Do you believe the Shroud of Turin is real?

[JReducation]

I was not aware of this.

Now that you tell the story again, I recall reading about Francis’ “nails”, and other details, but the fact that the wounds were on his wrists instead of hands was forgotten or not known.

Complicates the issue, indeed! Arggh. That is really a tough one indeed!!

This may keep me up tonight.

As the angel said to Augustine when he was trying to figure out the Trinity, “Go to bed.”

OK, so it’s not an exact quote, but close enough. LOL

Fraternally,

JR

 

[po18guy]

Does this mean you don’t believe in St. Pio’s stigmata? His stigmata are in a different location than the wounds on the shroud. How can you not believe in a man canonized by the Catholic Church?

I can’t see any way to reconcile this issue. That’s the big problem for me. And, there are several inconsistencies related to the shroud.

Definitely, it is an enigma.

1. The history of man is permeated by inconsistencies. History books, all written by “experts” are inconsistent in their conclusions. “Biblical scholars” argue for years on end about inconsistencies in their opinions and conclusions. “Expert” testimony in both civil and criminal trials is always inconsistent. So?
2. The Church did not declare Padre Pio or anyone else to be a Saint. They simply recognize what God had already accomplished.
3. A difference in the pattern or location of stigmata has nothing to do with nothing, except perhaps with obsessive/compulsive behavior that demands they all be alike.
4. Being obedient, I believe that which the Church has declared to be true, beginning with the Gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the bible. Skepticism can erase faith.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

For many years, the Church allowed the Shroud to be Displayed in the Chapel of Turin. Obviously, the Church allows the faithful to place their own faith in the authenticity. If the Church did not believe there was some level of authenticity, why display it at all, in a Church no less?

Did the Church merely use the Shroud as a tourist scheme to generate revenue?

Jim

 

[CWBetts]

For many years, the Church allowed the Shroud to be Displayed in the Chapel of Turin. Obviously, the Church allows the faithful to place their own faith in the authenticity. If the Church did not believe there was some level of authenticity, why display it at all, in a Church no less?

Did the Church merely use the Shroud as a tourist scheme to generate revenue?

Jim

I think I see waht you were saying: If the Shroud is not authentic, then the Church is corrupt for not forbidding it? Am i correct? Again my faith lies with the Shroud being genuine until the CHurch says otherwise.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I think I see waht you were saying: If the Shroud is not authentic, then the Church is corrupt for not forbidding it? Am i correct? Again my faith lies with the Shroud being genuine until the CHurch says otherwise.

Agreed.

Jim

 

[mouse_has_faith]

The microscopic detail in the image is inexplicable by human standards. This points to a supernatural origin.

Not really. There are a couple things done in antiquity (e.g. Roman underwater harbours, etc.) or even in the medieval period that we have only rediscovered lately; i.e. gold filigree and faience only recently has come up to the standards of that done by the Minoans, who were able to apply extremely small details, or even “microscopic” details, that modern technology has only recently caught up with.

 

[Joysong]

JReducation:

The problem here is that the stigmata of St. Francis, which to the best of my knowledge is the only stigmata that the Church has publicly put up for veneration and included in her liturgical calendar, …

This should be clarified. The “veneration” is not on the Church’s liturgical calendar, but only on the calendar for the Franciscan order. Similarly, Carmelites have their own special liturgies for their saints which are not on the Church’s liturgical calendar, understandably.

There are many extraordinary occurrences on which the Chuch has not ruled. For example, the stigmata of Padre Pio. The Church has never ruled that it is a legitimate miracle or that it is not. … One can choose to believe that his stigmata was a miracle or a psychological occurrence.

I think JR is making distinctions that are rather misleading in order to minimize the stigmatas of other saints to exalt that of St. Francis. As was discussed previously in another thread, this is an affront and insult to God. St. Pio has only been recently canonized, and the Capuchins may some day similarly celebrate his stigmata in their own liturgical calendar [not that this would therefore elevate St. Pio to St. Francis’s stature, nor is the absence of a separate liturgy for St. Pio’s stigmata proof that St. Francis is greater. ]

In a special presentation on EWTN about Padre Pio at the time of his feast in September, the journalist told Padre Pio about a skeptic who did not understand the reality of his stigmatized hands and feet. He believed it physically resulted from extreme meditation on Our Lord’s wounds. Padre Pio gave a fantastic reply, “Well tell him to think exceedingly about “bull,” and we’ll see whether he grows horns!”

Padre Pio did not bleed constantly and had use of his hands.

This too, is inaccurate information that deprecates the stigmata of St. Pio. The church has thoroughly investigated and we find this in one of the more recent reports:

In his report the apostolic visitor says that there was no festering in Padre Pio’s wounds, they did not close and did not heal. The remained inexplicably open and bloody, despite the fact that the friar had tried to stop the bleeding by treating them with iodine.
It is impossible to think that for 60 years Padre Pio could have caused himself these wounds of the same definite shape.
“Further, the wounds emitted the intense odor of violets rather than the fetid stench that degenerative processes, tissue necrosis or infections usually cause.”

zenit.org/article-23688?l=english

I would like to mention another stigmatic, a Doctor of the Church, St. Catherine of Siena, who requested that the reality of her stigmata be hidden, and the Lord granted her petition.

It is important to avoid exalting one saint above another using comparisons that are formed because of personal veneration, as though one’s beloved saint is greater in God’s or the Church’s estimation than another.

 

[Xenos8]

No. The face is too narrow and the burial customs of the Jews was not to just lay a cloth over the body.

Check out John 19:40 and 20:6-7 and other verses that talk about it. If you want to know truth just read the bible.
Here’s a site: keyway.ca/htm2005/20050210.htm

 

[bilop]

Does this mean you don’t believe in St. Pio’s stigmata? His stigmata are in a different location than the wounds on the shroud. How can you not believe in a man canonized by the Catholic Church?

I can’t see any way to reconcile this issue. That’s the big problem for me. And, there are several inconsistencies related to the shroud.

Definitely, it is an enigma.

It is very possible that Padre Pio’s stigmata appeared on his palms, b/c that is where he would have expected them. Depictions of the Crucifixion usually show the nails through the palms, so God may have put them there so as not to confuse.

God is not bound to respect the historical facts. The stigmata are a sign to us, so would be placed in a way to maximize the sign value.

God Bless

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Xenos

No. The face is too narrow and the burial customs of the Jews was not to just lay a cloth over the body.

According to the gospels, the bodies of the condemned had to be removed from the crosses, because the Sabbath was upon them.

Being the case, Jesus would’ve been wrapped in a cloth that was available rather than the traditional burial cloth, because the shops would’ve been closed. Also from the gospels, we read how the three women went to the tomb with fresh linen and spices, to bury Jesus according to custom. The linen was probably the traditional burial cloth.

A Jewish convert to Catholicism, Rebecca S. Jackson and her husband, John P.Jackson, Ph.D. who was the part of the American team to study the Shroud first hand, was on EWTN one night. Mrs Jackson believes that the Shroud burial cloth represents a table cloth, that perhaps was used at the last supper. She points out that it is 12ft long, and in the center, there appears to be stains from food that were placed on the table, in a C-shape, which would be in line with the Seder.

Their website can be found here;

shroudofturin.com/services1.html

Jim

 

[AMDGtoo]

the burial customs of the Jews was not to just lay a cloth over the body.

That’s why it’s important to view relationship of the Sudarium of Oviedo and the Shroud.

shroud.com/guscin.htm

 

[Xenos8]

John 19:40 Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.

To the best of my knowledge they wrapped up the body like a mummy and covered the head with a cloth, maybe the prayer shawl. That alone means the shroud can’t be real. It doesn’t fit the bible and the Jewish burial customs.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

When Jesus body was placed in the tomb after being taken down from the cross, it was prepared according to Jewish law for bodies which had to lie in wait for the Sabbath to be over, before receiving the final burial.

Otherwise the woman would not have had to return to the tomb on Sunday.

It was the day of preparation, and the sabbath was about to begin.

