Why Does The Shroud of Turin Still Exist?

In an imaginary “ranking” of Christian topics that elicit the most fervent discussions, Jesus Christ is No. 1. But near the top is the Shroud of Turin — believed by millions of Christians to be the authentic burial cloth of Jesus. This “ranking” was inspired by you — Townhall readers who wrote over 500 impassioned comments in response to my July 21 piece, “Shroud of Turin: New Test Concludes 1988 ‘Medieval Hoax’ Dating Was a Fraud.”

I purposely read all your comments to gain insight into my role as an adviser and fundraiser for a groundbreaking exhibition about the Shroud of Turin at the Museum of the Bible in Washington D.C. This spectacular museum, among the largest and highest rated in the city, is located only three blocks from the Capitol. And just prior to the January 20, 2021, presidential inauguration is when this high-tech Shroud exhibit is scheduled to open.

Threaded throughout hundreds of your responses about all aspects of the Shroud was one overarching theme summarized by these three comments:

“Anyone who requires physical evidence to underpin their faith doesn’t understand the concept of faith.”

“JESUS CHRIST died for all. HE is what is important. Making such a fuss about this piece of cloth is a distraction from HIS work of SALVATION.”

“I respectfully submit that the only ‘relic’ which really matters is the one which was left us on that first Easter morning: The tomb is empty! He is Risen! He is Risen indeed! Alleluia!”

Of course, “He is Risen” is also the foundation of my Christian faith, (made slightly more complicated by having been born Jewish). But I feel compelled to discuss and explore the comment that reads in part, “…such a fuss about this piece of cloth...”

And my response is simple: The Shroud of Turin exists because HE exists. An answer that echoes what God said to Moses, “I Am Who I Am. Say this to the people of Israel: I Am has sent me to you” (Exodus 3:14).

Thus, the existence of the Shroud of Turin raises two questions that I will attempt to address: First, what exactly is the Shroud? And second, a deeper dive into “Why does the cloth exist?”

The Shroud of Turin is a 14.5-by-3.5-foot linen cloth with a linear front to back mirror image of a crucified man. The Shroud has the distinction of being the most studied artifact in the world, yet the cloth’s numerous mysteries remained unexplained by modern science.

At this moment the Shroud lies in a fireproof box in the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist in Turin, Italy, as it has continuously since 1578. (But secretly relocated between 1939 and 1946 when Italian authorities feared Hitler was seeking possession.)

Among Shroud historians, there is no dispute that in 1352, over 200 years before the Shroud was housed in Turin, Geoffrey DeCharney displayed the cloth in Lirey, France marking the beginning of the Shroud’s documented "modern" dating.

There is also much circumstantial Shroud evidence through art, artifacts, and coins that pre-dates 1352. Moreover, scientifically verified botanical evidence found on the cloth in the form of pollen, dust, flowers, and even the weave and type of linen traces the Shroud back to first-century Jerusalem.

The cloth with its mysterious properties has survived wars, invasions and the ravages of time including numerous fires — most recently in 1997 at its home cathedral in Turin.

Most harrowing was the 1532 fire in Chambéry, France. Miraculously the entire cloth was not destroyed but left those distinctive linear markings along both sides of the Shroud that we see today. Hard to imagine, but the linen cloth was stored in a silver box, folded in 48 layers, when drops of molten silver burned through the cloth’s outer folded edges.

The point is, against all the odds, the Shroud exists. And, as stated earlier, because He exists. There is also a significant Bible-based reason found in the Gospel of John known as “Doubting Thomas” (John 20:24-31).

But first, a “guest” who will explain this passage needs a proper introduction:

It turns out that the many Townhall readers who commented about not needing the Shroud’s “physical evidence to underpin their faith,” represent a large swath of Christian believers. I learned this when asking Russ Breault— my fellow Shroud exhibit team colleague, and a world-renowned Shroud expert and speaker — if he had experienced similar attitudes after over 30 years of hosting his popular “Shroud Encounters” to sell-out crowds.

“I get that statement all the time! When someone says, ‘I don't need the Shroud for my faith,’ I usually say, ‘That is fantastic! But that doesn't mean the Shroud was not meant for someone else.’ ”

Breault continued: “In the Doubting Thomas story, Jesus pronounced a blessing on those who ‘believe yet have not seen,’ but Jesus did not condemn Thomas for his unbelief. In fact, a week after the Resurrection, Jesus appeared a second time, and the first person he spoke to was Thomas, who was not there to witness Jesus’ first appearance. Jesus then quotes Thomas' words back to him, ‘Thomas, thrust your hand into my side and place your fingers into my nail wounds and be not faithless but believe.’

