The 14th century theorem has long been debunked, as the Pray-codex https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pray_Codex contains strong evidence that the shroud was already known in the 12th century.
Something that amazes me about The Shroud of Turin is that if it was created in the 14th century, how did they create a photographic negative 400 years before the first known photographic negative was created in 1826 by Nicephore Niepce. It’s the most studied artifact in history and still no one knows how The Shroud was created.
People in the 14th century were no dumber than people living today, and painters like Duccio di Buoninsegna had a great understanding of shadows, and were capable of drawing amazing portraits.
They were absolutely capable of painting a negative of a portrait.
Of course they weren’t dumb, but having a great understanding of shadows is a far cry from being capable of creating a photo negative. They didn’t even have the concept of a photo negative. How would they even have thought to achieve such a thing? And for what purpose?
And, by the way, the image on the shroud is not made of paint, so contemporary proficiency with painting techniques hardly seems relevant.
Why would they need the specific concept of a photo negative? A negative is just a reversal of light/dark. They knew of such things. They knew primary colors, too. Painting and mixing colors is not exactly modern -- it has been around for many centuries. Artists practice playing with light and color as basic exercises, and have done so for hundreds if not thousands of years. Switching light and dark is a fairly basic concept to artists, not an innovation that required photography to exist in order to conceptualize it.
In the same vein, why would it have to be made of paint? Paint is simply pigment inside a medium. Dyes are also pigment, in different medium, made to soak into and bind with cloth instead of being layered on top.
I'm not saying that is how it was created, but I highly doubt that the skills to do so did not exist.
A negative is just an inversion of the intensity of visible signal. It even has a manifestation in common experience. Stare at something for a long time, then look away. A negative will superimpose on whatever you're now looking at it. I can't think of a good reason humans of the past should not have been able to reproduce this kind of effect artistically.
It's sort of semi-3D. Reasonably good imitations have been made by molding linen to a shallow sculpture (aka a bas-relief) and dusting it with pigment, which thus picks up peaks and troughs.
There's a number of weird things that knowledge of their manufacture has been lost. The lenses of Gotland, Greek Fire and the Chinese Jade burial suits all come to mind.
First of all, the thing is not a shroud, it's essentially a 14th century painting, created as one of a myriad fake relics for money and fame.
Second of all, if you believed it were a real ancient shroud, you would have to explain how the image on it was produced. Corpses don't leave images on shrouds, and even if it were true that everyone in ancient Israel were wrapped in a linen shroud when they died, people certainly didn't paint those shrouds.
> Second of all, if you believed it were a real ancient shroud, you would have to explain how the image on it was produced. Corpses don't leave images on shrouds
Well, they have haven’t they? I think you need to put yourself in the shoes of a believing Christian/catholic. There is really no need for them to try and explain scientifically what is explained miraculously. From the miraculous POV the act of resurrection itself may have created the image and since man cannot replicate that process, it’s impossible to explain it scientifically. But what we do know is that certain energetic particles applied to certain mediums do leave traces and can leave negative images. So even science helps to lend credence to their theory of a miracle
So if it is an ancient piece of cloth and there isn’t a scientific explanation yet that adequately explains how the image could be produced and since you cannot prove that a God does or doesn’t exist…a believing Christian can easily rely on faith that it is what it is purported to be.
So it’s up to you to prove them wrong, not up to them to prove that they are right.
Whatever else you might want to say about the shroud, one thing we know for sure is that it is not a painting. Analysis shows that the image is extremely superficial, only penetrating about 200nm into the fibres of the cloth. This is inconsistent with a painted image.
That study [0] is published in a non-peer-reviewed journal with a very low impact factor, Heritage. Additionally, their findings suggests the shroud was kept within a very narrow range of temperatures to support the 1st century hypothesis, which makes it even more suspect.
Additionally, their findings contradict a very well established C14 dating technique, in an extremely well documented and thought out study, using 8 different world class laboratories, for which their only explanation is "contamination" (ignoring the fact that the sample is pristine by comparison with many artifacts routinely dated using C14).
Also, if you want to cite a study, maybe find the link to the study, not a Daily Mail article.
These 8 laboratories shared the same sample collected from a corner of the shroud. The priests handling the shroud would always hold it by its corners. So the explanation is not as weak as it may sound.
The priests handling the shroud didn't stop handling it in the 14th century. The fire it survived by dousing with water was from the 16th century. There is no reason whatsoever that all 8 laboratories happened to find the same contaminants from the same century.
The Carbon 14 dating process is not sensitive to pollution from, say, the sweat or sebum on the hands of people handling it. What's more, the sample was vigorously cleaned before analysis.
The article (the one that this thread is about, not the study) addresses exactly this. The author makes the point is C14 dating is widely misunderstood by non-experts who still decide it's within their expertise to find fault with the it.
I assume you are being sarcastic, but nonetheless worth pointing out that almost all miracles attributed to Jesus have some point and/or symbolic importance (e.g. to relive suffering, as an illustration of who he was, etc.).
The usual interpretations are that the fig tree represents the people of Israel, the religious leaders of Israel, and/or the Temple-system. In Mark, Jesus curses the fig tree because it is not bearing fruit, then cleans out the Temple from being a exploitative financial business instead of a house of worship, then immediately afterwards the disciples observe that the fig tree withered. The implication is that the Temple-system is judged, which fits in with several other statements Jesus makes elsewhere (such as not one stone of the Temple being left in place, in Matthew, if I remember correctly).
I've also heard that fig trees had sort of a pre-fruit, so it wasn't unreasonable to expect something, but I don't know if that's actually true or not. At any rate, the symbolic interpretation is still valid. (And, having been conquered by Rome, perhaps Israel was not in a season of fruit, either, strengthening the symbolic connection.)
Honestly, how would we know what all the miracles were? For arguments sake, whether or not you are Christian, let us say that Jesus did wander around performing miracles. The Bible is certainly not an audit trail of everything he did. It is the stories that survived. There would certainly be a bias in which stories those were.
It seems reasonable to assume other miracles would have occurred that were not recorded, in particular considering that one of his teachings was to do good for its own sake, not to have the good be noticed by others.
There was never a time in which "everyone" got a shroud. Even in Jesus's time, burying someone in a shroud was a distinctly Jewish custom, and using linen did not become fashionable until after Jesus's death [1] [2]. Furthermore, for a crucifixion victim to be buried at all, let alone in a shroud, would be extremely unusual. It was generally part of the punishment for the body to be left on the cross after death to be displayed and consumed by scavengers. When the remains were finally removed they were generally disposed of in mass graves. [3]
OK, for that definition of "everyone" then yes, it's probably mostly true under normal circumstances. (Poor Jews may have been buried without shrouds, I don't know.) But 1) being crucified was not a "normal circumstance" and 2) linen did not become common as a material for burial shrouds until many years after Jesus died.
A text that mentions scourging, a crown of thorns and a spear thrust in the side of the body.
It does not prove anything either way with regard to it being genuine or not, as a later forger/artist would have followed that, but if it is shown to be a genuine shroud with genuine marks then it makes it probable it was Jesus's.
your family has been passing down a family bible for many years. your father gives it to you and says, "this was your great-great-great-great grandfather's, he brought it from the old country, and it has the names of all the babies born into the family back then.
you say "eh, it could be anybody's, everybody had a bible and lots of kids back then" and you throw it away.
you're right, no way to prove it was his and you can live your life unencumbered by the past, no point in looking for meaning.
This is of course a false analogy. We don't have a record of ownership at all; there is no such list.
The shroud showed up in France in the 1300s or 1400s; it's unclear exactly when, because it seems several shrouds were circulating at the same time. When written sources start talking about the current one, they don't say where it came crom. Nothing like "here's this shroud, taken by A from B, who had it after C, who found it raiding Byzantium, who got it from...". It just appears suddenly.
Why do these conversations inevitably move into insults? As soon as humans get into the subject of belief, someone always says something like “it’s just switching to more fruitful avenues.”
If something works for you, that’s great. But why do people automatically say that their way is better? Does being right really matter?
We could have a really great world if we’d just let people believe in whatever works for them.
That's not an insult, it's a criticism. The criticism is: your thing is not very good. What you're requesting here is that you should never be told that your thing is not very good. I know the feeling, you're not alone, I, too, hate it when people piss on my strawberries, and sometimes I feel like I have a right to request that they be less negative and more supportive. This is why we have privacy instead of everybody being overbearing and constantly back-seat driving and interfering in other people's business. We need room to breathe, including believing in stuff.
