|
RELICS IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH What is a relic? According to the New Baltimore Catechism #3, p. 312, a relic is, “Something belonging to, or connected with Our Lord or the Saints, such as a portion of their bodies or a garment they wore.” The Roman Catholic Church further classifies relics as first-, second-, and third class. A first-class relic would be a part of the body of the saint. A whole arm, or leg, or head, or heart would be a major (insignis), first-class relic. Parts of the saints’ clothing or other personal effects would be a second-class relic. Things, such as paper, cloth, and so on that the saint touched would be third-class relics. The official Roman Catholic position concerning the use of relics can be found in questions 219, 22, and 223 of the New Baltimore Catechism #3. It is presented in the following manner: “219. Why do we honor relics? We honor relics because they are the bodies of the saints or objects connected with the saints or with Our Lord. (a) The honor given to a relic does not stop at the sacred object itself but is directed to the person whose relic is venerated.” “222. Do we honor Christ and the saints when we pray before the crucifix, relics, and sacred Images? We honor Christ and the saints when we pray before the crucifix, relics, and sacred images because we honor the person they represent; we adore Christ and venerate the saints.” “223. Do we pray to the crucifix or to the images and relics of the saints? We do not pray to the crucifix or to the images and relics of the saints, but to the persons they represent. (a) In venerating relics, statues, and pictures of Our Lord and the saints we must not believe that any divine power resides in them, nor should we put our trust in them as though they had the power of themselves to bestow favors. We place our trust In God and the intercessory power of the saints.” So once again we find the Roman Catholic Church using an inanimate object to represent our Lord or a dead Catholic saint. According to Catholic authorities these inanimate objects are not to be worshipped themselves; the worship or veneration goes to the person they represent. Nor are Catholics to believe that there is any power possessed by the relics themselves. In theory this may sound plausible, but even Roman Catholics will have to admit that in practice what is said and what is done are two different things. HOW ARE RELICS USED? One of the most interesting usages of relics in Roman Catholicism concerns the altars upon which Roman Catholic masses are offered. In The New Code of Canon Law, 1983, Canon 1237 #2, states, “The ancient tradition of keeping the relics of martyrs, and other saints under a fixed altar is to be preserved according to the norms given In liturgical books.” Just what that tradition in the liturgical books involves can be found in The Beauties of the Catholic Church, by Rev. E. J. Shadler. In answer to the question, “Are relics of the saints put into all the alters, even at present?” we find, “Yes; and the discipline of the Church in this respect is so strict that it is forbidden to celebrate Mass upon an altar in which there are no relics.” The Catholic Encyclopedia Dictionary states, “It is necessary for valid consecration of an altar, whether fixed or portable, that it contain, sealed into the sepulchre relics of at least one martyr.” One wonders why the Roman Catholic Church has such strict regulations concerning relics in their altars, if in fact the relics are not the objects of worship themselves and contain no powers in and of themselves. Why forbid the offering of a mass if a relic of a saint is not present in the altar? Paul Blanshard makes another interesting point concerning relics in the altars in American Freedom and Catholic Power, p. 218. He writes, “If fourteen thousand Catholic churches in the United States have an average of four altars each, this requirement calls for fifty-six thousand relics of martyrs in this country alone. New churches, of course, require new relics or portions of old ones.” Where do all of these relics come from and how can they possible be authenticated? This is a question that Catholic authorities anticipate and here is how they answer it. From The Question Box, p. 373, we read, “The Catholic Church has never declared that any particular relic is authentic, but she takes the greatest pains to see that no public honor is paid to any relic, unless she is reasonable convinced of its genuine character.” Does it make any sense to forbid the offering of a mass on an altar unless the altar contains a relic, and then to admit that they cannot say for certain whether or not the relic is authentic? Something does not ring true here. Within the roman Catholic Church there appears to be a recognition of the fact that many of the better educated, more knowledgeable Roman Catholics will not fall for belief in relics, and that many of them view it as little more than superstition. Because of this, the Roman Catholic Church does not impose compulsory belief in the relics upon its members. Yet there are vast numbers of Roman Catholics who do believe in relics, who make pilgrimages to shrines containing them, and who spend vast amounts of money in the course of their veneration of relics. How then does the Roman Catholic Church handle these two different views? The Catholic Encyclopedia Dictionary says, “No Catholic is formally bound to the positive veneration of relics, but is forbidden by the Council of Trent to say that such veneration ought to not be given.” In other words, those Catholics who disagree with the whole veneration do not have to believe, but they have to keep their mouth shut and not speak out against it. For those who do believe, the Roman Catholic authorities are more than willing to provide them with as many relics as they can stand. SOME EXAMPLES We have seen that the Roman Catholic Church has never declared that any particular relic is authentic. Maybe not, but she has come as close to doing so as she possibly can. There has been much written lately about the Shroud of Turin. It has received a great deal of publicity. However, for quite some time now the Roman Catholic Church has been presenting it as a real thing. Back in 1947, a large advertisement, with a reproduction of the “photograph” of Jesus taken from the Shroud of Turin, appeared in the Catholic News with this guaranty. Judge for yourselves if this “relic” was being presented as authentic. “The negative from which this photograph was made lies in the Holy Shroud and was developed in the Tomb during the hours Our Lord lay there before the Resurrection. The urea vapors emanating from the body acted on the aloes within the Shroud, creating the indissoluble pigment, aloetin, which was absorbed by the Shroud linen, thus forming the True Image of Christ,… The official Vatican Newspaper says: ‘Twenty centuries ago the Apostles saw and kissed the same living face.” For just $2.00 you could get a picture of the True Face of Christ from the Holy Shroud of Turin . The Catholic Almanac of 1948, p. 250 says: “There are various relics of the true cross to be found principally in European cities: Brussels, Ghent, Rome, Venice, Ragusa, Paris, Limbourg, and Mt. Athos. The inscription placed above the cross is preserved in the Basilica of the Holy Cross of Jerusalem at Rome. The crown of thorns is kept at Paris. One of the nails was supposedly thrown into the Adriatic to calm a storm; another was made into the famous iron crown at Lombardy; another is in the Church of Notre Dame, Paris. The sponge is in Rome at the Basilica of St. John Lateran. The point of the lance is in Paris, the rest in Rome. The robe is in The Church of Treves. The tunic is in the Church of Argenteuil near Paris. A part of the winding sheet in in Turin . The linen with which Veronica wiped Christ’s face is in Rome. Part of the pillar of the Scourging is in Rome, part in Jerusalem.” Catholic friends, do you believe all of these things do actually exist and to be authentic? Isn’t there something inherently wrong with admitting that there is no proof of authenticity and then presenting these things as thought they were authentic? Isn’t there something inherently wrong with charging money for a picture of a “religious relic” when it cannot be said with certainty that the relic is actually the thing it is supposed to be? If these things are real, why allow some Catholics to refuse to believe in them and yet demand that they keep their mouths shut about their doubts? These things need to be considered. WHERE DID ALL THE STATUES COME FROM? If a visitor walks into practically any large urban Roman Catholic dhurch building, he or she will see essentially the same things. Along both the side walls there will be either pictures, statues, or symbols – 14 in all – representing the Stations of the Cross. Toward the front of the building there will be a statue of Mary with rows of votive lights placed before her. On the other side there will probably be a stature of the patron saint of that particular church, with another set of votive lights to be lighted by the parishioners. Over the main altar, or very near it, will be a large crucifix. Most of the time there will be a statue of Jesus hanging on it. Scattered around the building, there may be other statues and pictures of various Catholic saints. Considered purely from a human standpoint, a visit to a Roman Catholic Church building can be a most impressive sight. To a Roman Catholic, there is a certain amount of pride involved over the beauty of their building and a certain amount of comfort that comes from being surrounded by all of these familiar images. Most Roman Catholics, as well as most visitors, simply accept the statues and images with little thought about were they came from or why they are there in the first place. Few realize that these statues and images were one of the main reasons that the Eastern Orthodox Church broke away form Roman Catholicism in 1054 AD. To this very day, Eastern Orthodox Churches are free from such images. So where did they come from? Did the early Church and the apostles use them? Why are they in use in Roman Catholicism today? These are important questions that need to be answered. HOW THEY CAME TO BE USED In the book, What the Church Teaches, by J.D. Conway, and bearing the Imprimatur of Ralph L. Hayes, a question asks, “On what basis, then, does your Church permit kneeling before statues, and, for that matter, how can you even make and possess them?” That is a very good question and Conway’s answer is most enlightening. He writes: “And now about those statues! We won’t single them out, but rather group them with pictures, mosaics, carvings, and icons, under the general name of images. We have them in our churches because we like them and have always been accustomed to them. They are beautiful and decorative; or at least we intend them to be so, even thought they often fail to match this purpose. They add color and warmth; our churches would seem cold and drab without them. They often teach us bits of our religion, attract our attention to pious subjects, and aid our concentration.” Conway continues: “Above all, images are an old Christian custom, going back to the days of the catacombs. In spite of a few rough days with the Iconoclasts, our religious ancestors always made use of images, even as we