British Museum finds relics of 39 saints after 100 years

[Eucharisted]

The new medieval gallery at the British Museum is full of beautiful images of saints in ivory, stone, gold and wood - but invisible to visitors, it also holds the bones of 39 real saints, whose discovery came as a shock to their curator.

The relics, packed in tiny bundles of cloth including one scrap of fabric over 1,000 years old, were found when a 12th-century German portable altar was opened for the first time since it came into the British Museum collection in 1902.

It was in for a condition check and cleaning, before going on display in the gallery that opens tomorrow - but to the amazement of James Robinson, curator of medieval antiquities, when it was opened a linen cloth was revealed, and inside it dozens of tiny bundles of cloth, each neatly labelled on little pieces of vellum.

Read the rest here

Pray that this discovery may awaken in British Catholics a renewed life in the Holy Spirit and a great fervor for holiness.

 

[need_to_know]

This is really wonderful news. I may have to make a trip up to the British Museum soon!

 

[stevita]

How exciting! I love the last line: “saintly bundles”

What a great find. Especially the Saint Benedict one. Are these all first-class relics?

 

[LilyM]

Since they were in an altar they certainly would be first-class relics.

ALL altars, at least in the Middle Ages, were required to have relics inside them. In fact priests used to carry around ‘altar cloths’, for use when saying Mass in remote places where there was no dedicated altar. These cloths similarly had relics sewn into them.

So the find shouldn’t have come as a shock to anyone who knows anything.

Typical of the Brits that they are so ignorant of Catholic history that they would be surprised. And I resent the altar and relics being placed on display in a museum - as if they were just any old historical items.

At least give them to a Catholic church where they belong and where they will be treated with the respect and reverence that these sacred items deserve.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Since they were in an altar they certainly would be first-class relics.

ALL altars, at least in the Middle Ages, were required to have relics inside them. In fact priests used to carry around ‘altar cloths’, for use when saying Mass in remote places where there was no dedicated altar. These cloths similarly had relics sewn into them.

So the find shouldn’t have come as a shock to anyone who knows anything.

Typical of the Brits that they are so ignorant of Catholic history that they would be surprised. And I resent the altar and relics being placed on display in a museum - as if they were just any old historical items.

At least give them to a Catholic church where they belong and where they will be treated with the respect and reverence that these sacred items deserve.

i agree. shouldn’t they be turned over to the vatican?

 

[ora_pro_nobis]

No I don’t think they should be turned over to the Vatican. If they go on display in the British Museum they are far more likely to reach a much wider audience, and who knows what miracles they may work in the hearts of those who see them?

I shall be going there as soon as I can…

 

[LilyM]

No I don’t think they should be turned over to the Vatican. If they go on display in the British Museum they are far more likely to reach a much wider audience, and who knows what miracles they may work in the hearts of those who see them?

I shall be going there as soon as I can…

Yeah, because Lord knows being under Vatican control has totally restricted the number of visitors who’ve been able to see the Sistine Chapel and St Peters

By your logic a consecrated Host in a monstrance should be on permanent display in the British Museum as well.

No. There is a time and a place for display of these sacred objects. A secular museum is the worst possible place, since there they are just seen as curiosities - indistinguishable from the ancient Egyptian sacred funerary objects, or American Indian totem poles or what have you that the visitor will also see and which also has/had spiritual significance for some.

The difference being that the British Museum was at least kind enough to recognise a while back that it was offending Australian Aboriginal sensibilities (and spiritual practice) and returned some artifacts back to Australia. It needs to do the same with these relics.

I’ve seen some wonderful - and more importantly, reverent - displays of relics as well as things like vestments and vessels, and so on - attached to Cathedrals. Cologne is a brilliant example, there are also some in the crypt of our Cathedral here in Sydney. Seeing them in a sacred space, or a sacred context at least, makes all the difference.

 

[Digitonomy]

shouldn’t they be turned over to the vatican?

The Vatican or the Catholic Church in Britain, or perhaps Germany, would be a logical choice from our perspective. However, as the British Museum is a government institution the curators may decide that the Church of England is more appropriate as the established national church following in the tradition from which these relics derive. Or if the Lutherans took over that part of Germany, returning the relics to the care of that local church where the altar came from might be considered.

We would obviously take exception to these other possibilities, but I don’t think returning the relics to the Catholic Church is going to be a slam dunk decision for the Museum.

 

[Soutane]

Since they were in an altar they certainly would be first-class relics.

ALL altars, at least in the Middle Ages, were required to have relics inside them. In fact priests used to carry around ‘altar cloths’, for use when saying Mass in remote places where there was no dedicated altar. These cloths similarly had relics sewn into them.

So the find shouldn’t have come as a shock to anyone who knows anything.

Typical of the Brits that they are so ignorant of Catholic history that they would be surprised. And I resent the altar and relics being placed on display in a museum - as if they were just any old historical items.

