CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: RELICS
Relics
The word <relics> comes from the Latin <reliquiae> (the counterpart of the Greek
<leipsana>) which already before the propagation of Christianity was used in its
modern sense, viz., of some object, notably part of the body or clothes, remaining as a
memorial of a departed saint. The veneration of relics, in fact, is to some extent a
primitive instinct, and it is associated with many other religious systems besides that
of Christianity. At Athens the supposed remains of Oedipus and Theseus enjoyed an
honour which it is very difficult to distinguish from a religious cult (see for all this
Pfister, "Reliquienkult in Altertum", I, 1909), while Plutarch gives an account of the
translation of the bodies of Demetrius (Demetr. Iii) and Phocion (Phoc. xxxvii) which
in many details anticipates the Christian practice of the Middle Ages. The bones or
ashes of Aesculapius at Epidaurus, of Perdiccas I at Macedon, and even -- if we may
trust the statement of the Chronicon Paschale (Dindorf, p. 67) -- of the Persian
Zoroaster (Zarathustra), were treated with the deepest veneration. As for the Far East,
the famous story of the distribution of the relics of Buddha, an incident which is
believed to have taken place immediately after his death, seems to have found
remarkable confirmation in certain modern archaeological discoveries. (See "Journ. of
R. Asiatic Society", 1909, pp. 1056 sqq.). In any case the extreme development of relic-
worship amongst the Buddhists of every sect is a fact beyond dispute
I. DOCTRINE REGARDING RELICS
The teaching of the Catholic church with regard to the veneration of relics is summed
up in a decree of the Council of Trent (Sess. XXV), which enjoins on bishops and other
pastors to instruct their flocks that "the holy bodies of holy martyrs and of others now
living with Christ -- which bodies were the living members of Christ and 'the temple of
the Holy Ghost' (I Cor., vi, 19) and which are by Him to be raised to eternal life and to
be glorified are to be venerated by the faithful, for through these [bodies] many
benefits are bestowed by God on men, so that they who affirm that veneration and
honour are not due to the relics of the saints, or that these and other sacred
monuments are uselessly honoured by the faithful, and that the places dedicated to the
memories of the saints are in vain visited with the view of obtaining their aid, are
wholly to be condemned, as the church has already long since condemned, and also
now condemns them." Further, the council insists that "in the invocation of saints the
veneration of relics and the sacred use of images, every superstition shall be removed
and all filthy lucre abolished." Again, "the visitation of relics must not be by any
perverted into revellings and drunkenness." To secure a proper cheek upon abuses of
this kind, "no new miracles are to be acknowledged or new relics recognized unless
the bishop of the diocese has taken cognizance and approved thereof." Moreover, the
bishop, in all these matters, is directed to obtain accurate information to take council
with theologians and pious men, and in cases of doubt or exceptional difficulty to
submit the matter to the sentence of the metropolitan and other bishops of the
province, "yet so that nothing new, or that previously has not been usual in the church,
shall be resolved on, without having first consulted the Holy See." The justification of
Catholic practice, which is indirectly suggested here by the reference to the bodies of
the saints as formerly temples of the Holy Ghost and as destined hereafter to be
eternally glorified, is further developed in the authoritative " Roman Catechism "
drawn up at the instance of the same council. Recalling the marvels witnessed at the
tombs of the martyrs, where "the blind and cripples are restored to health, the dead
recalled to life, and *devils?* expelled from the bodies of men" the Catechism points
out that these are facts which "St. Ambrose and St. Augustine, most unexceptionable
witnesses, declare in their writings that they have not merely heard and read about, as
many did but have seen with their own eyes ', (Ambrose Epist. xxii, nn. 2 and 17,
Augustine, Serm. cclxxxvi, c. v.; "De Civ. Dei", xxii, <S, "Confess.", ix"). And from
thence, turning to Scriptural analogies, the compilers further argue: "If the clothes, the
kerchiefs (Acts, .xix, 12), if the shadow of the saints (Acts, v, 15), before they departed
from this life, banished diseases and restored strength, who will have the hardihood to
deny that God wonderfully works the same by the sacred ashes, the bones, and other
relics of the saints ? This is the lesson we have to learn from that dead body which,
having been accidentally let down into the sepulchre of Eliseus, "when it had touched
the bones of the Prophet, instantly came to life" (4 Kings xiii, 21, and cf. Ecclus., xlviii,
14). We may add that this miracle as well as the veneration shown to the bones of
Moses (See Ex., xiii, 19 and Jos., xxiv, 32) only gain additional force from their
apparent contradiction to the ceremonial laws against defilement, of which we read in
Num., xix, 11-22. The influence of this Jewish shrinking from contact with the dead so
far lingered on that it was found necessary in the "Apostolical Constitutions" (vi, 30) to
issue a strong warning against it and to argue in favour of the Christian cult of relics.
