A question for Catholics about holy relics
 

I was raised Baptist and am now Presbyterian. Other than the apostles mentioned in the Bible, we don't recognize any of the "saints." In researching for our trip to Italy, I've noticed that lots of the churches house holy relics....remains like a saint's hand, finger, etc.

Do devout Catholics still revere these relics? Are they only important to one if the particular saint is significant to one? Are they thought to have some power if one prays near them? Or was the whole gathering and displaying of relics a crusades-era thing that died out centuries ago?

This is a serious post and I hope I don't offend anyone. I'm just curious to know whether the relics still have religious significance to the devout.

I thought the relics were such an amazing suprise for me when I first went to Italy. Not so much because I revered them as because I thought it was so amazing to see a small part of someone I'd read about housed in an ornate enclosure. Now St. Catherine's whole head was quite something to see (After spending 8 years at St. Catherine of Siena school). And those Saints that are said to be "incorrupt" are pretty interesting (albiet controversial).

I guess all in all, I think they're more interesting that Madame Toussads.

I always consider these relics a macabre sight and can't believe that a religion would put any faith in them at all - kind of medieval to me. The head of Saint Catherine indeed! How medieval and why don't they do that now - i know the head of Pope John-Paul, on a fast track to sainthead, would be a blockbuster attraction in the Vatican and could also be put on tour.

You've got a point there, PalQ! Imagine how much money they could raise. If the visage of Mary in a grilled cheese sandwich brings hundreds on ebay, what would his actual head bring on tour?

I sure hope some priest or other very devout Catholic reads this. The prior posts raise another question - If the relics of the saints of old truly are still venerated, are there any "new" relics and if not, why not? Besides Pope John Paul II, I bet that Mother Theresa's relics would be a big attraction.

From what I remember from my Catholic School theology classes, the gathering of relics died out centuries ago. The relics held special powers and whoever was fortunate enough to be able to touch a relic would receive graces or healing. I don't think there are very many modern Catholics that feel relics hold any significance and the church certainly doesn't encourage the collection of relics. As creepy as it may be it was one of the few subjects that held my interest in religion class.

I also recall reading in a history treatise that most relics are probably fakes. The example given was that, if you were to gather up all the 'splinters of the true cross' that people had, it would make 10 crosses, not one.

Unless you see the saint's death, and the harvesting of said relic, there is no way to know if it is genuine. Evidently, many medieval pilgrims and relic-sellers (yes, they peddled relics) knew this and acted accordingly.

To answer your original question, yes, devout Catholics do still revere relics. Many relics remain hidden or encased and are brought out on their particular saint's day. In the case of blood, such as the vial of St. Andrew's blood which can be found in the church at Amalfi, the congealed blood is said to turn to liquid form on the feast of St. Andrew. To this day, when a Catholic church is built, a relic is sometimes placed within the altar. Google "holy prepuce" and read some fascinating stuff on the medieval interest in finding the foreskin of Christ. I was in a church, in Belgium I believe, that claimed to have Christ's umbilical cord. And of course the shroud of Turin is really a relic, just one that has a stronger following than most.

Yes in medieval days the hawking of religious relics was rife and many were of dubious authenticity - to have a bone or skull, blood, etc. of some famous saint would be a boon for a town in terms of pilgrims.

Wow. Monty Python did a great job on their "Search for the Holy Grail". Just think what they could do on their "Search for Christ's foreskin".

I would not consider myself a devout Catholic. I am a practicing Catholic. My kiddos are being confirmed next week. When we visit other countries we do tend to go to cahtedrals and chapels of significance. I am more interested in the history and the significance of the sacrafice than I am of the actual relic. I enjoy history and I have found that as I age I am becoming a more informed Catholic.

One of the best stories about relics was told by a guide in the church in Figeac, which has relics that were stolen from another church. This was quite common, and ensured that people would come to worship at the new site Eventually, in Figeac, this led to the development of the town.

While we may not be impressed with someone stealing holy objects, he claimed that the relics were considered to be very powerful - one of the reasons that people wanted them. So powerful that if they didnt want to be moved, they would not have allowed themselves to be stolen. So, the fact that they WERE stolen meant that the people supposedly looking after them, in the first church, weren't doing their job properly. Therefore, time for a new home.

Not quite 'the devil made me do it' but not a bad explanation.

I was curious to see who would show up on this thread representing him or herself as a devout Catholic and therefore able to articulate the Church's position on relics.

