St. Mary Major - relic of the Holy Crib
Posted on 12/31/2007 9:29:13 AM PST by NYer
VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- The relics venerated as the crib the baby Jesus used in a Bethlehem grotto are in an alarming state of degradation, some church officials said.
The remains have become so fragile that officials at Rome's Basilica of St. Mary Major, where the crib is located, decided to suspend this year's annual Christmas Eve tradition when the relics are carried from the crypt beneath the main altar in a procession around the basilica and displayed in front of the altar all Christmas Day.
Two of the five wooden slats are showing signs of "troublesome deterioration," Msgr. Emilio Silvestrini, a priest at the basilica, told the Italian Catholic daily Avvenire.
He said Dec. 28 that "for years" they had noticed the crib's fragile condition had worsened.
The small wooden boards are protected inside an elegant silver and glass cradle-shaped reliquary in a little chapel under the basilica's main altar.
The relics were brought to Rome from Palestine after Pope Theodore I was elected pontiff in 642, said Bishop Franco Gualdrini, prefect of the basilica's sacristy, in an interview with Vatican Radio Dec. 28.
The bishop said the pope sent the relics to be housed in the Basilica of St. Mary Major, which was called St. Mary of the Crib after it obtained the relics.
Bishop Gualdrini said that early next year they will set up "a commission of experts to take a look at the crib, examine it and say what the appropriate thing to do" will be.
He said the crib and the 19th-century reliquary need "urgent restoration."
In a Dec. 28 interview with the Italian daily La Repubblica, Bishop Gualdrini said it is too early to tell if the damage is being caused by woodworms or other parasites, but that "there seems to be fine wood dust near the relics."
Msgr. Granito Tavanti, another priest at the basilica, told Catholic News Service Dec. 28 they are waiting to hear from the Vatican, which oversees the crib and will suggest which "competent experts" can best preserve the relics.
Made from the wood of a sycamore tree, two of the crib's planks are nearly a yard long. According to Catholic encyclopedias, studies suggest the wood planks were supports for the manger which may have been made out of clay or limestone.
Msgr. Silvestrini told the Italian daily Corriere della Sera they need "a new way to preserve the relic and for carrying it (so they will) be able to display it again next Christmas."
I can’t help but think that Jesus would find this amusing. Worrying about a piece of wood instead of concentrating on the real treasure that he left behind, his words. Now where did I put my golden calf????
Yes, and the relic is almost certainly fake anyway. There used to be enough relics of some saints floating around to make several skeletons of different races and sexes.
And these just from the Middle Ages. Imagine deteriorating wood from the time of Jesus. Try dust.
This is the first I’ve heard of it. My first thought was it was a fake as well. I’m also assuming the picture is of a fancy-smancy gold filigreed something or other and the crib is inside it??? I looked around on the net and was unable to find a decent picture.
The adoration is, of course, directed toward Jesus. We also keep George Washington’s home up, just to remind us of him, do we not? And the sword that belonged to Robert the Bruce? The Magna Carta. The Rosetta Stone. These are bits of the past, treasures to remind us of great men and times. We do not worship any of them, but we honor them.
Shhhh, don’t confuse them with facts.
A common dig, but I doubt it. Most relics of bone and hair are tiny, weighing only a few grams or a fraction of an ounce. It would take tens of thousands of them to equal the mass of one set of human remains.
I think it cheapens his message. It reminds me of some rabid fan of a big rock group who collects memorabilia including the shirt that he wore once and got a ketchup stain on. I prefer not to think of Jesus as a rock star. He was a little bit anti-materialistic if my memory serves me right.
Would be interested in reading your source material for this statement. Link?
The veneration of relics is seen explicitly as early as the account of Polycarp’s martyrdom written by the Smyrnaeans in A.D. 156. In it, the Christians describe the events following his burning at the stake: "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, in gladness and joy and to celebrate the birthday of his martyrdom."
In the fourth century the great biblical scholar, Jerome, declared, "We do not worship, we do not adore, for fear that we should bow down to the creature rather than to the creator, but we venerate the relics of the martyrs in order the better to adore him whose martyrs they are" (Ad Riparium, i, P.L., XXII, 907).
Keep in mind what the Church says about relics. It doesn’t say there is some magical power in them. There is nothing in the relic itself, whether a bone of the apostle Peter or water from Lourdes, that has any curative ability. The Church just says that relics may be the occasion of God’s miracles, and in this the Church follows Scripture.
