St. John, the Shroud, and the Jews

By Brother Thomas Mary Sennott, M.I.C.M.

1. "Then therefore Pilate took Jesus and scourged him.

2. "And the soldiers platting a crown of thorns, put it upon his head; and they put on him a purple garment.

3. "And they came to him and said: 'Hail king of the Jews; and they gave him blows.'

4. "Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith to them: 'Behold, I bring him forth unto you, that you may know that I find no cause in him.'

5. "(Jesus therefore came forth, bearing the crown of thorns and the purple garment.) And he saith to them: 'Behold the Man.'

6. "When the chief priests, therefore, and the servants, had seen him, they cried out saying: 'Crucify him, crucify him.' Pilate saith to them: 'Take him you, and crucify him: for I find no cause in him.'

7. "The Jews answered him: 'We have a law; and according to the law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.'

8. "When Pilate therefore had heard this saying, he feared the more.

9. "And he entered into the hall again, and he said to Jesus: 'Whence art thou?' But Jesus gave him no answer.

10. "Pilate therefore saith to him: 'Speakest thou not to me? Knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and I have power to release thee?'

11. "Jesus answered: 'Thou shouldst not have any power against me, unless it were given thee from above. Therefore, he that hath delivered me to thee, hath the greater sin.'

12. "And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him. But the Jews cried out, saying: 'If thou release this man, thou art not Caesar's friend. For whosoever maketh himself a king, speaketh against Caesar.'

13. "Now when Pilate had heard these words, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat, in the place that is called Lithostrotos, and in Hebrew Gabbatha.

14. "And it was the parasceve of the pasch, about the sixth hour, and he saith to the Jews: 'Behold your king.'

15. "But they cried out: 'Away with him; away with him; crucify him.' Pilate saith to them: 'Shall I crucify your king?' The chief priests answered: 'We have no king but Caesar.'

16. "Then therefore he delivered him to them to be crucified. And they took Jesus and led him forth.

17. "And bearing his own cross, he went forth to that place which is called Calvary, but in Hebrew Golgotha.

18. "Where they crucified him, and with him two others, one on each side and Jesus in the midst.

19. "And Pilate wrote a title also, and he put it upon the cross. And the writing was: 'Jesus of Nazareth, The King of the Jews.'" (John 19: 1-19.)

***

Hyam Maccoby: "This portrait of the Jews demanding the crucifixion of Jesus is responsible for the spilling of more Jewish blood in the whole of History than any other text of the New Testament." 1

Abbe Charles Perrot, Paris Institute Catholique: "Jesus is a troublemaker." 2

Jean-Pierre Lemonon, Lyons Institute Catholique: "I think we are too accustomed to seeing the high priests as people who, from the outset, are in bad faith. One has to realize that the function of the high priests was to keep Israel within the tradition." 3

***

The above citations are taken from a five-hour documentary entitled "Corpus Christi," which appeared on French television during Holy Week of this year. Although the program appeared in France, it could just as easily have appeared in our own country. There are any number of "Scripture scholar" priests in America who would have loved to appear on it. The shocking extent of the apostasy and heresy of the Catholic Modernists is really brought home by reading an account of this program. The announced purpose of "Corpus Christi" was to determine the origin of Christian anti-Semitism which, according to twenty-seven "experts," mostly Jews and Catholic priests, culminated in the Holocaust of the Jews during the Nazi regime. It was their unanimous consensus that the Gospel of St. John, the "beloved disciple," marked the beginning of Christian anti-semitism. This seems to be an ongoing campaign on the part of the Jews and of their Modernist Catholic allies. Cardinal Bernardin of Chicago, to the great applause of the secular and liberal Catholic media, made a similar claim in Jerusalem shortly before his death.

