is not directed toward wood, or paint or stone, but towards the person depicted. Therefore relative honor is shown to material objects, but worship is due to God alone.We do not make obeisance to the nature of wood, but we revere and do obeisance to Him who was crucified on the Cross... When the two beams of the Cross are joined together I adore the figure because of Christ who was crucified on the Cross, but if the beams are separated, I throw them away and burn them. -St. John of Damascus
In my humble opinion, Martin Chemnitz's treatment of this question in Examination, Vol. IV is unassailable.
Likewise, more generous than I had expected. He actually says there is a right veneration of the relics of Martyrs and Saints; that is, allow them to remain at rest in their tombs until the resurrection of the dead on the Last Day. He also notes that the earliest veneration of relics was right and proper.
Exhuming bodies, dividing them, and carrying them around, however, has no Scriptural warrant or support. Certainly, as you said, consciences should not be bound by practices that have no clear Scriptural command and promise attached to them.
Great video. Glad those Chemnitz volumes are being put to work!
Yeah, Chemnitz is solid. It's always refreshing when the old dudes are more generous than you expect.
@@TruthUnites No doubt. They had more pedigree to sling arrows than we. Yet, we're often more uncharitable.
Admittedly, Luther wasn't always irenic. Ha.
Chemnitz is expensive!!!!!
@@marcuswilliams7448 you get the understatement of the century award 🤣🤣🤣🤣 Even his humor was rough!
@@toomanymarys7355 Yes, well, let us not be ninnies as we read Luther. He was aware of himself and so, at one point, writes that he was the tiller of soil, while Melanchthon came behind and quietly sowed the seed.
Yeah I agree--I was trying to think how I might justify relics, but I can't fully see it, unless you see relics as icons. If relics are certain kinds of icons, I can see why one might view a relic as a catalyst for contemplation. But that's about as far as I can go in affirming them.
Thanks for commenting! I am going to address icons in a future video, Lord willing.
"Being taught in the school of Jesus Christ we have rejected all images and statues"
Pagan philosopher Celsus criticized Origen about not using Icons and imagesand the above was his reponse.
"It is in consideration of these and many other commands that Christians not only avoid temples, altars and images but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary rather than debase by such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God"- Origen
Very interesting, Gavin. Excellent approach! It is a fact that Moses raised the serpent in the wilderness and the people were healed, but it is also a fact that it later became Neustan, a pagan deity. I see that there are biblical grounds for understanding that God operated through means, so there is the case of Peter's shadow and Paul's handkerchief. However, the line that separates the means of healing from idolatry (or simply from folk religion) is very thin! So it's good to observe that Peter and Paul were alive when these things happened. It is also good to observe, and not forget, that, according to the epistle of Judas, the devil disputed with the Archangel the possession of the body of Moses so that he would probably create an idolatry. Finally, the case of the bones of the prophet Elisha is a unique case in all of sacred scripture, of someone who after his death caused a man to be resurrected because of the Holy Spirit who dwelled in his relics; and being unique, good theology advises us never to base our practice of faith on just one isolated verse. So, if you ask me if I believe some saint's relic may cause some grace influx, I do say yes. It is possible, cos for God every things are possible. But I'd never build a theology or establish a practice based upon this. The idolatry line is thin...
Great comments, the serpent that Moses used is a really interesting point.
Josue, relics are Biblically based, and not even death can separate us! I am so grateful to the Holy Spirit for confirming the Truth of Catholic teaching! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Josue, then why do you believe in Faith alone and Scripture alone, with only one isolated verse? This is indeed not good theology! Yet, relics are Biblically based, by the power of God working through them, and not even death can separate us, and to those who believe, these shall do even greater things! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@matthewbroderick6287 I really understand your point, dear one. But it is also interesting to observe how these things became superstitious throughout church history. Think about "Cìrio de Nazaré" festival in my country, for exemple. Also, it is important to remind that we need to eat solid aliment, according to Sain Paul's letters. Faith requires a progress until maturity. Also, what Jesus says to samaritan woman about the place of adoration?
"Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you say that in Jerusalem is the place where people ought to worship.” Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”" (ESV John 4:20-24)
So, pls, I kindly ask you to consider our zeal and worrying about the relics, even though I recognize it played an important role against Gnosticism. In this sense, I share Gavin's same view that a mature Christian beliver doesn't need to be worried about a pilgrimage to some place... neither to touch this or that in that kind of place to receive God's grace.
God bless you too! 🙏🤝🙌
@@josueinhan8436 Again, I am so very grateful to the Holy Spirit for being allowed to take advantage of the power of God working through relics, just as they did in Holy Scripture!
Again. I kiss the Bible! Am I worshipping the Bible my dear one? Quite silly, and no need for worry! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
I would really love to see a video where you articulate your view of the Eucharist. I heard that it is pretty high, and as a fellow Baptist who is struggling with the Eucharist I would love to hear what you have to say.
I go into this a bit in my video responding to Francis Chan, that might be of interest.
@@TruthUnites thanks! I will check it out now
Gavin Ortlund, have you read the passage in Athanasius' Life of St Anthony on relics? It is very interesting to this discussion.
can you get a Catholic or Orthodox to answer some of your specific questions on video?
Douglas, As Catholic Christians, we acknowledge the Biblical basis for relics. Just as many in the early Church sought the mediation and intercession of mere human beings like Peter and Paul and their prayers and shadow and handkerchiefs, ( Acts 5:15, Acts 9:38-40, 19:11), and the bones of the "Dead" Elisha, ( 2 Kings 13:21), so too even now, for to those who believe, even greater things shall be done, as we are God's coworkers. As Catholic Christians, we know God is the source of great power and mercy working through His Holy ones! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@matthewbroderick6287 sure...I'm looking for someone to adress the specific questions Gavin detailed in this video...for example why is there no guidance from the catholic church on the dangers of superstition and idolitry regarding relics?
@@DouglasHorch I will check the catechism, but the most important thing to know is relics are Biblical! Bones, handkerchiefs and garments, even Peter's shadow, and the power of God working through them! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@DouglasHorch 2111 Superstition is the deviation of religious feeling and of the practices this feeling imposes. It can even affect the worship we offer the true God, e.g., when one attributes an importance in some way magical to certain practices otherwise lawful or necessary. To attribute the efficacy of prayers or of sacramental signs to their mere external performance, apart from the interior dispositions that they demand, is to fall into superstition. - Catechism of the Catholic Church
2138 Superstition is a departure from the worship that we give to the true God. It is manifested in idolatry, as well as in various forms of divination and magic. - Catechism of the Catholic Church
2113 Idolatry not only refers to false pagan worship. It remains a constant temptation to faith. Idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God. Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God, whether this be gods or demons (for example, satanism), power, pleasure, race, ancestors, the state, money, etc. Jesus says, "You cannot serve God and mammon." Many martyrs died for not adoring "the Beast" refusing even to simulate such worship. Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God; it is therefore incompatible with communion with God. - Catechism of the Catholic Church
@@Robert-ie8eb I know what these things are...that was not my question. I believe Gavins question, and forgive me if i get it wrong, better yet watch the video again. Is why is The does council of Trent not provide any specific guidance on superstition related to relics?
I've made a very in-depth reply: my most extensive biblical defense of relics in my 31 years of doing Catholic apologetics, with several new arguments I've never used (or thought of) before:
"Reply to Gavin Ortlund’s 'Relics: A Protestant Critique' " [5-12-22]
It's posted on my "Biblical Evidence for Catholicism" blog. All feedback welcomed and encouraged.
I think the next phase of this discussion should be around the question of what constitutes idolatry. That seems to be the most common objection from the Protestant side, but I think there is a core disagreement as to what that word actually means.
Yes
Would you consider the use of oil to anoint the sick, such as in the Anglican tradition, the use of a relic?
Dr. Ortlund,
Hello! You mentioned at 9:17 there were cases of sacrifices made unto relics as unto God? Could you mention the source or at least point me in the direction where you got this? If from Chemnitz’ work, please include what portion.
Also, you mentioned that Trent doubled down on relics in session 25 or at least doesn’t really engage with Protestant critiques.
“The holy council earnestly desires to root out utterly any abuses that may have crept into these holy and saving practices, so that no representations of false doctrine should be set up which give occasion of dangerous error to the unlettered.”
Later this same paragraph continues, “All superstition must be removed from invocation of the saints, the veneration of relics and use of sacred images; all aiming at base profit must be eliminated; all sensual appeal must be avoided, so that images are not painted or adorned with seductive charm; and people are not to abuse the celebration of the saints and visits to their relics for the purpose of drunken feasting, as if feast days in honor of the saints were to be celebrated with sensual luxury. And lastly, bishops should give very great care and attention to ensure that in this matter nothing occurs that is disorderly or arranged in an exaggerated or riotous manner, nothing profane and nothing unseemly, since holiness befits the house of God.”
-“Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Volume II,” Norman P Tanner. Council of Trent 1545-1563: Session 25. pg 775-776.
It seems to me that Trent does in fact make some boundaries regarding relics, first by acknowledging that abuses could have “crept into these holy and saving practices.” Later this paragraph condemns superstition, making profit, and sensuality/seduction (especially “drunken feasting”) around relics. Lastly this paragraph urges bishops to give “great care and attention” to ensure veneration is not disordered or exaggerated.
Perhaps you would say that Trent didn’t go far enough in these comments from session 25. If that would be your reply, what do you think would have been a satisfactory response from Trent regarding boundaries of relics?
Thanks for your thoughtful engagement.
Ethan
Hi Ethan! These are fair and good questions.
Reference is made to sacrifices in Chemnitz, Part IV, Section 1.1.
You are right that Session 25 does address abuses, and perhaps I focused too much on the section specifically on relics. At the same time, there are remaining problems in my opinion, and I would identify (1) not enough specificity in terms of what constitutes abuse or superstition (e.g., many of the practices objected to by the Reformers are not addressed, to my knowledge, such as believing that relics increase the efficacy of prayer); and (2) the abiding issue of veneration in the form of kissing and bowing is affirmed.
As I see things, a full reform would include the rejection of veneration in such a manner, which I do not believe has biblical or early church support, and a more clear/full rejection of superstitious practices. That is how I see things but I'm open to considering your perspective.
@@TruthUnites Thanks for your reply to my comment, Dr. Ortlund!
I just saw you pinned a comment with text from session 25 of Trent. Terrific!
You identify some fair concerns, the first of which I will have a hard time addressing because I have not extensively studied the veneration of relics during the medieval ages and the the Protestant Reformer’s response to it (btw, thanks for the specific Chemnitz reference…I will plan to read it alongside my study of Trent!)
Regarding your second identification, I’m not sure how kissing or bowing to a relic is an improper form of veneration. It is, of course, to us modern people perhaps a very strange practice…but perhaps St Peter’s comment of a “kiss of love” or St Paul’s exhortation to “greet one another with a holy kiss” may also be strange to us modern people! I get that Sts Peter and Paul were writing in specific contexts to living Christians and not dead ones…but isn’t the Christian God the God of the living and not of the dead? I understand that, for Catholics, the veneration of relics is rooted in the resurrection of the dead, a sort of way declaring that “these bones shall again live.” If someone can express their love to a natural family member by a kiss or an embrace, why is it too much that, in the economy of the supernatural family, someone honors their brother or sister in the Lord in a similar way? I might also add that in ancient and medieval times it was common to bow before a king or a prince. Why is this then inappropriate to do to the body of Christian who has fallen asleep in God’s grace and has conquered death through Christ? Should we not celebrate the saints more than our earthly kings and rulers?
Lastly, I think there are different sacramental implications of the Incarnation at play here. I don’t want to caricaturize the Protestant view, nor simplify the complexities of the Catholic view, so all I will say is that God uniting himself to the physical world most supremely through the work of Jesus Christ and taking on true flesh and a true humanity has massive, massive implications not only for our understanding of God, but our understanding of humanity, from which God transforms sinners into saints, making them to be partakers of the divine nature, which includes the resurrection. I can’t stop thinking of the psalm “Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints” the more I think about this.
Again, I will have to study more extensively your first identification, but I think my comment is long enough in response to your second one. 🙂
Thanks again for your thoughts, Dr. Ortlund! I will look forward to seeing how these specific forms of veneration (kissing, bowing, etc.) are addressed in the context of icons in your possible upcoming video of them!
Ethan
@@ethanhinkel1430 Thanks Ethan! I don't have time to respond just now, but thanks for the thoughtful comment.
As a 53 yr old cradle Catholic, I have always understood the purpose of relics/icons is simply to draw us closer to God. It would be amazing to me to hold a bone of St. Peter, for example, not because I think St. Peter is God, but because it draws me into everything he experienced related to God...what a wonder to consider. And sure, you could do this same exercise without the bone, but I would argue it would be far more intense holding one of his bones. Also, I don't see Peter as dead - Jesus made it clear that God is God of the living not the dead - Peter's body has expired, Peter has not. If you could meet Peter today would it be an insult to God to greet him with the reverence of a bow and a kiss?
And, if Peter and all Saints are not dead, cannot the graces of God continue to flow through Peter's (others) intercession? God delights in using humans to bring light to the world. Powerful gifts of healing, for example, are given to some - and like the souls who possess them, those gifts never die.
Also, there is an analogy here to all (or most?) of the books on the bookshelves behind you. Why do you read them? You have access to what you need in the Bible. Why add more writings to what is already sufficient? Are you not opening yourself up to manipulation? How do you remain vigilant and avoid a move away from God? Holy writings of people from the past that draw us closer to God could easily be called relics of the mind of the author. A "higher class" relic would be reading the hand-written manuscript of a great author. Imagine holding an original manuscript of St. Augustine's Confessions or City of God. I think you are over-complicating what really is a pretty simple concept.
Venerate: to treat with reverence.
I do concede the point that use of relics could go "off track" if religious leaders use them as a form of manipulation. We humans are certainly susceptible to falling for the same tricks more than once and need to stay vigilant.
But that's not official Roman Catholic dogma. You've adopted a lot of Protestant beliefs that stand in contrast to what is officially approved of and taught by the Roman Catholic Church.
@@toomanymarys7355 Do you mind sharing your understanding of what is officially approved Catholic dogma and how my descriptions contrasts it?
For me it all seems like leftovers from the pagans who converted to Christianity. Its the Spirit which gives life, the flesh profits nothing.
@@micahwatz1148 I am sorry you feel that way. You have eliminated one of the most powerful ways to draw nearer to Christ.
For example: In the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem there is a rock which tradition holds is the place of Jesus crucifixtion. Millions of pilgrims travel to the site to touch that rock. Do you think they think the rock is a God? No! But it does draw them powerfully into the event that changed the entire world.
@brianback6136 we lose nothing. The closet we can be is if one is in Christ, and we are in Christ, we do not need anything and anyone to move an inch to Christ. Again traditions are as useless as myths in the christian faith if we cannot attest them by scripture.
I’m a catholic and my thoughts about relics is that they are in themselves powerless and any miracle brought by one should be attributed to God alone, However I do believe that they should be venerated in a way as long as it’s for remembrance of all the deaths that had to come to Christendom before we could freely worship the living God. I make distinction in veneration and worship when any sort of power is attributed to the relic itself.
This paradoxical attraction is thought to be because engaging with gross or macabre objects in a controlled environment (like watching a horror movie) allows people to experience and navigate feelings of fear and disgust in a safe space. - Copilot AI
I'm kind of in the middle on this particular issue because Acts 19:11-12 says that God worked miracles through Paul's HANDKERCHIEFS And APRONS and that they were used to heal sick people and that evil spirits departed from them.
As I addressed in the video, the Protestant concern is not whether God can use physical objects to perform miracles. We all agree that he can and does.
@@TruthUnites I was Eastern Orthodox for awhile but seeing people kiss paintings and bow to them made me cringe. I could never fully except it. I don't think there is anything wrong with touching a relic in faith and asking God for healing or for a miracle though. I've been going to Calvary Chapel lately.
