Apostolic Christianity and the Question of Relics

Discussions about relic veneration often stir strong emotions, but serious theological questions deserve calm and careful reflection. Within the Roman Catholic tradition, relics; objects associated with saints, martyrs, or events from sacred history; are afforded honor and, at times, even attributed spiritual power or intercessory benefit. This practice stretches back many centuries and is presented as part of an unbroken stream of "Christian" devotion.

However, for Christians committed to grounding faith and practice in the New Testament witness, the veneration of relics raises unavoidable challenges. If the early Church in Rome was truly established under divine providence, then its doctrines and customs should withstand honest examination. Authentic truth does not fear scrutiny; it invites it. In that spirit, it is both appropriate and necessary to evaluate whether relic veneration genuinely reflects apostolic teaching or whether it represents a later development unsupported by Scripture.

This post will examine the historical claims, theological assumptions, and scriptural interpretations surrounding relic veneration. The goal is not to attack individuals or traditions but to test practices in the light of the New Testament. Where traditions align with revealed truth, they stand. Where they diverge, Christians are called to return to the simplicity and clarity of the gospel.

In the following sections, I will present information, scriptural analysis, and historical considerations to build a coherent argument against the veneration of relics as a legitimate Christian practice.

For reference, here is the Roman Catholic sacerdotal explanation that will be examined in the following argument:

https://www.sacerdotus.com/2025/05/the-veneration-of-relics-in-catholicism.html?m=1

Firstly.....

Why Scripture Holds Authority Over Later Tradition

Any discussion about relic veneration begins with a deeper question: What is the ultimate standard for Christian belief and practice; Scripture or later tradition? The answer lies not in denominational claims but in the historical and biblical testimony that Scripture itself provides.

1. Scripture was authoritative long before later traditions existed

The authority of Scripture did not originate with the Latin Vulgate or with later ecclesial interpretations. The books that make up the Old and New Testaments were circulating and recognized as sacred long before post-biblical customs arose.

The Hebrew Scriptures were already established in the time of Jesus. The Greek Septuagint was in widespread use centuries before the Church in Rome existed as an institution. The New Testament letters were read publicly in Christian assemblies in the first century itself. Scripture’s authority rests on its divine authorship and early reception, not on a later translation or magisterial decree.

2. Scripture declares its own divine inspiration and sufficiency

Paul affirms that “all Scripture is breathed out by God” and fully equips the believer “for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16–17). If Scripture equips for every good work, then no later practice; such as relic veneration; can be required as essential to Christian life or devotion.

Paul further warns, “Do not go beyond what is written” (1 Corinthians 4:6). This statement places a boundary around Christian teaching: new doctrines and new devotional practices are not to be added where Scripture is silent.

3. Jesus Himself rejects religious traditions that overshadow God’s Word

Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for elevating human customs to a religious status that God never gave them: “You hold to the traditions of men… You reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition” (Mark 7:6–9).

This principle applies equally to any later Christian custom not found in Scripture. If relic veneration cannot be traced to apostolic teaching, it falls within the category Jesus condemns: tradition that displaces or contradicts the Word.

4. Scripture explicitly forbids the essential components of relic veneration

Relic veneration, as practiced historically and presently, involves:

attributing spiritual value or power to physical objects, seeking benefit from the dead or their remains, approaching God through saints as mediators, believing that divine grace is tied to material items.

Scripture directly forbids each of these elements.

Objects are not channels of divine power. The second commandment forbids giving religious honor to physical things (Exodus 20:4–5). The bronze serpent became a template of how sacred objects can be misused; Hezekiah destroyed it when people burned incense to it (2 Kings 18:4). Scripture condemns precisely the kind of devotion later attached to relics.

Seeking spiritual benefit from the dead is forbidden. Deuteronomy 18:10–12 and Isaiah 8:19 reject any form of approaching the dead on behalf of the living. Relic veneration, which treats remains or items of saints as spiritually effective, aligns with what Scripture prohibits.

The elevation of saints as mediators is rejected. Paul states that there is “one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5). No physical object and no dead believer functions as a spiritual intermediary.

Tying spiritual power to objects is rebuked. When Simon thought grace could be accessed through physical acts, Peter condemned the idea (Acts 8:18–20). Much of relic devotion operates on this same assumption; that holy power inheres in things.

Scripture treats contact with the dead as defiling, not sanctifying. Numbers 19:11–16 consistently portrays such contact as ceremonially unclean. The notion that bones or remains impart blessing or grace contradicts the biblical pattern entirely.

5. Scripture promotes a spiritual, not object-centered, devotion

True worship is defined by Jesus as worship “in spirit and in truth” (John 4:23–24). Christianity is inward, spiritual, and centered on Christ—not on objects, shrines, or physical remnants.

Paul warns against religious practices that look pious but originate in human invention: “self-made religion… of no value” (Colossians 2:18–23). Relic veneration fits this description precisely: outwardly reverent, but nowhere commanded by God.

Conclusion

Scripture predates later traditions, claims divine authority, defines the boundaries of legitimate Christian practice, and explicitly forbids the core assumptions behind relic veneration. Scripture is sufficient. Scripture is the standard. Any practice that contradicts or exceeds what is written cannot claim apostolic legitimacy.

On this basis, relic veneration is not a continuation of biblical faith but a later human tradition that stands in tension with the clear teaching of Scripture.

The Roman Catholic Reference List Appealed to as “Proof” of Apostolic Relic Veneration

Advocates of relic veneration often appeal to a long bibliography of post-biblical writers, theologians, councils, and modern scholars. The claim is that because these figures mention or defend relics, the practice must therefore be apostolic. Their reference list typically includes sources such as:

Aquinas, T. (1947). Summa Theologica. Benziger.

Augustine. (1887). City of God. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 2.

Brown, P. (1981). The Cult of the Saints: Its Rise and Function in Latin Christianity. University of Chicago Press.

Calvin, J. (1845). Treatise on Relics. Calvin Translation Society.

Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC). (1994). Vatican.

Chrysostom, J. (1889). Homilies on the Statues. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 9.

Code of Canon Law (CIC). (1983). Vatican.

Cyril of Jerusalem. (1894). Catechetical Lectures. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 7.

Eusebius. (1965). Ecclesiastical History. Harvard University Press.

Geary, P. J. (1990). Furta Sacra: Thefts of Relics in the Central Middle Ages. Princeton University Press.

Ikram, S. (2003). Death and Burial in Ancient Egypt. Longman.

Jerome. (1893). Against Vigilantius. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 6.

Saunders, W. (2017). The Significance of Relics. Catholic Education Resource Center.

Tanner, N. P. (1990). Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils. Sheed & Ward.

Vatican II. (1964). Unitatis Redintegratio. Vatican.

Walsh, M. J. (2007). A New Dictionary of Saints: East and West. Liturgical Press.

The Catholic Church argues that relic veneration is apostolic by appealing to biblical miracles, early Christian writings, patristic enthusiasm, councils, and a sacramental theology developed centuries after the apostles. However, none of these elements demonstrate that the apostles themselves taught or practiced relic veneration, nor do the biblical citations used in Catholic defenses prove what is claimed. The argument depends on retrospective interpretation, not apostolic command.

The central issue is simple. The apostles left us a written record of their teaching. That record contains everything they intended the churches to believe and practice. A practice that appears nowhere in apostolic instruction cannot be called apostolic, even if it later becomes widespread or is embraced by prominent Christians. The Roman argument begins by describing how relics were valued in early martyr traditions, particularly through accounts like the Martyrdom of Polycarp. But describing what later Christians did does not prove that the apostles taught it. Eusebius and other early Christian historians record many developments that arose long after the apostles, including fasting rules, feast days, hierarchical structures, and ascetic practices. The existence of a practice in the second or third century does not make it apostolic, and the Martyrdom of Polycarp never claims apostolic command or scriptural warrant for relics. It simply reports what Christians did, not what the apostles taught.

The appeal to the Council of Nicaea II is historically accurate but irrelevant to apostolic origin. A council in 787 cannot retroactively determine what the apostles taught in the first century. The argument assumes what it needs to prove: that the Church can declare a tradition apostolic even when Scripture and apostolic writings are silent. This is circular. It is also logically invalid to say that because a late council “mandated” relics, relics must therefore have been apostolic. That conclusion does not follow from the premise.

