It is with sadness that I have noticed the disdain and hostility that is shown by many people to a nearly two thousand year old aspect of Christianity. This essay addresses a sacramental that has, sadly , been forgotten by many and attacked by some: Holy Relics - the bones, flesh and clothing of Saints.
If you mention relics to many of today's Catholics you will get raised eyebrows at best, and sneers at worst. The distressing truth is that most Catholics today ( much less non-catholics) neither understand , nor value these sacred items. Many go so far as to call the veneration of relics idolatrous and medieval.
" These Reliquiary jamborees can only inflame irrational expectations in people who are suggestible........What the starry progress of the relics of the Little Flower has done for me is to remind me that we have in this country rather too much religious tolerance. The truth is that many religions — perhaps most — have certain doctrines and beliefs that are not merely irrational but sometimes dangerous and unacceptable......But I think we should insist that the Home Office does not lend any extra official respectability to religious hocus-pocus of any kind. Superstition, like St Thérèse, has a curious immortality on earth. " - London Times Sept, 23rd 2009
"In the hierarchy of weird pastimes, relic worship must be among the most harmless. We do best to regard it as a test, not of our power of reason but of our power of tolerance." -The Guardian, September 17th 2009
The source of the newspapers' vehemence was a public tour of the relics of St. Therese of Lisieux. The media's ignorance of the basis of these Religious practices should, and must, be addressed.
My goal in this essay is to provide a comprehensible explanation of why the veneration of relics is a scriptural and praiseworthy practice.
First, I will attempt to show that the veneration of relics is a scripturally supported practice. Let us first examine 4 Kings 13:20-21,
"And Eliseus died, and they buried him. And the rovers from Moab came into the land the same year. And some that were burying a man, saw the rovers, and cast the body into the sepulchre of Eliseus. And when it had touched the bones of Eliseus, the man came to life and stood upon his feet"
Here we see a miracle worked by God through the relics of St. Elisius. Granted, this is in the Old Testament, but if God chose to convey Graces and Miracles through relics in the Old Testament, what proof have we that He has stopped ? Now, consider Acts 19:11-12
"And God wrought by the hand of Paul more than common miracles. So that even there were brought from his body to the sick, handkerchiefs and aprons: and the diseases departed from them: and the wicked spirits went out of them."
Once again, we see God working miracles through relics. God so filled St. Paul with Grace that he saw fit to allow even Paul's garments to be imbued with the Holiness and Grace of God. So, how can we say that God never again saw fit to allow the garments of Saints to be imbued with His Holiness? And, if God allowed this to happen to garments, how much more would this Holiness saturate the bodies of God's Servants?
Some may say that this is because the early Saints had more direct contact with God, since he lived among them, and that in later years , the Holiness was no longer great enough to imbue the bodies and garments of God's servants. And yet in John 20:29, Our Lord says:
"Blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed"
And so if Jesus proclaims that they who have not seen have a special Holiness, how can we say that that the Saints who did not meet the Savior on earth were not Holy enough for us to give to their relics the same treatment that was given to those of the Apostles and Prophets? Against this we can also put up the case of Polycarp , a 2nd century Bishop, whose relics were secretly taken from the site of his martyrdom and enshrined. If the veneration of relics was practiced by the Christians a century after the Death of Christ, why would it not still be a praiseworthy practice?
And lastly, let us address the concerns of those who simply do not understand why someone would want to keep relics. A quote from St. Augustine's The City of God will do well here.
We do not adore, I will not say the relics of the martyrs, but either the sun or the moon or even the angels -- that is to say, with the worship of "latria"...But we honor the martyrs' relics, so that thereby we give honor to Him Whose [witness] they are: we honor the servants, that the honor shown to them may reflect on their Master... Consequently, by honoring the martyrs' relics we do not fall into the error of the Gentiles, who gave the worship of "latria" to dead men.
If you mention relics to many of today's Catholics you will get raised eyebrows at best, and sneers at worst. The distressing truth is that most Catholics today ( much less non-catholics) neither understand , nor value these sacred items. Many go so far as to call the veneration of relics idolatrous and medieval.
" These Reliquiary jamborees can only inflame irrational expectations in people who are suggestible........What the starry progress of the relics of the Little Flower has done for me is to remind me that we have in this country rather too much religious tolerance. The truth is that many religions — perhaps most — have certain doctrines and beliefs that are not merely irrational but sometimes dangerous and unacceptable......But I think we should insist that the Home Office does not lend any extra official respectability to religious hocus-pocus of any kind. Superstition, like St Thérèse, has a curious immortality on earth. " - London Times Sept, 23rd 2009
"In the hierarchy of weird pastimes, relic worship must be among the most harmless. We do best to regard it as a test, not of our power of reason but of our power of tolerance." -The Guardian, September 17th 2009
The source of the newspapers' vehemence was a public tour of the relics of St. Therese of Lisieux. The media's ignorance of the basis of these Religious practices should, and must, be addressed.
My goal in this essay is to provide a comprehensible explanation of why the veneration of relics is a scriptural and praiseworthy practice.
First, I will attempt to show that the veneration of relics is a scripturally supported practice. Let us first examine 4 Kings 13:20-21,
"And Eliseus died, and they buried him. And the rovers from Moab came into the land the same year. And some that were burying a man, saw the rovers, and cast the body into the sepulchre of Eliseus. And when it had touched the bones of Eliseus, the man came to life and stood upon his feet"
Here we see a miracle worked by God through the relics of St. Elisius. Granted, this is in the Old Testament, but if God chose to convey Graces and Miracles through relics in the Old Testament, what proof have we that He has stopped ? Now, consider Acts 19:11-12
"And God wrought by the hand of Paul more than common miracles. So that even there were brought from his body to the sick, handkerchiefs and aprons: and the diseases departed from them: and the wicked spirits went out of them."
Once again, we see God working miracles through relics. God so filled St. Paul with Grace that he saw fit to allow even Paul's garments to be imbued with the Holiness and Grace of God. So, how can we say that God never again saw fit to allow the garments of Saints to be imbued with His Holiness? And, if God allowed this to happen to garments, how much more would this Holiness saturate the bodies of God's Servants?
Some may say that this is because the early Saints had more direct contact with God, since he lived among them, and that in later years , the Holiness was no longer great enough to imbue the bodies and garments of God's servants. And yet in John 20:29, Our Lord says:
"Blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed"
And so if Jesus proclaims that they who have not seen have a special Holiness, how can we say that that the Saints who did not meet the Savior on earth were not Holy enough for us to give to their relics the same treatment that was given to those of the Apostles and Prophets? Against this we can also put up the case of Polycarp , a 2nd century Bishop, whose relics were secretly taken from the site of his martyrdom and enshrined. If the veneration of relics was practiced by the Christians a century after the Death of Christ, why would it not still be a praiseworthy practice?
And lastly, let us address the concerns of those who simply do not understand why someone would want to keep relics. A quote from St. Augustine's The City of God will do well here.
If a father's coat or ring, or anything else of that kind, is so much more cherished by his children, as love for one's parents is greater, in no way are the bodies themselves to be despised, which are much more intimately and closely united to us than any garment; for they belong to man's very nature.
And who can disagree with him? Would not any of us keep as treasures the the heirlooms passed down from our parents? In modern society, people will pay ridiculous amounts of money for an item that belonged to a famous personage, how much more should we treasure an item that belonged to one of God's beloved Saints? If we hold so dear the handkerchief of one of the Beatles, imbued with sweat, how much more should we hold dear the bones of St. John Vianney, imbued with God's Holiness and Love? I shall close with a quote from St. Jerome's Ad Riparium.We do not adore, I will not say the relics of the martyrs, but either the sun or the moon or even the angels -- that is to say, with the worship of "latria"...But we honor the martyrs' relics, so that thereby we give honor to Him Whose [witness] they are: we honor the servants, that the honor shown to them may reflect on their Master... Consequently, by honoring the martyrs' relics we do not fall into the error of the Gentiles, who gave the worship of "latria" to dead men.