It is very clear that the attack on anti-Semitism is becomming an attack on the Catholic Faith and on Holy Scripture. The real cause of anti-semitism is the teaching of the Talmud. A famous ex-rabbi, Monsieur Drach, a Talmudic scholar before his conversion to Catholicism, who was honored and decorated by Popes Leo XII, Pius VII and Gregory XVI, wrote:

For a long time it was my professional duty to teach the Talmud and explain its doctrines, after having attended special courses, under the most renowned of contemporary Jewish doctors. Now that by the grace of God I have been led to abjure its false dogmas, I can speak of my studies...

The Talmud is divided into the Mischna, commonly called Misna, which forms the text, and the Ghemara, which is the commentary and the development of the text. The Ghemara is twofold, comprising both the Commentary of Jerusalem and the Commentary of Babylon. . . . In the Ghemara there are at least a hundred passages which are insulting for the memory of Our Adorable Savior, the more than angelic purity of His holy Mother, the Immaculate Queen of heaven, as well as the moral character of Christians, whom the Talmud represents as practising the most abominable vices. There are also passages which declare that the precepts of justice, equity, and charity towards one's neighbor do not bind where Christians are concerned; nay more, they even go so far as to condemn as guilty of crime anyone who observes these precepts in his relations with his Christian neighbors. The Talmud expressly forbids a Jew to save a non-Jew from death or to restore to him his lost possessions, etc., or to take pity on him. The Rabbins declare also: "Since the life of an idolater is at the discretion of the Jew, a fortiori his goods." Quotations of this nature could be multiplied almost indefinitely. 4

It has been reported that Pope John Paul II said recently, "Why is it that only the Catholic Church has to acknowledge its mistakes?" Then he added smiling, "But maybe that is as it should be." It would be easy for me to attack the Jews in this article; for why should Catholics always be on the defensive? But rather than delve into the obscenities and blasphemies of the Talmud, I would much rather defend the historicity of St. John's Gospel.

"Corpus Christi" is a frightening rehearsal for what will happen in the latter days. It is the consensus of the Fathers of the Church that Anti-Christ will be a Jew, and that the Jews will be the first to receive him. The Fathers further say that Anti-Christ will have a "false prophet," a Catholic priest or bishop, who will compel Catholics to worship this "Beast" or his image. Whoever refuses will be slain. The Jews and priests of the programs are but forerunners of these latter two. But the Church will triumph — Anti-Christ and his "false prophet" will be slain; the Jews will be converted to the Catholic Church, and then will come the end, and the Final Judgment.

The Jews and the Modernists are united in denying the historicity of the Gospels, and especially of the Gospel of St. John. David Schwartz says: "When one studies the different versions of the trial, when one begins to see how the Christians related History, one wonders: who are the wicked ones?" 5 Fr. Marie-Emile Boismard, O.P. says: The dialogue between Jesus and Pilate "is not plausible...it is a purely theological insertion." 6 So to refute these forerunners of Anti-Christ and his "false prophet," we must authoritatively re-establish the historical authenticity of the Gospels. At the turn of the century, the Abbe Alfred Loisy, who held that the trial of Our Lord before the Sanhedrin was "impossible and imaginary," 7 as do his successors today, was forcefully condemned in 1906 by Pope St. Pius X in his marvelous encyclical Pascendi gregis:

137. The result of this dismembering of the sacred books and this partition of them throughout the centuries is naturally that the Scriptures can no longer be attributed to the authors whose names they bear. The Modernists have no hesitation in affirming commonly that the books, and especially the Pentateuch and the first three Gospels, have been gradually formed by additions to a primitive brief narration — by interpolations of a theological or allegorical interpretation, by transitions, by joining different passages together. This means briefly, that in the sacred books we must admit a vital evolution, springing from and corresponding with the evolution of faith. The traces of this evolution, they tell us, are so visible in the books that one might write a history of them. Indeed this history they do actually write, and with such an easy security that one might believe them to have with their own eyes seen the writers at work through the ages amplifying the sacred books. To aid them in this they call to their assistance that branch of criticism which they call textual, labor to show that such a fact or such a phrase is not in its right place, and adduce other arguments of the same kind. They seem, in fact, to have constructed for themselves certain types of narration and discourses, upon which they base their decision as to whether a thing is out of place or not. Judge if you can how men with such a system are fitted for practicing this kind of criticism. To hear them talk about their works on the sacred books in which they have been able to discover so much that is defective, one would imagine that before them nobody even glanced at the pages of Scripture, whereas the truth is that a whole multitude of doctors, infinitely superior to them in genius, in erudition, in sanctity, have sifted the sacred books in every way, and so far from finding imperfections in them, have thanked God more and more the deeper they have gone into them for His divine bounty in having vouchsafed to speak thus to men. Unfortunately these great doctors did not enjoy the same aids to study that are possessed by the Modernists for their guide and rule — a philosophy borrowed from the negation of God, and a criterion which consists in themselves. 8

