The Instigator
PavlvsMagnvs
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
Marauder
Con (against)
Losing
17 Points

Motion: This House will remove all relics of saints.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/9/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,152 times Debate No: 10015
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (6)

 

PavlvsMagnvs

Pro

This debate will follow a parliament form of debating.
____________________________________________________

Status Quo: 1. Relics of saints are being exposed for veneration in different churches, and are kept and safeguarded by people called "Relic custodians" (Latin: Ss. Reliquarium Custos) for private veneration, sometimes for public veneration.

2. Relics of saints can be obtained by presenting a letter of request to a religious order or to the treasury of relics of the Vicariate of Rome, and a small donation (which is optional) to cover the cost of postage and the container of the relic.

3. Relic Trafficking is very rampant in the internet. Relics of saints are being sold in online auction sites, antique shops and thrift stores. These relics are usually stolen from churches in Europe or from convents and monasteries. Relics are also being faked and sold in the black market as real relics.

4. Many people have little or no knowledge on what a sacred relic is. Often times, they are mistakenly associated with talismans, amulets, lucky charms or collectibles.

5. Some people believe that the solution for the very rampant trafficking of relics are to remove them from public view, or in extreme cases, refrain from obtaining relics of saints for veneration, hence the motion: This House will remove all relics of saints.

Objective of this debate: assess whether the house should remove all relics of saints, what would be the advantages and the disadvantages of the motion, and present arguments that will prove one's opinion in the given motion.

Please allow me to define the terms in the to be used in this debate:

remove - we define this word in the motion as the act of removing from the public view; removing from the veneration of the faithful.

relics: classified into 3 classes: 1st class: Part of the body of saint, and any object associated with the life and passion of Jesus Christ and the Blessed Virgin Mary. 2nd class relics: pieces of clothing or objects used by the saint.
3rd class relics: anything touched to a 1st or 2nd class relic.

Treasury of Relics: An office under the Vicariate of Rome, which handles the distribution of relics to churches (before, they issue relics to individuals).

Postulator General of a religious order: in-charge with the cause for sainthood (canonization) of a particular departed member of their religious order.

Faithful: the venerating people.

Here are my cases:

The key players in this debate are officials in the Vicariate of Rome handling the dispensation of Sacred Relics, the Postulators of different religious orders, and the venerating faithful. As defined, the officials of the Vicariate of Rome are responsible for the dispensation and distribution of relics of saints not belonging to any religious order, the postulators general handle the distribution of relics of saints from their religious order, the venerating people are the ones gaining access to the sacred relics by the means of formal requests or personal acquisition i. e. gifts from friends or relatives, visitation of a shrine or a church with a first class relic in public veneration (touching an object to the exposed relic).

Furthermore, I gave in the Status Quo, the fact that many people have little or no knowledge on he importance of the sacred relics, thus causing financial greed to abuse the ignorance of the faithful. Greed for Money is the cause for these abuses.

Now in connection with the given motion, if ever this motion will take effect, then the abuse to the relics of saints, which has been a problem of the Roman Catholic Church for many centuries, will finally come to an end. Relics will no longer be a target of trafficking indiscriminate sale in auction sites or antique dealers because they are safely kept, removed from public view. There would no longer be any plundering of churches for relics to be sold in the black market because the object of interest of these plunderers are kept safely in a secure place.

In conclusion, I would like to point out that I am for the given motion because I believe this is the answer for the abuses being done to the relics of the Saints.

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.ichrusa.com...
http://www.forallthesaints.info...
http://somosierra.wordpress.com...

_____________________________________________________

NB: This is my first time here in Debate.Org and I humbly apologize if I did anything in this debate that aren't the same as the other debates. I never experienced online debating and I was used in formal debating. Thank you and God Bless.
Marauder

Con

Hello PavlvsMagnvs! this is my first debate here too. I'm unfamiliar with parliament form and looking at wikapiedia didnt help much. but ill try my best.

the motion presented by you have presented is so we can stop... greed I guess, as the ultimate benifit to keeping the relics from public view. that sounds kind of ridiculous put that way, but if you feel thats a mischaracterization of what you envisioned goal for their removal than please correct me.

Jesus said dont hide your light under a bushel*. the for is reletivley obvious, what good could that light ever do if its function, illumination, cant be fufilled. likewise what good are these relics to the people at large if the people can never see them? protected in a vault somewere that only the christians that are probably spiritualy grown a fair amount can access, the people who could be most inspired by these objects would never see them. theoritically nothing about Jesus's robes can heal a person, the Lord himself is the sorce of the healing. But as far as the mind set of the people are concerned faith focused on the robes is counted just as good in his eyes to allow his power to work through them.

by this logic then it is reasonable to see how a persons faith might need or at least succesfully be able to use the a relic, like the shroud of turin, to pray near to be healed, wich i have heard has happened, though i cant cite a source for that, i was only told of this from a preacher once. if relics like that are kept from public view, mircales cannot happen as a result of their viewing.

