Skip to comments.Turin in Philly
Posted on 03/16/2010 10:47:41 AM PDT by NYer
PHILADELPHIA Not everyone will be able to travel to Italy this year when the Shroud of Turin is on public view for the first time in 10 years.
But Philadelphia might be a good alternative.
A Vatican replica of the Shroud of Turin is on display in the Ukrainian Catholic Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception in Philly until June 29, and, according to officials of the Ukrainian Archdiocese, the effect the replica has been having on people is quite profound.
People are moved by the awesomeness of seeing the shroud and contemplating what Jesus did for them, said Msgr. Myron Grabowsky, who works in the chancery of the Ukrainian Archeparchy of Philadelphia.
Another advantage is that anyone who comes to the cathedral can spend as much time as he wants in front of the photographic replica. On the other hand, anyone who goes to Turin this year will have a time limit some say as little as three seconds.
After all, Turin expects about 2 million pilgrims for the rare display, to take place April 10 to May 23. Pope Benedict XVI will be one of those pilgrims, visiting on May 2.
The Philadelphia replica was a gift from Cardinal Lubomyr Husar, major archbishop of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, based in Kiev, Ukraine. It is a photographic replica, overlaid on linen, but, said Father Daniel Troyan, director of evangelization for the archeparchy, It gives you the same effect.
Ken Hutchins, who attends Divine Liturgy regularly at the cathedral, remembers thinking when he heard that the replica was coming, A photograph? Will that have the same impact as if someone went to go see the actual Shroud of Turin?
But Hutchins reports that he had a very moving experience in front of the replica and noticed that others did too.
I could see that they treated this as if it were the actual burial cloth of Jesus, said the 55-year-old convert from Protestantism. Several feet before they got to the front of the line, people would go down on their knees to venerate it as if it were the Good Friday service. They would venerate all the wounds. The fact that its a copy became the least important fact.
There are numerous photographic replicas of the shroud around the country, but this one is unusual for its size, said Russ Breault of the Shroud of Turin Education Project in Peachtree City, Ga. Whats not unusual is the reaction people have when they see such a replica, he said.
Its a very powerful reaction, Breault said. It is a phenomenal thing when you can be up close and personal.
Breault will present a multimedia lecture on the Shroud of Turin at the cathedral on April 9 and 10.
Means of Evangelization
Cardinal Husar received two shroud replicas from the Vatican and wanted to share one with an overseas Ukrainian Church, said Father Troyan. Archbishop Stefan Soroka of the Ukrainian Archeparchy of Philadelphia put in a request.
The Vatican is trying to get veneration of the shroud established throughout the world, said Father Troyan. Its a means of evangelization for whoever has it.
It seems to be working. Said Father Troyan, The people who come rather than running in and running out are moved to prayer and reconciliation. People who havent been to confession in 25 years are asking for the sacrament of reconciliation.
People are moved by the awesomeness of seeing the shroud and realizing what Jesus did for them, said Msgr. Grabowsky.
Both priests reported that hopeful parents lay sick children on the replica, which is situated on a table in front of the cathedrals icon screen. And one elderly man touched to it a prayer card a priest in Ukraine had given him during the communist persecution, when the Church was forced underground.
The cathedral began displaying the replica of the Shroud on Feb. 21, the first Sunday of Lent. That day in the Eastern Church is always the Sunday of Orthodoxy, commemorating the restoration of the use of icons after the period of iconoclasm.
For visitors like Hutchins, the 14 by 3 replica itself is a kind of icon. Like an icon, it became a vehicle to pray to God, he said.
Father Troyan agreed that people who come to the cathedral see the replica as a kind of icon. There is no physical description of Jesus in the Bible, he said. All of the coins, mosaics, icons since the early centuries, if overlaid with the face on the shroud, have all of the same markings: the position of the eyes, the hair, the beard, the nose and the cheeks.
Today, about 130 seminarians from the Latin Catholic St. Charles Borromeo Seminary in nearby Overbrook will share in the experience of venerating the shroud. The seminary conducts a biannual walking pilgrimage to Philly-area shrines such as those to St. John Neumann or St. Rita of Cascia. This year, said Father Pat Welsh, dean of men and director of liturgy, the seminary wanted to introduce the students to the Byzantine liturgy and chose to walk the seven and a half miles to the Ukrainian cathedral and attend Divine Liturgy.
By a happy coincidence, said Father Welsh, they are exhibiting the shroud at this time.
I suppose a replica of an idol is just as good as the idol itself
What would make you say that the Shroud of Turin is an idol?