However. It would not be a really great world without criticism. It would be a world even more full of conspiracy theories and wacky viral social media posts about the government engineering hurricanes or archeologists digging up giants. Being right matters because indulgently anti-reason people don't limit it to what "works" for them, they go around pressuring other people to be similarly stupid. By the way, what does "works" really mean here? It's something like a need to have non-critical thought processes. That's fine, I think, even vital, but only in private. Bring those weird-ass thought processes out into the light, and then they should be criticized, otherwise we're heading toward folie à deux territory.
Whether it is 14th century or an authentic relic, I still believe it's simply amazing to behold. We can explain what it's made of and guess at how old it is, and we can guess at its provenance and history, but there's simply no good explanation of how it was imprinted. The photo-negative imprint is nothing short of miraculous to me. Perhaps it's a miraculous forgery--doesn't matter anymore.
The crucifix in a local parish was commissioned just a few years ago, and the artisan who sculpted it in Mexico used the Shroud as a guide for the imagery. The painful stripes of scourging, the dripping of blood, the skinned knees, the pathetic expression on this man's face: they are all quite realistic and they perfectly evoke Christ's suffering for me, and for hundreds of other parishioners, especially the donors who contributed to beautify the sanctuary.
There are plenty of truly authenticated relics -- actual body parts of saints -- and I've come into contact with some of them. It's really amazing to have this connection to holiness. And you need to really understand the relationship of Christians with relics. The relic has no power in itself. The relic is not a miraculous talisman. The relic is simply a physical manifestation of a saint, who is very much alive to us. Though we cannot embrace such a saint, or hear them speak to us, they are present to us through the relic, and we invoke their intercession while touching the relic, because body and soul are one, and will be reunited.
My faith would not be shaken if this were proved fake. I simply don't rely on archaeology to prove my faith. Nobody should. I believe that archaeology and 99% of today's Scripture scholarship is an exercise in futility and misdirection. Live the life or don't live it. Be an atheist if you want. But don't tell us what to believe.
It's perfectly fine to consider it a beautiful and unique 14th century icon, even though its creators were aiming to get money/fame off a fake relic. In that sense, it might be the most remarkable fake in history.
And I also agree that faith shouldn't be based on physical proof or analysis of this kind, which is always subject to the specter of fraud or misunderstanding.
The point of understanding the nature of the Shroud of Turin is not to shake anyone's faith. It is simply to understand the truth (an important concept to any Christian) of an item.
The clergy in the 14th century were absolutely unmoored. Everything was for sale. You could pre-pay for absolution for future sins. They sold relics of everything - Jesus hair, even parts of the “burning bush” from the Old Testament. The first crusade brought back real treasures and relics that made the perfect pretense for a century of grifters.
That was all pretty much stopped later that century though by a few bad things like the mini ice age, papal schism, 100 years war, and the Black Death.
Clergy back then basically was a hacker culture- as in you get the suckers to buy some relic or immortality paperwork and have a nice life extracting resources and giving nothing in return.
No, those were the restrained ones. They at least put some effort in making their relics credible.
The clergy in the 16th century literally wrote "Get out of Hell" cards and sell them for money. What made them stop was Protestantism calling them on their bullshit.
The 14th century theorem has long been debunked, as the Pray-codex https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pray_Codex contains strong evidence that the shroud was already known in the 12th century.
Something that amazes me about The Shroud of Turin is that if it was created in the 14th century, how did they create a photographic negative 400 years before the first known photographic negative was created in 1826 by Nicephore Niepce. It’s the most studied artifact in history and still no one knows how The Shroud was created.
People in the 14th century were no dumber than people living today, and painters like Duccio di Buoninsegna had a great understanding of shadows, and were capable of drawing amazing portraits.
They were absolutely capable of painting a negative of a portrait.
Of course they weren’t dumb, but having a great understanding of shadows is a far cry from being capable of creating a photo negative. They didn’t even have the concept of a photo negative. How would they even have thought to achieve such a thing? And for what purpose?
And, by the way, the image on the shroud is not made of paint, so contemporary proficiency with painting techniques hardly seems relevant.
Why would they need the specific concept of a photo negative? A negative is just a reversal of light/dark. They knew of such things. They knew primary colors, too. Painting and mixing colors is not exactly modern -- it has been around for many centuries. Artists practice playing with light and color as basic exercises, and have done so for hundreds if not thousands of years. Switching light and dark is a fairly basic concept to artists, not an innovation that required photography to exist in order to conceptualize it.
