One of the weirdest (and in my view, coolest) parts of Catholicism is our view of relics. Forgive me for calling it weird, but I don’t know another word to use to describe taking body parts of your heroes and then putting them on altars. It’s entirely understandable to me that our Protestant brothers and sisters look at that with confusion and even revulsion: somewhere between “you guys are creeps” to “you guys are pagans!” But while we’re admittedly weird, we’re weird in the way that the ancient Jews and the first-century Christians were, as I explain in this short video:
This is my first Ready Reasons video for Catholic Answers (they’re short videos responding to popular questions people have), and so I would love your feedback – please like and share, and comment here and/or over on YouTube!
Why is the pic of an Indian dude holding relics of Krishna?
John,
It’s not. Are you serious? Why would you assume that? I even included a caption explaining what it is: the Pilgrimage of the Relics, in Maastricht, Netherlands.
Om. We have that some urn of Krishna Relics at my Hindu Temple. Om.
That Hindu parasol design is on point too. Very nice.
“But while we’re admittedly weird, we’re weird in the way that the ancient Jews and the first-century Christians were”
Catholics always want to pretend first-century Christians were doing pagan things that are not in the Bible. So they were doing them but never wrote about them. Unlike Catholics of all generations who write constantly of them. Its not convincing bro.
1) I mean, I literally give examples of the New Testament talking about it, but sure, keep saying that nobody wrote about these things. (I can also present you some evidence from the Church Fathers to ignore, if you would like).
2) Also, probably the reason that we Catholics talk about it more now is that (unlike in early Christianity), anti-relic Protestants exist. When Acts was written, nobody attacked anyone for believing Peter’s shadow or Paul’s handkerchiefs could heal people. But can you imagine how Protestants would have responded if they existed back then?
I don’t have to watch your video to know you can’t give example from the New Testament, because I’ve read it hundreds of times, and there are none. This is why you decided to do a video rather than write it out, because illiterates are easier to trick.
“When Acts was written, nobody attacked anyone for believing Peter’s shadow or Paul’s handkerchiefs could heal people.”
Lol. Nobody took that literally. Its a legend, just like speaking in tongues. There never was speaking in tongues, which is why charismatics are all the more silly even than is normally admitted. When Paul says “I thank God I speak in tongues more than you all” he was mocking the tongues cultists by the fact that he didn’t speak tongues at all yet spake them more than them, because they also didn’t really speak them, because tongues are illegitimate.
Also even if you take Peter’s handcerchief seriously, in that story he was still alive at the time, so the claim is that he endowed it with power for that purpose, not that his death gave it that power. And a handcerchief is a long way from a fingernail or such like. The Catholic idea of relics is like the Tooth of Buddha and such like. It comes from Eastern religions.
I don’t think so.
There is also the incident in the OT in 2 Kings 13:21 of the dead man raised to life when his body touched the bones of Elisha.
which contradicts the NT claim that Jesus brought the resurrection if people were rising in the OT already and is therefore false.
But then that would negate the miracles already performed by Elijah in his time – & he did I fact raise the dead.
It suggests an interpretation that is not taking into view the Scriptures as a whole.
In Christ all will rise again one day.
the problem with sola scriptura is toto scriptura. some scriptures are false.
@jason do
You stated that “the problem with sola scriptura is toto scriptura. some scriptures are false.”
Now you contradict your own Scriptures because “All Scripture is inspired…” If it is God-breathed / inspired, it is true. God is Truth, He does not lie. To say that some Scripture is false is the equivalent of saying “God lies.”
Was that your intent? Or is it more likely that you don’t understand something Scriptural? Which is possible. Without Tradition & the Magisterium, Scripture isn’t always clear.
Which ones are false, and what is your basis for determining which ones? And where does any Scripture that you say is true, say that Jesus has given you the authority to make the determination of which are true and which are not?
What you are advocating is SOLO SCRIPTURA, or the bible according to Jason. I’ll pass on that one. I have no doubt that path leads to Hell.
Or one could say that the OT is true and the NT is false, as the Jews claim. Or one could easily realize that the resurrection that Jesus brings is not the same as the resurrection that happened in second Kings. And one could clearly see that there is no contradiction between the OT and the NT, but that it is your interpretation of the Bible that is faulty.
I agree with your tenure. The logic fits the facts. As you stated, Jason contradicts himself and holy scripture. All the bonle books approved by the church are inspired and so TRUE. ONE needs to be aware of TOO MUCH KNOWLEDGE for errors may abound in one’ s own interpretation.
Why don’t you write something on the greatest relic of all: the Holy Shroud?
The carbon14 test was a fraud, as Benford & Marino discovered and Dr. Ray Rogers (STURP) confirmed.
There was a reason that Thomas was not present, and there is a reason that the Shroud is present to this day.