Relics necessary for Mass????

[ps139]

Hi everyone,

In the Orthodox forum someone told me this:

Also, each Catholic church also has a relic in the altar piece. It was the practice of the early Church and it is the practice of both the Orthodox and Catholic Churches today.

A relic IS required for Catholic churches to be considered licit. That is not to say that it cannot be valid, in Catholic terminology.

I said this was not true. Am I wrong? I've never heard of a relic necessary to say Mass. What did the Early Church do when there were only a few relics, not enough to go around to each Church? Was a relic necessary to say Mass in the catacombs???

 

[stray bullet]

That was the case before Vatican II. After they decided to no longer use them.

If you go to a parish built before Vatican II, they will have one. Afterwards, they will not.

I can't see why they think you HAD to have one to do mass

 

[nyj]

I do know that in each Catholic Church, the permanent altar (typically made out of stone) has a cavity (sepulchre) in which is placed relics. The Old Catholic Encyclopedia does state the following:

Altar Cavity

This is a small square or oblong chamber in the body of the altar, in which are placed, according to the "Pontificale Romanum" (De Eccles. Consecratione) the relics of two canonized martyrs although the Cong. Sac. Rit. (16 February, l906) decided that if the relic of only one martyr is placed in it the consecration is valid, to these may be properly added the relics of other saints, especially of those in whose honour the church of the altar is consecrated. These relics must be actual portions of the saints' bodies, not simply of their garments or of other objects which they may have used or touched; the relics must, moreover be authenticated. If the altar is a fixed or immovable altar, the relics are placed in a reliquary of lead, silver, or gold, which should be large enough to contain, besides the relics, three grains of incense and a small piece of parchment on which is written an attest of the consecration.

However, I'm not sure if things have changed since then.

 

[stray bullet]

I do know that in each Catholic Church, the permanent altar (typically made out of stone) has a cavity in which is placed relics. The Old Catholic Encyclopedia does state the following:



However, I'm not sure if things have changed since then.

My parish was built post Vatican II and we have no relic as a result.

 

[nyj]

My parish was built post Vatican II and we have no relic as a result.

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (2003) states:

302. The practice of placing relics of Saints, even those not Martyrs, under the altar to be dedicated is fittingly retained. Care should be taken, however, to ensure the authenticity of such relics.

http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/current/chapter5.shtml#sect2

 

[stray bullet]

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (2003) states:

302. The practice of placing relics of Saints, even those not Martyrs, under the altar to be dedicated is fittingly retained. Care should be taken, however, to ensure the authenticity of such relics.

http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/current/chapter5.shtml#sect2

Well, I was told clearly that we don't have a relic because the policy changed with Vatican II. *shrug*

 

[Epiphanygirl]

Hi everyone,

In the Orthodox forum someone told me this:



I said this was not true. Am I wrong? I've never heard of a relic necessary to say Mass. What did the Early Church do when there were only a few relics, not enough to go around to each Church? Was a relic necessary to say Mass in the catacombs???

what about all the situations where an alter can't be built? Example: traveling priests, priests on the battlefield, newly formed parish that hasn't built the formal Church?
I would think that "intention" and sanctity had more to do with it than a relic or blessed object.
I agree with the previous poster who mentioned the Early Churches who had not yet recieved any relics as there were not enough of them to go around at the time.
I'm interested in hearing what the Church formally teaches on the matter.

 

[nyj]

what about all the situations where an alter can't be built? Example: traveling priests, priests on the battlefield, newly formed parish that hasn't built the formal Church?

http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/current/chapter5.shtml#sect2

297. The celebration of the Eucharist in a sacred place is to be carried out on an altar; but outside a sacred place, it may be carried out on a suitable table, always with the use of a cloth, a corporal, a cross, and candles.

 

[ZooMom]

That's pretty clear.

 

[Epiphanygirl]

http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/current/chapter5.shtml#sect2

Thank you!

 

[AMDG]

EWTN's newly built shrine in Hanceville has relics. I saw the consecration of the Church on EWTN and the relics were cemented in. I know, but it's a fixed altar and maybe that's different from movable altars.

You know a question about relics in the altar came up in the thread on the "Idiot's Guide to Catholicism". I too thought that the relics weren't necessary for movable altars, but I asked, and even though our altar is quite movable (and not too long ago has even been made smaller), it contains the relics of two martyrs.

 

[Wiffey]

I am pretty sure that in dire situations (prison camps, concentration camps come to mind) that priests can still consecrate the Holy Gifts for the faithful even if the usual necessary items to do this aren't available.

 

[Michelina]

Well, I was told clearly that we don't have a relic because the policy changed with Vatican II. *shrug*

I don't doubt it, stray. There's been an incredible amount of misinformation spread around over the past 35 years. Sometimes I think it will take almost that long to deal with it.

 

[Carrye]

There's been an incredible amount of misinformation spread around over the past 35 years. Sometimes I think it will take almost that long to deal with it.

I agree. And misinformation aside, it takes time to implement a Council. The Church moves slowly sometimes, but does so in her great wisdom.

 

[FullyMT]

So...if the only Catholic church in a large area were destroyed, then Mass could not be said? That sounds a bit incorrect. Also, what about if Mass were to be celebrated with a make-shift altar (ie, if the church were under construction and a hall/room in the parish were being used)? Does that make the Mass invalid? No.
ps139, I just looked through the quote you posted and realized something...it seems the person isn't talking about Mass, but the church itself that Mass is being celebrated in.

 

[Brother Charlie]

...just goes to show why vatican II was a good thing

 

[Michelina]

So...if the only Catholic church in a large area were destroyed, then Mass could not be said? That sounds a bit incorrect. Also, what about if Mass were to be celebrated with a make-shift altar (ie, if the church were under construction and a hall/room in the parish were being used)? Does that make the Mass invalid? No.
ps139, I just looked through the quote you posted and realized something...it seems the person isn't talking about Mass, but the church itself that Mass is being celebrated in.

Right, Mike. Although the relics are required by the Church normally, they do not directly affect Validity. There are many permanent altars that presently do not have any relics because of the misinformation already mentioned.

 

[Carrye]

There are many permanent altars that presently do not have any relics because of the misinformation already mentioned.

Are you serious?! People actually chose not to place relics in altars because they didn't think that they needed to?

 

[nyj]

...just goes to show why vatican II was a good thing

Is this sarcasm?

 

[Brother Charlie]

Is this sarcasm?

No. I think that measuring the validity of a Mass by whether it has a relic or not is a little absurd