Forbes recently focused on the industry of relics within the Roman Catholic Church. A bulk of the article was focusing on an ‘antique’ dealer in Manhattan. It is as amazing as it is unsettling to read through and see both the supply and the demand for such obscure items.
For example, at this store the skulls of martyrs are sold for $4,500, the teeth of saints go for $300, and for a mere $975 you can get what is purported to be a tiny splinter from Jesus’ cross. Recently a stone that is supposedly from the site of the transfiguration was sold for $430,000. Gulp.
There are certain classes of relics, according to the article:
Vendors have a lingo in which relics are classified into grades. “First class” pertains to body parts of saints–a fingernail of the Apostle Paul, say, or a strand of the Virgin Mary’s hair. Items (supposedly) touched by Jesus often are first class. The second class encompasses the relics of lesser figures–Mother Teresa’s tennis shoes. The third class has items that have touched something first class–the “touched” nail described above, for instance.
(I didn’t even know Mother Teresa wore tennis shoes. If Phil Knight at Nike knew this I’m sure he would have been all over it. I can just see it now, the Nike Air Force Nun.)
If and when Pope Benedict XVI is beatified, his visit to the U.S. will have created a host of relics. Anything he touched will count–a business card, a rosary, a faucet. While the provenance of such new relics is easy to establish–a photo would do–that of ancient relics is more problematic, especially of ones attributed to Jesus. There are people who believe that the Shroud of Turin wrapped His body, others who stand by a radiocarbon analysis pointing to an origin circa 1300.
You have got to wonder how these items are verified. According to the article:
Some first-class relics come with a red papal seal (meaning they’ve been vetted by the Vatican) and papers, usually in Latin, describing the item and its history.
Well, that doesn’t make me feel any better. This reminds me of the disturbing discoveries in the relic industry from the days of Calvin:
“In this town (Geneva) there was formerly, it is said, an arm of St Anthony; it was kissed and worshiped as long as it remained in its shrine; but when it was turned out and examined, it was found to be the bone of a stag. There was on the high altar the brain of St Peter; so long as it rested in its shrine, nobody ever doubted its genuineness, for it would have been blasphemy to do so; but when it was subjected to a close inspection, it proved to be a piece of pumice-stone. I could quote many instances of this kind; but these will be sufficient to give an idea of the quantity of precious rubbish there would have been found if a thorough and universal investigation of all the relics of Europe had ever taken place.” (John Calvin’s Treatise on Relics)
The article also points out some of the history of the relic market:
Trade in relics arose in the Middle Ages, when Catholic pilgrims returned home from the Holy Land with tokens of the burial places of martyrs or of the martyrs themselves. These relics were believed capable of working miracles. Predictably, copies began to flood the marketplace–the fake Louis Vuitton handbags of their day. Sixteenth-century Protestant theologian John Calvin once quipped that there were enough pieces of the True Cross to “form a whole ship’s cargo.”
There is, apparently, a restriction on selling relics but at the same time a standing order to recover them:
Catholic canon law now plainly forbids their sale. But the door to buying them is left open by an injunction that Catholics “rescue” relics. If, for instance, a Catholic sees a relic in a pawnshop, he or she is obliged to buy it, so that it won’t be used for blasphemous purposes by a nonbeliever.
If this is correct, a good Catholic would have to try their best to out bid others on eBay in order to rescue a Saint’s napkin, faucet, pillow case, toothbrush or fingernail.
This is just too sad. There is a reason why the Lord allowed neither the people nor the devil to know where the body of Moses would be buried (Jude 1.9); for both would exploit the human heart to make him an idol. This superstition is indeed the offspring of idolatry. It serves to take the focus off of God himself, that which is infinitely glorious and worthy of all devotion and instead attach it to finite, fading, earthly objects. This is what Paul articulated in Romans 1 as he unpacked the idolatrous heart:
“For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man…(Romans 1.21-23)
There is no doubt in my mind that this practice of superstition is not of God but of the devil himself. For who else would mastermind an industry that reduces the power of the cross down to a few splinters?! While this practice may have the appearance of true religious piety it is nothing more than a cloak for the cravings of the flesh that aim to siphon glory from God and inject it into self and stuff. Christ did not leave us fragments to initiate or sustain our worship and lead us to antique shops, but rather he left his word and the Holy Spirit to lead us to him, of which is the substance in the midst of all of these shadows.
update: James White weighed in on this post this morning. His article on relics is worth reading.
