The Shroud of Turin exploded back in the news recently when a new study, in the journal Heritage, dated the cloth’s origins to 2,000 years ago. That does not conclusively prove that the Shroud is actually the burial cloth of Christ. However, this study puts the cloth in the right place, at the right time, for it to be authentic.
Not all Roman Catholics, and certainly not all Orthodox Christians, accept the Shroud as a true relic of the Resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ. However, regardless of whether they accept or deny the Shroud, discussions among Roman Catholic / Orthodox Christians are mostly civil. There are not particularly high stakes here on either side. If the Shroud is real, then it is one more authentic relic that originated in Jerusalem, but ended up in Italy as a result of the Crusades. That is nothing new. If the Shroud is a fake, then it is just one more pious fraud in a 2,000 year history already littered with so many others. No one’s faith is on the line either way.
However, many Evangelicals in the online space have not taken the latest test results on the Shroud with such equanimity. Almost immediately, Evangelical apologists went into overdrive viciously attacking the authenticity of the Shroud. The intensity of this reaction left a lot of Orthodox and Roman Catholics a bit startled. A common question from them was, “Why are they like this?” The common explanation was anti-Catholic bias. (I’ll use that phrase to mean anti-Roman and anti-Orthodox in this instance.) There is surely truth in that. Evangelicalism is frequently reactionary towards anything perceived as “Catholic”, whether it be art or a Chalice or vestments or first century Patristic writings or even Church architecture. “Catholic = bad” may as well be the Evangelical official motto.
But in the case of the Shroud, mere anti-Catholic bigotry is not the whole story. The Shroud presents a challenge that can actually destroy Evangelicalism. A fact that many of them are well aware of on some level, even if they refuse to articulate it plainly.
Wait, what? Could the Shroud’s authenticity threaten the very existence of Evangelicalism? Absolutely. Two major reasons why come immediately to mind.
1. God Himself Made an Icon
Evangelicals expend a lot of energy arguing against icons. Their common arguments are:
- Icons are idols, and so are prohibited by the Old Testament.
- There is no mention of icons in the New Testament, so the writing and veneration of icons must be a later addition to the faith forced onto the Church by either the Pope or Constantine (or both). A so-called “tradition of men” that sprang up as the early Church of the Apostles progressively apostatized on her way to becoming the Orthodox Catholic Church.
- Icons are unnecessary decoration. Authentic worship is in “spirit and truth”. Decorations in a worship space are distractions from the true Gospel, even if they are not venerated. “Real” Christians don’t need them.
- Icons are expensive. The money spent on decorating the Church should be given to the poor, homeless, etc.
- Icons depict Christ with long hair, which he couldn’t have had because long hair on men is against the Bible. (This comes up because of a passage from Paul telling men not to have long hair. A passage traditionally interpreted as being against feminine hairstyles on men, and not long hair per se.)
In short, Icons are idols, you don’t need them, they are not in the Bible, so Evangelicals are right to denounce them and Orthodox / Roman Catholics are wrong to use them.
Only, if the Shroud of Turin is authentic, then God Himself made an icon through His own supernatural power. An icon the Church possessed from the beginning in 33 AD. An icon that seems to have heavily influenced the depiction of Christ in succeeding centuries.
6th Century Orthodox icon of Christ compared to the image of Christ from the Shroud
If icons are idols, why would God make one and give it to His newly-founded Church? If Icons are unimportant / unnecessary, why would God make one and give it to His newly-founded Church? How could icons be a later addition to the Christian Faith, if the Church had one from her very beginning made by God Himself? If veneration (Greek doulia) of created matter is idolatrous, why would God transform a cloth into His Own Divine Image?
There are many excellent online rebuttals to Evangelical criticisms of icons. Some of the best are written by former Evangelicals. This is a good one. Despite all that good work, however, the vast majority of Evangelicals continue to reject the Orthodox Catholic Tradition of Iconography. A rejection that becomes impossible if the Shroud of Turin is authentic. An authentic Shroud means the end of Evangelicalism as we know it. Perhaps the end of it in general.
On some level at least, the more astute Evangelical apologists realize this. They strenuously reject the Shroud completely out-of-hand (with no regard to any evidence), because they must reject it in order to remain Evangelical. The Shroud must be a fake, because the implications of an authentic Shroud are simply too immense for an Evangelical mind to even contemplate. An objective observer, therefore, must conclude that the inauthenticity of the Shroud is Evangelical Dogma that they cannot abandon, no matter how much evidence for the Shroud accumulates.
Scroll Down to Continue
The Accuracy of Church Tradition
Another Evangelical Dogma is the “Bible alone”. The idea is that Church Tradition was corrupted in the early First Millennium, and is thus unreliable as a guide to practicing the Christian Faith. In Evangelical teaching, the “apostate” Church essentially “lost contact” with the Apostolic Church of the Book of Acts. Only what is recorded in the Bible is reliable, and only when interpreted according to post-16th Century Evangelical tradition. All other Holy Tradition preserved in Patristic writings, liturgical texts, hymns, icons, canons, acts of Church Councils, etc. are automatically suspect in the Evangelical mind.
An authentic Shroud totally demolishes Evangelical teachings concerning sola scriptura and Church history. The Shroud is not specifically mentioned in the New Testament as bearing the image of Christ. (Though burial clothing of Christ is mentioned as having been found in the Empty Tomb.) If the Shroud is authentic, that authenticity is attested to solely by Church Tradition. If the Shroud is true, then what other parts of Church Tradition are also true? How can Evangelicals demand everything in Christianity be authorized by “chapter and verse”, when the Shroud’s existence makes it clear that not all Christian Truths are in the Bible?
The Church preserved the Shroud from the 1st Century (first the Church in the East, then later the Church in Rome). That does not indicate some kind of “radical break” with the Early Church. Rather, the preservation of the Shroud speaks to historical continuity between the Orthodox Catholic Church and the Church of the Book of Acts. If the Orthodox Catholic Church / Roman Catholic Church could keep track of such a relic for over two millennia, how could the teachings of the Apostles have been “lost” in the 4th Century (or earlier)?
An authentic Shroud puts Evangelicals in an impossible position. If the post-Nicene Church (frequently believed by Evangelicals to have been apostate) could preserve the Shroud, what else has the Orthodox and/or the Roman Church preserved? The Shroud is also evidence for the source of the remarkable continuity in the way Christ is depicted in Orthodox Icons. Evangelicals deny we can know what Christ looked like, because the New Testament (the only reliable source of truth) does not contain a physical description of Him. They further assert that if His appearance were important, then a New Testament writer would have provided a description.
As an aside, the lack of a physical description of Christ in the New Testament is also used by non-Christians as “evidence” that Our Savior was not a real person.
Imagine the horror of Evangelicals having to admit they are completely wrong. The New Testament does not physically describe Christ neither because His appearance is unimportant, nor because his appearance was unknown to Biblical authors. Rather, an authentic Shroud proves the Church has always known what He looks like, and never needed a mere physical description since His Image was readily available. A picture truly is worth a 1,000 words. Further, the historical use of Iconography proves that the Church has always considered the Face of Christ to be important for the Christian Faithful to see. Christ was a real human being, in addition to being God.
Christ is God in the flesh. Which is why we can show Him in physical form.
Conclusion
I am an Orthodox Christian who, after much research into the matter, accepts the authenticity of the Shroud. I believe that the preponderance of evidence makes it almost a certainty that it is the burial garment of Our Lord and Savior. If, however, this turns out to be untrue, the affect on my faith in Christ would be absolute zero. Everything I could learn from an authentic Shroud, I already believe because the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church already taught it all to me.
Evangelicals, on the other hand, can’t afford for the Shroud to be authentic. So expect the Evangelical War on the Shroud to continue, to intensify, and to get even nastier. Evidence alone will not suffice for most Evangelicals, making any rational discussion with them nearly impossible on this subject. Their faith is quite literally at stake.
Nicholas – member of the Western Rite Vicariate, a part of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese in America
The overwhelming majority of genuine Byzantine religious relics and artifacts that were stolen by the West during the 4th Crusade were previously documented and well-known in the East for many centuries. The shroud of Turin is not on that list, so it’s not really an artifact that was “known” in Orthodoxy. Despite the recent article, there are dozens of recent scientific “carbon dating” studies that date the shroud of Turin back to the 14th century, which also coincides with the first time it officially “appeared” on the scene.
In contrast, the Orthodox tradition maintains the well-known “holy cloth” (αγιον μανδηλιον) tradition as the only and original “Face of Christ” on a cloth. Ironically, per the point above, this holy artifact was preserved in Byzantium up until the 4th crusade, and it was documented as stolen by the Latins, and supposedly it was in Paris for 500 years until the French Revolution, when it disappeared.
So, the jury is likely still out on Turin, but our personal curiosity should be focused on what really happened to the “αγιον μανδηλιον” that ended up in Paris…that’s the valid, documented historical original, for sure..
The author could rewrite the article using the Face of Christ, and nothing would change in the piece other than the icon referenced.
We don’t hear of any miracles associated with the Shroud of Turin.
Another good read:
The Shroud of Turin: A Mystery Across the Ages Fr. Alexey Young
orthochristian.com/81330.html
On this day, the Church celebrates the icon of the Savior “Made Without Hands”—the prototype of which is believed to be an image of Jesus Christ’s holy face, left on a cloth used to cover His face at burial after the crucifixion. An exhaustively researched and highly interesting article by Fr. Alexy Young, Nun Michaila, and Mary Mansur was published a number of years ago in the periodical, “Orthodox America” on the Shroud of Turin and the Holy Napkin. We present it today in the spirit of the present feast.
On this day, the Church celebrates the icon of the Savior “Made Without Hands”—the prototype of which is believed to be an image of Jesus Christ’s holy face, left on a cloth used to cover His face at burial after the crucifixion. An exhaustively researched and highly interesting article by Fr. Alexy Young, Nun Michaila, and Mary Mansur was published a number of years ago in the periodical, “Orthodox America” on the Shroud of Turin and the Holy Napkin. We present it today in the spirit of the present feast.
Doxa to Theo, JD
How can Protestants reject Holy Tradition, when the Scriptures they quote and memorize (i.e. the Bible) is a product of Holy Tradition? And when the scriptures, themselves, talk about the importance of Holy Tradition?
1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I commend you for remembering me in everything and for maintaining the traditions, just as I passed them on to you.
2 Thessalonians 3:6 Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to keep away from any brother who leads an undisciplined life that is not in keeping with the tradition you received from us.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brothers, stand firm and cling to the traditions we taught you, whether by speech or by letter.
I was raised Roman Catholic, and except for the 11th and 12th grades, I attended Catholic schools all the way through college. I have been to many Catholic churches, and they do not have icons, unless they are Byzantine Catholic (which have a few icons because of the Orthodox influence on that branch of Catholicism). Catholic churches have statues, stained-glass windows (if they are old), and the “Stations of the Cross” on the walls — and the Pachamama statue if you go to the Vatican.
I consider one of my great successes in life my deliverance from the Roman Catholic church. Icons are Orthodox Christian.
That “There is no mention of icons in the New Testament” is utterly false, might make one reconsider their position as well. Colossian 1:15 literally tells us Christ is the icon of the invisible God. The word isn’t ‘image’ as it’s always translated into English, it’s “eikon” in the Greek original.
Second, in the same Epistle (Col 3), St. Paul tells us what idolatry is, also using the very word. No ‘graven images’ are necessary.
Third, in no instance when Christ mentions the commandments of the old law does he name their favored Exodus 20:4 against ‘images’. Not once! Do they actually consider Christ as their God?
It’s almost as if they wouldn’t bow down before our Incarnate Lord due to His body being ‘mere matter’. Lord have mercy!
Great points, thanks!
It’s kind of funny that evangelicals and atheists come down on the same side. Like calvinism and atheism on free will.
I used to also think the money spent on beautiful churches should be given to the poor until I realized who I was quoting.