The Modernists say that the stories of the Gospels gradually evolved in the early Christian communities, and reflect the evolution of Christology, and should not be taken as history, but rather as theology. In 1964, the Pontifical Biblical Commission issued an Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels. Cardinal Bea, who was at that time the Cardinal Prefect of the Commission, supplied an official commentary in La Civilta Cattolica:

The Instruction...affirms that the Gospels are subject to the criteria of historical writing and at the same time are inspired by the Holy Spirit and therefore immune from error.... There is no question of a group of enthusiastic fanatics but of a strictly organized society whose very order derived from the precision of its message regarding the person and teaching of Jesus. That is shown, for instance, by the introduction to St. Luke's Gospel. He was not concerned to collect every possible story that may have been current regarding Jesus, but with what eyewitnesses had handed down. The terms 'witness,' 'testimony' and 'bear witness' occur more than 150 times in the New Testament and mean speaking from personal experience.... From this it can be seen what is to be thought of the alleged creative community in matters of doctrine. To the extent that there was any such activity at all, it was regarded as sectarian. Christian faith, on the other hand, rested on the testimony of the Apostles on whatever Christ had said and done.

...There is an apparent way of solving difficulties which must be resisted as a temptation. It is certainly not permissible to say that all that is necessary is to maintain the essential, the religious content, what concerns faith and morals; that the rest is only the mode of inerrancy of Holy Scripture....Christian faith does not consist in abstract principles and a theoretical doctrine, but chiefly historical facts. 9

It is refreshing to hear Cardinal Paul Taguchi, the Cardinal Archbishop of Osaka, in his marvelous position paper of 1975, "The Study of Sacred Scripture," call these notions of the Modernists "pseudo-scientific nonsense":

To mention but one example: the fact that Christ was born in Bethlehem is known to us because St. Luke says so in his Gospel; and this we know for a fact regardless of and independently of whether or not the same fact is confirmed by other non-biblical sources; and with a greater degree of certainty than that which the other sources can afford. It is also known to us as a historical fact, and not as some notion contrived by the early Christian communities, or even by the very witnesses of the Resurrection, who having finally believed in Christ as the Messias, then took it for granted that He must have been born in Bethlehem in keeping with the prophecies. 10

Speaking of the title from the Cross, Jesus of Nazareth, The King of the Jews, which is kept in Rome in the Church of the Holy Cross in Jerusalem, Father Puech makes an extraordinarily stupid statement concerning the Holy Shroud of Turin:

I cannot say whether this relic [the title] is prior to the late Byzantine period, 5th — 7th century; or rather the Middle Ages, when the Shroud of Turin was fabricated. About the 13th or 14th century.... 11

The Modernists really hate the Holy Shroud, because it is a miraculous witness for our own times of the historicity of the Gospels, particularly of the Gospel of St. John. Dr. Alan and Mrs. Mary Whanger have convincingly demonstrated, by their newly developed photographic technique, that on the eyelids of Our Lord are two leptons (the "widow's mites" of the Gospel) that were minted during the reign of Pontius Pilate, 12 and that around Our Lord's body there are numerous flowers banked, that only grow in the environs of Jerusalem. 13 Quite a feat for Father Puech's 13th or 14th century manufacturer! Let me give just one example of what I mean from Dr. Pierre Barbet's marvelous A Doctor at Calvary. In the Gospel of St. John we read: "But one of the soldiers with a spear opened His side, and immediately there came out blood and water. And he that saw it hath given testimony; and his testimony is true. And he knoweth that he saith true; that you may also believe." (John 19:34, 35.) The historicity of this event was ridiculed by the Higher Critics and their Catholic Modernist disciples. Fr. Werner Bulst, S.J., in his excellent The Shroud of Turin, writes:

