Non-Catholic Explanation for Reference to Relics in the Bible

[Eden]

There are quite a few passages in the New Testament that are clearly Catholic. For instance, this one refers to what Catholics call “relics”:

(Acts 19:11-12) **And God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his body to the sick and diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them. **

How does a non-Catholic Christian explain the passage above?

 

[scylla]

The church my brother goes to has this explanation of relics. This Protestant Church is growing extremely fast here, yet it’s quirky doctrines is what kinda helped me start searching for truth. I can thank Rod Parsley a little bit, for bringing me to the Catholic Church.

---

"Rod Parsley is a fast rising star in Pentecostal/ charismatic circles. … sent right to my home is a glossy packet stating 'Release the anointing … Receive Your Miracle! Lo-and-behold enclosed is a MIRACLE PRAYER CLOTH and I am supposed to: (1) RECEIVE this prayer cloth as your point of contact (2) PLACE this prayer cloth in the envelope provided and (3) BELIEVE God to receive YOUR miracle … I am to do these 3 things and RUSH my MIRACLE PRAYER CLOTH back to Pastor Rod (hopefully with a donation) and wait for my miracle to manifest. 'As you send me your prayer cloth and your most generous gift toward our Breakthrough ministry, I will send you my 3-tape audio cassette series, “Releasing the Anointing … Your Breakthrough to Victory.” ’​

God can work through many things, he can use a persons shadow to work miracles. But I do get suspicious at the health and wealth gospel, that is growing in the United States.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[Nan_S]

Eden:

There are quite a few passages in the New Testament that are clearly Catholic. For instance, this one refers to what Catholics call “relics”:

How does a non-Catholic Christian explain the passage above?

Easy. They divert attention to “more important” passages before, after, and elsewhere. In other words, they ignore them. If that approach fails, the fallback postition is “That passage was obviously not meant to be interpreted literally.”

I had a friend who was studying to be an Assemblies of God pastor. He challenged me on my “unscriptural” Catholic practice of confessing sins to a man, instead of directly to Jesus. So I opened up his much-highlighted bible and pointed to the only verses in John 20 that he did not have highlighted:

John 20:21-23 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

His response: Long silence. Followed by “Gee, I wonder why our instructor never mentioned that passage.”

 

[Nan_S]

scylla:

Lo-and-behold enclosed is a MIRACLE PRAYER CLOTH and I am supposed to: (1) RECEIVE this prayer cloth as your point of contact (2) PLACE this prayer cloth in the envelope provided and (3) BELIEVE God to receive YOUR miracle … I am to do these 3 things and RUSH my MIRACLE PRAYER CLOTH back to Pastor Rod (hopefully with a donation) and wait for my miracle to manifest.

What? Nothing about laying your Miracle Prayer Cloth over the TV speaker to catch his healing words, then laying it on your trick knee? Must not be much of a miracle cloth.

This comes from the kinds of people who condemn us for Catholic “superstition” by using rosaries, scapulars, miraculous medals…

 

[Mystophilus]

Eden:

How does a non-Catholic Christian explain the passage above?

“nothing is impossible with God” - Luke 1:37

“As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.” - Isaiah 55:9

Quodcumque Deus omnipotens vult, factum est.

 

[cheddarsox]

Using the “miracle cloth” charlatans as an example of protestantism is like using those who sold indulgences as an example of Catholicism. Neither represent either the teachings of a religion, and instead put forth an example of greed and trickery as if it is the norm.

such practices are the acts of individuals who use the faith of people in dire circumstances to profit monetarily. That is wrong, no matter what religion it stems from.

cheddar

 

[RonRule]

I’ve not heard a protestant explanation, but I could make one or two:

1. This occurance was rare in that it is only recorded once in the NT (twice if you coun’t jesus’ cloak?) and should therefore not be a widespread practice.
2. It was because of their faith that they were healed anyway.
3. In the early church, there weren’t enough healing christians to go around, so God used some extraordinary means not needed today.

 

[scylla]

I understand how abuses like indulgences before the reformation are similar to the abuses found in different evangelical and some pentacostal type churches out there.

I see it very prominantly as I am hispanic and a lot of evangelizing has been directed toward Latin America. A place where they really never prepared to have to defend their faith against, pentacostals, evangelicals, seventh day adventists, and some even newer versions of the gospel. So now you even have new groups starting down there such as Iglesia Universal which is a health and wealth church started by a guy calling himself Bishop Macedo. They sell interesting items designed to do miracles.

I believe in miracles, God can do wonderous things. Yet I do tend to be suspicious of them as people do terrible things, such as mis-represent God. I prefer for them to be investigated and to be cautious of belief before any judgement is made.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[Eden]

scylla:

"Rod Parsley is a fast rising star in Pentecostal/ charismatic circles. … sent right to my home is a glossy packet stating 'Release the anointing … Receive Your Miracle! Lo-and-behold enclosed is a MIRACLE PRAYER CLOTH and I am supposed to: (1) RECEIVE this prayer cloth as your point of contact (2) PLACE this prayer cloth in the envelope provided and (3) BELIEVE God to receive YOUR miracle … I am to do these 3 things and RUSH my MIRACLE PRAYER CLOTH back to Pastor Rod (hopefully with a donation) and wait for my miracle to manifest. 'As you send me your prayer cloth and your most generous gift toward our Breakthrough ministry, I will send you my 3-tape audio cassette series, “Releasing the Anointing … Your Breakthrough to Victory.” ’

This “miracle prayer cloth” must be based on the passage from Acts. The striking thing about it is that the concentration is on the idea of the cloth itself rather than the clear idea in the passage that the cloth from St. Paul held healing powers because of its relationship to Paul. I wonder how the followers of Rod Parsley conclude that the prayer cloth is not “idolatry”?

Easy. They divert attention to “more important” passages before, after, and elsewhere. In other words, they ignore them. If that approach fails, the fallback postition is “That passage was obviously not meant to be interpreted literally.”

I’ve not heard a protestant explanation, but I could make one or two:

1. This occurance was rare in that it is only recorded once in the NT (twice if you coun’t jesus’ cloak?) and should therefore not be a widespread practice.
2. It was because of their faith that they were healed anyway.
3. In the early church, there weren’t enough healing christians to go around, so God used some extraordinary means not needed today.

1. Even if the practice was rare, it is Scriptural. The fact that this passage appears in the Bible supports the Catholic understanding of saints’ relics and their healing qualities (for which some have accused us of idolatry).
2. The healing clearly originates from God but the passage shows how He allows the use of material objects for such miracles.
3. Why would God use extraordinary measures in a “rare” (see your response 1) circumstance rather than creating one “healing Christian”? I think it’s clear that the Lord can and does imbue physical objects with healing powers. The passage in Acts is describing a relic.

Using the “miracle cloth” charlatans as an example of protestantism is like using those who sold indulgences as an example of Catholicism. Neither represent either the teachings of a religion, and instead put forth an example of greed and trickery as if it is the norm.

You are missing the parallel between the passage which describes a cloth and the “miracle cloth”. The “miracle cloth” is a misrepresentation of the passage. The misuse of indulgences by corrupt priests is a separate topic.

Does anyone else know how non-Catholic Christians explain the clear use of a saint’s relic in the Acts passage? I’m especially curious as to how those Christians who include relics with the broader condemnation of “idolatry” in the Church would deal with this passage.

 

[Eden]

“nothing is impossible with God” - Luke 1:37

“As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.” - Isaiah 55:9

Quodcumque Deus omnipotens vult, factum est.

I forgot to respond to this answer. This is an answer that we all can agree on. Nothing is impossible with God so why do some non-Catholic Christians see the belief in relics as “idolatry” when it’s right there in the Bible?

 

[mercygate]

My favorite “proof text” for the efficacy of relics:

II Kings 13:21: And as a man was being buried, lo, a marauding band was seen and the man was cast into the grave of Elisha; and as soon as the man touched thebones of Elisha, he revived, and stood on his feet.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Nan S:

Easy. They divert attention to “more important” passages before, after, and elsewhere. In other words, they ignore them. If that approach fails, the fallback postition is “That passage was obviously not meant to be interpreted literally.”

I had a friend who was studying to be an Assemblies of God pastor. He challenged me on my “unscriptural” Catholic practice of confessing sins to a man, instead of directly to Jesus. So I opened up his much-highlighted bible and pointed to the only verses in John 20 that he did not have highlighted:

John 20:21-23 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

His response: Long silence. Followed by “Gee, I wonder why our instructor never mentioned that passage.”

Some Protestant commentaries on the passage in Acts 19.​

 

[Eden]

That’s a very useful resource, Gottle of Geer. Thank you! I’ve posted some interpretations from that site here (I alternated with bold and normal to clearly mark where one commentary ends and the next begins):

CHUCK SMITH: The “handkerchiefs” were sweatbands that tied around the forehead. The people activated their faith at the point of contact when Paul’s articles were placed on them. The articles themselves had no power to heal but triggered the release of faith.

DAVID GUZIK: Luke states that these were unusual miracles, and gives an example, that Paul’s handkerchiefs or aprons (literally, “sweat-bands”) could be laid on a person even in Paul’s absence and that person would be healed or delivered from demonic possession

i. Literally, the phrase unusual miracles is miracles not of the ordinary kind; even if we should “expect” miracles, these are the unexpected sort!

b. How did these things work? In the same way that the shadow of Peter or the hem of Jesus’ garment might heal; in that they would become a point of contact by which a person would release faith in Jesus as healer

i. We are not told that Paul did these unusual miracles, but that God did them through the hands of Paul

c. We can imagine this happening at first almost by accident (a person in need of healing taking a handkerchief from Paul in a superstitious manner and being healed), but then became a pattern that others imitated

i. As we will see, the superstitious practice of magic and sorcery was prevalent in Ephesus; it should not surprise us that some took a quite superstitious view of the miracles done through Paul

d. Observations

i. Note that these were unusual miracles; we should not expect that God would continue to use this method to bring healing

ii. God delights in doing things in new and different ways; so we receive whatever is proven to be from the hand of God, but we pursue only that which we have a Biblical pattern for

iii. God will stoop down to meet us even in our crude superstitions; this never means that God is pleased with them, but that in His mercy He may overlook them to meet a need.

MATTHEW HENRY: He not only cured the sick that were brought to him, or to whom he was brought, but *from his body were brought to the sick handkerchiefs or aprons; they got Paul’s handkerchiefs, or his aprons, that is, say some, the aprons he wore when he worked at his trade, and the application of them to the sick cured them immediately. Or, they brought the sick people’s handkerchiefs, or their girdles, or caps, or head-dresses, and laid them for awhile to Paul’s body, and then took them to the sick. The former is more probable. Now was fulfilled that word of Christ to his disciples, Greater works than these shall you do. We read of one that was cured by the touch of Christ’s garment when it was upon him, and he perceived that *virtue went out of him; but here were people cured by Paul’s garments when they were taken from him. Christ gave his apostles power against unclean spirits and against all manner of sickness (Mt. 10:1), and accordingly we find here that those to whom Paul sent relief had it in both those cases: *for *the diseases departed from them and the evil spirits went out of them, which were both significant of the great design and blessed effect of the gospel, and the healing of spiritual disease, and freeing the souls of men from the power and dominion of Satan. **