The women who had come from Galilee with him followed behind, and when they had seen the tomb and the way in which his body was laid in it, they returned and prepared spices and perfumed oils. Then they rested on the sabbath according to the commandment.

But at daybreak on the first day of the week they took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb.
They found the stone rolled away from the tomb; but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. Luke 23:53-Luke 24:1-3.

Keep in mind that none of the Apostles were at the tomb when Jesus body was placed in it, nor on Sunday, when the women returned to anoint the body.

So the exact chronological order and details can only be speculated.

Jim

 

[mouse_has_faith]

AMDGtoo, I noticed you conveniently ignored my last message questioning the academic validity of those websites, and here you are using them again as “proof”.
“shroud.com”, the same site you used earlier, is hardly an unbiased exemplar of academic excellence.

 

[AMDGtoo]

covered the head with a cloth.

The sudarium–the “sister cloth” of the Shroud (and in Jewish burial practices, it is put around the head if there is even the slightest disfiguration). I believe that all of the Gospels mention it.

Although the Sudarium of Oveido is quite lesser known and doesn’t have the dramatic body image that the Shroud does, it does have the documented history and it matches the blood type and head stains on the Shroud itself! (Not to mention the pollen in Jerusalem–some of which is now extinct.)

 

[AMDGtoo]

AMDGtoo, I noticed you conveniently ignored my last message questioning the academic validity of those websites, and here you are using them again as “proof”.
“shroud.com”, the same site you used earlier, is hardly an unbiased exemplar of academic excellence.

The question was about whether one believes in the authenticity of the Shroud–not whether one believes in revisionist textbooks of someone that have an “axe to grind”. You want to believe those text books–that’s your choice, but I choose not to. When I was considering the authenticity of the Shroud, I found it quite interesting that there was a Sudarium, that it was located in Oviedo, and that tests were even conducted on it. And I surely don’t believe that that the existence of the Sudarium should be hidden.

You have some textbooks (revisionist or not) that note any studies on the Sudarium–that is the napkin or head cloth that is the “sister cloth” of the Shroud? Or is it your idea to have everyone not even consider it or relics in general?

 

[JReducation]

This should be clarified. The “veneration” is not on the Church’s liturgical calendar, but only on the calendar for the Franciscan order. Similarly, Carmelites have their own special liturgies for their saints which are not on the Church’s liturgical calendar, understandably.

This is true, but these liturgical calendars must be approved by the Church.

I think JR is making distinctions that are rather misleading in order to minimize the stigmatas of other saints to exalt that of St. Francis. As was discussed previously in another thread, this is an affront and insult to God. St. Pio has only been recently canonized, and the Capuchins may some day similarly celebrate his stigmata in their own liturgical calendar [not that this would therefore elevate St. Pio to St. Francis’s stature, nor is the absence of a separate liturgy for St. Pio’s stigmata proof that St. Francis is greater. ]

This is a big assumption and a serious accusation. You can feel free to make it. My statement was a comparison of the two stigmatas in relation to the wounds on the shroud, not a comparison of their merit.

What makes Padre Pio’s stigmata worthy of believe is his holiness. That cannot be taken away. No one is disputing this. Paul was comparing the position of the wounds on the shroud to their position on Padre Pio’s body. I simply mentioned that Francis, who is the first known stigmatist, had the wounds on the wrists, as are those on the shroud. Therefore, the shroud cannot be validated or denied by the position of the wounds, because they are different in different persons. St. Faustina also had the stigmata, but like Catherine’s they were not visible.

In a special presentation on EWTN about Padre Pio at the time of his feast in September, the journalist told Padre Pio about a skeptic who did not understand the reality of his stigmatized hands and feet. He believed it physically resulted from extreme meditation on Our Lord’s wounds. Padre Pio gave a fantastic reply, “Well tell him to think exceedingly about “bull,” and we’ll see whether he grows horns!”

No one has denied the veracity of Padre Pio’s wounds. But our Superiors General and our General Council do not wish to make any comments about them. They rather focus on Pio’s great holiness and simplicity. So should we.

This too, is inaccurate information that deprecates the stigmata of St. Pio.

You’re seeing deprecation everywhere.

The bleeding was different. Padre Pio’s wounds were bloody. According to Bonaventure, Francis’ wounds bled profusely and had nails in them. That is the difference between them.

It is important to avoid exalting one saint above another using comparisons that are formed because of personal veneration, as though one’s beloved saint is greater in God’s or the Church’s estimation than another.

No one is exorting any saint. I was stating something written by the Seraphic Doctor Bonaventure about our spiritual father in response to a statement about the shroud. We were not comparing saints. We were comparing the wounds on the shroud. There is a difference.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[Joysong]

This is a big assumption and a serious accusation. You can feel free to make it. My statement was a comparison of the two stigmatas in relation to the wounds on the shroud, not a comparison of their merit.

Well, JR, I think that insinuating the word “psychological” in relation to St. Pio’s stigmata, and elevating that of St. Francis’s by citing a Church feast in honor of it, surely seems like you are exalting one above the other.

The bleeding was different. Padre Pio’s wounds were bloody. According to Bonaventure, Francis’ wounds bled profusely and had nails in them. That is the difference between them.

There it is again. St. Francis’s were more authentic because HE had the nails, but Pio did not. You have esteemed this in writing elsewhere, as well.

I would have overlooked this matter completely had it not been for conversations we had about St. Francis in another thread. You fail to realize how often, and in how many posts you put St. Francis on a level beyond mere veneration. If you forget the incidences, I will send them to you by P.M., for they are very real.

It is praiseworthy to feel a keen devotion to St. Francis and venerate him, especially since that is your vocation as a secular Franciscan. But some of us just think it is dangerously close to … well, best I leave it unsaid. Kindly take this to prayer, if you really don’t see my point.

 

[buffalo]

The US Air Force created a three dimensional model of the shroud, now on display at the Air Force Academy Chapel.

Here is a link

 

[JReducation]

Well, JR, I think that insinuating the word “psychological” in relation to St. Pio’s stigmata, and elevating that of St. Francis’s by citing a Church feast in honor of it, surely seems like you are exalting one above the other. I would have overlooked it completely had it not been for conversations we had about this previously in another thread. You fail to realize how often, and in how many posts you put St. Francis on a level beyond mere veneration. If you forget the incidences, I will send them to you by P.M., for they are very real.

It is praiseworthy to feel a keen devotion to St. Francis and venerate him, especially since that is your vocation as a secular Franciscan. But some of us just think it is dangerously close to … well, best I leave it unsaid. Kindly take this to prayer, if you really don’t see my point.

I never insinuated that Padre Pio’s stigmata was psychological. This was a concern of the Franciscan superiors of the four orders. Notice that I use “was”. The subject is no longer a matter of discussion, as his holiness is beyond dispute, which is the most important matter.

As to my love for Francis of Assisi, it is neither idolotry nor fantasy. When one finds a guide who leads you to live as Christ lived, you not only grab his hand and let him lead you, but you also point him out to others who are looking for a good teacher.

St. Bonaventure wrote three works on this same topic, his Biography of St. Francis; the Soul’s Journey Into God, in which he uses Francis’ spiritual journey to God to explain how the human soul enters into communion with the Divine; and the Disciple and the Master; a collection of six-years of sermons that he preached on Francis of Assisi. In each of his sermons he attempt to point out that Francis is a composite between the Patriarchs of Israel, the Prophets, the Apostles, and Jesus.

Bonaventure attempts to explain to the world that Francis is not only for the Order that he founded, but a teacher and guide for the world. Bonaventure begins and ends his six-years of sermons on Francis with the following statement.

“St. Francis can rightly say: ‘Learn from me,’ that is, take me as your model of discipleship, for I am a true disciple of Christ.” (Bonaventure. The Disciple and the Master, pg. 63)

For those who are fortunate enough to have found a way to live the Gospel, Bonaventure’s words are unnecessary. They have found their path. But for many who are looking for a way to live the Gospel, the words of Bonaventure are like gold, because they propose a singular spiritual master that the world needs.

Fraternally,

JR