Happy St. Nicholas

A happy St. Nicholas day to any of you observing the day. I am curious if anyone has observed it and how. Anyone grow up in a family that had St. Nicholas customs? For me, he was a shadowy figure behind the American Santa Claus, and he didn't come 'round till Christmas eve.

Apparently, the story goes, the real Nicholas, bishop of Myra, punched Arius at the council, and was denied Communion for three days as a punishment. But Arius, well, what shall we say about the heresy of Arius that hasn't already been said? (Anyone have a traditional Dec. 6 recipe for punch?)

Comments

[CV]

This recipe is is posted at The St. Nicholas Center, a spectacularly beautiful website devoted to all things St. Nick:

Bishop Saint Nicholas Punch

To decorate the punch bowl, make a wreath out of rosemary, mint, holly leaves and berries.

3–4 Seville oranges (smooth-skinned)
1–2 lemons, sliced
1 quart apple cider
1/2 cup raisins
1 teaspoon cloves
1/2 cup sugar or brown sugar
1 teaspoon mace
1 teaspoon nutmeg

Slice and grill orange and lemon slices in a frying pan with butter. Squeeze, then place in punch bowl. Add cider, sugar, raisins, and spices. Delicious when served hot with a cinnamon stick in each mug.

http://www.stnicholascenter.org/Brix?pageID=23

[Rob G]

For beer lovers, Penn Brewery here in Pittsburgh does a "St Nikolaus Bock" every winter that's good stuff:

http://www.pennbrew.com/data/english/beers_stniklaus.htm

[Mike Melendez]

We celebrate St Nick's day by putting up our stockings then. St Nick fills them for us and sometimes leaves small gifts, especially for the children.

[NJI]

We observe St. Nicholas day, mostly because I'm named after him, but I've been studying him, and I'm thinking about instituting a new tradition... find a heretic and punch him. (I don't think I'm gonna be able to convince my family.) Maybe we could find a heretic and offer them some Saint Nicholas Punch. :-D

[Joe Long]

Now THIS is the sort of observance that makes a Calvinist have "Saint's Day envy". Even since I first heard about Saint Nick slugging Arius, I've been better disposed towards the "jolly old elf" than ever before.

Now, that teaspoon of mace in the recipe might be going a bit far - maybe just a squirt of pepper spray would do...?

[Jason in San Antonio]

This morning I awoke a jubilant "Happy Feast of St. Nicholas!" to find a new pair of courduroy slippers at the foot of the bed.

Stuffed with goodies?

Inside one of them was a new stick of deodorant--I had just run out and I guess my wife had, um . . . noticed. Not exactly one's typical St. Nick fare, I suppose.

[James Kabala]

Mr. Long: The Calvinists of the Netherlands were rather favorably disposed to St. Nicholas and, in fact, were the ones who brought his traditions to the New World.

By the way, I think that the British tradition of "Father Christmas" in some ways more coherent that the American tradition of Santa Claus. The tradition is a bit confused as to who exactly Santa Claus is supposed to be: Is he supposed to be really St. Nicholas of Myra, transported to the North Pole and acquiring a wife at some point, or he is supposed to be an independent immortal being who somehow gained the right to poach off a dead (in heaven, but still dead) man's name? When I was a kid, I leaned toward the latter interpretation, but many songs and poems support the former.

[Fr. Robert McMeekin]

Last night (December 5th) we celebrated a Vesperal Liturgy for the feast at our little Orthodox Mission Community. At the conclusion of the Liturgy, everyone received a small icon of St. Nicholas to put in their cars (Nicholas is the patron saint of travelers) or to decorate and hang on their Christmas Trees.

This morning, as has been our family custom since our first child was born, our children woke up to find new Christmas ornaments wrapped in simple cloth bags by their beds. The ornaments reflect an interest or activity that each one has been involved in this year. With the ornaments each child also receives a $10.00 bill, knowing that with this gift from St. Nicholas comes a charge to purchase a gift for a needy child. Some years they each purchase one small item and some years they pool their resources to buy one big item. Regardless, it must be something that they would want for themselves and then give it away to someone else.

After Christmas, each of the ornaments is loving preserved by my wife who will, someday, present them to each child as a wedding gift for their first Christmas Tree.