JAMIESON, FAUSETT & BROWN: So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, &c.–Compare Act 5:15, 16 , very different from the magical acts practiced at Ephesus. “God wrought these miracles” merely “by the hands of Paul”; and the very exorcists ( Act 19:13 ), observing that the name of Jesus was the secret of all his miracles, hoped, by aping him in this, to be equally successful; while the result of all in the “magnifying of the Lord Jesus” ( Act 19:17 ) showed that in working them the apostle took care to hold up Him whom he preached as the source of all the miracles which he wrought.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Eden:

This “miracle prayer cloth” must be based on the passage from Acts. The striking thing about it is that the concentration is on the idea of the cloth itself rather than the clear idea in the passage that the cloth from St. Paul held healing powers because of its relationship to Paul. I wonder how the followers of Rod Parsley conclude that the prayer cloth is not “idolatry”?

1. Even if the practice was rare, it is Scriptural. The fact that this passage appears in the Bible supports the Catholic understanding of saints’ relics and their healing qualities (for which some have accused us of idolatry).

The Greek mentions soudaria & semikinthia - if semikinthia is a synonym for othonia, the reference could be to the grave-clothes of Christ; or else, the words are chosen so as to put the reader in mind of the Resurrection. Which would set up a nice contrast with the anecdote about Elisha: the Risen Lord, as against an Elisha who remained dead. There are a lot of implicit echoes of the OT in the passage, because the Apostles are described as doing what Christ did: as participating in His earthly ministry, and doing so as a consequence of His Resurrection.​

soudarion

semikinthion

othonion

soudarion & semikinthion appear in Acts 19.12

soudarion & othonion appear in John 20.7

I think so, anyway - these verses connect with each other, and with other passages, in the most fascinating way.

There may be a reference to the episode of the woman with a haemorrhage who touched the fringe of Christ’s robes, and was healed.

What is not clear, is whether these healings were to be a permanent feature of the Church’s life, or whether they were an initial gift only, which was intended to endure only for the infancy of the Church; or else, for the lifetimes of the Apostles. The latter view, that such gifts were not a permanent endowment of the Church, is a typically Calvinist one, AFAIK.

So it is not clear that Christians are meant to use relics; just as it not clear from this passage that relics are forbidden - one doesn’t have to avoid reading the passage in order to be in uncertainty on the matter.

The passage occurs in one of several stories about power of various kinds, and is a twin-passage to a similar passage near the beginning of Acts. Peter and Paul are two main human characters of the book, and do much the same things ##

1. The healing clearly originates from God but the passage shows how He allows the use of material objects for such miracles.
2. Why would God use extraordinary measures in a “rare” (see your response 1) circumstance rather than creating one “healing Christian”? I think it’s clear that the Lord can and does imbue physical objects with healing powers. The passage in Acts is describing a relic.

You are missing the parallel between the passage which describes a cloth and the “miracle cloth”. The “miracle cloth” is a misrepresentation of the passage. The misuse of indulgences by corrupt priests is a separate topic.

Does anyone else know how non-Catholic Christians explain the clear use of a saint’s relic in the Acts passage? I’m especially curious as to how those Christians who include relics with the broader condemnation of “idolatry” in the Church would deal with this passage.

 

[Eden]

So it is not clear that Christians are meant to use relics; just as it not clear from this passage that relics are forbidden - one doesn’t have to avoid reading the passage in order to be in uncertainty on the matter. ##

Yes. But that is where tradition comes in for a Catholic. We know to what this passage refers.

For those who believe that relics are part of Catholic idolatry, we have a clear example in Scripture which illustrates how the Lord can imbue a material object with His healing powers. This has to be a passage which gives pause to those who believe relics are idolatrous.

 

[Nan_S]

## Some Protestant commentaries on the passage in Acts 19. ###

One commentator emphasizes these were unusual miracles, the never-to-be-repeated sort. Period.

Another commentator relates this to a miracle healing from Jesus, but speaks as though these were the only two instances in all of scripture or history when a miracle was worked with a cloth (or any other icon). His very lengthy commentary suggests that he has covered the subject as thoroughly as humanly possible.

