Shroud of Turin

[Ioanne]

Greetings to all on the way to salvation. I would like to know if anyone is familiar with the Shroud of Turin? I have researched two web sites: shroud.com and shroudstory.com concerning an eastern orthodox view/opinion of the Shroud of Turin. Would anyone like to share thoughts/information/web sites concerning the Shroud of Turin? I thank you for your time and attention. In Christ,Ioanne

[Herman Blaydoe]

You might want to check out this site:

The Shroud of Turin: A Mystery Across the Ages (http://www.roca.org/oa/65/65m.htm) from Orthodox America

[Ioanne]

Greetings Herman and thank you for your reply. I found the site very informative and hope to hear from others. In Christ, Ioanne

[Fr Aaron Warwick]

Dear Ioanne,

My thoughts are that it is strange, if the Shroud of Turin existed, that there is no remembrance of it--neither liturgically nor in any Synaxaria or writings--in the East.

Aaron

[Herman Blaydoe]

Dear Ioanne,

My thoughts are that it is strange, if the Shroud of Turin existed, that there is no remembrance of it--neither liturgically nor in any Synaxaria or writings--in the East.

Aaron

This is actually discussed to some degree in the article link that I posted, specifically here:

Is there an Orthodox history of the Shroud? (http://www.roca.org/oa/65/65m.htm#Is%20there%20an%20Orthodox%20history%20of% 20the%20Shroud?)

[Ioanne]

Greetings Aaron and thank you for your reply. Henry has given a good source concerning the Shroud and an Orthodox perspective. A sermon given by Gregory Referandarius,archdeacon of Agia Sophia, can be found at the shroud .com web site concerning the Mandylion/Shroud? Other thoughts from anyone? In Christ, Ioanne

[Kosta]

I dont believe the Shroud of Turn is the true burial linen of our Lord. Too much historical and scientific data against it. But i do believe it is an Icon. And like many icons it does seem to be wonderworking. No one in the RC ever claimed to be the true burial cloth and it was a not so popular relic until the camera was invented. Of course thats what made it so controversial, when it was photographed and the image came back as a negative.
As far as the mandylion, the east during the byzantine empire claimed many "icons made without hands" made out of linens

[Ioanne]

Greetings Kosta and thanks for the reply. What is the current historical/sci-
entific data negating the Turin Shroud as the burial linen of our Lord? I appreciate all replies concerning the Shroud of Turin. In Christ, Ioanne

[Herman Blaydoe]

Actually, I think the so-called "scientific" data either way is inconclusive at best and there are several plausible ways to connect the historical dots.

But my biggest question is this: if it is possible to artificially create the phenomenum of the shroud, where are all these supposed copies and "mandylions"? Why is there only one in existance today?

[Moses Ibrahim]

The answer to this question is answered in this mp3 translated by Constantine Zalalas given by the late Archmandrite Athanasios Mitilanios.

http://www.pigizois.net/omilies_eng/Burial_Cremation.mp3

Fast-forward 18 minutes into the talk for the direct topic of the Shroud of Turin and its falsehood. Or better yet listen to it all the way through.

For more lectures: http://www.pigizois.net/arxodariki/In_English.htm

[Herman Blaydoe]

Well, actually, the Gospel accounts are much less detailed than this description. I don't doubt that these practices are accurate, but we know from the Gospel that our Lord was taken down in haste to be buried before sundown. Therefore there was not a lot of time to ensure that everything was done in a proper manner. We also know that the Myrrhbearers were very concerned about ensuring that the body of our Lord be properly prepared. That is why we call them the Myrrhbearers. They were on their way to open the tomb and complete the very elaborate preparations talked about in your link, which is why I do not believe they were done before His Resurrection.

[Effie Ganatsios]

Can I just add something about burial cloths?

When my grandmother died, I saw that she had a whole set of very fine, silk material woven by herself for her burial shroud. She had also prepared her husband's set when she was young. I believe that these are part of the extensive dowry that was the custom back then. I know that there are special names for each piece but, please forgive me, I don't know the names.

I saw though that she had a bottom sheet that was spread in the coffin before she was placed in it, then another to cover the small pillow under her head. She also had a sheet to cover her body and a separate smaller cloth to cover her face during the night of the wake. My grandfather was alive and made sure that this very expensive material was used properly.

At his own funeral I noticed that his set was not used!!!!

Death is part of life but to think of young women weaving shrouds for their funerals and the funerals of their future husbands is extraordinary. All the pieces were also finished with delicately crocheted lace borders, again in silk (something I just remembered).

Nowadays, the funeral parlour people usually provide a commercial funeral shroud.

The bodies are washed with wine and then rubbed with oil by close female relatives before being dressed in their best and placed in the coffin by the men. It's sounds so strange but the fact that the bodies of our dead are treated with such respect is somehow comforting.

Sometimes though they aren't. My father-in-law was a very tall (2m) and well built man, despite his age. When it came time to place him in his coffin (in his house) the man from the funeral parlour had trouble fitting him in the largest coffin from his shop. He pushed and pulled and I got very upset (being the only person in the room at that time). I told him angrily to be careful and be a little gentler. He replied that my f-i-l was dead... I told him to have a little respect for the dead. He immediately understood how upset I was and handled the body a little better.

Only loved ones should take care of the dead (as with our Christ) but unfortunately in today's world that is impossible.

Effie

[Andreas Moran]

The question may be asked, if the Shroud of Turin is not the shroud of Christ, what is it?

[Effie Ganatsios]

Why haven't more pieces of the shroud been given to scientists to study and experiment on?

The tiny pieces they have examined have proven that the material itself is very old and the stains have been proven to be blood. The image is not painted on but some sort of x-ray or something has been used, something that was not in existence at the time that this material was woven.

Lots of information that is apparently lost, and that originated with the so-called Babylonians, might still be hidden away in some monasteries. Perhaps some of their knowledge is still recorded somewhere and was used many years ago.

Let the scientists do their job and use whatever methods they have to either prove or disprove the authenticity of the shroud. And even if it is authentic, how in the world can they prove that the image on this material is that of Christ?

I read somewhere that if all the relics of the True Cross were placed together there would be a forest of trees. I am not being disrespectful but we are told to be pure as doves and wily as serpents. As with the marian apparitions, sometimes church politics play a part in all these things.

[Andreas Moran]

Father Symeon of Essex has seen the Turin Shroud and he thinks it's authentic.


I read somewhere that if all the relics of the True Cross were placed together there would be a forest of trees. I am not being disrespectful but we are told to be pure as doves and wily as serpents. As with the marian apparitions, sometimes church politics play a part in all these things.

I read somewhere that a late 19th century Roman Catholic monk was upset at claims that all the pieces of the True Cross would make a forest. He spent his life visiting and documenting all known pieces of the True Cross. His conclusion was that when you added all these pieces together, two-thirds of the Cross is missing (subject, I suppose, to the fact that no one can be sure of its exact dimensions).

[Herman Blaydoe]

Why haven't more pieces of the shroud been given to scientists to study and experiment on?

Because it would be disrespectful? Because much of that study and experimentation involves destruction of holy things? Because holy things are for reverence and not for experimentation? Because our Faith does not require scientific proof?

[Matthew Namee]

I have an article entitled "The Wood of the Cross" from Ballou's Monthly Magazine 72:6 (Dec 1890), page 507. It mentions a Rohault de Fleury, who documented the surviving relics of the Cross. He estimated that the total volume of the wood of the Cross was roughly 178 million cubic millimeters and that about 3,942,000 cubic millimeters survive (the Cross having been divided in the year 636). As of 1890, Mount Athos had by far the most of the Cross' wood, 878,360 cubic millimeters. Rome and Brussels were next with over 500,000 apiece, with sizeable portions in Venice, Ghent, and Paris.

As for the Shroud of Turin, there is a very good book, The Blood and the Shroud, which came out a few years ago. It gives a very balanced and dispassionate analysis of all the various factors which could determine the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of the Shroud. I found this book to be very helpful... I was once quite skeptical about the Shroud's authenticity, but I now am convinced that it is the legitimate article, and further, that it is rightfully the property of the Orthodox Church, having been taken from Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade. The author of the book makes a compelling argument to suggest that the Shroud is one and the same object as what we know as the Holy Napkin, the Cloth of Edessa. Whether you agree with that or not (and I personally do), the book is well-written and generally a good read.

[Andreas Moran]

As we know, the image on the Shroud of Turin is in negative. Some have thought that was the result of some power of grace, like radiation, generated by Christ's Resurrection, causing this reaction on the cloth. We have recently been sent a photograph of an icon of St Seraphim of Sarov in the monastery of St Stefan Makhryzhsky between Vladimir and Alexandrov (east of Moscow). One sister of the monastery, a friend of Lydia's, sent it. This icon was in a wooden case with glass in front as is common in Russia. The glass now has on the side facing the icon a negative mirror image of St Seraphim and the background details of the icon. This is said to be the result of the power of the grace of the icon. This phenomenon has become fairly common in Russia in recent years.

[Father David Moser]

As we know, the image on the Shroud of Turin is in negative. Some have thought that was the result of some power of grace, like radiation, generated by Christ's Resurrection, causing this reaction on the cloth. We have recently been sent a photograph of an icon of St Seraphim of Sarov in the monastery of St Stefan Makhryzhsky between Vladimir and Alexandrov (east of Moscow). One sister of the monastery, a friend of Lydia's, sent it. This icon was in a wooden case with glass in front as is common in Russia. The glass now has on the side facing the icon a negative mirror image of St Seraphim and the background details of the icon. This is said to be the result of the power of the grace of the icon. This phenomenon has become fairly common in Russia in recent years.

My son-in-law saw a similar icon of the Mother of God in the Ukraine. He brought back for us prints of the original icon and of the "negative" image on the glass which are set together in diptych.

Fr David Moser

[Effie Ganatsios]

Is there any mention anywhere that Christ's cross was kept?
I don't think there is any mention of this in the bible. I know that we rely on documents other than the bible for the source of some of our knowledge of the Theotokos and Chris'ts disciples. Is there anything like this concerning Christ's cross?

I saw a BBC (If I'm not mistaken) documentary of the Shroud of Turin quite a few years ago. The scientists who worked on the shroud were also puzzled by it. The material is genuine, the blood is genuine, they could not explain how this image could be on this cloth, etc. That's why they wanted more of the material (they were only give a tiny specimen by the Roman Catholic Church) to be able to carry out more tests. The documentary I saw was some years ago and I assume that there might be more sophisticated methods of ascertaining age etc. of old items.

BUT as Herman said, perhaps the reason the RC church doesn't agree to give scientists more material is because it is a holy item and as such does not need to be authenticated.

The fact that images are still being imprinted on various items seems to suggest that there are more things in the heavens and the earth than we can even imagine..

[Olga]

BUT as Herman said, perhaps the reason the RC church doesn't agree to give scientists more material is because it is a holy item and as such does not need to be authenticated

In recent years, the myrrh-streaming icon of St Nicholas of Myra was examined scientifically and its "behaviour" was determined to be inexplicable by conventional science. On the other hand, a Roman Catholic statue of the Virgin in Perth, Australia, began weeping myrrh. Shortly afterwards, miracles of healing were being reported by those who had venerated the statue, or had been anointed by its oil. Sadly, on examination, a concealed compartment was found in the head of the statue which could be filled with oil, or other liquid.

Food for thought.

[Effie Ganatsios]

Luke 17:6

"And the Lord said, "If you had faith like a mustard seed, you would say to this mulberry tree, 'Be uprooted and be planted in the sea'; and it would obey you."

The people you mentioned Olga, were healed because they had faith that they would be healed and because God willed it. First the soul needs to be healed and then the body. As God wills.

Effie