Anti-Christian statment there, bub.
Yep, it sounds a lot like something a Muslim would say. Christianity has NEVER taught that a likeness of our Lord was idolatry.
The Shroud of Turin is either the burial shroud of our Lord or it isn’t.
If it IS NOT, then why hasn’t anyone been able to explain how a medieval forger could have made it? For that matter, why are modern scientist unable to make a perfect reproduction TODAY? It seems that those should be very simple questions to answer.
However, if it IS the burial shroud of our Lord that would mean that He WANTED His image to be shown on the shroud. If He WANTED it there, it means He WANTED us to see it and that would mean that He produced what some denounce as an idol.
You can get an indication by following a link off of his profile, and poking around until you come to this: Can Bible Believing Christians & Catholics Truly Walk Together?
To summarize the article, his answer to that musical question would be: "No".
Yep, an adherent to a mad-made religion based on YOPIOS.
NOBODY worships the Shroud of Turin.
Why don’t you get back to me when you can answer my questions from #6.
Let's pretend for just a moment that you are right. Why is modern science unable to recreate the Shroud, let alone explain how it could have been made with medieval technology.
Has it ever crossed your mind that the word "napkin" DID NOT mean the same thing in the 16th century that it means today?
The Church has, of course, been reticent to pronounce one way or another on this, citing gaps in the shroud's provenance. Which is the proper course of action at present. Nevertheless, it's interesting not only from a religious, but from a scientific point of view.
When I was a physics undergrad at the U. of Rochester, the chairman of the department was Harry Gove. He was a shameless publicity hound, but he was (probably) the first to propose a method of carbon dating using very small sample sizes, and analyzed by means of particle accelerators, in this case Rochester's "Emperor" tandem Van de Graff, used for studies of atomic nuclei. Naturally, the Shroud would have been a perfect candidate for this kind of testing, since one would not wish to sacrifice any more of it than absolutely necessary. The upshot is that Rochester wasn't one of the groups chosen, but those two that were used a similar methodology to Gove's.
Although those results indicated a medieval date for the cloth, there is still controversy over whether or not the sample was contaminated by carbon from the fire the Shroud had been through, or whether the sample actually came from a patch used to repair the cloth, or if a biotic plaque on the surface of the material skewed the results. The only way to resolve this would be with another round of testing, monitored to everyone's satisfaction.
From my point of view, though, the scientifically interesting question is how the image was actually formed. As you've pointed out, no one has really been able to answer that adequately in purely material terms, nor have they been able to reproduce the process. It's decidedly not a simple question to answer, as it looks like the obvious explanations, e.g., it's a painting, it's some primative quasi-photographic process, etc., have been pretty much discounted.
I have no knowledge apart from what I've read in the public arena, but it strikes me that the tonal distribution of the image resembles that of an X-ray. That is to say, it's what one might expect if the cloth responded to incident radiation according to Beer's Law. (In fact, X-rays were first discovered by observing the exposure of photographic film in their vacinity.) The Beer's Law distribution suggests a "(super-)natural" process of image formation, rather than a man-made one, like a painting, though it doesn't necessarily mean the incident radiation was in the X range of wavelengths. Another interesting aspect of the image is that the presumed incident radiation was normal (i.e., perpendicular) to the surface of the cloth.
Finally, the objection is sometimes raised that even if the cloth could be traced to the first century, it's nothing more than the image of a crucified man, not necessarily Jesus Christ. But the indications of a gash to the side of the body, and of blood stains near the forehead (suggesting the crown of thorns) are consistent with the Gospel accounts of the Passion, and it would be highly unusual find these marks on any other victims of crucifixion.
Although my personal belief is that it is in fact the burial (and more correctly, the resurrection) shroud of Christ, even if it is the work of human hands, the inspiration, devotion and skill to create such a remarkable and technically perfect objet d'art is to me, further evidence of presence of the Divine.
So, the Gospel of Saint John was written in English? Is THAT what you are saying? The word napkin comes from the French word nappe which actually means TABLE CLOTH and THAT is the word that 16th century translators would have used.
1. NOBODY can figure out how to recreate the image today, let alone explain how a medieval artist could have done so.
2. The Gospels talk about the cloth being left in the tomb, why make that mention? What was our Lord wearing when He appeared to the women and later to the Disciples?
3. If He DID impose His image on the Shroud, the ONLY LOGICAL CONCLUSION is that He did it for a REASON.
If that were the case, history would be ripe with stories of images being superimposed on burial cloths, it would be a rare phenomenon rather than a single incident.
