Relics

[Onyx88]

Did anyone else hear that there is a piece of a relic in every altar ? Usually a piece of relic from the saint for whom the church is named for?

Do you think this true?

 

[NPC]

Yes. This is one of the reasons why the priest kisses the altar at the beginning and the end of Mass - to give reverence to the saint(s) whose relics repose there and to implore their help. In the Extraordinary Form the priest kisses the altar at several points during the Mass.

 

[Jason_1977]

Did anyone else hear that there is a piece of a relic in every altar ? Usually a piece of relic from the saint for whom the church is named for?

Do you think this true?

maybe for some, but definitely not all

 

[Cluny]

A properly consecrated altar MUST have a saint’s relic enshrined in the Altar Stone (top of the Mensa).

It need not be the saint for whom the Chuch is named.

After all, how could you have a relic of the Theotokos?

 

[spiegelw]

Does anyone have any idea how to identify the relic in an existing altar? Thanks

 

[Lamafacaja]

Ask the pastor. It should be documented.

 

[spiegelw]

Thank You, I have asked the Pastor and he does not know. He was not the Pastor when the Church and altar was built. I am trying to contact that Pastor now. Also I am trying to locate the historical records of the Church and go thru them.

 

[NPC]

Thank You, I have asked the Pastor and he does not know. He was not the Pastor when the Church and altar was built. I am trying to contact that Pastor now. Also I am trying to locate the historical records of the Church and go thru them.

Is the church itself dedicated to a saint? Very often it will be the relics of that particular saint which are placed in the altar. That said, it won’t tell you for sure, but might be a good pointer, especially if there are known to be extant relics of the saint.

 

[Gregorianman]

Thank You, I have asked the Pastor and he does not know. He was not the Pastor when the Church and altar was built. I am trying to contact that Pastor now. Also I am trying to locate the historical records of the Church and go thru them.

It seems that parish has some problems with historical documentation, and as such, it is probably outside some Catholic Church rules about same. Every parish is supposed to have a “concrete file”, that is, documentation of when the church was constructed, consecrated, the exact date the relics were placed, date of first Mass, etc. I think that our parish where I grew up kept the concrete file in the safe in the sacristy (it was more of a bank vault, and a grown man could walk into it), with a copy on file in the parish office, and another (possibly the master) in a safe in the pastor’s private study. It was considered an important document. A big deal. I do not think that Vatican II eliminated those protocols.

 

[NPC]

It seems that parish has some problems with historical documentation, and as such, it is probably outside some Catholic Church rules about same. Every parish is supposed to have a “concrete file”, that is, documentation of when the church was constructed, consecrated, the exact date the relics were placed, date of first Mass, etc.

I don’t think we should jump to such conclusions just yet- all the priest said is that he doesn’t know which saint’s relics are in the altar…Surely it need not imply that the church has not properly documented such things - for all we know (and it is not to the point of this conversation to discuss the position of the priest) the priest could be new to the parish and may simply not have had the time to go delving into the parish records. Perhaps he was just giving Spiegelw a short answer of “I don’t know”, when he could have said “I don’t know, but I could find out by looking at the records”.

At any rate, according to Canon Law, there must also be a record of the blessing and dedication kept with the diocesan curia:

Can. 1208 When the dedication or blessing of a church or the blessing of a cemetery has been completed, a document is to be drawn up, one copy of which is to be kept in the diocesan curia and another in the archive of the church.

 

[Bob_Aliano]

Is the church itself dedicated to a saint? Very often it will be the relics of that particular saint which are placed in the altar. That said, it won’t tell you for sure, but might be a good pointer, especially if there are known to be extant relics of the saint.

Our church, St. Mary, could not possibly have her relic!

This Zenit reference implies that it is desirable to have a relic under the altar but not a requirement: ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur80.htm.

 

[NPC]

Our church, St. Mary, could not possibly have her relic!

Indeed, that would be impossible given that she has been assumed into heaven.

This Zenit reference implies that it is desirable to have a relic under the altar but not a requirement: ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur80.htm.

Canon Law specifically mentions that the tradition of placing relics under a fixed altar is to be preserved. Moveable altars then, it seems, are the exception.

§2. The ancient tradition of placing relics of martyrs or other saints under a fixed altar is to be preserved, according to the norms given in the liturgical books.

 

[Jacob21]

I know there are several relics of Saints in the Altar at my Church. Not every priest will know off hand, but there are records somewhere.

 

[Bob_Aliano]

Indeed, that would be impossible given that she has been assumed into heaven.

Canon Law specifically mentions that the tradition of placing relics under a fixed altar is to be preserved. Moveable altars then, it seems, are the exception.

“The tradition in the Roman liturgy of placing relics of martyrs or other saints beneath the altar should be preserved, if possible.”

The words “if possible” are important in determining whether this is a requirement or a desirement, I argue it is desired.

 

[MarkThompson]

Indeed, that would be impossible given that she has been assumed into heaven.

One might still have hair, blood, or tears shed during life. Think of the apparent bloodstains on the Shroud of Turin, for example.

 

[NPC]

“The tradition in the Roman liturgy of placing relics of martyrs or other saints beneath the altar should be preserved, if possible.”

The words “if possible” are important in determining whether this is a requirement or a desirement, I argue it is desired.

Well, why can’t “if possible” just mean that? On what basis might it be impossible to put relics into an altar? I would say, realistically very few: perhaps, as Canon Law specifically states, if the altar is not fixed; maybe if there is a grave risk of profanation. When the altar is suitable for holding relics, a bishop can apply to the Reliquarium in Rome for relics to put into it and their authenticity will be guaranteed.

 

[NPC]

One might still have hair, blood, or tears shed during life. Think of the apparent bloodstains on the Shroud of Turin, for example.

That’s true, but one would have to be very sure of the authenticity of the said relic. As the Ceremonial of Bishops says that “it is better for an altar to be dedicated without relics than to have relics of doubtful authenticity placed beneath it”.

 

[Bob_Aliano]

Well, why can’t “if possible” just mean that? On what basis might it be impossible to put relics into an altar? I would say, realistically very few: perhaps, as Canon Law specifically states, if the altar is not fixed; maybe if there is a grave risk of profanation. When the altar is suitable for holding relics, a bishop can apply to the Reliquarium in Rome for relics to put into it and their authenticity will be guaranteed.

There are only so many certified true relics available, eventually it is conceivable we could run out. It is also possible nothing would be available at the time of dedication of a new church but could be added later. The only portable altars I’m familiar with were those in the military but another category might include mission churches that are unguarded except for a single Mass per week or less.

 

[MarkThompson]

That’s true, but one would have to be very sure of the authenticity of the said relic. As the Ceremonial of Bishops says that “it is better for an altar to be dedicated without relics than to have relics of doubtful authenticity placed beneath it”.

Agreed. I just meant that it is not conceptually impossible to have a first-class relic of Jesus or Mary.

 

[NPC]

Agreed. I just meant that it is not conceptually impossible to have a first-class relic of Jesus or Mary.

Agreed - certainly not…Indeed, Pope Benedict, I’m quite sure, pointed out that items such as the Turin Shroud are still worthy of veneration even though their authenticity cannot be guaranteed beyond doubt, simply because of their long history of veneration by the faithful.