That's St. Nicholas Day for us.

[Stuart Koehl]

At my old Ruthenian parish, the children would bake St. Nicholas cookies--kind of like a giant gingersnap made with Portland cement. They are formed using a wooden mold with an icon of St. Nicholas, which had been brought from the Old Country (the REALLY Old Country, not Pennsylvania) by the ancestors of one of the parishoners. They're very tasty with milk or tea, but best to dunk them if more than a month old. They never go bad, and I used to give them away as gifts.

St. Nicholas is Da Man for Ruthenian Catholics, and St. Nicholas Day used to be a bigger deal for kids than Christmas (this has changed in the last couple of generations). St. Nicholas Day, NOT Nativity, was the day for exchanging gifts, which, if you think about it, makes a lot of sense.

The Ruthenians also have innumerable stories about St, Nicholas and his miracles. One very recent one (dating to the 1920s), concerns a coal mine where most of the miners were Ruthenians who refused to work on St. Nicholas Day, but instead went to Liturgy that morning. The local mine owner hired replacements (just what confession they were is not made clear). Needless to say, there was a cave in that day, and many of the replacements were killed, while the pious Ruthenians attributed their salvation to the intervention of St. Nicholas himself.

[Jill C.]

We did celebrate St. Nicholas Day some years when our chidren were young. In anticipation of Christmas they received one gift early -- on the 6th -- usually a book, game, or puzzle. We read the story of the good bishop from the book, "Santa Claus, Are You for Real?" by Harold Myra.

[Bill R]

"That's St. Nicholas Day for us."

Fr. McMeekin, I think I have a case of Orthodox envy! ;-)

[Kathy Hanneman]

This St. Nicholas Day was more meaningful to me than previous ones as I had the privilege, in October, of venerating him at his tomb in Bari, Italy. My husband (whose patron is St. Nicholas) had said if we went to Italy, we had to go there. This is a bit tricky as Bari is not one of your typical tourist locales, at least for Americans. Anyway, it was a highly moving experience (in spite of irreverent tour guides chatting as you pray.)We were able to bring home some of the "manna", an amazingly clear liquid that exudes from the relics and which has reportedly miraculous properties. Also, the basilica is one of the few church buildings in which both the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox worship. Anyway, I have a much greater appreciation of St. Nicholas. I know this is a bit off the subject but I wanted to share this and to recommend that if you get to Italy that you make plans to visit Bari. I don't think you will be disappointed.

[labrialumn]

In Pella, Iowa, a Dutch colony, St. Nicolas rides into the town square on his white horse. There is a parade. They call it Sinterklaas Day

[Stuart Koehl]

By the way, there are several relics of St. Nicholas present at Epiphany of Our Lord in Annandale, VA, which are regularly venerated on his feast. In addition, there is a phial of the "Tears of St. Nicholas", the liquid which seeps from his tomb in Bari (whence it was translated--some say illegitimately--by Italian sailors--some say pirates). Our priest anoints the faithful with it after we venerate the saint's icon.

[pilgrim kate]

My Dutch-born husband grew up receiving small treats on St. Nicholas' Day, and Christmas was celebrated by going to church. How different our culture would have looked, if, as Stuart Koehl said, gift-giving had been separated from the celebration of the Nativity.

[Bill R]

Ah, me. Nothing like a discussion of relics to make me lose my "Orthodox envy"!

[Anna]

that's right Bill -- keep God upstairs where he belongs! why would he condescend to this smelly old sin-cursed earth?

[Matt Karnes]

We don't do much. We put candy in my kids shoes, and sing the troparion during daily prayers. Thats about it. Oh, we also deliver candy to unsuspecting children in St. Nicholas' name.

[Rob G]

Thanks, Kathy & Stuart, for the info on St. Nicholas -- I didn't realize he was a myrrh-gusher, or even that his relics were extant. Now those lines about myrrh in his service make more sense.

[Judy Warner]

>>>My Dutch-born husband grew up receiving small treats on St. Nicholas' Day, and Christmas was celebrated by going to church.<<<

If the Dutch had continued to practice these customs they'd be in a lot less trouble today.

