Relics

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

The wordrelics comes from the Latinreliquiae (the counterpart of the Greekleipsana) which already before the propagation ofChristianity 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 primitiveinstinct, and it is associated with many other religious systems besides that ofChristianity. At Athens the supposed remains of Oedipus and Theseus enjoyed anhonour which it is very difficult to distinguish from a religious cult (see for all thisPfister, "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 theChristian practice of theMiddle 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 ofBuddha, 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 theBuddhists of everysect is a fact beyond dispute.

Doctrine regarding relics

The teaching of theCatholicChurch with regard to the veneration of relics is summed up in adecree of theCouncil of Trent (Sess. XXV), which enjoins onbishops and otherpastors to instruct their flocks that "the holy bodies ofholymartyrs and of others now living withChrist—which bodies were the living members of Christ and 'the temple of the Holy Ghost' (1 Corinthians 6:19) and which are by Him to be raised to eternal life and to be glorified are to bevenerated by thefaithful, for through these [bodies] many benefits are bestowed byGod on men, so that they who affirm that veneration andhonour are not due to the relics of thesaints, or that these and other sacred monuments are uselesslyhonoured by thefaithful, and that the places dedicated to the memories of thesaints are in vain visited with the view of obtaining their aid, are wholly to be condemned, as theChurch has already long since condemned, and also now condemns them." Further, the council insists that "in the invocation ofsaints the veneration of relics and the sacred use of images, everysuperstition 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 check upon abuses of this kind, "no newmiracles are to be acknowledged or new relics recognized unless thebishop of thediocese has taken cognizance and approved thereof." Moreover, thebishop, in all these matters, is directed to obtain accurate information to take council withtheologians andpious men, and in cases ofdoubt or exceptional difficulty to submit the matter to the sentence of themetropolitan and otherbishops of the province, "yet so that nothing new, or that previously has not been usual in theChurch, shall be resolved on, without having first consulted theHoly See."

The justification ofCatholic practice, which is indirectly suggested here by the reference to the bodies of thesaints as formerlytemples of the Holy Ghost and as destined hereafter to beeternally glorified, is further developed in the authoritative "Roman Catechism" drawn up at the instance of the same council. Recalling the marvels witnessed at thetombs of themartyrs, 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 andSt. 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.;City of God XXII, "Confess.", ix). And from thence, turning to Scriptural analogies, the compilers further argue: "If the clothes, the kerchiefs (Acts 19:12), if the shadow of thesaints (Acts 5:15), before they departed from this life, banished diseases and restored strength, who will have the hardihood to deny thatGod wonderfully works the same by the sacred ashes, the bones, and other relics of thesaints? 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" (2 Kings 13:21, and cf.Sirach 48:14). We may add that thismiracle as well as the veneration shown to the bones ofJoseph (seeExodus 13:19 andJoshua 24:32) only gain additional force from their apparent contradiction to the ceremoniallaws against defilement, of which we read inNumbers 19:11-22. The influence of this Jewish shrinking from contact with the dead so far lingered on that it was foundnecessary in the "Apostolical Constitutions" (vi, 30) to issue a strong warning against it and to argue in favour of theChristian cult of relics.

According to the more common opinion oftheologians, relics are to behonoured;St. Thomas, inSumma III:25:6, does not seem to consider even the wordadorare inappropriate—cultu duliae relativae, that is to say with a veneration which is not that oflatria (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 thesaints they commemorate as to its formal term. Hauck, Kattenbusch, and other non-Catholic writers have striven to show that the utterances of theCouncil of Trent are in contradiction to what they admit to be the "very cautious" language of themedieval scholastics, and notably St. Thomas. The latter urges that those who have an affection to anyperson hold inhonour all that was intimately connected with him. Hence, while welove and venerate thesaints who were so dear toGod, we also venerate all that belonged to them, and particularly their bodies, which were once thetemples of the Holy Spirit, and which are some day to be conformed to the glorious body ofJesus Christ. "whence also", adds St. Thomas, "God fittingly doeshonour to such relics by performingmiracles in their presence [in earum praesentia]." It will be seen that this closely accords with the terms used by theCouncil of Trent and that the difference consists only in this, that the Council says per quae—"through which many benefits are bestowed onmankind"—while St. Thomas speaks ofmiracles worked "in their presence". But it is quite unnecessary to attach to the wordsper quae theidea of physicalcausality. We have no reason to suppose that the council meant more than that the relics of thesaints were the occasion ofGod's workingmiracles. When we read in theActs of the Apostles, xix, 11, 12, "AndGod wrought by the hand of Paul more than commonmiracles. 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, inCatholic teaching to justify the statement that theChurch encouragesbelief in a magical virtue, or physical curative efficacy residing in the relic itself . It may be admitted thatSt. Cyril of Jerusalem (A.D. 347), and a few other patristic andmedieval writers, apparently speak of some power inherent in the relic. For example, St. Cyril, after referring to themiracle 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 thesoul is not present a virtue resides in the body of thesaints, because of the righteoussoul 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 thechrism after itsconsecration "as no longer simple ointment but the gift of Christ and by the presence of HisGodhead it causes in us the Holy Ghost" (Cat., xxi, 3); and, what is more striking, he also declares that the meatsconsecrated to idols, "though in their own nature plain and simple become profane by the invocation of theevil spirit" (Cat., xix, 7)—all of which must leave us verydoubtful as to his realbelief in any physical virtue inherent in relics. Be this as it may, it iscertain that theChurch, with regard to the veneration of relics has defined nothing, more than what was stated above. Neither has theChurch ever pronounced that any particular relic, not even that commonlyvenerated as the wood of the Cross, as authentic; but she approves ofhonour being paid to those relics which with reasonable probability are believed to be genuine and which are invested with dueecclesiastical sanctions.

