Catholic FAQ


Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

View Poll Results: Shroud of Turin..................
It's the genuine burial cloth of Jesus 124 83.78%
It's a deliberate fraud 14 9.46%
Just an accidental phenomenon 10 6.76%
Voters: 148. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #346  
Old Aug 8, '12, 5:19 am
patrick457 patrick457 is offline
Forum Master
 
Join Date: September 7, 2006
Posts: 13,298
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Shroud of Turin

To continue:
Let's provide some background first, continuing where we left off: we'll first go back to the early 15th century.

When Geoffroy II de Charny (who exhibited the Shroud in Lirey in 1389, much to the ire of Bishop Pierre d'Arcis) died on 1398, the Shroud passed on to his daughter Margaret. Years later, became the wife of Humbert of Villersexel, Count de la Roche and Lord of Saint-Hippolyte-sur-Doubs. Humbert was in reality her second husband: a union with her first spouse Jean de Bauffremont (whom she married in 1400) proved to be an unhappy one; firstly, because it childless, and secondly, because of Jean's own death at the hands of the English in Agincourt in 1415, echoing the elder Geoffroy's demise in Poitiers in 1356.

In 1418, Humbert decided to move the Shroud, along with some other relics, from Lirey to his castle at Montfort, Doubs, to provide protection against the criminal bands that roamed the French countryside. In 6 July Humbert issued a recept to the canons of Lirey:
During this period of war, and mindful of ill-disposed persons, we have received from our kind chaplains, the dean and chapter of Our Lady of Lirey, the jewels and relics of the aforesaid church, namely the things which follow: first, a cloth, on which is a figure or a representation of the Shroud of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is in a chest decorated with the arms of Charny...The aforesaid jewels and relics we have taken and received into our care from the said dean and chapter to be well and securely guarded in our castle of Montfort.
Humbert also stipulated in his letter that these objects would be returned to the clergy of Lirey after the war; more likely this was the original intention at the time of writing. Soon, however, Margaret began to change her mind and guarded the Shroud jealously. The Shroud was moved from Montfort to a chapel in Humbert's domain at the small village of Saint-Hippolyte-sur-Doubs east of Besançon. Here Margaret and her husband began the custom of annual exhibitions of the Shroud every Easter Sunday on the banks of the river Doubs.


Saint-Hippolyte-sur-Doubs


Fresco from nearby Terre de Chaux

Humbert died in 1438, again without leaving Margaret any direct heirs to bequeath the Shroud to. She appears to have become determined that despite Humbert's promise to the canons of Lirey, the Shroud will not be handed back to them. Despite the considerable pressure the canons exerted over her to return the cloth, she remained recalcitrant. In May of 1443 she was summoned to the parlement of Dôle, where she agreed to hand over the jewels and other relics that Humbert had taken into safekeeping - all except the Shroud. In return for various payments towards the upkeep of the Lirey church she was allowed to keep the Shroud for three more years. When she still refused to relinquish it at the end of this period, the court of Besançon then ruled to allow her possession of the cloth for two more years in exchange for the legal costs and more church upkeep, which was then renewed for a further three years after that (negotiated on Margaret's behalf by her half-brother Charles de Noyers).

It soon became clear that Margaret will not give up the cloth as long as she was alive: since she was approaching her sixties, the parties involved apparently expected her death, when the problem could be finally solved. People however underestimated her determination to find a suitable heir to bequeath it to. In 1448 she went north to Hainut, part of the dominions of Philip the Good (Duke of Burgundy), with the Shroud in her keeping. Not long after that she was at Chimay, in the diocese of Liège: the Benedictine chronicler Cornelius Zantiflet recorded her as exhibiting "a certain sheet on which the shape of the body of our Lord Jesus Christ has been skilfully painted, with astonishing artistry, showing the outlines of all the limbs, and with feet, hands and side stained with blood-red, as if they had recently suffered stigmata and wounds." Like the bishop of Troyes years earlier, the clerics of Hainut were skeptical of the Shroud's authenticity. All Margaret could offer to the bishop of Liège in lieu of a certification were the bulls of Clement VII describing the cloth as only a 'figure or representation' of Jesus crucified.
Reply With Quote
  #347  
Old Aug 8, '12, 5:21 am
patrick457 patrick457 is offline
Forum Master
 
Join Date: September 7, 2006
Posts: 13,298
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Shroud of Turin

(Continued)

In light of this skepticism amongst northerners, Margaret once more headed south with the Shroud still in her keeping. An exposition held at the castle of Germolles, near Mâcon in 1452 seems to have been equally unpromising: it would take Margaret a year to finish her search.

