CMI Got Shroud Wrong, I'd Say

When CMI gets off their main topic to actually oppose a Catholic teaching, or tradition, I am divided on where to put my remarks, but since I have promoted them here (for instance with a carbon dated Triceratops), I feel a certain duty to oppose them when they are wrong, and to make at least some initial remarks here, before going on elsewhere.

Shroud of Turin is the topic. They think it is fake.

I agree on one thing, it is not made through any process of decomposition if real, Christ, and His Blessed Mother Mary, left tombs without having decomposed.

Now, there are a few remarks to make very quickly.

• We do not prove the Resurrection by Bible alone. Apostles did not do so on Pentecost. St Paul in Corinthians did so by his witness account, before the book was a Bible book, accepted as such. Witness of Apostles comes before Bible - and before our preserved or not such sindone. The Church as a community taking Gospels as Her history is more important than Gospels standing alone. How do we know Lord of the Rings is a novel? Tolkien's fan base. How do we know the Four canonic Gospels are not novels? The Church.
  
  
• We do not agree that Medieval forgeries were so common that the Church had no possibility of knowing the genuine relics.
  
  
• Neither Shroud of Turin nor Face Cloth of Oviedo contradict the Gospel accounts. There are three pieces : face cloth, large shroud, and bundles of cloth tying both of them around the corpse that God was after Crucifixion. That one Gospel mentions one, another another is not a contradiction, nor an invitation to re-interpret one in terms of other. The first two would normally be considered relics, Oviedo and Turin, while the bundle of cloth straps is gone, probably kept by the angels.
  
  
• Carbon date can be explained in three ways, if genuine : forgery, as in CalTech computer was hacked (by KGB, for instance), resurrection was in some ways radioactive (turning C12 to C14 in the process, a phenomenon observed at nuke explosions, as CMI themselves noted about samples dated 3000 years into the future after one).
  
  
• We know one parallel to figures on Shroud as being figures of atomised people at Hiroshima, on walls. This would also explain why the marks are on both shroud and face cloth. This is also consistent with one of the explanations of the carbon dates.
  
  
• The Shroud is venerated and has been so since well before recent aberrations of the Vatican II sect. This, after Trentine purge of false relics, gives a presumption it is genuine.

That's it for today./HGL

PS, nearly forgot the link to their article:

Is the Shroud of Turin authentic? Or is it a forgery?
by Matthew Cserhati, Rob Carter Published: 16 August 2019 (GMT+10)
https://creation.com/turin-shroud

PPS, as you may have guessed, I am also a defender of the other relics:

• The blood of St. Januarius in a vial in Naples, Italy
• A picture of Mary painted by St. Luke in an Augustinian church in Bologna
• A piece of Moses’ brazen serpent (Numbers 21:5 – 9; 2 Kings 18:4) in the church of St. Ambrose in Milan
• The table on which Jesus partook of the Last Supper in the church of St. John, Lateran in Rome
• The holy stairs which Jesus walked up to judgment before Pilate
• Water from the prison where the apostles Peter and Paul were kept
• The house in which Mary was born (the so-called Santa Casa), transported from Nazareth to Loretto
• Parts of the veil of Mary
• The ‘holy porringer’ in which food was made for the baby Jesus