Early history

Few points offaith can be more satisfactorily traced back to the earliest ages ofChristianity than the veneration of relics. The classical instance is to be found in the letter written by the inhabitants ofSmyrna, about 156, describing the death ofSt. Polycarp. After he had been burnt at the stake, we are told that his faithful disciples wished to carry off his remains, but theJews urged the Roman officer to refuse his consent for fear that theChristians "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, ingladness andjoy, and to celebrate the birthday of hismartyrdom." 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 numerousmiracles which were wrought by bones and relics seemed to confirm their worship. TheChurch therefore, would not give up the practice, although a violent attack was made upon it by a few culturedheathens and besides by theManichæans" (Harnack, "Hist. of Dog.", tr., IV, 313).

From theCatholic standpoint there was no extravagance or abuse in this cult as it was recommended and indeed taken for granted, by writers likeSt. Augustine,St. Ambrose,St. Jerome,St. Gregory of Nyssa,St. Chrysostom,St. Gregory Nazianzen, and by all the other greatdoctors without exception. To give detailed references besides those already cited from theRoman Catechism would be superfluous. Suffice it to point out that the inferior and relative nature of thehonour due to relics was always kept in view. ThusSt. 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 themartyrs in order the better to adore Him whosemartyrs they are." AndSt. Cyril of Alexandria writes ("Adv. Julian.", vi, P.G. LXXVI, 812): "We by no means consider theholymartyrs to be gods, nor are we wont to bow down before themadoringly, 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 theChristian practice of the fourth century than the panegyric of themartyr St. Theodore bySt. 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 themartyr's resting place, and he describes how the worshipper is led to approach thetomb "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 themartyr'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 ourhappiness, only those who have experienced it and who have had their wish gratified canknow how much this is desirable and how worthy a recompense it is of aspiringprayer" (col. 740).

This passage, like many others that might be quoted, dwells rather upon thesanctity of themartyr'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 themartyrs Datian, Donatian,Cyprian, Nemesianus, Citinus, andVictoria. 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 fromSt. Cyril of Jerusalem (before 350) that the wood of the Cross, discovered c. 318, was already distributed throughout the world; andSt. Gregory of Nyssa in hissermons on the fortymartyrs, after describing how their bodies were burned by command of thepersecutors, 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 myparents beside the ashes of these warriors, that in the hour of theresurrection 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 thetombs of themartyrs. It seems to have been felt that when thesouls of the blessedmartyrs on the day of general were once more united to their bodies, they would be accompanied in their passage toheaven by those who lay around them and that these last might on their account find more ready acceptance withGod.

