By Oyewole Sarumi
A Catholic bishop lifts a human skull before the faithful in a public religious ceremony. The congregation gathers in reverence. The Church names this the veneration of relics, a practice sanctified by centuries of European tradition and institutional authority.
In an African village, a family keeps the remains of their ancestors, honours them through ritual, and engages with them in times of need. The same institutional Christianity has spent generations calling this idolatry, paganism, and the work of darkness.
The physical act is not meaningfully different. A human skull is a human skull. The remains of the dead are the remains of the dead. The distinction lies not in the action but in who holds the power to define the categories. One practice is protected by centuries of European institutional authority and declared holy. The other was condemned, suppressed, and used as justification for colonial missionary enterprise.
This is not merely a theological debate. It is a question of who gets to decide what is sacred and what is superstition. It is a question of whether the Church of Jesus Christ operates by the standard of Scripture or by the standard of cultural power. And it is a question that every leader of God’s people must confront with honesty, courage, and a willingness to submit every tradition to the searching light of God’s Word.
THE PRACTICE EXAMINED: CATHOLIC VENERATION OF RELICS
The Roman Catholic Church distinguishes between three classes of relics. First-class relics consist of the mortal remains of saints: skin, bone, organs, hair, or blood. Second-class relics are items owned or used by saints during their lifetimes, including clothing, crucifixes, and instruments of torture or death. Third-class relics are items that have touched a first-class relic.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that “the religious sense of the Christian people has always found expression in various forms of piety… such as the veneration of relics”. The Church teaches that these practices help the faithful express and deepen their faith, and that veneration must be clearly distinguished from adoration and worship, which are due to God alone.
The scale of this practice is staggering. When the relics of St. Francis of Assisi were exposed for public veneration in 2026 for the first time in eight hundred years, more than 370,000 pilgrims from over forty countries travelled to Assisi to pray before his bones.
More than 170 Masses were celebrated, attended by over 100,000 people, including fifty bishops and cardinals. More than 2,500 relics of St. Carlo Acutis have been officially distributed around the world. In Mexico alone, approximately twenty-two million people venerated the relic of St. Jude Thaddeus during a national tour.
The faithful are taught that these practices are biblical. They point to the account in 2 Kings 13:20-21, where a dead man thrown into Elisha’s grave came to life when his body touched the prophet’s bones. They point to Matthew 14:35-36, where people brought the sick to Jesus that they might touch the fringe of his garment. They quote St. Jerome from the fourth century: “We do not worship relics, we do not adore them… But we venerate the relics of the martyrs in order the better to adore Him whose martyrs they are”.
Yet the question that must be asked, and asked honestly, is this: Where in Scripture is the believer commanded or even encouraged to venerate the bones of the dead? Where does the New Testament instruct the Church to preserve, display, or travel vast distances to honour the physical remains of those who have died in faith?
The examples cited are descriptive narratives, not prescriptive commands. That God chose to work through Elisha’s bones in a specific historical moment does not establish a perpetual practice for the Church. That a woman touched the hem of Jesus’ garment and was healed does not establish a perpetual obligation to venerate relics. To build an entire system of devotion upon such slender foundations is to build upon sand.
THE AFRICAN EXPERIENCE: A HISTORY OF CONDEMNATION
The contrast could not be starker. When European missionaries encountered African traditional religions, they dismissed fundamental cultural and religious practices, especially the cult of the ancestors, as paganism and sought to replace it with the Christian doctrine of the communion of saints. The ancestor cult, “a belief that the dead remained a part of the village and should help control its life, was discredited”. Ritual dances and chants, ritual drinking, and traditional rites of passage were systematically suppressed.
The Catholic Bishops of Southern Africa issued a pastoral statement warning that “the belief that ancestors are endowed with supernatural powers borders on idolatry”. In South Africa, KwaZulu-Natal’s Catholic bishops explicitly forbade offering animal sacrifices to ancestors. Archbishop Siegfried Mandla Jwara of Durban stated that “a priest is only there in persona Christi. You can’t be a priest representing Christ and at the same time representing your ancestors”.
Yet even as they issued these condemnations, African scholars and theologians have pointed out the undeniable parallels. A comparative study of ancestor worship in Yoruba indigenous religion and sainthood in the Roman Catholic Church revealed that both practices are aimed at seeking the mediatory help of the ancestors and saints.
Studies have shown that “the belief in the communion of the Saints, and its surrounding practices stressed especially among the Catholic group is coterminous with the veneration of the Ancestors” in African traditional religion. As one researcher observed, “It is ironic to see that the Roman Catholic Church does not accept the ancestral veneration and yet it has no problems with the veneration of saints who are mostly Western figures”.
The irony deepens when we consider that many African theologians have argued that “ancestral veneration is not bound up with superstition and error but is replete with parallels to the doctrine of the communion of saints”. What was condemned as darkness when practised by Africans in African ways became holiness when practised by Europeans in European ways. The difference was not theological. It was political. It was cultural. It was racial.
THE POWER TO DEFINE: WHO DECIDES WHAT IS SACRED?
This brings us to the heart of the matter. The bishop holding the skull and the African elder honouring the ancestors are engaged in remarkably similar actions. Both are handling the remains of the dead. Both are treating those remains with reverence. Both are seeking connection with those who have gone before. Both believe that the dead, in some sense, remain present and can intercede or assist the living.
Yet one practice is celebrated as piety. The other is condemned as paganism.
Why? The answer lies not in Scripture but in power. The Catholic practice is protected by centuries of European institutional authority, backed by the weight of the Vatican, validated by councils and catechisms, and reinforced by the cultural capital of Western civilization. The African practice lacks this institutional protection. It was practised by colonized peoples, dismissed by missionaries, and denigrated by those who held the power to define what was orthodox and what was heretical.
This is not an argument that all practices are equally valid. This is an argument that we must apply the same standard to all practices. If venerating the bones of the dead is idolatry when Africans do it, it is idolatry when Catholics do it. If honouring the ancestors is paganism when practised in the village, it is paganism when practised in the cathedral. We cannot have one standard for the powerful and another for the powerless. We cannot condemn in Africa what we celebrate in Europe. We cannot call darkness in one context what we call light in another.
The Apostle Paul makes this explicit in his letter to the Romans: “There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honour and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality” (Romans 2:9-11). God shows no partiality. He does not favour European traditions over African traditions. He does not bless Catholic customs while condemning identical African customs. He judges the heart, not the cultural pedigree of the practice.
THE SCRIPTURAL STANDARD: TESTING EVERYTHING BY THE WORD
The apostle John concludes the Revelation with a solemn warning: “I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book” (Revelation 22:18-19).
This warning, while specifically addressed to the book of Revelation, has been understood throughout church history as a general principle concerning the sufficiency and finality of Scripture. The canon of Scripture is closed. Nothing is to be added. Nothing is to be subtracted. The Word of God is sufficient for faith and practice.
Yet the veneration of relics is an addition to Scripture. Nowhere does the New Testament command it. Nowhere does the New Testament encourage it. Nowhere does the New Testament establish it as a practice of the Church. It is a tradition of men, elevated to the status of doctrine, and enforced by institutional authority.
Jesus himself addressed this very tendency when he confronted the Pharisees: “You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men… You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition!” (Mark 7:8-9). The Pharisees had added to the Word of God. They had elevated their traditions to the level of divine command. They had used their traditions to nullify the actual commandments of God.
The veneration of relics follows the same pattern. Human tradition is elevated to the level of piety. Practices that have no biblical warrant are treated as if they were commanded by God. Those who question these practices are accused of impiety or ignorance. And the actual Word of God, which commands us to worship God alone, to put no trust in idols, and to test everything by Scripture, is set aside in favour of human invention.
The Puritan theologian John Owen spoke to this danger when he warned against “the imposing of things on the consciences of men as necessary to divine worship which have no foundation in the Word of God.” The Reformers understood that Scripture alone is the rule of faith and practice. They understood that traditions, however ancient, must be tested by the Word. They understood that the Church has no authority to institute practices that God has not commanded.
THE COMMUNION OF SAINTS: A BIBLICAL CORRECTIVE
The Catholic doctrine of the communion of saints, properly understood, is biblical. Believers are united in Christ. The Church triumphant in heaven and the Church militant on earth are one body. The dead in Christ are alive in him. We are surrounded by “a great cloud of witnesses” (Hebrews 12:1). We are called to remember the faithfulness of those who have gone before, to learn from their example, and to be inspired by their endurance.
