Those same pilgrims [= visitors to Chartes] also continue to be in awe of Mary’s Veil. The veil was supposedly worn when Mary gave birth to Jesus. It is displayed behind a locked gate, in a glass window with a golden frame. Recent tests confirm that the material itself and the weaving technique to make the cloth date to the first century, so if this isn’t the genuine article, it’s from the same time period. No bogus Shroud of Turin here.
Mary’s Veil? The Sancta Camisia? Recent tests? What tests? I can’t find anything much and nothing specific about recent tests. The Sancta Camisia
Kathy Schiffer writes in the Catholic Channel of Patheos:
In the Cathedral of Chartres, southwest of Paris, is a holy relic called the “Sancta Camisia,” the “holy veil.” A crumpled, faded cream-colored cloth, it’s protected in a glass reliquary. Tradition holds that the Sancta Camisia is the veil of the Virgin Mary—in fact, it’s the veil she wore when she gave birth to the Christ Child.
Was the Sancta Camisia really worn by Mary? Scientific study has confirmed that the veil dates to the first century. It was presented to the Cathedral at Chartres in 876 by Charles the Bald, grandson of Charlemagne, upon his return from Jerusalem. It was nearly destroyed by fire in 1194, but the Bishop of Chartres rescued it just in time.
Note another traditions is that Mary wore the veil for the Annunciation. There are also other contenders for Mary’s veil. There is the relic at St. Mary’s Syrian Jacobite Orthodox Church in Kerala, South India, which, according to tradition, was brought from Edessa by the Apostle Thomas.
Having noticed that Brodie concluded his post with a comment by the late, great Christopher Hitchens. . . .
The great literary critic and avowed atheist Christopher Hitchens once called being in Chartres the closest to holy he has ever felt. That alone should tell you about the Cathedral’s majesty and mystical beauty.
. . . . I wondered if Hitch, had he ever really pondered the mysteries of the shroud with that great mind of his, always taking in countless details, might have reacted similarly to the shroud. Not that anything could have converted him. But would he have called anything bogus without explanation given the many recent tests and the mountains of historical evidence in favor of authenticity?
Also see: Our Lady’s Veil: two tales at Catholicism: Plain & Simple.
And in this blog in the past:
Again, What tests? Anybody know about tests on the Sancta Camisia, the one at Chartes?