According to the more common opinion of theologians, relics are to be honoured; St.
Thomas, in Summa, III:38:6, does not seem to consider even the word <adorare>
inappropriate -- <cultu duliae relativae>, that is to say with a veneration which is not
that of <latria> (divine worship) and which though directed primarily to the material
objects of the cult -- i. e., the bones, ashes, garments, etc. -- does not rest in them, but
looks beyond to the saints they commemorate as to its formal term. Hauck,
Kattenbusch, and other non-Catholic writers have striven to show that the utterances of
the Council of Trent are in contradiction to what they admit to be the "very cautious"
language of the medieval scholastics, and notably St. Thomas. The latter urges that
those w ho have an affection to any person hold in honour all that was intimately
connected with him. Hence, while we love and venerate the saints who were so dear
to God, we also venerate all that belonged to them, and particularly their bodies,
which were once the temples of the Holy Spirit, and which are some day to be
conformed to the glorious body of Jesus Christ. "whence also ", adds St. Thomas, "God
fittingly does honour to such relics by performing miracles in their presence [<in
earum praesentia>]." It will be seen that this closely accords with the terms used by the
Council of Trent and that the difference consists only in this, that the Council says per
quae -- "through which many benefits are bestowed on mankind" -- while St. Thomas
speaks of miracles worked "in their presence ". But it is quite unnecessary to attach to
the words <per quae> the idea of physical causality. We have no reason to suppose
that the council meant more than that the relics of the saints were the occasion of God's
working miracles. When we read in the Acts of the Apostles, xix, 11, 12, "And God
wrought by the hand of Paul more than common miracles. So that even there were
brought from his body to the sick, handkerchiefs and aprons, and the diseases
departed from them, and the wicked spirits went out from them" there can be no
inexactitude in saying that these also were the things by which (<per quae>) God
wrought the cure.
There is nothing, therefore, in Catholic teaching to justify the statement that the church
encourages belief in a magical virtue, or physical curative efficacy residing in the relic
itself . It may be admitted that St. Cyril of Jerusalem (A. D. 347), and a few other
patristic and medieval writers, apparently speak of some power inherent in the relic.
For example, St. Cyril, after referring to the miracle wrought by the body of Eliseus,
declares that the restoration to life of the corpse with which it was in contact took
place: "to show that even though the soul is not present a virtue resides in the body of
the saints, because of the righteous soul which has for so many years tenanted it and
used it as its minister". And he adds, "Let us not be foolishly incredulous as though
the thing had not happened, for if handkerchiefs and aprons which are from without,
touching the body of the diseased, have raised up the sick, how much more should the
body itself of the Prophet raise the dead?" (Cat., xviii, 16.) But this seems rather to
belong to the personal view or manner of speech of St. Cyril. He regards the chrism
after its consecration "as no longer simple ointment but the gift of Christ and by the
presence of His Godhead it causes in us the Holy Ghost" (Cat., xxi, 3); and, what is
more striking, he also declares that the meats consecrated to idols, "though in their
own nature plain and simple become profane by the invocation of the evil spirit" (Cat.,
xix, 7) -- all of which must leave us very doubtful as to his real belief in any physical
virtue inherent in relics. Be this as it may, it is certain that the church, with regard to
the veneration of relics has defined nothing, more than what was stated above.
Neither has the church ever pronounced that any particular relic, not even that
commonly venerated as the wood of the Cross, as authentic; but she approves of
honour being paid to those relics which with reasonable probability are believed to be
genuine and which are invested with due ecclesiastical sanctions.
II. EARLY HISTORY
Few points of faith can be more satisfactorily traced back to the earliest ages of
Christianity than the veneration of relics. The classical instance is to be found in the
letter written by the inhabitants of Smyrna, about 156, describing the death of St.
Polycarp. After he had been burnt at the stake, we are told that his faithful disciples
wished to carry off his remains, but the Jews urged the Roman officer to refuse his
consent for fear that the Christians "would only abandon the Crucified One and begin
to worship this man". Eventually, however, as the Smyrnaeans say, "we took up his
bones, which are more valuable than precious stones and finer than refined gold, and
laid them in a suitable place, where the Lord will permit us to gather ourselves
together, as we are able, in gladness and joy, and to celebrate the birthday of his
martyrdom." This is the keynote which is echoed in a multitude of similar passages
found a little later in the patristic writers of both East and West. Harnack's tone in
referring to this development is that of an unwilling witness overwhelmed by evidence
which it is useless to resist. "Most offensive", he writes, "was the worship of relics. It
flourished to its greatest extent as early as the fourth century and no Church doctor of
repute restricted it. All of them rather, even the Cappadocians, countenanced it. The
numerous miracles which were wrought by bones and relics seemed to confirm their
worship. The Church therefore, would not give up the practice, although a violent
attack was made upon it by a few cultured heathens and besides by the Manichaeans"
(Harnack, "Hist. of Dog.", tr., IV, 313). From the Catholic standpoint there was no
extravagance or abuse in this cult as it was recommended and indeed taken for
granted, by writers like St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, St. Gregory of Nyssa,
St. Chrysostom, St. Gregory Nazianzen, and by all the other great doctors without
exception. To give detailed references besides those already cited from the Roman
Catechism would be superfluous. Suffice it to point out that the inferior and relative
nature of the honour due to relics was always kept in view. Thus St. Jerome says ("Ad
Riparium", i, P. L., XXII, 907): "We do not worship, we do not adore [<non colimus,
non adoramus>], for fear that we should bow down to the creature rather than to the
Creator, but we venerate [<honoramus>] the relics of the martyrs in order the better to
adore Him whose martyrs they are." And St. Cyril of Alexandria writes ("Adv.
Julian.", vi, P. G. LXXVI, 812): "We by no means consider the holy martyrs to be gods,
nor are we wont to bow down before them adoringly, but only relatively and
reverentially [<ou latreutikos alla schetikos kai timetikos>]." Perhaps no single writing
supplies a more striking illustration of the importance attached to the veneration of
relics in the Christian practice of the fourth century than the panegyric of the martyr St.
Theodore by St. Gregory of Nyssa (P. G., XLVI, 735-48). Contrasting the horror
produced by an ordinary corpse with the veneration paid to the body of a saint the
preacher expatiates upon the adornment lavished upon the building which had been
erected over the martyr's resting place, and he describes how the worshipper is led to
approach the tomb "believing that to touch it is itself a sanctification and a blessing and
if it be permitted to carry off any of the dust which has settled upon the martyr's
resting place, the dust is accounted as a great gift and the mould as a precious treasure.
And as for touching the relics themselves, if that should ever be our happiness, only
those who have experienced it and who have had their wish gratified can know how
much this is desirable and how worthy a recompense it is of aspiring prayer" (col. 740).
This passage, like many others that might be quoted, dwells rather upon the sanctity of
the martyr's resting place and upon that of his mortal remains collected as a whole and
honourably entombed. Neither is it quite easy to determine the period at which the
practice of venerating minute fragments of bone or cloth, small parcels of dust, etc.,
first became common. We can only say that it was widespread early in the fourth
century, and that dated inscriptions upon blocks of stone, which were probably altar
slabs, afford evidence upon the point which is quite conclusive. One such, found of
late years in Northern Africa and now preserved in the Christian Museum of the
Louvre, bears a list of the relics probably once cemented into a shallow circular cavity
excavated in its surface. Omitting one or two words not adequately explained, the
inscription runs: "A holy memorial [<memoria sancta>] of the wood of the Cross, of
the land of Promise where Christ was born, the Apostles Peter and Paul, the names of
the martyrs Datian, Donatian, Cyprian, Nemesianus, Citinus, and Victoria. In the year
of the Province 320 [i. e. A. D. 359] Benenatus and Pequaria set this up " ("Corp. Inscr.
Lat.", VIII, n. 20600).
We learn from St. Cyril of Jerusalem (before 350) that the wood of the Cross,
discovered c. 318, was already distributed throughout the world; and St. Gregory of
Nyssa in his sermons on the forty martyrs, after describing how their bodies were
burned by command of the persecutors, explains that "their ashes and all that the fire
had spared have been so distributed throughout the world that almost every province
has had its share of the blessing. I also myself have a portion of this holy gift and I
have laid the bodies of my parents beside the ashes of these warriors, that in the hour
of the resurrection they may be awakened together with these highly privileged
comrades " (P. G., XLVI, 764). We have here also a hint of the explanation of the
widespread practice of seeking burial near the tombs of the martyrs. It seems to have
been felt that when the souls of the blessed martyrs on the day of general were once
more united to their bodies, they would be accompanied in their passage to heaven by
those who lay around them and that these last might on their account find more ready
acceptance with God.
We may note also that, while this and other passages suggest that no great
repugnance was felt in the East to the division and dismemberment of the bodies of the
saints, in the West, on the other hand, particularly at Rome, the greatest respect was
shown to the holy dead. The mere unwrapping or touching of the body of a martyr
was considered to be a terribly perilous enterprise, which could only be set about by
the holiest of ecclesiastics, and that after prayer and fasting. This belief lasted until the
late Middle Ages and is illustrated, for example, in the life of St. Hugh of Lincoln, who
excited the surprise of his episcopal contemporaries by his audacity in examining and
translating relics which his colleagues dared not disturb. In the Theodosian Code the
translation, division, or dismemberment of the remains of martyrs was expressly
forbidden ("Nemo martyrem distrahat", Cod. Theod., IX, xvii, 7); and somewhat later
Gregory the Great seems in very emphatic terms to attest the continuance of the same
tradition. He professed himself sceptical regarding the alleged "customs of the Greeks"
of readily transferring the bodies of martyrs from place to place, declaring that
throughout the West any interference with these honoured remains was looked upon
as a sacrilegious act and that numerous prodigies had struck terror into the hearts of
even well meaning men who had attempted anything of the sort. Hence, though it was
the Empress Constantina herself who had asked him for the head or some portion of
the body of St. Paul, he treated the request as an impossible one, explaining that, to
obtain the supply of relics needful in the consecration of churches, it was customary to
lower into the Confession of the Apostles as far as the second "cataract" -- so we learn
from a letter to Pope Hermisdas in 519 (Thiel, "Epist. gen.", I, 873) ] a box containing
portions of silk or cloth, known as <brandea>, and these brandea, after lying for a time
in contact with the remains of the holy Apostles, were henceforth treated as relics.
Gregory further offers to send Constantina some filings from St. Peter's chains, a form
of present of which we find frequent mention in his correspondence (St. Gregory,
"Epist.", Mon. Germ. Hist., I, 264 -66). It is certain that long before this time an
extended conception of the nature of a relic, such as this important letter reveals, had
gradually grown up. Already when Eusebius wrote (c. 325) such objects as the hair of
St. James or the oil multiplied by Bishop Narcissus (Hist. Eccl., VII, xxxix, and VI, ix)
were clearly venerated as relics, and St. Augustine, in his "De Civit. Dei" (xxii, 8),
gives numerous instances of miracles wrought by soil from the Holy Land flowers
which had touched a reliquary or had been laid upon a particular altar, oil from the
lamps of the church of a martyr, or by other things not less remotely connected with
the saints themselves. Further. it is noteworthy that the Roman prejudice against
translating and dividing seems only to have applied to the actual bodies of the martyrs
reposing in their tombs. It is St. Gregory himself who enriches a little cross, destined
to hang round the neck as an <encolpion>, with filings both from St. Peter's chains and
from the gridiron of St. Laurence ("Epist.", Mon. Germ. Hist., I, 192). Before the year
350, St. Cyril of Jerusalem three times over informs us that the fragments of the wood
of the Cross found by St. Helen had been distributed piecemeal and had filled the
whole world (Cat., iv, 10; x, 19; xiii, 4). This implies that Western pilgrims felt no more
impropriety in receiving than the Eastern bishops in giving, During the Merovingian
and Carlovingian period the cultus of relics increased rather than diminished.
Gregory of Tours abounds in stories of the marvels wrought by them, as well as of the
practices used in their honour, some of which have been thought to be analogous to
those of the pagan "incubations " (De Glor. Conf., xx); neither does he omit to mention
the frauds occasionally perpetrated by scoundrels through motives of greed. Very
significant, as Hauck (Kirchengesch. Deutschl., I 185) has noticed is the prologue to the
text of the Salic Laws, probably written, by a contemporary of Gregory of Tours in the
sixth century. "That nation", it says, "which has undoubtedly in battle shaken off the
hard yoke of the Romans, now that it has been illuminated through Baptism, has
adorned the bodies of the holy martyrs with gold and precious stones, those same
bodies which the Romans burnt with fire, and pierced with the sword, or threw to
wild beasts to be torn to pieces." In England we find from the first a strong tradition in
the same sense derived from St. Gregory himself. Bede records (Hist. Eccl., I, xxix)
how the pope "forwarded to Augustine all the things needful for the worship and
service of the church, namely, sacred vessels, altar linen, church ornaments, priestly
and clerical vestments, relics of the holy Apostles and martyrs and also many books".
The Penitential ascribed to St. Theodore, Archbishop of Canterbury, which certainly
was known in England at an early date, declares that "the relics of the saints are to be
venerated ", and it adds, seemingly in connexion with the same idea, that "If possible a
candle is to burn there every night" (Haddan and Stubbs, "Councils", III, 191). When
we remember the candles which King Alfred constantly kept burning before his relics,
the authenticity of this clause in Theodore's Penitential seems the more probable.
Again the relics of English saints, for example those of St. Cuthbert and St. Oswald,
soon became famous, while in the case of the latter we hear of them all over the
continent. Mr. Plummer (Bede, II, 159-61) has made a short list of them and shows that
they must have been transported into the remotest part of Germany. After the Second
Council of Nicaea, in 7 87, had insisted with special urgency that relics were to be
used in the consecration of churches and that the omission was to be supplied if any
church had been consecrated without them the English Council of Celchyth (probably
Chelsea) commanded that relics were to be used, and in default of them the Blessed
Eucharist. But the developments of the veneration of relics in the Middle Ages were
far too vast to be pursued further. Not a few of the most famous of the early medieval
inscriptions are connected with the same matter. It must suffice to mention the famous
Clematius inscription at Cologne, recording the translation of the remains of the so
called Eleven thousand Virgins (see Krause, "Inscrip d. Rheinlande", no. 294, and, for a
discussion of the legend, the admirable essay on the subject by Cardinal Wiseman.