If I'm not mistaken Justin Martyr's "First Apology 67" is one of first descriptions of how Christians worshipped (100-167 A.D.). There is No mention of people bowing down to and kissing icons.
@@jg7923 thanks for sharing that!
@@TruthUnites You're welcome.
@@jg7923 I ended up becoming Oriental Coptic Orthodox. Why did you leave EO?
By the way EO has two major theological problems which undermines the credibility of their church.
I think the practical aspect is very important like you said. Where I serve for example, in a village they have a small statue of a saint and when the time comes they have a big party for him and open up a. small door and burn wood to honor him. The bad part is they get crazy drunk with alcohol the church provides (not that I believe official Roman Catholic teaching approves of drunkenness). but your point about how we all tend to make things our own idols I think plays into this topic.
pro move on the Office quote in the thumbnail 😎
Did I click on this because of the 'superstitious'/'stitious' reference in the thumbnail?
Of course.
We were actually discussing this at the teen Bible study on Monday. Here are the lines I drew. Superstition and idolatry occurs when:
> Someone thinks an object has supernatural power of itself, and not in respect to faith in God.
> Someone thinks a supernatural promise is attached to a physical thing where none actually exists.
When it came to the discussion of Elijah's body, Peter's shadow, and the handkerchiefs touched to Paul... that last of those (the handkerchiefs) strikes me as a rather straightforward example of a second class relic. I wasn't clear on what kind of distinction you were trying to draw. Is the crucial distinction that they were alive? I'm not sure why that's a difference that makes difference. In one sense, Paul is still alive anyway.
Interesting perspective! The point about Paul's handkerchiefs is that Protestants have no problem with this. As I said, we affirm that God can do miracles through physical objects. On the other hand, do we have a single example in Scripture of the body parts of saints being retained for veneration? That, not Paul's hankerchiefs, would meet the required proof that would touch your second criteria concerning God's promise, it seems to me.
@@TruthUnites : Hmmm.... so we're in agreement that relics can be things through which miracles are wrought. And around the start and again around 15 minutes you said it is appropriate to preserve and pay respect to said relics.
So if we're agreed on those two points, do I need to find a scriptural warrant for them?
Regarding those two principles I laid out for drawing a boundary, do you think those cover the problem areas? Or would they have only closed the barn door halfway?
@@actsapologist1991 one of the problems is that the Catholic church goes beyond respect into the realm of veneration via kissing/bowing. Practices like these and others are without a Scriptural warrant, it seems to me, and also differ from the earliest Christian practices in church history.
@@TruthUnites: Some of this seems cultural. In America, we wouldn't think twice about saluting the tombstone of a fallen soldier. But a different show of respect to the remains of a deceased Christian starts rubbing people the wrong way. While you say at the beginning that this isn't just a case of cross-cultural heebie jeebies.... could it be that such heebie jeebies plays some small role in objections to the veneration of relics?
If such activities are truly illicit, then it strikes me as odd that God would ever reward them with miraculous cures and not... punishment. So, in 2017 a woman was cured of blindness after venerating the relics of Saint Charbel. That's a really odd thing for God to do if He's trying to discourage that activity. Right?
@@actsapologist1991 I'm not following the flow of thought from the topic we were discussing, namely, biblical support for veneration of relics. (Also early church support for veneration per se.) I don't think the Bible itself has heebie jeebies about dead bodies, yet there is still not a single example of the body of a saint being retained for veneration. It seems to me the biblical practice was burial.
Well done, Dr. O. We should definitely be charitable to our Catholic friends and neighbors. But, I think you really drilled down on some important substance in this video. The development of theology and practice in history is something I have noticed our high church friends don't wrestle with enough. The claims that the church has always believed and practiced the particulars of their high church traditions is a tough sell historically and why Newman's statement on "being deep in history" is really full of hubris. These issues are not simple and a simplistic understanding of history is wide open to attack by skeptics and theological liberals.
Thanks for the feedback, Dr. Bob!
Dr. Bob, relics are Biblically based! God worked great wonders through The dead bones of Elisha and the shadow and handkerchiefs of Paul and Peter, and not even death can separate us! I am so grateful to the Holy Spirit for conforming the Truth found in Catholic Church teaching! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Even Peter says do not do that As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence. 26 But Peter made him get up. “Stand up,” he said, “I am only a man myself.”(A) Im not aware off of the top of my head any instance in the new testament that it is approved of other than for worshipping God Father Son and Holy Spirit...the references you mentioned are exclusively old testament....in any case their is great danger of idolatry and your basically dismissing the concerns or downplaying it in attempt to support your fixed pressposed Roman Catholic stance.
I think you should do a video on the Second Council of Nicaea which allowed the veneration of images. I think this important as the Bible itself in a natural reading seems so opposed to the use of images and yet we have events like this in Christian history that pushed for them.
Thanks for the suggestion, I will consider that!
About relics, do you think it all started with the understanding or misunderstanding what's written in Matt 16:18: “And I say also unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” ????
Karl, that definitely is a relevant factor to the larger issues of church authority! Missed you at soccer lately!
This is a really good video. I admire your willingness to learn and see the views from both sides and look at history (tradition) too. I think of you look at the medieval practices among the people and what actual Church teaching was at the time that might help. There is no doubt that people were preying on people's hopes or desires. Yes, unscrupulous people sold rice for huge sums of money; this was and is blatantly wrong for so many reasons. The Church's position is that it is good to *venerate* not worship a relic. We never worship that. That is idolatry. Is it ok to miss a relic? What's your intention is the question. If it's simply to venerate the person whom is believed to be in heaven and because you know they're holy then yes. But if you're missing the relic to worship that person then no. Worship is reserved only for God. I think we tend to look at what a person does and take that as a holistic approach that the Church approves of it, but that's wrong. Trent XXV sort of answered your question and leaves it up to the bishops to instruct the faithful. Sadly, maybe some have not done that appropriately.
You ask why not just go directly to Jesus and ask him to hear and answer our prayers? 100% absolutely! Agreed! But someone who was holy and died and their bones are venerated and we ask their intercession for us, maybe it's he's Jesus' way of saying, yes, I heard your prayer and your prayer through so-and-so and to prove they're in heaven with me, I'll great your request for healing. Intercessory prayer I know are a sticking point for some.
Someone asked how can it be proven these bones are from so-and-so. In medieval times, I don't know. But in relatively recent times, in the last maybe 200 years or so, a person's body would be exhumed by competent authorities, medical doctors and religious representatives. An examination is done and it's at this point, say an arm bone is removed. Under controlled conditions, the bone is cut into tiny pieces and certified by the doctor and religious and given a sealed letter of authenticity.
Sometimes all it takes is just faith. But it’s also something that’s not required for belief. As for me, I believe.
Another point is that bones of martyrs were initially placed under altars as a parallel to the souls of martyrs under the throne of God in Revelation. They weren't put there for veneration but to express the expectation of resurrection.
Excellent, well-balanced critique Gavin! As a Protestant, I *know* I could easily cross the line from 'veneration' to 'idolatry' and many Catholic friends do - not saying all Catholics - but why flirt with temptation?
Carol, just as many in the early Church sought the mediation and intercession of mere human beings like Peter and Paul and their prayers and shadow and handkerchiefs, so too even now, as those who believe, shall do even greater things as Jesus Christ teaches! We're these flirting with idolatry, seeking Peter's shadow and handkerchiefs worn by Paul, or the bones of the "Dead" Elisha, ( 2 Kings 13:21). Not at all, for every Catholic Christian knows God is the source of great power and mercy working through relics of His Holy ones! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@matthewbroderick6287 I think what I would say is - why do none of these methods ever become standardized? You see a glorious manifestation through inanimate objects and then the Spirit seems to move on. This is why Hezekiah smashed the bronze Serpent in 2 Kings 18. When an inanimate object is perpetually seen as an object of God's power then it becomes an idol. I think the protestant concerns of idolatry are deeply warranted and I don't think Catholics answer the true concern when they reference isolated incidents of God's power manifesting through relics. We don't see a single instance in the Bible where the same method of healing is repeated. Jesus uses clay, spit, His hands, His words etc. The Holy Spirit uses shadows, handkerchiefs and in one isolated case - the bones of a dead prophet. Dear catholic brother - why do Catholics elevate inanimate objects to the status of a permanent focus of God's power when the Bible never does that and almost all the early church fathers except Jerome actively warn against it?
@@everythingisvanityneverthe1834 My dear Brother, Catholic Christians, like those in the early Church, seek the mediation and intercession of mere human beings like Peter and Paul and their prayers and shadow and handkerchiefs, by the power of God working through them. Just as God's power worked through the dead bones of Elisha in 2 Kings. As Catholic Christians, we take advantage of the power of God working through relics of His Holy ones, where Protestants do not! You claim the Holy Spirit does not stay in the relic. So, according to your theory, only 1 person was allowed to be healed by the power of God working through Paul's handkerchief? Most inaccurate!
I kiss the Bible and the crucifix! AM I worshipping the Bible and crucifix? Simply absurd to think so! I am so grateful to the Holy Spirit for the power of God working through relics of His Holy ones and take full advantage of them! You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@everythingisvanityneverthe1834 most inaccurate, as many of the Church Fathers confirm the Divine reality of the power of God working through relics! The church Fathers also refute the man made traditions of faith alone and Scripture alone. The same Church Fathers also confirm the Divine reality of Purgatory and the bread and wine, when Blessed, that become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ! You are in my prayers dear Protestant brother as you journey toward Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@matthewbroderick6287 I think the reply would be like the bronze serpent who worked for a season the handkerchief of Paul only worked for that time span. Afterwards it didn't. Nowhere else do we read that Paul's handkerchief became a perpetual relic. Holding fast to that is a standard that scripture simply cannot sustain. I will agree to disagree about the teaching of the Fathers. There is neither time nor place on this platform to discuss them one by one.
I gotta know what the cool blue gradient books in the back are
Interesting, just back from France, visited some medieval churches / cathedrals. Historically fascinating, a lot to affirm. However I felt as a Protestant pastor uncomfortable when it came to the veneration of relics
I think you articulate where that discomfort was coming from.
Appreciate your work on this
Thanks, glad it was useful!
James, as A Catholic Christian, I see the beauty of relics, for just as many in the early Church sought the mediation and intercession of mere human beings like Peter and Paul and their prayers and shadow and handkerchiefs, and the bones of the " Dead' Elisha, ( Acts 5:15, Acts 9:38, Acts 19:11, 2 Kings 13:21), so too even now, for those who believe shall do even greater things, as we are God's coworkers as Holy Scriptures, and every Catholic Christian knows God is thec source Great power and Mercy working through His Holy ones! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@matthewbroderick6287 I can respect your view but for the reasons outlined in this video I can't share it.
As a Protestant one of the great doctrines of the NT is the mediation of Christ, that I have redemption through Christ and direct access to the throne of grace through Christ. For that reason i have no need of relics or saints in intercession and as described in the video worry that reverence can all to easily slip into idolatry
@@SCOTTISHSOULFOOD1 as A Catholic Christian, I know for a fact that the Holy Spirit inspired many in the early Church to seek the mediation and intercession of mere human beings like Peter and Paul and their prayers and shadow and handkerchiefs, ( Acts 5:15, 9:38-40, 19:11), as well as the bones of the "dead" Elisha of old, ( 2 Kings 13:21). Every Catholic Christian knows God is the source of great power and mercy working through relics of Holy ones! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@matthewbroderick6287 I guess my viewpoint apart from my theological and biblical studies are shaped in part by my mother who came from an RC background.
She felt that praying to relics and saints gave her a superstitious faith and diverted her from a direct, real and vital relationship with Jesus which she found in an evangelical church
Could this be defined as 3rd order relic?
Acts 19:11-12
Sites Paul’s handkerchief - claims 2nd class relics weren’t a thing till 4-5 century 🤔🤔 hmmmmm
As someone who went back and forth on these issues myself, the lingering concern about idolatry always pained me, but in the end, I have had far too many, far too powerful, far too divine of experiences with these practices (veneration of relics, invocation of saints) to deny their efficacy. This is one of those things where a Protestant can criticize all they want, but its sort of like someone that has never tasted watermelon giving their opinion on it. And if you need the extra push - just think of all the saints throughout history... Benedict, Bernard, Anselm, Aquinas, Therese of Lisieux, Faustina, Pio of Petrelcina, etc etc etc... all of whom were far holier, more faithful, and more endowed with the gifts of the Spirit than you or I, that all testified to how these practices drew them closer to Christ.
@@jakelund3159 Thanks for the very kind words, Jake. Much appreciated!
There is a difference between what is superstitious and what is supernatural.
Relics don’t obscure or distract from Jesus Christ. They actually help reinforce our beliefs. Especially for those of weak faith.
There are countless conversion stories about people who were of other religions and even atheists who came to Christ because of a miraculous event that took place due to a relic.
And that should be of deep concern to anyone. We are saved by the gospel alone. Miracles do not bring people to Christ, at best it sets the ground on which the gospel must firmly land.
I know this video is not about icons but since you did mention that Trent approved of bowing before and kissing icons, I thought I would just comment on it. I am Protestant and have read a lot about this subject, though probably more from the Orthodox perspective. They seem to be quite insistent that bowing before and kissing icons is venerating the person depicted, not worshiping them, unless the person depicted is Christ. There are many biblical examples of people bowing before someone out of respect and honor for that person. Lot even bowed before his angelic visitors and was not scolded for doing so. Joshua fell on his face before the Ark of the Covenant in Joshua 7:6-7. The Psalmist said, “I will bow down toward your holy temple” in Psalm 138:2. John, in Revelations, was corrected when he bowed before the angel but it seems that his intention crossed the line into the worship that is due to God alone. There are many more examples but my point is that I think the intention of the individual bowing and/or kissing is what makes the action idolatrous or not. Nevertheless, I must admit, that even if I can give my Catholic and Orthodox brothers and sisters the benefit of the doubt that it is foreign and uncomfortable for me and probably for most Protestants. We have had it pounded into our heads that the act of bowing before anything or anyone other than God in a “religious” context is idolatrous.
I just discovered that you have a video on icons! I’ll definitely watch it!
Dr. Ortlund, thank you for making a video on this topic! I have a really difficult time with the relics thing. I try to be open-minded and extra watchful against knee-jerk skepticism-I catch myself in this all the time, like automatically doubting someone’s account of a supernatural experience (as though I were a materialist!) or squirming at some traditions’ use of physical objects or strange ritual actions (forgetting Jesus himself placed mud on eyes, breathed on his apostles, and so on). But, the “relics system” as it is now just throws me for a loop, to be perfectly honest.
In addition to the concerns about kissing, bowing, superstitions, and so on, I appreciated even Matt Fradd making a joke which perfectly understands one of my bewilderments, something like, “You know, we Catholics are all about the dignity of the body… unless you’re a saint and you die, then we’ll throw you in the chipper”😂
Anyway thanks for clarifying the true Protestant concerns about this fascinating/troubling/bewildering topic! I really appreciate your emphasis, not on a skepticism of the Lord’s working through physical objects, but with a heart for the spiritual health and monolatrous purity of Christian worshippers. As a side note, I struggle to define this boundary in my life every day, especially as I’ve become more interested in Christian tradition, and more “tactile” I guess you could say, after gaining a better understanding of the physical creation and the resurrection hope. If you ever figure out that boundary, please let us know, haha!😊🙏
Thanks Abby, so glad the video was of use to you! God bless.
Hello Abby, relics are Biblical, as the bones of the "dead" Elisha brought a man back to life by the power of God working through them, ( 2 Kings 13:21).
Indeed, just as many in the early Church sought the mediation and intercession of mere human beings like Peter and Paul and their prayers and shadow and handkerchiefs, so too even now, as not even death can separate us, as we are God's coworkers. Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@matthewbroderick6287 Thank you for the reply, Matthew! Peace and God bless!
@@abbyschubert5637 my pleasure Abby! Also, regarding bowing, the brothers of Joseph bowed down to him in Genesis, and Joshua bowed down before the Ark of the Covenant and Solomon bowed down before his queen mother! I kiss the Bible and the crucifix. These examples are all signs of respect. Never worship, which is due to God alone! Paul teaches that Epaprhoditus who almost died for the faith is to be given much honor, ( Philippians 2:25). How much those who actually died for the faith? Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Regarding bowing you of course leave out any examples that do not favor your view... I John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I had heard and seen them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who had been showing them to me. But he said to me, “Don’t do that! I am a fellow servant with you and with your fellow prophets and with all who keep the words of this scroll. Worship God! Revelation 22:8-9
Gavin, a lot of my Catholic friends (including some priests) are troubled by the veneration of relics. Have you considered getting into a video dialogue with Fr Dwight Longenecker? He's a BJU grad who became Anglican, then Catholic, and he has a blog, has written many books, and he's a cool guy. He's done some UA-cam videos. I've seen a few relics when stationed in Germany, and I agree they're creepy.
Have you ever considered making a video along the lines of "What is keeping me from becoming Catholic or Orthodox?" and one like "What is keeping a Catholic or Orthodox from becoming Protestant?" You alluded to a state of affairs in which you "could more easily consider becoming Catholic if Trent had more genuinely incorporated and received Protestant criticisms rather than what looks to me like doubling down on a lot of issues" (11:22). Might it be the case that the Catholic Church has more genuinely incorporated these criticisms in Vatican II and the theological ressourcement that preceded it? Names like Yves Congar and Henri de Lubac come to mind. Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) even considered the possibility that the Augsburg Confession could be understood as a confession of Catholic faith.
I honestly do not know if or how the Catholic Church has or has not incorporated Protestant criticisms, but I think it is worth exploring - perhaps it is even topic that is worth exploring.
As a Catholic who is firmly opposed to superstition and friendly with Christological and soteriological views akin to some Protestants, I would be interested to hear from a well-educated Protestant like yourself a review of how the Catholic Church has responded to the concerns of the first Protestants - not just at Trent, but in the nearly five hundred years that have elapsed since then. Our response has taken time and is still developing, so please be patient with us Catholics as we come to a deeper understanding of what it means to be ecclesia. We did not and could not answer everything at Trent.
Another comment on this thread posted by Andrew Harrah provided the CCC’s definition of “superstition,” which I found very helpful. The definition referenced “sacramental” signs. Andrew was kind enough to educate me on the use of the term “sacramental” in the CCC’s definition.
I’ve been thinking a lot about the modes of conveying grace between “sacramentals” and “sacraments.” From what I can tell from a very, very brief search, relics are not included as sacramentals. They seem to hold a middle ground between ex opere operato sacraments ex opere operantis sacramentals. Relics are not sacraments, but they are also not sacramentals. So how do relics convey grace?
The mode of conveying grace is important to this discussion. If ex opere operato, the definition of superstition in the CCC does not apply to relics, and Dr. Ortlund’s concerns for defining boundaries on what constitutes idolatry and superstition is very well established. If ex opere operantis, the argument can be made that relics operate like sacramentals. Sacramentals are characterized by ecclesiastical formation, (ie not given by Jesus Christ). That would mean they are likely a later development not unlike the scapular or crucifix, though perhaps much earlier.
Being of ecclesiastical formation does not invalidate relics anymore than it does sacramentals. The Roman Catholic Church does not need to trace everything back to the Apostles or Jesus like Protestants, since She claims to be the “Living Sacrament,” and voice of God in the world. Yet, if relics are a later development, this too provides support to Dr. Ortlund’s argument.
Please let me know if I’m off base, or if I’m missing something glaring.
Where can I get some of this holy land dirt? I would like to hang it up to ward off demons, and also to use it in my garden.
Have you looked at the incorruptibles?
So we have the Catholics with their relics and their rosaries, the Orthodox kissing their icons, and the Protestants sneaking off to the Lodge to worship Jahbulon. Any chance of any uniform coverage of these topics?
Are you claiming that all Protestants are free masons?
@@geordiewishart1683 Well King George VI was a freemason for sure. They've had a recent closed meeting in Canterbury Cathedral. Cannot help noticing the lack of outcry from the rest of the Protestant world.
Ooh, a strawman.
Jesuits sneaking off to the lodge* ftfy
1:11
1:34, 2:08
2:54, 3:43
4:13
4:55, 5:02
6:38, 7:25, 8:41
12:00
13:20, 13:30, 19:12 - Where to draw the line?
14:05 - Jerome, Ambrose, and Augustine
14:27 - Was there a development?
17:05 - Augustine and superstition
21:20, 21:50 - Death and burial in the scripture
21:40 - 2 Kings 13:20-21 and Elisha’s bones
Thank you, Gavin, for specifically addressing each catholic distinctive so directly, thoroughly and fearlessly! Where were you when I was struggling with these issues? 🤔 Oh yeah, you were in diapers. 😉
Good video, Gavin.
This excerpt from the CCC may be helpful to the conversation:
Superstition
2111 Superstition is the deviation of religious feeling and of the practices this feeling imposes. It can even affect the worship we offer the true God, e.g., when one attributes an importance in some way magical to certain practices otherwise lawful or necessary. To attribute the efficacy of prayers or of sacramental signs to their mere external performance, apart from the interior dispositions that they demand, is to fall into superstition.
very relevant quote, thanks for sharing that Drew!
Maybe I’m wrong, but it sure seems like there could be some interaction with ex opere operato baptismal regeneration and the CCC’s definition of superstition.
@@nickswoboda6647 Good question. I could be wrong, and the immediate wording may lend itself toward some confusion, but I’m thinking that perhaps the Catholic distinction between a sacrament (e.g. baptism) and a sacramental (e.g. holy water, relics, crucifix) may shed some light here. Google the difference between the two. So the “sacramental” of “sacramental sign” here probably refers to a sacramental and not a sacrament. Clear? Haha
@Andrew Harrah that makes sense, thanks for the clarification.
@@nickswoboda6647 baptismal regeneration is biblical. Acts 2:38 “And Peter said to them “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins”, and Acts 22:16 “Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins”. Pretty clear that baptism washes away sins. Catholics read the New Testament more literally than Protestants (also see John 6:52)…
Basil the Great, 5 XLIX, To Bishop Arcadius, congratulates him on opening a new church and says "If we can discover any relics of martyrs, we beg leave to join you in your endeavor."
This shows that the practice of putting the bones of a martyr (and possibly other relics) in an altar was normative or even required by this point. The theology linked the souls under the throne in Revelation to the bones within an altar, as in EO church symbolism, the altar was an image of God's throne.
As a Catholic I have to admit I have never really understood relics, but then I have spent zero time trying to understand the catechism on relics. People didn't bathe in the middle ages either, but thankfully we progressed.
actually people bathed regularly in the middle ages. The idea that they didn't is a lie born out of the Enlightenment.
I mean medieval people did bathe quite a bit. They placed a high value on cleanliness actually.
Why do we see in scripture asking others to pray for us when we can go directly to God? Thx 🙏🏽
Relics of Eastern Orthodox in my home city are a big deal. Search for example "Such a Huge Labyrinth St. Parascheva" - about St. Parascheva in Iasi, Romania. Because the vast majority of the EO there are Bible illiterates, I wonder how can this not end up in idolatry or at least unhealthy spiritual practices. It looks to me that for EO the tradition is above people. One of the main reasons why I left EO.
6:19, from OT example, I'd bury St. Paul and offer him a proper Christian burial. How come any Christian gets a proper, respectful burial, except the "saints"? Sure, you could come and visit his grave, put flowers, etc.
I find it strange that you would consider it OK to put the skull of a saint in a museum. If you are not in favor of giving it an honorary resting place in a church, should you not rather wish it to have a decent burial?
Gavin "there was a development" Ortland 😄😉
Things sometetimes get corrupted as time goes by. Relics in the beginning, was probably not a problem, but when it started to go into "business" it was a problem.
When did the Holy of Holies go from being so connected to God that even the High Priest could barely enter without dying to being so disconnected that a pagan king could waltz right in and do a pagan sacrifice? When did the bronze serpent go from healing people to being an idol? At what point when I eat a sandwich does it go from an external object to part of my being? If you look at almost anything close enough the lines will get blurry.
This isn't meant to be a criticism, but why so much focus on the catholic-orthodox-protestant divides? Is it because they are some of the longest standing divisions in the church? There are quite a few divisions within protestantism as well. Do you feel that other content creators have those divisions covered more thoroughly?
It's a fair question. I guess its a combination of a sense of calling, need, and opportunity. Plus, it's kind of fun for me to learn. But I'm always considering where I can redirect/refocus. I don't want to get overfocused or pigeon-holed.
@@TruthUnites It would be really interesting if you could do some more videos on the differences within 'Protestantism'. I feel that Protestants are often presented as a monolithic group whereas nothing could be further from the truth.
You should check out his debate with Dr. Cooper, a Lutheran pastor, on baptismal regeneration and infant baptism. This implicates the differences between the sacramental/conservative reformation Protestant groups and the "radical" reformation groups on baptism.
As a Catholic, I’d love more videos about Catholic/Protestant theology, ideally a discussion with a Catholic expert. We need more dialog and understanding. We are allies in the war against liberal Christianity (that doesn’t believe the Bible is inerrant), secularism, and atheism.
@@billmartin3561 Amen to that last sentence. I've been saying this for quite some time and wish Christians across the spectrum took it seriously.
Dr. O I post this in the spirit of constructive criticism, I also don't want to ignore that there are many Lay and clerical Apologists on the Catholic and Orthodox side, who either don't bring up, in part because of the time involved in research or even that such sources exist. You have both here and in other videos brushed over issues by making a short quote from the Documents promulgated by a specific Council, or a quote from some well reputed Catholic Theologian. In this video you brush aside any response to Protestant concerns or denials of Catholic practice or teachings, because as you said, the Council did not address or answer those issues.
A simplistic statement like this would be akin to accepting that the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States did not go through a process of development and discussion before the final documents were decided on.
Let's start with Vatican II and the Documents promulgated by the Fathers. If we just read the documents, which were all proposed after the Schema presented to the Council by the Precatory committee were laid aside. To understand what the intent of the documents were, one can take the legalistic position and say, "The Council Ruled this." Like the various interpretations of the different Protestant Sects, this can lead to different interpretations of what the Council really means to me... So in the case of VII, we need to go beyond the promulgated decrees, and do a bit more reading. Xavier Rinn, (a pseudo name for a liberal Jesuit who's agenda was to ridicule the Traditionalist Bishops and Cardinals of the Curia) His three volumes are well worth a read. There is also a three-volume set called "The Council Daybook" Published by the National Catholic Welfare Conference printed not just the speeches and discussions of the Council Fathers, but the various groups that promoted different ideas among the various factions. These are just two of many. Vatican I has another history written by Dom Butler, himself a bit on the liberal side too, which discusses the debates, and other issues including travel issues for bishops from all over the known Catholic world and their challenges in the 1860s
So too with Trent and all the Councils, At Trent the Council invited Luther and other Protestant Reformers safe passage to and from the Council to explain their theology. Yes Protestants have their doubts that the Church woul enforce the protection, and follow-through with the excommunication and punishment of anyone who laid hands on the Protestant Invitees. Like Dom Butler and the books about Vatican II. I'm not at home, so I can't access the volumes I have on the Council of Trent, but there are dozens from the Lutheran Chametz to Catholics who document the Protestant objections and the Council Father's responses. You may be surprised at how many of the issues of the Protestants to abuses of Catholic teaching were seen as valid by the Bishops of Trent.
I'm very concerned that Protestants will ask each other to pray for them. I've seen videos of Protestants who go to the sites of the dead founders of their sect and tell of the spiritual blessings they have. Can't tell you how many Baptists have told me that if you hold a Bible with your hand over the pages, rather the spine, you close off the Bible and will not understand the text. Flowers and pictures of the dead at Memorials, why that's just pagan ancestor worship ain't it? Or could I be as wrong as Protestants could be about authentic veneration of those who now share eternity with God, and give Him Glory?
Interesting video. It sounds like your pro relic but just concerned that it could be abused. I can share that concern with you. Anything can be abused. I don't think I have witnessed relic abuse though in my 40 years as a Catholic. To me what would constitute abuse is if people were to address the relic and worship it as if it had powers on it's own outside of Christ.
Amen!
I think ideas of worship and veneration are very different. Catholics only worship God in the offering of bread and wine as sacrifice in the representation of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. Merely kissing or venerating something is no different than holding onto an old t-shirt from a passed loved one. Or kissing an old necklace given by a dear one. Feeling their presence or love in the act.
Also distinction between relics and superstition is also recognizing that God may work through a physical item. Where as superstition holds it as a “magic” from some source that is not God. God used his power through the ark of the convenant. People could wrongly worship the ark, but that doesn’t make the whole thing superstitious. Maybe that’s why there were no warnings about relics. Perhaps it was so obvious to early Christians that the correct usage of relics was NEVER to be superstitious and ONLY for the glorification of God. People always act like the first christians were stupid and easily led astray
That sounds like “this isn’t worship because we don’t use the word ‘worship’ not because there’s any qualitative difference so here’s some ex post facto justification”
Hey joey, thanks for the comment. Just one point, when you say, "People always act like the first christians were stupid and easily led astray," I'd push back by noting that my position is that the practices of the earliest Christians was correct, and the warnings of later Christians like Augustine against superstition should be taken seriously. Hope that helps clarify somewhat.
Actually there’s a historical difference between prayer and worship via sacrifice shown in scripture especially in the Old Testament.
@@TruthUnites that clarifies. Thank you as usual!
@@3joez3 there’s a lot to unpack here. Some ad hoc thoughts.
1) the earliest Christians viewed the Lord’s Supper as a sacrifice of praise, not a sacrifice in the later development sense
2) Catholic apologists have to juggle a lot of balls in the air because they’ve created defenses of a priori practices that developed in parallel. But those defenses don’t necessarily fit together. For instance, trying to make sacrifice as the only form of worship to avoid this problem but then trying to make the Mass not run afoul of Hebrews.
3) the point is not about a narrow definition of “worship” but how it’s full of idolatry and blasphemy
It's pretty concerning to know that people with so much accumulated knowledge ignores the placebo effect.
Counter point… relics are awesome
What of the brothers of Joseph that bowed down to him in Genesis, or Solomon who bowed down before the Queen Mother, or Joshua who bowed down before the Ark of the Covenant? Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@Christos Kyrios Excellent, you are making progress! Bowing down before someone other than God is Biblical, and not considered worship! You are making wonderful progress! When Catholic Christians bow down,,we do so out of Reverence, not worship as is falsely accused. Plus. Mary is The Ark of the new Covenant, and Queen Mother of the Davidic King, Jesus Christ, and Mary and Joseph, ( also a King), are not dead, but alive in God, as are the Apostles and all the cloud of witnesseses! You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@Christos Kyrios Again, Solomon bowed down before his queen mother, which you call idolatry, and the brothers of Joseph bowed down before him, which again you call idolatry! I too bowed down before Mary, the Queen Mother, not out of worship, as you bear false witness, but out of Reverence. Even the blameless before God Elizabeth felt unworthy as the Mother of God approached her! You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@Christos Kyrios Solomon bowed down before his queen mother out of respect, not worship, Just as I bow down before the Queen Mother of God and Ark of the new Covenant, out of respect, not worship as you bear false witness! I still love you very much in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink! You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth
@Christos Kyrios Worship, as John could not distinguish, such as the Angels in the testament, addressed as Lord! Yet, again. Out of respect, Solomon bowed down before the Queen Mother and I too, out of respect, bow down before Mary, the Queen Mother of the Davidic King, Jesus Christ, out of respect, not worship as you bear false witness! I still love you very much in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink! You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth
@Christos Kyrios John the Apostle knelt to worship, whereas Catholic Christians bow down out of respect, as did the brothers of Joseph in Genesis and Solomon before the Queen Mother and Joshua before the Ark of the Covenant! We do not worship the Mother of God. You bear false witness in your accusations! Indeed, we ask the Mother of God to intercede for us to her Son, just as Mary interceded to her Son and Lord on behalf of the wedding couple! We also ask Saint Joseph and the Apostles and all the cloud of witnesseses, for intercession on behalf of others is PLEASING TO GOD as Holy Scripture teaches! I love you very much in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink! You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth
Acts 19:11-12
Indeed!
11 And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul:
12 So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them.
Just because it's real doesn't mean it's right.
One distortion distorting another distortion
Have you read the acts of the second council of Nicaea (787) translated by Richard Price?
In it you will find very clear boundaries for Orthodox Christians, that aught to be binding and authoritative to Catholics as well. When we see the ground level experience of superstition and idolatry it is not represenative of the clear boundaries of the 7th eccumenical council. I think the Orthodox would agree, relics can be used by God for miraculous purposes, but we should not suppose that they are in themselves anything beyond material. Though God did not punish nor act in opposition to the ground level faith of drawing near to the shadow of an apostle to be healed or wanting to touch a garment or handkerchief. So im not sure we see any difference in what the church teaches in the 8th century as binding, verses what was experienced in the bible and chirch fathers you quoted. In case you might not read it, that historical text has citings from around a hundred church fathers/saints. Also, it explains why bowing and kissing as signs of honor (or respect as you say) are totally appropriate acts of veneration not to be in anyway confused with worship. An example is used, may have been St. Basil in the 3rd century, i may be wrong, that of course we can discriminate between the honor shown to an emperor, and the worship shown to God, never the less we pay honor to whom honor is due. This would be a kiss as is the conclusion of 6 epistles, or a bow of honor to someone superior to yourself. Nothing idolatrous about this at all.
Evangelical slowly making his way into Orthodoxy. Your closing comments about relics (or icons) being a distraction leading to idolatry is a possibility, but it has not been my experience. I don't have first hand experience with relics, so I'll speak to icons, though I think the same dynamic is at play.
Icons point me to the Incarnation. Yes, I have direct access to the grace of God without any intermediary, but I also have eyes to see things, and hands to cross myself, and lips to kiss things. Saying that icons are a distraction from the Lord is sort of like saying "I don't need to look at art because it'll distract me from the beauty of Jesus", or "I don't eat food made with recipes because it'll distract me from the food itself." (not perfect analogies, but I'm no great apologist) Icons and relics only exist because the Lord was Incarnate, transforming creation, and these are a signpost to the Incarnation. I do think that in foregoing them we miss the extent to which the Incarnation transforms the world. Even wood and egg and bone point us to the Lord.
As for how far is too far; I don't have a great answer. To some extent, it's in the eye of the beholder, and I am not going to judge whether someone kissing a saint's bone is pointing the correct ratio of their veneration to the Lord vs the saint. I'd suspect that's largely the wrong question. Is there a difference between venerating a saint who is a saint solely due to the good working of the Lord in their life versus (more generically) praising the Lord for His good works in the world? Lord knows I've sung enough generic pop-worship songs about the beauty of the Lord's working by creating mountains and rivers and whatnot, but if we were to sing/chant about the Lord's working in a specific person's life, we start to get uncomfortable.
I'd suspect the real issue is whether the veneration stops with the icon or relic itself. If it does not ultimately pass on to the Lord, that seems disordered. There is not a charitable way to judge another's heart in worship, and it seems more dangerous to make too small the Incarnation and the working of the Holy Spirit in the creation than to truth that the Lord is everywhere present and fills all things, including wood and egg and bone.
Aren’t wedding rings derived from pagan practice.
I think because of the world as it is today and maybe because of modernism, in which quite a big chunk of people does not believe in spirituality. When people who for the first time in their lives experiences God, they tend to look for objects or relics that can bring them closer to God. Hence why relics are used because for them through the relics it can bring them closer to God. Now i think these people who experiences God for the first time, never put God in the first place all their life because of maybe gadgets and other stuff. I do think its harder for some people to look for Jesus especially when the life youre living before is a mess, thats why they probably loook for relics first because relics are what can be seen with the human eyes before they fully discover Jesus and when they do discover Jesus, they dedicate all their love for him... I think thats why people bow or show respect to relics because it brought them to Jesus.
There are really times though in the catholic world where people would tend to idolize relics... I honestly dont know where the line is drawn. But i can say that their intentions are felt... So i think if their intentions towards a statue is more like that of a God. Then i think its bad.... But if their intentions towards a statue thats more like thanking them for bringing them closer to Jesus. Then i think its okay or good.
All in all, it comes down to ones particular intentions...
As a counterbalance to the very true point that we need to be wary of Gnostic anti-matarialism, is the fact that contact with dead bodies made a person ritually unclean under the Law, Paul talked happily of "casting off his tent" and that veneration of the physical remains of the righteous is not only absent but is contrary to the Biblical norm.
God hid the body of Moses. The bodies of Jacob and Joseph were respectfully returned to Israel after centuries in Egypt, but we have no evidence of ritual veneration, even though the practice of venerating ancestors and heroes was common throughout the ancient non-Israelite world. When Jesus chides the Jewish leaders He calls them "you who build the tombs of the prophets..." indicating reverence, but not relic cult, which would have been abhorrent to Jews of the time. Then in the New Covenant, we are surrounded by potentials for this practice such as James the Apostle, Stephen, and many other pious brothers and sisters who were martyred, and the NT authors regularly discuss those who are "asleep." The Apostles even have access to all of Jesus's stuff as well! Yet no veneration of relics or even burial sites is intimated. You merely have respectful burial and honorable memory until we see them again.
Meanwhile the Bible is full of warnings against superstitions dealing with the dead, giving too much honor to men, and placing *anything* in a mediating place between God and Man except what God Himself has explicitly provided.
First, I appreciate your tone and what appears to be a sincere desire to understand and have friendly dialog.
I think you are wrong about the development of practices around relics. Polycarp’s relics were venerated, that is a very early church practice. . For Catholics there is a clear line between veneration and worship. All of our practices point us back to Christ. Protestants see anything (ANYTHING) that is venerated as being “in the way” of worshiping God, and therefore idolatry. For you, it is either/or, for us it is both/and. I understand your concern and see how you can come to your conclusions, but again, for Catholics these in no way replace or compete with the sufficiency of Christ. What is the line?…I’d say having to pay for access to relics.
Relics are barely mentioned in the Catholic Catechism, see CCC 1674-1676. Like other pious practices (rosary, etc), these practices are not mandatory, but are optional.
I think your unease stems from your lack of recognition of (Catholic) Tradition. Protestant trust in the Bible alone ignores 2,000 years of history. The early church met for a decade before any of the New Testament was written, and 50 years before the New Testament was finished, and 300 years before the Bible was canonized. The apostles taught traditions orally, we only have the epistles because the Apostles needed to correct churches and they couldn’t do it in person. Church traditions practiced before the Bible was canonized are perfectly legitimate…these existed before the Bible! The Nicene Creed, which is all about the doctrine of the Trinity, was in place before the Bible was canonized!
Until you can understand that the Bible isn’t the only source of truth, you will struggle to understand Catholicism. Nothing that we do conflicts with scripture, and no where in the Bible does it say the Bible is the only source of truth. Christ didn’t give us a Bible when He ascended, He gave us a Church.
Much more important than relics are the early church father’s view of authority (apostolic succession), and the Eucharist. Christ chose and sent the apostles…specific men…who chose their own successors. This is critical, because the early church has many splinter groups teaching heresy, the way you know truth is to follow the Bishop (per Clement, disciple of John). We have modern day heresies such as Mormons and Jehovah Witness and Unitarians because Lone Ranger people with no connection to the Church think they can interpret the Bible better than the Church Fathers.