When the Catholic argument calls relics “sacramentals” and distinguishes veneration from worship, it introduces a medieval theological category that did not exist in the New Testament or the first two centuries. The dichotomy between dulia and latria was developed to defend emerging practices, not to explain apostolic doctrine. Scripture never teaches these categories, never tells Christians to venerate any object, and never distinguishes “honor to a holy object” from worship. Every time Scripture addresses religious honor given to objects, it condemns the practice, even when the objects were originally sanctioned by God.

The RCC claims scriptural precedent by citing the bones of Elisha in 2 Kings and the cloths associated with Paul in Acts 19. These events do not support relic veneration. The passage in 2 Kings is a descriptive miracle, not a command. God worked through Elisha’s bones once, in a unique situation, without instructing Israel to keep, venerate, or seek help from his bones thereafter. Israel never institutionalized bone veneration, and when Israel later venerated the bronze serpent that Moses had made, Hezekiah destroyed it because object-veneration is idolatry. The Catholic argument does not address this contradiction.

Acts 19 describes God working through Paul’s ministry in a specific context, not a principle that objects retain lasting spiritual power. Luke never suggests that Christians collected, preserved, touched, or venerated these cloths as relics. The event occurred, but the apostles gave no instruction to repeat or institutionalize the practice. Using a descriptive miracle as normative doctrine violates the difference between what Scripture reports and what Scripture commands.

The RCC claims apostolic continuity by citing patristic writers who supported relics. But these writers lived after the apostles and are not sources of apostolic doctrine. Jerome’s defense of relic veneration does not cite any apostolic command. He appeals to custom and emotion rather than Scripture, which is why his response to Vigilantius is rhetorical rather than exegetical. Augustine likewise reports miracles associated with relics but never claims an apostolic institution. In fact, Augustine explicitly warns that miracles cannot establish doctrine. Aquinas’s reasoning about relics is based on philosophical analogy rather than biblical instruction, and Aquinas himself affirms that Scripture is the rule of faith. None of these thinkers produce a single apostolic text commanding relic veneration.

The Catholic claim that relics are not idolatrous because Catholics distinguish between veneration and worship does not address the underlying question. The issue is not what terms are used, but what actions are performed. Scripture does not condemn objects only when someone calls it “worship.” Scripture condemns giving religious honor to objects, making them focal points of devotion, or attributing spiritual power to physical items. Calling this “veneration” does not change its nature. The same outward acts; bowing, touching, seeking favors, carrying objects in procession; are performed in pagan cults and in Catholic relic devotion. Changing the terminology does not alter the underlying behavior.

The RCC argues that relics are not disrespectful because the body is sacred, but Scripture’s teaching on the dignity of the body does not imply that remains should be displayed, divided, or used as devotional objects. The biblical authors treat burial as a sign of respect, and contact with dead bodies is consistently described as defiling, not sanctifying. Resurrection hope does not imply relic veneration. The early Christians honored martyrs’ graves, but Scripture never instructs believers to extract body parts or treat remains as channels of divine grace.

The comparison to Egyptian mummification is dismissed as superficial, yet the structural similarity remains: the preservation, display, and devotional treatment of the dead. The Catholic response insists on different motivations, but Scripture evaluates acts, not psychological motives. Israel was forbidden from adopting pagan practices even when they claimed to repurpose them for Yahweh. The Church’s reinterpretation of ancient customs does not make them apostolic.

Finally, the claim that relic veneration is scriptural and apostolic because God once used material objects ignores the pattern of Scripture as a whole. When God uses an object, that object does not become a permanent vehicle of grace. When people attempt to create systems around such objects, Scripture condemns it. The entire logic of the RCC’s argument depends on assuming that a biblical miracle automatically authorizes a religious practice, even when the apostles never taught it.

The Roman Catholic argument relies on isolated miracle passages, post-apostolic enthusiasm, medieval theological categories, and ecclesiastical declarations centuries removed from the apostles. None of the biblical texts they cite institute relic veneration. None of the apostolic writings instruct Christians to preserve or venerate body parts or objects. None of the Church Fathers provide apostolic command. And no council can retroactively make a non-apostolic practice apostolic. The Catholic argument does not establish apostolic origin; it describes post-biblical development and then redefines apostolicity to match that development. It is historical theology, not apostolic doctrine.