As for your main argument for their removal, i concead many do abuse these and for bad purposes.
But so is the healthcare system, like when food stamps are sold for money to buy cigarettes, but that doesnt mean we should just do away with it because there are infact people who are helped by it.
Animal abuse reporting can be used wrongly when a person drives by a house see's a skinny hourse and reports it without talking to the owner to find out its so old that it defieys logic the beast can be as bulky as it is, but the system can help some. I ask if only for the good of the few isnt it worth it. If you speak about God on television, and it humilates you to most and only saves one sole who watched, wasnt it still worth it?

Mathew 5:15*
Debate Round No. 1
PavlvsMagnvs

Pro

Good day to you, Marauder. I understand that you are not familiar with the Parliament form of debating, so i'll make it a little less-formal.

With regards to your first point, I guess I was not able to elaborate my other points on why I am in f of the given motion. Besides from greed, I favor the motion because I believe that we need to safeguard our church treasures from further deterioration. We are all aware that the relic of saints in churches have been venerated by the people years, some even for centuries (like the relics of our Lord Jesus Christ in the churches of St. Peter's basilica and the Lateran basilica in Rome). They are exposed to the elements of nature and the frequent touching of the people with their hands or with devotional materials like rosary beads, crucifixes, veils and the like. Through the passing of time, these relics are deteriorated, and in some cases, they are victims of vandalism by people who developed hatred to the Church or those people who tried to plunder the Church of its treasures, as stated in the status quo.

With regards to your point in reference to Matthew 5:15, you have a point in telling me that the light cannot do its function if it is kept away. I am assuming that you are also associating this to the safekeeping of relics, thus making an analogy: safekeeping of relics = light under a bushel. The common object in this analogy is the uselessness of the object. However, humanitarian considerations are still the top priority. As I have stated above, many relics of saints are victims of natural or man-made deterioration. How can an object be useful if it is dilapidated?

Furthermore, you discussed that faith is essential to be able to use the relic, then I think it is apt that faith should be the sole instrument of the faithful to obtain through the intercession of the saint venerated in their relics any favor the faithful may ask. A relic is a mere sacramental (object, time, place, or words that gives grace but not necessarily it is a guarantee in salvation) and the most important thing a person needs to be saved is faith.*

___________________________________________________________________

*=NB: I am talking about a Catholic point of view, since the parameters of this debate (as per the motion) is Catholic.
Marauder

Con

Thank you for the allowance of a more formal style for my lack of familiarity with parlament form. I can see where there is concern for keeping a Catholic point of view, if i chose to argue from an athiest perspective arguing that faith is to foolish to consider therfore throw the relics away...we would get nowhere under those terms cause there is no amount of debate that could make one concead from that foundational point. in this case as a prodistant i should keep from arguing with common prodestant veiw that Relics and 'Cathlic idols' are interchangable terms. I should find this easier than most prodestants since many other denomenations accuse the Methodist church as being too much like the Catholics. But before i let your point about view go I think its worth considering that if all christians were open to considering that the perspective of another church could contribute to the perspective of there own, we would have less divisions among the churches. And this website would be a lot more usefull in reduction of those denomenations.

So the focus of the motion is not just the discorgement of greedy use of these objects, but the protection of the objects themselves. I think my rebuttle for that is still covered by the uselessness in there removal analogy.

As for your response to that anology, you are quite correct in your assumption on how I ment it. You stated
"However, humanitarian considerations are still the top priority"
So you agree that their removal means the Relics become useless as a consiquence? If they are useless; why are they being protected? You asked after that
"How can an object be useful if it is dilapidated?"
obviously most of the relics out there are a testament to the fact that there dilapidatedness does not matter. in spite of the fact that it is only a shard of wood from the last supper table, or merely the head of john the babtist, it is still consider a relic. if they have deterated at the start of there finding than that would lead one to question if they are even real. If I handed you a chunk of wood and said it was from Noah's ark, you would not belive me if the piece did not appear to have rotted any.

Also asking "How can an object be useful if it is dilapidated?" is like asking "How can a sheild protect me if I let it get dents from swords bashing against it?" ultimately we must accept that its okay if the sheild gets a few. its the risk that comes with purpose it must surve. If its too dangerous for the sheilds sake to fufill that role then to justify its existance you must find another use for it, like a paperweight. exept with relics they have no other role to switch to once you remove them from public view.

As for your last point i could not agree more, even without a Cathlic perspective. Faith is the most importent thing needed to be saved. I dont need to touch pauls bones for salvation. I need to accept the sacrifice made by my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ made on my behalf and everone else who has ever been alive.
Debate Round No. 2
PavlvsMagnvs

Pro

Good day to you, Marauder.