That is where my logic leads me, and in fact, that is pretty much the very argument I use to present my beliefs on the shroud. I also like the example of Thomas. When he expressed his disbelief, Christ let him probe his wounds and gave him hard evidence; he didn't drive Thomas away as an unbeliever. Certainly Christ knew the world would be full of Thomases in need of evidence.
Some shroud skeptics acknowledge that the image appears to have been created by means (as yet) beyond the comprehension of humans and suggest that the shroud is a demonic trick to lead people away from Christ. While on its face this argument may seem plausible, I suspect far more people have had their faith kindled or re-affirmed by the shroud than have misplaced theirs.
The soudarion, commonly spelled ‘sudarium’ today is in Oviedo.
Also, the shroud IS a strip of cloth. It was most likely bound around Christ with other strips of cloth.
This is the closet we have of a photo of Our Lord Jesus.
To those who are against, just think of having a picture of dear family member. Also in the Bible book of Revelation, there is a discription of what Jesus looks like.
Please see post 22. Thank-you.
New Testament was written in Greek please see post 13
It doesn't. In fact, it compliments it. The blood stains on the Sudarium of Oviedo line up with the stains on the shroud. Furthermore, they are the same blood type.
The remarkable thing about this cloth is that both tradition and scientific studies claim that the cloth was used to cover and clean the face of Jesus after the crucifixion. We are going to present and look into these claims.
For a more comprehensive and scientifically researched study on Shroud of Turn, go to this link.
Yes, I'm sorry if I was unclear. I'm trying to address objections to the authenticity of the Shroud on a purely objective basis.
You see, it could be a one-time event for a crucified man of the first century who was not Jesus Christ. But why would anyone put a crown of thorns on such a person, as the cloth seems to indicate? That specific feature is unique to Jesus. Also, it was not usual Roman practice to pierce the side with a lance, as again the Shroud's image suggests, but to break the legs of those who survived too long on the cross. Again, the Shroud is consistent with the Gospel accounts and not with common Roman practice, as one would expect for some other crucified man.
Both of these pieces of evidence in the image on the Shroud point to its being the burial cloth of Jesus in particular, and not some anonymous individual.
While no one can answer that question just yet, I believe you will find some truly interesting data at the web site below.
If the Shroud is an authentic burial cloth of a much wounded crucified man (it is if it is not a hoax) then is it a lucky fluke that the images are so visually correct? A truly natural explanation requires that a chemical reaction starts and ends. And this is key: The reaction must end sufficiently late for there to be discernible images. And, it must end early enough that the images are not oversaturated. Analysis of the images shows no saturation plateaus. Timing is everything. In photographic terms this is correct exposure. Is this mere luck?
It is also interesting to note that the man of the shroud's legs were not broken, a common practice at that time. Also, the marks on the head attest to the excruciating wounds inflicted by the crown of thorns imposed on Jesus Christ. Who, other than Christ, do we know for certain, was crowned with thorns?
First of all, Catholics do not "worship" the Shroud of Turin. If anything, it would be considered a relic.
Secondly, reverence of relics is based on Scripture. One of the most moving accounts of the veneration of relics is that of the very body of Christ itself. Rather than leaving his body on the cross, to be taken down and disposed of by the Romans (as was the customary practice), Joseph of Arimathea courageously interceded with Pilate for Christs body (Mark 15:43, John 19:38). He donated his own, newly hewn tomb as Christs resting place (Matt. 27:60). Nicodemus came and donated over a hundred pounds of spices to wrap inside Jesus grave clothes (John 19:39), that amount of spices being used only for the most honored dead. And after he was buried, the women went to reverently visit the tomb (Matt. 28:1) and to further anoint Christs body with spices even though it had already been sealed inside the tomb (Mark 16:1, Luke 24:1). These acts of reverence were more than just the usual courtesy shown to the remains of the dead; they were special respect shown to the body of a most holy manin this case, the holiest man who has ever lived, for he was God Incarnate.
Keep in mind what the Church says about relics. It doesnt say there is some magical power in them. There is nothing in the relic itself, whether a bone of the apostle Peter or water from Lourdes, that has any curative ability. The Church just says that relics may be the occasion of Gods miracles, and in this the Church follows Scripture.
The use of the bones of Elisha brought a dead man to life: "So Elisha died, and they buried him. Now bands of Moabites used to invade the land in the spring of the year. And as a man was being buried, lo, a marauding band was seen and the man was cast into the grave of Elisha; and as soon as the man touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood on his feet" (2 Kgs. 13:20-21). This is an unequivocal biblical example of a miracle being performed by God through contact with the relics of a saint!