Subscribe to the Emmaus Podcast
This is incredible. Thanks, Erik. I had no idea, but this is very relevant since we live in such a Roman Catholic region.
Erik, whether or not it is from the Devil is one issue. My question to you is, is it really just dumb superstition? Or is it possible there could be some benefits from looking at or touching an object with spiritual conotations?
Brother,
As you say, the chief evil in relics and other such “accessories” is that it detracts from the glory of Christ. It lessens the (perceived) value of the objective reality of who Christ is and what he accomplished. Let us instead of chasing after things that have no value set our sights on that which has infinite pure undefiled value: Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ! He has revealed himself to us not in relics, but in his holy Word.
Stephen, what do you mean by ‘benefits’?
Okay, Acts 19:11,12 says:
“And God was doing extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that even handkerchiefs or aprons that had touched his skin were carried away to the sick, and their diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them.”
That’s what I consider receiving a benefit from a relic. Also, in 2 Kings 13:20, 21 a man came back to life just because his corpse touched the corpse of Elisha. I am wondering if you think all relics are bad no matter what and if so, what do you make of these two examples? And if they’re not all bad, what is it that makes them bad? Are they only bad when we look to the power of a dead man’s bones or teeth instead of seeing it as the power of God?
In Numbers 21:9 God told Moses to make a bronze serpent wrapped around a pole, and that any who looked at it would live. Isn’t that a form of relic right there? The serpent wrapped around a pole is still used today on the side of our ambulances. Is that wrong? It’s also symbolized as a dollar sign on our currency. Is the $ a bad symbol?
I guess this is my point. Relics have been used in practically every culture and religion. Isn’t it possible there are some good and true uses of it as well as bad? Couldn’t relics also be a good thing if used in the right way?
This is interesting. It reminds me of the Martyrdom of Polycarp when the brother of the Irenarch accuses Polycarp’s Church of idolatry because they wanted his relics.
The Church’s account was quick to point out that while they honored the saints of God, they only adored Christ.
We should not be quick to call it a superstition.
Wow! Just wow!
Thanks (I think) for the post.
Mark
Jesus Christ will never satisfy the hearts and minds of those He hasn’t saved.
If one understands what is proper hermeneutics, then you would say that reverence of relics by the church is bad. To oversimply this a bit, if something is written in a narrative fashion then it is descriptive not prescriptive. The Acts passage and the 2 Kings passage do not give a command or expectation about making something a relic but are describing God’s hand working mightily through two men.
Umm, you’re right that Acts and 2 Kings was descriptive, but clearly Numbers 21 (which you conveniently failed to mention) was prescriptive. God commanded it! God chose to work through an object which was man made. Not only was it man made, the iconography of a snake wrapped around a pole was used in many ancient pagan cultures as a sign of health and welfare, which far predated the Hebrew Exodus.
And if you believe that God can work through the bones of a dead prophet like Elisha (the Bible says He did), then why couldn’t he work through the teeth of a dead saint? You can’t say with 100% certainty that he can’t, won’t, or never has?
And just for the record I do agree that worship of anything other than God is wrong!! In 2 Kings 18:4 Hezekiah was right in the eyes of the Lord for tearing down the bronze serpent (Nehushtan) because the Israelites had begun to worship it. But the object itself wasn’t bad when people didn’t worship it. Only when they worshipped it.