I think the only thing I can say with your first point, is: Here, here.

On your second point: Yes, I agree that uselessness may become a consequence for the safekeeping of Relics. However, relics kept in the vaults of the treasury of relics of the Vicariate of Rome are also of the same status that is: kept in the vaults, unvenerated by the faithful and awaiting the requests of Churches or bishops, although, I realize that this statement may be rebutted by stating that relics in the vault me useful after the formal requests of the bishops of their respective dioceses. But my point is this: if they would not become useful in the first place, then I think it is better that they be kept in vaults or enclosed reliquaries, safe from further natural or -made deterioration.

In connection with the term "natural or man-made deterioration" and your comparison to the "shield with dents from swords", you said that: "its the risk that comes with purpose it must surve". You also said: "exept with relics they have no other role to switch to once you remove them from public view". I agree with the second statement, but I must wonder:what benefit it should give if the relic is destroyed due to man-made or natural deterioration? It is no longer conductive to prayer, as this is one of the purpose of the relics being venerated, it leads us to prayer. If relics are to be removed from public view, it may be replaced by an alternative that has the same purpose (e. g. statues, pictures, etc.), without jeopardizing the time-given value of the relic; or to rephrase it, the antiquity and the historical value oif the relic.

(I apologize for the occasional typographical errors in my past arguments, I'm having a hard time with this old keyboard of mine. I humbly ask for your forgiveness).
Marauder

Con

Good day to you too, PavlvsMagnvs.
no need to apologize, I don't hold typing errors against you to start with, I know I make them also.

your first paragraph comes first. You said your point is that "if they would not become useful in the first place" then it would be better for them to go to the vaults. If they are not useful to start with then doesn't that question if the relics are legitimate? if they were real surely they would be. But from the status quo you gave in round one I think the reason you believe they would not be useful to start with is because the faithful are too ignorant to know what the relics are, or the history behind the relics anyway.

The solution to that should be work to correct their ignorance by informing the faithful; not lock up all relics. Also, even if the faithful are ignorant about the origin of the relic, is it really changing the effect on their faith in reaction to the relic? I don't think it is. if they come before an object that has a history in relation to a particular saint, and that is all they know, their faith in the Lord can still occur the same way it would have if they did know the name of the saint or what he did with the object that is now a relic. In fact (I hope an atheist doesn't read this the wrong way) ignorance seems to be encouraged in respect to faith in the bible. John 20:29 blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe. Ultimately Thomas was allowed to know for sure that his lord had risen, but it makes for stronger faith to believe even without knowing for sure (in your head at least).

On your point that relics are of no benefit if there destroyed, your are right there are of no use demolished. A candle is also of no use once it melts (completely). but it has too. you would not buy it without intending to light it eventually. relics may last longer than a persons life last, but that does not make them immortal, eternal, so permanent that they never meet there end. putting it a vault may extend its 'lifespan' a great deal but for what good? we never use the relic again to prevent its deterioration because its deterioration would cause us to never be able to use it again? so the scenario you are trying to prevent is the action that will solve it? To put that in planer format: A must be stopped, B causes A, doing A would stop B, therefore we should A to keep A from happening. I bet such a fallacy has a name but I don't know it so Ill just refer to it as fallacy of pointlessness.

Your last point I consider the strongest. your said:

"If relics are to be removed from public view, it may be replaced by an alternative that has the same purpose (e. g. statues, pictures, etc.), without jeopardizing the time-given value of the relic; or to rephrase it, the antiquity and the historical value of the relic."

The Dead Sea Scrolls can be considered of historic value. to know what they are can be done by examining the scrolls themselves (if you can read them), and being able to fall back to examine the original scrolls contributes to our understanding of history, therefore making them of historic value. relics for the most part do not have anything on them that makes it evident there role in history. you have to already know the history to apply it to the artifact. In this sense I don't think they can be said to have historic value.
Since we know the relic itself doesn't help us understand history then its oldness that defines its antiquity doesn't either. And you mention newer things that can replace its only other defined function, the statues, and pictures. So seeing as the relics appear to be outdated like that there is no need to waist vault space. unless of course the value in there replacement statues and pitchers is directly linked to the continued protected existence of the relics in the vaults. I admit that I am arguing with a little bit of ignorance here in that I don't understand how something can do a relics job and not fit enough criteria to be called a relic. how do these replacements work?
Debate Round No. 3
PavlvsMagnvs

Pro

Good day to you.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think you hat ignorance is encouraged in respect to faith therefore it is good that the faithful are ignorant about the relic because it is in respect with faith. I think in this argument, the ignorance of man to what the relic is, and its purpose is not essential to salvation, so is the relics of saints. It may remind us of the men and women enjoying the gift of salvation, but this will not guarantee salvation for us who venerates it, or even to those who keep them and dispense them.