Similar are the cases of the woman cured of a hemorrhage by touching the hem of Christs cloak (Matt. 9:20-22) and the sick who were healed when Peters shadow passed over them (Acts 5:14-16). "And God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his body to the sick, and diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them" (Acts 19:11-12).
If these arent examples of the use of relics, what are? In the case of Elisha, a Lazarus-like return from the dead was brought about through the prophets bones. In the New Testament cases, physical things (the cloak, the shadow, handkerchiefs and aprons) were used to effect cures. There is a perfect congruity between present-day Catholic practice and ancient practice. If you reject all Catholic relics today as frauds, you should also reject these biblical accounts as frauds.
But if the shroud is a fraud, which I contend that it is, then it isn’t a relic is it. And if it isn’t a relic then the church should not be promoting it should they
That does not necessarily follow, logically. I realize it seems pedantic, but one must cover all the bases. It's logically possible that the Shroud represents a one-time event, but that the image is of someone other than Jesus Christ.
But it would be highly unusual for any other crucified man of the first century to be crowned with thorns or have his side pierced. Those two pieces of evidence, which are present on the Shroud, are what strongly suggest that the image is of Jesus, and not of someone else.
On what basis do you contend that it is a fraud?
I’m well aware that it was written in Greek.
You are the one hung up on the word napkin, not me.
There is NOTHING to indicated that a “soudarion” was a small square.
“... the Shroud is consistent with the Gospel accounts and not with common Roman practice, as one would expect for some other crucified man.”
That seems correct to me. I am a Christian, not Roman Catholic, and I have looked at as much of the scientific evidence I have been able to study on the shroud. I am a scientist.
I believe we do not know whether the shroud is or is not the burial cloth in which our Lord was wrapped, but there is enough evidence to suggest that it could be that. The discussions here about the napkin and the linen cloth(es) are interesting. The napkin likely was over the head, and the linen cloth was under and over him. Then all that was wrapped, probably with additional linen clothes, wrapping the body and pressing the piece we know as the shroud tight against the body. There is no reason to think that the napkin would interfere with blood stains or image being transferred through the napkin to the shroud. The word for linen clothes in John 20:7 suggests a large piece of cloth, like a linen sail cloth. (Strong’s # G3607, G3608).
The blood stains and the obvious evidence of the head punctured and bleeding, as would be from a crown of thorns, has significance. That in itself makes this shroud unique. Also the belief I have that it is only resurrection power likely to be such that it could impress an image on the shroud.
I have not touched on all the objections that might be posted here or elsewhere regarding the authenticity of the shroud. As I said earlier, I believe we have evidence supportive of it being the shroud that was used to bury our Lord, and that was then impressed with an image at the ressurection.
For me it does not reek of idolatry to regard it as His burial shroud. Why would He not give us something such as this, to be passed down to this time?
If the authenticity is ever proven, there are a few groups today, such as the Amish, who might change their mind about photographs :) Of course we may not know for sure until our Lord comes again into our midst, or we are with Him where He is.
I also admire the Catholic Church position that does not say it is or it isn’t. This has been treated cautiously by the Church.
Careful consideration of what the shroud apparently shows, and if it is His burial cloth, shows an extraordinary glimpse of the awfulness of torture He experienced leading up to His death on the cross. Look at it that way, and consider, not the cloth, but Him. Revere Him, our Lord and Savior, and read Isaiah 53 again, carefully and reverently. Bow, and worship Him.
I don't know if you're interested in the physics of image formation, but you can find an explanation of Beer's Law by clicking here. What it boils down to is that the Density of the image (which is the logarithm of its reflectivity in the case of the Shroud), suitably normalized, is proportional to the logarithm of the relative luminance (i.e., the logarithm of the Exposure) of the incident radiation. The slope of the line relating these two quantities is known as the "gamma" of the exposure. In real film, the "line" is in fact roughly S-shaped, linear in the middle portion, but rolling off at the top in a "shoulder", and at the bottom in a "toe".
The Shroud's image seems to be "toasted" on the surface of the fibers of the cloth, suggesting it was caused by a burst of infrared radiation. The tonal distribution of the image is what one would expect from the physics of this process. But what could have caused the burst of radiation itself? That's the intriguing question, and we physicists love such a mystery. Naturally, we Christians would fill in the blank, so to speak, by saying it was caused by the glory associated with Christ's resurrection from the dead.
