Cardinal Severino Poletto, custodian of the Holy Shroud and Archbishop of Turin, was in Rome on Thursday morning to officially present plans and progress at a press conference for the Shroud’s exposition this spring. He emphasized the “spiritual” benefits that will be provided to pilgrims through their contemplation of the image.
The famous Shroud, which is believed to be the burial shroud of Jesus, will be on display in the Cathedral of Turin from April 10 – May 20 of this year. Msgr. Giuseppe Ghiberti, president of the archdiocesan commission on the Shroud, said at the press conference that no research would be done on it during the days of the exposition. Click here to read more
As we approach Holy Week, during which, incidentally, this blog closes down for the week, is it helpful to read about, meditate on, the shroud believed to be Christ’s burial shroud?
Is the fact that – try as they have done - nobody has been able to reproduce the shroud, likely to help non-believers to bridge what they perceive as a gap between religion and science?
Click on ‘comments’ with your views and to share any knowledge or experiences you have, which relate to the Shroud of Turin.
Tags: Science, turin shroud
-
N O T I C E . . .
I’ve posted an update on the Child Abuse (Cardinal Brady) thread
http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/blog/?p=4082#commentsAll comments on that topic, on the Cardinal Brady thread please. Note my request for your opinions on the use of previous topic threads, to be posted there, as well. Thank you.
-
Of course it is of great spiritual benefit to meditate on the sufferings of Christ, using anything that will aid us in so doing, and the Turin shroud is a particularly compelling aid.
As to whether or not it is truly the burial shroud of Christ, I admit to having reservations. The main problem for me is the fact that the entire image of body and face is, in the Turin shroud, imprinted on the one linen piece. This is not in accordance with the Gospel of St. John, XX, vv 6-8:
Simon Peter, coming in after him (i.e. John), went into the tomb and saw the linen cloths lying there, and also the veil which had been put over Jesus’ head, not lying with the linen cloths but still wrapped round and round in a place by itself.
A shroud formed of two pieces like this was usual in burials of Christ’s time and place, and thus the piece that wrapped the body would not bear the imprint of Christ’s face.
I think that the carbon-dating has had sufficient doubt cast upon its reliability as to the time of origin of the shroud, but I did see a recent BBC TV documentary (sorry – my memory doesn’t permit the recall of chapter and verse) in which an American (Canadian?) researcher makes a reasonable case (without challenge in the programme, of course) that Leonardo da Vinci did in fact produce the image by means of a photograhic process which would place him in this, as in so much else, very far ahead of his time.
I am very far from being convinced one way or the other, but I do think that the scriptural evidence should not be overlooked.
-
[...]nobody has been able to reproduce the shroud[...]
-
Readers might like to know that Our Blessed Lord appeared to Mother Maria Pierina and gave her the Holy Face medal (based on the Shroud of Turin image). She is being beatified on May 30th 2010 at the Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome. Further info about the Holy Face devotion (which is fully approved by the Church) can be found here:- http://www.holyface.org.uk
-
kevin1, I didn’t know anything about Mother Maria Pierina and the Holy Face medal. That is very interesting indeed.
However, I read the link posted by DSimon and that is also interesting. Fr Lombardi, I think it was, said that nobody had reproduced the shroud (not that I have much time for Fr Lombardi after his remarks at the lifting of the SSPX excommunications) and until that information about the beatification, I was in the same position as Naomi, not knowing what to think. I’m still puzzled a bit about the authenticity of the shroud so will be watching this thread with a lot of interest to see what I can learn.
-
DSimon, as far as I’m aware, nobody has been able to reproduce The Last Supper! But seriously, are you aware that anyone has so far tried to reproduce the image on the shroud? I’ve certainly not heard that anyone has tried, and there is a consensus that the image is best described as a photographic negative, as has been clearly demonstrated. However, in the documentary I watched a fairly good demonstration was given by the researcher of the formation of a similar image by means of the keyhole camera technique that Leonardo is known to have experimented with.
My comment about the fact that the shroud’s construction is at odds with the account in St. John’s Gospel is far more important that any objection that the shroud has not been reproduced – it still might be reproduced.
-
I would be interested to know what bloggers make of the scriptural problem, rather than other arguments and opinions.
-
Naomi, DSimon posted a link to show that someone has reproduced it
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5943HL20091005To be honest, Naomi, I’m not well enough versed in the facts about the Turin Shroud to be able to comment on the apparent discrepancy with John 20:6-8. Has this (linen cloth separate) argument not been answered by those who have studied the shroud?