On 22 March 1453 in Geneva, a suitable heir finally came in the persons of Louis, Duke of Savoy, and his wife Anne de Lusignan of Cyprus, who gave the widow the chateau of Varambon and the revenues from the estate of Miribel near Lyons in exchange for what the contract between the two parties describes as ‘valuable services’ from Margaret: in other words, the widow had ceded (one could even say “sold”) the cloth to Louis. Thanks to this transaction, for 530 years (1453-1983) the Shroud was the property of the House of Savoy.

Meanwhile, the canons of Lirey, unaware of the events that had transpired, still pressured Margaret to hand over the Shroud, sending her a letter in May 1457 threatening to excommunicate her should she fail to comply. This they eventually did: it needed once again the assistance of Charles des Noyers to negotiate with the canons. Finally realizing that they could no longer retrieve the Shroud and that at best, the only thing they could ask for is monetary compensation for it, the canons begrudgingly withdrew the excommunication from Margaret in 1459. She died a year later (in 7 October), content that she had done her duty. Her Lirey lands were bequeathed to her cousin and godson Antoine-Guerry des Essars.

In 1464, Louis agreed to pay an annual fee to the canons in exchange for their dropping claims of ownership of what he called "the most holy Shroud representing the image of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." In the accord drawn in 6 February of that year, Louis attempted to justify and substantiate the transaction by pointing out that the Shroud was bequeathed to the church of Lirey by the elder Geoffroy de Charny, and that Margaret had then transferred it to Louis.

While considering a permanent home for the cloth, the duke first lodged it in the Franciscan church in Geneva (Louis had close connections with the order: he had a retinue of friars who served as his personal confessors). The same year also marked the election of the 50 year-old theologian Francesco della Rovere as Minister General of the Franciscan order. Interestingly, della Rovere, who penned the work De Sanguine Christi ("On the Blood of Christ") on that year, alludes to "the Shroud in which the body of Christ was wrapped when he was taken down from the cross. This is now preserved with great devotion by the Dukes of Savoy, and it is colored with the blood of Christ..."

Louis died at Lyon in 1465, while returning from France: his acquisition of the Shroud would later be praised as his greatest achievement. The successor to the duchy was his pious but lazy son Amadeus, who was by now thirty years old. He shared with his wife Duchess Yolande of France a particular devotion to the Shroud, but was an inept ruler who neglected to honor the terms of Louis' agreement with the Lirey canons. (The unrelenting canons would send delegates and release warrants demanding that either the agreement be honored or the Shroud relinquished.) They would set in train the second phase of construction of the already partially-built chapel at Chambéry, the capital of the Savoy region, that later, as the Sainte-Chapelle, will become a permanent home for the Shroud. By the time construction work was commenced (1471), Francesco della Rovere was elected pope, taking the name of Sixtus IV. Two years after his election into the pontificate his De Sanguine Christi would be published, which would give the Shroud, for the first time in its history, some recognition from the Holy See.


Francesco della Rovere, aka Sixtus IV

Beginning in 1471 and lasting for the next thirty-one years, the Shroud moved between many cities of Europe, joining the Savoys as their court journeyed from castle to castle. During this period, the cloth was housed briefly in places like Vercelli, Turin, Ivrea, Susa, Chambéry, Avigliana, Rivoli, and Pinerolo. A description of the cloth by two sacristans of the Sainte-Chapelle from around this time noted that it was stored in a reliquary: "enveloped in a red silk drape, and kept in a case covered with crimson velours, decorated with silver-gilt nails, and locked with a golden key."

===

When the younger Geoffroy de Charny exhibited the Shroud in the 1380s, the antipope Clement VII was very careful about the terminology used for it: he required that it be considered as an "image or representation of the shroud of our Lord Jesus Christ." However, as Bishop d'Arcis' memorandum implies, at the time of the elder Geoffroy thirty years earlier the Lirey camp are apparently insistent that the shroud they were showing was the genuine article, "the actual shroud in which our Savior Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb." And despite official caution, we can see that people still considered it as the real one, as evidenced by the 'figure or representation' formula slowly slipping away as time went on: during the legal battle of 1443 between Margaret de Charny and the canons of Lirey the cloth was called "precious jewel of the holy Shroud;" by 1449 and 1457 the cloth is now simply "the holy Shroud of our Lord Jesus Christ." When Louis agreed to pay the canons in compensation for their loss in 1464, he dubbed the relic "the most holy Shroud representing the image of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."

===

The Shroud was formally translated from the Franciscan church in Chambery to the same town's newly constructed Sainte Chapelle amidst lavish ceremony in 11 June 1502, with the intention that the latter now be the cloth's permanent home. Despite this intention, the very next year the Shroud travelled again, this time to Bourg-en-Bresse, to take part in the celebrations for the return from Spain of Philip the Fair (brother of Margaret of Austria, husband of Duke Philibert II). According to the Savoy courtier Antoine de Lalaing, it was exhibited on Good Friday (just like in Vercelli, 1494): "On Good Friday the Passion was preached in Monsignor's chapel by his confessor, in the presence of the Duke and the Duchess attending. Then they went with great devotion to the town's market-place, where a great number of people heard the Passion preached by a Cordelier [i.e. a Franciscan]. After that three bishops showed to the populace the Holy Shroud of our Lord Jesus Christ, and after the service it was shown in Monsignor's chapel." Lalaing, in the same report, also expressed his opinion that the Shroud "is, I believe, the most devotional and contemplative thing on earth. It is the rich syndoine and noble Shroud purchased by Joseph of Arimathea. It is clearly seen to be bloody with the most precious blood of Jesus, our Savior. It can be seen to be imprinted with all of his sacred body."