At least give them to a Catholic church where they belong and where they will be treated with the respect and reverence that these sacred items deserve.

"Typical of the Brits…"How charming.One secular museum curator is shocked and you see fit to smear an entire people.I could say typical of the Americans,or Australians or Canadians or the Catholics but I’ll restrain myself.

 

[lizaanne]

However, as the British Museum is a government institution the curators may decide that the Church of England is more appropriate as the established national church following in the tradition from which these relics derive. Or if the Lutherans took over that part of Germany, returning the relics to the care of that local church where the altar came from might be considered.

What a horrible thought! I think I would prefer the British Museum to THAT option!!!

~Liza

 

[LilyM]

"Typical of the Brits…"How charming.One secular museum curator is shocked and you see fit to smear an entire people.I could say typical of the Americans,or Australians or Canadians or the Catholics but I’ll restrain myself.

Oh I won’t, though - typical of Canadians to take one throwaway comment from a person and take it as representative of that person’s character

 

[Soutane]

Oh I won’t, though - typical of Canadians to take one throwaway comment from a person and take it as representative of that person’s character

I didn’t say that did I?You’re batting .1000 though aren’t you?

 

[LilyM]

The Vatican or the Catholic Church in Britain, or perhaps Germany, would be a logical choice from our perspective. However, as the British Museum is a government institution the curators may decide that the Church of England is more appropriate as the established national church following in the tradition from which these relics derive. Or if the Lutherans took over that part of Germany, returning the relics to the care of that local church where the altar came from might be considered.

We would obviously take exception to these other possibilities, but I don’t think returning the relics to the Catholic Church is going to be a slam dunk decision for the Museum.

:ehh:

That’s like saying the British Crown Jewels should be given to the Smithsonian in Washington because the American Presidents have been ‘following in the tradition’ from which they derive - ie they succeeded the monarchs of England as Heads of State of the US. Never mind that there was the little matter of the American Revolution and the War of 1812 in between

The Church of England has such a horrible history of destroying relics - and whole shrines for that matter, such as that of St Thomas Becket or Our Lady of Walsingham - that it would be insulting in the extreme for these to be handed over to them.

 

[7_Sorrows]

the Church of England would be near the bottom of my list.

 

[ChristinaM]

Extraordinary story, but I agree with Lily here.

And I resent the altar and relics being placed on display in a museum - as if they were just any old historical items.

At least give them to a Catholic church where they belong and where they will be treated with the respect and reverence that these sacred items deserve.

In the Field Museum in Chicago, ancient American Indian burial relics used to be on display. When I was there, I saw a notice stating that the burial items had been returned to the tribes to which they belonged, out of respect. I think that’s only proper and right. Yet, in the Art Institute just down the street, there are a number of medieval reliquaries with relics still inside. I thought it was rather incongruous that the American Indian tribes were able to get their sacred items back, but the relics had not been returned to the Catholic Church. I don’t mind a museum keeping the reliquaries as examples of fine art - but I wish that the relics themselves could be in a church where they could be properly adored by the faithful.

 

[ora_pro_nobis]

Yeah, because Lord knows being under Vatican control has totally restricted the number of visitors who’ve been able to see the Sistine Chapel and St Peters

By your logic a consecrated Host in a monstrance should be on permanent display in the British Museum as well.

No. There is a time and a place for display of these sacred objects. A secular museum is the worst possible place, since there they are just seen as curiosities - indistinguishable from the ancient Egyptian sacred funerary objects, or American Indian totem poles or what have you that the visitor will also see and which also has/had spiritual significance for some.

The difference being that the British Museum was at least kind enough to recognise a while back that it was offending Australian Aboriginal sensibilities (and spiritual practice) and returned some artifacts back to Australia. It needs to do the same with these relics.

I’ve seen some wonderful - and more importantly, reverent - displays of relics as well as things like vestments and vessels, and so on - attached to Cathedrals. Cologne is a brilliant example, there are also some in the crypt of our Cathedral here in Sydney. Seeing them in a sacred space, or a sacred context at least, makes all the difference.

I don’t know when the last time was you visited the British Museum, but they are very good at what they do, and will exhibit in a sensitive way. I go there often, as they do talks which are very interesting, given by someone who is an expert in their field, which place exhibits in context and explain something of the history of the artefacts.

For many Catholic churches in Britain, it is not possible to keep some of their most precious objects on site and they are placed on permanent loan to museums, who have the insurance and security to look after them safely, and they are displayed tastefully for all to see. My own church has extremely old and valuable church plate which is in the Victoria and Albert Museum in a beautiful display. It would not be possible to keep it in the church as the insurance premiums would be prohibitive. We have it back on special occasions.

The reason the curator was surprised to find the relics was that usually all relics are long gone by the time they reach the museum - it wasn’t that he was ignorant of the fact that altars contains sacred relics - this is his field of expertise!