The reference list offered in support of relic veneration does not prove that the practice is apostolic. When the claims behind the bibliography are measured against the standard of Scripture, the argument collapses. None of the sources cited are apostolic or inspired. Not a single item comes from an apostle or from Scripture itself. These works represent historical opinions rather than divine commands. Scripture alone is said to make believers complete and equipped for every good work, and therefore no later writer or council has authority to invent a practice not taught by the apostles.

When examining the sources Rome typically cites, it becomes clear that these references cannot establish divine authority.

Start with the Church Fathers such as Augustine, Chrysostom, Cyril, and Jerome. Their writings are post-biblical and descriptive of their own time. Even when they speak favorably of relics, they do not claim that the apostles commanded the practice or that Scripture teaches it. They provide opinions, not apostolic precedent. Their approval cannot establish divine mandate, especially since the Fathers themselves condemned many practices that arose in their own centuries. Moreover, if the Fathers affirm that Scripture is the rule of faith, they cannot establish a requirement that Scripture does not teach.

Jerome’s work Against Vigilantius is often cited as a defense of relic veneration. However, Jerome does not appeal to apostolic command or Scripture; he appeals to custom, piety, and sentiment. Jerome is also known for asserting that any practice lacking biblical warrant should be rejected, which makes his argument for relics internally inconsistent. His responses to Vigilantius are rhetorical rather than exegetical. The fact that Jerome felt compelled to defend relic practices at all shows that the practice was controversial and lacked clear biblical grounding even in the fourth century.

Augustine’s City of God recounts miracles associated with relics, but describing phenomena is not the same as establishing divine mandate. Augustine reports events without claiming that the apostles instituted relic veneration or that God commands it. Furthermore, Augustine elsewhere says that doctrine cannot be based on miracles and that Scripture must always be preferred. By Augustine’s own standard, reports of miracles connected to relics cannot serve as proof that the practice is divinely instituted.

Aquinas in the Summa defends the veneration of relics, but even he does not claim that Scripture commands it. His argument is constructed from analogy, philosophical reasoning, and tradition, not from biblical mandate. Aquinas explicitly affirmed that Scripture is the rule of faith. By that standard, his reasoning cannot override the absence of apostolic teaching. In addition, Aquinas grounds relic veneration in the honor due to Christ and the saints, but Scripture explicitly warns against attributing power to objects, forbids seeking benefit from the dead, and restricts mediation to Christ alone. Aquinas offers a theological rationale, but not a Scriptural basis, and therefore cannot establish a binding practice.

Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History is another source often cited. Eusebius is a historian, not a legislator of doctrine. His work describes what happened, not what God commands. He records that relics existed and were treated with reverence by some, but he also documents excesses, superstitions, and abuses surrounding relics. His work reveals the emergence of relic veneration as a historical development, not as an apostolic institution. Historiographical description is not divine prescription.

Modern scholars such as Peter Brown, Patrick Geary, Salima Ikram, and Michael Walsh are descriptive historians or analysts, not sources of doctrine. Brown shows that the cult of saints and relics grew as a social development driven by psychological, political, and economic factors. Geary documents the theft, forgery, manipulation, and commercialization of relics, demonstrating a human religious economy rather than a divine command. Ikram’s work on Egyptian funerary culture highlights parallels between relic practices and pagan customs of venerating the dead, suggesting that such tendencies are natural to human culture and not uniquely Christian. These works help explain how relic practices arose, but they cannot prove that the apostles taught them or that God requires them.

Catholic institutional sources such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Code of Canon Law, conciliar decrees, and Vatican II documents establish only that the Roman Catholic Church endorses relic veneration. These documents rely on the authority of the Roman Church itself and therefore form a circular argument: the Church teaches relic veneration because the Church claims the authority to define doctrine, and the Church’s authority is assumed in order to defend the teaching. This does not prove apostolic origin or divine mandate. These documents cannot override the silence of Scripture or contradict the explicit biblical prohibitions against seeking spiritual benefit from the dead, attributing power to objects, or adding practices not commanded by God.

When the whole set of references is examined carefully, the logical conclusion becomes clear. Their own foundational theologians teach that Scripture alone is the rule of faith. Their Fathers do not produce any apostolic command for relic veneration. Their historians demonstrate cultural development, not divine revelation. Their internal documents demonstrate institutional endorsement, not biblical grounding. Several of their sources openly reveal controversy, superstition, and human manipulation surrounding relics even in early centuries. Most importantly, none of their sources can show a single command in Scripture requiring or encouraging Christians to venerate relics, and several admit that no such command exists.