At this point, Thomas — forever known as "Doubting Thomas" — makes the strongest profession of faith in the New Testament saying, "My Lord and my God." Then Jesus pronounced a blessing on those who can believe without seeing. So we are blessed if we can believe without seeing, but we are not cursed if we can't get there without some additional evidence.

Therefore, perhaps the Shroud is a silent witness to the world offering all of humanity the same opportunity Jesus gave to Thomas. In some proverbial sense by looking at the Shroud, we too can thrust our hand into His side and place our fingers into His nail wound and find our faith in the process.”

If blessed with great faith, you are free to ignore or downplay the image on the Shroud showing Christ’s great suffering and victory over death. Yet, take comfort in knowing that the Shroud is there to supplement or reinforce the faith of others while potentially witnessing to the ever-increasing number of Doubting Thomases found throughout the world.

In the end, I believe that the Shroud exists as proof of God’s greatest gift to mankind —the Lord Jesus Christ — who lives and reigns forever and ever. Alleluia!

I didn't just look up the book. It is in my personal library and right handy. I read it through, about 20 years ago, some 1500 pages including pp. 1470-1516 fine-printed index. This book is a standard reference book in every Divinity school in the world. Latourette was a fine theologically trained scholar on the Yale staff, eventually becoming Director of Graduate Studies of the Divinity School. Latourette was awarded honorary doctorates from seventeen universities in five countries. /his view was professionally impartial toward reporting historical fact in great detail. The work is not polemic in nature, and relied on by students of all disciplies for accurate reporting.

...I hadn't said you just looked up the book. My impression was that you relied upon it, as it tended to come from a source confirming your already-existing biases.

Your first paragraph, in the post to which this one responds, sufficiently addresses those issues. Thank you.

His credentials and achievements need no defense from someone like yourself. It does not seem likely that you are in any position to impeach Latourettes career or writings. I chose to give your claims re Anabaptists a fair shake by comparing them with a solid detailed reference account. And I selected excerpts to fairly report what history says about them.

As far as "achievements needing no defense from someone like myself" you've got it all backwards. I wasn't trying to impeach *his* writings: I was pointing out that I didn't have a background in formal theological writing, so I didn't have the background to take a glance at his name and go, "Yup. Solid guy" *or "God, what a freaking hack-job." (You know, like autofellatory atheist Bart Ehrman or whatever his name is at North Carolina. Who also went to an Ivy League grad school.)

On balance, your tone of dealing with this still does not fairly recognize what history reports, and that is that those leaders that engaged in the aberrance of polygamy were a minor segment both in number and in time that simply does not represent the overall practice of this holiness movement, whose generic name only refers to their insistence on scripturally rebaptizing professing disciples, whose infant baptisms without their accountability for it was simply unbiblical.

But on the other hand, since, as you pointed out, theology over the centuries has led to various fractions being slaughtered, cherry picking on the part of an author is trivial by comparison.

Sizing things up, I can't credit you with much of a mature outlook, despite your username. Going forward, I'll not be wasting much time with you. I've already given you your fair share, and it hasn't been very profitable so far.

I don't care whether you credit me with anything or not. I'm not here to play the one-upmanship game, as I consider said practice itself unbiblical. St. Paul inveighs against it, you might recall.

What he DOES recommend, is not to get in endless arguments with those one considers weak in the faith: but to pray for them.

You may have noticed I tend to recommend such in these threads.

Man, you go to work for a week, and the whole thread blows up. Ah well.

Let’s address the question of how I can claim with confidence that the Vatican II sect is not the Catholic Church, or by what authority I can confidently state that Francis is no true Pope.

To wit: if you witness someone lying, can you not call them a liar? If you witness someone stealing something, do you not call them a thief?

The same principle applies to someone who publicly departs from the One True Faith of Christ and His Apostles.

Now, an objection commonly lobbed at sedevacantists is - much like your question - that we lack any authority to actually say ‘this man is a heretic’. As though it required an act of authority to discern whether a man is a Catholic or a heretic, or as though Catholic teaching were only to be held in theory but never allowed to be applied in practice to a concrete situation.

I bring to your attention a book by the name of “Liberalism is a Sin”, authored by the great anti-Modernist Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany in 1886. It received immense approbation from the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office under Pope Leo XIII, and its refutations of Modernists (called Liberals in the 19th century) and their tactics also undermine many of the fundamental ideas of the Second Vatican Council and the new religion it promulgated.

The following excerpt specifically addresses the objection that a layman cannot discover heresy on his own, and/or cannot accuse another of being a heretic. Nothing could be further from the truth: http://www.liberalismisasin.com/chapter32.htm

xxxx

LIBERALISM AND AUTHORITY IN PARTICULAR CASES

How is one to tell on his own authority who or what is Liberal, without having recourse to a definitive decision of the teaching Church? When a good Catholic accuses anyone of Liberalism or attacks and unmasks Liberal sophisms, the accused (164) immediately seeks refuge in a challenge of the accuser’s authority: “And pray who are you, to charge me and my journal with Liberalism? Who made you a Master in Israel to declare who is or who is not a good Catholic? And is it from you that I must take out a patent of Catholicity?” Such is the last resort of the tainted Catholic on finding himself pushed to the wall. How then are we to answer this opposition? Is the theology of Liberal Catholics sound upon this point? That we may accuse any person or writing of Liberalism, is it necessary to have recourse to a special judgement of the church upon this particular person or this particular writing? By no means. If this Liberal paradox were true, it would furnish Liberals with a very efficacious weapon with which to practically annul all the Church’s condemnations of Liberalism. The Church alone possesses supreme doctrinal magistery in fact and in right, juris et facti; her sovereign authority is personified in the Pope. To him alone belongs the right of pronouncing the final, decisive and solemn sentence. But this does not exclude other judgments, less authoritative but very weighty, which cannot be despised and even ought to bind the Christian conscience. Of this kind are: (165)

1. Judgments of the Bishops in their respective dioceses.
2. Judgments of pastors in their parishes.
3. Judgments of directors of consciences.
4. Judgments of theologians consulted by the lay faithful.

These judgments are of course not infallible, but they are entitled to great consideration and ought to be binding in proportion to the authority of those who give them, in the gradation we have mentioned. But it is not against judgments of this character that Liberals hurl the peremptory challenge we wish particularly to consider. There is another factor in this matter entitled to respect and that is:

5. The judgment of simple human reason duly enlightened.

Yes, human reason, to speak after the manner of theologians, has a theological place in matters of religion. Faith dominates reason, which ought to be subordinated to faith in everything. But it is altogether false to pretend that reason can do nothing, that it has no function at all in matters of faith; it is false to pretend that the inferior light, illuminated by God in the human understanding, cannot shine at all, because it does not shine as powerfully or as clearly as the superior light. Yes the faithful are permitted and even (166) commanded to give a reason for their faith, to draw out its consequences, to make applications of it, to deduce parallels and analogies from it. It is thus by use of their reason that the faithful are enabled to suspect and measure the orthodoxy of any new doctrine, presented to them, by comparing it with a doctrine already defined. If it be not in accord, they can combat it as bad and justly stigmatize as bad the book or journal which sustains it. They cannot of course define it ex cathedra, but they can lawfully hold it as perverse and declare it such, warn others against it, raise the cry of alarm and strike the first blow against it. The faithful layman can do all this, and has done it at all times with the applause of the Church. Nor in so doing does he make himself the pastor of the flock, nor even its humblest attendant; he simply serves it as a watchdog who gives the alarm. Oportet allatrare canes. “It behooves watchdogs to bark” very opportunely said a great Spanish Bishop in reference to such occasions.

Is not perchance the part played by human reason so understood by those zealous prelates, who on a thousand occasions exhort the faithful to refrain from the reading of bad journals and works without specially pointing them out? Thus do they (167) show their conviction that this natural criterion, illuminated by faith, is sufficient to enable the faithful to apply well known doctrines to such matters.

Does the Index itself give the title of every forbidden book? Do we not find under the rubric of General Rules of the Index certain principles according to which good Catholics should guide themselves in forming their judgement upon books not mentioned in the Index, but which each reader is expected to apply at his own discretion? Of what use would be the rule of faith and morals, if in every particular case the faithful cannot of themselves make the immediate application; if they were constantly obliged to consult the Pope or the diocesan pastor? Just as the general rule of morality is the law, in accordance with which each one squares his own conscience, dictamen practicum, in making particular applications of this general rule, subject to correction if erroneous; so the general rule of faith, which is the infallible authority of the Church, is and ought to be in consonance with every particular judgment formed in making concrete applications, subject of course to correction and retraction in the event of mistake in so applying it. It would be rendering the superior rule of faith useless, absurd and impossible to require (168) the supreme authority of the Church to make its special and immediate application in every case upon every occasion, which calls it forth. This would be a species of brutal and satanic Jansenism like that of the followers of the unhappy Bishop of Ypres, when they exacted, for the reception of the sacraments, such dispositions as would make it impossible for men to profit by that which was plainly intended and instituted for them by Jesus Christ Himself.

