₦airaland Forum

Catholics, please educate me without insults. Why is a human skull being carried and honoured during a Catholic service not considered idolatry worship?

This is a very reasonable question, especially for someone who is not familiar with Catholic theology. If you see Catholics carrying a human skull, kissing a relic, kneeling before it, putting flowers around it, or processing with the remains of a saint, it can naturally look like worship.

So, what exactly is the Catholic explanation?

The answer begins with an important distinction:
Catholics believe there is a difference between worshipping something and honouring the person represented by or connected to that object.

In Catholic theology, worship belongs to God alone. The Catholic Church calls the worship given to God latria. It means recognizing God as the Creator, Lord and ultimate source of salvation. Catholics believe that no saint, angel, relic, statue, image, or human being can receive this kind of worship.

For example, when Catholics celebrate Mass, they believe they are worshipping God, not Mary, not Peter, not Paul, and certainly not a piece of bone.

This is why Catholics can say "We honour the relic, but we do not worship the relic."

To someone outside Catholicism, however, the obvious question is: "But if you kneel before it, kiss it, carry it in procession and pray near it, how is that different from worship?"

That's where the Catholic concept of veneration comes in. Catholics distinguish between:
• Worship = given to God alone
• Veneration = honour given to saints
• honour = given to sacred objects and relics because of their connection to God and His saints
The important point is that Catholics believe the object itself has no divine power simply because it is a relic.

A saint's skull is still a human skull.
The bone is not God.
The saint is not God.
The saint is a creature of God.
So why honour it?

Because Catholics believe that the body belonged to a person who lived for God and is now with God.

Think about it in ordinary human life.
Imagine that your father dies.
You keep his photograph.
You might keep his clothes.
You might keep his Bible.
You might keep his wedding ring.
You might even kiss his photograph.

If someone asks:
"Why are you kissing that photograph?"

You wouldn't say: "Because I believe this photograph is my father."

You would say: "This reminds me of my father. I love the person represented by it."

The photograph isn't the person. But because of its relationship to the person, it has emotional and personal significance. Catholics make a similar argument concerning relics.

They are not saying: "This bone is God."

They are saying: "This belonged to a person who belonged to God, and we honour what God did in that person's life."

But is there anything like this in the Bible?
Interestingly, the Bible contains several examples of God's people treating the remains of holy people with great respect.

Joseph's bones.
Before Joseph died, he made the Israelites promise that they would take his bones with them when God eventually brought Israel out of Egypt. Genesis 50:25 says: "God will surely visit you, and you shall carry up my bones from here."

And when the Israelites left Egypt, Moses fulfilled that promise: "Moses took the bones of Joseph with him." Exodus 13:19

The Israelites did not believe Joseph's bones were God. They did not worship the bones. But they considered the remains of this important servant of God worthy of respect and preservation.

So, why isn't a Catholic carrying and honouring a human skull of a saint necessarily worship?

Because Catholic theology makes a fundamental distinction between worship and veneration.

The skull is not God.
The saint is not God.
The relic does not replace God.
The worship belongs to God alone.
The relic is honoured because it belonged to someone whom Catholics believe lived a holy life and now belongs to God.

The Bible itself contains examples of God's people preserving the bones of Joseph, God's power being associated with Elisha's bones, and extraordinary healings occurring through objects associated with Paul.

Ultimately, the Catholic argument is not:
"We worship the skull, but we call it something else."

It is: "We do not believe the skull is God in the first place. We honour what it represents and the person to whom it belonged, while worship belongs to God alone."

And perhaps the most important lesson is this:
Before calling another Christian an idolater, first understand what that Christian actually believes.
You may still disagree with the practice. You may still find it uncomfortable. You may even conclude that the practice goes beyond what you believe Scripture permits. But disagreement should come after understanding, not before it.
A sincere question deserves a sincere explanation not an insult.

But can Catholics get this wrong?

Absolutely.

This is an important part of the discussion. The Catholic distinction between worship and veneration does not mean that every individual Catholic has perfect understanding or perfect practice.

A Catholic could potentially treat a statue, relic, medal or saint as though it had magical powers.
That would be a problem.

The Catholic Church itself teaches that superstition is wrong.

A relic is not a magical object.
A saint is not a replacement for God.
Mary is not God.
Peter is not God.
A statue is not God.
A bone is not God.
God alone is God.
So if someone were to say: "This relic has power independent of God." that would not be the Catholic theological position.

Rev fr Prince Chidi Philip



Copied

The only biblical reference I see in the Epistle is of Joseph who made a personal request that his bones be carried along when they leave Egypt. Did this woman in question make a request for her skull to be placed in a molded golden image? How is this practice relevant to the body of Christ?

The new testament believers had an earlier confusion on what practices should be or not be part of doctrine and unfortunately some churches are still confused and holding onto old testament practices and traditions which were abolished by Jesus' death on the cross, but the Catholics go an extra mile to introduce practices that are not even known to the Bible as part of the law, ordinances or even Jewish traditions, what is this all about?

Each passing year I keep learning of more and more strange practices of the Catholic church that makes me wonder how the members feel comfortable with these practices that are only similar to things done by the occultists.

We learn everyday. I'm sure there's more to see in the coming years.

safarifarms:
The only biblical reference I see in the Epistle is of Joseph who made a personal request that his bones be carried along when they leave Egypt. Did this woman in question make a request for her skull to be placed in a molded golden image? How is this practice relevant to the body of Christ?

The new testament believers had an earlier confusion on what practices should be or not be part of doctrine and unfortunately some churches are still confused and holding onto old testament practices and traditions which were abolished by Jesus' death on the cross, but the Catholics go an extra mile to introduce practices that are not even known to the Bible as part of the law, ordinances or even Jewish traditions, what is this all about?

Each passing year I keep learning of more and more strange practices of the Catholic church that makes me wonder how the members feel comfortable with these practices that are only similar to things done by the occultists.

We learn everyday. I'm sure there's more to see in the coming years.

If you're still confused after what he wrote up there, then there's no explanation that you'll understand.

Jesus himself said he didn't come to abolish the law, he only came to fulfill them. So what are you talking about?
Did you not know that Elisha's bone restored someone's life?

samsononyilo:
If you're still confused after what he wrote up there, then there's no explanation that you'll understand.

Jesus himself said he didn't come to abolish the law, he only came to fulfill them. So what are you talking about?
Did you not know that Elisha's bone restored someone's life?

You're using Elisha's bones to defend something the Elisha passage never commands.

I accept 2 Kings 13:20–21. The text says a dead man came back to life after contact with Elisha's bones. But notice what the text doesn't say: it doesn't tell God's people to preserve Elisha's bones, venerate them, parade them through the streets, pray before them, kiss them, or build a religious ritual around them.

A biblical miracle involving a relic is not the same thing as a biblical command to venerate relics.

God also performed miracles through Moses' staff, Elijah's mantle and even through objects associated with the apostles. That doesn't mean every object associated with a biblical figure becomes an object of religious veneration.

So if you're defending a procession involving a skull claimed to belong to Mary Magdalene, the relevant question isn't “Did something miraculous ever happen involving bones?” Obviously the Bible records such an event.

The relevant question is:

Where does Scripture authorize Christians to identify, venerate and publicly process the remains of saints as part of Christian worship?

That's the point you need to establish. Elisha's bones don't establish it.

And my original point about the Law is separate. Jesus saying He came to fulfill the Law does not mean Christians remain under the Mosaic covenant. Hebrews 8:13 explicitly describes the old covenant as obsolete in light of the New Covenant, while Romans 6:14 says believers are not under law but under grace.

So let's keep the arguments separate:

1. Did Elisha's bones become associated with a miracle? Yes.

2. Does that prove Christians should venerate and process relics? No.

3. Does that prove Christians remain under the Mosaic Law? No.

4. Does the New Testament teach that Christ's death inaugurated a New Covenant? Yes.

If you want to defend the skull procession, give the biblical basis for the practice itself. Don't use an isolated biblical miracle as though it were a commandment.

You choose to be condescending, I can go there too. So if you don't have a complete Bible or can't read and understand one then no point quoting me.

They have taken their rabbis and monks as well as the Messiah, son of Mary, as lords besides Allah,1 even though they were commanded to worship none but One God. There is no god ˹worthy of worship˺ except Him. Glorified is He above what they associate ˹with Him˺!

Quran 9 vs 31

safarifarms:
You're using Elisha's bones to defend something the Elisha passage never commands.

I accept 2 Kings 13:20–21. The text says a dead man came back to life after contact with Elisha's bones. But notice what the text doesn't say: it doesn't tell God's people to preserve Elisha's bones, venerate them, parade them through the streets, pray before them, kiss them, or build a religious ritual around them.

A biblical miracle involving a relic is not the same thing as a biblical command to venerate relics.

God also performed miracles through Moses' staff, Elijah's mantle and even through objects associated with the apostles. That doesn't mean every object associated with a biblical figure becomes an object of religious veneration.

So if you're defending a procession involving a skull claimed to belong to Mary Magdalene, the relevant question isn't “Did something miraculous ever happen involving bones?” Obviously the Bible records such an event.

The relevant question is:

Where does Scripture authorize Christians to identify, venerate and publicly process the remains of saints as part of Christian worship?

That's the point you need to establish. Elisha's bones don't establish it.

And my original point about the Law is separate. Jesus saying He came to fulfill the Law does not mean Christians remain under the Mosaic covenant. Hebrews 8:13 explicitly describes the old covenant as obsolete in light of the New Covenant, while Romans 6:14 says believers are not under law but under grace.

So let's keep the arguments separate:

1. Did Elisha's bones become associated with a miracle? Yes.

2. Does that prove Christians should venerate and process relics? No.

3. Does that prove Christians remain under the Mosaic Law? No.

4. Does the New Testament teach that Christ's death inaugurated a New Covenant? Yes.

If you want to defend the skull procession, give the biblical basis for the practice itself. Don't use an isolated biblical miracle as though it were a commandment.

You choose to be condescending, I can go there too. So if you don't have a complete Bible or can't read and understand one then no point quoting me.

You won't get any sound biblical reference from the fella....just let it be!

I saw Joseph's bone been mentioned in the writeup and the question that comes to mind is where was Joseph's bones worshipped venerated or is it honoured as they do with fanfare?

The Children of Israel got to the promise land and his bones were buried there! End of story! No Joseph's bones in a show glass n the temple!

Which one is this occult lite practice biko?

Some people will honour and venerate Balaam's donkey all because God opened it's mouth to speak!

enemyofprogress:
Catholics, please educate me without insults. Why is a human skull being carried and honoured during a Catholic service not considered idolatry worship?

This is a very reasonable question, especially for someone who is not familiar with Catholic theology. If you see Catholics carrying a human skull, kissing a relic, kneeling before it, putting flowers around it, or processing with the remains of a saint, it can naturally look like worship.

So, what exactly is the Catholic explanation?

The answer begins with an important distinction:
Catholics believe there is a difference between worshipping something and honouring the person represented by or connected to that object.

In Catholic theology, worship belongs to God alone. The Catholic Church calls the worship given to God latria. It means recognizing God as the Creator, Lord and ultimate source of salvation. Catholics believe that no saint, angel, relic, statue, image, or human being can receive this kind of worship.

For example, when Catholics celebrate Mass, they believe they are worshipping God, not Mary, not Peter, not Paul, and certainly not a piece of bone.

This is why Catholics can say "We honour the relic, but we do not worship the relic."

To someone outside Catholicism, however, the obvious question is: "But if you kneel before it, kiss it, carry it in procession and pray near it, how is that different from worship?"

That's where the Catholic concept of veneration comes in. Catholics distinguish between:
• Worship = given to God alone
• Veneration = honour given to saints
• honour = given to sacred objects and relics because of their connection to God and His saints
The important point is that Catholics believe the object itself has no divine power simply because it is a relic.

A saint's skull is still a human skull.
The bone is not God.
The saint is not God.
The saint is a creature of God.
So why honour it?

Because Catholics believe that the body belonged to a person who lived for God and is now with God.

Think about it in ordinary human life.
Imagine that your father dies.
You keep his photograph.
You might keep his clothes.
You might keep his Bible.
You might keep his wedding ring.
You might even kiss his photograph.

If someone asks:
"Why are you kissing that photograph?"

