Non-Catholic Explanation for Reference to Relics in the Bible

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Nan S:

I agree that some do at least comment on the use of icons (although they all refuse to name them as such). That’s to be expected. On the website link you gave there are five commentators (not counting the AV links); add my NIV Study Bible and you get six. Of these six:

-The NIV Study Bible commentary describes the type of cloths, but ignores that they were used to work miracles.
-Brown comments on the miracles, but ignores the use of icons.

Since Acts 19.11-12 does not mention icons, this is not unreasonable.​

-Stedman completely ignores the event

Commentators often ignore matters in which their readers are interested - regardless of whether they are Catholic or not.​

-Henry acknowledges that the icons were used miraculously, but introduces and comments on a side issue, speculating whether they were Paul’s clothes or the sick peoples’ clothes

And he was wrong to do so, because…?​

-Smith attempts an alternate explanation, claiming that the cloths triggered a faith event in the sick, and that it was the faith event that caused the healing, not the cloths.

Cloths are inanimate, they have no power in themselves - so his comment is more Catholic than the position of any Catholics who think there is some kind of power in relics. It is Christ Who saves through the gift of faith - not pieces of cloth. The passage does not say that God was pleased by what is described - it is perfectly possible that He tolerated what is in fact superstion, so that His mercy should not be lacking even despite such an error. The lesson would then be that God is merciful, not that relics have any power of themselves. Faith saves, not bits of fabric.​

-Guzik acknowledges the use of cloths, but dismisses the whole event as “unusual”

The text says they were “unusual” - it emphasises this. Guzik can hardly be blamed for following what the text says & means: or is a Protestant to be criticised for quoting the the text before him, and for not commenting on it ? It seems so​

and “crude superstition”,

that is not ruled out by the text - see verse 13 for one impression made by this episode​

then wraps with “we pursue only that which we have a Biblical pattern for” as if this kind of miracle had never happened anywhere else.

[continued…]

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

…continue…]

That misunderstands what he is saying; and is in any case a perfectly defensible position - Christianity is not about the veneration of cloths, but about being a disciple of Christ. Relics are not theologically central to the NT, or to Catholicism, even though they may be central to some people’s practice of Catholicism. Catholicism would still exist, even if there were no relics - we don’t need them: but we do need Christ; without Him, Catholicism is unthinkable, if it’s to be Christian at all.​

Relics do not matter, they are trivial, we have no need of them, they are not specifically Christian (there were pre-Christian relics too); and NT Christianity preached Christ crucified & raised - not relics. ##

So of these six, we have three ignoring the use of icons to produce miracles, one acknowledging it, and two dismissing it.

I do not believe, therefore, that I was incorrect in saying:

1. Protestants were accused of not commenting on the passage - a link was give showing that this assertion is not true.​

The ground then shifted, from complaints that they omit to comment, to this:

1. They disagree in their comments

I pointed out that both accusations could not be made, since they contradict deach other.

So the ground shifted again, to this:

1. Not enough of the comments quoted pay attention to the material element - the cloths - in the text: &, as a subsidiary point, there are not enough comments

So: how many commentators, paying attention to the cloths in the text, and not mentioning that faith might have had something to with the healings, is enough ?

Why is it so objectionable to suggest that the things mentioned were the formal cause of the things done, but only instrumental causes ? God, not linen, works miracles - linen is nothing of itself. That is a Catholic attitude.

What’s wrong is not :

• 1 that Protestants don’t comment

nor

• 2 that not enough Protestants comment on the passage in Acts 19

but that

• 3 they don’t emphasise what some Catholics want them to emphasise

or

• 4 they don’t arrive at the same results as some Catholics

…continue…]

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

…continued & ended]

Thirteen Protestant commentaries here - including some already given

Calvin on Acts 19.11-12:

