Posted on 03/16/2010 10:47:41 AM PDT by NYer
The faithful venerate the replica of the Shroud of Turin at the Ukrainian Catholic Cathedral in Philadelphia.
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.”
Others agree.
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 it’s 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. What’s not unusual is the reaction people have when they see such a replica, he said.
“It’s 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. “It’s 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 haven’t 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 cathedral’s 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".
Nuff said?
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.
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.