The Shroud of Turin: What's Your Opinion?

[whatistrue]

This does seem illogical. The vast majority of people coming to forums.catholic-questions.org are already Catholic, not atheists or even Christians of other denominations. I have a number of questions from your comment:

Please can you explain how this evangelisation is likely to occur?
Do you think your posts are strengthening the faith of the existing Catholics reading this thread?

I’m not entirely convinced of the objective accuracy of your assertion regarding Catholic vs. Non-Catholic visitors to the site. Remember that visiting does not require an account; I personally lurked for several weeks before opening mine. Also, I would consider it more relevant to the specific issue in this post whether there are a larger or smaller percentage of Catholic viewers of this thread rather than the site as a whole.

I cannot speak to the question about strengthening the faith of existing Catholics as I am not presently Catholic. This fact, however, does relate to your question about evangelization. I am researching and trying to determine whether to become Catholic and it is, to me, a positive thing that devout Catholics can also be scientists who can and do follow the evidence where it leads, and reject the idea that belief trumps honest science.

 

[petra22]

Why would you be sad over that if it was the truth??? You would be a hero…

 

[Cruciferi]

Because people need Hope and I stole it from them…

 

[Theo2]

It is an object of faith. If it is proved, then no faith is required. I think that would be a shame.

 

[Lost4words]

The Shroud is a wonder. It has baffled the world, science.

Imagine, we cannot replicate it in this modern age! An age full of technological wonders! Yet, its a primitive cloth with an image on it that was produced in a way that science cannot understand!

In reality, it is easy to see how it was produced! It was made by a miracle. It was made by Our Lord. Left for US! There is no other explanation. It all points to Jesus.

To those who say nay. How was it produced? Yes, you can guess, but, its only a ‘guess’. I believe it is of Jesus. For me, the evidence is staring me in the face, plus, my faith tells me it is of Jesus!

Science can only explain so much. And even then, it has fallen short on the shroud.

 

[leonhardprintz]

“Please can you explain how this evangelisation is likely to occur?”

I think the most important thing is the question of whether or not the Shroud is genuine. You seem to be implying that, if it isn’t genuine, it should still be talked about as if it were, or the critics should at least be hushed, so that more people could come to the Faith through it? That doesn’t seem to be the way a Christian ought to act. We’re supposed to live in truth.

I have seen many Christians, especially if they’re of the kind who aren’t interested in miracle claims, a bit put off by the unquestioning approach some Christians have towards those things. Typically former protestants where the articles of Faith, the Church Fathers and the question of tradition weigh much more heavily.

I came from a tradition like that as well. On a small Catholic Facebook group, with many members who came from a high church lutheran background we had a discussion, and many of them expressed feeling a bit ostracized for questioning the shroud.

Criticisms of the Shroud weren’t welcome, and their faith was quickly questioned by those who were convinced that the Shroud was genuine.

“Do you think your posts are strengthening the faith of the existing Catholics reading this thread?”

Strengthening their Faith?

If some people have made the Shroud the source and summit of their Faith, the foundation, so that if the Shroud was proven beyond all reasonable doubt to be the works of a person, and this therefore seriously shook their faith in the Church… you’ll have to wonder how much faith they had to begin with.

The Eucharist, Christ’s Sacrifice on the Cross, The Mystery of Reconsiliation, that’s the source and summit of our Faith.

As such I do agree that the Church has chosen to sit between two chairs when it comes to the Shroud. They won’t let scientists investigate it any further other than the few sticky tape samples, and three weeks of investigation they got. And they call it an icon. The prudence of that decision is above my pay grade to question.

I do lean strongly however towards the shroud being not being a relic. And I believe I should be allowed to state why I think so.

Its not like Hugh Farey’s and my posts are the majority. There’s over a dozen threads on the shroud on this site and all of them are mostly full of shroud enthusiasts.

 

[nooooby]

I’m not entirely convinced of the objective accuracy of your assertion regarding Catholic vs. Non-Catholic visitors to the site.