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 thesaints, in the West, on the other hand, particularly atRome, the greatest respect was shown to the holy dead. The mere unwrapping or touching of the body of amartyr was considered to be a terribly perilous enterprise, which could only be set about by the holiest ofecclesiastics, and that afterprayer andfasting. Thisbelief lasted until the lateMiddle Ages and is illustrated, for example, in the life ofSt. 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 ofmartyrs was expressly forbidden ("Nemo martyrem distrahat", Cod. Theod., IX, xvii, 7); and somewhat laterGregory 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 ofmartyrs from place to place, declaring that throughout the West any interference with thesehonoured 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 ofSt. Paul, he treated the request as an impossible one, explaining that, to obtain the supply of relics needful in theconsecration 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 toPope Hermisdas in 519 (Thiel, "Epist. gen.", I, 873) ] a box containing portions of silk or cloth, known asbrandea, 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 iscertain 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 whenEusebius wrote (c. 325) such objects as the hair of St. James or the oil multiplied by Bishop Narcissus (Church History VII.39, andChurch History VI.9) were clearlyvenerated as relics, andSt. Augustine, in hisCity of God (XXII.8), gives numerous instances ofmiracles wrought by soil from the Holy Land flowers which had touched areliquary or had been laid upon a particular altar, oil from the lamps of the church of amartyr, or by other things not less remotely connected with thesaints themselves. Further, it is noteworthy that the Roman prejudice against translating and dividing seems only to have applied to the actual bodies of themartyrs reposing in theirtombs. It isSt. Gregory himself who enriches a little cross, destined to hang round the neck as anencolpion, 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 Westernpilgrims felt no more impropriety in receiving than the Easternbishops in giving.

During the Merovingian andCarlovingian 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 theirhonour, some of which have been thought to be analogous to those of thepagan "incubations" (De Glor. Conf., xx); neither does he omit to mention thefrauds occasionally perpetrated by scoundrels through motives ofgreed. 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 ofGregory 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 theholymartyrs 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." InEngland we find from the first a strong tradition in the same sense derived fromSt. Gregory himself.Bede records (Hist. Eccl., I, xxix) how thepope "forwarded to Augustine all the things needful for the worship and service of the church, namely,sacred vessels, altar linen, church ornaments,priestly andclerical vestments, relics of the holy Apostles andmartyrs and also many books". The Penitential ascribed to St. Theodore,Archbishop ofCanterbury, which certainly was known inEngland at an earlydate, declares that "the relics of the saints are to be venerated", and it adds, seemingly in connexion with the sameidea, that "If possible a candle is to burn there every night" (Haddan and Stubbs, "Councils", III, 191). When we remember the candles whichKing Alfred constantly kept burning before his relics, the authenticity of this clause in Theodore's Penitential seems the more probable. Again the relics of Englishsaints, for example those ofSt. 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 ofGermany. After theSecond Council of Nicaea, in 7 87, had insisted with special urgency that relics were to be used in theconsecration of churches and that the omission was to be supplied if any church had beenconsecrated 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 theMiddle Ages were far too vast to be pursued further. Not a few of the most famous of the earlymedieval inscriptions are connected with the same matter. It must suffice to mention the famous Clematius inscription atCologne, 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 byCardinal Wiseman.

Abuses

Naturally it was impossible for popular enthusiasm to be roused to so high a pitch in a matter which easily lent itself toerror,fraud andgreed 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 ofmonks, 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 ofSt. Gregory the Great andSt. Gregory of Tours, prove to us that many unprincipledpersons found a means of enriching themselves by a sort of trade in these objects of devotion, the majority of which no doubt werefraudulent. At the beginning of the ninth century, as M. Jean Guiraud had shown (Mélanges G. B. de Rossi, 73-95), the exportation of the bodies ofmartyrs fromRome had assumed the dimensions of a regular commerce, and a certaindeacon, Deusdona, acquired an unenviablenotoriety in these transactions (see Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script., XV,passim). What was perhaps in the long run hardly less disastrous thanfraud oravarice 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 weremonks who seized upon certainmartyrs' bodies by force of arms, defying the authority of thebishops, and this was a story which we find many times repeated in the Western chronicles of a later date.

In such an atmosphere of lawlessnessdoubtful relics came to abound. There was always a disposition to regard any human remains accidentally discovered near a church or in thecatacombs as the body of amartyr. Hence, though men likeSt. Athanasius andSt. 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 deliberatefraud. The persuasion that a benevolent Providence was likely to send the most preciouspignora sanctorum to deserving clients, the practice already noticed of attributing the samesanctity 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 Vaticanstatue 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 greatmedieval churches were crowded. In the case of the Nails with whichJesus Christ was crucified, we can point to definite instances in which that which was at firstvenerated as having touched the original came later to behonoured 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 ofRome and other countries.