You wouldn't say: "Because I believe this photograph is my father."

You would say: "This reminds me of my father. I love the person represented by it."

The photograph isn't the person. But because of its relationship to the person, it has emotional and personal significance. Catholics make a similar argument concerning relics.

They are not saying: "This bone is God."

They are saying: "This belonged to a person who belonged to God, and we honour what God did in that person's life."

But is there anything like this in the Bible?
Interestingly, the Bible contains several examples of God's people treating the remains of holy people with great respect.

Joseph's bones.
Before Joseph died, he made the Israelites promise that they would take his bones with them when God eventually brought Israel out of Egypt. Genesis 50:25 says: "God will surely visit you, and you shall carry up my bones from here."

And when the Israelites left Egypt, Moses fulfilled that promise: "Moses took the bones of Joseph with him." Exodus 13:19

The Israelites did not believe Joseph's bones were God. They did not worship the bones. But they considered the remains of this important servant of God worthy of respect and preservation.

So, why isn't a Catholic carrying and honouring a human skull of a saint necessarily worship?

Because Catholic theology makes a fundamental distinction between worship and veneration.

The skull is not God.
The saint is not God.
The relic does not replace God.
The worship belongs to God alone.
The relic is honoured because it belonged to someone whom Catholics believe lived a holy life and now belongs to God.

The Bible itself contains examples of God's people preserving the bones of Joseph, God's power being associated with Elisha's bones, and extraordinary healings occurring through objects associated with Paul.

Ultimately, the Catholic argument is not:
"We worship the skull, but we call it something else."

It is: "We do not believe the skull is God in the first place. We honour what it represents and the person to whom it belonged, while worship belongs to God alone."

And perhaps the most important lesson is this:
Before calling another Christian an idolater, first understand what that Christian actually believes.
You may still disagree with the practice. You may still find it uncomfortable. You may even conclude that the practice goes beyond what you believe Scripture permits. But disagreement should come after understanding, not before it.
A sincere question deserves a sincere explanation not an insult.

But can Catholics get this wrong?

Absolutely.

This is an important part of the discussion. The Catholic distinction between worship and veneration does not mean that every individual Catholic has perfect understanding or perfect practice.

A Catholic could potentially treat a statue, relic, medal or saint as though it had magical powers.
That would be a problem.

The Catholic Church itself teaches that superstition is wrong.

A relic is not a magical object.
A saint is not a replacement for God.
Mary is not God.
Peter is not God.
A statue is not God.
A bone is not God.
God alone is God.
So if someone were to say: "This relic has power independent of God." that would not be the Catholic theological position.

Rev fr Prince Chidi Philip



Copied

What exactly are you talking about? Exhuming a buried Human skull is what you are trying to justify? The Blood of Jesus Christ my Lord! No wonder my children who attend Catholic schools are so scared of what the see at school. Lord Jesus! Come! Come as you have promised. Come ooo!

samsononyilo:
If you're still confused after what he wrote up there, then there's no explanation that you'll understand.

Jesus himself said he didn't come to abolish the law, he only came to fulfill them. So what are you talking about?
Did you not know that Elisha's bone restored someone's life?

You are talking out of point. Elisha's bones was in the grave when it did the miracle. No one dug it out to pray to it or worship it. So, it does not apply and no, the explanation is rubbish as i am sure you do not remember that it is commanded not to touch a dead thing.

safarifarms:
You're using Elisha's bones to defend something the Elisha passage never commands.

I accept 2 Kings 13:20–21. The text says a dead man came back to life after contact with Elisha's bones. But notice what the text doesn't say: it doesn't tell God's people to preserve Elisha's bones, venerate them, parade them through the streets, pray before them, kiss them, or build a religious ritual around them.

A biblical miracle involving a relic is not the same thing as a biblical command to venerate relics.

God also performed miracles through Moses' staff, Elijah's mantle and even through objects associated with the apostles. That doesn't mean every object associated with a biblical figure becomes an object of religious veneration.

So if you're defending a procession involving a skull claimed to belong to Mary Magdalene, the relevant question isn't “Did something miraculous ever happen involving bones?” Obviously the Bible records such an event.

The relevant question is:

Where does Scripture authorize Christians to identify, venerate and publicly process the remains of saints as part of Christian worship?