In the same vein, why would it have to be made of paint? Paint is simply pigment inside a medium. Dyes are also pigment, in different medium, made to soak into and bind with cloth instead of being layered on top.
I'm not saying that is how it was created, but I highly doubt that the skills to do so did not exist.
Why would they have done it?
I have no idea, but that seems completely orthogonal to what technique was used.
A negative is just an inversion of the intensity of visible signal. It even has a manifestation in common experience. Stare at something for a long time, then look away. A negative will superimpose on whatever you're now looking at it. I can't think of a good reason humans of the past should not have been able to reproduce this kind of effect artistically.
It's sort of semi-3D. Reasonably good imitations have been made by molding linen to a shallow sculpture (aka a bas-relief) and dusting it with pigment, which thus picks up peaks and troughs.
Recent research has discovered the "stroboscopic effect" in the image. The hands and feet are moving when the image was imprinted on the shroud.
Strobe lights didn't exist in the 14th century either.
Which priest or other religious zealot with a vested interest found this out?
Also, is the implication that undead Jesus was twitching rapidly and flashing on and off? That is kind of cool, perhaps I should get religion.
There's a number of weird things that knowledge of their manufacture has been lost. The lenses of Gotland, Greek Fire and the Chinese Jade burial suits all come to mind.
I don't see that as a reason to Revere any item.
This cannot be a coincidence, just watched https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8XRpeXopHY The Shroud of Turin is still Fake by Rebecca Watson (Skepchick)
But that video is one month old, so—?
I don't get why it couldn't just be anybody's shroud. Didn't everyone at that time get a shroud.
First of all, the thing is not a shroud, it's essentially a 14th century painting, created as one of a myriad fake relics for money and fame.
Second of all, if you believed it were a real ancient shroud, you would have to explain how the image on it was produced. Corpses don't leave images on shrouds, and even if it were true that everyone in ancient Israel were wrapped in a linen shroud when they died, people certainly didn't paint those shrouds.
> Second of all, if you believed it were a real ancient shroud, you would have to explain how the image on it was produced. Corpses don't leave images on shrouds
Well, they have haven’t they? I think you need to put yourself in the shoes of a believing Christian/catholic. There is really no need for them to try and explain scientifically what is explained miraculously. From the miraculous POV the act of resurrection itself may have created the image and since man cannot replicate that process, it’s impossible to explain it scientifically. But what we do know is that certain energetic particles applied to certain mediums do leave traces and can leave negative images. So even science helps to lend credence to their theory of a miracle
So if it is an ancient piece of cloth and there isn’t a scientific explanation yet that adequately explains how the image could be produced and since you cannot prove that a God does or doesn’t exist…a believing Christian can easily rely on faith that it is what it is purported to be.
So it’s up to you to prove them wrong, not up to them to prove that they are right.
Whatever else you might want to say about the shroud, one thing we know for sure is that it is not a painting. Analysis shows that the image is extremely superficial, only penetrating about 200nm into the fibres of the cloth. This is inconsistent with a painted image.
Scientists have recently used a new x-ray imaging technique to date The Shroud to the 1st century. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13758359/amp...
That study [0] is published in a non-peer-reviewed journal with a very low impact factor, Heritage. Additionally, their findings suggests the shroud was kept within a very narrow range of temperatures to support the 1st century hypothesis, which makes it even more suspect.
Additionally, their findings contradict a very well established C14 dating technique, in an extremely well documented and thought out study, using 8 different world class laboratories, for which their only explanation is "contamination" (ignoring the fact that the sample is pristine by comparison with many artifacts routinely dated using C14).
Also, if you want to cite a study, maybe find the link to the study, not a Daily Mail article.
[0] https://www.mdpi.com/2571-9408/5/2/47
These 8 laboratories shared the same sample collected from a corner of the shroud. The priests handling the shroud would always hold it by its corners. So the explanation is not as weak as it may sound.
The priests handling the shroud didn't stop handling it in the 14th century. The fire it survived by dousing with water was from the 16th century. There is no reason whatsoever that all 8 laboratories happened to find the same contaminants from the same century.
The Carbon 14 dating process is not sensitive to pollution from, say, the sweat or sebum on the hands of people handling it. What's more, the sample was vigorously cleaned before analysis.
The article (the one that this thread is about, not the study) addresses exactly this. The author makes the point is C14 dating is widely misunderstood by non-experts who still decide it's within their expertise to find fault with the it.
