A Quote You Won’t Want to Use

imageStephen Jones is analyzing an article , “Pope Francis Does it Again,”  that appeared in the Las Vegas Guardian Express three days ago. In a posting, Pope Francis shows St Peter’s bones to public for first time Stephen tells us:


This is the difference between the Shroud of Turin and other Catholic relics (with the exception of the Sudarium of Oviedo). The Shroud’s authenticity has been confirmed Biblically, artistically, historically and scientifically,independent of Catholic tradition, which is why Protestants like me accept it.

You see, Paul Roy, in the Guardian Express has written:

Through the years however, as new scientific methods are developed to date artifacts and learn more about them, some of these artifacts come closer and closer to being verified as real. The Shroud of Turin for example has long been believed to be the cloth used to bury Jesus in his tomb and from where his resurrection happened. Since its discovery the shroud has been called both real and a fake, yet, each time it has been tested, it is the most tested piece of material in the world, more evidence comes to light showing it is very possible it is authentic and that Jesus, or at least a man was wrapped in it after having been crucified.

Add a measure of enthusiasm or whatever and you get Stephen’s conclusion. I dare say that isn’t representative of the thinking of Protestants I know.

5 thoughts on “A Quote You Won’t Want to Use”

  1. First, thank you for linking to my article in the Guardian Express.

    Second, I didn’t mean to imply that Protestants don’t believe the Shroud is real. My point was that there are some out there, whether Protestant, Catholics, non-Christians or non-religious who try to dispute relics, not only of the Catholic faith but also of the Christian faith claiming they are somehow faked. I used the history of the Shroud as an example of how, as our science continues to get better, we are able to provide more proof as the authenticity of such relics and articles.

    The greater point of the article, as this is an opinion piece written by a Catholic, is how every time a pope says something, the secular press jumps on it saying the Pope is going to change church doctrine, etc. etc. which are usually taken out of context.

    Again, thank you for commenting and linking to my article.

    Paul Roy

  2. It does not seem that the Catholic Church is bothered about what non-Catholic Christians accept or not and the Anglicans/Episcopalians trace the origin of their Church to Henry VIII/Cranmer, not to Martin Luther. While Anglicans may have some Protestant beliefs they have rituals and doctrines that are very Catholic in style.

    The Anglican Church is much more interested in meetings with Catholics and Orthodox Christians than with Protestants, precisely because of the apostolic tradition. That is why Westminster Abbey now has many icons and “Virgin Marys”. The Orthodox Churches are also in some way or the other wanting some sort of communion with Rome, holding meetings or even signing agreements, like the one between Pope John II and Mar Dinkha IV of the Assyrian Church of the East, of Iraqi origin.

    It is obvious that for some people getting rid of old Anglican prejudices against Catholics is difficult and the funny side of the story is that this prejudice is still deeply ingrained in people who are no longer Anglicans or even atheists. One example is RD, the other is Susan Blackmore, who attacked Tony Blair when he (officially) became Catholic. She did not say what her prejudice had to do with the paranormal!

  3. I suppose the comment signifies that the authenticity of the Shroud is not a matter of style, which I too believe. The same cannot be said for the Anglican/Episcopal “Church” where style sense has resulted in a substitution of the Zeitgeist for God. But then that’s what it always was, since the time of Henry. It’s basically the same “smoke of Satan” that one Pope observed had made its way into the post Vatican II Church, which he also noted seemed to be tearing itself apart. (Personally, I’d make that the Counter-Reformation Church, but it comes down to the same thing.) What all the ubertrendy people wish to expunge is precisely what the Shroud itself testifies to: Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and always. Or in the language of Revelation, the God who was and is and is to come.

  4. Stephen Jones’ endemic anti-Catholic bias is showing. The whole business of showing the bones was permeated with the appropriate cautions, not only from Pope Francis, but also from other related Church authorities. If indeed they happen to be the bones of St Peter, which might well be the case, then it is appropriate that they be treated with due respect. If they are not, then they are as likely to be the bones of some other contemporary Christian martyr anyway.

    The Pope’s action were limited to opening the box, wafting incense towards them, and holding the box aloft, but he did not otherwise refer to them. In 1968, the archaeologist Margherita Guarducci persuaded Pope Paul VI to say the bones had been “identified in a way we can hold to be convincing”. She had translated adjacent Greek graffiti as “Peter lies here”, tests on the bones showed they came from a man in his 60s. Her conclusions have not been accepted by fellow experts involved in the dig. A Latin inscription on the box states that they are “considered” to be St Peters.

    Archbishop Rino Fisichella, head of a pontifical council said the relics were merely “traditionally recognised” as belonging to St Peter. Father Federico Lombardi, a Vatican spokesman said that producing the bones was “a way to feel spiritually close to the story of the tomb and of the apostle. There is a serious possibility that they are St Peter’s bones, but we don’t go beyond that.”

    Perhaps Stephen Jones was having a “slow news day”, but his point is somewhat overdone!

  5. There is a good link for additional details about the remains of St. Peter:
    Neither Henry VIII nor Oliver Cromwell(!) are buried in Westminster Abbey. I looked for the king there many years ago and not even the good Anglican priest who I queried knew about his remains.But there is a sort of “holy of holies” there and that is the Chapel of Saint Edward the Confessor, also king of England. Apostolic tradition matters…

Comments are closed.