J
jay29
Guest
Here are my first class relics:
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
J
jay29
Guest
…continued.
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
**A first class relic is a physical piece of the remains of a saint (or something directly associated with the life of Christ).
A second class relic is something owned and used by the saint in daily life (a habit or other article of clothing, a rosary, a breviary, or similar).
A third class relic is something that has been touched to a first class relic.**
**OR second class relic OR third class relic.
Also, foir a martyr, the instruments of his torture or martyrdom is a first class relic.
Relics of the Passion of our Lord are also first class relics.**
A second class relic is something owned and used by the saint in daily life (a habit or other article of clothing, a rosary, a breviary, or similar).
A third class relic is something that has been touched to a first class relic.**
**OR second class relic OR third class relic.
Also, foir a martyr, the instruments of his torture or martyrdom is a first class relic.
Relics of the Passion of our Lord are also first class relics.**
T
thistle
Guest
There appears to be a difference of opinion in the thread as to whether relics apply only to canonised saints or also to those who are Blessed and in the canonisation process. Just because a group promoting a cause issues relic cards does not necessarily mean it is correct.
Can anyone refer me to the source documentation on the subject of what is legitimately a relic and who it applies to?
Can anyone refer me to the source documentation on the subject of what is legitimately a relic and who it applies to?
S
Spirithound
Guest
Please excuse me just picking on your post, but it’s the latest one…There appears to be a difference of opinion in the thread as to whether relics apply only to canonised saints or also to those who are Blessed and in the canonisation process. Just because a group promoting a cause issues relic cards does not necessarily mean it is correct.
Can anyone refer me to the source documentation on the subject of what is legitimately a relic and who it applies to?
In technical language, just about anything can be a relic. Any corpse is a first class relic. Any piece of clothing is a second class relic. The only difference is who they’re relics of. The question must then become “Should we venerate these relics?”
In that phrasing, it seems to me that a relic could be venerated according to the status that the Church has accorded the former owner.
T
thistle
Guest
Thanks but it doesn’t answer my question. Which official Church documents discuss what a relic is and if it applies only to canonised saints or the “Blessed”. As Canon Law forbids the selling of relics there must be official Church documents explaining what they are and who they apply to. My understanding is that all relics in Church altars are only from canonised saints.Please excuse me just picking on your post, but it’s the latest one…
In technical language, just about anything can be a relic. Any corpse is a first class relic. Any piece of clothing is a second class relic. The only difference is who they’re relics of. The question must then become “Should we venerate these relics?”
In that phrasing, it seems to me that a relic could be venerated according to the status that the Church has accorded the former owner.
I’m not trying to be difficult because it frankly doesn’t matter to me if relics encompass a wider circle than only canonised saints. I just simply want to know the official Church teaching on this and be able to read the relelevant documentation.
S
SacredHeartFan
Guest
Well my relic of Fr. Seelos came with documents! (i’m being serious) It’s from the Psotulator General. Here it is: (translated into english)There appears to be a difference of opinion in the thread as to whether relics apply only to canonised saints or also to those who are Blessed and in the canonisation process. Just because a group promoting a cause issues relic cards does not necessarily mean it is correct.
Can anyone refer me to the source documentation on the subject of what is legitimately a relic and who it applies to?
"Father Antonio Marrazzo is the Postualator General for the Cause of the Saints of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer.
He testifies that the relic has been taken from the bones of Blessed Father Francis Xavier Seelos. This relic is in a round metal container and enclosed in glass and bound by a red ribbon. Fr. Marrazzo has placed the seal of this office on this object.
Given at Rome on April the Ninth, 2000
Fr. Antonio Marrazzo, C.Ss.R. "
If you would me to type the Latin for you P.M. me.
T
thistle
Guest
I’m not disputing your relic and the document you have relates to that specific relic. That is basically a certificate authenticating it. What I’m looking for is the Church’s official position on relics. There must be Church documentation on the whole subject of relics and who they apply to.Well my relic of Fr. Seelos came with documents! (i’m being serious) It’s from the Psotulator General. Here it is: (translated into english)
"Father Antonio Marrazzo is the Postualator General for the Cause of the Saints of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer.
He testifies that the relic has been taken from the bones of Blessed Father Francis Xavier Seelos. This relic is in a round metal container and enclosed in glass and bound by a red ribbon. Fr. Marrazzo has placed the seal of this office on this object.
Given at Rome on April the Ninth, 2000
Fr. Antonio Marrazzo, C.Ss.R. "
If you would me to type the Latin for you P.M. me.
J
JPUSC
Guest
From the BALTIMORE CATECHISM:
LESSON 31 - THE FIRST COMMANDMENT
(ON THE HONOR & INVOCATION OF THE SAINTS)
Q. 1208. What care does the Church take in the examination and distribution of relics?
A. The Church takes the greatest care in the examination and distribution of 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’ (1 Corinthians 6:19) 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.”
Nihil Obstat. June 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
newadvent.org/cathen/12734a.htm
Therefore, because a person has been beatified, it has been proven (through miracles) that they are in Heaven and their relics are worthy of veneration.
LESSON 31 - THE FIRST COMMANDMENT
(ON THE HONOR & INVOCATION OF THE SAINTS)
Q. 1208. What care does the Church take in the examination and distribution of relics?
A. The Church takes the greatest care in the examination and distribution of relics.
- The **canonization or beatification **of the person whose relic we receive must be certain.
- The relics are sent in sealed packets, that must be opened only by the bishop of the diocese to which the relics are sent, and each relic or packet must be accompanied by a document or written paper proving its genuineness.
- The relics cannot be exposed for public veneration until the bishop examines them and pronounces them authentic; that is, that they are what they are claimed to be.
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’ (1 Corinthians 6:19) 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.”
Nihil Obstat. June 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
newadvent.org/cathen/12734a.htm
Therefore, because a person has been beatified, it has been proven (through miracles) that they are in Heaven and their relics are worthy of veneration.
T
thistle
Guest
Thanks for the catholic Encyclopedia reference.I took te opportunity to read the whole article. The part below is interesting:
QUOTE
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.,)(ix, 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, is authentic; but she approves of honor being paid to those relics which with reasonable probability are believed to be genuine, and which are invested with due ecclesiastical sanctions. **
UNQUOTE
QUOTE
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.,)(ix, 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, is authentic; but she approves of honor being paid to those relics which with reasonable probability are believed to be genuine, and which are invested with due ecclesiastical sanctions. **
UNQUOTE
K
kiapokspika
Guest
The reliquary is like an Altar, once destroyed, the blessing leaves the object blessed, ie when a relic is removed, the reliquary becomes a ordinary piece of metal again.If the reliquary contained a first class relic, then by virtue of the fact that the reliquary is touching the relic (it is holding it after all!), would it not itself become a second-class relic?
K
kiapokspika
Guest
Oh, wonderful!!!YEAH SEELOS!!!
I have a small first class relic of Fr. Seelos that I keep on a chain around my neck. I will soom be getting a special crucifix that has a small holder on the bottom for my relic.
And to Thistle, relics are for both the cannonized and the blessed. Take into accoun the Bl. Mother Teresa, Fr. Seelos, Fr. McGivney, etc. All of their relics are avaliable. Pope John Paul II on his trip to New Orleans even took back to the Vatican a relic of the Bl. Fr. Seelos that was presented to him by the Archbishop.
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
It would become a Third Class Relic.If the reliquary contained a first class relic, then by virtue of the fact that the reliquary is touching the relic (it is holding it after all!), would it not itself become a second-class relic?
K
kiapokspika
Guest
I would agreeIt would become a Third Class Relic.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.