Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 12.djvu/821

 RELICS

735

RELICS

are in contradiction to what they admit to be the "very cautious" language of the medieval Scholas- tics, aiid notably St. Thomas. The latter urges that those who "have an affection to any person hold in honour all that was intimately connected with him. Hence, while we love and venerate the saints who were so dear to God, we also venerate all that belonged to them, and particularly their bodies, which were once the temples of the Holy Spirit, and which are some day to be conformed to the glorious body of Jesus Christ. "Whence also", adds St. Thomas, "God fittingly does honour to such relics by performing miracles in their presence [m eariim pTcesentia]." It will be seen that this closely accords with the terms used by the Council of Trent and that the difference consists only in this, that the Council says per quce — "through which many benefits are bestowed on mankind" — while St. Thomas speaks of miracles worked "in their presence". But it is quite unnecessary to attach to the words per quce the idea of physical causality. We have no reason to suppose that the council meant more than that the relics of the saints were the occasion of God's working miracles. When we read in the Acts of the Apostles, xix, 11, 12, "And God wrought by the hand of Paul more than common miracles. So that even there were brought from his body to the sick, hand- kerchiefs and aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the wicked spirits went out from them", there can be no inexactitude in saying that these also were the things by which {per quce) God wrought the cure.

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 afew other patristic and medieval writers, apparently speak of some power inherent in the relic. For e.xample, 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 vir- tue 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., xix, 7) — all of which must leave us very doubt- ful as to his real belief in any physical virtue in- herent 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 ap- proves of honour being paid to those relics which with reasonable probability are believed to be genuine, and which are invested with due ecclesiastical sanc- tions.

II. Early History.— Few points of faith can be more satisfactorily traced back to the earliest ages of Christianity than the veneration of relics. The classical instance is to be found in the letter written by the inhabitants of Smyrna, about 156, describing

the death of St. Polycarp. After he had been burnt at the stake, we are told that his faithful disciples wished to carry off his remains, but the Jews urged the Roman officer to refuse his consent for fear that the Christians "would only abandon the Crucified One and begin to worship this man". Eventually, however, as the Smyrnaeans say, "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 our- selves together, as we are able, in gladness and joy, and to celebrate the birthday of his martyrdom." This is the keynote which is echoed in a multitude of similar passages found a little later in the patristic writers of both East and West. Harnack's tone in referring to this development is that of an unwilling witness overwhelmed by evidence which it is useless to resist. "Most offensive", he writes, "was the worship of relics. It flourished to its greatest ex- tent as early as the fourth century and no Chiu'ch doctor of repute restricted it. All of them rather, even the Cappadocians, countenanced it. The nu- merous miracles which were wrought by bones and relics seemed to confirm their worship. The Church, therefore, would not give up the practice, although a violent attack was made upon it by a few cultured heathens and besides by the Manichaeans" (Har- nack, "Hist, of Dog.", tf., IV, 313).

From the Catholic standpoint there was no ex- travagance or abuse in this cult as it was recommended, and indeed taken for granted, by writers like St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Chrysostom, St. Gregory Nazianzen, and by all the other great doctors without exception. To give detailed references besides those already cited from the Roman Catechism would be super- fluous. Suffice it to point out that the inferior and relative nature of the honour due to relics was always kept in view. Thus St. Jerome says (" Ad Riparium", i, P. L., XXII, 907): "We do not worship, we do not adore [non colimus, non adoramus], for fear that we should bow down to the creature rather than to the Creator, but we venerate [honoramtis] the relics of the martyrs in order the better to adore Him whose martyrs they are." And St. Cyril of Alexandria writes ("Adv. Julian.", vi, P. G., LXXVI, 812): "We by no means consider the holy martyrs to be gods, nor are we wont to bow down before them adoringly, but only relatively and reverentially [ov XaTpevTiKUi dXXa irxfTiKws xai ti/mtitikws]." Per- haps no single writing supplies a more striking illus- tration of the importance attached to the venera- tion of relics in the Christian practice of the fourth century than the panegvric of the martyr St. Theo- dore by St. Gregory of Nyssa (P.G., XLVI, 735-48).- Contrasting the horror produced by an ordinary corpse with the veneration paid to the body of a saint, the preacher expatiates upon the adornment lavished upon the building which had been erected over the martyr's resting place, and he describes how the worshipper is led to approach the tomb "believing that to touch it is itself a sanctification and a blessing, and if it be permitted to carry off any of the dust which has settled upon the martyr's resting place, the dust is accounted as a great gift and the mould as a precious treasure. And as for touching the relics themselves, if that should ever be our happiness, only those who have experienced it and who have had their wish gratified can know how much this is desirable and how worthy a recompense it is of aspiring prayer" (col. 740).

This passage, like many others that might be quoted, dwells rather upon the sanctity of the martyr's resting place and upon that of his mortal remains collected as a whole and honourably entombed. Neither is it quite easy to determine the period at which the practice of venerating minute fragments of