I should be elsewhere even as I write, so don’t have time to research but maybe one of the research gurus would do so, please and thank you!
-
Sorry for the shower of posts, but I shall be away after teatime tonight for most of the weekend. I have read both articles, although I don’t think DSimon’s unloaded fully. As far as the one about Mother Maria Pierina is concerned, the article simply states that the medal shows an image of the Turin shroud. For obvious reasons this claim requires an accompanying image of the medal, for the shroud is a pretty long thing to be accommodated on what I presume is a small medal to be worn around the neck, and there are rival claims as to what is the true imprint of Christ’s face (the veil of Veronica which is not mentioned in the Passion, and came late onto the scene) and the earlier Mandylion. The devotion to the Holy Face is an ancient one, and I have long been interested in the fact that representations of this Face in art have been so remarkably similar from earliest times. Interestingly it has been suggested that it was the artist St. Luke himself who gave us our first painting of the Face of Christ. If Leonardo is the villain of the piece (and I am not claiming he is) then the Face on the shroud would simply be following this image as passed down to him from the earliest times.
-
Editor – not in anything I have read, and I am very interested, not simply in the shroud, but, as I said, in the Face of Christ as represented in art.
-
DSimon
I wouldn’t pay too much attention to anti-Catholic sensationalist press stories, nor to a man who is funded by atheists and skeptics to spend his life trying to disprove Catholic miracles.
I think the following link puts paid to Garaschelli’s production
-
I wouldn’t pay too much attention to [...] a man who is funded by atheists and skeptics to spend his life trying to disprove Catholic miracles.
Athanasius, I don’t understand how the fact that he’s attempting to disprove a miracle means that, when he does so, the results don’t deserve attention. Should we only accept disproofs from people who stumble upon them by accident?
Furthermore, who he is funded by is irrelevant to the content of his research; Funding bias is certainly a concern, because it can influence which sorts of experiments are done. However, the source of funding doesn’t invalidate the actual contents of the experiments, unless their methodology was wrong (which would be a problem even if the funding bias weren’t present).
The Heimburger PDF you linked is a much more substantial criticism. It discusses the researcher’s two separate experiments: one involving a dry red pigment, the other involving a water-based blue pigment. The criticism is very technical, but from what I can gather, Hamburger has two major problems with the final reproduction:
(a) The lack of a smoothly transitioning gradient between the light and dark zones. In other words, the original Shroud image is “fuzzier” than the reproduction.
(b) The darker fibers on the reproduction in are only stained on one side, while the darker fibers of the original Shroud appear to be stained on both the front and back. Also, the “depth” of the stain is greater on the original Shroud (that is, the stain goes deeper into the cloth).
I don’t have the expertise to have a useful opinion on this, but I’ll give one anyways.
It seems to me that both of these differences could be accounted for by the same mechanism: if the aging that caused the stain continued to spread outwards from the original contact point as time passed. This would cause both the desired stain depth and blurriness without adding additional information, just like the “blur” function on a photo-editing program.Really, though, I’d like to ask the original researcher what he thinks of Heimburger’s points. I’m sure he’d have more of relevance to say about it then some random atheist on the Internet.
Also, one paragraph from the PDF caught my attention, although it’s not directly related to the major criticisms of the reproduction:
We must realize that the “modern artists and researchers” (including LG), know that they have to work in such a way that they have to produce a Shroud-like image with these properties (half-tones and the related true 3D characteristics). Up to know they all failed. What is the probability for a medieval forger, who obviously could not have in mind these properties, to produce by chance an image having these properties? Probably about 0%. In other words, this method does not work in practice although it could work in theory.
This paragraph exhibits a major mistake in its use of probability: letting the thing being examined influence the choice of what would count as a “success”. For example, if the original cloth had a blue coloration to it, then that would’ve also been in Heimburger’s list of things that a forger would be unlikely to bother doing; if it were green, then that would be in the list instead. In other words, we shouldn’t care about the probability of a medieval forger/artist trying to make an image with these exact properties. Instead, we must consider the probability of a medieval forger/artist making an image with any properties at all that would cause us to take this type of interest.
-
(Sorry, meant to say “without requiring additional information” above, instead of “without adding additional information”. As a CS guy, I’ve got to be careful to be accurate when I use terminology like that.)