[Schultz]

I surreptitiously slipped some candy into my wife's shoes right before bedtime on Wednesday and played dumb the next morning.

I can't wait until we have kids :)

[Tim R]

Yesterday when our three year old awoke, St. Nicholas had left treats in his shoes. My wife remembered the custom from when her father was stationed in Kaiserslauter, Germany, with the U.S. Army.

We thought it would be a corrective to the world's commercial version of Santa Claus and Christmas.

[Tim R]

Yesterday when our three year old awoke, St. Nicholas had left treats in his shoes. My wife remembered the custom from when her father was stationed in Kaiserslauter, Germany, with the U.S. Army.

We thought it would be a corrective to the world's commercial version of Santa Claus and Christmas.

[Bill R]

"that's right Bill -- keep God upstairs where he belongs! why would he condescend to this smelly old sin-cursed earth?"

Not my attitude at all, Anna. I really do try to sympathize with and understand the attitude of many Christians toward relics. (Mounted above my desk is my late grandfather's pipe, but not, ahem, his thighbone.) So far, I haven't been entirely successful. My God descends to this "smelly old sin-curse earth" to live in the eucharist, but He left no relics of His earthly sojourn for us to venerate.

[GL]

My daughter figured out (or at least is just now admitting figuring out) that there is no Santa Claus this year. Anticipating this, I was ready and told her about the real St. Nicholas, assuring her that their really was a St. Nicholas who had inspired the character she knew as a child. I also had already picked out a child's book on St. Nicholas at a local Catholic book store. It had several to choose from, some too serious and some too simplistic for my daughter. I chose Saint Nicholas: The Story of the real Santa Claus, available at http://catholicfreeshipping.stores.yahoo.net/sanistofresa.html. Frankly, were it just me, I would tell all of our children from the start about the real St. Nicholas and we would observe a gift giving tradition centered around his feast day. However, given other family considerations, I have agreed to have our children believe in the jolly ole elf like most of their peers.

My daughter, by the way, was delighted to learn of the real St. Nicholas and loved the book. She also enjoys being in on the secret. :-)

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>My God descends to this "smelly old sin-curse earth" to live in the eucharist, but He left no relics of His earthly sojourn for us to venerate. <<<

Not of his body, of course--He still needs it. But there are other relics which serve as memorials of his incarnation, passion and resurrection, including the so-called Titulum of the True Cross and the Shroud of Turin. You can choose to believe in them or not, but one vital purpose served by relics is to remind us of the historical reality of the events we celebrate liturgically. In addition, the relics of the saints serve to remind us that we are indeed surrounded by clouds of witnesses, who are powerful intercessors on our behalf before the Throne of the Son of God.

[Juli]

If the Dutch had continued to practice these customs they'd be in a lot less trouble today.

Well, St Nicholas Day, at least, is still a big deal for the Dutch:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinterklaas

[Susan]

Since our children were small, we have celebrated St. Nicholas Day by filling stockings with chocolate coins and other small gifts, and by reading the story of St. Nicholas together. We explained that the Santa Claus story many parents tell their children is based upon St. Nicholas, who lived long ago.

When my oldest daughter was about five, an aunt asked her what she wanted from Santa for Christmas. My sister-in-law was shocked when she replied, "Santa is dead!" and we had some explaining to do.

[Judy Warner]

>>>If the Dutch had continued to practice these customs they'd be in a lot less trouble today.

Well, St Nicholas Day, at least, is still a big deal for the Dutch:<<<

I was thinking more of the going to church part. What does St. Nick day mean if you're an atheist?

[Bill R]

"But there are other relics which serve as memorials of his incarnation, passion and resurrection, including the so-called Titulum of the True Cross and the Shroud of Turin."

Which are more akin to my grandpa's pipe than the bone fragments and the like that seem to make up so many of the relics. The Titulum, as I recall, didn't appear until Constantine's mother went looking for it in the fourth century, and of course the Shroud, if authentic, appears even later in history. I have no problems with such relics per se, but the issues of authenticity seem rather substantial. Like many moderns, I guess I find bone fragments and "oozing fluids" to be more than a little bizarre. Not to mention what happens when they turn out to be virtually magical amulets capable of curing everything from cancer to male-pattern baldness.

Was Luther right that there were enough pieces of the True Cross in Europe to constitute a small forest?

[James A. Altena]

There is also the multiplication of relics. Mark Twain hilarioulsy recounted being shown the skull of St. Peter at one church in Europe, and then being shown it again at another church. When he objected that he'd already seen the skull at the previous church, the response was "That was the skull fo St. Peter as a young man. This is the skull of St. Peter when he was older."

What always bothers me about the true Cross is not the number of splinters (multiplication of relics again), but the fact that people are oblivious to the obvious and essential sacrilege involved in destroying the true Cross (or the remains of a human body) to distribute bits of it like so many souvenirs. Why not cut up the Shroud of Turin, or carve up a famous wonder-working ikon, and distribute little patches and pieces of those on the same principle? I find it all positively revolting, and expressive of superstition and shamanism rather than Christian faith.

[Darrel Hoerle]

It may be apropo to paste in one of the Mere Comments posts from several months ago, which has become a favorite Chesterton quote of mine. If anyone could furnish the citation, it would be most appreciated!

"A Puritan may think that is is blasphemous that God should become a wafer. A Moslem thinks it is blasphemous that God should become a workman in Galilee. And he is perfectly right, from his point of view; and given his primary principle. But if the Moslem has principle, the Protestant has only prejudice. That is, he has only a fragment; a relic; a superstition. If it be profane that the miraculous should descend into the plane of matter, then certainly Catholicism is profane; and Protestantism is profane; and Christianity is profane. Of all human creeds or concepts in that sense, Christianity is the most utterly profane. But why a man should accept a Creator who was a carpenter, and then worry about holy water, why he should accept a local Protestant tradition that God was born in some particular place mentioned in the Bible, merely because the Bible had been left lying about in England, and then say it is incredible that a blessing should linger on the bones of a saint, why he should accept the first and most stupendous part of the story of Heaven on Earth, and then furiously deny a few small obvious deductions from it -- that is a thing I do not understand; I never could understand; I have come to the conclusion that I shall never understand. I can only attribute it to superstition." - G.K. Chesterton

[Darrel Hoerle]

Follow up to previous post: As a recent convert to the Catholic Church, I'm not quite used to seeing bones underneath altars, myself. Here in Korea, there is a major pilgrimage site, Mirinae, dedicated to the early Korean martyrs, especially St. Andrew Kim Daegon. The Chesterton quote did help me to appreciate what I was seeing when I visited there recently. It all follows from a sacramental view of things.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>"That was the skull fo St. Peter as a young man. This is the skull of St. Peter when he was older."<<<

I actually believe that was the explanation given by a group of Mexican ex-revolutionaries who were asked which of two skulls belonged to the legendary Pancho Villa. Since one was larger than the other, they concluded that both were Villa's--the smaller one that of the boy Pancho Villa, the larger that of the grown man.

[DGP]

>>I find it all positively revolting, and expressive of superstition and shamanism rather than Christian faith.

Yes, much like the Lord spitting in the dust and smearing mud on a man's eyes, the veneration of bodily relics is plainly a form of shamanism, and almost as revolting as the Incarnation himself. Lucifer had a much better sense of propriety and of the dignity of the spiritual estate.

[Bill R]

"Yes, much like the Lord spitting in the dust and smearing mud on a man's eyes, the veneration of bodily relics is plainly a form of shamanism, and almost as revolting as the Incarnation himself."
Hardly. Mud isn't a relic. If you mean that mud, like bread or wine, may have sacramental meaning, well and good. But not in and of itself: only when it is united with the life that is in Christ (yes, even in his saliva). But in a bare femur or fingernail the life has departed, and the bodily relic is but a ghastly reminder of death, not life. Relics invoking the veneration of mortal remains are remnants of paganism, pure and simple. Ichabod!

[James A. Altena]

Darrell and Fr. DGP miss my point *entirely.* They might bother to read what I wrote more carefully, rather than going into a knee-jerk reaction. The objection and revulsion I raised were not to relics or ikons per se (and I have duly venerated the latter at Orthodox churches). The objection and revulsion were to their sacrilegious dismemberment and destruction. That is where it moves from veneration to shamanism, for it assumes that power resides in them magically in a merely physical sense. which can be seized upon, dispersed, and carted about and employed at will. Their responses also do not address my point at all about why it is wrong to destroy the true Cross, or why it would similarly be wrong to destroy the Shroud of Turin.

