Mientras comían, Jesús tomó el pan, pronunció la bendición, lo partió y lo dio a sus discípulos, diciendo: Tomen, esto es mi Cuerpo (Marcos 14:24).
Nadie sabe, a ciencia cierta, el origen de la reliquia, pero la explicación más simple es que fue una obra de arte devocional, realizada por algún inspirado en su momento, algún santo anónimo, quizás, a partir de su propia experiencia mística del Crucificado. Admirado por el pueblo, con el pasar de los años, se difundió la noción de que se trataba del sudario propiamente tal. Más que una prueba de la historicidad de la pasión de Cristo, hay que tomarlo como una prueba de una añoranza en el corazón del pueblo; el deseo de tener un contacto real con Jesús.
El fraile franciscano, Guillermo de Occam, también del Medioevo, propuso como fundamento de la filosofía, que la explicación más simple, siempre y cuando ésta dé cuenta de un fenómeno adecuadamente, es la más probable. Antes, tanto en la filosofía como en lo que después se conoce como la ciencia natural, hubo mucha especulación; mucha teoría compleja sobre la metafísica platónica; que se suponía necesaria para dar cuenta del universo.
Se explicaba la aparición de los gansos cada año en una cierta temporada por medio de la generación espontánea. Bajo ciertas condiciones astrológicas, los moluscos se transformaban espontáneamente en aves. Después, se dieron cuenta de que el ganso es un ave migratorio.
Antes, se suponía saber las intenciones de las personas, la fisionomía de los ángeles, la ubicación cosmológica del purgatorio y le temperatura del infierno. Después, había que reconocer que el hombre no sabe, ni puede, ni precisa saber, todo. Abrió la puerta para la investigación empírica, en el mundo de las ciencias. Además, reabre la posibilidad de la experiencia mística, en lo espiritual. El encuentro humano-divino suele ocurrir en la nube del no-saber.
El mundo moderno pretende explicar todo a través de la ciencia empírica. Eso supone que el mundo es radicalmente material. El hombre moderno es materialista, en ese sentido.
Delante de la doctrina de presencia real de Cristo Resucitado en la eucaristía, mezclado con una dosis de fundamentalismo y materialismo, se llega a la complicadísima conclusión de que Jesús, en la Última Cena, estaba decretando una transformación del pan y del vino en cuanto a su composición molecular. Se insiste que, si alguna vez, se hiciera un análisis químico del Cuerpo Sacramentado, no se encontraría un hidrocarburo complejo consistente con el pan, sino tejido muscular consistente con un cuerpo humano; lo cual es anacrónico, absurdo y sin sentido. Aunque fuera cierto, ¿cuál sería el sentido de consumir un cadáver, por más que fuera Jesús?
Tiene que haber una explicación más simple. El Señor instituyó el sacramento eucarístico para recordar la entrega de su vida para la salvación de su pueblo. No es un milagro de la bioquímica, (la explicación más complicada y menos significativa), sino una maravilla de generosidad, de inmortal que da la vida por los mortales, de pastor que da la vida por sus ovejas, de Rey que entrega su esencia vital para salvar a la gente.
La realidad de la presencia real eucarística no está en las moléculas, sino en el trasfondo místico. La realidad del Resucitado presente, del Señor que no abandona a sus discípulos, se concreta en las réplicas que se dan entre los auténticos discípulos. Empiezan a amar como él amó.
Eucaristía es un signo de amor entregado, sin embargo, es más que una idea teórica. Quien comulga con el cuerpo resucitado, quien toma de la copa de la Nueva Alianza, se compromete a tratar a los demás de la misma manera, entregando su vida para así dar vida.
Es la explicación más simple, y en este caso, es la más profunda.
___________________________________
Occam’s razor
While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, Take and eat; this is my body(Mark 14:24).
According to popular belief, the Shroud of Turin is the sheet in which the body of the crucified Lord was buried for three days in an unused tomb. The artifact is mentioned in the Gospel of John; and then it reappears as an object of devotion in 1347. It is true that it shows markings that would be consistent with the lifeless body of a crucified man, but the Roman Empirecrucified a lot of guys. Besides, there is no information about where it might have been stored during thirteen centuries; nor why it suddenly appeared when it did.
Radiocarbon dating in 1988 indicated that the cloth itself is of medieval origin. The Holy See wrote a humble declaration recognizing the devotion of generations of faithful. Even if the Shroud itself is not authentic, the faith of the people is. That is why it continues to be a treasure of the historical richness and significance for the people of God.
No one knows, really, the origin of the relic, but the simplest explanation might be that it was a work of devotional art, created by some inspired holy saint, perhaps, some anonymous believer with his or her own special mystical experience of the crucifixion of our Lord.
Admired by the people, as time went by, the notion became popular that it was the Shroud itself. Though not valid historical evidence of the passion of Christ, it is proof of a longing in the heart of the people, of the desire they had for real contact with Jesus.
The Franciscan friar, William of Occam, also medieval, proposed a new basic idea in philosophy, saying that the simplest explanation, if it takes into account every aspect of a phenomenon, is most probably the most correct. Before, in philosophy as well as in what came to be known later as natural science, there was a lot of speculation; a lot of complex theory about Platonic metaphysics; all of it supposed to be necessary in order to understand the universe.
The appearance of geese every year at a certain time was explained by spontaneous generation. Under certain astrological conditions, barnacles were supposed to spontaneously mutate into birds. Later, it was discovered that geese are migratory.
Before, it was supposed that one could know other people’s intentions, what angels looked like, where purgatory was and the temperature of hell. After, it became reasonable to assume that humankind could not know everything. It was also recognized the there is no real need to know everything. This opened the door for empirical investigation, for science. It also reopened the possibility of mystical experience, in the spiritual realm. The encounter between humanity and divinity tends to occur outside of knowledge, in the cloud of not-knowing.
The modern world claims to explain everything through empirical science. That supposes that the universe is radically material. We therefore say that modern humanity is materialistic.
However, faced with the doctrine of real presence in the Eucharist, we mix in with a dose of religious fundamentalism and scientific materialism, and so come to the very complicated conclusion that Jesus, at the Last Supper, made a proclamation about a transformation in the molecular composition of bread and wine. It is often insisted that, if ever a chemical analysis were to be carried out on a fragment of the Body of Christ, that complex hydrocarbons consistent with bread would not be found, but rather, human muscle tissue. That is anachronistic, ridiculous and absolutely meaningless. Even if it were true, what is the sense of eating a cadaver, even if it had belonged to Jesus?
There must be a simpler explanation. Jesus instituted the Eucharistic sacrament in order to call to mind the way he gave his life for the salvation of his people. That is not a miracle of biochemistry, (the most complex and least significant explanation), but rather, a miracle of the wondrous generosity of an immortal who gives his life for mortals, of a pastor who gives his life for his sheep, of a king who hands over his vital essence so that his people might live.
The reality of the real Eucharistic presence is not in the molecules, but rather, in the mystical meaning. The authenticity of the Risen Lord made present, of the friend who never abandons his disciples, becomes concrete in the repercussions that begin to occur among those authentic disciples. They begin to love as he loved. Eucharist is a sign of love given, and yet, it is much more than a theoretical idea. Whoever enters into communion with the Risen Body, whoever drinks of the cup of the New Alliance, thereby makes a commitment to treat others in that same way, giving his or her life in order to give life.
That is the simplest explanation, and also, the most profound.