Therefore the references commonly cited to prove the legitimacy of relic veneration do not in fact establish divine authority for the practice. They show that the practice developed over time, that it became culturally significant, and that the Roman Catholic Church eventually codified it. They do not demonstrate that relic veneration belongs to the apostolic faith delivered once for all to the saints. The only conclusion supported by these sources is that relic veneration is a historical tradition, not a biblical doctrine.

When people are only ever allowed to hear one side of a theory, and that side is declared “orthodox” in advance by an authority, the result is not genuine faith but conditioned agreement. The mere fact that a church labels something “the rule of faith” or “orthodoxy” does not make it true. Truth does not depend on who shouts it the loudest or who has institutional continuity; it depends on whether a claim corresponds to what God has actually revealed. When a system says, in effect, “You are only allowed to hear our description of the evidence, our interpretation of Scripture, and our account of history,” it is not inviting people to believe; it is arranging conditions so that dissent becomes practically impossible. That is not persuasion; it is control.

Treating people as if they must simply accept whatever is handed down, without access to the counter-arguments or the freedom to test claims against Scripture, is intellectually infantilizing. It assumes that ordinary believers are incapable of rational evaluation, that they must be protected from “dangerous” information, and that they will be confused if they see both sides. This implicitly denies that Christians have minds, consciences, and responsibility before God to “test all things” and hold fast to what is good. It replaces personal conviction with deference to an institution. To tell people, “You do not need to examine this, we have examined it for you, and because we claim apostolic succession you must accept our conclusion,” is to treat them like children who cannot handle adult reasoning.

The circularity becomes sharper when those who claim apostolic succession also reserve to themselves the power to declare, after the fact, what counts as “apostolic.” The structure is: we are the apostolic church; therefore, whatever we define is apostolic; therefore, relic veneration (or any other practice) is apostolic if we say it is; therefore, anyone who questions this is by definition un-apostolic. This is not an argument; it is a closed loop. The crucial premise; “we are the authentic apostolic voice”; is never allowed to be tested by the very standard that supposedly proves apostolicity: conformity to the teaching of Christ and His apostles recorded in Scripture. Instead of showing from Scripture that a practice comes from the apostles, the institution simply adds that practice to its list and then retroactively declares it apostolic.

In such a system, the church effectively writes its own truth. It does not stand under Scripture as something to be corrected, but over Scripture as the final interpreter that cannot itself be corrected. Once that move is made, anything can be justified. One only needs to say: the magisterium has spoken. The line between “handing on the faith once delivered” and “creating new obligations and then calling them apostolic” is erased. The believer is no longer being asked, “Is this what the apostles taught?” but “Will you submit to our claim that we embody the apostles?” The question of content (what is true) is replaced by a question of authority (who is in charge).

Deep down, this approach assumes that truth is secured by institutional credentials rather than by fidelity to revelation. It asks people to trust a chain of office-holders rather than to examine the apostolic writings themselves. That is why it is fundamentally disrespectful: it denies believers the dignity of weighing reasons, comparing teaching with Scripture, and forming a conscience that answers to God first. A church that truly trusts the truth of its doctrine does not need to hide competing arguments or rely on circular appeals to its own authority. It can say, “Here are the Scriptures, here are the arguments for and against, and here is why we believe this position best reflects what God has said.” Anything less treats believers not as responsible agents but as subjects to be managed.

When the Catechism, Canon Law, councils, and Vatican II are cited, the argument essentially amounts to saying that relics are legitimate because the Roman Church says they are, and the Roman Church is believed legitimate because it declares itself so. This assumes the very point under dispute, namely the infallibility of Rome. These documents demonstrate only that Rome teaches relic veneration, not that God teaches it.

Church Fathers and medieval theologians were fallible and often contradictory in their doctrines. Augustine, Aquinas, Chrysostom, Cyril, Jerome, and others lived after the apostles and frequently disagreed among themselves on major issues. Their personal approval of any practice does not elevate it to the level of apostolic revelation. Scripture never teaches that the later opinions of saints or theologians define Christian obligation.