And thanks to my good friend Bill R for his cogent point about mud vs bread and wine -- what those of us who are catholic would term sacramentals vs sacraments, not to mention sacraments vs relics. I would differ with his about relics as being simply "ghastly reminders" -- e.g. we may treasure the lock of hair of a beloved ancestor as an heirloom (which unlike bones does not involve destructive dismemeberment of an integral whole). Which is why my comment was emphatically *not* an attempt to stir up an RC-Protestant dispute.

[DGP]

>>DGP miss my point *entirely.* They might bother to read what I wrote more carefully, rather than going into a knee-jerk reaction.

Ah, no one who diagrees with you could possibly be writing in good faith? I think I understood you, and I think that splinters of the Cross or slices of a martyr's femur are quite humane. My response applies directly to the charge of shamanism. Your use of the term "revolting" is less clear, but its connotative strength suggests more than remorse at the loss of an historical artifact like the Shroud.

In case it's any help, remember that the multiplication of splinters -- already improbably abundant -- does not compromise the possibility of the Cross remaining more or less intact. Likewise with the bodies of saints, which are normally preserved in a given tomb despite the proliferation of relics. The normal rules about the conservation of substance do not seem to apply.

>>Which is why my comment was emphatically *not* an attempt to stir up an RC-Protestant dispute.

I believe it was not so intended, but it's clearly a flirtation with sensitive Reformation-era accusations. I hope that you will now extend to me the generous hermeneutic you require for your own contributions.

[David Gray]

>G.K. Chesterton

Chesterton is often wise. But as previously noted when that quote was invoked this was not one of those times.

[Bill R]

>Which is why my comment was emphatically *not* an attempt to stir up an RC-Protestant dispute.< - James Altena

>>I believe it was not so intended, but it's clearly a flirtation with sensitive Reformation-era accusations. I hope that you will now extend to me the generous hermeneutic you require for your own contributions.<< - DGP

I must admit I come to MC in large part to AVOID polemics, but one can't avoid (I would argue one mustn't avoid) points of difference that may help us to understand other Christian points of view. That, in fact, is one of the reasons I continue to frequent MC. Relics are a case in point. I sympathize with much of the impulse that (I believe) drives the veneration of relics. If I owned Augustine's crozier, I would most certainly honor it and place it in a venerable position in my home. I would not and could not display his skull. The Christian who could do the latter has, I believe, pushed a sacramental understanding of the faith beyond its intended limits.

By the way, I'll defend my position from error in the opposite direction as well. Many of my fellow Protestants lack any sacramental understanding of the faith, and I find this equally bizarre. I will go so far as to say that this is a more serious flaw than what I would call "hyper-sacramentalism," as it is (unintentionally) blind to a vast area of Christian life and faith.

[DGP]

>>I must admit I come to MC in large part to AVOID polemics, but one can't avoid (I would argue one mustn't avoid) points of difference that may help us to understand other Christian points of view. That, in fact, is one of the reasons I continue to frequent MC. Relics are a case in point. I sympathize with much of the impulse that (I believe) drives the veneration of relics. If I owned Augustine's crozier, I would most certainly honor it and place it in a venerable position in my home. I would not and could not display his skull. The Christian who could do the latter has, I believe, pushed a sacramental understanding of the faith beyond its intended limits.

From the persepctive of a modern, this is understandable. I am not offended by these and similar remarks here, but am attempting to respond to each in parallel language.

In this case: Through most of our history we've been on more pragmatic terms with the Angel of Death, and his emblems have consequently played a more prominent role in our imagination than men easily now accomodate. From St. Paul's mention of the corruption of the flesh (a very concrete image before it is a spiritual metaphor) to the celebration of Eucharist at the tombs of the martyrs in the catacombs (arguably envisioned in Rev 6:9) to the high patristic celebration of the saints' bodies to the medieval distribution of fragments -- it's all a continuous trajectory in the development of the faith.

