The Ancient, Biblical Christian Practice of Venerating Relics

Aleteia ^ | 17.09.2013 | Brantly Millegan

[Brian Kopp DPM]

The Ancient, Biblical Christian Practice of Venerating Relics

The veneration of relics is so obviously just a late medieval corruption of the faith, right? Actually, it comes from the Bible and the first Christians.

17.09.2013

Brantly Millegan

A speck of bone, their childhood shoes, even a drop of blood? If anything is distinctive of the devotional practices of the Catholic Church compared to Protestant Christians, it’s the Church's practices surrounding relics.

Relics are the remains of those recognized as saints, whether it is a part of their body (first degree relic), something they owned (second degree relic), or even, though less impressive, objects that have touched a first or second degree relic (third degree relic). Catholics carefully preserve relics, honor them, and even sometimes claim miracles in connection with them.

Catholics insist they are honoring Jesus' servants and in doing so are honoring Jesus. But to many Protestants, the whole practice seems at best very strange, at worst idolatrous, and, either way, in the very least, easily dismissed as just another late medieval corruption of the Catholic Church.

So Protestants (and Catholics) may be surprised to learn that the Church’s beliefs and practices surrounding relics actually come from the Bible and the early Church.


Relics in the Bible

In the Old Testament book 2 Kings, we find an curious story in which God works a miracle through the dead remains of one of his holy servants:

Elisha died and was buried. Now Moabite raiders used to enter the country every spring. Once while some Israelites were burying a man, suddenly they saw a band of raiders; so they threw the man’s body into Elisha’s tomb. When the body touched Elisha’s bones, the man came to life and stood up on his feet. (2 Kings 13.20-22)

In the New Testament, we find two instances of God working through objects related to holy people. The first comes from the Gospel of Mark and is related to Jesus:

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. (Mark 5.27-29)

And the second comes from the book of Acts and is related to the Apostle Paul:

God did extraordinary miracles through Paul, so that even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and their illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left them. (Acts 19.11-12)

We can see in both the Old and the New Testaments the precedence for thinking that God could work miracles through each of the kinds of relics: a first degree relic in the case of Elisha’s body, a second degree relic in the case of Jesus’ clothes, and a third degree relic in the case of the the items Paul had touched. Technically, the Church holds any object related to Christ to be a first degree relic since Jesus is, after all, God incarnate, but the point here is that there is a clear precedence in Scripture for thinking that God could work a miracle through the belonging of a holy person.


Relics in the Early Church

But did the first Christians really take those Scriptures to mean they should start preserving people’s bones?

Yes. St Polycarp, a disciple of the Apostle John and the bishop of Smyrna, was martyred in Rome around the year A.D. 155 and an account was composed soon after known as the Martyrdom of Polycarp, in which we find this passage:

[After Bishop Polycarp was martyred in a Roman stadium] But when the adversary of the race of the righteous, the envious, malicious, and wicked one [Satan], perceived the impressive nature of his martyrdom, and [considered] the blameless life he had led from the beginning, and how he was now crowned with the wreath of immortality, having beyond dispute received his reward, he did his utmost that not the least memorial of him should be taken away by us [Christians], although many desired to do this, and to become possessors of his holy flesh. For this end he [Satan] suggested it to Nicetes, the father of Herod and brother of Alce, to go and entreat the governor not to give up his body to be buried, lest, said he, forsaking Him that was crucified, they begin to worship this one.

This he said...being ignorant of this, that it is neither possible for us ever to forsake Christ, who suffered for the salvation of such as shall be saved throughout the whole world (the blameless one for sinners ), nor to worship any other. For Him indeed, as being the Son of God, we adore; but the martyrs, as disciples and followers of the Lord, we worthily love on account of their extraordinary affection towards their own King and Master, of whom may we also be made companions and fellow disciples!

Notice that it is the pagan Roman official, at the suggestion of the Devil, who doesn't want the Christians to take relics because the Christians might end up worshiping Polycarp instead of Jesus. And it is the Christians who, while fully conscious of the fact they worship God alone, still want to honor His servants by honoring their relics.

Also notice that the practice is not regarded as novel or controversial among the Christians. In fact, Satan is portrayed as being aware of the fact that Christians preserve and venerate the remains of martyrs, which is why he tries to stop this from happening with the remains of St Polycarp. All of this implies the practice predates St Polycarp’s martyrdom. Since St Polycarp was martyred around A.D. 155, and the last Apostle, John, died somewhere around A.D. 90 to 100, it’s quite possible that the practice of preserving and venerating the remains of the martyrs dates back to the time of the Apostles, and may have had their explicit approval (otherwise, if they had known about the veneration of relics, and if it had been wrong, they would have told people not to do it).

There are many other examples from the early Church of Christians preserving and venerating the relics of Christians who had died, but St Jerome in the 4th century sums of the sentiments of the early Church the best:

We, it is true, refuse to worship or adore, I say not [just] the relics of the martyrs, but even the sun and moon, the angels and archangels, Cherubim and Seraphim and every name that is named, not only in this world but also in that which is to come. For we may not serve the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Still, we honour the relics of the martyrs, that we may adore Him whose martyrs they are. We honour the servants that their honour may be reflected upon their Lord who Himself says:— “he that receives you receives me." [...] If the relics of the martyrs are not worthy of honour, how comes it that we read “precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints?” (Letter 109, 1, 2)

The early Christians saw the veneration of relics not only as not in competition with their unique worship of God but as an important part of it.


So What’s Really the “Late Corruption”?

The Catholic beliefs and practices surrounding relics are based firmly on Scripture and the practices of the early Church. Catholics venerate relics today just as Christians have be doing since the earliest times of the faith. Ironically, this means the Protestant rejection of relics is the late corruption of the faith, while the Catholic practice is in fact representative of original Christianity.

No doubt, as with anything good, the veneration of relics can be abused, but the wholesale rejection of it by Protestants is an overreaction, “throwing out the baby with the bathwater.” Catholics, on the other hand, should confidently carry on with their good and holy veneration of relics - and perhaps reintroduce their Protestant brothers and sisters to the ancient Christian practice.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

The Catholic beliefs and practices surrounding relics are based firmly on Scripture and the practices of the early Church. Catholics venerate relics today just as Christians have be doing since the earliest times of the faith. Ironically, this means the Protestant rejection of relics is the late corruption of the faith, while the Catholic practice is in fact representative of original Christianity.

[Buckeye McFrog]

Early Christians were battling Gnosticism and many other unwelcome pagan influences. Just because it is from the early days of the Church does not necessarily make it correct and true.

[Salvation]

The story of St. Polycarp brings to mind how the Early Christians, because of the persecutions, fled to the catacombs and the priests celebrated Masses there on top of the tombs of the martyrs.

In the dedication of our new church this last Saturday, we have two relics, one believed to be St. Edward the Confessor of England and the other is St. Clare who warded off the Muslims with the Blessed Sacrament.

Somehow the record accompanying the first relic got lost, but a priest who was at there when our old church was dedicated said it was of St. Edward the Confessor.

That priest is blind now and cannot celebrate Mass, so he gifted his chalice and paten to our new church — he was ordained in Rome and his chalice was used, and thus blessed, by Pope John XXIII. What a gift!

[Carpe Cerevisi]

Early Christians were battling Gnosticism and many other unwelcome pagan influences. Just because it is from the early days of the Church does not necessarily make it correct and true.

Hopefully if you're married you're not wearing a wedding ring - that has a pagan influence. As does carrying the bride across the threshold, wedding veils, etc. Also, don't forget Christmas trees and they eye of the Egypian god Horus on the back of your one dollar bill.

[The_Reader_David]

Good apologetics in support of the practice of the ancient church. However, you Latins, especially in these parts, need to reclaim the importance of holy relics. The Latin bishops here in the Great Plains have been giving relics to my bishop (Bishop BASIL of Wichita and Mid-America) at a surprising rate: it seems whenever a church is closed, the Latin bishop gives him the relics it housed, rather than distributing them to other churches of his own diocese. While we Orthodox are grateful for the gift of the holy relics, but it doesn’t say anything good about the strength of traditional piety in your confession.

[Alex Murphy]

So What’s Really the “Late Corruption”?

Nothing says "Catholic" quite like "Protestant-bashing".