But the biblical doctrine of the communion of saints does not sanction the veneration of relics. It does not command us to pray to the dead. It does not instruct us to seek the intercession of those who have died. It does not authorize us to treat human bones as objects of devotion.
The early church understood this distinction. When the apostle Paul addressed the Corinthians, he did not tell them to venerate the relics of the martyrs. He told them to follow his example as he followed Christ (1 Corinthians 11:1). He did not point them to bones. He pointed them to the living Word. He did not encourage them to seek the intercession of the dead. He directed them to the one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5).
The late church historian Philip Schaff observed that the veneration of saints “early exceeded the scriptural limit, and afterwards degenerated into the worship of saints and relics”. What began as an honourable remembrance of the martyrs gradually became something far more problematic. Human nature, inclined toward tangible objects of devotion, transformed commemoration into veneration and veneration into what, in practice, looks remarkably like the very idolatry the Scriptures condemn.
THE WITNESS OF THE EARLY CHURCH
The early church Fathers were not united in their views on relics. Some, like St. Jerome, defended the practice. Others raised serious questions. Athanasius powerfully impugned the invocation of saints. The denial of prayer to saints was considered by some to be “an old heresy”. The early church was not monolithic in its practice. The veneration of relics developed over time, gradually becoming institutionalized and mandatory.
This historical development is itself an argument against the practice. If the veneration of relics were essential to Christian faith, why did the early church not practice it from the beginning? Why did it take centuries to develop? Why was there controversy and disagreement? The answer is clear: the practice is not apostolic. It is not found in the New Testament. It is a human invention that accumulated authority over time until it became indistinguishable from divine command.
The Protestant Reformers understood this. Martin Luther, John Calvin, and others rejected the veneration of relics precisely because it lacked biblical warrant. They understood that the Church cannot bind the conscience where Scripture has not spoken. They understood that what is not commanded is forbidden in matters of worship. They understood that adding to the Word of God is a dangerous thing.
A PASTORAL PERSPECTIVE: THE DANGER OF UNEXAMINED TRADITION
In pastoral ministry, one encounters many sincere believers who have never examined the practices they embrace. They have been taught that certain things are holy. They have been told that certain traditions are essential. They have never been encouraged to test everything by Scripture.
This is a pastoral tragedy. Sincerity does not sanctify error. Sacrifice does not make a practice biblical. Even dying for a belief does not make it true. The apostle Paul was sincere when he persecuted the church. He was zealous for the traditions of his fathers. But sincerity did not make his persecution righteous. He needed to be confronted by the living Christ and brought to the Word.
The same is true today. Many are sincerely embracing practices they have never examined and calling them Christianity. They are venerating relics without ever asking whether Scripture commands it. They are praying to saints without ever asking whether Scripture authorizes it. They are following traditions without ever asking whether those traditions align with the Word.
This is not a call to abandon all tradition. Tradition can be valuable. Tradition can preserve truth. Tradition can connect us to the wisdom of those who have gone before. But tradition must always be subordinate to Scripture. Tradition must always be tested by Scripture. Tradition must never be elevated to the level of Scripture.
The Apostle Paul commended the Bereans because they “received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so” (Acts 17:11). They did not accept the apostolic teaching blindly. They tested it. They examined it. They compared it to the Scriptures. And they were commended for it. How much more should we test the traditions of men? How much more should we examine the practices that have been handed down to us? How much more should we hold everything up to the light of God’s Word?
THE CALL TO REFORMATION: RETURNING TO SCRIPTURE
The situation we face today is not new. Throughout church history, God has raised up reformers to call his people back to his Word. The prophets of the Old Testament called Israel away from idolatry and back to the covenant. The Reformers of the sixteenth century called the Church away from human traditions and back to Scripture alone. The same call is needed today.
We must hold tightly to Christ and his Word, not to men or religious systems. We must flee idolatry, regardless of who practises it or how long the tradition has existed. Our loyalty belongs to Christ, and Scripture must remain our standard. We cannot be intimidated by institutional authority. We cannot be swayed by cultural pressure. We cannot be seduced by the appeal of ancient tradition.
We must be like the men of Issachar, “who had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do” (1 Chronicles 12:32). We must understand our times. We must recognize the ways in which human traditions have obscured the gospel. We must have the courage to call God’s people back to his Word.