For years liberal critics took for granted that this text was anything but a historical record of events; in fact it could not be intended as such. At best it was put in rather as a theological opinion, if not even a mere mythological allusion. In support of this the liberals pointed to the "eloquent silence" of the Synoptics, to the physiological impossibility (sic) of blood and water issuing from a corpse. They likewise referred to allegedly parallel texts in heathen mythology. They furthermore suggested that the author of the Gospel himself (1 Jn. 5:16) attributed a "mystical meaning" to the blood and water, etc. R. Bultman finds it ridiculous (komisch is the German word he uses) to even consider the physiological possibility of an issue of blood and water, as did Weiss. 14

In 1907 Pope St. Pius X, in the Syllabus Lamentabili, condemned several Modernist propositions concerning the historicity of the Gospel of St. John:

[It is error to say:]

The narrations of John are not history in the strict sense, but mystical contemplations on the Gospel; the discourses in his Gospel are theological meditations about the mystery of salvation and are devoid of historical truth.

The fourth Gospel exaggerated the miracles not only to make the extraordinary stand out more clearly but also that they might be more suited to show the work and glory of the Incarnate Word.

John claims for himself the office of witness to Christ; but in reality he is nothing more than an outstanding witness of Christian life, that is, of the life of Christ in the Church at the end of the first century. (Denz. 2016-2018.)

And here is Doctor Barbet:

In my first autopsies I noticed that the pericardium always contained a quantity of serum (hydropericardium) sufficient for one to see it flowing on the incision of the parietal layer. In some cases it was most abundant.

I, therefore, took my syringe once again, but I pushed the needle very slowly, drawing into the syringe the whole time. I was thus able to feel the resistance of the fibrous pericardium, and as soon as I perforated it, I drew out a considerable quantity of serum. Then as the needle proceeded on its way, I drew out some blood from the right auricle.

I then took my knife, and inserting it with the same precautions, I saw the serum flowing and then, as I pressed on, the blood.

Finally if one inserts the knife vigorously, a large flow of blood is seen to issue from the wound; but on its edges one can also see that a lesser amount of pericardial fluid is also flowing.

The water then was pericardial fluid. And one may imagine that after an exceptionally painful death-agony, as was that of the Savior, this hydropericardium would have been particularly abundant, so much so that St. John, who was an eye-witness, was able to see both blood and water flowing. He would have imagined that the serum was water, for it has that appearance. As there was no water in the body other than the serous fluid, it could not have been pure water. We ourselves use the word hydropericardium, which means the water contained in the pericardium. 15

In 1978, an American team of high-tech specialists who called themselves, in typical American fashion, STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project), was permitted by Church authorities to conduct a series of intricate tests on the Shroud. One of the Jewish member of STURP, Barrie Schwortz, later said:

The image on the Shroud matches the account of crucifixion in the New Testament down to the 'nth degree. Evidence is mounting that the Gospels are quite accurate. This may cause consternation among my family and other Jewish people, but in my mind, the Shroud is the piece of cloth which wrapped Jesus after he was crucified. 16

The "Corpus Christi" program did not mention St. Paul, that former Pharisee, zealous for the law. But St. Paul gives us the proper Catholic perspective on the Jews:

Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and the prophets, and have persecuted us, and please not God, are adversaries to all men; prohibiting us to speak to the Gentiles, that they may be saved, to fill up their sins always: for the wrath of God is come upon them to the end. (1 Thessalonians 2:15, 16.)