1. No small miracles. He calleth miracles virtutes or powers, after the common custom of the Scripture, which were testimonies of the extraordinary power of God. And showeth that Paul’s apostleship was set forth with these ensigns, that his doctrine might have the greater authority. For it is a common speech, That wonders and signs are showed by the hand of men. So that the praise thereof is ascribed to God alone as to the author; and man is only the minister. And that he may the more amplify the miracles, he saith that handkerchiefs and partlets [1] were brought unto the sick, which so soon as they touched they were healed. It is not unknown [1] to what end Paul had such power given him, to wit, that he might prove himself to be a true apostle of Christ, that he might make the gospel to be believed, and might confirm his ministry. And here it is expedient to call to mind those things which we had before, touching the lawful use of miracles. And whereas God did heal the sick with Paul’s handkerchiefs, it tended to that end, that even those who had never seen the man might, notwithstanding, reverently embrace his doctrine, though he himself were absent. For which cause the Papists are more blockish, who wrest this place unto their relics; as if Paul sent his handkerchiefs that men might worship them and kiss them [1] in honor of them; as in Papistry, they worship Francis’ shoes and mantle, Rose’s girdle, Saint Margaret’s comb, and such like trifles. Yea, rather, he did choose most simple [1] things, lest any superstition should arise by reason of the price or pomp. For he was fully determined to keep Christ’s glory sound and undiminished.
   ==========
   Can the passage be commented on without being given a “Catholic” interpretation ? Certainly. Not all commentators are trying to use the Bible to prove they are right - this is a disease of some Catholicism, & some Protestantism. The text and its meaning is more important than its use for sectarian purposes - using it in that way is not only makes people needlessly defensive, it diverts attention from what the text as a whole saying, so that relatively unimportant things (such as relics) acquire an inflated importance, and more important things are overlooked. ##

 

[Eden]

[list

And he was wrong to do so, because…? #### Cloths are inanimate, they have no power in themselves - so his comment is more Catholic than the position of any Catholics who think there is some kind of power in relics. It is Christ Who saves through the gift of faith - not pieces of cloth. The passage does not say that God was pleased by what is described - it is perfectly possible that He tolerated what is in fact superstion, so that His mercy should not be lacking even despite such an error. The lesson would then be that God is merciful, not that relics have any power of themselves. Faith saves, not bits of fabric.​

You are missing the clear discription of God performing a miracle through a material object. The healing from Paul’s cloth comes through the touching of the cloth that the Lord imbued with His healing powers. “Faith does save, not bits of fabric.” This is true. But Acts 19: 11-12 illustrates how the Lord uses material things to perform miracles. The assertion by some Protestants that belief in the healing power of relics is idolatry is shown to be in error. The Lord was working* His* miracle of healing* through* a cloth. Belief in the healing power of relics is not idolatry.

(Another example of the use of material things is when Christ healed a blind person. He picks up dirt, spits in it and rubs the mud on the person’s eyes to restore sight. Christ could have just used his hands. He clearly shows us that experiencing miracles that come through material things is not counter to God’s ways.)

 

[Nan_S]

Michael (Gottle), it appears I’ve touched a nerve. Your profile says you are Romish Papist Catholic. I understood that to mean you are conservative (small “o” orthodox) Catholic. However, by your writings it would seem you are liberal Catholic or Protestant.

I looked up Karl Barth, your signature quote source. He was the intellectual leader of the German Confessing Church, a Protestant group that resisted the Third Reich, and known by some as a Protestant “Father of the Church.” If he a significant theological source of yours, I think I understand your perspective.
Gottle of Geer:

The text says they were “unusual” - it emphasises this. Guzik can hardly be blamed for following what the text says & means.

The only two English bibles that say “unusual” in verse 11 are the New King James Version and the New Living Translation, neither of which is known for accuracy or faithful rendition of the original Greek. The NAB, RSV, NASB, and NIV use “extraordinary” (wonderful/powerful), and the KJV, Webster, and ASV use “special” - both of which mean something very different from “unusual” (uncommon/rare).

So the emphasis is not the rarity of the miracle at all; the emphasis is the great power of it. I certainly understand your disagreement on this point if you’re relying on a loose Protestant transliteration.

Since Acts 19.11-12 does not mention icons, this is not unreasonable.

Neither does the Bible say “Trinity”, but that doesn’t stop Christians from understanding the concept.

What these verses say is that miracles were worked through cloths handled specifically by Paul, then applied to sick people. Objects handled by a particular saintly person then used to bring about miracles are “icons.” Denying or ignoring this, as most of these Protestant commentators do with emphasis, is a disservice to the Holy Bible.

Cloths are inanimate, they have no power in themselves - so his comment is more Catholic than the position of any Catholics who think there is some kind of power in relics. It is Christ Who saves through the gift of faith - not pieces of cloth.

If this were the case, ANY cloth regardless of origin - or even no cloth at all - would trigger the “gift of faith” that cured these sick. What happened was quite the opposite - ONLY cloths personally handled by Paul carried the power to cure disease and drive out Evil Spirits.

Verses 13-16 describe others who did try to trigger “gift of faith” healings. They failed miserably. Only the bearers of the cloths handled by Paul succeeded.

