O Jesus, who in Thy bitter Passion didst become "the most abject of men, a man of sorrows", I venerate Thy Sacred Face whereon there once did shine the beauty and sweetness of the Godhead; but now it has become for me as if it were the face of a leper!
Nevertheless, under those disfigured features, I recognize Thy infinite Love and I am consumed with the desire to love Thee and make Thee loved by all men.
The tears which well up abundantly in Thy sacred eyes appear to me as so many precious pearls that I love to gather up, in order to purchase the souls of poor sinners by means of their infinite value.
O Jesus, whose adorable Face ravishes my heart, I implore Thee to fix deep within me Thy divine image and to set me on fire with Thy Love, that I may be found worthy to come to the contemplation of Thy glorious Face in Heaven.
Amen.
(John Paul II)
" ... a truly mysterious image, which no human artistry was capable of producing. In some inexplicable way, it appeared imprinted upon cloth and is believed to show the true face of Christ, the crucified and risen Lord."
(Pope Benedict XVI)
"How is it that the faithful, like you, pause before this icon of a man scourged and crucified? It is because the Man of the Shroud invites us to contemplate Jesus of Nazareth ... This disfigured face resembles all those faces of men and women marred by a life which does not respect their dignity, by war and violence which afflict the weakest… And yet, at the same time, the face in the Shroud conveys a great peace; this tortured body expresses a sovereign majesty."
(Pope Francis I)
Do you believe it to be Peter?
ReplyDeleteIn my heart and my soul - I do.
ReplyDeleteIt speaks of so much love, pain, patience, longing and serenity. The suffering is overcome and He is awakening.
Look beyond the how, the when and the why. Do not adore the image but receive the message it conveys.
I admit to having had my interest piqued by the Shroud from time to time, but I've never know quite how to approach it from the perspective of belief. I can certainly recognise something similar in your response to my own response to many of the pieces of literature, art, music, and architecture that were created to exult God. I suppose the thing that keeps my distance with such objects is the claim of bodily proximity that all relics exert.
ReplyDeleteI can be moved, say, by some wild piece of Chestertonian prose - but in a sense it is "safe", since I know that there is no confusion between the form (text) and what it points towards (the divine). I found your dialogue with Carl fascinating - there was something in what he said about having control over an object versus having no control over God. But I guess my work in the Middle Ages leads me to see a slight complexity - since the view is most readily identified with the iconoclasts. There's something "disturbing" about physical remnants - in the sense that they disturb what it means to encounter God, or at least they provoke such questions. There's something wild about them - something which can't be controlled unless you destroy them. I find myself simultaneously drawn towards finding something of the fear of the divine in relics and better understanding the motivations of the iconoclasts.
Which is, I guess, a long-winded way of saying don't leave a relic with an Anglican.
I understand the reservations - not the fear. In my opinion, Carl's views are linked to his Calvinist theology - a cold, rational interpretation of Scripture. He refuses to consider it might be genuine. Its not mentioned in the Bible.
ReplyDelete'Relics', to my mind, are not magic artefacts containing power in and of themselves. They depend on God's Grace and faith and, if they do have miraculous qualities, this is the source.
Whilst a 'relic' from the past, this is an icon - maybe THE Icon. It reveals a story and conveys a message. One intended by its 'artist'. To understand this one has to know the Gospel - yet it also moves one towards the Gospel in a dynamic way.
Tell me, if it were scientifically proven to be from the time of Christ and the only explanation for the image was a sudden burst of intense energy, how would you look upon it?
And I'd never leave the Holy Shroud with a protestant - never, never, never! God entrusted it to the Catholic Church for a reason. For one thing, we're more intuitive and poetic!
"Tell me, if it were scientifically proven to be from the time of Christ and the only explanation for the image was a sudden burst of intense energy, how would you look upon it?"
ReplyDeleteThat's really the question isn't it - what should our response be to something that was physically proximate to Jesus Christ?
I'm not sure. I'm not sure what it should be. Should I expect to be furnished with a deeper experience of His presence? Does that deeper presence depend, in this life, on physical closeness to Him?
I really don't know how I would answer those. I have in mind two moments in Scripture - the first is Paul's handkerchiefs, the second is Thomas' fingers in Christ's wounds. I'll have to think on it more.
With respect, I think these are the wrong questions and show you are thinking like a protestant, if you don't mind my saying.
ReplyDelete"Should I expect to be furnished with a deeper experience of His presence?"
Possibly, but not definitely. A trip to the Holy Land might have this effect too.
"Does that deeper presence depend, in this life, on physical closeness to Him?"
I'd answer a resounding "No" to this. He is Spirit and is as close to you as you let Him become.
See, proof or no, and strange as it may seem, scientific evidence really wouldn't change my experience of the image on the Shroud. Besides, I know it can never be proven to be Christ's burial Shroud - only proven not to be.