Oops, someone needs to tell someone else that they have the wrong hand. Anyone who has ever visited Istanbul knows that John the Baptist’s hand resides there. At least it did in 1989.

I suppose one could ask how a handkerchief that touched an apostle could heal a person and drive out demons. That seems like primitive nonsense as well (see Acts 19:12).
———-
McCain: Let’s see…so you are suggesting that an alleged body part of John the Baptist is to be regarded as being the same as what Holy Scripture records in Acts 19:12. That’s quite a stretch.———-
God works through matter, as in water for Baptism and and bread and wine for the Eucharist. He also works through saints and things they have touched. As CS Lewis said: God likes matter, He made it.
———-
McCain: There is no command, example or promise from God that we are to keep body parts from dead Christians and pray to them, pray before them, and look to them for help and aid.
———-
I thought I recalled a fellow named Luther talk about esteeming a feather if by taking it up one would receive forgiveness of sins and God’s grace. If relics are indeed channels of God’s power, perhaps a little veneration wouldn’t hurt.
———-
McCain: I advise you read that fellow quite a bit more. He was explaining how the Sacraments instituted by Christ Himself are channels of God’s grace. Alleged remains of dead Christians are not instiuted by Christ Himself to be channels of grace.
———-
The early Church revered the relics of the saints. That is why altars were built upon sites where martyrs were buried and later, relics were placed in altars.
———-
McCain: Indeed, the Early Church did make mistakes.
———-
Perhaps 15th century scholastics and 20th century protestants disdain the early church’s beliefs and practices, even though the early believers were closer in time, culture, and language to the Apostles. Perhaps they were not as sophisticated as later believers.
———-
McCain: I’m not aware of any great amount of testimony from the Orthodox Fathers about body parts of dead saints. Seems that had to wait for the later Medieval and Eastern folks to come along and really put some “fun”into such speculations.
———-
The high brow attitude that it is pure magical nonsense to revere relics seems to me to lead to the notion that its pure nonsense to believe in a physical resurrection.
———-
McCain: Highbrow attitude? No, rather, disdain for anti-Biblical and anti-Gospel foolishness.
———-
I wonder how the Lutheran Church of Sweden views people who venerate relics? Would it be much different from their view of those who believe that a man actually rose from the dead? Rose from the dead?? What nonsense!
———-
McCain: You are headed down an illigocal path of argumentation, off point.
———-
You may protest, as Luther did, that there are enough pieces of the true cross to build Noah’s Ark. But as Chesterton said, a counterfeit bank note does not prove that the Bank of England does not exist.
———-
McCain: If you show me where our dear Lord ever promosed us that we would find help and aid in time of need by carrying about the corpses or parts therof of dead Christians, I might find much of what you say a lot more persuasive.

Pastor:
As a very young woman, attending a girl’s Roman Catholic High School named Holy Angels Academy, the nuns walked us down the street a ways to Gesu Church, very near the Jesuit Marquette University campus.
The purpose was to “venerate” a relic of St. Francis Xavier’s arm and hand in a glass gold trimmed case.
We were led to the Communion Rail to kneel, while the priest brought this relic to each of us to kiss. Yes, more than just a little frightening.
I fled the Roman Catholic Church shortly there after, became an agnostic in Philosophy classes at the University of Wisconsin, married, bore children, and began searching for a congregation. After a brief stop over in Geneva with John Calvin, my husband and I and our children came joyfully to rest in Wittenberg. Now, as a Confessional Lutheran, an adult convert who has read the Triglotta (only the English of course), I want to say that, even given the liturgy, I did not hear the Gospel preached in the Roman Catholic church.
I would like to suggest to those who hanker after Rome, that the “liturgy” will not a Christian make.
I love the liturgy of the Gottesdienst with all my heart. Those leaning towards Rome have not been there. It is not a place they should want to be. Rome smothers the Gospel with the bones of St. Francis Xavier.
And the “Church Growth” folks sing a shallow power point song.
Both enthusiasts and mystics, from Pat Robertson to the Jesuits, from Rome to the Revival tent, it is no place for a Confessional Lutheran.
McCain: Thank you for your eloquent and humbling story! Wow.

