Catholics tell us that veneration of relics, especially bones, is justified because the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit! So any bones or property of a “saint” or the Savior had miracle-working powers. In about A.D. 400, Augustine condemned the excesses and outright scam of the relic business, ridiculing “hypocrites in the garb of monks for hawking about the limbs of martyrs,” adding cynically, “if indeed of martyrs.”

Why the props? Isn’t the Scripture sufficient? The reason Catholics and others refuse to base what they believe on the Bible is because what they believe conflicts with Bible teaching. Hence, a need for props.

The New York Times published an article on Jan. 16, 1881 in which they condemned “the silly worship of relics” and recounted an amusing anecdote of two rival French monasteries. They each possessed a head of John the Baptist! The monks, with amazing mental gymnastics, explained this uncomfortable detail by saying that the first skull belonged to John as a man while the smaller skull was from “when he was a boy.” I have seen the adult skull of John in a Damascus mosque.

One expert whose work was financed by National Geographic said, “There are about eight or nine skulls of John the Baptist out there. He added with a massive understatement, “They can’t be all John the Baptist.” Even this Baptist preacher can understand that! Various monasteries proclaim that they have the right hand of John the Baptist while another church displays the left arm of John. If some enterprising monk got to work, he might be able to put John back together again.

In Bethlehem they claim to have a drop of Mary’s milk and a 17th century painting shows a statue of Mary holding baby Jesus as she squirts milk into the mouth of a male worshipper standing below! Great shot!

Calvin suggested that “if we were to collect all these pieces of the True Cross exhibited in various parts, they would form a whole ship’s cargo.” He also said that there were more relics of the “true cross” than three hundred men could carry! He wrote of His Holy Blood that was “exhibited in more than a hundred places.” That is not only relic-worship but blasphemy.

During the mid-fourth century, St. Cyril of Jerusalem (ca. 315-386) wrote that “already the whole world is filled with fragments of the wood of the Cross.” More than forty shrouds of Jesus exist, so the story goes.

Late at night, astute Catholics wonder about all those nails from the original cross that could shoe every horse in Kentucky and enough wood from the original cross to supply fuel for every fireplace in Alaska for a hundred years. Well, almost.

Exeter Cathedral displayed parts of the candle that the angel of the Lord used to light the tomb of Jesus and fragments of the bush from which God spoke to Moses! I must not forget the sop of bread given to Judas, also some hairs from the Lord’s beard. Astounding!

These relics are a “cash cow” for each church that has one and for many years, it was required that each church or monastery had to possess at least one relic. That kept ye old relic scam working. It was common for a monastery to “find” a relic when they needed to raise money from the faithful. Since each relic contained special powers, distraught, disabled, and diseased people showed their generosity when praying before such a relic. Historian Durant tells of relic mongers who sold to eager believers “some of that very bread which our Lord pressed with His own teeth.” Does any sane person believe such things?

However, the relic of all relics is the foreskin of Jesus that was allegedly preserved; however, a dozen monasteries’ claim to have the relic! I think not! Such a system is worthy of criticism, correction, and contempt by sincere, thinking people.

Is anyone surprised that the Reformation happened? Protestants are not doing much protesting in our day! Is it time for another Reformation among Catholics and Protestants?

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY Eight minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota on “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”

Copyright 2014, Don Boys, Ph.D.

The papacy was not established by Jesus nor prophesied by Isaiah and saying otherwise does not make it so. For about 300 years after Christ, very ordinary village priests were called pope (papa). (By the way, what of the Bible prohibition in Matthew 23:9 of calling any man “father” other than your own physical father?) Moreover, Peter was not the first pope of the Roman Catholic Church as some shallow historians loudly proclaim. Obviously, the Christian church was built upon Peter’s confession of Christ, not upon Peter. Peter was not a Catholic!