Acts 19:13-16 Then some of the itinerant Jewish exorcists undertook to pronounce the name of the Lord Jesus over those who had evil spirits, saying, “I adjure you by the Jesus whom Paul preaches.” Seven sons of a Jewish high priest named Sceva were doing this. But the evil spirit answered them, “Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are you?” And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, mastered all of them, and overpowered them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.

Please stay with me - I’m not saying that the cloths were supernatural themselves. But these particular cloths, and ONLY these cloths, were the vessels which carried God’s supernatural power from Paul to these sick people.

The passage does not say that God was pleased by what is described - it is perfectly possible that He tolerated what is in fact superstion, so that His mercy should not be lacking even despite such an error. The lesson would then be that God is merciful, not that relics have any power of themselves. Faith saves, not bits of fabric.

Verses 18 and 19 show that God - acting through Paul - does NOT tolerate superstition and error. Instead, the people are persuaded to reject superstition completely.

Acts 19:18-19 Many also of those who were now believers came, confessing and divulging their practices. And a number of those who practiced magic arts brought their books together and burned them in the sight of all; and they counted the value of them and found it came to fifty thousand pieces of silver.

I could continue, but I think it would just be repetitive of what I and others on this thread have already covered.

We DO appreciate your contrary opinions. They stimulate us to examine more closely what we believe and why. And for that I thank you.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Nan S:

Michael (Gottle), it appears I’ve touched a nerve. Your profile says you are Romish Papist Catholic. I understood that to mean you are conservative (small “o” orthodox) Catholic. However, by your writings it would seem you are liberal Catholic or Protestant.

“Touched a nerve” ? Not really. I did little more than point out that the ground has shifted, because the original position was unsustainable; and that the one constant appears to be, that Protestants must always be in the wrong. This is repulsive, no matter who does it - you, me, Catholics, Protestants, or any one else.​

I don’t think I can be held to account for your misconceptions about me. And if I were Protestant, I would say so. Which of us should know what religion I am (if any) ? I am not in the habit of lying about what I believe, TY v. much ##

I looked up Karl Barth, your signature quote source. He was the intellectual leader of the German Confessing Church, a Protestant group that resisted the Third Reich, and known by some as a Protestant “Father of the Church.” If he a significant theological source of yours, I think I understand your perspective.

Pius XII had time for him:​

“Described by Pope Pius XII as the most important theologian since Thomas Aquinas, the Swiss pastor and theologian Karl Barth continues to enact a steady influence on students, scholars and preachers.”


Please tell me what my perspective is. ##

The only two English bibles that say “unusual” in verse 11 are the New King James Version and the New Living Translation, neither of which is known for accuracy or faithful rendition of the original Greek. The NAB, RSV, NASB, and NIV use “extraordinary” (wonderful/powerful), and the KJV, Webster, and ASV use “special” - both of which mean something very different from “unusual” (uncommon/rare).

So the emphasis is not the rarity of the miracle at all; the emphasis is the great power of it. I certainly understand your disagreement on this point if you’re relying on a loose Protestant transliteration.

I have no idea what any versions say - I was going by the meaning of the words in the Greek. The point is clear enough - the things done were unusual; and so, not usual. That they were not usual, is the point I was trying to make. If you wish to use a stronger word, be my guest.​

And why the sniping at Protestant translations ? IIRC I relied upon the late Father Zerwick’s Grammatical Analysis of the Greek NT, p. 416, which gives both “extra-ordinary” & “no ordinary” - & since “no ordinary” can be taken as “unusual, unwonted”, these two renderings can hardly be called wrong; they do at least not leave behind the idea that miracles are in any sense ordinary occurrences - they are extra-ordinary, and in that sense, unusual. A Jesuit whose work has been printed by the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome has some claim to attention. Besides, it is not a man’s religion that matters, but (in the present case) his proficiency in Greek; merely being Catholic is no evidence of competence in Biblical matters; & being Protestant does not disable one from being a solid scholar. Learning is not guaranteed or prejudiced by the form of Christianity one professes - as this seems not to be understood, one is left to do what one can with fallacies such as the appeal to authority; such as that of being Catholic. It’s the only reasoning that seems to achieve anything. ##

[continue…]

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

…continued…]

Neither does the Bible say “Trinity”, but that doesn’t stop Christians from understanding the concept.

What these verses say is that miracles were worked through cloths handled specifically by Paul, then applied to sick people. Objects handled by a particular saintly person then used to bring about miracles are “icons.”

I’m interested in the passage, in the words, in NT theology, in the ideas behind the passage, in anything that can cast light on it - not in icons, which it does not mention, anymore than it mentions the theology of the Eucharist. If people want to think about icons, far enough - but that does not make icons appear in the text. And the thread is about relics in relation to Acts 19 - not about icons in Acts 19 which are noticeable only by their absence. So please don’t blame me for not finding in the passage what it does not profess to discuss.​

“Icon” has a specific meaning already ##

Denying or ignoring this, as most of these Protestant commentators do with emphasis, is a disservice to the Holy Bible.
If this were the case, ANY cloth regardless of origin - or even no cloth at all - would trigger the “gift of faith” that cured these sick. What happened was quite the opposite - ONLY cloths personally handled by Paul carried the power to cure disease and drive out Evil Spirits.

Maybe they see more important things in the passage than mere cloths.​

Faith is more important than a bit of cloth; it is what makes the Christian attitude to relics better than a superstition about mere material “things”. Faith apart, there is no difference between a Catholic venerating a tooth of St. Peter & a Buddhist venerating a tooth of the Buddha. Mere “things” as such are of no importance. Where does the word “only” appear in the text ? Nowhere. All in all, ISTM that the understanding of the passage shown by the Protestants quoted is on the right lines; because it emphasises why this kind of miracle is notable. Without faith, St. Paul would be just another strolling wonder-worker and preacher; & there was no lack of them. Alleged miracles were not unusual - the power of the Name of Jesus preached by those transformed by His Resurrection, is another matter entirely.

Paul never emphasises his own part in the miracles - quite rightly, since God alone is their true source; that is the Catholic theology on the point. These healings owe nothing to St. Paul, & everything to God’s grace. ##

Verses 13-16 describe others who did try to trigger “gift of faith” healings. They failed miserably. Only the bearers of the cloths handled by Paul succeeded.

Because they used the Holy Name as a formula. So of course they failed. No faith is involved here, but the superstitious misuse of what is holy. Unless one is to say that human faith is Divine faith. To call what those exorcists did ““gift of faith” healings” is monstrous - it is to imply that Protestant faith is on all fours with that of unbelievers: there is no hint that those Jewish exorcists were Christians. They are mentioned because they tried to do what Simon the sorcerer tried in Acts 8 - to have Christian power to bring in the Kingdom of God, without being a Christian. And their snatching at such power is a contrast to Paul’s exercise of it - their attitude is magical & manipulative, his is neither. So they cannot be described as Christians​

[snip verses]

Please stay with me - I’m not saying that the cloths were supernatural themselves. But these particular cloths, and ONLY these cloths,

The cloths are not what worked the miracles - God did. The passage mentions the cloths; it does not insist on them.​

…continued…]

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

…continued & ended]

were the vessels which carried God’s supernatural power from Paul to these sick people.

Verses 18 and 19 show that God - acting through Paul - does NOT tolerate superstition and error. Instead, the people are persuaded to reject superstition completely.

Acts 19:18-19 Many also of those who were now believers came, confessing and divulging their practices. And a number of those who practiced magic arts brought their books together and burned them in the sight of all; and they counted the value of them and found it came to fifty thousand pieces of silver.

I could continue, but I think it would just be repetitive of what I and others on this thread have already covered.

We DO appreciate your contrary opinions. They stimulate us to examine more closely what we believe and why. And for that I thank you.

I’m grateful for not having to be to a cloth-worshipper to be Catholic. All preaching is to particular congregations - those who preach the NT should know best, or better than their armchair critics, what their hearers need to be told. This may account flr some of the emphases in the commentaries noticed. They don’t have to see what we might.​

 

[Eden]

Your profile says you are Romish Papist Catholic.

I believe that Gottle of Geer has said he is a convert from Anglicanism. Please correct me if I am wrong GOG.

“Touched a nerve” ? Not really. I did little more than point out that the ground has shifted, because the original position was unsustainable; and that the one constant appears to be, that Protestants must always be in the wrong.

I’m not sure what this means but I think that you are referring to my original post pointing to the Biblical evidence of the use of relics. If so, I will say that a Protestant who believes de facto that relics cannot contain the healing powers of God is wrong.

Look at the Orthodox Church. They too believe in the healing power of relics. It’s the churches that were created from the 16th century on that have rejected relics. For 1500 years the power of relics was understood. Protestants are relatively new to history and so are their ideas on relics.

This is repulsive, no matter who does it - you, me, Catholics, Protestants, or any one else.

I don’t believe that Protestants are always wrong. On the points in which their theologies agree with the Church, they are not wrong. Why is it repulsive to point out when they *are *wrong? Truth must be the goal not political correctness.