> you would have to explain how
No, you’re making this too complicated.
It happened miraculously because god is all-powerful and can do whatever, whenever. Boom. Solved. Easy.
I assume you are being sarcastic, but nonetheless worth pointing out that almost all miracles attributed to Jesus have some point and/or symbolic importance (e.g. to relive suffering, as an illustration of who he was, etc.).
A miraculous shroud just seems showy.
The symbolic importance of striking barren a fig tree that had the audacity to not be bearing fruit out of season.
The usual interpretations are that the fig tree represents the people of Israel, the religious leaders of Israel, and/or the Temple-system. In Mark, Jesus curses the fig tree because it is not bearing fruit, then cleans out the Temple from being a exploitative financial business instead of a house of worship, then immediately afterwards the disciples observe that the fig tree withered. The implication is that the Temple-system is judged, which fits in with several other statements Jesus makes elsewhere (such as not one stone of the Temple being left in place, in Matthew, if I remember correctly).
I've also heard that fig trees had sort of a pre-fruit, so it wasn't unreasonable to expect something, but I don't know if that's actually true or not. At any rate, the symbolic interpretation is still valid. (And, having been conquered by Rome, perhaps Israel was not in a season of fruit, either, strengthening the symbolic connection.)
Honestly, how would we know what all the miracles were? For arguments sake, whether or not you are Christian, let us say that Jesus did wander around performing miracles. The Bible is certainly not an audit trail of everything he did. It is the stories that survived. There would certainly be a bias in which stories those were.
It seems reasonable to assume other miracles would have occurred that were not recorded, in particular considering that one of his teachings was to do good for its own sake, not to have the good be noticed by others.
There was never a time in which "everyone" got a shroud. Even in Jesus's time, burying someone in a shroud was a distinctly Jewish custom, and using linen did not become fashionable until after Jesus's death [1] [2]. Furthermore, for a crucifixion victim to be buried at all, let alone in a shroud, would be extremely unusual. It was generally part of the punishment for the body to be left on the cross after death to be displayed and consumed by scavengers. When the remains were finally removed they were generally disposed of in mass graves. [3]
[1] https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/5282847/jewis...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamaliel
[3] https://www.mercaba.org/FICHAS/upsa/crucifixion.htm
Sure. Not everyone globally, just everyone in the "distinctly Jewish" culture
OK, for that definition of "everyone" then yes, it's probably mostly true under normal circumstances. (Poor Jews may have been buried without shrouds, I don't know.) But 1) being crucified was not a "normal circumstance" and 2) linen did not become common as a material for burial shrouds until many years after Jesus died.
Unconnected to whom it actually is, the mystery of how the image was generated is enough of a mystery to keep digging for answers.
The wounds on the man on The Shroud match those of Jesus Christ in the Bible. The crown of thorns, scourging, crucifixion, piercing on the side.
Whoever manufactured the shroud was following the story in the Bible and made sure the image adhered the description of the crucifixion.
Do you have a bible with photos ? I only have one with text. /s
A text that mentions scourging, a crown of thorns and a spear thrust in the side of the body.
It does not prove anything either way with regard to it being genuine or not, as a later forger/artist would have followed that, but if it is shown to be a genuine shroud with genuine marks then it makes it probable it was Jesus's.
your family has been passing down a family bible for many years. your father gives it to you and says, "this was your great-great-great-great grandfather's, he brought it from the old country, and it has the names of all the babies born into the family back then.
you say "eh, it could be anybody's, everybody had a bible and lots of kids back then" and you throw it away.
you're right, no way to prove it was his and you can live your life unencumbered by the past, no point in looking for meaning.
This is of course a false analogy. We don't have a record of ownership at all; there is no such list.
The shroud showed up in France in the 1300s or 1400s; it's unclear exactly when, because it seems several shrouds were circulating at the same time. When written sources start talking about the current one, they don't say where it came crom. Nothing like "here's this shroud, taken by A from B, who had it after C, who found it raiding Byzantium, who got it from...". It just appears suddenly.
Well, to make that metaphor work with the Shroud, you have to add a couple of extra details:
1. Your father got it from your granpa, who really liked to boast about family treasures and often made up stories about his parents and grandparents.
2. The bible clearly says "Printed in 1956" in the back matter.
But of course, you are free to believe whatever you want.
"no point in looking for meaning."
You say it I think sarcastically. I'm not sure.
But not spending a life going down rabbit holes that are most likely false, is not giving up on searching for meaning.
It is just switching to more fruitful avenues to spend the limited time we have on looking for meaning.
Why do these conversations inevitably move into insults? As soon as humans get into the subject of belief, someone always says something like “it’s just switching to more fruitful avenues.”
If something works for you, that’s great. But why do people automatically say that their way is better? Does being right really matter?
We could have a really great world if we’d just let people believe in whatever works for them.
That's not an insult, it's a criticism. The criticism is: your thing is not very good. What you're requesting here is that you should never be told that your thing is not very good. I know the feeling, you're not alone, I, too, hate it when people piss on my strawberries, and sometimes I feel like I have a right to request that they be less negative and more supportive. This is why we have privacy instead of everybody being overbearing and constantly back-seat driving and interfering in other people's business. We need room to breathe, including believing in stuff.
However. It would not be a really great world without criticism. It would be a world even more full of conspiracy theories and wacky viral social media posts about the government engineering hurricanes or archeologists digging up giants. Being right matters because indulgently anti-reason people don't limit it to what "works" for them, they go around pressuring other people to be similarly stupid. By the way, what does "works" really mean here? It's something like a need to have non-critical thought processes. That's fine, I think, even vital, but only in private. Bring those weird-ass thought processes out into the light, and then they should be criticized, otherwise we're heading toward folie à deux territory.
Whether it is 14th century or an authentic relic, I still believe it's simply amazing to behold. We can explain what it's made of and guess at how old it is, and we can guess at its provenance and history, but there's simply no good explanation of how it was imprinted. The photo-negative imprint is nothing short of miraculous to me. Perhaps it's a miraculous forgery--doesn't matter anymore.
The crucifix in a local parish was commissioned just a few years ago, and the artisan who sculpted it in Mexico used the Shroud as a guide for the imagery. The painful stripes of scourging, the dripping of blood, the skinned knees, the pathetic expression on this man's face: they are all quite realistic and they perfectly evoke Christ's suffering for me, and for hundreds of other parishioners, especially the donors who contributed to beautify the sanctuary.
There are plenty of truly authenticated relics -- actual body parts of saints -- and I've come into contact with some of them. It's really amazing to have this connection to holiness. And you need to really understand the relationship of Christians with relics. The relic has no power in itself. The relic is not a miraculous talisman. The relic is simply a physical manifestation of a saint, who is very much alive to us. Though we cannot embrace such a saint, or hear them speak to us, they are present to us through the relic, and we invoke their intercession while touching the relic, because body and soul are one, and will be reunited.
My faith would not be shaken if this were proved fake. I simply don't rely on archaeology to prove my faith. Nobody should. I believe that archaeology and 99% of today's Scripture scholarship is an exercise in futility and misdirection. Live the life or don't live it. Be an atheist if you want. But don't tell us what to believe.
It's perfectly fine to consider it a beautiful and unique 14th century icon, even though its creators were aiming to get money/fame off a fake relic. In that sense, it might be the most remarkable fake in history.
And I also agree that faith shouldn't be based on physical proof or analysis of this kind, which is always subject to the specter of fraud or misunderstanding.
The point of understanding the nature of the Shroud of Turin is not to shake anyone's faith. It is simply to understand the truth (an important concept to any Christian) of an item.
> but there's simply no good explanation of how it was imprinted.
I think i saw the word "paint" somewhere.
Agreed, there's so much here to be thankful for on its own merits.
Both the fact that such fine and rare objects still exist, and our incredible techniques for studying the ancient past.
The clergy in the 14th century were absolutely unmoored. Everything was for sale. You could pre-pay for absolution for future sins. They sold relics of everything - Jesus hair, even parts of the “burning bush” from the Old Testament. The first crusade brought back real treasures and relics that made the perfect pretense for a century of grifters.
That was all pretty much stopped later that century though by a few bad things like the mini ice age, papal schism, 100 years war, and the Black Death.
Clergy back then basically was a hacker culture- as in you get the suckers to buy some relic or immortality paperwork and have a nice life extracting resources and giving nothing in return.
No, those were the restrained ones. They at least put some effort in making their relics credible.
The clergy in the 16th century literally wrote "Get out of Hell" cards and sell them for money. What made them stop was Protestantism calling them on their bullshit.