Stephen C,
You “conveniently” failed to mention that the serpent was eventually destroyed because the nation of Israel began worshipping it. The “relic” was not intended to be an object of worship and adoration. Those who were bit by the snakes looked to the pole out of obedience to God’s promise to heal those who did. It wasn’t the relic that saved, it was afaith in God’s promise of deliverance. Interestly enough, it is only be faith and repentence in God’s promise of deliverance through Jesus Christ which saves.
Furthermore, the signs and miracles accompanying the apostles were clearly affirmative instances verifying the authority and authenticity of the apostolic message of the Gospel. Since then, the revelatory Word of God has been made complete. Those signs are not needed. Not only are they not needed, but being that they were for that age and time (see 1 Cor 13), any claim of authority of the objects is indeed blasphemous compared to the complete, perfect, innerrant, and infallible revelatory Word of God.
The ongoing worship of these so-called “relics” amounts to idolatry. People placing their faith in these objects, are, in affect, saying that the completed work of God’s revelation and the completed work of Christ as declared in the revelation is not sufficient.
Thanks.
W. Thomas
I agree with everything you just said. I think the worship of anyone or anything that isn’t God is wrong. That isn’t the point.
Stephen C,
We must have been posting at the same time during the last couple of points.
What is your point? I don’t think anyone has a problem with articfacts in and of themselves. I think the field of archeaology is important and teaches us about the past. These “relics’ being discussed are not being used for the purpose of education and archeaology.
They are being worshiped. Rome is ascribing to these articles authority and power they do not have. They are being assigned a religious status that is unbiblical and does indeed amount to idolatry.
Let me ask you Stephen. Since we are being so critical of Rome’s position on this matter, what do you see as the importance of these objects.
W. Thomas
Stephen,
Your comment that I conveniently left out a passage is presuming something that is in fact wrong. I just forgot about that passage because I was trying to fit 5 minutes into my schedule by adressing an issue that you raised. However, you are still illustrating a lack of properly using consistent hermenuetics by your reference to that Numbers passage. The command was directly to Moses to address the people of Israel at that point in time for that specific circumstance. It was not to be a consistent principle to carry on through all the prophets.
To better make the point that you are contemplating, you should turn to the New Testament to look for a command that states what the leaders of the church are to teach believers in relation to dead saints or their stuff. If you can find it fine but if you can’t then you have no reason to make it acceptable.
Amen W. and Steve.
Thomas, you asked me what my point is. I don’t have one. Look above at my first few comments. I was really just asking a lot of questions. Not to stand on a soap box. Just inquiring from and picking your brains because I want to know what everyone else thinks. I also wanted to get past some of the obvious things about relics and delve into what they really are, if and when they should be used, and how do they get their power. I don’t claim to have any of those answers. I just have a hard time believing people would be so gullible as to look into a man-made object that possessed no kind of power (good or bad). I think there might be something more to relics than we think. But I must say I probably came to the wrong place to ask these questions.
Steve,
I understand that people don’t always have all the time in the world to make a comment. I shouldn’t have been so cocky. In my mind, it was all tit for tat. When you make statements like, “If one understands what is proper hermeneutics, then . . .” it rubs me the wrong way. I don’t like being talked down to by people who don’t know me. When someone throws the first punch I tend to throw one back and . . . well . . . you get the picture. And it also didn’t help that I’ve only been on this site for about a week and it’s the second time someone has talked down to me without knowing a single thing about me. But for real though, I am sorry, I shouldn’t have done it. I know that’s not how a Christian should act so please accept my apology. As for your argument, you say:
“The command was directly to Moses to address the people of Israel at that point in time for that specific circumstance. It was not to be a consistent principle to carry on through all the prophets. To better make the point that you are contemplating, you should turn to the New Testament to look for a command that states what the leaders of the church are to teach believers in relation to dead saints or their stuff. If you can find it fine but if you can’t then you have no reason to make it acceptable.”
I’m just trying to figure out if relics have any power, be it good or bad. God didn’t command anybody to bury the guy next to Elisha’s bones, but once they did the Bible says that as soon as the man touched Elisha’s bones he was resurrected back to life. Now that’s pretty powerful stuff considering God didn’t command it and considering it seems to have happened more or less on accident.