That's the point you need to establish. Elisha's bones don't establish it.

And my original point about the Law is separate. Jesus saying He came to fulfill the Law does not mean Christians remain under the Mosaic covenant. Hebrews 8:13 explicitly describes the old covenant as obsolete in light of the New Covenant, while Romans 6:14 says believers are not under law but under grace.

So let's keep the arguments separate:

1. Did Elisha's bones become associated with a miracle? Yes.

2. Does that prove Christians should venerate and process relics? No.

3. Does that prove Christians remain under the Mosaic Law? No.

4. Does the New Testament teach that Christ's death inaugurated a New Covenant? Yes.

If you want to defend the skull procession, give the biblical basis for the practice itself. Don't use an isolated biblical miracle as though it were a commandment.

You choose to be condescending, I can go there too. So if you don't have a complete Bible or can't read and understand one then no point quoting me.

This is where you see Catholics, Jws and Muslims are the same as they cannot validly defend their fundamental beliefs when they come up, so anger, twisting and moving post is what they have to do

Dtruthspeaker:
You are talking out of point. Elisha's bones was in the grave when it did the miracle. No one dug it out to pray to it or worship it. So, it does not apply and no, the explanation is rubbish as i am sure you do not remember that it commanded not to touch a dead thing.

Let me ask you a question, if Elisha's bone was preserved till this day, do you think I'll not be used to restore life to the dead, would you say it's ungodly? Since it brought back the dead to life in the Bible.
Show me a passage in the New testament that instructed us not to touch a dead body.

safarifarms:
You're using Elisha's bones to defend something the Elisha passage never commands.

I accept 2 Kings 13:20–21. The text says a dead man came back to life after contact with Elisha's bones. But notice what the text doesn't say: it doesn't tell God's people to preserve Elisha's bones, venerate them, parade them through the streets, pray before them, kiss them, or build a religious ritual around them.

A biblical miracle involving a relic is not the same thing as a biblical command to venerate relics.

God also performed miracles through Moses' staff, Elijah's mantle and even through objects associated with the apostles. That doesn't mean every object associated with a biblical figure becomes an object of religious veneration.

So if you're defending a procession involving a skull claimed to belong to Mary Magdalene, the relevant question isn't “Did something miraculous ever happen involving bones?” Obviously the Bible records such an event.

The relevant question is:

Where does Scripture authorize Christians to identify, venerate and publicly process the remains of saints as part of Christian worship?

That's the point you need to establish. Elisha's bones don't establish it.

And my original point about the Law is separate. Jesus saying He came to fulfill the Law does not mean Christians remain under the Mosaic covenant. Hebrews 8:13 explicitly describes the old covenant as obsolete in light of the New Covenant, while Romans 6:14 says believers are not under law but under grace.

So let's keep the arguments separate:

1. Did Elisha's bones become associated with a miracle? Yes.

2. Does that prove Christians should venerate and process relics? No.

3. Does that prove Christians remain under the Mosaic Law? No.

4. Does the New Testament teach that Christ's death inaugurated a New Covenant? Yes.

If you want to defend the skull procession, give the biblical basis for the practice itself. Don't use an isolated biblical miracle as though it were a commandment.

You choose to be condescending, I can go there too. So if you don't have a complete Bible or can't read and understand one then no point quoting me.

Did the Bible forbids us from venerating the dead? No.

And yes, Jesus didn't come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. The New Covenant means the Mosaic covenant has been fulfilled and superseded, rather than Jesus simply declaring that God's Law was worthless or sinful.

Even Apostle Paul said in Romans 3:31 that we can't overthrow the law by this new covenant.

Since everything must be in the Bible, show me a passage in the Bible that said Jesus was born on the 25th of December, and we must celebrate his birth day.

samsononyilo:
Let me ask you a question, if Elisha's bone was preserved till this day, do you think I'll not be used to restore life to the dead, would you say it's ungodly? Since it brought back the dead to life in the Bible.
Show me a passage in the New testament that instructed us not to touch a dead body.

This is out of point.
First, Elisha's bones cannot be preserved because it is tantamount to paganism (witchcraft) and God will never support that. (Now you make me appreciate why satan was fighting for Moses's body. So it is exactly what you people would have done to Elisha's bones if you people have found it. So, see it, you people are into paganism (witchcraft) as accused .

And see, i told you, you didn't know that touching the dead is a sin

Numbers 19:13
13 Whosoever toucheth the dead body of any man that is dead, and purifieth not himself, defileth the tabernacle of the Lord; and that soul shall be cut off from Israel: because the water of separation was not sprinkled upon him, he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is yet upon him.

Even touching the carcass of an animal is sin, for all these things are what pagans use for witchcraft.

samsononyilo:
Did the Bible forbids us from venerating the dead? No.

And yes, Jesus didn't come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. The New Covenant means the Mosaic covenant has been fulfilled and superseded, rather than Jesus simply declaring that God's Law was worthless or sinful.

Even Apostle Paul said in Romans 3:31 that we can't overthrow the law by this new covenant.

Since everything must be in the Bible, show me a passage in the Bible that said Jesus was born on the 25th of December, and we must celebrate his birth day.

1. The Christmas Argument is Irrelevant
Your mention of December 25th is a fallacy of diversion (whataboutism). It assumes I defend Christmas celebrations. I do not. Since I do not hold that Christmas is a biblically mandated holy day, pointing out its absence from Scripture does nothing to validate the veneration of relics. Both practices lack New Testament authorization. You and others who celebrate Christmas are doing so in error.

2. The Silence of Scripture is Not a Permission Slip
You ask, "Did the Bible forbid us from venerating the dead? No." This flips the burden of proof. Christian worship is governed by what God commands, not by whatever He fails to explicitly forbid.
The Bible does not explicitly forbid us from praying to Moses' staff, building altars to Noah’s Ark, or baptizing animals, yet we do not do these things. Scripture does, however, explicitly warn against turning objects used by God into objects of devotion:
• The Bronze Serpent (2 Kings 18:4): God commanded Moses to make a bronze serpent, and looking at it healed people. Yet, when the Israelites began burning incense to it centuries later, the righteous King Hezekiah destroyed it because a tool of God had become an idol of veneration.

3. Fulfilling the Law vs. Binding Believers
We agree that Jesus did not declare the Law "worthless or sinful." It is holy and righteous. However, fulfillment means its regulatory function over the believer has ended.
• Romans 3:31: When Paul says we "uphold the law" through faith, he means the Gospel validates the Law by showing that Christ perfectly paid the penalty the Law demanded.
• Romans 10:4: Paul explicitly states, "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes."
• Galatians 3:24-25: The Law was our guardian until Christ came, but "now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian."
The Mosaic Law commanded strict rules regarding dead bodies—touching them made a person ceremonially unclean (Numbers 19:11). If you want to argue we are still bound by the Old Testament context of Elisha's bones, then parading and kissing a human skull actively violates those very purity laws.

4. The Core Question Remains Unanswered
We return to the central point: A historical miracle is not a liturgical command.
Can you provide a single New Testament passage where Christ or the Apostles commanded, practiced, or authorized the exhumation, distribution, and public veneration of human skeletal remains as an act of Christian worship? If not, then the practice of parading a skull is a tradition of men, not a doctrine of God.

Dtruthspeaker:
This is out of point.
First, Elisha's bones cannot be preserved because it is tantamount to paganism (witchcraft) and God will never support that. (Now you make me appreciate why satan was fighting for Moses's body. So it is exactly what you people would have done to Elisha's bones if you people have found it. So, see it, you people are into paganism (witchcraft) as accused .

And see, i told you, you didn't know that touching the dead is a sin

Numbers 19:13
13 Whosoever toucheth the dead body of any man that is dead, and purifieth not himself, defileth the tabernacle of the Lord; and that soul shall be cut off from Israel: because the water of separation was not sprinkled upon him, he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is yet upon him.

Even touching the carcass of an animal is sin, for all these things are what pagans use for witchcraft.

In the new testament, I didn't say the old testament.

samsononyilo:
In the new testament, I didn't say the old testament.

Thank God, you yourself confessed that "Jesus himself said he didn't come to abolish the law,". Which means that what you call old testament still continues even in what you call the new testament.