I believe the following to be true (from CatholicCity.com's Catholic Encyclopedia):
"...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."

http://www.catholicity.com/encyclopedia/r/relics.html

In other words, Church doctrine does not hold any particular relic as authentic, but the Church approves of reverence being shown to those relics believed to be genuine and found to be holy by local ecclesiastical bodies.

In reality, I believe that most modern Catholics view most purported relics with a healthy dose of skeptism, both as to their authenticity and efficacy to work miracles. No rule of church law says Catholics must believe in any particular relic.

Was just searching online and discovered that Sainte Chapelle in Paris was built to house the crown of thorns that King Louis IX bought from the Latin Emperor Baldwin II at Constantinople. He paid more for the crown than it cost to build the church. The crown is no longer at Sainte Chapelle but at Notre Dame and, so one site reports, is brought out to be venerated every Good Friday. I wonder if anyone has witnessed this?

Of course one sees many people praying at the tombs of their favorite popes in the crypt beneath St. Peter's in Rome. And St. Peter's remains can be found there beneath the altar.

Go to Mexico City and the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadelupe if you want to see living devotion to objects and what they represent. A giant auditorium of a church was built and it is always filled with the devout staring up at Juan Diego's garment with the image of Mary on it.

Mary Fran, I believe your label "modern Catholic" is a fairly ambiguous one. By that do you mean suburban American Catholics who have typically never seen a relic and therefore never had to give the issue much thought? And by "relic" are you limiting your argument to items such as the umbilical cord I saw in an obscure Belgian church, or do you also include St. Peter's bones in the Vatican and the shroud of Turin? I make no judgements about the veneration of relics in the modern day, but it absolutely does continue. A LOT. Missypie deserves an honest answer.

I am a 20 year old Catholic. I never put a whole lot of faith in relics. From what I have learned, almost every church in Europe during the Middle Ages had some kind of relic to show which obviously seems close to impossible seeing the number of churches there likely were. From my point of view, I respect these "relics" for the history they possess but don't put too much credit to their authenticity nor would I get anything more out of praying near one than I would at my own church or home. Of course, relics such as the Shroud of Turin still are revered by many, but this is a relic pertaining to Jesus Himself which of course would create more hype. In Catholicism, the saints, while they perform miracles, do so through God. I would never pray to a saint or a relic of a saint as if it were God.

I'm baptised Catholic and went to a Catholic nuns school , I'm not a practising Catholic now though.
I think people here in Spain reveres the relics as a tradition more than actual faith on them.
We even make jokes about the exaggerated faith Franco was supposed to have to the arm of Santa Teresa de Jesus. It was so much published that it lose all the mistery :)

Guy 18 and Mary Fran:

Do you never go to the Good Friday liturgy? Or do your churches somehow dispense with the Veneration of the Relic of the True Cross that's prescribed for this liturgy in Canon Law?

How many Western middle-class Catholics accept this microscopic sliver actually is a relic is one question. How many of the billion other Catholics on the planet believe differently is another one.

But I've yet to find a Catholic church - in Gettysburg, Geelong or Gloucester - that doesn't have and - at least officially - publicly venerate at least one relic of something at least once a year.

And even the greatest sceptic won't deny that the not-very decaying corpse of Francis Xavier that's wheeled out every few years for veneration in Goa is indeed the body of the man himself.

Relic veneration certainly didn't die out with the Crusades. Or even with the Reformation, centuries later.

A pretty good site for info about relics is http://www.fisheaters.com/relics.html.

There has been a lot of debate (to put it lightly) throughout history between the Catholic and the Protestant church's about post New Testament saints so they rarely get mentioned in a non-Catholic setting unless they are actively being dismissed.

A brief synopsis of the history of relics would be that it probably dates back to pagan times where it was thought that prayers would be heard better if you prayed over the bones of a holy person. I can't recall the original martyr's name that was credited for starting the whole relic trend but he was an 80+ year old being persecuted in Constantinople and burned at the stake.

An edict was passed by the early Catholic church that any church containing a relic could not be moved or torn down and also they served as a way to get pilgrims in to see churches in out of the way places. The tourism industry was born. Also one could make a pretty good living on selling items despite being a sin called simony.

I'm sure others can give a more thorough history of it as I'm not a historian or a Catholic. All in all it's a really fascinating subject.

I certainly don't go anymore to Good Friday mass but I did in the past and I've never heard anything like "Veneration of the Relic of the True Cross ". There are crosses in every church but ..they are images, no relics.