On Sun, 3 Nov 1996, G.R. Jones wrote:
> > This is not an area I know at all well, but might not a dedication to All
> > Saints have something to do with the relics available to dedicate the
> > altar (if, indeed, relics were always needed to dedicate an altar - does
> > anyone know?)? Reliquaries often contained the remains of more
> > than one saint, and it is easy to imagine a venerable heap of mushed
> > up bits of this and that not being completely identifiable. What else
> > could one do with such a holy mess?
> > Jim Bugslag
>
> What indeed!
>
> It became permissable to deposit a portion of the host in place of a relic, but
> there had always been cults, such as Michael's, which were relic-less. It may
> be, turning Jim's intriguing idea on its head, and picking up the point others
> have made about the advantage of the cult's inclusivity, that one reason for
> the popularity of the cult of All Saints at one or more stages of its
> development was that it could be interpreted as not dependent on the
> availability of relics. While inclusivity works well as an explanation for
> market-place and cemetery churches, the challenge is to relate it to the wider
> distribution patterns.
>
> Graham Jones
>
My understanding had been that there was never any inflexible requirement
that the relics imbedded in the altar table HAD to be associated with the
saint/s to whom the church was dedicated. As the supply of authenticable
relics was naturally limited anything would do, secondary as well as primary,
and often a tiny speck sufficed. I can't remember references offhand but
will check.
John Parsons
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|