On the Eucharist, the church fathers unanimously believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. No One thought it was a symbol. Why would you trust men 1,500 years later who say that it’s a symbol? We put our trust in those who learned from the Apostles, those who held back heresy after heresy and clearly defined the doctrine of the Trinity, those who infallibly canonized the books of the Bible.
They were gathered and respectfully buried as something precious. They weren't prayed to.
Ignatius expresses the hope that even his bones will be eaten by the lions so that he will not trouble the faithful with their burial. If he had any thought that his bones might bring lasting benefits to people, he would not have said that.
When bone we have to pick (ha!) is not that the bodies of the dead should be treated with respect but that the bones are infused with graces that are accessible through their adoration or handling. This to us is frank idolatry.
You can't put your trust in practices that were condemned by a doctor of the church as bad innovations and claim they are ancient. They aren't.
The Real Presence is also absolutely not transubstantiation. Transubstantiation was invented by Thomas Aquinas. No church father believed it, and all the Orthodox churches reject it. Many Protestants affirm Real Presence. The distinctive is rejecting the peculiar innovation of transubstantiation and actions like worshipping the host, which are proper to Roman Catholics and no one else.
The bones of the dead Elisha brought a dead man back to life, ( 2 Kings 13:21), and just as many in the early Church sought the mediation and intercession of mere human beings like Peter and Paul and their prayers and shadow and handkerchiefs, so too even now, for NOT EVEN DEATH CAN SEPARATE US, as the prayers of a righteous person have great power in it's effects! No Catholic ever worships relics, but God is honored through the relics of Holy people through whom He works, as we are God's coworkers! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
The problem between the confessions is that Catholicism, particularly up to Vatican II, did not fully examine the potential for abuse of the veneration of relics and that Protestantism generally (but not universally) argues better to abandon a practice to prevent the abuse of the practice. Acts clearly states that the handkerchiefs and aprons - plural -- were bestowed by God with power simply because they had once touched Paul's skin, not because he had dedicated them by prayer, or had obtained a specific revelation to their use (like Peter's vision of clean & unclean foods in Acts 10 to permit Cornelius as a gentile entry in the Christian community). And the power of those articles were: (1) healing and (2) demons exorcised: "When handkerchiefs or aprons that had merely touched his skin were placed on sick people, they were healed of their diseases, and evil spirits were expelled" (Acts 19:1). I thus disagree with your example of a medieval believer who brought soil from Calvary to sanctify his home and ward off demons as off base -- he would ask us "if a mere kerchief that graced Paul's hands hath been given such power, would not even more our Lord pour forth His Power from that holy ground into which was poured the very Blood of the Lamb?" Had the practice of sending out articles of clothing been done by James, it might well have only been a precedent in the local church in Jerusalem, but this was done, again, in a plurality, by the very Apostle to the Gentiles, which meant his actions and reputation were spread all across the Greco-Roman world, and thus to an increasingly pagan body of converts . . . . I think it is incorrect to pass this off as some minor, one-time fluke that did not reverberate in the early church. This was the world of the first century, at time where people in the Jewish world had been infused with extravagant messianic hopes, hyper-miraculous eschatology, works like Enoch that echoed still, and pagans entering the church with pagan sensibilities (thanks to Paul's teaching and Peter's revelation!) far faster than if they had been converted through Judaism to messianism. The church was not walled off from temple worship (until 70 AD), nor Platonic philosophy, mystery religions, schools of stoicism, gnostic practices, etc., but swam in them and used the power of the keys to say yea or nea, forbidden, permitted or required - a process of centuries, complicated in that the first three (AD 30 - 300) had not even a fixed and universal new testament cannon. And Paul went so far as to commend the work of the Spirit even in the gentile, pagan world, in Acts 17:23, in pointing to the altar to the "unknown god" as a sign pointing to the God of Israel and to the lordship of Jesus. So do we want to condemn 1st century Jewish life - which hungered after miracles and to whom our Lord gave so many (albeit with some frustration - Matthew 16;4). Or, do we want to say - wow, practices with relics are open to being distorted in a pagan direction - do we blame Paul, Peter and James, whose curriculum of conversion at the Council of Jerusalem only proscribed for gentiles 4 pagan elements of living as per the law of Moses (Acts 15:29)? How do I see the practice in the light of history and church teaching? As a Catholic, the I was taught to interpret any extraordinary medium of grace, from the apostolic miracles in Acts to the 2nd century reservation of relics of martyrs (such as in the Martyrdom of St. Polycarp: "we collected up his bones, more precious than jewels and better purified than gold, and put them in an appropriate place where, the Lord willing, we shall celebrate the birthday of his martyrdom each year with joy and rejoicing'), etc. as acts of honor and commemoration owed to God in thanksgiving for working through his creation - an extension of His Incarnation. We allow, if God wills, for the possibility of the miraculous, be it through an apostle's shadow, preaching the Gospel, Pauls' apron, the bones of martyrs, the angels on the ark of the covenant, etc.) only because of Faith in action - that in approaching any part of our spiritual life, including the physical, such as relics, the template MUST be that of the woman with the hemorrhage "When she heard about Jesus, she came up behind him in the crowd and touched his cloak, because she thought, 'If I just touch his clothes, I will be healed'" Immediately her bleeding stopped and she felt in her body that she was freed from her suffering. At once Jesus realized that power had gone out from him. He turned around in the crowd and asked, 'Who touched my clothes?' . . . . He said to her, 'Daughter, your faith has healed you. Go in peace and be freed from your suffering.'" (Mark 5:27-30; 34). It is always God's power alone, no matter by what means of transmission - hearing the Gospel, communion with the Saints, our prayers, holy liturgy, acts of mercy, and as appropriate, honoring relics as symbols of the greater reality, that touches us, if we are open to Him in faith. Where are the lines for abuse of relics? Superstition - thinking that a relic has any power on its own rather than God working through it. Greed - the sale of relics for profit. Duplicity - the use of fake relics. Pride - making claims that one set of relics makes one's place of prayer greater than another. For most Catholics today, seeing a relic displayed has a mostly historic appeal, a sense of physical continuity. But if it please God, could He grace us with healing, even if "only" spiritual in nature, as we contemplate those who have gone before us in the hope of resurrection on the last day? Yes, Amen! Nothing is impossible for the God who loves us. And yes, we need to balance our openness to the miraculous with a caution against demanding from God ever more signs and wonders. His death and resurrection, atonement for our sins and His gift of salvation, are sufficient, and at the heart of our gratitude.
Relics are clearly Biblical (Acts 19:12 for example) and the practice was in place even after the apostles (e.g. Polycarp). It’s really the Protestant’s loss not having and not wanting the Saints in their corner.
Guessing you haven't watched the video. I addressed both of those points at length. In fact, a large part of my appeal was that we need to go further than simply quoting Polycarp/Jerome and Acts 5/Acts 19/II Kings 13.
@@TruthUnites I know you addressed the Biblical passages saying they were apostles (Peter and Paul) and that it was nothing like what the Catholic Church does today. I disagree. It is very similar. Clearly, relics have been around since the beginning of Christianity. Once Christianity was legalized and they stopped celebrating Mass underground in the catacombs, they brought those bones out and placed them in the altars and buried them under churches. I find that Protestantism borders on the Gnostic in that the material world is often viewed as evil and to be shunned. Catholics have a very different view of the created world. BTW, there was no correction of the Corinthians in Acts 19 that what they did was superstitious.
Is that the hanker chief? How does that establish an ongoing precedent to use relics?
@@geoffrobinson I am glad you acknowledge that they were using relics in the Bible. Where does the Bible say to not do that anymore?
@@markrome9702 not even close ua-cam.com/video/GutPEHpXceM/v-deo.html
Pilgrimage is a corporal form of prayer.
And also of heathenism
Matthew 8:5-13
5 And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him,
6 And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented.
7 And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him.
8 The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.
9 For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.
10 When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
13 And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour.
No relics no icons. Coming to Christ and having faith in Him.