I would be surprised if the majority of visitors to CAF turn out to be non-Christians, but happy to concede if it is the case. This should be easily answered by the sites admins who should have that data.

I cannot speak to the question about strengthening the faith of existing Catholics as I am not presently Catholic.

Mr Farey can speak for himself of course.

a positive thing that devout Catholics can also be scientists who can and do follow the evidence where it leads, and reject the idea that belief trumps honest science.

I would like to make the point that science and Christianity are entirely compatible, many scientists can be used as examples. Issac Newton, George Lemaitre etc etc. Indeed I would go very much further and state that science as we understand it today was only possible because of the Christian belief and understanding in an ordered created universe. Many threads on CAF discuss this and answer the point around science and the RCC. I would also state that science on its own is insufficient for Man, the “what” needs the “why” before it becomes sufficient.

However, given the topic here, the real point is that the Turin Shroud is first and foremost an object of faith and devotion, i.e. a religious, specifically Christian object. Approaching the Shroud without any faith cannot bring the most important answers that can come from it, namely a belief in Jesus Christ. Using purely science to examine the Shroud as one would any other object eg the Bayeux tapestry, is the same logical fallacy, the “what” without the “why”.

 

[nooooby]

You seem to be implying that, if it isn’t genuine, it should still be talked about as if it were, or the critics should at least be hushed, so that more people could come to the Faith through it? That doesn’t seem to be the way a Christian ought to act. We’re supposed to live in truth.

Please can you point to where I said that critics should be hushed. I have said no such thing and I would politely ask you to retract your comment.

Thank you

 

[Hugh_Farey]

… demolishing the single most recognisable and most important Christian/Catholic relic in the world?

No. That you can characterise my approach as “demolishing” a “relic” itself suggests an unwillingness to engage, although your earlier comments seemed quite reasonable. Perhaps you were attempting to set me up for a fall, or perhaps I am reading too much into this last comment.

If the Shroud of Turin is not a “relic”, then I am obviously not “demolishing” it. If it is a relic, then I have no more wish to “demolish” it than the most ardent authenticist. Nor have I attempted to dissuade those who believe in its authenticity, or its miraculous provenance, from their beliefs. Quite the opposite, as a glance through my posts will show. The impression the Shroud makes on any individual can be a personal miracle of their own which I think it would be wrong to attempt to discredit.

However, I note that while there have been some 540 comments on this thread (from considerably fewer commenters), there have been over 4500 ‘views’, and it is to these silent viewers that anybody commenting on any Internet forum should pay particular attention, as they outnumber the commenters by about 10 to 1. I know nothing about their beliefs in anything, although looking at a site called Catholic Answers, and a thread about the Shroud at least suggests an interest.

In general, I think, Catholics are not very demonstrative. Even Sunday mass attendance represents a fairly small proportion of their number. I believe that they find it increasingly difficult to reconcile the rational and the irrational, and are falling away from the faith for the same reason expounded by St Augustine so many years ago, that when simple everyday experience contradicts a supposed tenet of faith, then their faith appears, and probably is, absurd.

The real evangelists of today are not the tub-thumping miraculists, but the quiet rationalists, who show not that Science and Religion are irreconcilable, nor even that they are “non-overlapping Magisteria”, but wholly integrated aspects of exactly the same thing. That, I believe, is the way to strengthen the faith of waverers, and possibly, for all I know, convert atheists to some realisation of what the theology of Christianity is really about.

Do you think your posts are strengthening the faith of the existing Catholics reading this thread?

Certainly. I cannot see how a forensic investigation into an image of such ineffability can do otherwise. If, however, there is anybody reading this whose Christian faith is weakened by the idea that the Shroud may not be authentic, then frankly his faith was not properly founded in the first place. The Christian faith is no place for people who do not want to know whether their faith is founded on truth or falsehood.

When pressed to give his judgment on the shroud’s authenticity, Pope Benedict never went further than to affirm that it could prove a strengthening of faith among those who already believe. It is, he said, “an image which reminds us always of Christ’s suffering”.

And of course he was perfectly correct.

