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!

The CATHOLIC position on Protestants is that as long as they were baptized with water and the formula "I baptize you/thee in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit",(which leaves a few sects such as the Mormons out) they ARE Christians, who, through no fault of their own, don't have access to the full redeeming Sacraments available to Catholics. Hence the term "separated brethren".

Oh?

I've YET to see a FR Catholic deny that the following is still in effect!!

"One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved, in which the priest himself is the sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the species of bread and wine; the bread (changed) into His body by the divine power of transubstantiation, and the wine into the blood, so that to accomplish the mystery of unity we ourselves receive from His (nature) what He Himself received from ours."

--Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV (A.D. 1215)

"We are compelled in virtue of our faith to believe and maintain that there is only one holy Catholic Church, and that one is apostolic. This we firmly believe and profess without qualification. Outside this Church there is no salvation and no remission of sins, the Spouse in the Canticle proclaiming: 'One is my dove, my perfect one. One is she of her mother, the chosen of her that bore her' (Canticle of Canticles 6:8); which represents the one mystical body whose head is Christ, of Christ indeed, as God. And in this, 'one Lord, one faith, one baptism' (Ephesians 4:5). Certainly Noah had one ark at the time of the flood, prefiguring one Church which perfect to one cubit having one ruler and guide, namely Noah, outside of which we read all living things were destroyed… We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

--Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam sanctam (A.D. 1302)

Good morning!

You say that the ekklesia has always been the body of people who belong to Christ, the body of Christians with Christ as her head. Notwithstanding that Catholics also profess that Christ is the Head of the Church (merely that the Pope is His visible Vicar on Earth), how do you know who is a Christian and who isn’t? Is it merely based on their own say-so? In which case, you have many in this day who profess to be Christian, yet amongst themselves believe contradictory things amongst the various denominations; how then, could they logically say that they possess the one true Faith?

Nowhere in Scripture will it ever be found that the Church is invisible. Rather references in Scripture are everywhere which point to a visible Church. How are the following verses to be understood of an invisible Church?

- “And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.” Matt 18:17.

- “Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” Acts 20:28

- “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” 1 Tim 3:15

- “And sending from Miletus to Ephesus, he called the ancients of the church.” Acts 20:17

“And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church, and by the apostles and ancients, declaring how great things God had done with them.” Acts 15:4

- “And when they had ordained to them priests in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, in whom they believed.” Acts 14:22

- “And when they were come, and had assembled the church, they related what great things God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith to the Gentiles.” Acts 14:26

- “And going down to Caesarea, he went up to Jerusalem, and saluted the church, and so came down to Antioch.” Acts 18:22

It is illogical to think that Jesus would establish His Church then make it invisible and inaccessible to us. If that were the case, where would one seek it to rule it, converse with it and lay complaints before it?

When the Church sent St. Paul, and received him, when he confirmed it, ordained priests in it, assembled it, saluted it, wrote to it, and persecuted it, was this just in spirit? These were visible acts on both sides!

The pastors and doctors of the Church are visible, therefore the Church is visible. The pastors and their sheep must know each other. What kind of shepherd cannot see his flock? St. Peter was as to a pastor when Jesus told him, “feed my sheep”, and so were the Apostles, and they are all visible.

It is the property of the Church to carry on the preaching of the Word of God, the Sacraments, etcetera. How could this be called invisible? For that matter, how do Christians begin their course as people of God? By Baptism, a visible sign. And by whom are they governed? By bishops, which are visible men. And how has the Church been persecuted over the centuries? By visible people. Need I say more?

To put it simply, the body is composed of body and soul, and so is the Church. The Church consists of Her interior soul, which is faith, hope, charity, grace etc (all invisible), and Her exterior, which is her members, preaching, Sacraments, sacrifices, etcetera (all visible).

I also wish to rebut the claim that some have made that there are two Churches; one visible and imperfect Church made of its members (which can err and are called “reprobate”), and one invisible and perfect Church made of the “elect” that only God knows (which cannot err). Not only is this belief not found in Scripture, but it is also illogical.

It is well known that all members of the Church must have their sins loosed and retained as Scripture says. Those whose sins are retained are considered reprobate (this includes priests and bishops), though they remain members of the Church until their sins are loosed. It is not until a person is cast from the Church that they are no longer considered members. Judas was reprobate, yet he was Apostle and bishop. To say only the elect (which many of the Protestant reformers say are unknown to us) are members of the true Church is to say we cannot know for sure who our prelates are and who to pay obedience to. This goes to show that not only the elect, but also the reprobate are in the Church. The Church is equivalent to an army with good and bad soldiers, many of which stray or are killed, but the army as a whole still remains victorious over the gates of hell despite downfalls of its members.

In summary, the New Testament frequently refers to the Church as an external, visible society. How then could Our Lord require us to believe under penalty of damnation (Mark 16:18) and to consider the Christian disobedient to the Church’s commands “a heathen and a publican” (Matt 18:17) if we could not easily and unmistakably recognize the Church as a visible society?

This will suffice for your first objections.

Regarding objection C: name one practice that you profess violates and contradicts Holy Writ.

You claim that the “Roman Catholic Church” didn’t write Scripture, when it is our belief that the Apostles were the first bishops of the Catholic Church, so how then does your objection contradict my point? You object that the Scriptures existed long before any councils decided the Biblical Canon: this much is true! Yet, why did the issue come before councils to decide a Canon? Because there were so many gospels and epistles and acts floating about that claimed inspiration that were clearly not (like the Gospel of St. Thomas, the Acts of Pilate, and so on), while there were also those whose status was disputed (like the Epistle of St. James, the Apocalypse of St. John, the Didache, the Epistle of St. Clement, Paul’s epistle to the Laodiceans, and so on).

Thus, it was for the good of the faithful (for there were many who preferred martyrdom at the hands of the pagan authorities instead of destroying or abrogating one letter of Holy Writ; yet, what was considered to be Holy Writ? Would it be wise or profitable to die for something which was not of Apostolic origin or authority?) that the Church fixed the question of the New Testament Canon at the Council of Hippo in 393, the first Council of Carthage in 397, and the second Council of Carthage (presided over by St. Augustine) in 419. The decrees of the latter, in particular, were sent to Rome for confirmation by Pope Boniface I. These decrees on the matter of inspired Scripture were reaffirmed at Florence in 1442 and Trent in 1546.

Rome had spoken, and from that point the subject of which books constituted Sacred Scripture was settled...until the Protestants arose in the 16th century, hundreds of years later. And yet, despite the attempts of some (such as Martin Luther, who regarded James an “epistle of straw”), the Protestant New Testament ended up being exactly the same as the one handed down by the Catholic Church through the ages.

Regarding objection D: it is an accusation that I willingly embrace, for I am not wise or learned in the least; hence why I embrace the Church and her authoritative teachings.

Regarding objection E: let us differentiate some terms here, for there is a distinction to be made between Sacred Scripture and the Bible. Namely, that Sacred Scripture consists of all inspired writings, and that the Bible is merely the official collection of these inspired writings into one definitive list or tome.

Thus, it is true that the Old Testament Scriptures existed before the Catholic Church (which holds true of all those who profess to be Christian, for that matter), much like it was true that the inspired writings of the New Testament all existed prior to the aforementioned councils (notwithstanding the fact that the Church existed before a single word of the New Testament was written). Yet, the collection of all these works into one ‘biblia’, to be held as definitively inspired to all of Christendom, was done by the Church.

Hence why I can claim, with the backing of history, that the Church existed before the Bible, that she made the Bible, that she selected its books, that she preserved it and handed it down.

Now, from a different post, you professed “we know that Scripture contains the direct words of the Prophets, Apostles, God the Father, and Christ himself. It is the ultimate primary source for faith. Why should I believe anything that contradicts it?”

A commendable attitude, but to which I ask: how do you know that Scripture contains the direct words of the Prophets, the Apostles, and God? If it is simply from the claims of the Bible itself, then what differentiates it from the myriad other books of other religions that claim to be of divine origin, such as the Koran?

I tell you how I know: by the testimony of history (secular or otherwise), the testimony of the living Church through the ages, the lives of the Saints and the martyrs: all point to the credibility of the Bible in terms of what it says.

Yet neither do I profess that the Bible has ever existed in a vacuum, as though it were authoritative in and of itself (otherwise, everyone who reads it - regardless of origin, class, or degree of learning - would come away with exactly the same conclusions on all matters, when that clearly hasn’t been the case even among Protestants). Nor do I believe that it is the primary source of faith (for otherwise, as I’ve previously mentioned, those who lived before the New Testament was written would be in a spot of trouble, notwithstanding the illiterate before the time of the printing press who would have no means of procuring or reading a manuscript containing Holy Writ), or that it contains the entire body of all Christian doctrine.

In the end, God is the primary source of Faith, for supernatural assent to Divine truths by a Divine authority is an unearned grace; in terms of the Rule of Faith by which we live, it is by the preaching and authority of the living teacher that Christ instituted, namely the Church of His Apostles.

“He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.” Luke 10:16

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.

2 Timothy 3:14-17 New International Version (NIV)