Posted on 08/11/2019 9:14:45 AM PDT by Kaslin
Your Holiness,
Significant momentum is building for decisive action that will positively impact your church, all Christ-centered denominations, and the world.
It’s time for 21st-century scientific testing on the Shroud of Turin.
Only you can authorize what will be a universally applauded decision that could also enhance your papal legacy.
Why should the Shroud be tested now? Articles from three international Catholic news sources provide the answer.
National Catholic Register, August 5: “The Shroud of Turin Latest Study Deepens Mystery.” (Subhead: “Researchers cast doubt on the findings of the controversial 1988 study.”)
Inside the Vatican, June/July issue (re-published from La Stampa newspaper):“‘The Shroud Is Not Medieval. We Need New Studies to Know Its Age.’”
Aleteia, July 22: “New data questions finding that Shroud of Turin was medieval hoax.” (Subhead: “Specialists hope to re-test the artifact which some believe to be an authentic relic of Christ's crucifixion.”
The Aleteia article immediately followed my July 21, U.S.-based Townhall piece, “Shroud of Turin: New Test Concludes 1988 ‘Medieval Hoax’ Dating Was a Fraud.” The article spawned headlines on numerous Catholic and Protestant websites in addition to some secular ones.
Furthermore, a UK Guardian news report from June 21, 2015, illustrates a chronic problem that new Shroud testing could eliminate. Remember that day you were in Turin venerating the Shroud during its last public display? The story on your visit was headlined “Pope Francis praises Turin shroud as an ‘icon of love.’ ”
The first paragraph read:
“Pope Francis paused in silent prayer before the shroud of Turin on Sunday, following in the footsteps of hundreds of thousands of people who have come this year to Turin’s cathedral to view the burial linen some believe covered the body of Jesus after crucifixion but others say is a medieval fake.” (Bold added for emphasis.)
The phrase “medieval fake” — often interchanged in the media with hoax, fraud or forgery — continuously disparages the Shroud. Maligning this “icon of love” stems from 1988 Vatican-authorized radiocarbon tests that concluded the mysterious cloth, with its unexplained image of a crucified man, dates from between 1260 -1390.
However, that purported medieval timeframe — stemming from a small test-sample cut from the Shroud’s repaired outer corner, along with questionable research and reporting protocols — immediately ignited controversy among Shroud scientists and experts that has never abated.
Three decades later, through a 2017 legal request, French researcher Tristan Casabianca gained access to the 1988 raw data that was previously "unavailable.” After two years of studying the data, Casabianca and his team reported their results in March in the scholarly journal Archaeometry. Last month in an interview with the French publication L'Homme Nouveau, Casabianca said, “It is therefore impossible to conclude that the shroud of Turin dates from the Middle Ages.”
Your Holiness, “some scientists in the future” means now.
An equally important argument for testing is faith in Jesus, about which I have written extensively.
You are aware that the church is experiencing a decline in membership, most notably in Western Europe and America. Meanwhile, the Vatican never utilizes the Shroud for evangelization purposes. It should, however, because millions of Catholics and other Christians believe that the cloth provides foundational evidence for faith in Jesus — compatible with the Gospel accounts that He lived, suffered, died and was resurrected.
I have been told while visiting Vatican City that, broadly speaking, Vatican authorities believe evidence of His existence is not necessary for faith in Christ. And I would argue that this is the case for only the strongest believers. But, do you believe that the Shroud’s survival to this day is only a coincidence? In my writings, I have equated the cloth’s existence to a “Doubting Thomas” moment for those requiring physical proof.
Similar to the Apostle Thomas, who insisted on placing his fingers in Christ’s wounds before he would believe, people today — especially the unchurched and the young — would welcome the latest scientific evidence about Jesus that only new Shroud testing could provide.
As Mark Antonacci, respected Shroud expert and author of "Test the Shroud,” told me, “New technologies could not only answer every outstanding question regarding the Shroud but confirm the most critical event in human history.”
Finally, since I was born and raised Jewish before converting to Christianity in 1976, and later married into the Catholic Church, proving the authenticity of the Shroud is a personal mission. This mission has led me to spearhead an effort for a groundbreaking high-tech exhibition about the Shroud at the prestigious Museum of the Bible in Washington, D.C.
Pending the museum securing $2.5 million in funding, the exhibition is targeted to open in early January 2021. As proposed, my SignFromGod.org team and other leading Shroud experts believe that this unique exposition, exploring a mysterious male image on a linen cloth with the latest display technology, could positively impact the world.
