sentinel00

Test after test has been performed on the Shroud of Turin, and all available evidence points strongly to it being a middle-ages fake. The Catholic Church has agreed with this conclusion, and does not consider it to be an authentic relic from Jesus' burial chamber.

And yet, they do not take a stand against it. They do not tell the church in Turin to stop displaying it. They do not explicitly make it clear to Catholics who make pilgramiges to Turin that the Shroud is a fake.

They will not come right out and say it is a fraud, and yet they also will not come right out and say that it is authentic.

Why? Why is the church purposefully being ambiguous about this? Biblical scholars all agree that, absent any current scientific evidence, the Shroud cannot be authentic because the bible describes a different process of wrapping Jesus' body. So, even without carbon dating and chemical analysis of the "blood," the Shroud is a fake.

What is the church trying to prove? Why are they deceiving catholics? Do they care more about people's beliefs than the truth? Is it more important to them that people believe in God, even while using a fraudulant artifact, than for their followers to know the truth? What does this say about what they are asking people to believe? Why resort to subterfuge and lies to get people to believe? Wouldn't using the truth be more effective?

</rant>

Marduk

"Why is the church purposefully being ambiguous about this? "

I guess because they know people like it, just the way they do not 'approve' of Philipino's having themselves crucified at Easter but don't really try and stop them either.
Even in the Middle Ages the Pope had rules about displaying the shroud, knowing it was a fake; from the Catholic Encyclopedia, No pomp & trumpets when the shroud is on display, no claims that it's the 'real' shroud of Jesus, and no healings as they do at Fatima.

Nomad

I'm only curious here, as this issue has just never excited me, but has anyone ever read Ian Wilson's Blood and the Shroud : New Evidence That the World's Most Sacred Relic Is Real?

I must admit, people I know (Christians BTW) have told me that it is of the "wah wah" variety intended for popular consumption, and this has kept me from reading it. I already have enough on my plate, I do not have the time to read through his case. My understanding is that science and the Church agree that it almost certainly originated in the 13th Century or so, and that has been good enough for me. But any review of this book would be helpful.

Thanks,

Nomad

sentinel00

Nomad,

Question for you:

Not being a Catholic yourself, can you give some insight into how other sects of Christianity view the Catholic's long history with artifacts? Why aren't other Christian sects more interested in religious artifacts like the Shroud. It's authenticity would certainly be important to their beliefs as well, wouldn't it?

Kosh

As the saying goes "Follow the money"

- Does the Shroud generate tourism dollars
for the church?
- Does the church pass [some of] those dollars to the
Vatican?

Or as it is said somewhere on this website:

"There is no money in atheism"

Marduk

Nomad, what is 'wah wah'?? from what does this derive?? curious marduck.

fromdownunder

sentinel00

An answer of sorts:

The shroud is perhaps used by the church as a symbol, and symbolism is a very powerful weapon. People looking at the shroud are not interested in carbon dating, pollen tests, or ink stains, or perhaps even the reality of what they are seeing.

The RC Church may feel that it is enough for faith to be maintained through this symbolic bit of rag, just as crummy plaster crosses in churches evoke a symbolic link with the beginnings of Christianity and the death of Jesus, even though they are just as fake as the shroud.

Symbolism is everywhere. That is why logo designers make good money.

When one sees a flag, or hears the National Anthem, it is symbolic of the country. I do not look at my flag and say, wow, a piece of cloth with 6 stars and a union jack! I think Australia. When I hear our rather corny national anthem, I do not think how stupid the words are, I think Australia. These things push one of my buttons.

When people look at, or think of the shroud, they think Jesus. It pushes a button. Perhaps, for them, that is enough.

Norm

Nomad

A very deep streak of iconoclasm runs through much of Protestant and East Orthodox thought, and I must confess, I am personally deeply uncomfortable with many of the practices of venerating icons and relics found within the Catholic Church. This practice, is, in fact, one of my principle reasons for not becoming a Catholic. I think that anything that serves as a possible barrier between a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ is a very dangerous thing, and icons can quickly serve as such barriers.

That said, the official teachings of the Church do appear to be much more conservative in this matter than are the practices of many in the laity. Rome seems to be very careful before placing its stamp of approval on any given miraculous claim, especially when it is attached to an object. I have also tried to understand and appreciate the reasons behind their teachings in this matter, and to continue to examine it in more depth. At the same time, I must say that I remain unconvinced at the overall worth of venerating objects here on earth.

Sorry for being so long winded on this question, but it is a complex issue for me, and one on which I wish to remain open minded. And all of that said, the Shroud just doesn't strike me as being authentic. If anything it seems just a little too perfect for its role. I think the reported cloth used to cover His head during His burial has a better possibility of being real. But here the claims and the evidence are hardly spectacular, so it doesn't receive a lot of press.

Nomad

fromdownunder

Nomad:
"I think the reported cloth used to cover His head during His burial has a better possibility of being real."

Nomad - I have never heard of this before. Do you have any refences?

Thanks

Norm

Nomad

Actually marduck, it is old Latin for "populist tripe".

To be honest, I don't know where the expression orginated. As to its exact meaning, perhaps I can paraphrase a past Supreme Court Justice when he was asked to define pornography...

I may not be able to give you a satisfactory definition of what a "wah wah" is, but I sure know it when I see it!"

Nomad