Philibert died childless and young in 1504, at the age of 24; the following year Margaret formally ceded the Shroud to her mother-in-law Claudine de Brosse, who temporarily took it with her to Billiat near Nantua. By 1506 Pope Julius II (nephew of Sixtus IV) formally approved an Office and Mass "de Sancta Sindone" in the bull Romanus Pontifex, in the course of which the he speaks of "that most famous Shroud (præclarissima sindone) in which our Savior was wrapped when he lay in the tomb and which is now honorably and devoutly preserved in a silver casket." It included a prayer with the words:
Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui in memoriam passionis unigeniti Filii tui sanctam eius sindonem cum expressa ipsius effigie venerandam reliquisti in terris: tribue, quaesumus, nobis, ut per virtutem eiusdem sanctae sindonis faciem tuam contemplari mereamur in coelis. Per eumdem, etc.

Almighty and eternal God, who, in memory of the passion of thy only-begotten Son, hast left his holy Shroud with his imprinted likeness (cum expressa ipsius effigie) to be venerated on earth: grant to us, we beseech thee, that through the power of the same holy Shroud, we may be worthy to contemplate thy face in heaven. Through the same, etc.
Reply With Quote
  #348  
Old Aug 8, '12, 5:22 am
patrick457 patrick457 is offline
Forum Master
 
Join Date: September 7, 2006
Posts: 13,298
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Shroud of Turin

And finally, for now:
Oh yeah, just before I forget. As promised, here's a little retelling of the events of the carbon-14 tests.

On 13 May 1981, Dr. John Jackson (the leader of STURP), along with some associates, were on St. Peter's Square awaiting a prearranged papal audience to brief the recently-elected John Paul II on the team's findings. The audience never happened: as you all know, of course, the pope was shot by Mehmet Ali Ağca and was subsequently rushed away for surgery. Karol Wojtyla, even before he became Pope, had a genuine and profound personal interest on and devotion to the cloth: it was no wonder that Umberto II of Savoy signed a formal will just a month before this incident, on 27 March, to the effect that "after [his] death the entire property of the Holy Shroud shall be donated to the Holy See." (Recap: the Shroud was officially owned by the House of Savoy ever since Margaret de Charny sold it to Louis, Duke of Savoy in 1453. It, along with other Savoy possessions in Italy, became the property of the Italian state in 1946, although Umberto II still upheld the principle of his continued ownership of the artifact. Umberto apparently decided to not pass the relic to his only son, Vittorio Emmanuele - who married without his father's permission in 1971, thereby breaking a venerable family law which stipulates that the crown prince must always consult his father concerning his choice of marriage partner, and who was involved in the murder of Dirk Hamer in 1978 - but to the Church.)

The new advances in radiocarbon dating at the beginning of the 80s was very quickly being perceived as the next logical step in scientific approaches to the Shroud. The progressively-minded John Paul II, who, upon Umberto's death in 1983, was the first papal 'owner' of the artifact, welcomed such an initiative. However, ownership of the Shroud, even by a Pope, carried some serious limitations due to highly convoluted politics. Umberto in his will stipulated that the Shroud must not ever leave Turin. Also, the Shroud, while it remained housed on the chapel specially built by Guarino Guarini, was on Italian state property, hence, any initiative required delicate diplomatic negotiations with the government. Furthermore, the ecclesiastical establishment of Turin, enjoying the 'hands-on' power over the Shroud ever since Umberto went into exile, had adopted some proprietorial attitudes towards the cloth and guarded it fiercely. When the Shroud passed on to the pope, the people at the Vatican wanted to have more say in matters than was welcomed by the folks at Turin. As a result, before any tests could be undertaken, a little jostling of power between the Pope's chief scientific adviser Carlos Chagas (president of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences) and Cardinal Anastasio Ballestrero of Turin's Luigi Gonella had to happen. Chagas clearly had the upper hand in this tug-of-war: aside from his position as president of the Pontifical Academy, he was also an internationally-recognized neuroscientist and in addition, is the son of the researcher of the same name who discovered Chaga's disease (and who was nominated for a Nobel Prize for it, twice). Gonella, on the other hand, was merely a lecturer on physics in the Polytechnic University of Turin. The difficulty is that, the Shroud is on Gonella's home turf. Hence, when Chagas (who had a way better command of English than Gonella) began initiatives to hold an international-level high-powered scientific workshop to discuss the carbon dating, Gonella felt his authority being undermined.

