"I was much more excited by the Medieval Gallery but then it does seem odd to have objects of veneration; relics, crosses, statuary, vestment sterilised of their sacredness by being in a Museum ...but they do show relics as if the bones of the Saints of God are historical artifacts, would they do that if they were the remains of Australian Aborigines or Native Americans?"
Terry at Idle Speculations has taken this up and both answers my question and speaks more generally about relics in a typically brief and thorough article.
So, putting it bluntly, why isn't someone from Archbishops House off getting our saints back?
6 comments:
With every resepct, Father, given that Archbishop's House presumably approves of putting clearly authentic and certificated relics on public display in an exhibition at the Cathedral ('cos they're there), why should it be overconcerned about the public display of what are presumably not authenticated and certificated relics in the Museums ?
A question that is perhaps more to the point is: how did they get there in the first place?
Were the reliquaries/relics stolen? Or were they, like many of the fine altarpieces in the National Gallery, sold by the Churches/communities from which they derive?
DM,
Surely not! I am sure all relics are displayed for veneration in any Catholic establishmet.
But Father, But Father, if we were to ask ever so nicely for our relics back, then we'd have to ask for the churches to put them in . .
@ DM:
Some relics in the museums are obvious deceptions.
Some relics are not so clear. As regards these should there not be a precautionary principle applied in case they are true relics ? That is, not displayed and possibly given to the Church for a decent burial ?
I was certain at first glance,the head reliquary of St.Eustance,was a piece of ART DECO.
Post a Comment