Posted on 10/12/2015 1:16:55 PM PDT by NYer
In honor of the Year of Mercy decreed by Pope Francis — which begins on December 8, 2015 — Stanislas LaLanne, Bishop of Pontoise and “Guardian of the Holy Tunic” has announced that the Holy Tunic of Argenteuil – purported to be the seamless garment worn by Christ on Calvary – will be exhibited to the public for a very brief time: from March 25 to April 10, 2016.
This tunic was originally documented as being seamless and of-a-piece, fitting the description found in the Gospel according to John (Jn 19:23-24):
“When the soldiers had crucified Jesus, they took his clothes and divided them into four shares, a share for each soldier. They also took his tunic, but the tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from the top down. So they said to one another, “Let’s not tear it, but cast lots for it to see whose it will be,” in order that the passage of scripture might be fulfilled [that says]: ‘They divided my garments among them, and for my vesture they cast lots.’ This is what the soldiers did.”
The relic is known to have arrived in France in the year 800, when the Empress Irene of Constantinople — hoping to marry Charlemagne, and thus unite their empires — presented the garment to him as a coronation gift. The marriage never happened, as Irene was soon dethroned, and Charlemagne entrusted the tunic’s safe-keeping to his daughter, Théodrade, then Abbess of the Monastery of the Humility of Our Lady of Argenteuil.
During the Norman invasion, the nuns sealed the tunic behind a wall, where it remained until the middle of the twelfth century. By then, the monastery had come under the ownership of the Benedictines of St. Denis, who, in 1131, held a solemn viewing for King Louis VII. Saint Louis also venerated the relic, twice, in 1255 and 1260. In 1544 Francis I had the village of Argenteuil fortified to protect the tunic from theft.
During the French Revolution, the integrity of the Z-twist-patterned woven tunic was lost as the parish priest of Argenteuil — hoping to protect the unique garment from confiscation by the government — cut it into several pieces, burying some, and entrusting other pieces to parishioners. The priest, jailed for two years, attempted to patch the relic back together, but some parts of the tunic were never found.
While minimal testing has been done on the cloth, it has been determined that the blood stains found within its fibers are type AB, as with the Shroud of Turin, and that the two relics share similar pollens.
In the modern era, the tunic has been displayed every fifty years, so this exception for the Year of Mercy is noteworthy. The tunic — having been stolen in 1983, and then recovered — was last given exposition in 1984, drawing at that time approximately 80,000 pilgrims. As the 2016 display will occur during the 150th anniversary of the Basilica of Saint Denis, and the 50th anniversary of the establishment of the diocese of Pontoise, Father Guy-Emmanuel, rector of the basilica, is expecting more than twice as many pilgrims to venerate the relic.
Translated from the French, with additional research added.
“Show us where the Catholic Church says that venerating the shroud or any other relic is necessary for salvation.”
I didn’t say they did, so I’m under no obligation to defend it. That is a silly kind of challenge. Please reread my comment.
I said that the shroud you brought up is unnecessary for salvation. Therefore, when you bring it up as if everyone should accept and honor it, I’m pointing out it is unnecessary and not even capable of being verified as authentic.
Even if it were the actual Shroud of Christ, it is absolutely insignificant in comparison to eternal life and a relationship with God.
.
Relics are idols of a sort, believed, by those that do not believe the word of God, to have special powers.
.
“Show me where the Catholic Church instructs its members to do so. Perhaps you have a skewed understanding of relics. “
Again, this is a silly statement on your part. At some point, not worth responding to this kind of silliness.
It just encourages you to not focus on the actual discussion.
This is not idolatry.
No, the Church does not hold that this is the garment of Our Lord. It has been around for a long time, has a documented history and shares some aspects of the Shroud of Turin. With that in mind the Church will display it to the faithful from time to time without making a definitive statement because she cannot. One is not compelled to believe anything about it.
It would be one thing if you were merely stating that it isn't necessary for salvation because (surprise, surprise) Catholics would agree with you. Unfortunately, your main dig so far has been that it is idolizing. Which is untrue.
"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).
Any and all miracles that result from a relic, are attributed to God, not the relic.
no, not “Catholic ping”.
Catholics tolerate superstitious relics but we don’t have to believe in them.
How does it date in Carbon 14 dating? Is the weave that of medieval Europe, like the Shroud, or is it similar to that of the Levant in the first century? Linen or cotton? Where was the linen grown?
It appears as though some people have forgotten the story of the hemorrhaging woman who only touch the hem of Jesus’ garment and her blood flow stopped instantly.