It would be even more impactful if you were to authorize new testing in conjunction with the exposition, to which you are cordially invited. Then you could also view the museum’s permanent exhibit, “Treasures From the Vatican Museums and the Vatican Library” — a testament to the institution’s well-established working relationship with the Vatican.
Ultimately, to quote leading Shroud expert and exhibit team member Russ Breault:
“The Shroud of Turin is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated, or it is a deliberate and purposeful sign from God.”
Holy Father, for that overarching reason, I respectfully ask that you authorize 21st-century testing on the Shroud of Turin.
In His Name,
Myra Adams
Executive Director
Adviser to the Shroud Exhibit
NO NO NO NO NO!!!!
Don’t let that fake pope anywhere around the Shroud.
Do not let this leftist mole anywhere near this. I don’t know if it’s real or not but Frankie is just as likely to burn it just in case it is real.
It’s a big piece of cloth. You could spare a square inch or two without affecting it as a whole, and no one would know the difference. Just patch the cut-out areas. But one caveat: if tests indicate it’s anything but first-century in origin, give-or-take the margin of error, that’s going to be it for the Shroud’s “credibility,” even if they bungle the testing.
He seems to be too busy converting the Catholic Church into the Islamic Caliphate.
Why?
Why? Please explain.
Cutting a patch and replacing it is one of the possible problems with the 1988 testing. It has been alleged that the Sisters assigned to remove a section, chose to remove a part of a patching around the edge that was done during the medieval period.
Right, that article where you claimed Casabianca's analysis concluded fraud.
It didn't.
Why should the Pope listen to an entreaty from a shameless liar?
The site that this article is based on, The Museum of the Bible.
Is that not the same museum that is founded by the Hobby Lobby folks, a Christian based company?
Agree...the Pope cannot be trusted.
‘I don’t know if it’s real or not but Frankie is just as likely to burn it just in case it is real.’
it’s already been burned, several centuries ago...
‘that’s going to be it for the Shroud’s “credibility,” even if they bungle the testing.’
they could find out that it came from the J.C. Penney catalog and a lot of the parishionate would still think it’s real...
If you want on or off the Shroud of Turin Ping List, Freepmail me.
No sisters were involved in the sampling for the 1988 test. That sample was taken under the ill advised change in protocols by Father Antonio Rigge. Instead of the agreed six sample from various places around the Shroud’s surface, including image areas and non-image areas, a single sample was cut from the one area the scientists from the original Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) had all agreed should be avoided for C14 testing because it was physically, photographically, and chemically different than the main body of the Shroud. That sabotaged the 1988 C14 testing from the onset.
Oh ye of little faith.
A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.
Thank you for the correction on who selected the test sample. Perhaps I’m remembering either an earlier test or a story that got the selector’s of the sample wrong.
That's also why I cringe every time he canonizes a saint. He seems to do this either because he can poliicize the alleged saint for his purposes, or use the saint as a "human shield" against criticism, and bolster his own folk-sanctity. Faux sanctity.
I almost yelped in exasperation when he started sniffing and pothering around John Henry Newman's empty grave. Good old Newman (presciently?) made sure there were no earthly remains to exploit.
The Shroud was tested and much more far later than the 1988 “testing” by a group including Ray Dowling. I am not Catholic but a student of Scripture as well as other disciplines including digital imaging. after the shroud was damaged in a fire the edging was added to the cloth to protect the structure.
Per the activities of Dowling and others they have proved that the image is not one of tincture or paint being applied to a mere piece of cloth but one that could only be caused by Light. At the end it is a digital representation of an image that was most likely created by The Body of Christ turning into pure white light. They took the image and reverse engineered it in a way and created a physical model of the information contained in the image. All of the wounds, blood and other elements matched all of the accounts.
Last, if you look at the image that he created digitally from the data and another painted by a young girl unknown to each other name Akiane Kramarik who was born in 1994. She painted by her own hand an image of Jesus at age 8 that aligns to the shroud image
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eiq-JJpYIX8
Believe what you will, I do
God Bless
That was my thought immediately after the results became public. But unfortunately, once "Science" has made its pronouncement it's very hard to go back.
It works the other way as well. Any number of people calling themselves scientists have bought into the idea of the Shroud as the genuine burial cloth of Jesus, and they've muddied the waters of research by making offhand pronouncements regarding some of its features which tend to be accepted carte blanche by the lay public because, having come from "scientists," they are taken uncritically as "science."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.