I think it would be wrong to separate these holy relics from the altar in which they have lain hidden all this time. The new gallery is an important teaching tool, and may well rekindle an interest in the faith of anyone viewing it.

 

[Digitonomy]

That’s like saying the British Crown Jewels should be given to the Smithsonian in Washington because the American Presidents have been ‘following in the tradition’ from which they derive - ie they succeeded the monarchs of England as Heads of State of the US.

Not exactly. The crown jewels are possessed by the Brits, so no one would suggest they be given to anyone in the US. However, if the Smithsonian discovered some royal jewels or a Magna Carta stuffed in a piece of furniture on display, this treasure would probably be kept. If the decision were made to give the item(s) back to an appropriate recipient, I can imagine the Magna Carta going to some branch of the US government, since the US does consider itself a successor in the tradition begun by that document. And if the US had its own prince or king, he would probably get the jewels - even if his bastard royal lineage had been denied by the House of Windsor.

Another similar situation occurred in the War of 1812 that you brought up. When US forces invaded Canada, they seized among other trophies the King’s scepter from what I assume was the parliament of Upper Canada. A few years back, the US president returned this item during an official visit to Canada, and it’s on display in Toronto. I’ll grant that the Queen is still the head of state of Canada, but I suspect that the scepter would have gone to Canada rather than the UK even if Canada became a republic.

LilyM:

The Church of England has such a horrible history of destroying relics - and whole shrines for that matter, such as that of St Thomas Becket or Our Lady of Walsingham - that it would be insulting in the extreme for these to be handed over to them.

I agree.

 

[LilyM]

I don’t know when the last time was you visited the British Museum, but they are very good at what they do, and will exhibit in a sensitive way. I go there often, as they do talks which are very interesting, given by someone who is an expert in their field, which place exhibits in context and explain something of the history of the artefacts.

They are not a house of God, not attached to a house of God, therefore inappropriate and will not treat them with REVERENCE - will not treat them as actually sacred objects - which they are. And displaying them as curiosities in a museum, sorry to say, is the opposite of sensitive.

It’s like saying poor people might be better off displayed in zoos provided their ‘keepers’ are good at looking after human beings, providing they are displayed ‘sensitively’ and that experts can give interesting talks about the people on display.

It’s just repugnant to the dignity of a human being to be displayed like an animal in a zoo, under any circumstances, and it’s repugnant to the dignity of a sacred relic to be displayed in a secular museum.

For many Catholic churches in Britain, it is not possible to keep some of their most precious objects on site and they are placed on permanent loan to museums, who have the insurance and security to look after them safely, and they are displayed tastefully for all to see. My own church has extremely old and valuable church plate which is in the Victoria and Albert Museum in a beautiful display. It would not be possible to keep it in the church as the insurance premiums would be prohibitive. We have it back on special occasions.

Church plate - including sacred vessels if they have been ‘deconsecrated’ (I believe this can be done as it is to Church buildings) - is in an entirely different category to relics which are actually sacred and holy items and can never be ‘deconsecrated’ any more than the Eucharist itself can.

Like I said, it would be totally inappropriate to put a Monstrance containing a consecrated host on display in a secular museum. Same with a relic of a saint.

This is his field of expertise!

Obviously he is lacking somewhat, in expertise, sensitivity or faith, if he doesn’t see the utter inappropriateness of putting holy relics on display in a secular museum.

I think it would be wrong to separate these holy relics from the altar in which they have lain hidden all this time. The new gallery is an important teaching tool, and may well rekindle an interest in the faith of anyone viewing it.

And? If the British Museum distributed consecrated Hosts to everyone who entered that too might be a ‘teaching tool’ and rekindle an interest in people’s faith - but it would be utterly inappropriate.

Sacred objects - be they relics or the Host itself - don’t exist for the benefit of the idle curious or in order to possibly bring them to faith. Rather they exist to be used reverently by people already strong in faith, to increase it.

 

[ora_pro_nobis]

Well, you obviously feel strongly about this, I feel like some kind of philistine for actually wanting to go and see this altar (the relics themselves are not on display, they have been replaced inside).

Pax

 

[rwoehmke]

Yet, in the Art Institute just down the street, there are a number of medieval reliquaries with relics still inside. I thought it was rather incongruous that the American Indian tribes were able to get their sacred items back, but the relics had not been returned to the Catholic Church. I don’t mind a museum keeping the reliquaries as examples of fine art - but I wish that the relics themselves could be in a church where they could be properly adored by the faithful.

Many European Museums have displays of such reliquaries and other sacred objects. The Romish Museum in Cologne Germany being one of them. A couple of blocks away there is a museum connected to the Cologne Cathedral which also has lots of stuff.

How does one properly “adore” a relic? I am sure that is not exactly what was meant.