On the other hand it must not be supposed that nothing was done byecclesiastical authority to secure the faithful against deception. Such tests were applied as the historical and antiquarianscience of that day was capable of devising. Very often however, this test took the form of an appeal to somemiraculous sanction, as in the well known story repeated by St. Ambrose, according to which, whendoubt arose which of the three crosses discovered by St. Helena was that ofChrist, the healing of a sick man by one of them dispelled all further hesitation. Similarly Egbert,Bishop ofTrier, in 979, doubting as to the authenticity of what purported to be the body of St. Celsus, "lest any suspicion of thesanctity 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 ofsynods upon this subject are generally practical and sensible, as when, for example, Bishop Quivil ofExeter, 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 theRoman Pontiff, adds: "We command the above prohibition to be carefully observed by all anddecree that noperson shall expose relics for sale, and that neither stones, nor fountains, trees, wood, or garments shall in any way bevenerated on account of dreams or on fictitious grounds." So, again, the whole procedure beforeClement VII (theantipope) 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 remainstrue that many of the more ancient relics duly exhibited for veneration in the great sanctuaries ofChristendom or even atRome itself must now be pronounced to be eithercertainty 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 has been associated, as now, with the basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore—can only be considered to be ofdoubtful. In his monograph "Le memorie Liberiane dell' Infanzia di N. S. Gesù 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 atRome in theChurch of Santa Prassede and against many other famous relics.

Still, it would be presumptuous in such cases to blame the action ofecclesiastical 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 toGod by the continuance of anerror which has been handed down in perfectgood 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 ofscandal and popular disturbance. To create this sensation seems unwise unless theproof of spuriousness is so overwhelming as to amount tocertainty. Hence there is justification for the practice of theHoly See in allowing the cult of certaindoubtful 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 thesedoubtful treasures. Many of the inventories of the great collections ofRome, or ofAachen,Cologne,Naples,Salzburg,Antwerp, Constantinople, of the Sainte Chapelle atParis 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 byMgr. Barbier de Monault regardingRome, particularly in vol. VII of his "Oeuvres complètes". 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 earlydate (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 betrue to say that in no part of the world was the veneration of relics carried to greater lengths with nodoubt proportionate danger of abuse, than among Celtic peoples. Thehonour paid to the handbells of suchsaints asSt. Patrick,St. Senan, andSt. Mura, the strange adventures of sacred remains carried about with them in their wanderings by the Armorican people under stress of invasion by Teutons andNorthmen, the prominence given to the taking ofoaths upon relics in the variousWelsh codes founded upon thelaws of Howell the Good, the expedients used for gaining possession of these treasures, and the numerous accounts of translations andmiracles, all help to illustrate the importance of this aspect of theecclesiastical life of the Celtic races.

Translations

At the same time the solemnity attached to translations was by no means a peculiarity of the Celts. The story of the translation ofSt. Cuthbert's remains is almost as marvellous as any in Celtichagiography. 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 andincense, extended to every part ofChristendom during theMiddle Ages. Indeed this kind of solemn translation (elevatio corporis) was treated as the outward recognition of heroicsanctity, the equivalent ofcanonization, in the period before theHoly See reserved to itself the passing of a final judgment upon the merits of deceased servants ofGod, and on the other hand in the earlier forms ofcanonizationBulls it was customary to add a clause directing that the remains of those whosesanctity was thus proclaimed by the head of theChurch should be "elevated", or translated, to some shrine above ground where fittinghonour could be paid them.

This was not always carried at once. ThusSt. Hugh of Lincoln, who died in 1200, wascanonized 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 thesaint which was a peculiar feature of so many English translations. The earliest example of this separation was probably that ofSt. Edwin, king andmartyr; but we have also the cases of St. Oswald, St. Chad, St. Richard ofChichester (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 thesepulcrum of the altar at theconsecration of a church while this in turn, as Mgr Duchesne has shown, is nothing but the development of the primitive burial service themartyr or saint being laid to rest in the church dedicated to hishonour. 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 ofprocession, except perhaps those of theBlessed Sacrament, and inmedieval times no exception was made even for these latter.

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 thesaints whose memorials are there preserved. AnOffice andMass for this purpose will be found in the RomanMissal andBreviary, and though they occur only in the supplementPro aliquibus locis and are notobligatory upon theChurch at large, still this celebration is now kept almost universally. The office is generally assigned to the fourthSunday in October. InEngland before theReformation, as we may learn from arubric in the SarumBreviary, theFestum Reliquiarum was celebrated on the Sunday after the feast of the Translation ofSt. Thomas of Canterbury (7 July), and it was to be kept as a greater double "wherever relics are preserved or where the bodies of deadpersons are buried, for although Holy Church and herministers observe no solemnities in theirhonour, the glory they enjoy withGod is known to Him alone."

CONTACT US |ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT