A Piece Of The Cross

[Calm]

I am not positive that the comments are against relics in general, but more focused on the reality of the finding a piece of the true cross and any ability to identify a piece of wood could be actually belong to that cross. LDS don't exactly have a heritage of valuing relics in any formal sense, but I also don't think we go out of our way to denigrate the possibility of value for a relic. I think we have a modern day mindset when it comes to some relics when the relic is a piece of bone from a saint. I think it would be more easy for us to find value in pieces of clothing or instruments that saints or Saints had used.

Our relics are reproductions of jewelry or sunstones or plates with pictures of temples on them, Christmas ornaments of the same, a Moroni tree toper. Some we feel much more respect toward (probably the price tag reflects that as well.

I have some old scriptures from my husband's great grandfather, it is a family relic that is quite meaningful, I have a set of leather gloves my dad wore as a baby, so funny, so sweet.

I think relics that are associated with death or disease would make a typical LDS uncomfortable, like having one's parents ashes on the mantle.

The memories are what are important to us, we don't generally see them as affecting us in physical or spiritual ways save through our memories.

Edited August 3, 2013 by calmoriah

[volgadon]

That's what I thought and then I remembered the story of the woman taken in adultery and Stephen's death...were those just events the Romans would look away from, twiddling their thumbs and not so mildly swearing under their breaths about 'how am I going to explain it to the Captain?"

Somewhat, yes. A village stoning for immorality would probably have met with approval, it keeping the peace and fabric of society intact and what not. It was also a universal value. As for Stephen, got carried away in the heat of the moment sort of thing.n Won't happen again, sir.

[Bernard Gui]

The belief in the value of relics, items that have been touched by a saint find their root in the miracles that were wrought by God through the medium of pieces of linen touched by St. Paul.

---Ac 19:11, 12

You don't have to be Catholic to treasure things because they belonged to a loved one who has gone before us. It is a natural sentiment. But when added to that the loved one inspires us to acts of goodness and love, a moderate, suitable attachment to a physical reminder (a relic) of the one we admire was a source of uncommon miracles in Acts 19. More common miracles would probably be spiritual in nature. A verified sliver of the Holy Cross on which Our Saviour died could not be of less value than an apron or handkerchief used to heal diseases. I would be compelled to kneel and kiss such blessed wood.

I understand the value of sacred objects, but how could this be verified? Is it enough just to believe it is a piece of the cross?

[3DOP]

I understand the value of sacred objects, but how could this be verified? Is it enough just to believe it is a piece of the cross?

I don't know how one might go about verifying an object that has not previously been documented.

I was answering your question, "Why is this important?" I think many would not find any grounds for even caring about whether a sliver of the Cross is extant and I was providing a reason why I would find it important.

Is it enough to believe something was a piece of the Cross?

Enough for what? I would have to answer yes and no.

Yes, it would be enough to either please or displease God depending on the behavior. If one who believed that something was a piece of the Cross were to spit on it out of hatred for Christ, it would be the same sin before God whether it really was or not. Likewise, if out of love for the Saviour who they mistakenly believed died on it, one venerated a sliver of wood that was never in the Holy Land, it would merit the same graces as if it were the True Cross.

The Church takes an interest in authenticating true relics. No one wants a bunch of fakes except those who might make money out of them. It is my understanding that documentation ordinarily follows a relic that was reasonably well authenticated in the beginning.

No, it is not enough just to believe apart from reasons for believing because nobody attaches the same value to random objects as they do those known to have some relationship to a beloved person. The needed reasons for believing differ according to temperament and according to degrees of faith. Complete unbelievers will almost always be skeptical. Undoubtedly I think many of my fellow Catholics hold to the truth of what I tend to believe are pious legends. It isn't usually my job to try to make them disbelieve in something like that if it gives them comfort and inspiration. If I am asked, then it seems like the way is open to share my misgivings. The same might hold true for any given claimed relic. I tend to have serious doubts about something just now discovered somewhere. I think it is always wise to wait for the Church to authenticate in some way.

Of course, I understand that non-Catholics have no trust in the Catholic Church, thinking it would be in the interest of the Church to multiply relics. Not really. The Church has always exercised a more serious interest in being credible, although that seems to be changing in some respects. For instance, it used to be that two verifiable miracles were required before canonization of saints, as well as an examination by "the devil's advocate". But recent popes appear to be intent on waiving these long standing requirements which insured a measure of objectivity against the understandable clamorings of the faithful for quick decisions. The result of removing these customary rules which distanced the Church from enthusiastic zealotry, is that I find that my own confidence in modern canonizations are diminished.

Yes and no,

3DOP

Edited August 3, 2013 by 3DOP

[thesometimesaint]

3DOP:

It isn't important if I believe some relic is sacred or not to me. Someone obviously does, and that good enough that I should NOT deliberately disrespect their beliefs.

[Bernard Gui]

3DOP:

It isn't important if I believe some relic is sacred or not to me. Someone obviously does, and that good enough that I should NOT deliberately disrespect their beliefs.

Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Scientists report the possible finding of a piece of the cross of Jesus:

http://www.livescience.com/38615-archaeologists-find-relic-of-jesus-cross.html

Why is this important?

Impossible to make that call...for certain faiths it would give them something they can see ad touch. To me it would not mean as much, it would not hold any power or even establish the faith, meaning faith that Jesus rose from the grave.