Huon

The Shroud of Turin is not a relic. The Catholic Church knew six hundred years ago (as you wrote, Jiri) that this rag is not a shroud, still less the shroud of JC. So, they let their naïve fidels believe what they want (the rag is a relic, the shroud of JC). And they let a John P. Jackson, Ph.D., director and founder of the Turin Shroud Center of Colorado, say and write his BS. But I did not see anything written or said by JP 2 or Ratzinger on that subject. They know the truth, but they are not obliged to say it.

Huon

There is another shroud in Carcassonne (SW France, near Toulouse). It is preserved in the Cathedral Saint Michel. This Saint Shroud could have been brought back from the Holy land by two Augustine monks, around 1298. The local Church used this shroud to regain the fidels who could have been misled during the Albigense Crusade. Later, during the XVIth century, this shroud was used against the Protestants. Bishop Martin de saint André showed that this shroud could not catch fire. A miracle !
In 1993, a scientist, Dominique Cardon, made a C14 analysis of the so-called shroud, and found a date between 1220 and 1474 (95 %).

And we also have shrouds in Cadouin, Brioude, saint Florent de Saumur, a tunic in Argenteuil. There is also Der heilige rock zu Trier, and another in Cologne (Köln). For those who can read french, google "Suaire Carcassonne" etc...

Antipope Innocent II

Not really. It's just silly. Whatever the "Shroud" may or may not be otherwise, it's a venerated image and a work of Medieval art. The idea that the Church should destroy it is plain bizarre.

No, but I'm interested in objective history rather than hysterical value judgements. I take it you aren't interested in the history of how these ideas about magic changed between 1000 and 1500? Okay. I'm not terribly interested in the making the bleeding obvious point that religion is absurd. :wave:

I think we're all agreed on that, even the Church.

Yes.

Wrong. Did you read my previous posts? They didn't let their naive believers believe what they want at all - they made it quite clear that the "Shroud" was only a painting and not the real thing. They went to some efforts to ensure that this was understood, despite fraudulent attempts by the Shroud's owner to pretend it was real.

But this was the Fourteenth Century, so when the "Shroud" made its way to Italy the former declarations of its true nature were lost and forgotten and not discovered again until the Nineteenth Century. You couldn't do a Google search on documents of the former Avignonese Papacy in the late Fourteenth Century.

They "let" him? And they were going to stop him from saying whatever nonsense he wants, how exactly?

Why the hell would the current Pope have anything to say on the matter? The Church's position on the "Shroud" is already clear. In 1998 John Paul II said it should be considered "an icon" and said "Since we're not dealing with a matter of faith, the church can't pronounce itself on such questions. It entrusts to scientists the tasks of continuing to investigate, to reach adequate answers to the questions connected to this shroud."

Wow, how superstitious and unreasonable!

dr lazer blast

wow, do you guys equate the same disdain for a secular scientist deciding to test the big bang or any other theories that don't have to do with religion?

Toto

The shroud has been tested and retested. This appears to be a scientist with an agenda trying to force results that are not there.

Yellum Notnef

What about that show on National Geograhic "Da Vinci and the mystery of the shroud"? I don't remember anyone here ever mentioning this when the shroud comes up time and time again.
I've seen the show a couple times, but not recently enough to recall the details except it was a very compelling case that the shroud is a photograph taken by Da Vinci which was substituted for an earlier shroud by the Savoy's. It involved Da Vinci, the Pope and the Savoy family.

The head on the shroud is said to be Da Vinci himself.

Holly3278

Maybe this time they'll prove that the "Shroud" is a fake.

Antipope Innocent II

Firstly, the guy is called Leonardo. Calling him "Da Vinci" is like calling Joan of Arc "Of Arc". I blame that ignoramus Dan Brown for this relatively new practice of referring to him as "Da Vinci" - since his stupid novel became the marketing success of the decade everyone who wants to cash in on the fad needs to stick "Da Vinci" all over whatever it is they are trying to sell. I saw a "Da Vinci Oracle" divination kit in a shop the other day. Considering the scorn Leonardo had for fortune tellers and other charlatans, I couldn't help but note the irony.

Secondly, that silly documentary is based on the book Turin Shroud - In Whose Image? (or via: amazon.co.uk) by arch conspiracy kooks Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince. These idiots are also the prime source of "information" for the crap in The Da Vinci Code and wrote a book on how various ancient monuments are actually portals for aliens and this is being covered up by the CIA.

A reliable source on information on anything at all they are not.

Their argument re the "Shroud" is that a medieval artist couldn't have produced it (why?) and it could only have been produced by Leonardo (again, why?) Other absurdities aside, this kooky thesis crashes before it even gets off the ground - the carbon dating came up with a range of AD 1260-1390. Leonardo wasn't born until 1452. They then try to tie the "Shroud" to their whacko idea that Leonardo was a member of the "Priory of Sion", which is known to be a modern hoax that wasn't even dreamed up until the early 1960s.

This whole thesis is garbage.

Toto

Picket and Prince site for an updated versionThere is a market for this sort of entertainment.

Yellum Notnef

I don't recall the program mention The Priory of Scion, aliens, the CIA, or any other crap you mentioned. And I did not call him "Da Vinci" because of some book I have no interest in. And lastly, I don't want to argue about it, especially not with you.

The theory is that the image was produced by a camera obscura which "Leonardo" had drawings of in one of his notebooks. He also had access to photo sensitive chemicals needed to produce the image. There's no paint on the thing except for the blood spots.
If it's so easily dismissed as a medieval painting why has the controversy over what it is and how it was made continuing until this day?

Don't you think Leonardo would have been smart enough not to use new clothe? Being related to Pope he would have had access to older clothes possibly brought home from the crusades. The Pope commissioned Leonardo to produce a new money maker that looked more realistic than the one they had previously been showing. If I recall corretly it was the "Leary" shroud that disappeared right about when this new shroud showed up.

The case made sounded very plausible to me and did not have anything to do with the crazy shit you smeared all over it. But maybe it is all bunk.
It's quite obvious that you get much more excited about the shroud than I.