Here's the specific misunderstanding that I want to address in this blog posting. Veneration means that you treat the relic with respect as having once contained the living presence of someone who is known to have achieved sanctity. So veneration is not worship. When people kiss and venerate a saint's relic they are not worshipping it, even though it looks that way. People are worshipping God, who stands "behind" the relic, not the actual relic itself. God is not "in" the relic and only God is worshipped. Think of it as people who venerate the relic are trying to spiritually reach through the relic to follow the same path to sanctity as the saint did. Not by imitating the saint, since that's the more complicated journey of having a life calling, vocation or sanctified life style. But by venerating a relic people are praying to God using a bodily remain that they know "showed that God is real." A relic of a saint is a reminder that the saint "proved" to the faithful that God exists, and they use the relic to reach into the well of faith that the saint demonstrably had accessed in his or her life.
Now, here is where modern day cultists are really confused. Non-Catholics who are cultists believe that the relic itself contains some holy virtue that performs miracles. They are wrong and that's incredibly stupid of them to believe. They are confused because there are examples in the Bible and in life since then of miracles being achieved through the touching of relics. But it's not the relic itself or the touching of the relic that performs the miracle, dummy! God performs all miracles that he wills to happen. It is the belief, the true and pure belief, that is the "request" to God for the miracle. So when someone touches a relic and that person is pure in their belief (not a cultist) that comprises the "request" to God for the miracle. But the person could have made the same prayer and request without the relic at all. The relic is an assistance to humans in their faith and to strengthen their mindset through referencing the sanctity of example that the saint has set. But all of that can be done (and happens every day) without the relic.
In the Bible we read how St. Peter's shadow could cure people. But it goes without saying that the shadow didn't just willy nilly cure anyone that it fell on. The shadow itself had no power. But the people who the Bible reports crowded the road sides hoping for St. Peter's shadow to fall on them believed. They didn't believe that his shadow had power. They believed that God fulfilled their prayers through the shadow of this man St. Peter's sanctity.
Without belief God is not going to perform miracles through relics or without relics. The belief does not need to be perfect, but it cannot be contaminated by occult belief in the magical power of the relic rather than faith in God's will, from whom all comes that is good or healing in power. You could own the undergarments of Jesus Christ himself and if you do not believe in God, and if you attribute power to the undergarments instead of God, it will do you no good and you might as well buy yourself a fresh pair of Fruit of the Loom.
Suppose someone could tell me that there is an example of someone who is miraculously cured via touching a relic, but that person is not a believer or is even worse, someone profane and a cultist. God knows all and sees all. He will perform miracles for even the worst pagan, infidel, idolater and profane if God knows that by doing so he will shake the error of the person and prepare him or her for genuine conversion. Again, it's not the relic. The person could have got the same result without the relic, but relics help people who have sullied thoughts to focus on the path and goodness of the person whose relic they behold, and thus they can lead their minds more clearly to God, even if that is not their original intention. It is all God's choice whether he delivers a miracle or not, relic or not. And remember, the vast majority of prayers by even the faithful for healing are not granted. When the Blessed Virgin Mary appeared in Fatima the three saintly children would give her lists of names they hoped would be cured. Mary would tell them point blank which of those would be cured, and the many that it was not God's will to cure. This included two of the three children who died young of illnesses just a few years after they saw Mary.
Life is meant to be lived. God gave the gift of life to people. If people cannot live in decent ways, do you think that God will intervene? If the generals in Myanmar do not allow the cyclone survivors to receive food, do you think God will have manna fall from the sky to feed them, believers or not? Of course not, because God might as well just take free will and life itself away from people all together (and don't think it has not become more likely now than it was some years ago). People live longer than they ever did yet pray for miracles for illnesses. Life is meant to be lived and not "miracled" out of every difficulty or reality of life itself.
So to repeat, there is no magic or holy virtue at all in the relic itself. All miracles are at the behest of God's goodness and mercy, and only if a miracle fits into God's greater plan. Some miracles fall on even the most unworthy people, unasked for. This is part of realizing that only God sees the entire picture of his plan for humanity as a whole and for each child and adult individually. I know very undeserving people who have benefited from God's miracles. But few of them remain undeserving their entire lives. A true miracle is an encounter with God that will start a transformation that the person either allows or blocks. Compare that to what has happened to many people who just win a lottery and become despondent drug addicts and depressives. A miracle, even to the undeserving, moves the person in the right direction, even if they defy it. Material and man made events of good fortune, such as fame, or the lottery, rarely does exactly that; usually it moves all but the most cautious and prudent in the wrong direction. So it is entirely plausible that God will give a miracle to even the most undeserving. After all, he knocked Saul off of that horse, and who would have thought that Saul, the persecutor of Christians, deserved a miracle? But God, who knows all and sees all, sent the resurrected Jesus Christ to Saul to ask him, point blank, why was he persecuting him? Saul who became Paul is the example of the unsought for miracle falling on the most undeserving, and then becoming a pillar of witness of God's transforming power.
Modern cultists would think that the hair of Saul's horse would "hold" some of the "power" of the miracle, because Saul's fat rear end sat on the horse and the light of Jesus fell on the horse hair. That, of course, is stupid and wrong. But that is how some deluded cultists misunderstand the physical setting of a miracle. I'm just using that as an example of how they misunderstand what is a relic and what is not, plus the fact that legitimate relic or not, the object or remains do not hold any power in and of itself. Like I said, people could own a set of Jesus' undergarments and while they would be relics, they would be no guarantee of miracles or curing, and certainly not indicative or giving of any earthly power. They simply strengthen and focus the faith as the believer venerates a legitimate relic.Here's an example. I have a wooden rosary. Several years ago I touched it to the reliquary that holds a relic of St. Francis. Now, my intention to do that is to have it in my spiritual "first aid kit" to give to someone who may need it. This would not be because it holds some sort of special power. Rather, if I knew someone seriously ill, or bed ridden, and who could not make a pilgrimage, or was suffering, I could give him or her that rosary and tell them that it has touched the glass pane over a relic of St. Francis. This would be a comfort, and an illumination of faith, not conferring of a magical power. I come from the generation of Catholics who know how to give "civilian" baptisms and last rites to the dying. Old time Catholics are taught how to baptise a road side car accident victim out of rainwater puddles if you are called upon to do so in dire emergency. That doesn't mean that the puddle is holy. It's proof that it is not the relic or device (in this case, holy water or the oils of the last rites) that contains the power, but God himself, only God. All Catholic children of my generation knew how to baptize, even using spit, if no water is at hand, or to give last rites that are valid, even not as a priest and not having the holy orders or sanctified oils. That is the absolute proof of what I am explaining to you in this posting.
Since the relic itself, specifically the remains of the saint, does not contain the power itself, this should also clear up the pagan belief that sanctity is inherited genetically. It is not. I mean, just think about it and put down the drink or the weed if necessary to follow this more clearly. Suppose you knew Judas back when he was an Apostle in good standing. You'd sit there and think, "Hm, holy person." If he had children and you believed this stupidity that it is genetic, you might think, "Hm, his son or daughter are holy by virtue of being his physical offspring." Well, Judas goes and betrays Jesus. Is he still holy? Would his body change in one day from being "relic worthy" to being "very much not relic?" And what about the theoretical kids? How dumb is that? Would the "genetics" of his "offspring" be "holy" just because they were the kids of a genuine Apostle, regardless of their own sanctity of belief and works AND even after Judas the Apostle became Judas the Betrayer? So with this example, how could anyone but a total moron think that just because someone is an offspring or descendant of someone holy, or not, that their faith profile and "magic" powers are transferred to them through genes? That is why popular cult literature about "descendants" of saints is such ridiculous retarded garbage that I did not even bother to reply on message boards regarding this subject, nor take the bait. It's so stupid that I cannot believe anyone would actually think that generation xyz of some supposed saint has anything to do with reality.
And so, not to be indelicate (but cultists force one to discuss vulgar topics), not only would descendants not have any jot of holiness profile in them, but neither would, um, efflua from them, such as sperm, eggs and so forth. God's miracles and power are not transmitted in the human body in any way shape or form, period, end of story. Someone who achieves a miracle using erroneous belief did so at God's pleasure because God saw a chance for genuine transformation of heart in the person, infidel or not, and whether they accept that gift or not. So if someone preserved the snot from the nose of the horse that Saul rode, or traced the generations of asses that Jesus rode on and picked a booger from the nose of the current generation of ass, and then has a miracle occur, it's not the snot or the booger itself, dummy.
I so cannot believe that I am having to explain this. And you wonder why iconoclasts were so angry about icons AND why Muslims are so militant on that subject too. They recognize the temptation inherent in poor faith understanding (or worse, cultist tendencies) that lurk in people to misunderstand and therefore misattribute God's power to physical relics and material representations. They have a point and I think Muslims are correct to maintain their cautious stance in their own faith. In many ways God blesses Muslims as vanguards of maintaining purity of intention only to the one God himself. However, the Catholic understanding of relics is correct and valid, but there is in these cartoon character cultist times a real pressure to believe some of the most disgraceful things about relics.
So you can throw away the crates of "genuine angel poo" and "eggs and sperm from prophets."
God help the people who have become so insane, and return them back to humanity and sanity.
