The Shroud of Turin and Padre Pio

  • Thread starter Thread starter spotty
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

spotty

Guest
ive wondered since i was a kid or a younger kid anyway, if the shroud of turin is authentic, then how can this be reconciled to the fact that stigmatists such as padre pio and st francis received pierced palms (among other wounds) whereas, the shroud depicts One with pierced wrists. why the variance? to my knowledge there isnt anyone who has recieved the stigmata in their wrists. it just seems odd that the pierced feet and side match, yet not the hands
anyone else thought about this?

im definitely not saying the shroud or the stigmata of these holy men isnt authentic by the way. i have my own thoughts how it can be reconciled, but i thought id see first what other people thought.
 
Nails in the palm of someone’s hands would not hold under the body’s weight.

But the nail could easily go into the palm, through the wrist bones, and out the back of the wrist. The bones would hold it against the pressure of body weight.

ICXC NIKA.
 
spotty said:
ive wondered since i was a kid or a younger kid anyway, if the shroud of turin is authentic, then how can this be reconciled to the fact that stigmatists such as padre pio and st francis received pierced palms (among other wounds) whereas, the shroud depicts One with pierced wrists. why the variance? to my knowledge there isnt anyone who has recieved the stigmata in their wrists. it just seems odd that the pierced feet and side match, yet not the hands
anyone else thought about this?

im definitely not saying the shroud or the stigmata of these holy men isnt authentic by the way. i have my own thoughts how it can be reconciled, but i thought id see first what other people thought.
Click to expand...
I have wondered this myself but overtime I have heard these answers:
Two points:
  1. The shroud does not necessarily show nails through the wrists but through the base of the palm
  2. stigmatists didn’t necessarily receive the exact same wounds as Christ (some did not have actually physical stigmata, others felt the scourging, some the thorns, etc) but they received similar wounds, so they could share closely in his suffering. So it is not as if all mystics got the stigmata in the exact same spot
hope this is helpful
Tom
 
GEddie said:
Nails in the palm of someone’s hands would not hold under the body’s weight.

But the nail could easily go into the palm, through the wrist bones, and out the back of the wrist. The bones would hold it against the pressure of body weight.

ICXC NIKA.
Click to expand...
Actually nails through the palms of the hands will hold the body’s weight if the feet are supported. Go to the Philippines and you can see people crucified on Good Friday with nails through the palms every year.
 
I’m not sure I followed. padre pios wounds don’t go through his wrist as an exit point nor do anyones to my knowledge (ill check again though). his wound is through the palm out the back of the hand and yet the shroud shows it through the wrist (at least as is theorized as an exit point anyway?)

as to the objection that such a wound could not support ones weight, the argument could be made that perhaps Christs arms and/or wrists were also bound with rope along with the nails in His hands.

why the variance in the wound of a stigmatist and the shroud is my question
 
St Francis of Assisi allegedly had wounds on his wrists.

So does Zlatko Sudac.

But Padre Pio, from what I can see, most definitely had stigmata in his hands, as seen in many pictures from various periods of his life. (My granddad looks just like Padre Pio so he’s a huge fan ;))

As a non-Christian, I would be very interested in finding out the various explanations – stigmata are a fascinating phenomenon.
 
antonivs said:
Actually nails through the palms of the hands will hold the body’s weight if the feet are supported. Go to the Philippines and you can see people crucified on Good Friday with nails through the palms every year.
Click to expand...
But the support for the feet will only be there in a reenactment situation, where death is not intended.

In actual executions by crucifixion, the victim hung by his hands and became unable to breathe.
 
I believe they went through the hand to the wrist.
Do they suffer signs other than in the hands or wrists and feet?
 
GEddie said:
But the support for the feet will only be there in a reenactment situation, where death is not intended.

In actual executions by crucifixion, the victim hung by his hands and became unable to breathe.
Click to expand...
Not to get off-topic, but the feet would’ve indeed been supported, which is why the Roman soldiers broke the legs of those crucified along side Our Lord to hasten their deaths.
 
I’m not convinced that the Shroud of Turin is authentic, but I believe Padre Pio’s wounds were correct. When Jesus meets Thomas after the resurrection, dosen’t He show him the wounds In the hands?
 
Smugleaf said:
St Francis of Assisi allegedly had wounds on his wrists.

So does Zlatko Sudac.

But Padre Pio, from what I can see, most definitely had stigmata in his hands, as seen in many pictures from various periods of his life. (My granddad looks just like Padre Pio so he’s a huge fan ;))

As a non-Christian, I would be very interested in finding out the various explanations – stigmata are a fascinating phenomenon.
Click to expand...
Sometimes when I question some of my faith, all I have to do is look at a picture of Padre Pio. Faith restored!
 
Adonia said:
I’m not convinced that the Shroud of Turin is authentic, but I believe Padre Pio’s wounds were correct. When Jesus meets Thomas after the resurrection, dosen’t He show him the wounds In the hands?
Click to expand...
The Greek word for hand includes the entire upper limb; therefore a wound in the wrist or even forearm would still be a “hand” wound, Scripturally.

We see the same usage in Acts where St. Peter has chains fall off his “hands.” The chains would certainly have been around his wrists or forearms.

ICXC NIKA
 
GEddie said:
The Greek word for hand includes the entire upper limb; therefore a wound in the wrist or even forearm would still be a “hand” wound, Scripturally.

We see the same usage in Acts where St. Peter has chains fall off his “hands.” The chains would certainly have been around his wrists or forearms.

ICXC NIKA
Click to expand...
Well, that makes sense. Thanks for the clarification.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top