From the RC perspective, this is the more stubborn Protestant-RC issue. To distance oneself that sharply from the practices of one's predecessors, to introduce sharp discontinuities or even declare their devotions unfaithful -- to me this seems almost always a grave mistake, a mistake which reverberates in the life of our adoptive family, the Church, from generation to generation.

[Kathy Hanneman]

I think I opened up the current hornet's nest when I mentioned my trip to Bari. I do believe that God can work through physical means including objects connected with saints. I don't understand how the "manna" from St. Nicholas is different than what occurred in Acts 19:11-12
Now God worked unusual miracles by the hands of Paul, so that even handkerchiefs or aprons were brought from his body to the sick, and the diseases left them and the evil spirits went out of them.
What I do not believe in is magic. I do believe that such occurrences are the work of God.
On a different topic, if one is interested in the Shroud of Turin, I recommend getting a copy of the DVD of "Secrets of the Dead: Shroud of Christ?" While exploring both the pros and the cons of its authenticity, I think it makes a strong case in favor of it. One of the most convincing arguments presented in this program is that the Sudarium of Oviedo (believed to be the napkin that covered Christ's face) and the shroud have blood of the same type.The varifiable history of the Sudarium is much longer than that of the Shroud.

[Rob G]

"Was Luther right that there were enough pieces of the True Cross in Europe to constitute a small forest?"

Only if undocumented pieces are taken into consideration. According to what I've read, the documented pieces don't really come close to what the estimated volume of a true Roman cross would be.

"But in a bare femur or fingernail the life has departed, and the bodily relic is but a ghastly reminder of death, not life. Relics invoking the veneration of mortal remains are remnants of paganism, pure and simple. Ichabod!"

The reason for veneration of relics can be seen as an extension of the reasoning against cremation. The Christian's body is the temple of the Holy Ghost, and in death it is the seed of his future resurrection. Why assume that the grace of the Holy Spirit departs from the physical remains when the human spirit does? After all, 2 Kings 13 tells us that a dead man was returned to life by merely touching Elisha's bones. For more on this, see Fr. Reardon's piece from the Touchstone archives here:

http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=14-05-027-o

[Bill R]

Thanks, Fr. DGP, Kathy, and Rob for most interesting comments. As I've noted, I'm not without some sympathy, even if I can't finally accept the lengths to which the veneration of relics has gone in the older liturgical traditions.

"The reason for veneration of relics can be seen as an extension of the reasoning against cremation. The Christian's body is the temple of the Holy Ghost, and in death it is the seed of his future resurrection." - Rob G.

I can agree with this statement, Rob, without accepting the practice of dismembering the departed saint and distributing his or her remains all over Christendom. As James has argued above, this practice seems the very opposite of veneration or respect for the body.

"To distance oneself that sharply from the practices of one's predecessors, to introduce sharp discontinuities or even declare their devotions unfaithful -- to me this seems almost always a grave mistake, a mistake which reverberates in the life of our adoptive family, the Church, from generation to generation." - DGP

Eloquent, Father, but disturbing at the same time. I'm a conservative (speaking spiritually, and not just politically), so your statement is not without effect. But at the same time it leaves the implication that either (a) the errors of the past cannot be reformed, or (b) antiquity insures truthfulness. Neither position, it seems to me, squares with the injunctions of Our Lord against practices which are but the traditions of men. I'm not saying that this is the case here, but how might one properly distinguish acceptable and unacceptable traditions?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>without accepting the practice of dismembering the departed saint and distributing his or her remains all over Christendom. <<<

Actually, most relics do not consist of "dismembered" remains, but in fact are fragments of bone, nail clippings and the like taken off of intact bodies. St. Nicholas, for example, is sleeping happily in his tomb in Bari. St. John Maximovitch likewise reposes in his cathedral in San Francisco. Nor does one actually handle relics directly. Rather, the relics are encased in a reliquary, which may be small and simple or large and ornate according to the size of the relic and the importance of the saint. Sometimes relics are embedded in icons. A relic is always incorporated into the Antimension in Byzatine practice, or into the altar table in Latin practice.

[DGP]

>>Eloquent, Father, but disturbing at the same time. I'm a conservative (speaking spiritually, and not just politically), so your statement is not without effect. But at the same time it leaves the implication that either (a) the errors of the past cannot be reformed, or (b) antiquity insures truthfulness. Neither position, it seems to me, squares with the injunctions of Our Lord against practices which are but the traditions of men. I'm not saying that this is the case here, but how might one properly distinguish acceptable and unacceptable traditions?

There's the rub. How do we do it in families? Surely, not best by denouncing our fathers, but by revising our own practice and sticking faithfully to our own perceived vocation, while still attempting to preserve a non-judgmental communion with our ancestors.

Note also that my emphasis here was on devotional practices. What I said does not apply to all habits. There are some habits -- e.g., racism -- already dissonant *within* the spiritual economy of our ancestors. These can bear a correspondingly higher level of confrontation -- not because we are superior to our predecessors, but precisely because the tradition we inherit from them already embeds the grounds for our reform.

This is the deeper truth -- not that "antiquity insures truthfulness," but rather that truthfulness usually comes to us through our past. Whatever constructive reforms we can undertake are usually possible only because of the blessings passed on to us by our immediate ancestors, however much we prefer our Oedipal illusions.

The paradigmatic reformer Martin Luther was also a conservative, rightly challenging numerous faults among the putative fathers (i.e. Pope and bishops) of the Church. Like many young Turks, he neglected to consider just how much he derived from the ecclesiastical development he scorned -- from medieval doctors who heightened the historical and philosophical consciousness of theologians, from humanists of the Italian Renaissance who encouraged the cultivation of interiority and subjectivity, even from dreaded nominalists and inquisitors whose nitpicking cultivated a linguistic criticism that led to renewed interest in the "plain text" of Scripture.

[Bill R]

"Like many young Turks, he neglected to consider just how much he derived from the ecclesiastical development he scorned."

Again, well said. Yet there remains the prophetic office, calling the present to account to the past. The prophet, in order to be heard, must at times speak harshly, even hyperbolically. The prophet will not allow us to assume complacently that what we have done is what we ought to have done.

[James A. Altena]

Fr DGP,

“Ah, no one who disagrees with you could possibly be writing in good faith?”

No-one questioned your good faith, only your correct understanding. And given your extensive mathematical training, one would hope that you would be able to make such an elementary logical distinction. It is, unfortunately, you who has chosen here to initate imputations against the integrity of others, under the guise of claiming that your own was offended first. And it is not the first tiem you have done so.

“I think I understood you, and I think that splinters of the Cross or slices of a martyr's femur are quite humane. My response applies directly to the charge of shamanism.”

Your response, with its use of the mud example, etc., clearly shows that you did not understand me -- unless you are now admitting that it was deliberate misconstrual. It shows that you thought the charge of shamanism applied to holy or blessed objects per se, rather than to the mentality that believes they can be destructively dismembered and have their holiness parceled out as souvenirs.

I would in turn ask you to explain what you mean in saying that “splinters of the Cross or slices of a martyr's femur are quite *humane*”, as distinct from *human*. The issue raised here was not of humaneness, but of reverence and sacrilege.

“Your use of the term ‘revolting’ is less clear, but its connotative strength suggests more than remorse at the loss of an historical artifact like the Shroud.”

Obviously. Any sensible man should be revolted by an act of desecration and destruction of the integrity of something holy. I have the same reaction to the advertisements in a well-known popular Christian magazine that hawk individual pages of a Gutenberg Bible. The problem lies in a mindset that fails to consider such integrity, and considers either the true Cross or the Shroud of Turin or the Gutenberg Bible to be a mere “historical artifact” that can destroyed to parcel out in fragments. Shall we start hacking apart and distributing the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel next?

“In case it's any help, remember that the multiplication of splinters -- already improbably abundant -- does not compromise the possibility of the Cross remaining more or less intact. Likewise with the bodies of saints, which are normally preserved in a given tomb despite the proliferation of relics. The normal rules about the conservation of substance do not seem to apply.”

With the uncorrupted bodies of saints, we have them intact, and as verifiable evidence. In the case of e.g. the true Cross, the burden of proof lies on *you* to show that:

a) it still exists intact as well as in splinters;

b) that any particular splinter is indeed a splinter of the true Cross; and

c) that multiplication of relics is a real and objectively provable phenomenon, rather than a speculative hypothesis at best or superstition at worst. “X could be the case” does not necessarily mean that “X is the case.”

