The Shroud of Turin

  • Thread starter Thread starter Inquiringperson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Here is a meditation Benedict XVI gave with regards to the Shroud on his pastoral visit to Turin last year:

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2010/may/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20100502_meditazione-torino_en.html

Note what Benedict does here. He never says that this shroud is definitely – with 100% certainty – the burial cloth of Jesus. In fact, he leaves the question of authenticity open by speaking rather ambiguously about it:

One could say that the Shroud is the Icon of this mystery, the Icon of Holy Saturday. Indeed it is a winding-sheet that was wrapped round the body of a man who was crucified, corresponding in every way to what the Gospels tell us of Jesus who, crucified at about noon, died at about three o’clock in the afternoon.

But he doesn’t really dwell so much on the cloth as he does on the mystery of Holy Saturday. That is as it should be. Whether or not the cloth is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus is not as important as us being touched by the Paschal Mystery of Christ who saves us.
 
A bit off topic, but I recently took a video out from our Church library titled “Jesus and the Shroud of Turin”; it was really very interesting and I recommend it to everyone…
 
Here is an interesting video regarding recent testing of the Shroud.

youtube.com/watch?v=D6nuyWTqOtA

Only discernible method of production is currently unavailable, and, technologically speaking, has never been known to be available.

hrm. :eek:😉
 
Inquiringperson said:
What is the Church’s view on the Shroud of Turin?
Click to expand...
The Church does not have a position on it.
Catholics are free to believe or not believe it is genuine.

It is also something that could never be proven to be the actual burial cloth of Christ. The most that could ever be proven is that the cloth is from the time of Christ and that has not even been proven.

Believers will no doubt say the carbon dating was faulty, or the cloth they tested was corrupt due to fire, or it was a piece of cloth from the middle ages used to repair the Shroud.
Personally, I think it is a medieval fake made by using a camera obscura. All the materials and technology were available in the middle ages and able to produce the photo negative effect.
 
thistle said:
Personally, I think it is a medieval fake made by using a camera obscura. All the materials and technology were available in the middle ages and able to produce the photo negative effect.
Click to expand...
So, the materials, and technology were never used again, spoken of, or mentioned until about 200 years ago, when it was rediscovered?? Interesting thought.
 
thistle said:
The Church does not have a position on it.
Catholics are free to believe or not believe it is genuine.

It is also something that could never be proven to be the actual burial cloth of Christ. The most that could ever be proven is that the cloth is from the time of Christ and that has not even been proven.

Believers will no doubt say the carbon dating was faulty, or the cloth they tested was corrupt due to fire, or it was a piece of cloth from the middle ages used to repair the Shroud.
Personally, I think it is a medieval fake made by using a camera obscura. All the materials and technology were available in the middle ages and able to produce the photo negative effect.
Click to expand...
from this article:telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8966422/Italian-study-claims-Turin-Shroud-is-Christs-authentic-burial-robe.html

““The double image (front and back) of a scourged and crucified man, barely visible on the linen cloth of the Shroud of Turin, has many physical and chemical characteristics that are so particular that the staining … is impossible to obtain in a laboratory,” concluded experts from Italy’s National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Development.”
 
asia53 said:
So, the materials, and technology were never used again, spoken of, or mentioned until about 200 years ago, when it was rediscovered?? Interesting thought.
Click to expand...
The camera obscura was known and used hundreds of years before the middle ages.

Also why do you say it was never used again? It was used extensively by many of the famous painters in Europe.
 
Dirt said:
from this article:telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8966422/Italian-study-claims-Turin-Shroud-is-Christs-authentic-burial-robe.html

““The double image (front and back) of a scourged and crucified man, barely visible on the linen cloth of the Shroud of Turin, has many physical and chemical characteristics that are so particular that the staining … is impossible to obtain in a laboratory,” concluded experts from Italy’s National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Development.”
Click to expand...
And other experts say the opposite. I watched a documentary on tv where a a cloth chemically treated only by materials known in the middle ages and then using the camera obscura produced an image. The process took 3 days and it also had the negative effect.
 
If the shroud was actually the burial cloth for Jesus, does it become a relic then?
 
thistle said:
And other experts say the opposite. I watched a documentary on tv where a a cloth chemically treated only by materials known in the middle ages and then using the camera obscura produced an image. The process took 3 days and it also had the negative effect.
Click to expand...
Did it have the negative effect with the same consistency as the actual image?

It seems some new, scientific reasons to once again pique interest have arisen.

I’m still wondering how the middle age peeps produced an image that a modern laboratory says is impossible to currently produce in all ways, not some superficial ways.

Not saying I would put money on a bet regarding it, just saying.
 
jonbhorton said:
Did it have the negative effect with the same consistency as the actual image?

It seems some new, scientific reasons to once again pique interest have arisen.

I’m still wondering how the middle age peeps produced an image that a modern laboratory says is impossible to currently produce in all ways, not some superficial ways.

Not saying I would put money on a bet regarding it, just saying.
Click to expand...
Not being a scientist I can’t answer that but what I am saying is that it would appear different scientists have different views on this.
I think one problem is that any investigation seems to lack 100% objectivity. It depends if you believe in the Shroud or not. The believing and not believing investigators tend to come up with opposing scientific conclusions because they have a fixed mindset beforehand. One group is trying to prove it is genuine and the other is trying to prove it is not. What happened to objective investigating and seeing where the evidence or lack of it leads?

From the books and dvd’s I have on the Shroud and later documentaries I have watched on tv I have to say I am not convinced. Embedded pollen that only comes from the Holy Land or a certain type of weave of the cloth and things like that are interesting but nobody can get round the dating of the cloth yet. The tests which were done show the cloth is dated to the middle ages. No point in anyone bleating about that saying it must be wrong because of this and that. The only way forward is to test more pieces of the cloth. If no more tests are done then we are stuck simply with opinions.
 
Why is it important?

Either I believe that Jesus died, descended into Hell, and was resurrected on the Third Day or I don’t.

The shroud will never prove He opened the gates of Hell, that He was resurrected from the dead, or that He is sitting at the Right hand of God, or even that the image of the crucified person is in fact THE Christ.
 
triumphguy said:
Why is it important?

Either I believe that Jesus died, descended into Hell, and was resurrected on the Third Day or I don’t.

The shroud will never prove He opened the gates of Hell, that He was resurrected from the dead, or that He is sitting at the Right hand of God, or even that the image of the crucified person is in fact THE Christ.
Click to expand...
That is true. We certainly don’t need relics, apparitions etc for our faith and salvation. We have everything we need already from Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and The Magesterium.
Maybe some are weak in faith and need something to strengthen that faith. However, in my opinion, it should at least be something the Church has actually declared worthy of belief.
 
thistle said:
I think one problem is that any investigation seems to lack 100% objectivity. It depends if you believe in the Shroud or not. The believing and not believing investigators tend to come up with opposing scientific conclusions because they have a fixed mindset beforehand. One group is trying to prove it is genuine and the other is trying to prove it is not. What happened to objective investigating and seeing where the evidence or lack of it leads?
Click to expand...
I have to agree. 👍
 
Two things I find most interesting about physical characteristics of the shroud.

1] The coloration representing the bodily features are not from any pigment and have very little depth. It is much like a slight scorching of the surface fibres, apparently.

2] The blood stains are … according to reports … real human blood, and patterns of the seepage and pooling are easy to see.

I don’t think any Christian need proof that Jesus Christ actually existed, died a gruesome death or is our Savior. We have the Gospel accounts, and have no need of signs. If this article were lost, or never found, or proven to be no evidence of Christ at all it should not matter. But as it is it does serve as a powerful reminder of what we believe.
 
thistle said:
Personally, I think it is a medieval fake made by using a camera obscura. All the materials and technology were available in the middle ages and able to produce the photo negative effect.
Click to expand...
camera obscura doesn’t render a negative image but an upside down one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top