Chagas proposed a protocol which involved seven named laboratories, some of which will use the old Libby method of radiocarbon dating, others the new AMS method. It was a highly well-researched plan, but Gonella would have none of it. Things then began to go really nasty, what with stances being taken and angry messages being hurled back and forth between the two sides. Eventually, Chagas' protocol was scrapped, much to the consternation and disappointment of the seven laboratories who were supposed to be involved in the project. They sent a letter to Cardinal Ballestrero in 1 July of 1987, where they warned:
We urge Your Eminence before making a final decision on this question to reconvene a meeting of the seven carbon dating laboratories and the British Museum with your science adviser, Professor Gonella, to more fully apprise him of the dangers of modifying the Turin Workshop Protocol in this fundamental way. The protocol was carefully crafted to meet your charge that the results of the measurements be credible to the general public and to knowledgeable scientists alike. As participants in the Workshop who devoted considerable effort to achieve your goal we would not be irresponsible if we were not to advise you that this fundamental modification in the proposed procedures may lead to failure.
Cardinal Ballestrero faxed back in 10 October. His answer: there would be no reconvened workshop, the number of laboratories would be reduced to three, and the Pontifical Academy will henceforth take no further active part in the exercise.
Reply With Quote
  #349  
Old Aug 8, '12, 5:23 am
patrick457 patrick457 is offline
Forum Master
 
Join Date: September 7, 2006
Posts: 13,298
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Shroud of Turin

(Continued)

We wind the clock back for a few years here. STURP initially planned to conduct a range of different studies on the cloth, including radiocarbon dating. A commission headed by chemist Robert H. Dinegar and physicist Harry E. Gove (under the prodding of the Revd. David Sox, then secretary of the British Society for the Turin Shroud) consulted numerous laboratories which were able at the time (1982) to carbon-date small fabric samples. The six labs that showed interest in performing the procedure fell into two categories, according to the method they utilised: Brookhaven (New York) and Harwell (Oxfordshire) used a proportional counter approach (the old Libby method), while Rochester, Oxford, Tucson (Arizona), and Zurich used the newly-developed accelerator mass spectrometry or AMS. To obtain independent and replicable results, and to avoid conflict between the laboratories, it was decided to let all interested laboratories should perform the tests at the same time.

Under the traditional method, radiocarbon-dating the Shroud would not have been feasible since it would have required at least one pocket handkerchief-sized piece of the Shroud to be destroyed for sampling purposes, and indeed, Harwell advised against such a prospect in the 1960s. The development of AMS in the late 70s, wherein smaller samples (about the size of a postage stamp) could be tested, and with much the same precision as the old method, is thus a godsend.

STURP published the list of tests which would be performed on the Shroud in 1982; However, a disagreement between STURP and the candidate laboratories devolved into a P.R. rift: STURP expected to perform the radiometric examination under its own aegis and after the other examinations had been completed, while the laboratories considered radio-carbon dating to be the priority test, which should be completed at the detriment of other tests, if necessary. There was also the behind-the-scenes rivalry between the laboratories themselves: the inception of AMS, which needed some heavy investment and some lengthy installation time for laboratories opting for it (like Oxford), was hotly followed by traditional laboratories (like Harwell) developing a rival version which claimed to be nearly as capable of accurate radiocarbon dating from very small samples.

By 1986, the Turin protocol drafted with the help of Dr. Chagas offered a compromise. It was decided that (1) carbon-dating would be the only test performed; (2) as a blind test, original and control samples, indistinguishable from each other, would be provided; (3) the test would be performed concurrently by seven laboratories, under the joint supervision of the Pontifical Academy of Science, the archbishop of Turin, and the British Museum; (4) both dating methods would be adopted; (5) the sample offered to each laboratory would weight 28 mg, equivalent to 9 sq. cm. of cloth; (6) the British Museum would manage the distribution of the samples; and (7) laboratories would not communicate with each other during the analysis, nor divulge the results of the tests to anyone but the three supervising authorities.

Of course, the events both at the front and backstage (public violation of the protocol on four counts, the feud between Chagas and Gonella and their sides, etc.) led to the eventual scrapping of this protocol, as mentioned. In 27 April, a spokesperson at the Vatican announced that contrary to the stipulations, the test likely be performed by two or three laboratories at most, which is confirmed by Cardinal Ballestrero's 10 October reply to the laboratories.

At the end, there were three laboratories chosen on the basis of their "experience in the field of archaeological radiocarbon dating": Oxford, Zurich, and Tucson, all of which are AMS laboratories. The traditional proportional counter method was apparently rejected because as mentioned, it would require too much Shroud material. However, this decision was hardly perfect: the rejected Harwell alone has much more 'experience' than all three chosen laboratories put together. Since the Pontifical Academy of Sciences was struck out of the project (only being invited as an observer) the sole supervising institution ended up being the British Museum under Michael Tite.