A third commentator comes right out and says that the cloths “activated/triggered” the sick peoples’ faith, implying they were all ignorant pagans until they were touched by a cloth. He gives no support for this.

And all of them go to great length to describe these cloths (as if that mattered), but they can’t seem to agree.

That’s American Protestantism at its finest: if you don’t agree with what they’re saying in one place, check out the church next door for a different position.

 

[Eden]

Nan S:

And all of them go to great length to describe these cloths (as if that mattered), but they can’t seem to agree.

I also was wondering what the purpose of emphasizing “sweatband” over “apron” was. It seems irrelevant to the passage; not to mention the fact that the image of “sweatband” is both unpleasant and brings to mind images of the '80s sweatband and leg warmer trend.

http://bestsmileys.com/exercising/5.gif

That’s American Protestantism at its finest: if you don’t agree with what they’re saying in one place, check out the church next door for a different position.

The differing opinions do illustrate Pope Benedict’s coinage of the term “DIY church” very well.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Nan S:

One commentator emphasizes these were unusual miracles, the never-to-be-repeated sort. Period.

Another commentator relates this to a miracle healing from Jesus, but speaks as though these were the only two instances in all of scripture or history when a miracle was worked with a cloth (or any other icon). His very lengthy commentary suggests that he has covered the subject as thoroughly as humanly possible.

A third commentator comes right out and says that the cloths “activated/triggered” the sick peoples’ faith, implying they were all ignorant pagans until they were touched by a cloth. He gives no support for this.

And all of them go to great length to describe these cloths (as if that mattered), but they can’t seem to agree.

That’s American Protestantism at its finest: if you don’t agree with what they’re saying in one place, check out the church next door for a different position.

I think they agree in:​

• regarding the created means - St. Paul, the cloths - as not very important;
• regarding obedience to God’s revealed Will as immensely important
• being more concerned to emphasise our day to day walk with God, rather than extraordinary events.

I like that sort of approach - it’s practical, and it doesn’t favour sensationalism (of which there is already too much) or any getting away from our usual obligations to God & others.

At least those quotations should put paid to any ideas that Protestants dodge reading or commenting on such passages - they can hardly be criticised both for:

• not commenting on Acts 19.11,12

and for

• disagreeing in their comments

• the two criticisms cancel each other out. The Bible may favour what we believe, as said on this thread about this passage; but this passage in no way requires one to think, “Gosh, this is a miracle story. It’s about people being healed by relics of holy people. I had better become a Catholic”; and that is the point that is important for this thread. It is not dishonest of other Christians not to reach “RC” conclusions about the meaning of the text; because others are possible, without the passage’s being distorted. ##

 

[Mystophilus]

Eden:

I forgot to respond to this answer. This is an answer that we all can agree on. Nothing is impossible with God so why do some non-Catholic Christians see the belief in relics as “idolatry” when it’s right there in the Bible?

I would suggest that the people who do so could be divided into (at least) three categories. The first includes those who are told that such belief is idolatry, and who believe what they are told rather than bothering to investigate it for themselves. The second includes those who reject everything which is particularly Catholic on the a priori basis that Catholicism is Wrong, this group being the bridge between the first group and the third. The third group includes those who, in order to justify the continued separation of their particular church from the Catholic Church, characterise everything Catholic as being Wrong.

 

[Nan_S]

Gottle of Geer:

At least those quotations should put paid to any ideas that Protestants dodge reading or commenting on such passages - they can hardly be criticised both for:

• not commenting on Acts 19.11,12

and for

• disagreeing in their comments

• the two criticisms cancel each other out.

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.
-Stedman completely ignores the event
-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
-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.
-Guzik acknowledges the use of cloths, but dismisses the whole event as “unusual” and “crude superstition”, 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.

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:

They divert attention to “more important” passages before, after, and elsewhere. In other words, they ignore them. If that approach fails, the fallback postition is “That passage was obviously not meant to be interpreted literally.”