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.
You have a valid point, but understanding some non Catholics is probably based on the word “non”. Or opposed!
Just like their lack of understanding of the Body and Blood of Christ that we receive in the Eucharist.
I remember a recent Gospel reading where a woman just touched the garments that Jesus wore and was cured.
You assume facts not in evidence, LadyDoc. . . and in truth are not "facts" at all.
The weave of the Shroud of Turin is neither a specific weave of the medieval Europe or of any particular period. The three over one twill was also a weave of many periods. . . and has been found in ancient Egypt, the Eastern Mediterranean Levant area of the 1st Century, Roman weaves of almost any period, Central America of 1600 years ago, China of 3000 years ago, and many others. To limit it to medieval Europe is a claim of the skeptics and totally false. There is actually as much evidence linking the Shroud of Turin to the 1st Century Levant than there is to 14th Century Europe. . . and evidence showing its age to being far older than what the now falsified C-14 tests of a patched section reported a melange of old plus 16th century added material to be.
Once it was proved that the C-14 test was NOT performed on a homogenous sample, it was proved invalid as an accurate test of the main body of the Shroud.
The Shroud was bleached by a technique, hank bleaching in which the hanks of linen yarn were draped draped over bushes in the sun, a technique that had not been used in Europe for at least six hundred years having given way to whole cloth bleaching. The Shroud was then woven on a wall loom, a weaving technique that also was no longer in use in Europe of the period for at least four hundred years, having moved on to frame looms, which provided a more consistent result.
Cloth woven in the 9th century on will contain detectable levels of vanillin in the lignin of the fibers which evaporates at a known rate with time and temperature over the centuries. . . and a 13-14th Century cloth would have considerable levels of vanillin remaining. The shroud has zero vanillin left in its lignin. . . a state which indicates the flax of which it is made is at least 1300 years old or older.
The Shroud has imbedded in the obverse side, where the shoulders, buttocks, back of the head, and foot imprints are, as well as the some where the thighs and calfs, a specific type of limestone dust, a specific Travertine aragonite, whose chemical profile is matched only by the travertine aragonite that is found in only one place in the entire world. . . outside the eastern gate of Jerusalem, near a place called Golgotha, and specifically in tombs carved in the limestone rock there. The dust is on the back side of the Shroud where it would have been picked up in the cloth from being laid on a limestone shelf and having a soft, heavy, body shaped object laid on the other side of the cloth, which pressed the cloth into the dusty surface of the rock. The test for this is done by a x-ray spectrograph and is quite accurate. No 12th-14th century forger could possibly have anticipated such physical and chemical tests for authenticity and included such detail on his hypothetical fraud, or even anticipated their existence or potential.
In the Middle ages there was a big market in relics of varying classes. Anytime the Pope wanted to bring in a big crowd of pilgrimagers (who paid for the opportunity) and raise funds for this basilica or that refurbishment or when the coffers were running low, some new, never before seen relic would miraculously show up. Some people need signs or tangibles to bolster their faith. Jesus said we are more blessed when we believe without seeing.
I believe God intentionally did away with many things that he knew people would worship rather than Him.
“I remember a recent Gospel reading where a woman just touched the garments that Jesus wore and was cured.”
Then she cut a small piece off to keep, as a magic relic. For generations, it healed everyone in her family! Later after her death, her family willed it to their church to keep on display...
Wait. Scratch that. Not in the Scriptures.
Christ said her faith made her whole - not touching his garment.
Any cloth represented a huge investment of labor. . . as such was worth a lot of money. Cloth in the pre-industrial age was extremely valuable and in fact, often represented a large portion of the value of many estates. You may recall that Scrooge in a Christmas Carol was watching the people going through his Household LINENS, a very valuable portion of his estate. . . and a big consideration in one's last will and testament. Especially Flaxen Linens over cotton goods, as Linen could last generations.
This is why a coat or garment made without a seam would be particularly valuable. First it had to be extremely fine, being woven or knitted, crocheted as one piece. Secondly, had to be the work of a long time, involving weeks of work to grow the linen, spin and ret the yarn, then weave the garment on a special loom, most likely a special rig, by a skilled artisan. It was not something that was made from square pieces just assembled and sewn into one pieces from several.
It is also why grave clothes and Shrouds are very rare and usually were as small as possible and usually made of used sails, if they were used at all.
There were competing claims by churches who all claimed to have the same authentic relic! And weird ones, like breast milk from Mary...
It's me. . . and no problem. I have responded to her comment about the medieval nature of the weave of the Shroud. . . and it is a false claim put forward by skeptics who don't know what they are talking about.
have a seamless garment, it’s called skin and I was born with it.
Excellent point. Recall the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31). Luke begins by describing the rich man to his audience : “There was a rich man* who dressed in purple garments and fine linen and dined sumptuously each day." Notice, there is no mention of gold or gems, items that we might use in contemporary society to convey wealth. In Luke's parable, the rich man wears 'purple garments' and 'linen'.
Tyrian purple was expensive: the 4th-century-BC historian Theopompus reported, "Purple for dyes fetched its weight in silver at Colophon" in Asia Minor. The expense meant that purple-dyed textiles became status symbols, and early sumptuary laws restricted their uses. The production of Tyrian purple was tightly controlled in Byzantium and was subsidized by the imperial court, which restricted its use for the colouring of imperial silks. The dye substance is a mucous secretion from the hypobranchial gland of one of several species of medium-sized predatory sea snails that are found in the eastern Mediterranean Sea.
2000 years ago, this would have been recognized immediately by anyone hearing the parable. Today, without that background information, the significance is lost.
Ohhh good grief... (hand palm)
Are you saying good grief that people, our brothers in Christ who should know better, actually worship a fake piece of cloth like the Buddhists worship fragments of teeth said to be the Buddha’s?
Or are you saying you believe in the “seamless garment”?
The story is in Luke and Mark, following is from Luke 45-48 — 45 And 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.” 46 But Jesus said, “Someone did touch Me, for I was aware that power had gone out of Me.” 47 When 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. 48 And He said to her, “Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace.
see also my post #75 and the one it responds to.
You are correct it was her faith that healed her, however, it was her touching Jesus’ clothing that gained his attention to her amongst all in the crowd.
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.
“You are correct it was her faith that healed her, however, it was her touching Jesus’ clothing that gained his attention to her amongst all in the crowd.”
Jesus was aware of her. He was God.
“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.”
If you are arguing that Jesus becomes aware of us when we use relics, you are promoting a pagan idea of the talisman. I doubt anyone who claims the name of Christ would fall for that, so I must misunderstand your point.
Beyond whatever point you are making, she did not save His garment. It was one-off. It isn’t teaching we too just need to find a garment of Christ, a bone or tooth of a saint, or breast milk from Mary in order to be noticed, healed nor have our prayers answered.
You are reading much more into my use of scripture to show that it was Jesus’ sensing that something flowed from Him to her when she specifically touched his garment. From the description he was being “touched” by many more in the crowd, but He FELT her touching him. I think it was more than the garment, but His soul or the Holy Ghost that her faith connected with. I am merely stating what happened at the exact moment that the accounts in Luke and Mark happened.
I am NOT “...arguing that Jesus becomes aware of us when we use relics”.
Also, I am NOT making any argument about any ‘power’ in whatever clothes Jesus was wearing or any other relic, neither am I making any statement as to what the “Holy tunic of Argenteuil” may or may not be.
If anything, the ‘relic’ in contention has the same power as the coat of Lincoln I saw at the Smithsonian many decades ago: NO power at all, just a historical artifact.
“If anything, the ‘relic’ in contention has the same power as the coat of Lincoln I saw at the Smithsonian many decades ago: NO power at all, just a historical artifact.”
Well explained.
We live, amazingly, in a culture that places great value on the jersey a favorite football player wore in a championship game, the bat that was used to hit the record breaking home run, the ball that bat hit, etc.
How much more would even you revere an article of clothing worn by the one and only begotten Son of God?
Think about it. These aren't Judy Garland's ruby slippers.
While no one is worshiping the things which came into contact with Our Saviour's body, they are articles, if genuine of extreme value which should be revered, not worshiped.
“While no one is worshiping the things which came into contact with Our Saviour’s body, they are articles, if genuine of extreme value which should be revered, not worshiped.”
Worshipping? We cannot know unless they declare it.
Idolizing? Absolutely. It happens with Mary and idols of saints.
“Little children, guard yourself from idols.”
Apostle John
And if a memorial of Jesus brings someone closer to the living Lord himself? Or are you worshipping the Bible because you spend time with it instead of with the living Lord?
Regarding your comments about “worshipping the Bible”
1) yes there are some that do worship it but they are wrong.
2) It would appear that you view the Bible as a relic or tool and not the real thing. Is not his Word the Living God?
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.