Thanks .
Because he can’t. The authenticity of the Shroud is not a matter of faith or morals, and the protection of infallibility does not extend to it.
That’s an interesting comment .
The 1988 testing wasn’t flawed.
Leonhard would have to speak for himself, but in this specific instance I believe he was speaking of the documents to which Aulef might have been referring when he spoke of the Shroud being “documented by many independent witnesses since the 6th century”. Until Aulef specifies what he was referring to, we can’t be sure, but I suspect I have come across them.
No; I’m afraid not. Fortunately a great deal of research about the Shroud, particularly historical but to a certain extent scientific, can be done without the object itself. For instance, there has been some discussion in the past as to whether a dead body might exude vapours which might react with cloth treated with myrrh, aloes, saponaria or dextrin, but nobody experimented with this to any extent. I have carried out extensive research into this using small mammals intended as petfood for herpetologists. I have also explored various rather arbitrary statements made by some commenters, to the effect that it is impossible to scorch only one side of a cloth, or it is impossible to paint only one side of a cloth. I have also investigated the circumstances of the fire of 1532, wherein the Shroud’s container is supposed to have reached a temperature of 900°C without damaging the cloth within. I have also created what remains the only demonstrated image whose point-intensities genuinely relate to a supposed body/cloth distance relationship to give a realistic 3D image. And so on, and so on. I am the only sindonologist to have actually had some ‘invisible mending’ carried out, and one of very few to have had a sample of the Shroud weave specially recreated in all its detail.
Thanks .Rob2:
Leonhard would have to speak for himself, but in this specific instance I believe he was speaking of the documents to which Aulef might have been referring when he spoke of the Shroud being “documented by many independent witnesses since the 6th century”. Until Aulef specifies what he was referring to, we can’t be sure, but I suspect I have come across them.
No; I’m afraid not. Fortunately a great deal of research about the Shroud, particularly historical but to a certain extent scientific, can be done without the object itself. For instance, there has been some discussion in the past as to whether a dead body might exude vapours which might react with cloth treated with myrrh, aloes, saponaria or dextrin, but nobody experimented with this to any extent. I have carried out extensive research into this using small mammals intended as petfood for herpetologists. I have also explored various rather arbitrary statements made by some commenters, to the effect that it is impossible to scorch only one side of a cloth, or it is impossible to paint only one side of a cloth. I have also investigated the circumstances of the fire of 1532, wherein the Shroud’s container is supposed to have reached a temperature of 900°C without damaging the cloth within. I have also created what remains the only demonstrated image whose point-intensities genuinely relate to a supposed body/cloth distance relationship to give a realistic 3D image. And so on, and so on. I am the only sindonologist to have actually had some ‘invisible mending’ carried out, and one of very few to have had a sample of the Shroud weave specially recreated in all its detail.
All this is original research into the Shroud of Turin.
Actually, that’s not quite true. While the C-14 labs did their testing work correctly on a valid sample, they had deliberately shut out the most knowledgeable group of scientists, namely the STURP team members. C-14 testing results are normally interpreted in light of the archaeological background of the subject as pointed out by Prof. Wilson. But in this case the role of interpreter fell, by default, to Prof. Edward Hall, an atheist, who relished the role of “debunking” the Shroud and called it, in conclusion, “a piece of rubbish.”
I don’t think “the Church” cares very much one way or another about the Shroud of Turin. It’s just one of thousands of relics and artifacts, and of no particular significance as far as faith and morals is concerned. Catholics are allowed to believe whatever they want about it, from being the actual shroud in which Christ was buried, to being an object which is useful in personal or public devotion, to being a pious fabrication produced during the later middle ages that serves no useful spiritual purpose.
Perhaps he was chosen because he was foolish enough to actually believe what our holy Gospels record (unlike the very smart ones posting on this forum.)
Please enlighten us as to the Popes who deemed the Shroud a fraud after Pia’s proof of 1898.
I said nothing derogatory about Pope Pius’s statement. What is the matter with you? Honestly, please consider that other people, such as Rob2 and Leonhardprintz, are reading your words. Even if they sympathise with your beliefs, can you honestly say that the character you portray on this site is how you would wish to be thought of? You may not care, but your attitude cannot help but reflect badly on Shroud authenticists in general, and so weaken the credibility of the entire case. Not even I want that; I would much rather have a constructive debate.