The legal rigorism invoked by the Liberalists, in matters pertaining to faith, is as absurd as the ascetic rigorism once preached at Port Royal; it would result even more disastrously. If you doubt this look around you. The greatest rigorists on this point are the most hardened sectaries of the Liberal school. But how explain this apparent contradiction? It is easily explained, if we only reflect that nothing could be more convenient for Liberalism than to put this legal muzzle upon the lips and the pens of their most determined adversaries. It would be in truth a great triumph for them, under the pretext that no one except the Pope and the Bishops could speak with the least authority, to this impose silence upon the lay champions of the faith, such as were DeMaistre, (169) Cortes, Veuillot, Ward, Lucas, McMaster, who once bore, and others, who now bear, the banner of the faith so boldly and unflinchingly against its most insidious foes. Liberalism would like to see such crusaders disarmed, and would prefer, above all, if they could succeed in getting the Church herself to do the disarming.

xxxx

This is the principle that sedevacantists apply to the Vatican II sect.

For it was at Vatican II where propositions on ecumenism, religious liberty, and religious freedom were promulgated that contradicted the prior teaching of the Church. For example, from Unitatis Redintegratio - the council’s decree on ecumenism - they profess that non-Catholic denominations can be means of salvation, a direct contradiction of ‘Outside the Church, there is no salvation’.

There are far more that can be listed, but it will suffice to summarize that I - and many others - can make the plain observation that the Vatican II religion professes doctrines that contradict that of the Catholic religion. Indeed, although certain accidents may remain, Vatican II represented a substantial change from the Catholic Church of the ages.

At Vatican II, man was made the centerpiece at the expense of God; we see its natural evolution today in the false pontificate of Francis, who espouses a humanist and naturalist ethos on seemingly a daily basis, and has so demonstrably shown himself to be a non-Catholic that to say he can be a Pope is an absurdity, for one must first be a Catholic before you can be a Pope (as the old joke goes).

I am operating on the order of fact, as it were: Francis is not a Catholic (and likewise Benedict XVI going back to John XXIII) – not because of some canonical trial declaring him not to be one, but because he publicly manifests by his words and his actions that, against better knowledge, he does not adhere to all the dogmatic teachings of the Church’s magisterium until the death of Pope Pius XII.

Similarly, Martin Luther was a heretic in the order of fact long before the Church’s law recognized him to be guilty of the ecclesiastical crime of heresy; in fact, the Church’s judgment, in a way, is based on and presupposes the order of fact, because the law can only be applied to cases that have actually occurred. What made Luther a heretic wasn’t a decree of excommunication or any other Church law declaring him to be one; what made him a heretic was his pertinacious doubt or denial of dogma.

Just like Martin Luther ceased being a Catholic the moment he publicly manifested his pertinacious denial of Church dogma, and not the moment when Pope Leo X’s bull of excommunication took effect, so any Vatican II cleric – whether it be Roncalli, Montini, Luciani, Wojtyla, Ratzinger, Bergoglio, or any cleric of lesser rank – ceased being a Catholic likewise at the moment of the public denial, regardless of any possible ecclesiastical trial. Sedevacantists are concerned with detecting who is and isn’t professing the Catholic Faith, not with legally judging individuals before the Church or imposing canonical sanctions in ecclesiastical trials.

A very important point to note here is that the order of fact is sufficient for **anyone** to take action. Just like you know your neighbor is a murderer if you have witnessed him commit the act of murder and therefore avoid him like the plague, so you can act on the fact that Jorge Bergoglio is not the Pope because you are privy to his public acts of heresy or apostasy.

So, to answer a prior post of Elsie’s: you need not fear that I will become a Protestant, for I do not reject proper and legitimate ecclesial authority.

What I do reject is that Francis and his Vatican II ilk actually **possess** legitimate authority. That is a key distinction to make: if I professed Francis to be a true Pope, yet resisted him regardless (as many self-professed traditional Catholics do), **then** I would indeed have condemned myself as a schismatic.

In an strange sort of way, prior to becoming a sedevacantist, I was a Catholic outwardly, but a Protestant in spirit. Funny how that works. :)

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.