In medieval western Europe multiple places claimed to have the same relics. Was there a legal way to resolve who had the "true" relics vs the false?

by TheVeryGrumpyGinger

I'm currently reading "A History of Venice" bu John Julius Norwich where he says that Churches in both Venice and Bari both claimed to have St Nicholas' remains. So in a situation like this was there any way for churches or the state which the church resided to legally resolve this? Was there some sort of mechanism in which each side could argue their case and somebody deciding?

y_sengaku

In short, both relics could be regarded as 'genuine' in the eyes of medieval people, in the following two very basic principles:

  • 'Pars for Pro' (the portion represent the total): From the end of the 4th century onwards, the Latin Church fathers and medieval theologians developed the theory that even a fragment of the bone could be equal to the total corpse of the dead saint. According to this theory, every person who had a close access to the relic (ad sanctos) could ask for its original 'owner', the saint in the Paradise an her/his intercession to the God. [Added]: Some researchers even compare these relics as ATMs across medieval Europe for an access terminal to the 'main bank' of the merit (virtus), the saint her/himself.
  • 'Self-Reproduction of the relic (s)': Two skulls of John the Evangelist? Too many fragment of the True Cross? No problem! The relic can be self-replacating, like the loaves breads and fishes to feet the banquet table for the Five Thousand in the Bible (Matthew 14: 13-21).

Don't you satisfy these two principles? Don't you doubt the Papal authority that had tried to controll the verification of the relics by the canonization process since the late 12th century? OK. Then, ask for the relic, or the saint a miracle that can prove its veracity!

+++

References: