An Analogy between Christ’s Holy Shroud and Divine Revelation

Excellent article by Fr. Armand de Malleray, FSSP.

Let us recall a few sindonological discoveries. It took nineteen centuries to realise that the Shroud is a photographic negative: inversing paler and darker areas reveals the actual picture. Further analysis established that the depiction results from irradiation, not from the application of pigments upon the linen material. Later on, the image was found to be three-dimensional, allowing the shaping of a resin model of Our Lord’s Body as when it was lying wrapped in the Shroud. Anomalies such as the absence of thumbs on either hand were explained, while microscopic examination found diverse pollens from the Middle-East stuck in the fibres of the cloth


What exactly is revealed and what is supposed to be further revealed to contribute to our salvation ,by analysing the the shroud? That Christ indeed died and resurrected? Are there not sufficient materials and proofs in the Bible ? Is it necessary or of any use to go after these type of evidences to prove or convince anything to the believers or to the doubting people? It would appear to be better to use the energy and time spent for this to do some other things which can really help in salvation.

It’s an interesting article with quite a unique thesis. There is no question that the Shroud contributes to our salvation. You might be interested in

1 Like

Pl.understand that the shroud is not free from controversy.Better not to rely on it for the purpose of deepening our faith Our faith is not depend upon such visible evidences…
See an article in this regard:

No, the Shroud is not free from controversy but this shouldn’t be a metric for what may deepen our faith. Many have had their faith & wonder developed or otherwise renewed by the Shroud and there’s nothing inherently wrong with this.

The article you posted is almost 15 years old. There have been many interesting developments in Shroud analysis since then. Here’s a newer piece which might interest you:

1 Like

I’m understanding this article by the padre to be one in promotion of “development of doctrine.”

The relevant thing is not how old the information is but the truth exposed there.If you want recent,this is one:

Of course, but an article which is close to fifteen years old and therefore missing a swathe of new developments in the study of the Shroud isn’t particularly helpful.

Thanks for the article on the Borrini BPA paper which challenged the authenticity of the blood stains. I’m familiar with this. It’s been questioned and is directly refuted in a more recent study which is the subject of the Lifesite article I posted a link to above.

My advice is that an embarrassing situation can be avoided in future when it is proved by some independent scientific authority that it is indeed
fraud only, if we avoid giving undue importance to it now itself.More over the existence of such a one piece shroud is against Bible because it clearly says about finding of ‘clothes’ and the cloth covering the head etc inside the sepulchre…

This is a hilarious distraction from militant atheists. Modern science simply fails to replicate the Shroud, and all of its intricacies, utilizing technology available to people in the first through 15th centuries.

They are nipping at the edges. They can’t explain how ancient or “medieval” peoples created a negative image that was only visible to photographic technology.


This was a medical analysis of the Shroud, albeit from a trained expert who did not directly test the sacred cloth:

The Most Comprehensive Presention on the Shroud on YouTube 2

There are a few associated videos from this talk, filmed and posted in increments.

1 Like

Answer to the Article 'A BPA Approach to the Shroud of Turin

First of all, neither author is a forensic physician, so they lack the experience and knowledge necessary to successfully deal with any kind of investigation with human blood stains.

The “experiments” have been conducted on a living and healthy human being, without traumatic wounds of any kind and with a dummy vaguely reminiscent of a human trunk. But if it is not done with a living human being who has suffered the same wounds and the same chronology as the Man of the Shroud, nor with a corpse that meets the same requirements, then the experiment does NOT reproduce, not even approximately, the circumstances in which the blood stains originated.

This article repeats the idea that Raymond Rogers demonstrated that there are “invisible repairs” on the Shroud of Turin, and that this explains the Carbon-14 dating that showed the shroud to be medieval. I wish though that Fr. Malleray, had commented on the 2002 examination, where (during a restoration) a textile expert concluded that there were no signs of repair in that area where the sample had been taken from as would have been expected.

Again with the Shroud of Turin, pious excitement seems to drive most narratives about it, rather than a dispassionate search for truth.

The Shroud of Turin remains fascinating to me. And there is no doubt at all that its a venerable icon in the Catholic Church, but I have a lot of doubts about whether its a relic.

If anyone wants a more critical approach to the question of whether the Shroud of Turin is a genuine relic, I recommend the posts by @Hugh_Farey on this forum in this thread. Its a very highlighting read, that illustrates a lot of discoveries many Shroud enthusiasts aren’t aware of, yet without being condescending or lacking respect of people who believe that the Shroud of Turin is the shroud Christ was cloaked in when He was Ressurected.