-
As it happens I am currently reading a book by John C Iannone, entitled ‘The Three Cloths of Christ: The Emerging Treasures of Christianity’, in which he deals with a) The Holy Shroud of Turin, b) The Sudarium Christi, c) The Veil of Veronica. I have read part of the section dealing with the Holy Shroud, and I am finding it very readable, clear, and so far very persuasive as regards the authenticity of the Holy Shroud. The book is new, and is a paperback with 247 pages, and is privately printed and published. The author can be contacted by email at – jciannone@gmail.com – and his website address is – http://www.northstarproductions.org – I strongly recommend this book. I believe that the author is widely known and respected in the USA and is an acknowledged expert on all matters appertaining to the Holy Shroud.
-
DSimon
Hamburger has a third problem with LG’s reproduction, the most conclusive of all, which is that his shroud is not properly 3D. He also highlights another significant point, which is that the original shroud bears no image under the blood stains.
All in all, I think the point Hamburger makes is that LG has failed, like others before him, to copy the shroud in its many and varied technical details. Superficial similarity is insufficient.
There’s also the fact that no middle-ages craftsman could have known anything about 3D. Nor could he have created same on both sides of the shroud. The bottom line is that the shroud is authentic and unfakeable.
-
Athanasius, I was confused about that when reading the PDF. What does it mean that the shroud is “3d”?
-
This conversation reminds me that Leonard Cheshire VC was a firm believer that the Shroud was real and had a great devotion to it.
Please remember to say a prayer for the repose of his soul and that of his wife Lady Sue Ryder of Warsaw.
More on their lives here:
http://whitesmokeahoy.blogspot.com/2009/02/leonard-cheshire-and-sue-ryder-saints.html –
-
There are a number of interesting websites for the Shroud listed here on this website.
The author of the blog is not a Catholic so care needed.
http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/ —
There is a good introduction to the Shroud here with plenty of photos
-
DSimon
I’m no expert on 3D, but I believe it involves detail not fakeable. For example, a straight line is 1D; it is simply one dimensional (length). 2D is obviously two dimensional like a rectangle, a triangle or any other shape that has both length and width. 3D has length, breadth and depth. It is the depth to an image such as the shroud that cannot be faked.
I don’t know if this makes the matter any clearer.
-
Athanasius,
Not making much sense to me either – I’m sure DSimon understands the difference between 2D and 3D though!
-
Benet
Just as well I didn’t choose teaching as a career!!
-
So uh, what happened to Naomi’s question early on? Not to mention Editor’s question in the introduction? (“Does Turin Shroud Brings Spiritual Benefits?”) I don’t know the answer to either question, but I would be interested to read others’ thoughts on them, rather than what has been posted so far, which has been (a) inconclusive, and (b) not spiritual.
-
Tomas, I agree with you. I haven’t read a lot about the Shroud and as I said above, I am still puzzled about it, I what I’ve read and seen (in a video) does make me lean more towards believing it is authentic than not.
However, how do you gauge the spiritual benefits? I’m not sure. On a list of possible places of pilgrimage to visit, I’m afraid the shroud would be quite low down on my list, if that is any kind of test. But that is because of my uncertainty about whether it is genuine or not. If I was 100% convinced of it’s authenticity, I think it would shoot to the top of my list.
-
To be honest I not well versed in the facts of the Turin shroud on any apparant discreprencies either. But as we are entering Holy Week, the focus is on the Passion and Crucifixion of Jesus Christ and then on the Ressurection next week. This is a timely thread for meditation on the Passion.
-
Athanasius, well, when the PDF referred to 3D, I thought it meant that the stain went into the cloth in a way that presented more information; in this case, the depth of the cloth would be the 3rd dimension. That’s what I meant by the last sentence of my point (b). But now I think I misunderstood Heimburger’s paper about this.
Are saying that the stain is 2D, but it presents a pseudo-3D image? If so, that’s just a matter of drawing with perspective, a technique that artists have been using for a long time.
Or, are you saying that the image is stereoscopic like 3D movies and some holographs, presenting a slightly different image to each eye to create a detailed illusion of depth? That would be quite impressive!
He also highlights another significant point, which is that the original shroud bears no image under the blood stains.
Wouldn’t this be explained by the shroud being blood-stained before the chemical process that caused the image took place? Since LG is proposing a chemical process that would’ve happened over a long period of time, that seems reasonable.