Historians describe what happened rather than what God commands. Brown, Geary, Ikram, Walsh, and similar scholars answer questions such as how relic veneration arose, why it developed, and how it spread. They do not answer whether the apostles commanded it or whether Scripture teaches it. Description is not prescription.

Roman Catholic institutional documents show only that Rome later chose to institutionalize relic veneration. The Catechism, Canon Law, councils, and Vatican instructions reveal how the Church regulates relics, but they do not provide a biblical or apostolic mandate for treating remains or objects as channels of spiritual power. They demonstrate institutional preference, not divine command.

The decisive test is Scripture, and Scripture contradicts relic veneration. None of the cited sources can counter the Scriptural commands and boundaries already given: do not go beyond what is written; Scripture alone equips believers for every good work; God condemned the veneration of sacred objects; God forbids seeking benefit from the dead; Christ alone is the Mediator; true worship is spiritual rather than object-based. Even if every name on the Catholic reference list supported relics, none of them could supply what Scripture withholds: a single biblical command or apostolic example establishing relic veneration as Christian.

The reference list may look impressive, but it does not, and cannot, prove that relic veneration is apostolic. It shows only that some later Christians accepted it, some institutions regulated it, some historians described it, and some critics opposed it. None of these are apostolic authorities, and none overturn the Scriptural boundaries that contradict the assumptions behind relic veneration.

This analysis takes the Catholic sources seriously, shows what they actually demonstrate, and reveals why none of them establish divine authority for relic veneration.

Christianity is built on:

“The faith once delivered to the saints.”

(Jude 3)

And that faith contains no command to venerate relics,

and in fact contains multiple prohibitions against the principles behind the practice.

Thus the Roman Catholic use of these references does not establish the divine legitimacy of relic-veneration; it demonstrates the exact opposite.

Furthermore....

If popes themselves have claimed the highest possible spiritual authority, then the logic of relic-veneration becomes even more incoherent. For centuries, various pontiffs have asserted that the pope is the supreme mediator on earth, the visible representative of Christ, and even, in the words attributed to pope Innocent III, “God’s vicar on earth,” while later papal statements and canonical formulations implied that all Christians must submit to the Roman Pontiff for salvation. If these claims are taken at face value, then the theological need for relics disappears entirely. A single, living, divinely appointed mediator would render the search for spiritual power in the remains of the dead unnecessary, redundant, and theologically confused.

If salvation and grace must ultimately be mediated through the pope, then appealing to bones, fragments, or physical remnants of saints cannot have any essential spiritual function. According to papal claims, grace flows through the hierarchy, not through objects. Yet relic-veneration assumes the opposite: that divine power persists tangibly in material remains and can be accessed independently of any living authority. This creates a contradiction inside the Catholic framework. On the one hand, the papacy claims exclusive power to bind and loose, forgive sins, dispense grace, and exercise universal jurisdiction. On the other hand, relic-veneration claims that divine power is available through contact with the bodies of saints or items associated with them. These two claims cannot both be central. If the pope is the indispensable channel of grace, relics are superfluous. If relics possess spiritual potency, the pope’s exclusive mediation is unnecessary.

A system that simultaneously asserts absolute living authority and enduring power in the dead is attempting to operate two incompatible mechanisms of mediation. The tension is not incidental; it is structural. If one accepts papal supremacy, relics become theologically irrelevant. If one accepts relic-power, papal supremacy becomes logically inconsistent. The attempt to affirm both reveals that neither claim rests on apostolic teaching. Both ideas arose as the institutional church expanded its power and inherited devotional customs, merging them into a single system rather than testing them against Scripture.

This inconsistency highlights the heart of the problem. When authority is defined not by revelation but by institutional assertion, doctrines do not need to cohere; they only need to be declared. Papal supremacy is asserted by the hierarchy; relic-veneration is accepted from tradition; and both are preserved because the system validates itself by its own proclamations. But if one were to reason from Scripture alone, neither practice would appear, and the contradiction between them would evaporate because neither would exist.

Thus, if one truly believed that the pope is the earthly representative of God and the necessary conduit of salvation, seeking power from the dead would be both unnecessary and irrational. The very fact that relic-veneration persists alongside claims of papal supremacy demonstrates that neither belief is grounded in apostolic instruction but in a later accumulation of practices that were never tested against the biblical standard.