do, without worrying about idolatry.” The use of images may be an “old custom,” but it has little to do with the Church that was built by our Lord, Jesus Christ, in approximately 33 AD. The first century church was without images. It existed for over 100 years before worship in the catacombs became commonplace and the influence of the idolatrous world began to make its presence felt among the Christians. It was in the fourth century with official status was given to the Church through the efforts of Constantine, the Emperor of Rome, and there was a large influx of pagans into the favored church of the state, that the opposition to the use of images began to be overcome. Many of the new converts simply transferred many of their old pagan practices into their new form of religion. Even Conway makes this point on p. 218 of What the Church Teaches. He writes, “It seems manifest that Christians simply adapted the art of pagan Rome to their religious needs.” Early in the seventh century, Gregory the Great officially sanctioned the use of images in the churches. The very fact that an official sanction was deemed necessary evidences the fact that not all accepted it and there was opposition. Gregory insisted that they not be worshipped, but his insistence did not stop the natural progression of action among the people. By the eighth century so many prayers were being offered to the statues and images, and there was such an atmosphere of superstition surrounding their use, that the Mohammedans taunted the Catholics for being “idol-worshippers.” In 726 Leo III, the Eastern Emperor, took steps to try to remedy the abuse of images in his dominion. He ordered all the pictures and images to be placed so high that it would be impossible for the worshippers to kiss them. Even that didn’t stop the people from “worshipping” the images, so he took one step more and forbade the use of all images in the churches. Ecclesiastical sanction was given to his actions by a Council in Constantinople in 754. This controversy was called the “iconoclastic” controversy. Iconoclastic means, “breaking the images.” Conway refereed to “a few rough days with the Iconoclasts” and flippantly dismissed t, but he neglected to say that a Catholic Council sanctioned the removal of images as heathenish and heretical. Thirty-three years later, in 787, another Council met – this time in Nicaea – and reversed the decree of the earlier council, sanctioning the worship of images in the churches. On p. 219 of What the Church Teaches, Conway writes, “In this ecumenical council – the last one accepted by all five Patriarchs – the doctrine of the Church regarding images was clearly defined and settled once and for all”. If this is true, why did the Council of Trent, in 1564, find it necessary to issue a decree concerning the use of images in the churches? The issue was not settled in 787 because during the Reformation others raised their voices in protest of the use of images in religion. The Council of Trent finally decreed, “The Holy Synod commands that images of Christ, of the Mother of God and of the other saints be kept in churches, and that due honor and reverence be paid to them, not because it is believed that there is any divinity in them, or that anything may be asked of them, but because the honor which is done to them is done to the prototypes they represent.” Today Roman Catholic Churches are filled with images of all kinds, but be not deceived. They are not there as a result of teaching and practice of the first century Church. They have not been steadily accepted since the time of the catacombs, and they are not as harmless as they may appear to the average, well-educated American Roman Catholic. GOD-AUTHORIZED OR DANGEROUS ADDITIONS? In Exodus 20:4 & 5, we find the Second Commandment. There we read, “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them…” Thus in the Old Testament we find the strict prohibition concerning the making of images of anything above, on, or below the earth and then bowing down before them. In Acts 17:29, as Paul was making his address from Mars Hill in Athens, he said, “For-as-much then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.” I believe that these passages, and may others like them are applicable to a discussion of the use of images in Roman Catholicism. THE OFFICIAL CATHOLIC POSITION The official Roman Catholic position concerning the use of idols was stated in this way by the Council of Trent (Sess.xxv). “The images of Christ and the Virgin Mother of God, and of the other saints, are to be had and to be kept especially in churches, and due honor 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 done of old by the Gentiles, who placed their hope in idols; but because the honor which is shown them is referred to the prototypes which these 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 likeness they bear.” Officially the Roman Catholic Church denies that its members pray to statues, but states that they pray to the persons that statues represent. The Church denies that they attribute any power to the statues and other images, or that they place any trust in them at all, but rather they say they place their trust in God and in the intercessory power of the saints represented by the images. All of this sounds reasonable to the educated adult Roman Catholic, but for those less educated or mature, the official distinctions set forth by the Roman Catholic authorities is obscure, an often completely ignores; and in many instances this ignorance is promoted by Catholic officials. I would not expect a Roman Catholic reader to take my word for it, so let’s notice a few examples. “BY THEIR FRUITS YE SHALL KNOW THEM” J. D. Conway, in his book What the Church Teaches, sums up this section on images in the Catholic Church, with these words, “To sum it up…we kneel before these statues because we can pray better there. They remind us of our Lord, to whom our prayers are directed. Of His Mother, and His Saints, who inspire and help us. You have pictures of your husband and children around your home; we have images of the ones we love in church. They help to make our churches beautiful, for the glory of the Lord. And they do not harm at all; we have no tendency to adore them.” Let’s see if in actual practice Conway’s words ring true. Emmett McLoughlin was a former Franciscan priest and author of the book, People’s Padre. On page 85 he gives this description of an event that he witnessed: “In the Mission of San Xavier del Bac near Tucson are carried on the same superstitions that American tourists find repugnant in the national shrines of Mexico . Mexicans and Indians make pilgrimages from Tucson and other nearby communities, usually on foot. They crawl on their knees through the church to the ancient wooden reclining statue of St. Francis Xavier. The early Mexican custom was to make nude statues similar to our store-window mannequins; the people would then make clothes for these saints – simple garments for week days and elaborate gowns of gold and silver for Sundays and feast days. On the cloth robes of St. Francis Xavier the Arizona pilgrims pin their ‘votive’ offerings – either gifts promised if a favor is granted or an advance gift showing good faith in bargaining with the saint. These offerings are tiny metal figures from one to two inches in length, sold by Mexican silversmiths. They are the figures of babies, arms legs, hands, heads, or women’s breasts. They indicate that the petitioner wants a baby, or has a broken leg or an arm, or has a mal-a-disease. The Franciscan priests who care for this mission do nothing to discourage this hopeless practice. In fact, when St. Francis’ robe is overburdened, the priests remove the offerings so that pilgrims can start in again. I have seen a priest stir up a barrel of these offerings with a broom handle.” The Catholic authorities may say what they will; to the mind of the honest observer the distinction between the statue and the “Saint” that it is supposed to represent is for all intents and purposes non-existent. Another form of Roman Catholic imagery is the scapular. I wore one of these as a child. The scapular was invented in 1287 by Simon Stock, and English monk. He was said to have withdrawn into the woods where he lived a life of great austerity for 20 years. At the end of the 20 years the Virgin Mary was said to appear before him, with thousands of angels, holding the scapular in her hand. This was to be taken as the sign of the Carmelite Order of which he was a member. The scapular consists of two pieces of material, approximately 4 inches square, worn next to the skin, suspended over the shoulders by cords, both in the front and back. What use did modern Roman Catholic authorities make of this form of imagery? Paul Blanshard writes in American Freedom and Catholic Power, p. 215 &216, the following: “I have before me as I write a four-page circular called the Scapular Militia issued by the Carmelite Notional Shrine of Our Lady of the Scapular, of 3338 East 29th Street, New York. It bears the official Imprimatur of Archbishop (now Cardinal) Spellman, and it was issued at the height of the war on 1943. The slogan emblazoned on its cover is ‘A Scapular for Every Catholic Service Man,’ and it carries, underneath a picture of Mary, Joseph, and St. Simon Stock, the specific guarantee in heavy capitals: WHOSOEVER DIES CLOTHED IN THIS SCAPULAR SHALL NOT SUFFER ETERNAL FIRE.” Included in the circular were these words: “A Carmelite Father showed the present writer a letter from a classmate who was directly fired upon by for machine guns, from a distance of 700 or 800 meters for a period of fifteen minutes, and who wrote in a token of gratitude of Our Lady of the Scapular, saying simply; ‘And here I am’.” It also promised: “Besides this a Scapular wearer can assure his liberation from Purgatory on the first Saturday after death.” On the inside page this statement was found: “A Scapular is not a a talisman. It is not a rabbit’s foot. It is the sign of devotedness to the Blessed Virgin, just as the carrying of your mother’s picture in a fold of your wallet would be a sign of your devotedness to her.” Very little comment needs to be made about such a thing. The official position of the Roman Catholic Church says one thing about its use of imagery – its actual practice is something else. Who has not read accounts of Roman Catholic images that are said to bleed, or to weep? In Buffalo, New York, on December 8, 1947, a copy of the Fatima Statue was viewed by 200,000 people. During its journey to America, miracles were reported to have taken place along its path. My prayer is that as Roman Catholics read this tract they will not say, “Well, I don’t view statues in that way” and then dismiss what we have said. Undoubtedly many educated, mature Catholics make the distinction the Church claims to teach. Equally without doubt, however, is the fact that many, many other Catholics do not. Images in Catholicism are not of God. He specifically condemned such things in the Old Testament and the dangers involved with them are recognized in the New. They are of the mind of man and pagan in origin. Just the few examples of actual practice that we have cited demonstrate the fact that they are dangerous additions. I am reminded of the words Paul quoted in 2 Cor. 6:17, “Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.
|