 

[leonhardprintz]

Please can you point to where I said that critics should be hushed.

I didn’t say ‘said’ I said ‘seem to be implying’, I was careful to use this sentence. I means what you’re saying appears to have that intention, not that it does. Leaving you room to qualify yourself.

This quote is what made me ask that question.

So if I read your comments correctly, you believe your main priority in posting so many detailed posts about the Shroud on a Catholic forum is evangelising to gain more Christians/Catholics by demolishing the single most recognisable and most important Christian/Catholic relic in the world?

You seem concerned about the posts criticising the shroud. You use words like “so many detailed posts” implying that there are ‘too many’ or that they should be ‘less detailed’ in order for them not to be quite so many and quite so detailed.

You worry that the questioning is “demolishing” something that in your eyes is “the most important” relic, and to you an important means of evangelisation.

Have I mischaracterised you?

 

[whatistrue]

I would be surprised if the majority of visitors to CAF turn out to be non-Christians, but happy to concede if it is the case. This should be easily answered by the sites admins who should have that data.

The site admins can have no data on people who visit without creating an account, nor can they verify the accuracy of information provided by those who do. But this question is not really that important in itself.

However, given the topic here, the real point is that the Turin Shroud is first and foremost an object of faith and devotion, i.e. a religious, specifically Christian object. Approaching the Shroud without any faith cannot bring the most important answers that can come from it, namely a belief in Jesus Christ. Using purely science to examine the Shroud as one would any other object eg the Bayeux tapestry, is the same logical fallacy, the “what” without the “why”.

Sorry, but I believe that the real point is that the Turin Shroud is an object. Even if it is proven beyond any doubt to be entirely man-made over 1000 years later has, or should have, no bearing on whether any particular individual believes in Jesus or the Resurrection. My understanding is that true faith does not require proof or objects.

 

[undead_rat]

Hugh_Farey:

You’re such a blatant liar, my dear fellow.

“These were all examined carefully . . . and all found wanting.”

In Mr. Farey’s world equating “proven to be untrue” (my words) with “examined carefully and found wanting” (his words) makes one a “blatant liar.”

I think that, in honor of Mr. Farey, I will change my user name to:
“Blatant Liar,” or, perhaps, “Gibbering Incoherence.”
Coming from Mr. Farey, I take these characterizations as a great compliment.

 

[undead_rat]

The miraculous Image on the Shroud of Turin is the Sign of Jonah that was promised by Jesus to be available for an entire generation of people. In today’s world innuendo and slander against the idea that Jesus even existed abound on the internet and the news. Or, if His existence is conceded, then the postulation is that He did not actually work miracles and His teachings are not relevant.

Our Lord’s miraculous Image contradicts these falsehoods. It is a bulwark to our faith and to the Church when many would prefer to have no church and no religion. The Shroud of Turin is the most important and most valuable physical object in the entire world. Its usefulness and relevance in this age of atheism cannot be overstated.

 

[leonhardprintz]

The miraculous Image on the Shroud of Turin is the Sign of Jonah that was promised by Jesus to be available for an entire generation of people.

Actually He never says anything about ‘it being available for an entire generation of people’, rather its the Pharisees who challenges Him to produce more signs, and He rebukes them strongly on that desire.

Matthew 12:38-40 New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)
The Sign of Jonah
38 Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said to him, “Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you.” 39 But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation asks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so for three days and three nights the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth.

There’s nothing here about any relic waiting behind for us to hold. And if you look up the opinions of the Church Fathers on Matthew 12:38-40 (as collected in Aurea Catena by St. Thomas Aquinas), you’ll see that they consider this to be referring to His Ressurection. That He went into the earth and rose on the third day.

Anything more is extra-biblical and outside of tradition.

The rest of your post appears like the worst kind of hyperbole from shroud enthusiasts. I have no doubt that the Shroud is very important to you, and that if it was proven to be an artifact that your faith would be shaken. I will pray for you undead_rat, because no relic should have this importance for yours or others faith.

God often uses smaller means to bring people into the fullness of the Faith. That He has attracted people to the Faith through that shroud no one denies. But the question remains whether the shroud is a relic or an artifact. If it is the latter, then it should be considered such.

To me the ineffable mysteries of the Church are the true bullwark against modernity.

 

[undead_rat]

Matthew 12:38-40 New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)
The Sign of Jonah
38 Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said to him, “Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you.” 39 But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation asks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so for three days and three nights the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth.

In Luke 11:29-32 we also note Jesus’ use of the word “generation.” Of course the Sign of Jonah refers to the miracle of our Lord’s resurrection. But this miracle was a “sign” for a limited number of people. Only for those who knew Jesus, witnessed His death, and then met Him alive afterwards could this event be termed a “sign.” Even though we believe those events to be true, they do not constitute a “sign” for us because we did not witness them. That is what the Pharisees and the scribes were asking Him for: a miracle performed in their presence.

Something needs to be added to the Sign of Jonah for it to be available for a generation of people as Jesus indicated that it would be. His miraculous Image on His burial cloth is proof that He existed, was executed by crucifixion, was buried, and that His corpse vanished into another dimension. It is that missing element that makes the miracle of His resurrection available as a “sign” for an entire generation of people.

We, of course, are not able to witness our Lord’s resurrection. Therefore, for us, the Shroud of Turin is the Sign of Jonah, the miracle that we can witness which proves Jesus’ resurrection. Simply because the Church Fathers did not fully understand the Sign of Jonah, is not sufficient reason for us to reject its true meaning. If those same Fathers had been able to witness the Image on the Shroud, they might have come to the same conclusion as I have.

 

[undead_rat]

Vignon’s 1902 work, THE SHROUD OF CHRIST, has an unusual chapter not found in other books about the Shroud, and that is Chapter V, “The Face on the Holy Shroud, Compared with Imaginative Portraits.” Here Vignon presents his critique of the many representations of Jesus as painted or sculpted by the various masters and finds them all falling short of the profound majesty of the Shroud’s facial Image. Of course this analysis is subjective, but Vignon notes that even Leonardo da Vinci “protested that he was powerless to deal with such a subject [Jesus divine Image].”

His conclusion: " . . .among all the works of art which the world has ever known, sculpture or painting, the portrait on the Holy Shroud has never been equalled, much less surpassed. It stands quite alone. Reproducing as it does, the actual lineaments of our Lord, it seems to bring Him living before us, with all the heroism, all the goodness of the Redeemer still visible on the dead face."

As I indicated, this is Vignon’s subjective opinion. I present it here simply because I agree with it. My own subjective opinion is that nothing in art equals the profound majesty of our Lord’s true countenance that we see on His Holy Shroud.

 

[undead_rat]

20) The Mandylion was not the Shroud.
This has been discussed above. Firstly the Shroud face looks nothing like the Mandylion face, . . .

This is absolute nonsense. Eleventh century Icons of the Mandylion are spitting images of the Shroud’s face. These were made while the Shroud was still in Constantinople, and the iconographer would have been able to view his subject. After the Shroud was expropriated by the French 4th Crusade, Orthodox icons of the Mandylion became more stylized and less similar to the Shroud. Account should also be given to the fact that Byzantine iconographers had only the negative image of Jesus’ face to work from, whereas a modern artist has the more easily recognized positive.

A famous early Mandylion Icon:



A drawing of Jesus’ portrait based on the Shroud of Turin’s facial image:

 

[undead_rat]

Then, of course, we have the ancient Icon of Jesus from St. Catherine’s Monastery in the Sinai.

http://greatshroudofturinfaq.com/History/Greek-Byzantine/Pre-944AD/pantocrator.html

 

[thistle]

I will change my user name to:
“Blatant Liar,” or, perhaps, “Gibbering Incoherence.”

They are pretty apt expressions so feel free to change your name!

 

[thistle]

Nothing in art equals the profound majesty of our Lord’s true countenance that we see on His Holy Shroud.

Again you are saying this is a fact when you very well know it is not a fact. That may be your opinion but that is all it is.