Posted on 11/14/2009 1:09:01 PM PST by NYer
NEW YORK, Oct. 21 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A relic of Saint Mary Magdalene, often referred to as the Apostle of the Apostles, is making its first North American tour. The relic, a major piece of her tibia, will be carried in a reliquary to the United States by Father Thomas Michelet, a French Dominican priest. Its first stop is on October 22nd in Gainesville, Georgia at Saint Michael's Catholic Church where it will be venerated all through the night.
The purpose of the tour, which continues through November 30th, and travels to Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, New York and Florida, is to share the holiness of the relic and to tell the story of the saint who is recorded as the first witness to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Father Thomas Michelet is touring with the permission of Bishop Dominique Rey of Frejus-Toulon, France, the relic's home. A letter of authentication from Bishop Rey reports that the relics were hidden at the time of the Saracen invasions and rediscovered in 1279, and have been venerated without interruption ever since.
Richard Borgman, a former Protestant evangelical pastor who experienced a dramatic conversion to Catholicism seven years ago, initiated the tour. His interest in Mary Magdalene began when he and his wife, also a lay missionary, lived with Bishop Dominic Rey below the mountains of Saint Baume, the grotto where Mary Magdalene spent the last 30 years of her life. Saint Baume means holy perfume-- the smell that Mary Magdalene's bones gave off when they were found.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
A woman venerates a piece of the right shinbone of St. Mary Magdalene contained in a reliquary at Immaculate Conception Seminary in Huntington, N.Y., Nov. 12. The relic is in the U.S. for the first time, having arrived from the Diocese of Frejus-Toulon, France, Oct. 20. It was scheduled to travel to several states and the District of Columbia before returning to France Nov. 30. (CNS/Gregory A. Shemitz)
What is the purpose of venerating the relics of Mary Magdalene or any relic for that matter? Does venerating meaning honoring her, or is there something more to it?
I’ll be there tomorrow. Hope you’re all not jealous. (’cause jealousy would be wrong, right?)
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."
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).
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. The saints are members of the church triumphant. They are our friends in "higher" places.
According to scripture, every born again believer is a Saint.
Yeah, what purpose? Mystic, magic, dead bones - makes my skin crawl. And if actually touching the bone is more powerful than just looking at it, how long before some benighted, desperate, delusional groveler tries to nibble a bit off?
I am not trying to poke fun at those that venerate relics, but I am trying to understand what is the reason that this is so important. Perhaps if I can understand the reason or purpose behind it, I can make a better judgment. I can understand the desire to recognize those that have suffered for the faith, but I suspect that there is more to this than simply honoring their memory.
You wrote:
“According to scripture, every born again believer is a Saint.”
Yes. But today we usually use the word to refer to those great saints in heaven.
This relics business seems rather grotesque and morbid to me.
Not in our church. I think what you say is more of a Catholic thing.
Then you'll love this one!
Isn’t that the point? :)
FWIW...I won’t pretend I understand these practices.
THE TRUE CROSS
“What greater relic could there be? And what relic seems to generate more controversy?
Let’s go into a bit of history first. Of course we are talking about the Cross on which Jesus was crucified, but did you know that it’s history—at least, according to medieval scholars—has a more ancient lineage?
Jacobus de Voragine, a 13th century bishop, wrote what is the medieval equivalent of a bestseller: The Golden Legend, a book comprising stories of the saints and their deeds that served as the definitive telling for centuries (in it is the famous story of St. George slaying the dragon, for instance). In the Golden Legend, Voragine tells us that as Adam lay dying, he asked that his son Seth plead to the Archangel Michael for a seed from Eden’s Tree of Life. His request was granted and he was buried with the seed in his mouth. It sprouted into a fine tree and after many generations passed, the tree was cut down and used to build a bridge over which passed the Queen of Sheba while on her journey to visit King Solomon. The wood itself seemed to speak to her and she dropped to her knees to worship it. When she came to Solomon, she told him that the wood itself would bring about the recovery of God’s covenant with the Jews. Solomon feared her tale and had the bridge disassembled and buried. Centuries later, the wood was recovered and made into the crucifixion cross.
Can we believe this part of the tale? More likely, this was the medieval mind’s need to somehow make more important the provenance of the wood of the cross itself. Voragine did admit to “adding many things”, whatever that means.
At any rate, we pick up the story again by going backwards in time with a 4th century scholar and bishop named Eusebius of Caesarea, who wrote his Chronicle and Ecclesiastical History of the Church and who is sometimes referred to as the “Father of Church History” for his penchant for writing things down. In his Life of Constantine, he explains that the site of Jesus’ tomb—the Holy Sepulchre—had been buried by the Romans after they destroyed the temple in Jerusalem. The first Christian Roman emperor, Constantine I (272-337 AD), ordered the site uncovered and told the bishop of Jerusalem to construct a church on the same site, which we know as the Basilica of the Holy Sepulchre. No cross was ever mentioned in his History.