The use of the bones of Elisha brought a dead man to life: "So Elisha died, and they buried him. Now bands of Moabites used to invade the land in the spring of the year. And as a man was being buried, lo, a marauding band was seen and the man was cast into the grave of Elisha; and as soon as the man touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood on his feet" (2 Kgs. 13:20-21). This is an unequivocal biblical example of a miracle being performed by God through contact with the relics of a saint!
Similar are the cases of the woman cured of a hemorrhage by touching the hem of Christ’s cloak (Matt. 9:20-22) and the sick who were healed when Peter’s shadow passed over them (Acts 5:14-16). "And God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his body to the sick, and diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them" (Acts 19:11-12).
If these aren’t examples of the use of relics, what are? In the case of Elisha, a Lazarus-like return from the dead was brought about through the prophet’s bones. In the New Testament cases, physical things (the cloak, the shadow, handkerchiefs and aprons) were used to effect cures. There is a perfect congruity between present-day Catholic practice and ancient practice. If you reject all Catholic relics today as frauds, you should also reject these biblical accounts as frauds.
Well-said, NYer. And a very happy New Year to you!
Protestants—at least those of the Puritan tradition—tend to reject religious practices just because they are Catholic. Indeed, there are Catholics who attribute magical powers to relics; just as other Catholcs who attribute magical powers to condoms (/sarc). The Church considers each to be error, and so teaches, but has a limited ability to control what these Catholics do. IAC, there is in this Protestant tradition what I call a certain distaste for the physical, a kind of dualism sometime amounting to gnosticism. One manifestation of this is iconoclasm, which exhibits a distaste for images—except for the written word—or harmony in music.
Virginians who found themselves in New England and went to church found themselves annoyed by the singing of psalms with each member of the congregation singing the words as they occured to him. The result was cacaphony, relieved only by the tendency of the tuneless to conform to the singing of the few with a musical sense. When Southern complain about “cant.” this is the sort of thing they have in mind. Into this situation , the Methodist hymns came as a great relief even to New Englanders.
I find a strong strain of puritanism (jansenism?)in the efforts of the liturgical reformers.
Thank-you for an excellent commetary. In-depth and well done.
Very well said. If only I could remember such well-constructed explanations when confronted in person by various non-Catholics. Alas, although I have read all of these explanations, the Bible, and Church teaching, and fully understand them, I can never recall the specifics from memory, on demand, in a face to face verbal conversation. Too often, the non-Catholic mistakes this for ignorance or a lack of a supporting argument and they procede to loudly “crow” with “victory”, so I have basicly have given up even trying.
Oh, for the want of a few extra memory cells, and a LOT more patience!!
:)
Zetman - +1 on the patience required to respond to those who will not see - no matter the evidence.
ROFL!!!! Love it!
One manifestation of this is iconoclasm, which exhibits a distaste for images—except for the written word—or harmony in music.
From so many years of reading posts here in the forum, I have noticed the devotion of certain Protestant denominations like Anglicans, to their hymns, even to the point where hymnody trumps theology. I love sacred music but reverential worship takes precedence. This apparently is not unique to the Protestants. Recently, a neighbor who sings in the choir at my former parish, inquired about my Maronite parish. (Renovations were recently made in the former parish and the Tabernacle removed to a separate room, replaced with a large ministerial chair directly behind the altar). The neighbor asked if there was a choir. I explained that the entire liturgy is chanted and, as a very small parish, there was no choir. I proposed that her beautiful voice would be a welcome blessing in this very holy and reverent Catholic community. She sighed, frowned and drove away. What this woman is looking for is a choir, not a Catholic Church. Our Church is filled with music each Sunday, chanted by the entire congregation. If enough people would come forward we would organize a choir. Alas, that has not happened.
While a choir certainly adds to the beauty of the liturgy, it is to a reverent celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass that we should be drawn, not the choir.
The Puritans had no such devotion. They sang psalms not hymns. For modern Protestants, worship is largely song and word. That is why so many of their new churches have huge stages, where performances take place. You have a point about the use of choirs. There is altogether too much singing in most masses. It does greatly detract, I think. We ought to have chant, I think, if they really want general participation, they should just put all responses to music, sung collectively or by a cantor. A hymn at the start and at the end. None during communion. I would like nothing but silence till everyone has received, and then a communion verse set to music, as in thanksgiving. But if there is to be chant, we must remember what language we are singing in. What works well in Latin, seldom works well in English. Better music composed to fit the English than bad English translations. But then there IS the matter of the English translation of the Liturgy, which is so unpoetic. Sorry to ramble on.
I believe that that piece of wood was from a manger that Jesus slept in as an infant about as much as I believe anything that comes out of Hilary Clinton’s lips.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.