Thanks for the article. The Magis Center and Fr. Spitzer have some interesting articles on the Shroud too here:

One of the many protocols that the British Museum violated im 1988 was their obligation to share the raw C-14 data from the Shroud with another institution for the statistical analysis of that evidence.
In their 2015 book* Fanti and Malfi took exactly the same data that the Museum used and found that this evidence did not pass a robust statistical analysis for indicating any date at all. They concluded that that the Shroud’s 1988 C-14 evidence was “scientifically meaningless.” They further commented that, if one insisted on assigning a date for the Shroud using this evidence, it would be 1325 A.D. with an uncertainty factor of about 20,000 years.

Using three new methods of dating linen fibers, Fanti and Malfi obtained a date of 35 B.C. for the Shroud with an uncertainty factor of about 250 years.

BTW, the so-called “researcher” that you cited has shown himself to have a strong prejudice against the idea that Jesus ever actually worked any real miracles and has repeatedly contradicted legitimate Shroud evidence obtained by STURP and other scientists without ever having examined that cloth himself.


1 Like

Can you point out where they signed such a protocol, or violated it?

Since you’re just repeating old claims that have already been discussed in another thread, I’ll just supply the answers that were given there.

" Antonacci was quite incorrect, as so often in both his books, but I think he was misled rather than deliberately misleading. He lists sixteen results from the three labs, and then claims that the two extreme results were rejected as outliers. (Test The Shroud, p 311). This is completely untrue. The oldest (795) was from Oxford, and is quoted in the Nature paper, unrejected, while the youngest (540), was not an independent measurement, but one of two measurements taken of a single sample. Those two measurements were averaged (giving 606), as were the other three pairs from the other three samples. The youngest age from the twelve independent samples was 591. I hope this helps.

Far from fudging their report, the British Museum noticed and pointed out that the Shroud measurements from the three laboratories were slightly anomalous, and then explained what they did to reconcile them. The paper published in Nature is easily readable, and may be found at" - Hugh Farey

The theology of the Shroud is incomplete. In the Gospel of Mathew the Sign of Jonah is defined as: “Just as Jonah was in the belly of the great fish for three days and three nights, so will the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights.”
Here the Sign of Jonah is about our Lord’s burial, and that presents a problem. For while Jonah’s burial in the fish was a miracle, there is nothing on the face of it that is miraculous about Jesus’ burial. It was nothing more than a hurried Jewish internment. The noted German theologian, Beate Kowalski, concludes that the Sign of Jonah in Matthew is an enigma.*

The Shroud’s 1988 C-14 evidence provides the answer to this mystery. Since that evidence did not indicate a first century date, and since the theories about various forms of contamination or reweaving have been eliminated, the Shroud’s C-14 content must have been enhanced by neutron radiation. The Gospel of Matthew says that Jesus’ corpse had vanished from His tomb. Evidence on the Shroud indicates that the cloth had not been pulled away from the corpse but that the corpse had been removed prior to becoming putrefied. The conclusion is that the vanishing of Jesus’ corpse into another dimension resulted in a residual neutron radiation which enhanced the Shroud’s C-14 content.**

So the Shroud of Turin is the Sign of Jonah because contains the miraculous image of Jesus as He lay buried in His tomb. That is the miracle that is associated with His burial.

Beate Kowalski

**TEST THE SHROUD, Antonacci, 2015

This hypothesis it does have the admitted possibility of being falsified if a sample is taken from the center of the shroud and that in turn is subjected to a Carbon-14 dating, because then that (because of its closer proximity) would have such an anomalously high content of Carbon-14 that you would get a date for it in the future.

Personally I think its sounds a bit like circular reasoning driven more by pious excitement about the Shroud of Turin, than a dispassionate approach to the evidence.

The Catholic Church has been wise to consider whether the relic is genuine an open question, and has at least since Pope Benedict XVIth consistently referred to it as an icon.

That demonstrates the immense prestige of the British Museum. Even the Church is reluctant to contradict its proclamations.
Academics such as Kowalski cannot postulate the obvious answer to the enigma of the Sign of Jonah in Matthew for fear of being labeled a “flat-earther” in academia. Likewise in THE TRADITION OF THE IMAGE OF EDESSA Mark Guscin cannot say that the Image is the Shroud of Turin although privately he firmly believes it to be so.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit