Shroud of Turin: fake once again?

[BartholomewB]

Emanuela Marinelli, a rival Shroud expert, has cast serious doubt on the findings of the Borrini-Garlaschelli experiment.
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/new...ises-new-study-casting-doubt-on-authenticity/

 

[Genesis315]

I don’t know too much about the Shroud to comment authoritatively on it’s authenticity, but wouldn’t the way the blood is arranged be part of the miracle creating the image? So isn’t this like saying Christ didn’t rise because dead bodies coming to life is totally unrealistic?

 

[MarcoPG]

Not necessarily, or the blood arrangement would have (maybe) a deeper meaning; in any case, I wouldn’t say its arrangement has to be miraculous as well.

And an event cannot explain itself. One cannot say it’s a miracle because it is a miracle, at least not seriously and not before being sure it is one.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Hi Marco,

Responding to your specific question about the correspondence between Bishop Pierre d’Arcis of Troyes and the Pope’s response, at the end of the 14th century, you can find most of it, in its original Latin, on archive.org, in a pamphlet published in 1900 by Ulysse Chevalier called “Étude Critique sur l’Origine du St Suaire de Lirey-Chambéry-Turin”. Translations are more difficult to come across, as they tend to have been copied from source to source, somewhat selectively. Typing “The case, Most Holy Father, stands thus” into Google will give you a variety of interpretations, and refutations, for that matter.

As to the Pope’s precise instructions about how the Shroud was permitted to be displayed, they are rarely translated, and what follows is my own.

"“As long as an ostentation lasts, no capes, surplices, albs, copes or any other kind of ecclesiastical garments or accoutrements are to be worn, nor any of the solemnities usual to the ostentation of relics performed. Torches, candles and tapers must be kept to a minimum, and no other kind of illumination used instead. And throughout the display of the said image, whenever a large crowd of people has gathered, it is to be formally announced to them, in a loud, clear voice, with no obfuscation, that the image or representation before them is not the true Shroud of our Lord Jesus Christ, but a painting or canvas made in the form of or as a representation of the said Shroud, of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

I hope this helps.

 

[mythbuster1]

Sure blood can go up from an open wound. It’s called capillary action: you can observe it using a transparent straw.

 

[mythbuster1]

It’s burned on. You can observe this phenomenon if you leave a cathode ray tube TV in front of a wall for a few years: an image of the back of the TV burns into the wall behind it from the X-rays.

 

[MarcoPG]

What would play the role of the straw or tube if there was capillary action in this instance? The blood vessels?

 

[MarcoPG]

Not any other method could burn an image on cloth?

 

[Telstar]

Not any other method could burn an image on cloth?

The only other obvious method that could have spontaneously burned that image onto the cloth is the effect of the light radiation that was produced by the Resurrection of the Son of God.

 

[MarcoPG]

So why did the Pope say that it must be told the pilgrims or crowd that it is a representation, as previously written by Hugh_Farey?

“[…] whenever a large crowd of people has gathered, it is to be formally announced to them, in a loud, clear voice, with no obfuscation, that the image or representation before them is not the true Shroud of our Lord Jesus Christ, but a painting or canvas made in the form of or as a representation of the said Shroud, of our Lord Jesus Christ”.

 

[mythbuster1]

The fibers on the shroud.

 

[MarcoPG]

It seems that was ordered by Clement VII, antipope…it doesn’t Show anything with certainty, but May hint to the political or economical interest of some powerful Frenchman…

 

[Telstar]

So why did the Pope say that it must be told the pilgrims or crowd that it is a representation, as previously written by Hugh_Farey?

“[…] whenever a large crowd of people has gathered, it is to be formally announced to them, in a loud, clear voice, with no obfuscation, that the image or representation before them is not the true Shroud of our Lord Jesus Christ, but a painting or canvas made in the form of or as a representation of the said Shroud, of our Lord Jesus Christ”.

Because, in the 14th century there was absolutely no scientific means to test the Shroud to find out if it really was painted or not. So, some Joe Yokel comes along, looking to make a name for himself, and claims he painted it. And, rather than erring on the side of pious caution, the Pope decided to believe him, God knows why. I have no idea if the Pope was just extremely naive, or if he had ulterior motives to deny it’s authenticity. But, it’s certainly obvious that after so many scientists, specifically in the past 40ish years, have completely ruled that out as a possibility, why do you and so many others keep bringing it up as if it had any credence whatsoever? Just because a Pope said it? You do realize that the Pope can make mistakes, particularly concerning something that is so far out of his realm of expertise, don’t you?

Did you even read any of the scientific reports that I posted from Father Spitzer’s website? They clearly explain that it’s impossible that anyone could have painted it, because there is no evidence of any kind of paint, or stain, or any other kind of medium applied to the cloth, except in the very few places where the nuns repaired it after the fire. One of those areas just happened to be the place where the 1978 team decided to take their samples for carbon dating (coincidence?).

 

[MarcoPG]

Where do you read that I am affirming anything, or itsontrary?A pope isn’t an authority on this, but he shouldn’t be dismissed if he is careful. And since it is an unclear case, I am asking informations on why it was believed to be true or false. Sure, I have read the reports, but we also know the cloth is apparently from the Middle Ages. If the measuring and carbon dating was made on a newer piece which was used to repair the shroud, is it so difficult to do another carbon dating?
This would be very useful.

 

[Telstar]

I’m sorry, but it seemed to me that the subject of the 14th century story of it being a painting had already been debunked up-thread, yet you were bringing it back up, again. I have no idea what “itsontrary” means. It doesn’t seem to be a real word, so I’m not sure what you meant by it, or if it was just a typo. (I looked it up on Google… no help there. )

Like I said, from what I read about it in the past, it was the result of political posturing between a couple of local churches in the area where the story originated. You are absolutely correct that there should be a repeat done of the carbon dating tests, but the Church is very hesitant to approve of any more cutting of samples from the cloth, for obvious reasons. It is a Holy Relic that the Church wishes to preserve intact. Besides, there are other means of testing developed over the past 20 years or so that are far less invasive and much more accurate. But, again, coordinating an effort to do any more testing will depend on the Church’s approval, including that of the local Bishop.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

The fibers in the cloth

 

[MarcoPG]

I meant “its contrary”. It isn’t always easy to write on a mobile phone with German as the default language. Anyway, one thing:

You say: "[…] a repeat done of the carbon dating tests, but the Church is very hesitant to approve of any more cutting of samples from the cloth, for obvious reasons. It is a Holy Relic that the Church wishes to preserve intact. "

I think the tet is more important then having a small piece of cloth removed. Otherwise, the Church wouldn’t have permitted the removal for the first tests done almost 30 years ago (1989).
The problem with the other methods is that they do not seem to be conclusive, whereas another carbon dating on a proper piece would tell a lot.

 

[Telstar]

I meant “its contrary”. It isn’t always easy to write on a mobile phone with German as the default language.

Ahhh! Now, that makes much more sense to me! I wasn’t sure if it was some kind of new ‘internet lingo’ that I’d never seen used before.

You say: "[…] a repeat done of the carbon dating tests, but the Church is very hesitant to approve of any more cutting of samples from the cloth, for obvious reasons. It is a Holy Relic that the Church wishes to preserve intact. "

I think the tet is more important then having a small piece of cloth removed. Otherwise, the Church wouldn’t have permitted the removal for the first tests done almost 30 years ago (1989).
The problem with the other methods is that they do not seem to be conclusive, whereas another carbon dating on a proper piece would tell a lot.

Well, maybe from a purely scientific POV, it might seem like it would be a very simple solution to clear up the controversy. But, when you consider the immense importance of the relic to the Church, as well as to the Faithful around the world, that certainly changes things quite a bit. The Vatican didn’t even want to allow the first tests, for the same reasons. It took a long time and a lot of dialogue between the team of scientists and the Church, just to get the first approval. Then, since the tests came back with such negative results, which caused so much controversy over the true age of the Shroud, they have every right to be a little gun shy about allowing it to be done, again.

Hopefully, they will be able to work out a deal to be able to repeat the tests, as long as they choose a much better section of the Shroud to take the new samples to test.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Did you even read any of the scientific reports that I posted from Father Spitzer’s website? They clearly explain that it’s impossible that anyone could have painted it, because there is no evidence of any kind of paint, or stain, or any other kind of medium applied to the cloth, except in the very few places where the nuns repaired it after the fire. One of those areas just happened to be the place where the 1978 team decided to take their samples for carbon dating (coincidence?).

Sadly, Fr Spitzer is factually incorrect about the Shroud in so many ways that it is best not to take anything he says about the Shroud seriously without referring to primary sources. There is absolutely no doubt, among Shroud devotees as well as medievalists, that the radiocarbon corner owes nothing to the Poor Clares’ mending in 1534.

A few months ago I listed on this site the first 20 mistakes in one of Fr Spitzer’s videos (about one per minute), with detailed references, a list which I also sent to the Magis centre. They have not seen fit to respond.