III. ABUSES
Naturally it was impossible for popular enthusiasm to be roused to so high a pitch in a
matter which easily lent itself to error, fraud and greed of gain, without at least the
occasional occurrence of many grave abuses. As early as the end of the fourth century,
St. Augustine denouncing certain impostors wandering about in the habit of monks,
describes them as making profit by the sale of spurious relics ("De op. monach.", xxviii
and cf. Isidore, "De. div. off.", ii, 16). In the Theodosian Code the sale of relics is
forbidden ("Nemo martyrem mercetur", VII, ix, 17), but numerous stories, of which it
would be easy to collect a long series, beginning with the writings of St. Gregory the
Great and St. Gregory of Tours, prove to us that many unprincipled persons found a
means of enriching themselves by a sort of trade in these objects of devotion, the
majority of which no doubt were fraudulent. At the beginning of the ninth century, as
M. Jean Guiraud had shown (Melanges G. B. de Rossi, 73-95), the exportation of the
bodies of martyrs from Rome had assumed the dimensions of a regular commerce, and
a certain deacon, Deusdona, acquired an unenviable notoriety in these transactions (see
Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script., XV, <passim>). What was perhaps in the long run hardly
less disastrous than fraud or avarice was the keen rivalry between religious centres,
and the eager credulity fostered by the desire to be known as the possessors of some
unusually startling relic. We learn from Cassian, in the fifth century, that there were
monks who seized upon certain martyrs' bodies by force of arms, defying the authority
of the bishops, and this was a story which we find many times repeated in the Western
chronicles of a later date. In such an atmosphere of lawlessness doubtful relics came
to abound. There was always a disposition to regard any human remains accidentally
discovered near a church or in the catacombs as the body of a martyr. Hence, though
men like St. Athanasius and St. Martin of Tours set a good example of caution in such
cases, it is to be feared that in the majority of instances only a very narrow interval of
time intervened between the suggestion that a particular object might be, or ought to
be, an important relic, and the conviction that tradition attested it actually to be such.
There is no reason in most cases for supposing the existence of deliberate fraud. The
persuasion that a benevolent Providence was likely to send the most precious <pignora
sanctorum> to deserving clients, the practice already noticed of attributing the same
sanctity to objects which had touched the shrine as attached to the contents of the
shrine itself, the custom of making facsimiles and imitations, a custom which persists
to our own day in the replicas of the Vatican statue of St. Peter or of the Grotto of
Lourdes, all these are causes adequate to account for the multitude of unquestionably
spurious relics with which the treasuries of great medieval churches were crowded. In
the case of the Nails with which Jesus Christ was crucified, we can point to definite
instances in which that which was at first venerated as having touched the original
came later to be honoured as the original itself. Join to this the large license given to
the occasional unscrupulous rogue in an age not only utterly uncritical but often
curiously morbid in its realism, and it becomes easy to understand the multiplicity and
extravagance of the entries in the relic inventories of Rome and other countries. On
the other hand it must not be supposed that nothing was done by ecclesiastical
authority to secure the faithful against deception. Such tests were applied as the
historical and antiquarian science of that day was capable of devising. Very often
however, this test took the form of an appeal to some miraculous sanction, as in the
well known story repeated by St. Ambrose, according to which, when doubt arose
which of the three crosses discovered by St. Helena was that of Christ, the healing of a
sick man by one of them dispelled all further hesitation. Similarly Egbert, Bishop of
Trier, in 979, doubting as to the authenticity of what purported to be the body of St.
Celsus, "lest any suspicion of the sanctity of the holy relics should arise, during Mass
after the offertory had been sung, threw a joint of the finger of St. Celsus wrapped in a
cloth into a thurible full of burning coals, which remained unhurt and untouched by
the fire the whole time of the Canon" (Mabillon "Acta SS. Ord. Ben.", III, 658) . The
decrees of synods upon this subject are generally practical and sensible, as when, for
example, Bishop Quivil of Exeter, in 1287 after recalling the prohibition of the General
Council of Lyons against venerating recently found relics unless they were first of all
approved by the Roman Pontiff, adds: "We command the above prohibition to be
carefully observed by all and decree that no person shall expose relics for sale, and that
neither stones, nor fountains, trees, wood, or garments shall in any way be venerated
on account of dreams or on fictitious grounds." So, again, the whole procedure before
Clement VII (the Antipope) in 1359, recently brought to light by Canon Chevalier, in
connexion with the alleged Holy Shroud of Lirey, proves that some check at least was
exercised upon the excesses of the unscrupulous or the mercenary. Nevertheless it
remains true that many of the more ancient relics duly exhibited for veneration in the
great sanctuaries of Christendom or even at Rome itself must now be pronounced to be
either certainty spurious or open to grave suspicion. To take one example of the latter
class, the boards of the Crib (<Praesaepe>) -- a name which for much more than a
thousand years ears has been associated, as now, with the basilica of Santa Maria
Maggiore -- can only be considered to be of doubtful In his monograph "Le memorie
Liberiane dell' Infanzia di N. S. Gesu Cristo" (Rome, 1894), Mgr. Cozza Luzi frankly
avows that all positive evidence for the authenticity of the relics of the Crib etc., is
wanting before the eleventh century. Strangely enough, an inscription in Greek
uncials of the eighth century is found on one of the boards, the inscription having
nothing to do with the Crib but being apparently concerned with some commercial
transaction. It is hard to explain its presence on the supposition that the relic is
authentic. Similar difficulties might he urged against the supposed "column of the
flagellation" venerated at Rome in the Church of Santa Prassede and against many
other famous relics. Still, it would be presumptuous in such cases to blame the action
of ecclesiastical authority in permitting the continuance of a cult which extends back
into remote antiquity. On the one hand no one is constrained to pay homage to the
relic, and supposing it to be in fact spurious, no dishonour is done to God by the
continuance of an error which has been handed down in perfect good faith for many
centuries. On the other hand the practical difficulty of pronouncing a final verdict
upon the authenticity of these and similar relics must be patent to all. Each
investigation would be an affair of much time and expense, while new discoveries
might at any moment reverse the conclusions arrived at. Further, devotions of ancient
date deeply rooted in the heart of the peasantry cannot be swept away without some
measure of scandal and popular disturbance. To create this sensation seems unwise
unless the proof of spuriousness is so overwhelming as to amount to certainty. Hence
there is justification for the practice of the Holy See in allowing the cult of certain
doubtful ancient relics to continue. Meanwhile, much has been done by quietly
allowing many items in some of the most famous collections of relics to drop out of
sight or by gradually omitting much of the solemnity which formerly surrounded the
exposition of these doubtful treasures. Many of the inventories of the great collections
of Rome, or of Aachen, Cologne, Naples, Salzburg, Antwerp, Constantinople, of the
Sainte Chapelle at Paris etc., have been published. For illustration's sake reference may
be made to the Count de Riant's work "Exuviae Constantinopolitanae" or to the many
documents printed by Mgr. Barbier de Monault regarding Rome, particularly in vol.
VII of his "Oeuvres completes". In most of these ancient inventories, the extravagance
and utter improbability of many of the entries can not escape the most uncritical.
Moreover though some sort of verification seems often to be traceable even in
Merovingian times, still the so called authentications which have been printed of this
early date (seventh century) are of a most primitive kind. They consist in fact of mere
labels, strips of parchment with just the name of the relic to which each strip was
attached, barbarously written in Latin. For example "Hic sunt reliquas sancti
Victuriepiscopi, Festivitate Kalendis Septembris", "Hic sunt patrocina sancti Petri et
Paullo Roma civio", etc.
It would probably be true to say that in no part of the world was the veneration of
relics carried to greater lengths with no doubt proportionate danger of abuse, than
among Celtic peoples. The honour paid to the handbells of such saints as St. Patrick,
St. Senan, and St. Mura the strange adventures of sacred remains carried about with
them in their wanderings by the Armorican people under stress of invasion by Teutons
and Northmen the prominence given to the taking of oaths upon relics in the various
Welsh codes founded upon the laws of Howell the Good, the expedients used for
gaining possession of these treasures, and the numerous accounts of translations and
miracles, all help to illustrate the importance of this aspect of the ecclesiastical life of
the Celtic races.
IV. TRANSLATIONS
At the same time the solemnity attached to translations was by no means a peculiarity
of the Celts. The story of the translation of St. Cuthbert's remains is almost as
marvellous as any in Celtic hagiography. The forms observed of all-night vigils, and
the carrying of the precious remains in "feretories" of gold or silver, overshadowed
with silken canopies and surrounded with lights and incense, extended to every part
of Christendom during the Middle Ages. Indeed this kind of solemn translation
(<elevatio corporis>) was treated as the outward recognition of heroic sanctity, the
equivalent of canonization, in the period before the Holy See reserved to itself the
passing of a final judgment upon the merits of deceased servants of God, and on the
other hand in the earlier forms of canonization Bulls it was customary to add a clause
directing that the remains of those whose sanctity was thus proclaimed by the head of
the Church should be "elevated", or translated, to some shrine above ground where
fitting honour could be paid them. This was not always carried at once. Thus St.
Hugh of Lincoln, who died in 1200, was canonized in 1220, but it was not until 1280
that his remains were translated to the beautiful "Angel Choir" which had been
constructed expressly to receive them. This translation is noteworthy not only because
King Edward I himself helped to carry the bier, but because it provides a typical
example of the separation of the head and body of the saint which was a peculiar
feature of so many English translations. The earliest example of this separation was
probably that of St. Edwin, king and martyr; but we have also the cases of St. Oswald,
St. Chad, St. Richard of Chichester (translated in 1276), and St. William of York
(translated 1284). It is probable that the ceremonial observed in these solemn
translations closely imitated that used in the enshrining of the relics in the
<sepulcrum> of the altar at the consecration of a church while this in turn, as Mgr
Duchesne has shown, is nothing but the development of the primitive burial service
the martyr or saint being laid to rest in the church dedicated to his honour. But the
carrying of relics is not peculiar to the procession which takes place at the dedications
of a church. Their presence is recognized as a fitting adjunct to the solemnities of
almost every kind of precession, except perhaps those of the Blessed Sacrament, and in
medieval times no exception was made even for these latter.
V. FEAST OF RELICS
It has long been customary especially in churches which possessed large collections of
relics, to keep one general feast in commemoration of all the saints whose memorials
are there preserved. An Office and Mass for this purpose will be found in the Roman
Missal and Breviary, and though they occur only in the supplement <Pro aliquibus
locis> and are not obligatory upon the Church at large, still this celebration is now kept
almost universally. The office is generally assigned to the fourth Sunday in October.
In England before the Reformation, as we may learn from a rubric in the Sarum
Breviary, the <Festum Reliquiarum> was celebrated on the Sunday after the feast of
the Translation of St. Thomas of Canterbury (7 July), and it was to be kept as a greater
double "wherever relics are preserved or where the bodies of dead persons are buried,
for although Holy Church and her ministers observe no solemnities in their honour,
the glory they enjoy with God is known to Him alone."
HERBERT THURSTON
Transcribed by Michael C. Tinkler
Taken from the New Advent Web Page (www.knight.org/advent).
This article is part of the Catholic Encyclopedia Project, an effort aimed at placing the
entire Catholic Encyclopedia on the World Wide Web. The coordinator is Kevin Knight,
editor of the New Advent Catholic Website. If you would like to contribute to this
worthwhile project, you can contact him by e-mail at (
[email protected]). For
more information please download the file cathen.txt/.zip.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Provided courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network
PO Box 3610
Manassas, VA 22110
Voice: 703-791-2576
Fax: 703-791-4250
Data: 703-791-4336
FTP: EWTN.COM
Telnet: EWTN.COM
Email address:
[email protected]
EWTN provides a Catholic online
information and service system.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