The Christian Reformers were on the march in 1544 giving the Roman Catholic Church leaders a perpetual heartburn. The reformers were shining the light upon the religious corruption, priestly incompetence (and wickedness), and numerous unscriptural doctrines that the Roman Church espoused. The Roman Catholic leaders determined to act and did so by calling the Council of Trent (in Trento, Italy) that lasted from Dec. of 1545 to Dec. of 1563. The Catholic Counter Reformation was on the move. Trent is considered one of Rome’s most important councils. It was 400 years before another council was held.

Trent decided that the Scripture alone was not sufficient and that truth would be decided by Scripture, the pope (and his bishops), and tradition. They decided that salvation was attained by faith and works in opposition to Luther’s demand for justification by faith alone as taught in the Bible.

All Protestants and Baptists who disagreed with the council’s decision were cursed as the Roman leaders hurled 125 anathemas (curses) at all who disagreed with their decisions. That meant that such people were out of the church and destined for hell.

Those who laugh at the thought that the Pope (or any other human) can ever be without error are condemned to eternal Hell, according to First Vatican Council.

If one does not believe that Purgatory is a reality since it is never mentioned in Scripture, he is to be cursed to Hell (Session 6). Purgatory has been an embarrassing, unscriptural fund-raiser for the Roman Church. If a Catholic pays money to his church, then a relative’s sins are forgiven and eventually the doors of Purgatory open so he or she can enter Heaven. However, Purgatory, like Limbo does not exist.

Session 7 declared, “If anyone says that baptism is …not necessary for salvation,” he is cursed. Well, that means all Baptists, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, Lutherans, Interdenominationalists, independents, and others are candidates for Hell even though John 14:7 clearly teaches that Christ is the only way of salvation. Water baptism is simply an outward sign of what happened inwardly.

In Session 12, the church leaders decreed that those who don’t believe that the bread and wine at the Lord’s Table are the actual body and blood of Christ are doomed to Hell. Church leaders insist that they are actually eating the body of Christ and drinking His blood! If one analyzed the bread and wine as it hits the tongue would it prove to be flesh and blood? Only a superstitious fool or religious fanatic would think so. Only 45% of Catholics believe that teaching. Acts 15 forbids the drinking of blood. Catholics would have us believe that Christ was saying as He held the bread, “This is my body that we will now devour together!” What an absurdity! Moreover, Christ had not yet died, so how could the bread be His body that was in the room with them?

It is incredible and a mangling of English to call Trent an “Ecumenical Council.” The churchmen showed no interest in genuine discussion of the doctrinal differences with the Protestants. The Roman leaders were determined to reinforce their agenda with some housecleaning to satisfy the protesters. It is interesting that no Baptists were even close to the council. They wanted nothing to do with either side. Baptists are neither Catholics nor Protestants!

When Pope John XXIII opened the Second Vatican Council (1962), he made a Declaration of Faith. He said that he accepted everything declared by the Council of Trent. He specifically said that he anathematized everything that contradicted it, a position that was reaffirmed by Pope Paul VI. It was said that Paul “sought dialogue with the world, with other Christians, other religions, and atheists, excluding nobody.” But that is not true. With a wink and a nod, he spoke of inclusiveness while he reinstituted the vile curses of Trent. It is time for the Roman Catholic Church to apologize for Trent and lift all curses. Of course, the curses have no effect on non-Catholics but it is a matter of principle that the curses should be lifted if the Church leaders sincerely believe in ecumenicity. They are hypocrites if they don’t.

This evil attack upon all non-Catholics cannot be relegated to the Middle Ages; it is as current as it was at Trento. All curses are still in effect! Hardly a gracious and inclusive thought. It is way past time to lift the curses. Will the new Pope do so?

An Augustinian monk named Luther hammered to his church door in Wittenberg his objections to Roman Catholic doctrine and other abuses, accelerating the necessity of Trent. It is now time for Rome to admit that the simple monk was right and lift their curses on those who agree with him.