The Shroud and the Stigmata

[AELondon]

I recently heard an objection to Catholicism based on the apparent discrepancy of the locations of the wounds on the Shroud and of the stigmatas of St. Francis, St. Padre Pio, and others. In summary, either the Shroud is baloney or these saints are fraudulent. In either case, the objector is attempting to demonstrate the superstitious nature of Catholics and our apparent vulnerability to “unbiblical nonsense.”

If you, like me, believe in the authenticity of the Shroud and the genuine nature of the stigmatas of these great saints, how would you respond to this challenge.

I have my own theory and response, but I would love to hear what others think.

 

[Franciscan]

I would question why the stigmata wounds have to be identical to Jesus’ wounds.
The Saints mentioned lived Christ-like lives. Key word=‘Christ-like’. Their wounds were Christ-like not identical.
Both the stigmatas and the Shroud are authentic (I believe). It doesn’t havwe to be either or.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I would question why the stigmata wounds have to be identical to Jesus’ wounds.
The Saints mentioned lived Christ-like lives. Key word=‘Christ-like’. Their wounds were Christ-like not identical.
Both the stigmatas and the Shroud are authentic (I believe). It doesn’t havwe to be either or.

The Church has never declared the Shroud to be authentic – but has not forbidden those who choose to believe it is.

The Stigmata are a gift, and are given to those favored saints in the form they expect it.

 

[kleary]

I recently heard an objection to Catholicism based on the apparent discrepancy of the locations of the wounds on the Shroud and of the stigmatas of St. Francis, St. Padre Pio, and others. In summary, either the Shroud is baloney or these saints are fraudulent. In either case, the objector is attempting to demonstrate the superstitious nature of Catholics and our apparent vulnerability to “unbiblical nonsense.”

If you, like me, believe in the authenticity of the Shroud and the genuine nature of the stigmatas of these great saints, how would you respond to this challenge.

I have my own theory and response, but I would love to hear what others think.

The reason why the Stigmata was not given in the actual location of the crucifixion is because the nails in the crucixion pierced the media nerve. This caused most excruciating pain. If the stigmatists received the wounds there they most likely would not have been able to move or speak due to the amount of pain. They most likely would have passed out if the wounds were in the actual place, through the wrists.

Also, Protestants most likely who argue against the Shroud of Turin do not understand that “the hand” back in that day meant from the elbow down to the fingertips. They just see John’s Gospel and the Psalm that foretells the Messiah being pierced through the “hands” and come up with anti-shroud material so to say. Now not all Protestants do this. More modern ones agree that Jesus most likely was crucified through the wrists and there is no contradiction with Scripture there.

I myself believe the Shroud to be authentic…however if it ever was proven not to be it would not effect my faith, and as the Church tells us we are NOT to base our faith on the Shroud of Turin or any other archaeological find that “proves” the existance of Jesus.

Ken