She didn’t touch Jesus, just his clothes.
What evidence have you seen for this (it does not match what I have read, but I am interested)? The Greek word (pardon me, but I think what we know of the original text matters) for the garment is "chitona" and then "chiton", which is normally translated as 'coat'.
I would guess that Jesus wore more or less:
a linen undershirt, the "haluk";
a tunic over the haluk;
a linen girdle around the waist;
sandals made of untanned leather (perhaps leather boots in the winter);
and an upper garment, probably made of white wool, with a blue thread in the garment and tassels at the corners, which may have been a Talit or similar but probably would not have been referred to as a 'chiton'.
He may, perhaps, have worn a head covering, with a woolen circlet to hold it in place, particularly in the summer;
or a thick woolen "himation" as a coat for warmth in the winter.
As I understand the words and First Century clothing, the tunic or the himation are the most likely items to have been referred to as a 'chiton'. Both practical items would have been valued by Roman soldiers far more than the more symbolic Talit (prayer shawl) would.
.
There can be no comparison between the personal articles Paul sent to specific individuals, and the idolatry of relics.
.
Jesus clarifies the means of the healing in this incident, in a passage that I think carries more meaning than many of us notice:
(NIV) “Daughter, your faith has healed you. Go in peace and be freed from your suffering.”
It was her faith, not the garment that healed her, but I find myself wondering whether the act of touching the garment helped her faith to reach that level. Jesus often required those he healed to do something as part of being healed, and reaching out may have been her contribution to this miracle. Perhaps relics work in the same way - helping to boost belief for those in need. There are many among us who might be covered by "o ye of little faith".
Depending on how relics are viewed, I do not necessarily see idolatry in showing respect for them. Nor do I see idolatry in the somewhat parallel act of honoring or showing veneration toward the original Declaration of Independence. If you think that I have misinterpreted anything, please let me know.
I believe your shroud info is incorrect, and I think Swordmaker is the expert here. If it is not you, Swordmaker, you have my appologies for bugging you!
In order to be our savior, Yeshua had to be completely Torah observant, thus he wore the Talit that all men were required to wear.
The Talit is the garment with the blue thread in the corner tassels that the woman touched
You cannot go by the Greek because it was translated from the original Hebrew writings by persons that lacked understanding of Torah and Hebrew culture.
The Greek texts are heavily peppered with cultural faux pas that show clearly that this is so.
This is not something we can check out though, except for Matthew’s gospel where 28 lines of copies of the original Hebrew are available,and they differ considerably with the received Greek texts.
All it means is that you just can’t rest on what a word traditionally meant in Greek. You have to compare it through finding the same word in the LXX, which was translated by Hebrew scribes, and relating that word to the same line in the Tanakh to see what the Hebrew really is.
.
Using Luke 8:45-48 which recounts this incident as follows. Please note the in the crowd and the crush of everyone around Him, Jesus states that he felt “power had gone out of me.” thus her faith and touching the garment got Jesus’ notice of her.
45And Jesus said, “Who is the one who touched Me?” And while they were all denying it, Peter said, “Master, the people are crowding and pressing in on You.” 46But Jesus said, “Someone did touch Me, for I was aware that power had gone out of Me.” 47When the woman saw that she had not escaped notice, she came trembling and fell down before Him, and declared in the presence of all the people the reason why she had touched Him, and how she had been immediately healed. 48And He said to her, “Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace.
thank you. I’ve never heard of this garment before, that I can remember.
Damn bastards.
If you want on or off the Shroud Ping List, Freepmail me.
Ain’t it so NICE to have the inside track on a gospel that the world had published to it in Greek, and that you can know which one came first rather than one being reverse-Jewish engineered?
Because something had a fringe, isn’t enough to pin it down to whether that was the tallis or some other item.
There was actually an excellent reason to pen gospels in Greek. The word was going out to Hellenistic Jews who lived throughout the Roman Empire. Their Messiah had come.
Let’s hypothesize for a moment that non-Christian Chassidim had the right view and the Messiah showed up in New York City. Well how do you think the Chassidim, who have been looking for such a figure, would be going to tell the Jews in America about it. Why, in English of course!
This stuff you’ve been pushing is trying to be more Jewish than the Jews, which would be something like being more Catholic than the Pope (well, at least till Francis showed up, and now it is very possible). It IS possible to obey the Law to the letter without screaming in everyone’s face LOOK I’M A HONKIN JEW AND PUH-ROUD OF IT.
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.