Pascal says: "They are plainly a people expressly formed to serve as a witness to the Messiah.... They hold the books and love them, but do not understand them." 17 But St. Paul also tells us that the Jews will be converted near the end of the world. God will bend their stiff necks, and exchange their hearts of stone for hearts of flesh:

As concerning the gospel, indeed they are enemies for your sake: but as touching the election, they are most dear for the sake of the fathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are without repentance. For as you also in times past did not believe in God, but now have obtained mercy, through their unbelief; so these also now have not believed, for your mercy, that they also may obtain mercy. For God hath concluded all in unbelief, that he may have mercy on all. (Romans 11: 28-32.)

This is why the Church must at all times defend the Jews when they are persecuted, as they were during the Hitler years. But let us conclude this study of the historicity of the Gospel, especially the Gospel of John, by citing from his beautiful First Epistle:

Dearly beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits if they be of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. By this is the spirit of God known. Every spirit which confesseth that Christ is come in the flesh, is of God: and every spirit that dissolveth Jesus, is not of God: and this is the Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh, and he is now already in the world. You are of God, little children, and have overcome him. Because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. They are of the world: therefore of the world they speak, and the world heareth them. We are of God. He that knoweth God, heareth us. He that is not of God, heareth us not. By this we know the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. (1 John 4:1-6.)

---

1 Bro. Bruno Bonnet-Eymard, "The Truth of the Gospels: A Reply to Arte's `Twenty-Seven,'" The Catholic Counter-Reformation in the XXth Century, No. 299, August 1997, Centre de Renaissance Catholique, 255 Chemin de la Reserve, Shawinigan, P.Que, Canada, G9N 6T6, p.12.

2 Bonnet Eymard, Op. cit., p. 15.

3 Bonnet Eymard, p. 15.

4 Fr. Denis Fahey, C.S.Sp., The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation, Regina Publications, Dublin, 1953, pp. 88, 89; Monsieur Drach, L'Harmonie entre l'Eglise et las Synagogue, (a) Treatise Aboda-Zara, fol. 20 recto; Treatise Baba-Kamma, vol. 29 verso; (b) Foundations of the Faith, by Joseph Abba, III Part, Chap. 25; (c) Monsieur Drach refers to another of his works L'Espirit du Judaisme.

5 Bonnet-Eymard, p. 15.

6 Bonnet-Eymard, p. 16.

7 Bonnet-Eymard, p. 12.

8 St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, Sept. 8, 1907, The Papal Encyclicals 1903-1939, edited by Claudia Carlen, I.H.M., McGrath Publishing Co., Wilmington, N.C., 1981, pp. 85, 86.

9 Pontifical Biblical Commission, "Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels," April 21, 1964; cited in Fr. John McKee, The Enemy Within the Gate, The Catholic Church and Renascent Modernism, Lumen Christi Press, Houston, TX, 1974, pp. 258-260.

10 Cardinal Paul Taguchi, "The Study of Sacred Scripture," L'Osservatore Romano, May 15, 1975.

11 Bonnet-Eymard, p. 18.

12 Alan D. Whanger and Mary Whanger, "Polarized image overlay technique: a new image comparison method and its applications," Applied Optics, Vo. 24, No. 6, 15 March, 1985.

13 Dr. Alan and Mrs. Mary Whanger, Floral, Coin, and Other Non-Body Images on the Shroud of Turin, Duke University, NC, 27710, USA.

14 Fr. Werner Bulst, S.J., The Shroud of Turin, translated by Fr. Stephen McKenna, C.Ss.R. and Fr. James Glavin, C.Ss.R., Bruce Publishing Co., 1965, pp. 109, 110.

15 Pierre Barbet, M.D., A Doctor at Calvary, translated by the Earl of Wiclow, Doubleday and Co., New York, 1973, pp. 140, 141.

16 Kenneth E. Stevenson and Gary R. Habermas, The Shroud and the Controversy, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, TN, 1990, p. 97.

17 Bonnet-Eymard, op. cit., p. 27.