@@pdworld3421 Your referring to the sudarium the face cloth that was used to cover Jesus face. I believe it was traditional Jewish practice to cover the face of the dead for modesty reasons ( John 20: 6-7 ) but the sudarium didn’t remain on his head the whole time only while the body was being transferred to his tomb once there, the wrap was removed then His body was wrapped in the shroud. I hope this answers your question

Those of us with even a tiny bit of intelligence know that the bishop's letter to the Pope was after a local artist, in a feeble attempt to make a name for himself, told him that it was he that painted the cloth. The bishop, being the gullible old fool that he was, took him at his word. Of course, they did not have the testing back then they do now, or they quickly would have discovered that there is not so much as a drop of paint, or any other manmade material on the image on the Shroud. The fact is that there are no pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils. There are no chemical or physical methods known which can account for the totality of the image, nor can any combination of physical, chemical, biological or medical circumstances explain the image adequately.

NO SHROUD mentioned in the gospels! Read and trust the Bible. I started to think about the Shroud of Turin some weeks ago because quite a lot of KZbin channels claim that it is 100 % sure the burial cloth of Jesus. So I did what Paul said: 1Thess 5,21 but test them all; hold on to what is good, I searched for all the relevant "burial" verses in the gospels and I did some basic Greek word studies on BibleHub (free bible study webpage - select Interlinear): Mk 15,46 And Joseph bought linen cloth [SINDONA, singular] and taking him down, wrapped [ENEILESEN] him in the linen cloth [SINDONI, singular] and laid him in a tomb that had been cut out of the rock. And he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb. Joh 19,39 Nicodemus also, who earlier had come to Jesus by night, came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds in weight [about 32 kg]. Joh 19,40 So they took the body of Jesus and bound [EDESAN] it in linen cloths [OTHONIOIS, plural] with [META] the spices [AROMATON; about 32 kg], as is the burial custom of the Jews. Mk 16,1 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices [AROMATA] so that they might go to anoint [ALEIPSOSIN] Jesus. (1) SINDON > "a linen cloth" or "linen cloth"? I quickly recognised that some Bible translations of SINDON are adding the indefinite article "a" although there is no one in the original Greek texts. Is it mandatory to add "a" and is it also mandatory to understand "the" plus noun singular always as one piece only? If SINDON must be understood as one large piece linen only (like the Shroud) - where the bandages (OTHONION) and the head cloth (SOUDARION) came from? Why the gospel of John does not mention SINDON? Answer: In the context SINDON must be translated/understood as a general material description "linen cloth" and it means all the needed burial cloth (bandages and head cloth). Joseph for sure knew what was needed according to the burial custom of (rich) Jews at that time. And John didn't mention SINDON in his gospel because he also didn't mention the purchase of Joseph. (2) SPICES > stains/particles Nicodemus organised a 32 kg sticky mixture of myrrh and aloes. Together with Joseph they wrapped/bound the body in linen (OTHONION) WITH the spices. They completed this work according to the burial custom of Jews at that time. STURP (Shroud Of Turin Research Program) used many analytical methods and finally it was even emphasised that not any trace of spices/oils were detected!? But there must be at least non degradable stains/particles of spices (like for blood)!? And if in the meantime a failure of STURP was revealed - how the adding of spices worked with something like the Shroud of Turin? Answer: OTHONION means bandages and the spices were put between the bandages when the body - EXCEPT THE HEAD - was wrapped/bound by Joseph and Nicodemus. This was done promptly after taking Jesus from the cross. (3) SOUDARION <> Shroud If the complete body of Jesus was already wrapped/bound by Joseph and Nicodemus in something like the Shroud - why there was a need to add a head cloth (SOUDARION)? Also Lazarus wore a head cloth when coming out the tomb himself (Joh 11,44). And despite the burial cloth Lazarus was able to stand up and to go! Answer: The SOUDARION was added also promply to cover the head and it remained there until the resurrection. (4) WOMEN > anointing Jesus was transported to the nearby rock-tomb and was laid in there. Some of the women observed this and nothing else was done in the tomb. After Sabbath the women came with the intention to anoint Jesus. How this worked if the body was completely wrapped/bound in something like the Shroud with the spices? To get access at least to his head they would have had to remove/destroy the wrapping and uncovering a naked man underneath!? Answer: The women came after Sabbath with the intention to anoint Jesus' head (hair/face). This was an act of honour that could have been done easily by removing/readding the head cloth (SOUDARION). But it would have been impossible and illogic with something like the Shroud of Turin. So there is no need to trust a still doubtful and controversial relic like the Shroud of Turin to be the authentic burial cloth of Jesus: Joh 20,29 Then Jesus told him, ‘Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.’ There is a high risk to open the heart for the spirit of idoltry. The consequences you can read e.g. in almost all the commentaries of beverlyhurd8556 on different Shroud related channels where she agressively interfere herself and insults with invectives everybody who is not of her opinion. She knows the Shroud but she doesn't know Jesus and what he said: Mt 5,22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, “Raca,” is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, “You fool!” will be in danger of the fire of hell. But there is hope also for her: 1Joh 1,9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purif us from all unrighteousness. Gal 5,22+23 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