I guess what I mean is, I don’t feel like I have to find a passage in the NT where it is specifically commanded to touch relics because I never said it was commanded in the NT to begin with. I simply think it’s odd that Paul practiced it and that we think if anyone practices it today they must be superstitious. I really wasn’t attacking Erik’s post. I just wanted to see if there is something about it we’re missing.
Stephen,
I can see where you might have seen my … “If… Then…” Statement as a personal attack against you. If you took it that way, I am sorry about it. I didn’t address you because I didn’t want you to think it was just about you. I was trying to state a general principle of hermeneutics and use a couple of passages that were brought up.
In relationship to your question, I strongly believe that God’s Word demonstrates how to handle this issue.
1st, the experiences by the Apostle were not to be a normative experience for all but for Paul (and other Apostles at times). An example comes from Mark 6 where we see Jesus giving them His authority for that particular short term mission. It was not to be a blueprint for everybody in missions for all time (I.e. Don’t take 2 coats, money, etc.).
2nd. If you look in Revelation, when people are worshipping the image of the beast (sorry I am at Starbucks w/out Bible on me) you will find that Satan is behind this in receiving the worship and in giving the signs to the Anti-Christ figure and his prophet. I would also understand that the passage is explaining that these are really counterfeit miracles.
3rd, Paul identifies what is really behind the worship of idols. It is really the worship of Demons.
If you are interested, I preached through a passage in Mark about the healing of the woman, who was hemmoraging and the girl that had died. I believe it is titled “it’s really about faith” on my podcast page. I think this passage is addressing fundamentally the issue that you are raising. If God let’s stuff have “miraculous” powers, then it ceases to be about Jesus. (I am not trying to pimp myself but really just offering some help)
I have a question… (I’ve always wander about this). Are there any cases in scripture in which God punishes someone because they worshiped something by accident? I can not recall…
When Uzza touched the Ark of the Covenant, because it was falling, God smoked him. I’m sure he just forgot that he wasn’t supossed to touch it, but he did and I guess he should have listened “better”. God declares in Romans 1, that man should worship him alone and creation itself is enough to hold man accountable, because these things are plan to him by God. When a man worships anyone or thing else besides God, it’s not an accident.
“To oversimply this a bit, if something is written in a narrative fashion then it is descriptive not prescriptive. ”
Yes, but it describes it favourably. So while there may be no prescription of what, where, how and when to acquire a relic, IF you do happen to acquire a relic, then it is favourably within the Christian tradition.
Chris,
If you understand that a descriptive account is describing what occurred at that moment in time, then you cannot say the Bible is mandating something as favorable. Even if it was favorable, it doesn’t mean that it would be favorable for everyone in every circumstance. In addition, a relic is different from what is being described in the Scriptures. (apples to oranges)
The bigger issue is that tradition, reason and experience are not on the same level of authority as Scripture. So, if you are approaching things from tradition, then we will be speaking past one another.
Steve
The only thing we do know that scripture says about this issue (other than the fact that it happened and it was real) is that no thing should ever be worshipped. I don’t think anyone on this blog has or would disagree with that.
Steve, you’re right that nowhere in scripture does it say those scriptural examples were not to be normative. But I still don’t know how you can be so certain when it also never says they weren’t to be normative experiences. That is, you are inferring something from scripture that scripture itself doesn’t say. And since scripture doesn’t say whether or not those were to be normative experiences, shouldn’t we be careful to take a dogmatic stance?
Sorry, my above statement should say:
“Steve, you’re right that nowhere in scripture does it say those scriptural examples were to be normative. But I still don’t know how you can be so certain when it also never says that they weren’t supposed to be normative experiences. That is, you are inferring something from scripture that scripture itself doesn’t say. And since scripture doesn’t say whether or not those were to be normative experiences, shouldn’t we be careful to take a dogmatic stance?”
The double negatives got the better of me, but I’m sure you all know what I meant to say.