Maybe they see more important things in the passage than mere cloths.

The fact that God uses the cloth from a holy man’s body is an example of how *He *has used material objects for healing. The healing is from God. *God used a material object! *The Protestant belief that relics are cloth-worshipping, idolatrous or superstitious is not congruent with God’s own actions in the Scriptures here.

I’m grateful for not having to be to a cloth-worshipper to be Catholic.

This statement illustrates a lack of understanding. Relics are gifts from God in which He gives us His healing powers through material objects. There is no worshipping of relics. It is odd to hear a Catholic describe other Catholics as “worshipping” anything other than God.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Eden:

You are missing the clear discription of God performing a miracle through a material object. The healing from Paul’s cloth comes through the touching of the cloth that the Lord imbued with His healing powers. “Faith does save, not bits of fabric.” This is true. But Acts 19: 11-12 illustrates how the Lord uses material things to perform miracles. The assertion by some Protestants that belief in the healing power of relics is idolatry is shown to be in error. The Lord was working* His* miracle of healing* through* a cloth. Belief in the healing power of relics is not idolatry.

True, it’s not idolatry - but what do remarks about idolatry have to do with the Protestant commentaries on the passage, whether those quoted, or any other ? For, unless those Protestants quoted mention idolatry, we have no reason to do so; we cannot complain of them for mentioning idolatry, or accusing us of it, unless they do the one or the other. Catholic apologetic about relics is only needed if their remarks call for us to present an apologia for relics, ISTM.​

These commentators standing up to attempts to discredit them rather well, IMHO. Of course the miracle is God’s - that’s why the means by which it is done, is relatively trivial. That is a realisation we share with Protestants - and emphasising what we share, instead of trying to prove all the time that we are right about every last little detail, even when it is of no importance at all, might achieve something for a change. ##

(Another example of the use of material things is when Christ healed a blind person. He picks up dirt, spits in it and rubs the mud on the person’s eyes to restore sight. Christ could have just used his hands. He clearly shows us that experiencing miracles that come through material things is not counter to God’s ways.)

Agreed - I think the Incarnation shows that. If we have to defend the use of matter in religion, the Incarnation & the Resurrection taken together are what make it effective; not throwing around of verses without attention to the theology in them; proof-texting is a sort of fetishism too, ISTM. But the whole business of apologetic is far too defensive for my liking; the attitude is wrong, and too often leads to emphasis on trivia, & to prideful self-assertion. The only convincing apologetic is IMHO that of a genuinely Christian life: everything else can be faked, and often is.​

BTW, relics have no power of themselves or in themselves - that at least is what I thought the CC teaches; especially as Nicea II in 787 teaches this about images. Why should the dead bones of the holy have more life in them than inanimate paint & plaster & wood ? ##

 

[Eden]

Gottle of Geer:

True, it’s not idolatry - but what do remarks about idolatry have to do with the Protestant commentaries on the passage, whether those quoted, or any other ? For, unless those Protestants quoted mention idolatry, we have no reason to do so.

Why am I limited to the comments of the men that you selected?

From Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idolatry_in_Christianity

“Many Protestants believe that in attributing holiness or power to human artifacts, they foster disbelief in God’s omnipotence, and his independent and sovereign will, and suggest instead to human fallibility that God can be manipulated. To them, this is the essence of idolatry considered as a sin.** They also consider the Roman Catholic cult of relics to be idolatry, as is the practice of pilgrimage to distant **shrines; they hold instead that God is no less accessible here and now than he is in a distant holy place.”

But the whole business of apologetic is far too defensive for my liking; the attitude is wrong

I agree. It is unfortunate that the True Church has been under constant attack by Protestants since the Reformation. Unfortunately, if the Church does not defend itself, it would appear that we have no defense. So, Catholic apologetics is necessary.

It’s interesting that you find apologetics to be too defensive as the term apologetics comes from the Greek apologia, which means “defense” or “answer.”** “Apologetics is the task of defending a particular idea or belief system and answering its critics.”**

BTW, relics have no power of themselves or in themselves - that at least is what I thought the CC teaches; especially as Nicea II in 787 teaches this about images. Why should the dead bones of the holy have more life in them than inanimate paint & plaster & wood ?

The issue is not whether relics have power from God or from themselves (clearly it’s from God). The issue is the fact that many Protestants teach that the Catholic belief in relics is idolatry. Clearly the belief in the healing powers of relics is Scriptural and so those Protestants are wrong.