According to the gospels' context ... Joseph of Arimathea bought all the needed linen cloth (SINDON). That means bandages (OTHONION) and the head cloth (SOUDARION). Nicodemus organised about 32 kg spices. That means a sticky mixture of myrrh and aloes. Jesus was taken from the cross and maybe he was also washed. Then the body, except the head, was promply wrapped/bound with (META) the spices between the bandages (OTHONION) according to the burial custom of Jews at that time. The head was covered with the head cloth (SOUDARION). Finally Jesus was carried to the nearby rock-tomb and was laid in there. The rock-tomb was closed with a stone and sealed. After Sabbath the women intended to anoint Jesus' head removing and readding the head cloth (SOUDARION) but ... 1 Corinthians 15 (NKJB) 1Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, and in which you stand firm. 2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. 3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that He appeared to Cephasa and then to the Twelve. 6After that, He appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8And last of all He appeared to me also, as to one of untimely birth.

Sir, You have presnted an incorrect translation (KJB?) on Mk 15:46. The translation which is taken directly from the Greek is: "Joseph . .. bought a shroud, took Jesus down from the cross, wrapped him in the shroud,. . . " The facecloth (Sudarium) was applied immediately after death, and was removed prior to the body being wrapped in the shroud. Sir, none of your objections can be substantiated. Furthermore, you are known to have a bias against the authenticity of the Holy Shroud which Jesus left to the world as proof of his authenticity. If you do not need that proof, that is fine. But you ought not to attack the proven miracle that Jesus gave to this era which others might find useful.

​​​​@@jeffreyerwin3665 Please indicate the original Greek text to show me where there is an "a". Please indicate the gospel verses that supports your story of the "intermediate Soudarion solution". The Shroud didn't play a role for faith for centuries. Jesus appeared the women, then his disciples and later more than 500 others. Evidence enough for his resurrection! And it was the severe insulting behaviour of beverlyhurd8556 on my first comment on a Shroud related video that encouraged me to dig deeper. And the more I have studied the more it is was clear that the Shroud cannot be the authentic burial cloth of Jesus. You are convinced that it is, I am convinced that it is not and that people should learn to trust the Bible and not Sindonology. If you think that my claims are nonsens anyway then all the others will be mature enough to simply ignore it too.

According to the gospels ... ... Joseph of Arimathea bought the needed burial cloth (SINDON). That means bandages (OTHONION) and the head cloth (SOUDARION). Nicodemus organised about 32 kg spices. That means a sticky mixture of myrrh and aloes. Jesus was taken from the cross and most likely also washed. Then the body, except the head, was wrapped/bound with (META) the spices between the bandages (OTHONION) according to the burial custom of Jews at that time. The head was covered with the head cloth (SOUDARION). Finally Jesus was carried to the nearby rock-tomb and was laid in there. The rock-tomb was closed with a stone and sealed. After Sabbath the women intended to anoint Jesus' head removing and readding the head cloth (SOUDARION) but ... Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose again on the third day according to the scriptures. 1 Corinthians 15:3,4 Jesus has risen! At dawn one Sunday almost 2,000 years ago, a great event took place. What happened? Two days earlier, the completely innocent Jesus of Nazareth had been executed on a cross. In the evening of the same day, two of his disciples buried him in a rock tomb before the Sabbath began, the day of rest for the Jews and today's Saturday. Several Roman soldiers guarded the tomb. Sunday morning, shortly after midnight, it happened: Jesus Christ rose from the dead! As the first proof of this, God caused a great earthquake. Then He sent an angel to roll away the heavy stone in front of the tomb. So everyone could see that the grave was empty! The soldiers trembled in fear and were completely powerless. They could not prevent the resurrection of the Lord Jesus - but they were witnesses to it. A new day dawned for humanity - the starting point for the gospel of God's grace. Jesus predicted: “I am the resurrection and the life; Whoever believes in me, even though he dies, will he live” (John 11:25). This saving faith in Him is not merely believing that His life on earth was perfect and sinless. It also includes more than believing in His death on the cross. Saving faith includes belief in his resurrection. If Jesus had not risen, faith would be meaningless. It would be as useless as belief in any religion founder. None of them can help us because they are all dead. But Jesus lives - He has conquered death and gives eternal life to those who believe in Him!

@@wipo3654 Sir, if you are going to post untrue negative information on a Shroud thread, you must expect some rebutal. Your translation of Mark 15:46 is not correct. That verse clearly says "shroud," and whether or not it says "shroud" or "a shroud" does not make any difference. John 20:7 says that "the cloth that had been over his head; this was not with the linen cloths [lying on the ground] but rolled up in a place by itself." That verse indicates that the headcloth had been removed pior to interment in the shroud. Otherwise, it would have been lying on the ground with the shroud. Just because someone accepts the scientific findings on the Shroud does not mean that he ignores the Bible. Sir, you are completely mistaken and seem to have an undisclosed bias against the authenticity of the Holy Shroud.

@@wipo3654 Sir, your chronology is mixed up, and it appears that you are just making up "facts" in order to support your anti-Catholic theology. First of all "sindon" does not mean "bandages," it means shroud. "Most likely washed?" That is your own imagination. The Gospels do not say that. And you do not understand the purpose of the Sudarium which was to cover the deceased's face immediately after death so that, when fluids were forced out of his mount and nose by the removal from the cross, his relatives would not see that distressing sight. When the body was laid to rest in its shroud, the head-cloth was removed. Again, sir, you are just making up facts to suit your anti-Catholic agenda.

That's right. Note the use of the term 'relationship' throughout, not 'couple.' Insofar as the same-sex relationship is intrinsically disordered, it cannot be blessed. Insofar as the persons in a same-sex relationship are rightly ordered, they can be blessed. We must not conflate the relationship with the persons in a relationship. For the union (bond) is not the same as that which is united (viz., the persons who together form a couple). The couple results from the bond, but the couple is not the bond. Similarly, a sinner results from sin, but the sinner is not the sin. Sinners may be blessed, though not qua sinners. Same-sex couples may be blessed, but not qua same-sex couples. The couple is really (metaphysically) distinct from the union. Metaphysically, the relationship is not a substance; it is an accident which inheres in a substance (a person). With magisterial authority, the Declaration declares that same-sex couples (i.e., persons) who cry out to God for help in living faithfully may indeed be blessed. The Church requires that Catholics offer religious submission of intellect and will to this normative teaching. Otherwise, we set ourselves up as the arbiters of orthodoxy and orthopraxis over and against the organ God endowed with authority for this purpose. Such protestation is the essence of the Protestant error. Hope that helps. God bless you! -Fr Andrew

checkout Lila Rose interviewing fr. Spitzer - a few days ago. it seems to suggest additional tests were done and some information on why c14 might not be appropriate. also more details on pollen analysis breakdown

The claim that there is no talk on the need for repentance and abstinence from sin is demonstrably false from a cursory reading of the text. Consider FS 31, 32, 33, 34, and 40: "a blessing may be imparted that not only has an ascending value but also involves the invocation of a blessing that descends from God upon those who-recognizing themselves to be destitute and in need of his help-do not claim a legitimation of their own status, but who beg that all that is true, good, and humanly valid in their lives and their relationships be enriched, healed, and elevated by the presence of the Holy Spirit." (FS 31). "the grace of God works in the lives of those who do not claim to be righteous but who acknowledge themselves humbly as sinners, like everyone else [...] the Church welcomes all who approach God with humble hearts, accompanying them with those spiritual aids that enable everyone to understand and realize God’s will fully in their existence." (FS 32). "The request for a blessing, thus, expresses and nurtures openness to the transcendence, mercy, and closeness to God in a thousand concrete circumstances of life" (FS 33). "pour out your mercy upon us to pardon what conscience dreads and to give what prayer does not dare to ask"(FS 34). "Indeed, through these blessings that are given not through the ritual forms proper to the liturgy but as an expression of the Church’s maternal heart-similar to those that emanate from the core of popular piety-there is no intention to legitimize anything, but rather ... - to open one’s life to God, - to ask for his help to live better, - and also to invoke the Holy Spirit so that the values of the Gospel may be lived with greater faithfulness" (FS 40). - Fr Andrew

It's a mistake to confuse the bond from that which is bound. Imagine two postcards stapled together, where the staple represents the bond or union, and the postcards represents the persons. A union is a bond or relationship that a person may or may not have. Metaphysically, it is not a substance, but an accident which inheres in the substance. A couple, however, is two persons who have a relationship. The couple results from the union. But the couple is not the union. Hope that helps. God bless you! -Fr Andrew

@@ThoseTwoPriests You say a union or relationship is an accident rather than a substance. Question: In what substance does a union inhere? Second: A couple does not merely RESULT FROM a union; it IS a union (especially in the context under discussion). So says the world's most authoritative dictionary, the OED, which says: "Couple" IS "the union of two things." Third: Of what relevance is it that a union is merely an accident (assuming that your substance vs. accident argument is valid)? In the case of a gay union, its being an accident doesn't mean there's no valid prohibition on its being blessed. On the contrary, the Responsum of 2021 says there can be no blessing of a gay union. Why, then, should a gay couple have any greater claim to being worthy of a blessing than a gay union? Fourth: Let's assume that, as you say, the staple in your analogy is analogous to the bond or relationship between two persons in a gay relationship. The Fiducia (FS) allows the blessing of the staple --- the COUPLE. And when the relationship is a gay relationship, blessing it is directly contrary to the Responsum of 2021. Fifth: Nowhere does FS say that it is the PERSONS in the gay relationship, as opposed to the gay COUPLE itself, that may be blessed. On the contrary, paragraph 31 of the FS expressly contemplates blessing the "couple." To be more specific: FS discusses "the possibility of blessings . . . for COUPLES of the same sex," and goes on to say such blessings are permissible provided they do not give the appearance of a formal ritual that could cause "confusion." Face it guys. FS was written by a second-rate thinker who would have never cut it as a top-rate Jesuit, which is what it would have taken to write a credible FS. FS needs to be retracted and Fernandez fired. And Francis needs to swear off Jesuitical arguments.

Are you insinuating that the Magisterium is Satan's instrument and not God's? Consider the words of St. Robert Bellarmine, who is a Doctor of the Church. In Book 4, chapter 3 of De Summo Pontifice, he states that “without doubt” (sine dubio) the privilege has been handed down to Peter’s successors, which ensures that “in his chair there would never be found someone who would teach contrary to the true faith” (in sede ejus numquam inveniretur qui doceret contra verum Fidem).

@ThoseTwoPriests The obvious flaw in your argument is that Fiducia Supplicans doesn't contain a Church teaching that all Catholics are obliged to accept.. If African Catholics are free to reject FS, then so is every other Catholic.

One may bless persons insofar as they are crying out for God's help. This blessing is permitted precisely because it is one instance of persons genuinely seeking help in extricating themselves from a sinful situation. - Fr Andrew

The picture of Fr Martin in the NY Times is clear evidence that his blessing was programmed for public consumption -- this is a violation of Fiducia Supplicans, which requires such blessings to be spontaneous and cautious to avoid scandal. Violations of FS incriminate the violators, not the document which signals the violation. While we might wish for Rome to exercise more Church discipline for violators, it is not safe to assume Rome is okay with the whole thing. There is scandalous misbehavior from the opposite side of this story which goes undisciplined. It is absurd to think Rome is equally okay with opposite perspectives. Sadly, you're right, the magisterial document is not universally accepted. But dissent from magisterial teaching does not diminish its authority. The ordinary Magisterium enjoys a charism of divine assistance, and Catholics owe religious submission of intellect and will to its teachings. - Fr Andrew

We are bound to dogma/doctrine and the deposit of faith. Popes only speak infallibly when speaking excathedra. If you can find sense in the document then so be it. You don't bless people who come to you even privately, in the state of mortal sin and bless what is good in that state/relationship. There is no excuse for such confusion. God have mercy on us.@@ThoseTwoPriests

Yes, St. Paul makes this point about the weak and the strong at the end of his Epistle to the Romans. FS is also sensitive to this issue. It requires that these blessings be done in such a way that avoids scandal (cf. FS 30, 39). But it is not scandalous to bless those crying out for God's help in order to live more faithfully. It is arguably scandalous to deny such a blessing. - Fr Andrew

A priest would not be denying them a blessing if he blessed the homoseuxals individually / separately (since the blessing is intended for them as indiviuduals and not as a couple). In this way the best of both worlds is achieved. In other words, the homosexuals get the blessing they requested, and scandal of the weak is avoided. @@ThoseTwoPriests