You said in your comparison with a candle: "A candle is also of no use once it melts (completely). but it has too. you would not buy it without intending to light it eventually. relics may last longer than a persons life last, but that does not make them immortal, eternal, so permanent that they never meet there end. putting it a vault may extend its 'lifespan' a great deal but for what good? we never use the relic again to prevent its deterioration because its deterioration would cause us to never be able to use it again?"

In my opinion, I think that there would be a good use for the relics if they are safeguarded properly: they might become a reminder for the future generations that a person of virtue lived during his day, and the proof is the relic.This is also what I mean when I referred on the historical value of the relic as stated in my previous argument.
Marauder

Con

Hello again. I apologize if I have not been a very challanging opponent, because I'm new at this, but I hope I was at least thought provoking.

You only refuted two things in your last round. The first was on what I said about ignorance being encouraged in respect to faith. I would like to make clear I started that paragraph by disincouraging it:
"The solution to that should be work to correct their ignorance by informing the faithful; not lock up all relics."
I only went on to say the what I put after that to show that there ignorance is not detremental to the fuction of a relic.

I find it interesting how any conversation I hold about faith seems to be responded to as if I was very much equally talking about salvation. I am not. those words are 100% interchangeble. though it is true faith is very importent in a discousion on salvation (the resolution 'Motion This House will remove all relics of the saints' dosent impley that this is one of those), faith is not reserved for topic in only that discousion. Salvation is not part of the discousion when talking about the kind of faith Elijah as he prayed for the end of a drought, or the faith that he needed that resulted in fire coming from the sky that consumed two millitary units that came to get him. faith can be discoused without the context of salvation when speaking of Abrahams faith as he brought his son to be a sacrifice to God.
Anyway, whatever faith is essential in a prayer, wether for the exorsism of a demon in your daughter miles away, the defeat of your earthly enemies, or just for rain, or your joy that all things will work out for the better eventually, this is the type of faith that is present when the faithfull come to a relic, pray for a form of mercy or favor in this life, and have there prayers answered yes by God. And there lack of knowledge of the history of the relic is not detrimental to that.
But again, I dont with to encurage ignorance in any of this because lack of ignorance is also not nessisaraly detrimintal to there faith, but it seems its detremental to bringing a seeker to the lord. An athiest prides himself on his rationality and should he see how little this ignorant prayer to relics differs from what he's known as superstition in any other pagan reliegion, it could be made a barrier by satan for keeping him from coming to the Lord. Anyway not the point of this debate, moving on.

your last statement was that the relics are still usefull in a vault, "they might become a reminder for the future generations that a person of virtue lived during his day, and the proof is the relic.This is also what I mean when I referred on the historical value of the relic as stated in my previous argument."

I see what you are saying about the historical value now, and now agree with you on that.

But your motion was to remove all relics of the saints and in round one your own definition of remove was "remove - we define this word in the motion as the act of removing from the public view; removing from the veneration of the faithful." removed from the public negates any chance of it reminding them of anything. On a Fifty dollor bill there is a pitcher of President Grant. his face on that bill can remind us of his contributions we associate with his image that he did in his time. but I never carry a fifty on me so that form of currancy remains in a vault at my bank, reminding me of nothing. So I conclude it is contradictiory expect a relic to remind the faithfull of the public of "the footsteps of the ones thats come before"* and expect the public to never come eyecontact with these same relics.

Good Luck!

http://en.wikipedia.org... *
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Marauder 7 years ago
Marauder
I know it is. I'll have to Try that next time. It will really fix 99%? wow!

If anyone knows the real name of what I called the fallacy of pointlessness, I would appreciate it if you would tell me.
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
Spelling: PRO
CON's spelling was atrocious. Try using spellcheck or proofreading. Doing both will catch 99% of errors.

Arguments: CON
I found this argument very persuasive:

"A candle is also of no use once it melts (completely). but it has too. you would not buy it without intending to light it eventually. relics may last longer than a persons life last, but that does not make them immortal, eternal, so permanent that they never meet there end. putting it a vault may extend its 'lifespan' a great deal but for what good? we never use the relic again to prevent its deterioration because its deterioration would cause us to never be able to use it again?""
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
PavlvsMagnvsMarauderTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Marauder 7 years ago
Marauder
PavlvsMagnvsMarauderTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Mixer 7 years ago
Mixer
PavlvsMagnvsMarauderTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by dogparktom 7 years ago
dogparktom
PavlvsMagnvsMarauderTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by StephenAlsop 7 years ago
StephenAlsop
PavlvsMagnvsMarauderTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
PavlvsMagnvsMarauderTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13