For “scientific approach to the Shroud” is usually understood that according to which the Shroud is regarded solely as an object of study and for which the only important issue is to try to answer the questions about the origin and the authenticity of the Shroud. A “pastoral approach to the Shroud” means the reading of the Shroud in the light of its intrinsic message that, starting from its close and indisputable relationship with the Holy Scriptures, becomes a valuable and unique inspirer of the life of faith and the prompter of those works of charity which are its real big fruit. In this regard at the end of his aforementioned speech in front of the Shroud on May 24, 1998 Saint John Paul II said: “May the Spirit of God, who dwells in our hearts, instill in every one the desire and generosity necessary for accepting the Shroud’s message and for making it the decisive inspiration of our lives”.
Therefore to put in antithesis the scientific approach to the religious one is very dangerous because you run the risk on one hand to reduce the Shroud to a “dead object”, to an image that has meaning only in itself and that doesn’t at all challenge our lives and on the other to turn the Shroud into a kind of idol slaved to a priori and instrumental theses. I am deeply convinced that to leave the presentation of the Shroud to a sole scientific approach or to a sole pastoral approach is neither correct nor useful for any kind of recipient. But then are these two ways of approaching the image of the Shroud really antithetic?
— Bruno Barberis
Associate Professor of Mathematical Physics, University of Turin &
Director of the International Center of Sindonology of Turin
from “Shroud, Science And Faith: Dialogue Or Conflict?”
a paper he recently presented at the St. Louis Shroud Conference
The TS is not a painting, faded or otherwise. It’s a negative imprint of some kind that has left its mark on the linen per se, maybe pre-treated in a way that made it more image-receptive, maybe not. It’s unhelpful, so late in the day, to be attempting to put the clock back to 1978 or earlier by regarding it as just another painting. Things have moved on.
When it comes to the Shroud, nearly everybody wanted to carbon date the Shroud “in the worst way” and that is precisely what happened. The protocols were supposed to map the way to the truth. Instead, the truncated protocols adopted led the carbon scientists over a cliff.
The quote is from John Klotz’ new book, The Coming of the Quantum Christ. Here, I’ve copy-pasted the quotation from his Quantum Christ blog, from a posting just yesterday entitled Ebola, Protocols and the Shroud of Turin.
In the worst way? What does that mean?
Abraham Lincoln, it is said, used the expression. One story is that when he met Mary Todd, who would become his wife, he approached her and said he would like to dance with her “in the worst way.” She later recounted that he did, in fact, literally, dance in the worst way.
It’s an idiom. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “the worst way” this way:
— the worst way
: very much <such men … need indoctrination the worst way — J. G. Cozzens> —often used with in <wanted a new bicycle in the worst way>
Did they talk that way in Lincoln’s time? Well there is this quote from ‘ Fast Life on the Modern Highway’ by Joseph Taylor, published in 1874:
Well, sir. I wanted somebody to kiss me for my mother just then, and shake hands and say good-bye in the worst way; but I could not stop!’
The use of the idiom is modern, as well. On March 23, 2011, the Houston Chronicle headlined an article, “ Air traffic control needs updating in the worst way.
Now that you are completely distracted from what John Klotz was saying, go read his blog posting, Ebola, Protocols and the Shroud of Turin.
From the web pages of WellBeing.com.au:
While we pride ourselves on being rational beings who can understand the way the world works, it is mysteries that really fire our imaginations and lay hands on our souls. Where facts may bolster feelings of control it is mysteries that make us feel alive. The power of mystery is evidenced in how we maintain interest in things like the Loch Ness Monster, the Bermuda Triangle, the shroud of Turin, the search for Kardashian talent, and Donald Trump’s hair.
It was a great quotation until we got to the examples.
Recently, as with the comments about dirt being in the knee and nose area of the shroud, people were looking for quotations in books and papers. Google books is one place to look. There are many other places to search as well. One of those places is Stephen Jones’ quotation archives.
I have found that it helps to search Stephen’s archives, with Google, using three elements:
- "Shroud of Turin" (including quotation marks)
- Search argument (fewest possible words, generally avoid quotation marks)
Note: Putting the words “Shroud of Turin” into a Google search of Stephen’s archives is important because Stephen also collects quotations that promote creationism, etc. in the same place.
- Copy and paste: site:members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/ "Shroud of Turin"
- Add a single space and your search words (e.g. nose knees dirt – don’t use quotes)
Recent versions of browsers will let you enter this in the URL entry field if you have established Google as your default search engine.
BTW: Stephen welcomes use of these archives but asks that you give him credit. Do so, please.
[A]s is always the case with the Shroud it seems hard to think that meaningful follow ups will occur, unfortunately.
That could almost be a slogan for what I wish this blog could be. Axiomatically, Thomas is referring specifically to Max Frei’s analysis. How many other shroud findings or hypotheses does this apply to?
And David Goulet, just yesterday, wrote of a newspaper story:
It’s often pointed out here how authentists have turned certain ‘myths’ about the Shroud into ‘accepted facts’ simply by repeating them enough. I see what’s good for the goose….
Colin Berry, very correctly, is expressing similar sentiments in comments he wrote:
Have you ever wondered why Messrs. Fanti, Di Lazzaro, Jackson etc etc are not beavering away as we speak, accumulating and publishing more and more experimental data in support of their corona discharge, laser beam or other radiation models? Go figure, as they say.
Colin goes further. He thinks the onus is on Fanti et. al. I agree, mostly. We also need to encourage independent re-examination. by others That applies to Frei’s work. And Rogers. And Zugibe. And the carbon dating labs. It applies to many things. How many things have we talked about in this blog? The Blue Quad Mosaics come to mind. What else? There seems to be something, maybe pot shards, over the eyes. Really? Still, with newer photographs?
Now, why did Colin have to throw in this unnecessary little gem of a quote directed at another commenter.
Thinks: who was it who said ” I won’t insult your intelligence by suggesting you really believe what you just said?
Who was it? Were you thinking William F. Buckley? Colin, we’ve been there before when you declared that William F. Buckley wrote, “The purpose of an open mind is to close it . . .”
Can we confirm either of these often-attributed-to-Buckley quotations? Wikiquotes would like to know.
What many beliefs about the shroud need to be confirmed? Colin, to his credit, has not rested on his laurels. Many others have not. Many have. Many do.
It is said that Luther’s protector, Frederick the Wise, possessed 19,013 relics which earned the beholder 1,902,202 years’ remission of purgatory! Physical-man’s desire for material objects for use in worship leads to such absurdity.
Can we believe that God Himself, knowing the inevitable misuse and the decline of true religion it would produce, would have given mankind for an icon, a relic, the very shroud in which Jesus was buried? The same God who hid the body of Moses and hid the exact location of his grave, lest the Israelites should worship the body of Moses, and lose sight of the worship of God?
U.S. Catholic thus concluded its discussion of the shroud: "… Forgers do forge, and people have a great ability to rationalize and theorize their way toward what they would like to believe.
"Ultimately, it’s about as difficult to prove scientifically the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin as it is to document or explain the Resurrection itself. But the latter is an essential question, and the former is not."
– From an article by Lawson Briggs, “Ultimate Icon?”, appearing in Plain Truth magazine, December 1978 (Vol XLIII, No.10. ISSN 0032-0420), reprinted June 2, 2014,
on the web pages of the Herbert W. Armstrong Library