It was only later, with the Ecclesiastical History written by Socrates Scolasticus (not the one you’re thinking of, another Socrates) in the 5th century, did the legend of St. Helena come about. In it, he recounts that there was a temple to Venus erected on the spot and St. Helena, Constantine’s mother, ordered it torn down and a church built. But while they were excavating, they uncovered three crosses. St. Helena was certain that these were the crosses of the crucifixion, and one of them was the one True Cross on which Jesus died. To find which one it was, each cross was laid upon a dying woman (or a dead woman or a woman of the court with an incurable disease. We have several versions by several different Histories.) The instant the third cross touched her, she was instantly healed and the cross was proclaimed the “True Cross.” The Title (the piece of board on which the INRI—translated as “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews”—was written) and the Holy Nails were also discovered. The nails were later sent to the emperor and fitted to Constantine’s helmet and horse bridle.
We’ll have to pause here to consider a few points. There have naturally been many archaeological digs in the Middle East, particularly focusing on the time of Christ. A cross—that is, a vertical beam attached to a horizontal beam—was generally not used for crucifixion in a place like Jerusalem. Historians suggest that at the time of Jesus, a crossbeam was most likely tied to the prisoner and was attached to scaffolding or upright posts where criminals were habitually executed outside the city walls. There would be little point in erecting a single cross each time. So likely, Jesus and the thieves were crucified on such a construction. Hence, only a crossbeam—if such a thing were buried beside a tomb—would have been found.
Now, by Jewish law, a Jew must avoid corpses, blood, and anything associated with death as unclean. An unclean offender was unfit to worship in the temple and they must undergo a long period of ritual bathing and separation from family and associates until they are deemed fit to return to temple life. It would be a rare thing to not only be able to acquire such objects under the Roman’s noses, but to have thought of doing so at all.
On the other hand, Jesus also had Gentile followers who were used to such burial keepsakes and might have had no compunctions over handling these objects. Perhaps they even saw fit to bury these items near his tomb. We can only speculate about that.
Naturally, St. Helena’s find was something to be celebrated all over the growing Christian population of the East and West. By the late 4th century, once the Basilica was built and the Cross was publicly venerated, the written eyewitness accounts seem to suggest that either the Cross was already cut into smaller “chunks” or this was all that was found in the first place. Ever after, invaders either removed part of the Cross or it was divided—as important relics often were—amongst the crowned heads of the East and the West. Small, golden and elaborately decorated reliquaries survive from that time, reliquaries in which a piece of the cross resided and which were worn by the very wealthy and very well-connected.
But by the middle ages—a period known for trafficking in faked relics—you couldn’t swing a dead cat without hitting a church that professed to own a piece of the “True Cross.” This became one of the contentious points during the Reformation, that relics were not only idolatrous but were faked, and duped well-meaning and pious individuals. Though it was said that there are enough pieces of the True Cross to construct an entire church, in 1870, a scholar named Rohault de Fleury, catalogued all the known pieces of the Cross and calculated that if it were to be reconstructed, the pieces would not amount to even one-third the size of a cross that was supposed to have been about 13 feet high, with a crossbeam of about 6.5 feet wide.
Where is it today? Pieces are still in many locales. A large piece is situated in a monastery in northern Greece, called Mount Athos; there is another in Santa Croce in Rome; Notre Dame in Paris; Pisa and Florence; Brussels; Venice; Spain; Ghent; and a monastery of Gishen Mariam in Ethiopia.
The Feast of the Exultation of the Cross or Holy Cross Day on September 14, is still celebrated. Good Friday is also an important day in the Liturgical calendar for venerating the cross. We all in our own way, venerate the cross, whether we are in the presence of what one might consider the “True Cross” or merely a representation of same.
Are these relics pieces of the True Cross? It is impossible to say. We must be reminded again of the true meaning of a relic: a remembrance of God’s accomplishments. Even if it turned out that none of these relics were the true Cross, the remembrance, the message, is still the same.”
http://exploringrelics.blogspot.com/2008/01/true-cross.html
The Church does not "make" saints. After thorough investigation, the Church declares that a particular individual, through his or her life and works (including miracles), was well known to live a 'sober, righteous and godly life' and thus is to be placed on the calendar as a Good Example for all to follow. A role model, if you will.
Better to be famous for righteousness than mere notoriety, don't you think?
It is one of the relics for which there is a quite reliable provenance - it was identified IIRC in the 6th or 7th century, long before the medieval craze for 'creating' (and selling) ersatz relics.
It is going to be a Really Big Deal. The children of the parish school will lead the relic in procession into the church, the Knights of Malta and the Knights of the Holy Sepulchre will provide an honor guard 24/7, there will be a vigil, Rosaries, and a special Mass in honor of the saint, conducted by our Archbishop.
(and our choir is going to sing!!!!)
More information for anybody who can make it to Atlanta here.
And here is an explanation by our Parochial Vicar, Fr. Burke, about why relics are important. Fr. Burke is a really neat priest, very Irish, very orthodox, very holy.
Check out the link in post 17. Our PV explains it as well as anybody.
I got to venerate the relic when it stopped at the Dominican House of Studies in Washington, DC. It was an amazing experience. I had never been in there before. They have a very nice Gothic-style chapel, and the reliquary rested on the “Lady altar.” The line in stretched out the door and around the corner into an adjourning hallway.
One of the good things about singing in the choir is that you always get a seat!
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.