What is the latest on the Shroud of Turin

[WilT]

I don’t have to search for the “holy grail.” I see it every time I go to Mass.

I agree that it can be a distraction if you focus on it all the time and make your life around it. :thumbsup:It is true that you can find Jesus in the Holiness of the mass especially during the liturgy of the Eucharist.

 

[agnes_therese]

To be saved, I don’t think one has to see the shroud or go to the holy land (a term that is in the Bible) or have water from Lourdes, etc.

Of course. And I don’t think anyone has suggested that you do.

 

[HelenRose]

I think everyone should just accept a medieval date for the shroud and say “Great, it was made in the 13th century. By whom? How? With what knowledge of anatomy?”

That would require as much of a miracle to accept as the alternative.

Yes

It is a mystery no matter how you look at it. Even if it was made in the 13th century, no one has been able to explain how it was made and why.

I don’t think that it was ever intended to be a fraud. Someone with that kind of knowledge would have wanted the world to see what he or she has discovered.

 

[thistle]

I think the alleged Shroud is a distraction, plain and simple.

The Mass is a renewal and remembrance of the new covenant. To be saved, I don’t think one has to see the shroud or go to the holy land (a term that is in the Bible) or have water from Lourdes, etc. You can’t get closer to God in this life than with a pure spiritual life including reception of the Eucharist.

I, for one, am more than thankful and amazed about the miracles of everyday life, that many take for granted.

I don’t have to search for the “holy grail.” I see it every time I go to Mass.

I totally agree.

 

[Della]

I think the alleged Shroud is a distraction, plain and simple.

The Mass is a renewal and remembrance of the new covenant. To be saved, I don’t think one has to see the shroud or go to the holy land (a term that is in the Bible) or have water from Lourdes, etc. You can’t get closer to God in this life than with a pure spiritual life including reception of the Eucharist.

I, for one, am more than thankful and amazed about the miracles of everyday life, that many take for granted.

I don’t have to search for the “holy grail.” I see it every time I go to Mass.

No one has even suggested that anyone go on a “search for the ‘hloy grail.’” Nor that any relic or sacramental should be the focus of our lives. These comments are a distraction from the topic of the thread, IMHO. We are free to believe or not believe in the validity of any relic or sacramental. No one has a gun to anyone’s head making them focus on the Shroud or anything else. If you aren’t interested, so what? If I’m not interested, so what? It has nothing to do with our devotion at Mass–nothing whatsoever.

 

[andrewstx]

I think the alleged Shroud is a distraction, plain and simple.

The Mass is a renewal and remembrance of the new covenant. To be saved, I don’t think one has to see the shroud or go to the holy land (a term that is in the Bible) or have water from Lourdes, etc. You can’t get closer to God in this life than with a pure spiritual life including reception of the Eucharist.

I, for one, am more than thankful and amazed about the miracles of everyday life, that many take for granted.

I don’t have to search for the “holy grail.” I see it every time I go to Mass.

If one is satisfied with only the bare minimum required for salvation, that is well and good for him. But some people want more than the bare minimum.

I have had a stroke and other physical ailments. And I want Lourdes water. I hope that is OK by you.

 

[ajecphotos]

I would find it hard to say 100% that the shroud is the image of Christ. I would hate to be wrong! I would hate to go against God!

 

[Della]

I would find it hard to say 100% that the shroud is the image of Christ. I would hate to be wrong! I would hate to go against God!

Well, even if it is real (I happen to believe that it is for good reasons, as I stated in my other posts) you wouldn’t be “going against God” if you can’t believe in the Shroud’s authenticity. It’s not an article of the faith–at the least it is a sacramental, like a rosary, and at the most it is a sacred relic. We don’t have to put our faith in either category of religious items, only in God and his Church.

 

[cornbread_r2]

It seems to me that if the church really and truly wasn’t sure if the shroud was the burial shroud of Jesus or not, it would tend to err on the side of caution and act as if it was and treat something that holds Jesus’s image – and possibly his very own blood – far differently than it has. In other words, I think the church has already decided against authenticity.

 

[cornbread_r2]

It seems to me that if the church really and truly wasn’t sure if the shroud was the burial shroud of Jesus or not, it would tend to err on the side of caution and act as if it was and would, consequently, treat something that potentially holds Jesus’s very image – and his very own blood – far differently than just like an ordinary relic. In other words, I think the church has already decided against authenticity.

 

[Della]

It seems to me that if the church really and truly wasn’t sure if the shroud was the burial shroud of Jesus or not, it would tend to err on the side of caution and act as if it was and would, consequently, treat something that potentially holds Jesus’s very image – and his very own blood – far differently than just like an ordinary relic. In other words, I think the church has already decided against authenticity.

I was with you up until your final statement. The Shroud has been protected (although it was recently washed, which should not have been done), venerated, and put on it display for veneration by the Church. What else should the Church be doing with it? It is the same for the Jesus burial face cloth. It too is venerated and protected by the diocese that houses it. I’m truly puzzled by your final conclusion.

 

[cornbread_r2]

I was with you up until your final statement. The Shroud has been protected (although it was recently washed, which should not have been done), venerated, and put on it display for veneration by the Church. What else should the Church be doing with it? It is the same for the Jesus burial face cloth. It too is venerated and protected by the diocese that houses it. I’m truly puzzled by your final conclusion.

Well, for starters, I would expect that it would not have been washed. I also think that the church would retrieve all of material that has been sent thither and yon for testing purposes. Finally, I would expect a level of veneration and exposition equal to that normally reserved for the Eucharist i.e. for as long and for as often as possible.

Now some say that the limited exposition and the museum quality treatment it receives is due to the fact that it would fade if exposed to unfiltered air and light for too long or too often, but that would also be a point going against authenticity.

Is it correct that the church has not declared the shroud to be something worthy of belief? Has the church ever declared such for any objects?

 

[GEddie]

Well, for starters, I would expect that it would not have been washed. I also think that the church would retrieve all of material that has been sent thither and yon for testing purposes. Finally, I would expect a level of veneration and exposition equal to that normally reserved for the Eucharist i.e. for as long and for as often as possible.

Now some say that the limited exposition and the museum quality treatment it receives is due to the fact that it would fade if exposed to unfiltered air and light for too long or too often, but that would also be a point going against authenticity.

Is it correct that the church has not declared the shroud to be something worthy of belief? Has the church ever declared such for any objects?

Limited exposition does not argue against authenticity, because relics of any kind do not last forever. Even the incorrupt bodies of saints have been destroyed or have gone back into nature.

As to your question, no, physical objects are not per se declared “worthy of belief.”

ICXC NIKA

 

[Della]

Well, for starters, I would expect that it would not have been washed.

Someone misguidedly told the bishop it should be washed to better preserve it. I’m afraid it did just the opposite because no more useful data can be retrieved from it.

I also think that the church would retrieve all of material that has been sent thither and yon for testing purposes.

It was just the opposite, actually. The Church was petitioned to test the Shroud. Those who had responsibility for it didn’t want it tested for fear it could be damaged. Churchmen don’t think like scientists–they aren’t concerned with data that may or may not “prove” something. To them it is an object of veneration that many thought should not be tampered with.

Finally, I would expect a level of veneration and exposition equal to that normally reserved for the Eucharist i.e. for as long and for as often as possible.

No relic is treated that way because relics can break down over time–which is why it has been preserved behind glass. The Tilma of St. Juan Diego has also been put behind glass to preserve it, as well. Even the Eucharist breaks down over time and has to be replaced by a fresh one. Authenticity has nothing to do with how it is displayed or if it is preserved.

Now some say that the limited exposition and the museum quality treatment it receives is due to the fact that it would fade if exposed to unfiltered air and light for too long or too often, but that would also be a point going against authenticity.

“Some” don’t know what they’re talking about.

Is it correct that the church has not declared the shroud to be something worthy of belief? Has the church ever declared such for any objects?

Relics are not classified that way, it’s just that simple.

 

[thistle]

Well, for starters, I would expect that it would not have been washed. I also think that the church would retrieve all of material that has been sent thither and yon for testing purposes. Finally, I would expect a level of veneration and exposition equal to that normally reserved for the Eucharist i.e. for as long and for as often as possible.

Now some say that the limited exposition and the museum quality treatment it receives is due to the fact that it would fade if exposed to unfiltered air and light for too long or too often, but that would also be a point going against authenticity.

**Is it correct that the church has not declared the shroud to be something worthy of belief? ** Has the church ever declared such for any objects?

The Church does not declare relics as being worthy of belief. That applies to private revelations.

As for ancient relics the Church has never and will never declare any of them to be authentic because the Church cannot be sure about them. It is up to individual Catholics to have their own opinions.

Personally, when it come to the Shroud, the True Cross, the Holy Grail etc I do not believe any of them to be genuine but that is my view. Other Catholics have different views and of course they are freely entitled to them as I am freely entitled to mine.

 

[ajecphotos]

Nobody can say how the shroud was ‘made’ so to speak. How the image got on the cloth. For me, that is a good lean towards it being the image of someone divine, Jesus!