This decision attracted some controversy. Gove, then director of Rochester's laboratory (one of the rejects), argued in an open letter that discarding the blind-test method would expose the results - whatever they may be - to suspicion of unreliability. We don't know what really happened behind the scenes, but Gonella, it seems, had had his way.
Reply With Quote
  #350  
Old Aug 8, '12, 5:23 am
patrick457 patrick457 is offline
Forum Master
 
Join Date: September 7, 2006
Posts: 13,298
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Shroud of Turin

(Continued)

At daybreak on 21 April 1988, with representatives of the three laboratories present at the old sacristy at the cathedral (who, according the protocol, should in fact not have been present), the Shroud was solemnly brought into the room and unrolled. It was only at this point that Gonella and his associate Giovanni Riggi proceeded at length to deliberate on the best location from which to take the sample. There was a claim that they took two hours to decide, but the eventual choice was the top left corner.

As a precautionary measure, a piece twice as big as the one required by the protocol was cut, measuring 81 x 21 mm. At the same time, a strip showing coloured filaments of uncertain origin was discarded. The remaining sample, measuring 81 x 16 mm and weighing 300 mg, was first divided in two equal parts, one of which was cut into three segments. The unused half was preserved in a sealed container, in case of future need.

The laboratories were also each given three control samples (one more than originally stipulated): (1) a fragment of weave from a medieval Egyptian burial (carbon dated to AD 1100), discovered in 1964; (2) a piece of mummy bandage carbon-dated to AD 200; and (3) a sample of King St. Louis IX's cloak, woven between 1240 and 1270. The British Museum's Dr. Tite, along with Cardinal Ballestrero, took the three portions to a side room, where, unobserved by any camera, they placed them along with the control samples into carefully labeled sealed canisters.

In yet another violation of the agreed protocol, the laboratories did not work separately and simultaneously. Rather, Tucson performed the tests in May, Zurich in June, and Oxford in August, exchanging information in the meantime. The findings were supposed to be kept secret, but on August 26, news of the Shroud having been dated to 1350 was leaked to the British newspaper Evening Standard by a Cambrige librarian with no known connection either to the Shroud or to the laboratories and who simply declared labs to be 'leaky institutions'.

On 28 September, Dr. Tite communicated the official results to the Archdiocese of Turin and to the Holy See. Press conferences were held on October 13 simultaneously in London and Turin. In the British Museum's basement press room, Dr. Tite, together with Professor Edward Hall and Dr. Robert Hedges of the Oxford laboratory, fronted the London gathering.


The official result: the Shroud dates from AD 1260-1390 with 95% confidence. The uncalibrated dates from the individual laboratories, with 1-sigma errors (68% confidence), were as follows:
Tucson: 646 ± 31 years;
Oxford: 750 ± 30 years,
Zurich: 676 ± 24 years
The weighted mean was 689 ± 16 years, which corresponds to calibrated ages of 1273-1288 with 68% confidence, and 1262-1384 with 95% confidence: the three scientists thus declared the odds 'astronomical' against the Shroud dating from the 1st century. The following February the official and complete report on the experiment, jointly authored by all twenty-one scientists who had participated in these results, was published in the highly-respected scientific journal Nature (Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin).

Not long afterwards Hall's Oxford laboratory received an anonymous funding of a million pounds, bringing into being a permanent professorship post that was immediately filled by Dr. Tite (and hordes of conspiracy theories circulating mainly among supporters of the Shroud), while Harwell's Libby method laboratory quietly went out of business.
Reply With Quote
  #351  
Old Aug 8, '12, 6:26 am
patrick457 patrick457 is offline
Forum Master
 
Join Date: September 7, 2006
Posts: 13,298
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Shroud of Turin

Quote:
Originally Posted by celluloid View Post
Thanks. Now to answer:

The author of the article in the OCE is Fr. Herbert Thurston S.J., a learned British Jesuit famous for being an objective and searching writer of exceptional knowledge in history, liturgy and hagiography, and later on the occult. He was however hardly sympathetic with the Shroud.

He first attacked the cloth in 1903 in two long articles for The Month, a scholarly Catholic publication. In it he detailed everything that had been said against the Shroud following Secondo Pia's photographs in continental Europe: he relied heavily on the arguments of French priest and historian Fr. Ulysse Chevalier who published the Pierre d'Arcis memorandum in 1900. In fact, as I mentioned on one former post (one of the ones I reposted) Thurston was also the man responsible for the English translation of the memorandum, which played fast and loose with the original text - not that Chevalier didn't when he published the 'transcription' of the memorandum, which actually exists in two different versions in the eyes of many. Both made heavy use of the memorandum in claiming the Shroud was a fraud, and both refused to accept the report of biologist Paul Vignon (originally a skeptic who eventually published a book on the Shroud in 1902 after studying Pia's photographs of the cloth in tandem with zoologist and agnostic Yves Delage from the French Academy of Sciences; the so-called Vignon markings were named after him BTW) who claimed that there was no paint on the cloth. Thurston wrote this:
It appears to me quite conceivable that the figure of Our Lord may have been originally painted in two different yellows, a bright glazed yellow for the lights and a brownish yellow for the shadows. What chemist would be bold enough to affirm that under the action of time and intense heat (like the fire of 1534) the two yellows may not have behaved very differently, the bright yellow blackening, the brown yellow fading?
So it became the case that for quite some time, anyone who picked up the Catholic Encyclopedia would have had to read an article on the Shroud by an author who is admittedly, rather biased against it. It was some forty-five years later that another Jesuit priest (this time an American) took the first steps leading to changing Thurston's article. Having read what was the first favorable article on the Shroud to appear in a standard Catholic reference work (the 1953 Enciclopedia Cattolica) Fr. Walter Abbott reported its details in the April 1955 issue of the American Ecclesiastical Review. The Italian article was written by two authors: Fr. Pietro Scotti of Genoa University, the priest-chemist who took part in the first International Congress of the Holy Shroud in 1950, and Fr. Alberto Vaccari, yet another Jesuit and a Scripture scholar at the Pontifical Biblical Institute. Scotti expressed the idea that providential circumstances had to occur for the blood stains to have been so etched so perfectly on the Shroud, which for him was the Resurrection; Vaccari meanwhile attempted to answer the argument made by some that the Shroud contradicts the gospel of John, which says that the body of Jesus was wrapped with othoniois '(linen) cloths', with a soudarion (from Latin sudarium, 'sweat-rag') placed over the head (20:7). This article influenced a number of English-speaking prelates, and shortly thereafter Abbott himself wrote a heavily pro-Shroud article for the supplement mailed to buyers of the CE.

It wasn't until the publication of the New Catholic Encyclopedia in 1968 that the article written by Thurston was replaced. The author of the new article was Fr. Adam J. Otterbein, C.Ss.R., Shroud enthusiast and co-founder of the United States Holy Shroud Guild. Otterbein attempted to present an evenly balanced statement of the known facts about the Shroud as he understood them from his mentor, Fr. Edward A. Wuenschel, C.SS.R. The article included a description of the cloth, various scientific studies that had been carried out with the help of the photographs, and discussions of the historical and scriptural problems. Otterbein's article was so influential that the Encyclopedia Brittanica gave a few lines on the existence of the relic in one of its periodic updates in the late 1960s, eventually including a short article on the Shroud in 1974.

Now the problem with Thurston's claim of many rival shrouds (an argument first expressed by François de Mely in 1902, who said that there were forty-two 'shrouds' in medieval Europe) is that many of the 'shrouds' existing in Europe were either merely medieval copies of the Lirey-Turin Shroud (cf. the one at Xabregas in Lisbon) or simple pieces of cloth (the one at Cadouin in Dordogne is historically one of the few serious rivals - and we know for sure now that it's medieval because of its design, as well as the fact that the Shahada and other Muslim texts are written on it in Kufic script!) To quote from here:
The Shroud Claimed as a Medieval Work of Art

To support his claim that the TS is a man-made icon, Vikan asserted that the TS is "in no way unique in appearance" and that "three dozen" similar cloths competed with it during the Middle Ages. These, he said, still share its striking faint and elusive image, seemingly produced by bodily secretions. It is a bold claim and seems to put an end to argument. But this claim is provably baseless. Vikan did not produce one example because, in fact, there is none. The claim of forty-two "medieval shrouds" was first announced in 1902 by François de Mely, who even named the towns whose inventories "mentioned" them. Most of Mely's "shrouds" were listed by a common formula, de sudario, meaning merely "a piece of the sudarium/shroud" known and often cited in Constantinople between 944 and 1204. Vikan has simply repeated Mely's error. All Mely's other "claimants" that can be seen today are artists' grotesque copies of the TS; none of them presents the realistic and faint image seen on the TS today. Don Luigi Fossati has produced photographs of 52 early painted copies of the TS (Fossati 1984).
Reply With Quote
  #352  
Old Aug 9, '12, 6:52 am
patrick457 patrick457 is offline
Forum Master
 
Join Date: September 7, 2006
Posts: 13,298
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Shroud of Turin

Let's put aside hypotheses for a moment and summarize what we know for sure about the Shroud.
1.) It is a rectangular piece of cloth, measuring approximately 4.4 × 1.1 m (14.3 × 3.7 ft), woven in a three-to-one herringbone twill composed of flax fibrils.

2.) Its most distinctive characteristic is the faint, yellowish image of a front and back view of a naked man with his hands folded across his groin. The two views are aligned along the midplane of the body and point in opposite directions. The front and back views of the head nearly meet at the middle of the cloth.

3.) It bears what looks reddish brown stains that are said to be blood. In addition to this, serum stains - invisible to the naked eye - have also been reported to be visible under ultraviolet photography. The blood on the Shroud purportedly showed a serum separation, visible as a lighter ring around a darker center.

4.) A very thin (180-600 nanometers thick, is thinner than most bacteria), clear polysaccharide residue coats the outermost-topmost fibers of the cloth. In places, that residue has changed into a caramel-like substance. And it is the brownish-yellowish color, here and there, that makes up the image we see. The images reside on sections of fibers that are at the surface or within one or two fibers deep from the surface: the image is actually thus very fragile.


Polysaccharide coating[/size]

5.) By contrast, there is no image below the 'blood' stains, which might suggest that the stains were formed before the image. We know this because there is no image under the stains: these acted to inhibit the image formation mechanism. Unlike the image proper, which is very fragile and superficial, these stains had seeped through the entire thickness of the cloth as a liquid material, reaching the opposite side.




6.) A second, faint face has been purportedly found at the back of the cloth in 2004. Like the image at the front, the back image is thin and superficial.


7.) Some factors of the Shroud is also being investigated, such as its three-dimensional properties and whatnot.

Oh, and something from Barrie Schwortz' site: a certain study on the cloth made in 1978-1981 by a rather, ahem, insignificant group named STuRP (Shroud of Turin Research Project).
Reply With Quote
  #353  
Old Jan 26, '13, 4:04 am
itullian itullian is offline
Banned
Greeter
Prayer Warrior
Forum Supporter
Book Club Member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2012
Posts: 9,823
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: Shroud of Turin

just wondering if theres anything new on it.
Reply With Quote
  #354  
Old Jan 26, '13, 4:19 am
patrick457 patrick457 is offline
Forum Master
 
Join Date: September 7, 2006
Posts: 13,298
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Shroud of Turin

Quote:
Originally Posted by itullian View Post
just wondering if theres anything new on it.
Well, Barrie Schwortz's Shroud website has just turned 17 on January 21.
Reply With Quote
  #355  
Old Jan 26, '13, 5:27 am
brb3 brb3 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: January 18, 2010
Posts: 3,972
Religion: catholic
Default Re: Shroud of Turin

Patrick 457..

If the Church asked your advice, on shrouds authenticity as 1st century garment, based on everything you know...... A.) what would it be & B.) what more could be done to be certain thereof ?
Also, have you seen it yourself...at what distance...and your thoughts on viewing the relic

FINALLY, what is the next scheduled view date(s) for public, and will the attendance be limited ?

THANKS ...
Reply With Quote
  #356  
Old Jan 26, '13, 7:26 am
GEddie GEddie is offline
Forum Elder
Book Club Member
 
Join Date: March 18, 2009
Posts: 52,128
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Shroud of Turin

Quote:
Originally Posted by brb3 View Post
Patrick 457..

If the Church asked your advice, on shrouds authenticity as 1st century garment, based on everything you know...... A.) what would it be & B.) what more could be done to be certain thereof ?
Also, have you seen it yourself...at what distance...and your thoughts on viewing the relic

FINALLY, what is the next scheduled view date(s) for public, and will the attendance be limited ?

THANKS ...
In 2025. Access is certain to be limited.

ICXC NIKA
Reply With Quote
  #357  
Old Jan 27, '13, 1:25 am
patrick457 patrick457 is offline
Forum Master
 
Join Date: September 7, 2006
Posts: 13,298
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Shroud of Turin

Quote:
Originally Posted by brb3 View Post
Patrick 457..

If the Church asked your advice, on shrouds authenticity as 1st century garment, based on everything you know...... A.) what would it be & B.) what more could be done to be certain thereof ?
Also, have you seen it yourself...at what distance...and your thoughts on viewing the relic

FINALLY, what is the next scheduled view date(s) for public, and will the attendance be limited ?

THANKS ...
Now that's a very unlikely scenario right there (why should the Church pick me of all people? ), but if you're asking me what I think about the Shroud, I would .say that I personally believe that it is possibly authentic, emphasis on 'possibly.' I won't pretend to think that it is 100% authentic (I would put the chances at around 80-90%,), but in my own personal opinion the arguments in its favor are more persuasive than the arguments against it.

No, I haven't had the chance to see it yet (I'm the quintessential penniless student - where could a twenty-year old like me get money to buy a ticket to fly to the other side of the globe? ) so I can't comment on how it looks IRL. As for what could be done to the relic, on the one hand I would like scientific tests to be taken on it, but on the other hand there's also that concern that doing so would cause some damage to the cloth.

Eddie noted that the next exhibition will be on 2025, coinciding with the next Holy Year. That was the original plan when the 2000 exhibition was held: however, in 2008, the Pope agreed with the Archbishop of Turin's request that the date be moved up - as a consequence, the cloth was exhibited in 2010. They might still show it in 2025, but I'm not totally sure.
Reply With Quote
  #358  
Old Jan 29, '13, 11:34 am
humble_catholic humble_catholic is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: March 14, 2010
Posts: 494
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Shroud of Turin

First of all the letter had to have been wrong because the illustration on the hungarian pray codex is dated from 1192 and thats 200 years before the letter..

The mandylion is most likely also the shroud of turin, since it was folded twice in 4's and that at least is dated from the 6th century and if you follow the legend of akbar it goes all the way back to Christ. The connection between the shroud and the mandylion is talked about here.

http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com...-of-turin.html




[Above: Tetradiplon and the Shroud of Turin illustrated: The full-length Shroud of Turin (1), is doubled four times (2 through 5), resulting in Jesus' face within a rectangle, in landscape aspect (5), exactly as depicted in the earliest copies of the Image of Edessa, the 11th century Sakli church, Turkey (6) and the 10th century icon of King Abgar V of Edessa holding the Image of Edessa, St. Catherine's monastery, Sinai (7).]

what I had previously realised, but had forgotten, that Dan's "Tetradiplon" graphic illustrating how the Shroud of Turin, when



Tetradiplon," The Definitive Shroud of Turin FAQ, Dan Porter, 2009. Note that this otherwise useful illustration of how the Greek word tetradiplon ("four doubled" when applied to the Shroud, results in Jesus' face within a rectangle in landscape aspect, exactly as it is in the 10th century St. Catherine's monastery icon of Edessa's King Abgar V holding the Image of Edessa, shows only three doublings of the Shroud.]

"four-doubled" (Greek tetradiplon), with Jesus' face uppermost, results in Jesus' face only within a rectangle, in landscape aspect (exactly as in the oldest copies of the Image of Edessa), has a flaw in that it only shows three doublings of the Shroud (see above).

Even Ian Wilson's illustrations of this in his books (e.g. "The Evidence of the Shroud," 1986, p.113; "Holy Faces, Secret Places," 1991, p.142; "The Blood and the Shroud," 1998, p.153; "The Turin Shroud," 2000, p.111; and "The Shroud," 2010, p.141), show the Shroud doubled only three times.

But some months ago I cut out a photo of the Shroud and proved to myself that the Shroud can be doubled four times in such a way that it results in Jesus' face in a rectangular segment of the cloth, in landscape aspect, exactly as it is in early copies of the Image of Edessa. Here I will show how it can be done, in what is a reasonable way to fold a long cloth, minimising strain at its fold edges.

[Right: The Shroud full-length: ShroudScope, Durante 2002, Vertical]



Try it yourself: 1) print out a full-length photo of the Shroud; 2) cut out the Shroud from the page; 3) fold the cutout of the Shroud in two between the two head images, with the front head image (face) uppermost; 4) then, as described below, fold the doubled Shroud cutout three more times (making a total of four doublings), with the face image always uppermost; and 5) you hold in your hand a copy of the Image of Edessa or Mandylion - a portrait of Jesus' head within a rectangle, in landscape aspect!

part 2 coming
Reply With Quote
  #359  
Old Jan 29, '13, 11:45 am
ajecphotos's Avatar
ajecphotos ajecphotos is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2012
Posts: 1,440
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Shroud of Turin

Really dont know what to say about the shroud. Not sure if it is fake or not. I am sure the Vatican know but wont let on. Thats my gut feeling.
Reply With Quote
  #360  
Old Jan 29, '13, 11:59 am
GEddie GEddie is offline
Forum Elder
Book Club Member
 
Join Date: March 18, 2009
Posts: 52,128
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Shroud of Turin

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajecphotos View Post
Really dont know what to say about the shroud. Not sure if it is fake or not. I am sure the Vatican know but wont let on. Thats my gut feeling.
While I don't deal in "gut", I imagine that those in command fully understand that the Shroud can never be authenticated. Science can never prove it was ever wrapped around our LORD. Full stop.

At the same time, if the Shroud had been disproven, the Vatican would not keep that secret. It has no interest in continuing mass devotion surrounding a disproven relic. For that reason, we can safely say it has NOT been disproven.

But since since can never prove the shroud authentic, and further chemical tests can only further damage it (however minorly), the Church has no reason to perform them.

ICXC NIKA
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8570Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: SueZee
5242CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: tawny
4436Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: DesertSister62
4037OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: eschator83
3899Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: RJB
3876SOLITUDE
Last by: tuscany
3467Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: grateful_child
3318Poems and Reflections
Last by: PathWalker
3237Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: 4elise
3172For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: SueZee



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 3:43 am.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.