[Salvation]

Interesting observation. Thankfully, the Archbishop at our Dedication Mass and our priest at another presentation one eveing have both explained the importance of relics.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Hypocrite much?

[Alex Murphy]

Hypocrite much?

Smells like unwashed feet around here.

[Carpe Cerevisi]

Smells like unwashed feet around here.

[PeterPrinciple]

So clarify, what is the purpose of the relics? How does using them honor God? Why use relics when we now have direct access to God through Jesus. Jesus wants us to pray directly to the Heavenly Father.

Lots of things are discussed in the Bible but than does not mean it is on the “approved” list. Homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible and the Homos say that is a stamp of approval.

The thought goes through my mind regarding divorce, that it is in the Bible also and the “church” approved it, but Jesus had a pretty interesting discussion about that................

Having said the above, the protestants have many things wrong also. I often read Revelations chapter 2 and 3 and Jesus is highly critical of the church. His concerns are so great that he talks about leaving the church unless they repent and get back to basics. Having said that, his criticism applies to me also.

[PeterPrinciple]

but the point here is that there is a clear precedence in Scripture for thinking that God could work a miracle through the belonging of a holy person.

---

Notice the word “could”. Yes he could, but he could use anything. Let’s venerate dirt, Jesus used that. He used a lot of things.

The biblical reference cited here is NOT about the relics, it is about God, but then man is always distracted by shiny things................... and misses the major points.

[Mrs. Don-o]

It's true that "ancient" does not mean "right." There are ancient errors as well as ancient truths... so you got that part right, Buckeye.

However, since it was Gnosticism they were battling, what better way would there be to fight it, than by honoring the relics of the saints? It's the Gnostics, precisely, who took the anti-body, anti-physical view.

The gnostics --- the great rivals of the Catholic Christians --- taught that people should shun the material world created by the evil demiurge, and embrace the spiritual world.

Gnostics associated evil with matter and flesh. They were convinced of the worthlessness of anything that suggested mortality, e.g. a dead man's bones.

The veneration by Christians of the mortal remains of the martyrs is a forceful refutation of Gnosticism. We don't believe flesh is either evil or irrelevant. We believe in Jesus, the Word-made-Flesh. We believe in the Resurrection of the Body.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Excellent, thanks. There were several threads lately discussing the theft of Pope JPII’s relics that were mocking and derogatory and I thought this article was a good response to that kind of ignorance.

[Albion Wilde]

Most interesting. I was raised in a family half of whose members were Catholic and the other half Protestant, and because of the strife about religious differences, grew to search for and appreciate the good points of both confessions.

My prayer as an adult is for the reunification of the major streams of Christianity, with a "both/and" openness to exploring Truth, rather than the "either/or" that has characterized our past. I realize this is a nearly impossible task; yet in Christ all things are possible. I believe that many of our internecine conflicts have damaged the Name of Jesus, and that we should work together to agree on what we agree upon, and leave the conflicts "open-ended", as matters of faith that have not yet been completely resolved. "For now we see through a glass darkly..."

This post inspired me to do a little research. I wanted to know (and maybe I missed it in reading the article) what relic is pictured, where it is and who said the words on it. My search led me to a 2004 FR thread posted by Pyro7480 about Tyburn Convent that commemorates Campion's martyrdom.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Unfortunately in our day many such bishops are unworthy of the office.

We have an incredible chapel of holy relics not far from here.

http://www.saintanthonyschapel.org

[.45 Long Colt]

Christians “walk by faith, not by sight.” And we are to “worship Him in spirit and in truth.” A Christian has no need of these superstitious idols.

“Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.” (1 John 5:21)

John Henry Newman, an Anglican priest who later turned Roman Catholic and rose to the rank of Cardinal, in his book, The Development of the Christian Religion, admits that “Temples, incense, oil lamps, votive offerings, holy water, holy days and seasons of devotion, processions, blessings of fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure (of priests, monks and nuns), images, etc., are all of pagan origin” (p. 359).

“These people draw near to Me with their mouth, and honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ ” (Matthew 15:8-9)

[humblegunner]

I’ve got a jar of toenail clippings for sale.

[ARA]

Early Christianity lost out to Paul!

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Speak of the devil. ;-)