Dear Pastor McCain,
I don’t know if the rules of your forum allow responses to your response of my post (if you follow me). If so, then I would like to make a few observations. If not, I completely understand.
You said: “Let’s see…so you are suggesting that an alleged body part of John the Baptist is to be regarded as being the same as what Holy Scripture records in Acts 19:12. That’s quite a stretch.”
I don’t see much of a stretch. I was just pointing out that both Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition reveal that objects can be vehicles of God’s grace, whether it be a handkerchief that touched an Apostle or the hand of an Apostle himself.
I would imagine that the handkerchief in question was accorded due reverence, though the Bible is silent on that point.
You said: “I advise you read that fellow quite a bit more. He was explaining how the Sacraments instituted by Christ Himself are channels of God’s grace. Alleged remains of dead Christians are not instiuted by Christ Himself to be channels of grace.”
But in this case, wasn’t the handkerchief a channel of God’s grace? I can see no “gospel promise” attached to it. The people in Acts instinctively knew that St. Paul was holy and full of God’s power and grace, and this power and grace extended to those things he touched.
FYI, I have read Luther. I was a voting, communicant member of two LC-MS parishes for 15 years. I have a copy of the BOC and Pieper’s Christian Dogmatics, though from talking with other Lutheran pastors, I am not sure if he is much in favor anymore. But I digress…
You said: “Indeed, the Early Church did make mistakes.”
This is probably the most important statement that you have made. It really sharpens the focus of our differences. To quote our friend again, you have “seized me by the throat!”
Who judges if the early Church made theological mistakes? You, me, Luther, Calvin, Menno Simons, etc. etc.? Perhaps Luther made theological mistakes, even serious ones.
Was Nicea a mistake? Was St. Athanasios mistaken when he gave the first complete list of the NT 350 years after the Resurrection?
You said: “You are headed down an illigocal (sic) path of argumentation, off point.”
Its not illogical nor is it off point. I am making the simple observation that the faith is one large tapestry, and to try to get to just “the essentials” and leave out the “adiaphora” is like pulling a thread. The whole work will become undone.
IMHO, this is the problem with Western Christendom. I think the rejection of relics and the rejection of the Seventh Ecumenical Council has led to the rejection of the Resurrection.
People want to avoid “creepy” religion…they like things nice and neat. Unfortunately, once you start changing things to suit your own taste, the process does not stop. The Lutheran Church of Sweden is an excellent example of this principle.
Brian

You are at your best, Pr. McCain, when you focus on your own church, and not on denigrating others’.
Perhaps a greater appreciation for the unity of the person, body and soul, that underlies the ancient practice of venerating relics is in order. Perhaps greater respect for those Fathers of the Church who formulated the very high, subtle and difficult doctrine of the Trinity and Christ should be had. If they could get those high dogmas right, how is it that they got just about everything else wrong: relics, ecclesiology, invocation of the saints, etc.? These do not seem to be very trustworthy authorities to refer to, and yet the BofC and Lutheran dogmatics texts do all the time? are they mere window-dressing for a scholastic work, or are these Fathers’ authority supposed to mean something? Why are many of these Fathers on the LCMS calendar to be celebrated as especially holy? “The early Church did make mistakes”, and quite a lot it seems, and yet somehow Luther, Chemnitz, and Walter made few, if any. Odd.
Again, you are at your best when you share what you believe, not when you mock what you neither believe, understand, nor represent honestly and fairly.
———-
McCain: Mocking false doctrine and heresy has a long tradition in the church, starting with our Lord Jesus Himself. It is an offense to the Gospel that you would compare the sublime mystery of the Holy Trinity with superstitious tripe such as displaying and praying and trusting in a dead person’s body part. It gets very, very old, but predictable, for Orthophiles such as yourself to play these mental games with what is so clearly absurdity, but that is what happens to people who choose to drink the “Orthodox” kool-aid.

