Get Your John Paul II Relics Here! Why the Reformation Remains Necessary and Essential for the Church
Why does the Reformation remain necessary? Here is but the latest example. This is not surprising, actually. It is just a natural extension of the anti-Gospel theology that remains in the Roman Catholic Church. Thanks be to God that in spite of such errors the Gospel is heard in Romanism, but it continues to be deeply obscured by Rome’s errors. What is even more sad is watching Lutherans, who of all people should know better, not understand why Rome is still wrong, deeply wrong. A friend recently observed that there are a certain kind of Lutherans who finally simply can not ever confess the truth and take a stand for the specific doctrinal truths of God’s Word because they have undergone a dogmatic labotomy. It was an interesting comment, a bit harsh to be sure, but interesting nonetheless.
The popes recent re-assertion of papal supremacy is another example of Romes deep errors. Still there is courage in his willingness to be politically incorrect. I wish we had the courage to vigorously reassert the Doctrine of the papacy as Anti-Christ in these times. Perhaps we have replaced the full blooded scriputural and Christo-centric Doctrine of Justification with a philosophical cariacature of that blessed doctrine. Hence we cannot recognise gross error anymore. Or if we do we do not care. God save us.
Personally, I’m gonna see if I can get the miter. I’ll let you know how that turns out.
Acts 19:11-12
“So extraordinary were the mighty deeds God accomplished at the hands of Paul that when face cloths or aprons that touched his skin were applied to the sick, their diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them.”
Hence, this Catholic practice stands in direct continuity with the approving words of scripture . . . unless the Bible is *wrong* to attach divine power both to the Apostle Paul and to the napkins applied to his body.
I don’t see Lutherans doing these sorts of things. So, I have to wonder which Christian community is more “biblical” here.
I don’t see that text as saying the cloths did the trick, or even the application of them.
It doesn’t even say that anything about Paul accomplished it. Indeed, the mighty deeds were God’s. At Paul’s hands, yes; but not the deeds of Paul’s hands or clothing, or of his skin.
It seems a bad extrapolation, to read that into that text, and a bad presumption to proceed thusly.
And it certainly doesn’t say, ‘Go and do likewise. With whatever someone claims to be a proper relic of someone holy.’
Being ‘biblical’ means careful understanding of what the scriptures don’t say, in order to clearly understand what they do say, lest we make them say the wrong, or simply the extra, thing.
“I don’t see that text as saying the cloths did the trick, or even the application of them.”
In point of fact, it does: Sacred Scripture says that God accomplished mighty deeds “at the hands of PAUL,” such that any piece of cloth which was touched to HIS SKIN — Luke is especially clear about this — produced a miraculous cure on those to whom it was applied. Luke goes even further by noting that demons were driven out by the mere *presence* of a cloth touched to St. Paul’s skin.
“It doesn’t even say that anything about Paul accomplished it.”
I repeat: “at the hands of Paul”
“Indeed, the mighty deeds were God’s. At Paul’s hands, yes; but not the deeds of Paul’s hands or clothing, or of his skin.”
I don’t think we disagree here: The Catholic Church has never denied that the ultimate efficacy of the saints’ relics comes from God.
St. Luke *explicitly* mentions that the cloths had miraculous properties because they had been touched to Paul’s skin. Also, let’s not forget that Luke offers this scenario APPROVINGLY — not as some superstition — to highlight the power which God had afforded His Apostles!
“And it certainly doesn’t say, ‘Go and do likewise. With whatever someone claims to be a proper relic of someone holy.”
No, . . . and, the Bible never says, “Go and write books and letters in addition to the Jewish scriptures.” But, people did, because they felt that such activity was a legitimate extension of the divine commission Jesus gave to the Apostles and the Church. They didn’t have to be told; they had the *sensus fidelium*.
“Being ‘biblical’ means careful understanding of what the scriptures don’t say, in order to clearly understand what they do say, lest we make them say the wrong, or simply the extra, thing.”
That’s fine.
But, frankly, I think that’s your opinion about how the Bible should be read. I think the verses from Acts are perspicuous here: God’s grace (mighty deeds) acting through a physical medium (a cloth) associated with a holy Christian (St. Paul). In other words, a relic by any other name is still a relic.
I don’t see the Lutheran denomination doing today what Acts describes the “Apostolic Church” doing in 19:11-12.
True, the Lutheran Church does not. Neither does it speak in tongues. Because God has nowhere promised to impart His power to anything but to His Word and the sacraments. Not even in Luke does He promise anything beyond that. So we rest in what He has promised.
That is not my opinion.