-
I will be surprised if the shroud turns out to be a fake. It is pretty convincing to me, everything I’ve read about it. I’m not sure how to describe the “spiritual benefits” but I’m sure seeing the original, on a pilgrimage, say, would be quite an experience.
planechant,
I visited your link and found a lot of the page on the shroud hard to read but I copied this, which I think is very convincing indeed.
PATHOLOGY OF THE WOUNDS OF CRUCIFIXION AND THE SIGNATURE OF THE HISTORICAL JESUS
Numerous surgeons and pathologists (among the leading ones are Dr. Frederick Zugibe, the Medical Examiner – Rockland, New York), the late Dr. Robert Bucklin (Medical Examiner – Los Angeles County), Herman Moedder (Germany), the late Pierre Barbet (Surgeon in France), Dr. James Cameron (London) and David Willis (England) have studied the match between the Words, Weapons and Wounds, and agree that the words of the New Testament regarding the Passion clearly match the wounds depicted on the Shroud, and these wounds are in turn are consistent with the weapons used by ancient Roman soldiers in Crucifixion. They agree that the Man of the Shroud is clearly deceased and in a state of rigor mortis showing on some areas a post-mortem reliquification of blood clots after death leaving a telltale “serum albumin halo” view under ultra-violet fluorescence. In this regard, it is, as one Medical Examiner indicated “unfakable.”
Specifically, they note that the scourge marks on the shoulders, back, and legs of the Man of the Shroud match the Flagrum (Roman whip) which has three leather thongs, each having two lead or bone pellets (plumbatae) on the end. The lance wound in the right side matches the Roman Hasta (4cm x 1 cm spear wound). Iron nails (7″ spikes) were used in the wrist area (versus the palms as commonly depicted in Medieval art). These marks, combined with the capping of thorns which is not found anywhere else in Crucifixion literature of ancient Roman (Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Elder or Pliny the Younger) or Jewish historians (Flavius Josephus, Philo of Alexandria) create a unique signature of the historical Jesus of Nazareth. He is the only person that matches this unique set of circumstances on a cloth always historically associated with Jesus. Truly, this is the greatest Crime Scene Investigation – CSI – in history.
BLOOD EVIDENCE:
The blood on the Shroud is real, human male blood of the type AB (typed by Dr. Baima Ballone in Turin and confirmed in the U.S.). This blood type is rare (3 to 5% of the world population), the highest percentage being found in northern Palestine. AB blood is called a “bio-type of the Middle East). Blood chemist Dr. Alan Adler (Univ. of Western Connecticut) and Dr. John Heller (New England Institute of Medicine) found a high concentration of the pigment bilirubin, consistent with someone dying under great stress or trauma and making the color more red than normal ancient blood. Such finds rule out substances (paint, dye, ink, chalk, etc.) as constituting the blood. Dr. Victor Tryon, a DNA expert, and Nancy Tryon of the University of Texas Health Science Center found X & Y chromosomes (Ameligenin X and Ameligenin Y) representing male blood and “a highly degraded DNA (approx. 700 base pairs) “consistent with the supposition of ancient blood.” (Dr. Victor Tryon
-
Ita, This is a privately printed book and the actual print is rather lightweight, however I found that I soon got used to this. The extract you copied from the link is rather technical but this is the language that presumably has to be used in a scientific analysis of this nature. The book as a whole, is in fact much easier to read and understand, than the short extract you quote, for each step of the investigation is dealt with separately showing the facts, the analysis, and the conclusion drawn. Probably a book best read in hourly or half-hourly sessions, unless you have a mind that can easily absorb scientific and medical terminology without any difficulty. I have not yet finished reading the book, but the further on I get, the more grateful I am that I have it to read, and the more persuaded I become of the authenticity of the Holy Shroud.
-
Ita,
That information you posted from planechant’s link is excellent. I found it very convincing indeed. I’d actually read that about the blood type before but forgotten it. I will read over that link again during Holy Week. There’s a spiritual benefit right off from the Holy Shroud of Turin – if it makes us meditate more on the Passion of Christ, surely that will bring great spiritual benefits for our souls.
-
I’m sorry if I have overlooked any posts above, but as far as I can see, and surprisingly, nobody has addressed the problem posed by St. John’s Gospel. Since revelation ended with the Apostles, I think that this is too important to overlook, as we are not free to believe or disbelieve it, although we can doubt the authenticity of the Shroud. As St. John’s was the last-written of the Gospels, he would presumably be at some pains to add any details that were omitted in the experiences of the other Evangelists. Also, what he says is compelling, as he also reveals that he himself ran with Peter (not Peter alone) and saw the head-cloth, still wrapped round and round (in the shape of the Head) lying apart from the rest of the shroud. Thus the imprint of the sacred Face would have been on this, and not on the rest of the shroud.
I do think that relics of all kinds are an immense aid to devotion. Sadly, however, once an investigation of the kind under discussion has been begun the object regrettably becomes less and less an aid to devotion and more the province and battle-ground of academics. And for every apparently compelling piece of research, an opposing argument can be put forward. A good while ago I read, and was at the time convinced by, an account of the research into the physical evidence, particularly that of the bloodstains. However, a commentator at the time pointed out that this evidence, albeit of a man crucified as Christ was crucified, might equally suggest an alternative that is too horrible to contemplate.
-
Our Lord was buried in two cloths: a shroud and a sudarium; the latter was a napkin commonly used to cover the face of the deceased. The Shroud of Christ is kept in Turin; the Sudarium is kept at the cathedral of Oviedo in Spain and is brought out for veneration only on September 14 and 21 and Good Friday. Forensic studies have revealed significant similarities and complements between the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Ovideo; for a detailed consideration, see Janice Bennett’s “Sacred Blood, Sacred Image.”
The Sudarium at Oviedo is rectangular, somewhat irregular, approximately 855×526 mm, and bloodstained. The forensic work revealed that it was placed on our Lord’s face when he was still on the Cross, was re-wrapped after he had been placed in a horizontal position, remained in place while He was being transported, and then removed and placed aside; it did not remain in place underneath the Shroud. I believe this explanation answers Naomi’s question.
-
Sorry to post twice in succession, but I’m having trouble getting the site to accept my entire comment, so I’ve split it into sections. There wil be another comment after this if I have my way.
DSimon referenced an article from last year: Luigi Garlaschelli created a replica of the Shroud using techniques available in the 14th century. Now this is actually true, but it is misleading.
The real challenge in this case is making the image on linen with ALL of the same chemical and physical properties as the Shroud. In this Garlaschelli fell short of the mark.
Garlaschelli was the fourth person in the past 30 years to use paint (i.e. red ochre pigment) to accomplish his facsimile. But there is no paint on the Shroud of Christ — iron oxide does not constitute the image on the Shroud! Thus, Garlaschelli failed to produce a replica of the Shroud as it was originally produced — as Athanasius stated, his work had only a “superficial similarity.” The point remains true that no one has been able to reproduce the Shroud of Turin in the manner in which it was originally formed.
-
I’m off to Turin April 16-18 (on during my birthday, no less), and then to Oviedo. I’ll give a report of my pilgrimage after I return home.
Anyone interested can trace my route at http://tinyurl.com/yhny5w8
-
Addendum: the Sudarium does *not* have the imprint of our Lord’s face (c.f. St. Veronica’s veil). It is, however, covered in bloodstains.
-
Thanks to Isaac for those posts – especially that about the sudarium which is very illuminating. I’ve no wish to be argumentative, but only to clarify matters, as far as possible, in my own mind. In spite of the explanation concerning the sudarium, doubts remain. The Gospel – i.e. revealed and de fide – tells us quite clearly that the sudarium was found ’still wrapped round and round’. This conflicts with what Isaac says ‘the forensic work revealed’ – i.e. that it was removed and placed aside, which surely means that it was unwrapped and therefore could not have been found still wrapped round and round as St. John says. I cannot agree that the forensic work ‘reveals’ anything – it is not ‘revelation’ in the way that the Gospel is revelation – it merely presents us with another hypothesis.
I shall try to find Janice Bennet’s work, and look forward to hearing about your pilgrimage, Isaac. Buon viaggio!
-
From St. John’s Gospel (DRV), “and the napkin that had been about his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but apart, wrapped up into one place…”
The sudarium was put aside and folded. This alternate translation accords with the translation you’re using that uses the “wraps round and round” wording.
The sudarium was a face-cloth used to wipe the face clean — this is why some translations use the term “napkin” to describe it. The sudarium was wrapped about our Lord’s head — not when He was finally laid to rest wrapped in the Shroud, but during the time after His death when he was being prepared for burial.
Bennett’s book includes useful photographs of how the sudarium using models, and one can tell how it was indeed wound about the head.
Part of the significance of the sudarium being wrapped is to demonstrate that the tomb was quite in order when the Apostles entered it: after our Lord’s Resurrection there was an earthquake, and some enemies might have claimed that His body was lost in the quake. That the sudarium was neatly folded and put aside gives evidence to the contrary.
-
Thank you for that explanation and your patience, Isaac. I should have had the sense to check with Douay-Rheims!
-
Isaac
Thank you so much for explaining the answer to Naomi’s question…and what a wonderful pilgrimage! You should post reports to us, if you have time, from each stop in your journey…may God go with you.
-
Ita,
The blood evidence seems pretty fake.
You probably copied this from some dubious web site
“Dr. Victor Tryon, a DNA expert, and Nancy Tryon of the University of Texas Health Science Center found X & Y chromosomes (Ameligenin X and Ameligenin Y) representing male blood and “a highly degraded DNA (approx. 700 base pairs) “consistent with the supposition of ancient blood.” (Dr. Victor Tryon)”
Dr Tyron was interviewed in Time in 1998
“Of the tests, Tryon says, “All I can tell you is that DNA contamination is
present and that the DNA belonged either to a human or another higher primate. I have no idea who or where the DNA signal came from, nor how long it’s been there.” It is, he says, not necessarily the remains of blood. “Everyone who has
ever touched the shroud or cried over the shroud has left a potential DNA signal there.” Tryon quit the project soon after his tests. “I saw it as a
multidisciplinary project involving archaeology, physiology and other fields.
But I came to believe there was another agenda present too. It was my first
encounter with zealotry in science.”Note he is unable to state that there is blood on the shroud.
I can’t explain how your quote has begun circulating. One might think it is illegal to spread lies like this (not you but your source), certainly it is immoral.
The AB statement in the same paragraph you copied is also very dubious. My guess is that whatever technique the researchers are using will tend to signal AB. This type of analysis should involve forensic anthropologists to have any credibility. Also I don’t understand the statement of AB being common in the middle-East
The Sudarium has an even weaker claim to having type AB if only because details of the test procedure are hard to come by.
Needless to say, the claim that the blood is from a male is very shaky, since this can only be derived from the DNA, which the real Dr Trover has stated cannot be used.
-
semiopen,
welcome to our blog and thank you for your first comment.
I’m afraid I’m not well versed in the science of the Turin Shroud so I will leave one of the others to answer your criticisms of Ita’s post. I’d be surprised, however, if the claims of authenticity of the shroud to date have been based on the opinions of only one scientist.
-
I can’t say I agree with semiopen’s conclusion. I was able to readily locate online sources about Dr. Tryon identifying blood on the Shroud.
From http://www.uthscsa.edu/mission/spring96/shroud.htm
“Victor V. Tryon, PhD, assistant professor in microbiology and director of the university’s Center for Advanced DNA Technologies, examined the DNA of one so-called ‘blood glob’ from two separate microscopic shroud samples. He reported isolating signals from three different human genes by employing polymerase chain reaction, which can detect pieces of double-stranded DNA.”
The Los Angeles Times mentioned the article above in May of 1998 — I wonder if that is the reference semiopen meant when he wrote “Dr Tyron was interviewed in Time in 1998″? I’d understood semiopen to mean Time Magazine, but perhaps his attribution was off a tad?
In other news: I’m home from my pilgrimage, during which I saw the Shroud in Turin and visited the church where the Sudarium is housed in Spain. I’ll write more about my visit when I’m a bit more caught up on a few domestic chores that were neglected while I was traveling.
-
Thanks Isaac, and welcome back! I’m really looking forward to your pilgrimage report, and I know from conversations with some of the bloggers, that I’m not alone!
As and when, Isaac. As and when!
-
I’ve posted my photo of the Shroud at http://www.flickr.com/photos/20545646@N00/4560016093/sizes/l/
I can’t say it adds much to the library of similar photos out there, but I’m glad to be able to say I saw the Shroud myself all the same.
There’s also a shot of myself from my trip across the north of Spain en route to Oviedo (and the Sudarium) at http://www.flickr.com/photos/20545646@N00/4560019929/sizes/l/
The clothes are finally washed and put away; I’d planned to write more this weekend, but I’ll take the time instead while Madame Editor is away at the Holy City to catch up on other chores.
Comments are now closed.
42 comments