The Shroud of Turin: An Enigmatic Anomaly

[nismaratwork]

I get ya!

I've excavated 12 years worth of artifacts for the BC Museum of Anthropology and not one of them is on display... they're all in locked drawers and dusty reports.

I know, and I don't blame the museums (they can't tunnel into some extra dimension to display their archives), but it really drives home the point that in a given lifetime we see only a fraction of the art, history, literature, and specimens that have been painstakingly collected! I feel lucky (as I suspect you may) to have had the chance to get into the archives of some museums... it really is an amazing experience when you're not dying from dust-poisoning. :tongue:

 

[mugaliens]

I get ya!

I've excavated 12 years worth of artifacts for the BC Museum of Anthropology and not one of them is on display... they're all in locked drawers and dusty reports.

Same with the National Ski Museum in Vail, Colorado. I noticed there were no split-edge Hexcel skis on display, of which I own a pair. I talked to the head boss about donating them, but she said, "We have less than 5% of our holdings on display," and said I should simply keep them for another decade before selling them to a collector online, as they are quite rare, so far as skis go.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Something that I never realized is that the Catholic Church has never claimed that the shroud is authentic.

Normally, I would not get involved in this thread. For whatever reason, I stumbled upon it (probably because of the association with the McCrone Institute) and saw this ancient post.

In the event nobody has seen this:

http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/Benedict 02May2010.pdf

Pope Benedict XVI clearly states the Shroud is an authentic Icon.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Normally, I would not get involved in this thread. For whatever reason, I stumbled upon it (probably because of the association with the McCrone Institute) and saw this ancient post.

In the event nobody has seen this:

http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/Benedict 02May2010.pdf

Pope Benedict XVI clearly states the Shroud is an authentic Icon.

Note first that this came long after I made that post. However, from what I see, he never says it is authentic, only that it corresponds in every way to the biblical shroud.

The history according to wiki

The first official association between the image on the Shroud and the Catholic Church was made in 1940 based on the formal request by Sister Maria Pierina De Micheli to the curia in Milan to obtain authorization to produce a medal with the image. The authorization was granted and the first medal with the image was offered to Pope Pius XII who approved the medal. The image was then used on what became known as the Holy Face Medal worn by many Catholics, initially as a means of protection during the Second World War. In 1958 Pope Pius XII approved of the image in association with the devotion to the Holy Face of Jesus, and declared its feast to be celebrated every year the day before Ash Wednesday.[41][42] Following the approval by Pope Pius XII, Catholic devotions to the Holy Face of Jesus have been almost exclusively associated with the image on the shroud.

In 1983 the Shroud was given to the Holy See by the House of Savoy.[38] However, as with all relics of this kind, the Roman Catholic Church made no pronouncements claiming whether it is Jesus' burial shroud, or if it is a forgery. As with other approved Catholic devotions, the matter has been left to the personal decision of the faithful, as long as the Church does not issue a future notification to the contrary. In the Church's view, whether the cloth is authentic or not has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of what Jesus taught nor on the saving power of his death and resurrection. [43]

Pope John Paul II stated in 1998 that:[44] "Since it is not a matter of faith, the Church has no specific competence to pronounce on these questions. She entrusts to scientists the task of continuing to investigate, so that satisfactory answers may be found to the questions connected with this Sheet".[45] Pope John Paul II showed himself to be deeply moved by the image of the Shroud and arranged for public showings in 1998 and 2000. In his address at the Turin Cathedral on Sunday May 24, 1998 (the occasion of the 100th year of Secondo Pia's May 28, 1898 photograph), he said:[46] "The Shroud is an image of God's love as well as of human sin [...] The imprint left by the tortured body of the Crucified One, which attests to the tremendous human capacity for causing pain and death to one's fellow man, stands as an icon of the suffering of the innocent in every age." In 2000, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote that the Shroud of Turin is ″a truly mysterious image, which no human artistry was capable of producing. In some inexplicable way, it appeared imprinted upon cloth and claimed to show the true face of Christ, the crucified and risen Lord."[47]

Pope Benedict XVI has not publicly commented on the Shroud's authenticity, but has taken steps that indirectly affect the Shroud. In June 2008 he approved the public display of the Shroud in the spring of 2010 and stated that he would like to go to Turin to see it along with other pilgrims.[48] During his visit in Turin on Sunday May 2, 2010, Benedict XVI described the Shroud of Turin as an "extraordinary Icon", the "Icon of Holy Saturday [...] corresponding in every way to what the Gospels tell us of Jesus", "an Icon written in blood, the blood of a man who was scourged, crowned with thorns, crucified and whose right side was pierced".[49] The pope said also that in the Turin Shroud "we see, as in a mirror, our suffering in the suffering of Christ".[50]

On May 30, 2010 Pope Benedict XVI beatified Sister Maria Pierina De Micheli who coined the Holy Face Medal, based on Secondo Pia's photograph of the Shroud.[51]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin

 

[Andy Resnick]

Note first that this came long after I made that post. However, from what I see, he never says it is authentic, only that it corresponds in every way to the biblical shroud.

No, the Pope said a lot more than that: Page 1:

"Indeed it is a winding-sheet that was wrapped round the body of a man who was crucified (corresponding in every way)..."

And page 3:

"The Shroud is an Icon written in blood; the blood of a man who was scourged, crowned
with thorns, crucified and whose right side was pierced. The Image impressed upon the Shroud is that of a dead man, but the blood speaks of his life. Every trace of blood speaks of love and of life. Especially that huge stain near his rib, made by the blood and water that flowed copiously from a great wound inflicted by the tip of a Roman spear. "

The Pope (and others) are free to believe what they will; to me, these statements demonstrate the Pope's infallible word that the Shroud of Turin is in fact the burial shroud of Jesus. As opposed to say, calling it a *representation* of the burial shroud, perfect in every detail.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

No, the Pope said a lot more than that: Page 1:

"Indeed it is a winding-sheet that was wrapped round the body of a man who was crucified (corresponding in every way)..."

And page 3:

"The Shroud is an Icon written in blood; the blood of a man who was scourged, crowned
with thorns, crucified and whose right side was pierced. The Image impressed upon the Shroud is that of a dead man, but the blood speaks of his life. Every trace of blood speaks of love and of life. Especially that huge stain near his rib, made by the blood and water that flowed copiously from a great wound inflicted by the tip of a Roman spear. "

The Pope (and others) are free to believe what they will; to me, these statements demonstrate the Pope's infallible word that the Shroud of Turin is in fact the burial shroud of Jesus. As opposed to say, calling it a *representation* of the burial shroud, perfect in every detail.

He was drawing strong parallels [the reasons why many think or thought the shroud to be authentic], but he never made any declarations. Also, according to the Catholic faith, the pope's word is only infallible wrt church doctrine - this because they believe Jesus gave the Pope power to define sin. You can't be in error about the rules when you make the rules!

I could be reading this wrong, but I don't think he meant to say it is authentic. It would surprise me if he did given that no pope before ever made such a declaration. The shroud is used as a symbol of faith for what it represents, and not for what it may actually be.

Papal infallibility is the dogma in Roman Catholic theology that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error[1] when he solemnly declares or promulgates to the universal Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals as being contained in divine revelation, or at least being intimately connected to divine revelation. It is also taught that the Holy Spirit works in the body of the Church, as sensus fidelium, to ensure that dogmatic teachings proclaimed to be infallible will be received by all Catholics. This dogma, however, does not state either that the Pope cannot sin in his own personal life or that he is necessarily free of error, even when speaking in his official capacity, outside the specific contexts in which the dogma applies...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

 

[Andy Resnick]

As I said; I'm not interested in discussing beliefs. Walter McCrone's findings are reasonably conclusive and passed peer review:

http://mcri.org/home/section/63-64-293/the-latest-shroud-update

http://mcri.org/home/section/63-64/the-shroud-of-turin?PHPSESSID=fd4982ceec20411d96f2deb56945523e

 

[Ivan Seeking]

As I said; I'm not interested in discussing beliefs. Walter McCrone's findings are reasonably conclusive and passed peer review:

Yes, rather than sticking to the facts, you specifically called the Pope's belief and Catholic doctrine into question.

To say the cloth "speaks to" biblical teachings, is not a declaration of authenticity.

Reasonably conclusive? Either they are conclusive, or not.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Yes, rather than sticking to the facts, you specifically called the Pope's belief and Catholic doctrine into question.

To say the cloth "speaks to" bibilical teachings, is not a declaration of authenticity.

Reasonably conclusive? Either they are conclusive, or not.

It is fact that the coloring on the shroud is not from blood. It is fact that the shroud is not contemporaneous with jesus. The pope's statements are factually incorrect.

The pope can believe whatever he wants. You can believe whatever you want. You are free to come up with alternate hypotheses for the existing experimental results, propose tests to select one hypothesis from many, carry out the tests, and publish the results. That's how science works.

I'm a scientist- I believe nothing and hold no-one's word to be sacred.

 

[alt]

It is fact that the coloring on the shroud is not from blood. It is fact that the shroud is not contemporaneous with jesus. The pope's statements are factually incorrect.

The pope can believe whatever he wants. You can believe whatever you want. You are free to come up with alternate hypotheses for the existing experimental results, propose tests to select one hypothesis from many, carry out the tests, and publish the results. That's how science works.

I'm a scientist- I believe nothing and hold no-one's word to be sacred.

The Catholic Church doesn't promote is as been authentic. I suppose they suspect that it may not be, and are silent on the issue rather than end up with egg on their faces.

Also, a relative of mine was over there in the last couple of years, and she says they no longer even display it - the just show an opaque container that it is supposed to be held in.