This is not a call to division. It is a call to fidelity. It is not a call to arrogance. It is a call to humility before the Word. It is not a call to condemn those who differ. It is a call to love them enough to speak the truth in love.
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS FOR CHURCH LEADERS
For those who lead God’s people, this matter carries special weight. Leaders are called to teach the whole counsel of God. Leaders are called to guard the flock from error. Leaders are called to model fidelity to Scripture.
First, we must teach our people to test everything by Scripture. We must equip them to examine traditions, to question practices, and to hold everything up to the light of God’s Word. We must not be afraid of questions. We must not be threatened by scrutiny. We must encourage our people to be like the Bereans, examining the Scriptures daily.
Second, we must model this same fidelity in our own lives. We must examine our own traditions. We must question our own practices. We must be willing to abandon anything that does not align with Scripture, regardless of how long we have practised it or how much it means to us.
Third, we must confront the double standards that exist in the Church. We must not condemn in one culture what we celebrate in another. We must not allow cultural power to determine what is sacred and what is superstitious. We must apply the same standard to all practices, regardless of their cultural origin.
Fourth, we must preach the sufficiency of Scripture. We must declare that God’s Word is enough. We do not need to add to it. We do not need to supplement it with human traditions. We do not need to rely on the bones of the dead when we have the living Word. Christ is sufficient. His Word is sufficient. His grace is sufficient.
THE SUPREMACY OF CHRIST
Brethren, ultimately, this is not about relics or traditions or cultural practices. This is about Christ. He is the head of the Church. He is the one mediator between God and men. He is the author and perfecter of our faith. He alone is worthy of our worship. He alone is worthy of our devotion. He alone is worthy of our trust.
The writer of Hebrews makes this clear: “Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world” (Hebrews 1:1-2). God has spoken finally and definitively in his Son. We do not need to look elsewhere. We do not need to seek other mediators. We do not need to rely on other intercessors. Christ is enough.
The same writer exhorts us: “Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith” (Hebrews 12:1-2). The witnesses surround us. The saints who have gone before inspire us. But we are to look to Jesus. We are to fix our eyes on him. He is the object of our faith. He is the goal of our race. He is the one who perfects what he has begun.
This is the heart of the gospel. This is the essence of true Christianity. This is what we must proclaim with clarity and conviction. Not the traditions of men. Not the relics of the dead. Not the authority of institutions. But Christ alone. Christ crucified. Christ risen. Christ reigning. Christ returning.
THE STANDARD OF THE SCRIPTURE REMAINS
Let me reiterate this as I wrap up this piece: Agatha may be honoured for her courage and suffering. The martyrs may be remembered for their faithfulness. The saints who have gone before may inspire us by their example. But believers must be careful not to hold tightly to any saint, pastor, pope, denomination, tradition, or Christian platform. Sincerity, sacrifice, and even dying for a belief do not automatically make it biblical. Everything must be tested by Scripture.
The skull that is venerated in the cathedral is no different from the skull that is honoured in the village. The bones that are treated as sacred in Europe are no different from the bones that are treated as sacred in Africa. The difference is not in the practice but in the power that defines it. And as followers of Christ, we must resist the temptation to let power define what is sacred. We must let Scripture define what is sacred.
The apostle John’s warning stands: “If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book” (Revelation 22:18). The warning is clear. The standard is set. The Word is sufficient. We dare not add to it. We dare not subtract from it. We dare not elevate human traditions to the level of divine command.
Our loyalty belongs to Christ. Our standard is Scripture. Our hope is in the gospel. And our calling is to proclaim the whole counsel of God, untainted by human tradition, unvarnished by cultural accommodation, and unashamed of its exclusive claims.
May God grant us the courage to hold fast to his Word. May God grant us the wisdom to distinguish between tradition and truth. May God grant us the grace to worship him alone, through Christ alone, by Scripture alone. And may the Church of Jesus Christ, in every nation and every culture, return to the simple, sufficient, and saving gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.
“To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn” (Isaiah 8:20).
Amen.
Prof. Sarumi, a pastor and teacher of the Word of God, writes from Lagos. Tel. 234 803 304 1421, Email: oyewolethecoach@gmail.com