With regard to Protestant objections, my observation is that they tend to be distrustful of the Word actually being made Flesh, which is to say the Incarnation. This seems to arise from the Manichean influences the Reformers were subject to. The Catholic faith is nothing if not incarnational, so disagreements are bound to arise on these points.
While it's not Scripture, of course, I'm reminded of the passage in the ancient hymn and Easter sequence, Victimae pascali laudes:
Angelicos testes,This suggests that the "moderately early" Church understood there to have been "grave clothes" in addition to a "head cloth".
sudarium et vestes.
Thank you for your very kind post.
As you know from the philosophy of science, no hypothesis can ever be proven correct by means of the scientific method. This is because the scientific method procedes by inductive rather than deductive reasoning. It can, however, prove an hypothesis false, merely by finding a single counter-example. So scientific theories are different in character from mathematical theorems. The latter are obtained by deduction.
At present the carbon-dating results do seem to disprove the Shroud's authenticity, and that will eventually have to be addressed by further tests. Many questions still remain. The best scientific inquiry can do is suggest a plausible explanation.
The purpose of relics (Acts 5:14-16 and 19:11-12), as you say, is to point the mind and heart to Him, not to be an end of themselves. The Shroud in particular, if authentic, makes clear just how much Our Lord suffered for us, and that can be a very fruitful meditation for all of us, especially in this season of Lent. We need to remind ourselves of our own role in causing His suffering by our sinfulness, so that we can rejoice fully on Easter in His great mercy and forgiveness.
Relics, as well as our attempts to reason about theological matters, are not substitutes for faith, but may serve to make the leap of faith a bit smaller. In this sense, they can be useful tools for evangelization, especially of skeptics.
If authentic, how could we not be grateful to Our Lord for leaving us this artifact?
Since the “napkin” exists, would you venerate or not?
When Catholic AND Protestant scholars were translating the Bible in the 16th century they both used the term “napkin” and it would be an error to assume that this returns to a small cloth we place on our laps while eating. It meant TABLECLOTH and that changes the size of the cloth considerably.
The napkin that covered Jesus’s face EXISTS!! There is the SHROUD of Turin AND the Napkin....I think in Portugal or Spain.
Yeah, that's my favorite too.
Let's look at it logically:
Satan used powers that modern science cannot explain to place the image of the Crucified Jesus Christ on the Shroud...this has lead untold numbers of people to a greater faith in the Resurrected Jesus Christ. How anyone can conclude this is the work of Satan is beyond me.
And Veronica’s Veil.
??? Is it Veronica’s veil or are there two?
This suggests that the "moderately early" Church understood there to have been "grave clothes" in addition to a "head cloth".
And it would make perfect sense that the early christians had an understanding of the burial clothes that they safeguarded for so many centuries. Ii has been a while since I visited the Shroud Story web site and in researching some information today, I came across the following:
But the Earliest Words Might Be 1st Century
In a poem, the Hymn of the Pearl, we find Jesus allegorically saying that in a garment, justifiably a burial garment, that he sees two entire images of himself, one facing outward and one facing inward -- in other words ventral and dorsal images.
And what about the other images on the Shroud! And the pollen! It is such a treasure, preserved throughout 2000 years for us to view and on which to meditate, especially in this holy season of Lent.
There are copies of Veronica’s Veil, but the one believed to be the actual veil is at St. Peter’s Basilica. It is displayed once a year on (I believe on Passion Sunday).
“At present the carbon-dating results do seem to disprove the Shroud’s authenticity...”
Thank you for your comments. I did not address carbon-dating in my previous post, though I am aware of the controversy. There is evidence that the intense heat in a fire may have scewed those results. Russian scientists had a piece of linen from the time of Christ and did carbon dating on it before and after exposing it to the intense heat. My understanding is that the heat changed to make it look younger than it was, similar to dating of the shroud. The fabric itself matches weave etc from the first century.
Again, it is not about artifacts, it is about Him. And yes, we do need to remind ourselves of our own role in the need for His death and resurrection.
Wow!! I saw the Crown of Thorns at Notre Dame on Good Friday, the only day it’s exposed!!!
Also, Veronica’s Veil WAS NOT placed over our Lord when He was placed in the tomb. She wiped His face on the Via Dolorosa.
That would be incredible to see!
I know.....have you been to Israel?? It is UNBELIEVABLE!!
Thanks for the link.
NYer posted links here about the Sudarium which IS in Spain and DID cover the face of Jesus in the tomb:
It is a totally different relic from Veronica’s Veil.