Similar criteria apply to supposed fragments of saints’ bodies.

“>>Which is why my comment was emphatically *not* an attempt to stir up an RC-Protestant dispute.

“I believe it was not so intended, but it's clearly a flirtation with sensitive Reformation-era accusations. I hope that you will now extend to me the generous hermeneutic you require for your own contributions.”

You have not extended any such generosity to me at all, as is amply shown first by your initial response, and now by your further tendentious slur regarding “good faith.”

And the destruction of holy things should make one sensitive to the true nature of holiness.

Kathy and Rob beat me to the two Scriptural citations I planned to include in this reply -- both of which implicitly support my point. The handkerchief was not cut up and distributed, nor were the bones of Elisha broken up and distributed. And one reason by cremation is generally eschewed by Christians where possible is because of the deliberate destruction of the human form symbolized by a complete skeleton.

Bill R. has likewise said much of what I would further have stated (including the eloquence of Fr. DGP's subsequent posts). I would also point out that devotional practices do not fall within the Tradition the way that doctrine and morals do. They are optional, not binding.

Stuart, while bone spurs may constitute the majority of relics for practical reeasons, there are certainly any number of skeletons that have been broken upand dispersed around as well.

(Ironically, I actually own a large reliquary, given to me by a nun. It is sufficiently similar to a monstrance that I have sheltered it for that possible use instead, should the lack of the latter be a hindrance in some small Anlgican mission to euchasristic adoration.)

To reiterate my previous point: I do not oppose veneration of the remains of saints or holy objects per se. I do oppose the violation, the desecration, necessarily implicit in their deliberate dismemberment and destruction.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Stuart, while bone spurs may constitute the majority of relics for practical reeasons, there are certainly any number of skeletons that have been broken upand dispersed around as well.<<<

True. And, ironically, most of those have the most dubious provenance. One cannot deny the abuses of the "relic mania" of the Middle Ages (mainly between the eleventh and thirteenth centuries), or that much of it was spurred by venal motives. Nonetheless, the veneration of relics--understood as the bodily remains of the saints--goes back to the earliest Christians, who were very scrupulous about retrieving the bones of the martyrs and creating shrines to their memory (and, where this was not possible, erecting a tropaion in their memory at the site of their martyrdom). Constantine did not invent this practice, he merely adopted what was already common Christian practice.

>>>(Ironically, I actually own a large reliquary, given to me by a nun. It is sufficiently similar to a monstrance that I have sheltered it for that possible use instead, should the lack of the latter be a hindrance in some small Anlgican mission to euchasristic adoration.)<<<

Most of the reliquaries I have seen in fact are based on the monstrance (or, perhaps, the monstrance is a form of reliquary?)--the relic itself is contained in a circular container with a glass front that fits into the center a holder in the form of a cross or a nimbus; typically the container has a handle on the back side that allows the priest to hold it while the people venerate the facing side.

[DGP]

>>Yet there remains the prophetic office, calling the present to account to the past. The prophet, in order to be heard, must at times speak harshly, even hyperbolically. The prophet will not allow us to assume complacently that what we have done is what we ought to have done.

No, the prophet speaks principally against his own generation, not against his father's. He rarely addresses "what we have done," but rather what we ought to be doing.

[DGP]

>>They might bother to read what I wrote more carefully, rather than going into a knee-jerk reaction.

I consider that an imputation of bad faith. In hindsight, I don't see how it could be anything other than that. If I'm wrong, forgive me. If not -- well, the Lord will be our Judge.

[James A. Altena]

Fr. DGP,

Perhaps your problem is your use of hindsight rather than eyesight. :-)

[Kyralessa]

"But in a bare femur or fingernail the life has departed, and the bodily relic is but a ghastly reminder of death, not life. Relics invoking the veneration of mortal remains are remnants of paganism, pure and simple. Ichabod!"

You must read a different Bible from mine.

"So it was, as they were burying a man, that suddenly they spied a band of raiders; and they put the man in the tomb of Elisha; and when the man was let down and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived and stood on his feet." --2 Kings 13:21