In your original post you ask: (…) “what precisely is the deeper spiritual meaning and reality that I, a poor benighted Westerner, just can not understand here.”
Now, while is is true that
I define my own person more atheistic than religious,
to me,
your statement seems both bold and offensive.
I have not swum the Bosporus,
but have indeed swum in the Black Sea,
perhaps that qualifies me -
to address your benign request?
What you do not understand is that veneration of saints is not considered occult in russian-orthodox church. To be completely frank, it seems you have no clue at all.
When they (christians) pray to an icon (or a dead hand, for that matter), it is not the physical object that is venerated, but rather the depicted individual (or its owner). I know this because my own religious experiences are rooted in russian-orthodox church. (I was even baptised as a child at age of five. I remember the event because it was frightening. I mention this to seem credible, and ask of you to believe me when I say why christians pray to icons. Go verify it somewhere, if not)
I find veneration of a saint perfectly valid, because he might have been specifically good at some aspect of life. An aspect which is exactly what you need help with or forgiveness for when praying to that saint. This does not put aside the truth about God’s “monopoly” or that Jesus is his only son. One is simply asking that saint, who is pretty much as close to God as it gets – because of his status, to convey the message. If the saint cares to, of course. This is my interpretation of the issue. Call me a jew for having philosophical thougts and welcoming discussion about the meaning of the words or actions, but please listen.
Is it so aversive that a believing individual might feel close to God when being near someone’s physical, real, tangeble, remnant in this place called universe? Someone who spoke God’s word or defended it, mind you. It is a matter of faith, my friend (as you would perhaps say to me). D-do you really think that kissing a dead guys hand cured Vladimir’s (or whatever) walking impairment? I think he either faked it or something in his head clicked and made him able to walk. Maybe that was his faith in his own ability of walking. Some would think it was God – I accept that.
Personally, I venerate all sorts of people and saints for their wisdoms: Jesus, who tried to save us, for his benevolence. Ghengis-khan, who invaded my people for his brutality and cunning. Hitler for pretty much the same reason. I venerate Mohammed, the founder of Islam, for his unquestionably morally upright life. Chaplin for his antics. Ghandi for his methods. Rosseau for his refreshing ideas. Martin L. King for his efforts to improve humanity. The first emperor of China for unifying a great nation. Satan for his cruelty and God – whose power in this world I simply can not deny.
Being something of an atheist I can allow myself such duality or hypocrisy. I can even argue that I am not an atheist with good consciense because denial of a higher power is just as questionable as trust or faith in it. Do you not agree?
I guess you don’t, and that is the problem. You can not or want not to let others find out what to believe in. “will we read Holy Mother Church condemning this kind of nonsense”. Who are you to call it nonsense?! Freedom of speech gives you the right to, but your intellect is not as boundless as that right. I think you demonstrate that by publishing thoughts such as this in a blog. For your information, “orthodox” is synonimous to genuine, true and correct. You are mistaking! It is even not my statement. Eat that.
God-damn, blind puppet of religion! Jesus Christ! There are no words for my vexation. I dare you to publish my comment. Why? Am I not exercising my freedom of speech correctly? I am speaking on the behalf of the younger generation, myself being only 19. I know I am not alone about trying and learning integration in our modern and complex society. It is cosmopolitan. Thus I will not tolerate crusaders crying out MY CURCH IS THE CORRECT ONE. You! The older generation, are teaching us to learn from old mistakes.

Brian/Christopher,
I see no scripture in your argument. What validates your claims?
The church fathers?
Are they higher than scripture? If they are, then which of them were right?
As we know, there were many fathers with many different opinions. Do we get to choose willy-nilly which ones we believe?
The Bible points to Christ, not his saints. The Bible says, “pray to the Father..” not to Peter. Have the saints reached god-hood? As far as scripture says, only God hears prayers. And on a more logical poine, God invites us to pray to him, why would we rather pray to a man (excluding the God-Man, of course)?