Debate: Does it matter if relics are fake?

The Abp is right. The continuos veneration of an object by the faithful is what connects us to the person behind the object. Relics are sacramentals and not sacraments afterall

Yes, the relic in the above picture is definitely fake.

Yes it does matter. The church stands for truth. In this increasingly secular world how can we possibly expect people to believe in miracles and other things that we will present to them in their journey towards faith if it is demonstrated we are not necessarily concerned with the validity of ANY aspect of our devotion/faith*

Where a relic has been faithfully believed to be genuine that does not take away anything from the faith and prayer over the years but where that relic is then proven to be ‘suspect’ it should be removed from public access and not used in devotions.

*And yes in relation to the first paragraph I know it is the Holy Spirit who convinces and convicts people but he requires that their hearts be open to work in. I venture the opinion that anything with the appearance of dishonesty (whether intended or not) will not help people to open their hearts and recieve him.

As to AVN “And if that connection is made through an object which maybe
forensically won’t stand up to the test, that’s of secondary importance
to the spiritual and emotive power that the object can contain, and does
contain”… I can proclaim my toenail clippings to be a relic and donate them to Southwark Diocese if he would like. After all, in 500 years they may contain so much spiritual and emotive power that no one would care they came from a slightly cynical layman who’se closest connection with sainthood is the few moments of vague holiness between confession and the first idiot met on the road.

Or perhaps not..?

[R]elics are a very important part of the expression of religious faith,
as well as of cultural importance in the way that people cling to a
souvenir from a person they’ve loved or a place that they’ve been to.
And what that conveys is the connecting of this moment with the
treasured moment of the past. And if that connection is made through an
object which maybe forensically won’t stand up to the test, that’s of
secondary importance to the spiritual and emotive power that the object
can contain, and does contain.

So if the Church exhibits the bones of a dog knowing they are the bones of a dog, saying they are the bones of an Apostle – that doesn’t matter ? God is glorified by our lies, is He ?

What he is likely to mean is that if someone venerates as a human bone what is really a dog bone, that does not matter to the subjective value of the devotion shown. And that if it was innocently misidentified as human by those who decide what relics are exposed to be honoured, that does not matter either, as the mistake is a mistake and does not affect the good faith and devotion of the human beings involved.

This second reading of his words is still problematic, because facts matter. If the Church starts – or continues – thinking that “not-X” will do as well as “X”, it is committing the sin of intellectual sloth, & this is bad for its abilty to think clearly & for its capacity to perceive truth. 

One is reminded of those words of the Revd. Charles Kingsley to which J.H. Newman reacted so strongly:

“Truth, for its own sake, had never been a virtue with the Roman
clergy. Father Newman informs us that it need not, and, on the
whole, ought not to be; that cunning is the weapon which Heaven
has given to the saints wherewith to withstand the brute male
force of the wicked world which marries and is given in marriage.”
This accusation I based upon a considerable number of passages
in Dr. Newman’s writings, and especially on a sermon entitled
“Wisdom and Innocence,” and preached by Dr. Newman as
Vicar Of St. Mary’s, and published as No. XX of his ” Sermons
on Subjects of the Day.”"

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/newman/kingsley1.html

Truth matters – if less than love, not much so. The Abp.’s remarks could be construed in an unfavourable sense, and it would be a great evil if even one person went off thinking the Church cared little or nothing for truth, honesty, probity and other excellent things like that. It may be absurd to miscontrue them in that sense – but it is not impossible.

During World Youth Day 2005, our group visited the Cathedral in Trier, Germany where the garment which was taken form Christ before he was crucified is said to be housed and venerated. The reaction of most of us was ‘yah, right’ but it served a purpose. It helped us to reflect on that moment in our history and it brought thousands of people together to focus on Christ’s passion – most of whom probably didn’t believe in it’s authenticity without at least some reservations. So, no, it doesn’t matter all that much. But I would temper that with a slight concern…

There are still people around who claim that the resurrection isn’t real and that it was just a symbol of hope bla bla bla… With some things, authenticity and literal truth really, truly does matter. With other things, not so much. As a youth worker I worry about the waters being muddied slightly and that line becoming unclear. In other words, when young people see hundreds venerating a relic that’s probably not authentic, do they also wonder how genuine the resurrection is? And whether that’s just a symbol which draws people together?

So, basically, no… it doesn’t matter too much if a relic is genuine, but I think we need to make clear that there are some things whose authenticity matter far, far more!

No relic is a fake. Only Satan deceived scientists and Protestant extremists claim relics are fakes when they are in the Bible and all relics are true. Equally disgusting is the Protestant obsession about Obama’s birth certificate just because they claim Obama is Muslim and that God gave the USA to Protestants which He didn’t. The American Revolution was caused by illuminized freemasons seeking to overthrow the Catholic Church and the British monarchy just as they did with the Catholic Church and the French monarchy in France. Before you claim the CofE is Protestant – it isn’t: that was a lie by Evangelicals.

No relic is a fake and anyone who tells you otherwise is deceived by the Devil and the AntiChrist.

Relics are the bodies of the faithful and temples of the Holy Spirit Who lives in them (1 Cor:6.19) and are not ‘mere’ symbols: post-Vatican II nonsense. Can a mere symbol convey blessings, cast out devils etc.,. which is why Satan wants you to reject relics (Acts:19.11-12).

I can proclaim my toenail clippings to be a relic and donate them to
Southwark Diocese if he would like. After all, in 500 years they may
contain so much spiritual and emotive power that no one would care they
came from a slightly cynical layman who’se closest connection with
sainthood is the few moments of vague holiness between confession and
the first idiot met on the road.

I doubt it. First of all you lack humility. Secondly, you would have to be beatified. Only those scientists – who do not come from God but Satan – claim relics are fake. They will receive their just punishment for their lies when they are sent to the eternal flames.

Of course it matters. The REASON why a piece of cloth has been revered for centuries is because it was believed to be, say, from the clothes of a saint, or the shroud that covered our Lord’s body.

If the piece of wood is not from the cross, but came from someone’s desire to make some money selling it as a piece of the cross, why should we continue to revere it after we know the truth? Great, it helped the Faith of many; the Holy Spirit indeed works through imperfect human means. But Faith must be grounded on truth. If we consciously accept pious lies and deceptions in the service of Faith, Faith itself will be doomed in the long run, as all the pious lies are revealed for what they are by the enemies of Faith, who will be ironically acting as the defenders of truth.

The Shroud can even stand as a realistic and powerful piece of religious art, perhaps (IF it is shown to be false; I think there is evidence at least to consider that it might be real). But wooden pieces? Nails? Generic bones? That masses of peasants believed them to be sacred in the past does not mean we have to take the same stance, especially if we have good reason to doubt it.

Absolutely yes. If it is known that a relic is fake, it should never be exposed for the veneration of the faithful otherwise the church would be misleading the faithful.
My opinion is that only authenticated relics should be exposed for veneration.

That is your believe and is up to you not to me

Memories are nice claiming that some thing is a relique is different when an organization has been protecting by lies so many things let the true come forward and face reality. IT IS TIME

I saw the exhibit at issue and was struck by the lack of discussion about what a relic is and what kinds of relics the Church recognizes. Furthermore, the last parting shot of the exhibit is a bit self-serving. It equates the celebrity culture of our present day with the cult of saints and the Church’s teaching on relics. This was post-modern idiocy at its most ridiculous. We were treated to slides of Elvis and JPII and other pop personalities as the modern equivalent of the cult of saints. Utterly stupid.

I have read a number of your other posts with interest. It wasn’t
however until I reached this one that I reached understanding on why you
refuse to associate the application of logic and reason with God and
will defend to the hilt the belief that all relics are real and none are
fake (despite the excellent points made by Parasum above about the numerous fake relics in church history). Now after reading your insightful comments on the illuminati,
freemasonary and the evangelical conspiracy to claim that the church
split by Henry VIII and formed by Cranmer and Cromwell and cemented by
Edward’s laws is protestant (when according to you it isn’t) I finally
understand why you hold the views you do… And now that I understand the reasoning process that underpins your arguments I shall ignore them forthwith. There is no point in arguing with conspiracy theorists as anyone that isn’t for them is against them.

It doesn´t matter that there is no good ”evidence” for relics is. As a good catholic one is obligated to
accept with the divine and Catholic faith all which the Church presents either
as solemn decision or as general teaching and not just the few “infallible”
teachings. (see Catholic Encylopedia)

The church (bishops and popes. not laity) has said that many
things are relics including the foreskin of Jesus and the Virgin Mary´s milk. A
catholic has to accept this as true - no matter what history or science may say as
these do not have the only system for finding truth.

These relics are true until the church says otherwise.
That is the basic religious definition of truth. Using your reason can lead to
pride. One has to become as little children and just believe what church
teachings without any reasons needing to be given unless the church wants to. This is called having FAITH (a belief
based on spiritual conviction rather than proof). It may be nice to have
additional proof but not a requirement.

For example, the church taught for many years that
certain persons were saints and could intercede with God for us. Later many were
found out to be legends. That does not meet that the prayers were useless.

It taught that the earth was flat, had four pillars,
and began about 6,000 years ago. Catholics are now free to believe in a round
earth located in a vast universe being no longer the center and that evolution
is true.

Until the church gives permission, scientific theories cannot be
accepted as truth. We are not free to believe something contrary to current church teachings.

Remember that Christ said that he did not come to
bring peace upon earth but the sword. The church has been very diligent with
the sword for those who do not accept church teaching but attempt to use reason
and evidence to contradict.