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.
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
Check out the link in post 17. Our PV explains it as well as anybody.
According to the Catholic (not exclusively so, but I speak as a Catholic) theology, the souls of those of us who die justified will be with Christ in heaven, but we shall still be separated from our body. Such is the condition of saints, both known, or canonized, and unknown saints. At the second coming of Christ, we shall be reunited with our bodies, which will receive a glorified state. The condemned will be reunited with their bodies as well, and receive eternal punishment.
Ordinary objects (for example, a chicken bone) wil not be similarly transformed.
When you look at a (first class) relic of a saint, two things happen. Firstly, this is a good occasion to venerate the saint herself: to ask for her prayers, to reflect on her virtue and try to imitate her in our own travails. Secondly, and specifically when a relic is venerated, he behold an object which, unlike a chicken bone, has eternal destiny. This is therefore an occasion to reflect on the divine plan for the universe and for our salvation, and ponder the destiny of our own body. When we see that time-weathered bone, we thank our Savior Whose will is to transform it into glory we can scarcely imagine. It is nothing less than a cosmic experience.
One additional reflection specially applies to our sick age. The Church teaches us to respect our body: it pleased the Lord to give us our flesh and the Lord chose to take flesh for our salvation. But we are confused by the modern culture which takes that healthy instinct, Catholic at its core, and perverts it into a carnal cult of physical strength and sexual attraction. We moderns, of all ages, need to venerate the holy relics as often as we can, in order to gain insight into the true reason our body has been given us, and purge the error of modernity from our mental landscape.