Posted on 08/27/2003 2:06:11 AM PDT by Front 242
I have a question that has been nagging me for quite some time now concerning people throughout history bearing the stigmatic wounds of Christ. I am a firm believer that the Shroud of Turin is indeed the burial cloth of Jesus Christ, and based upon that belief, I pose the following observations for discussion and feedback.
Concerning the location of the five wounds as shown on the Shroud of Turin, with regard to the placement of the nails (through the carpal bones in each wrist at what is anatomically known as "the open mesocarpal space of Destot"), why is it that so many alleged stigmatists have "wounds" located in the center of their palms? In the case of Padre Pio, why were his wounds in the center of his palms? Were they possibly self inflicted as many sceptics have expressed throughout the years? If not, then why would they be located in the palms and not through the wrists as depicted on the Shroud? An observer would think that for someone to have the wounds of Christ, they would be exactly located on their body as they were inflicted on Christ's body. Also, I remember reading a book entitled "Padre Pio - The Stigmatist" by Fr. Charles Carty (available through TAN Books) in which a medical doctor who was to perform an operation on Padre Pio (for a medical condition which I fail to remember ... it may have been a case of hernia), the doctor placed Padre Pio under local anesthetic much to the protest of Padre Pio who wanted to undergo the operation without it. Apparently while unconscious, the doctor studied Padre Pio's wounds in his hands, feet, and side. The doctor found that Padre Pio's side wound was located on the LEFT SIDE of the chest in between the ribs below the heart in the form of an inverted cross about the size of a standard crucifix as found on a typical Rosary. As is depicted on the Shroud of Turin, the side wound of Christ is shown on the RIGHT SIDE of His chest from where the lance pierced His side. Why would Padre Pio's wound be in the form of an inverted cross and located on the left side of his chest according to the doctor's observation?
In trying to analyze this myself and determine possible scenarios and conclusions, it would seem that if Padre Pio were right handed, it would be plausible for him to either scratch with a sharp instument or heat up a small metal crucifix (perhaps on the end a Rosary) either over an open flame or dipped in some form of caustic solution with his right hand and then place it there on his left side to create a wound (as in the case of branding). The wound then could be continually reopened or reinflicted as needed with an easily obtainable source (i.e. the metal crucifix heated over an open flame such as a candle). Why then would he have this wound on his left side in the shape of an inverted cross? One of the ideas that has crossed my mind is that it would almost serve as a constant reminder to him of the cross on which Christ was crucified whereby that in looking down upon it daily from his vantage point (by nodding his head downward), it would appear as a normal depiction of an upright Roman crucifix, but to others (who were not meant to see it) it would appear inverted from the standpoint if you viewed Padre Pio chest while directly in front of him. A puzzling question indeed and as I mentioned at the beginning of this post, one that has bothered me for some time. Please do not feel that I am trying to tarnish Padre Pio's image in any way, it is just that I am trying to discern some type of plausible explination about the cause for his stigmata. Granted, this very much may be a case of Divine Intervention in which God chose Padre Pio in which to call the faithful to ponder the wounds of Christ and His Passion, but I don't understand why He would allow the wounds to be inaccurately depicted on someone with regard to comparing them to the wounds shown on the Shroud of Turin. That is to say that I am using the Shroud of Turin as a touchstone for all other possible cases of stigmatic wounds. On a side note here, I firmly believe that the wounds of St. Francis of Assisi were indeed genuine based upon, to my knowledge (in which I may be inaccurate here), no one up until the time of St. Francis had been blessed with the Stigmata other than Jesus Christ Himself. Please correct me if I am indeed wrong.
Also, what is one to make of the so-called stigmatic priest from Croatia by the name of Fr. Zlatko Sudac (pronounced "sue-dots")? It has been alleged in some circles (mainly those in favor of the apparitions in Medjugorje), that Fr. Sudac bears all five wounds of Christ in addition to a small blood-red crucifix "wound" located just above the middle of his eyebrows in the center of his forehead. Needless to say, this wound has never been heard of or seen in cases of alleged stigmata. In the few pictures that I have seen of Fr. Sudac's forehead wound, I have noticed that the length of the vertical line of the crucifix has in some depictions (most notably at the very bottom of the vertical portion of the crucifix located just about a quarter of an inch above his eyebrows), varied ever so slightly in that sometimes it is longer and at other times it is shorter. I have never heard of a wound that could modify itself in length or form unless it either were self-inflicted or manipulated into not healing correctly. With regard to Fr. Sudac's alleged hand wounds, it is said that his wounds are located in the wrist area. However, in all pictures that I have seen of him, no indication of any wound or mark is located on the wrist or hand area. Once again, is this a possible deception, and if so, what are we indeed looking at with regard to Fr. Sudac's motives? Thanks for your time everyone and I look forward to your feedback. Sincerely, Front 242
I never said they were supernaturally produced marks nor do I believe so. I think you are possibly correct because in Galations 6:11-17 where this verse was found, Paul was arguing against those who would be circumcised to " avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ." The implication being that by marking themselves by circumcision they are avoiding the marks of persecution for their belief in Jesus. But on the other hand the definition of stigma used for the word mark, implies that the wounds may have possibly been self inflicted. I only pointed out two possibilities in this argument (yours and that of self infliction) and neither promoted the idea that Paul had stigmata.
I am sorry if I didn't make myself clear the first time.
tou loipou kopouV moi mhdeiV parecetw, egw gar ta stigmata tou ihsou en tw swmati mou bastazw.
which St. Jerome translated into Latin:
de cetero nemo mihi molestus sit ego enim stigmata Iesu in corpore meo porto
While not addressing specifically the case of St. Paul, from the time information on stigmata was compiled, here is the official list, compliments of catholic.org
2. There are 62 saints or blessed of both sexes of whom the best known were:
St. Francis of Assisi (1186-1226)
St. Lutgarde (1182-1246)
St. Margaret of Cortona (1247-97)
St. Gertrude (1256-1302)
St. Clare of Montefalco (1268-1308)
Bl. Angela of Foligno (d. 1309)
St. Catherine of Siena (1347-80)
St. Lidwine (1380-1433)
St. Frances of Rome (1384-1440)
St. Colette (1380-1447)
St. Rita of Cassia (1386-1456)
Bl. Osanna of Mantua (1499-1505)
St. Catherine of Genoa (1447-1510)
Bl. Baptista Varani (1458-1524)
Bl. Lucy of Narni (1476-1547)
Bl. Catherine of Racconigi (1486-1547)
St. John of God (1495-1550)
St. Catherine de' Ricci (1522-89)
St. Mary Magdalene de' Pazzi (1566-1607)
Bl. Marie de l'Incarnation (1566-1618)
Bl. Mary Anne of Jesus (1557-1620)
Bl. Carlo of Sezze (d. 1670)
Blessed Margaret Mary Alacoque (1647-90)
St. Veronica Giuliani (1600-1727)
St. Mary Frances of the Five Wounds (1715-91)
St. Pio of Pietrelcina (Padre Pio) (1887-1968)
3. There were 20 stigmatics in the nineteenth century. The most famous were:
Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824)
Elizabeth Canori Mora (1774-1825)
Anna Maria Taïgi (1769-1837)
Maria Dominica Lazzari (1815-48)
Marie de Moerl (1812-68) and Louise Lateau (1850-83)
And, then there is the modern day mystic, Maria Esperanza from Venezuela. Mrs. Maria Esperanza is considered by many, one of the greatest mystics of these times. In the midst of her household chores as a wife, mother and grandmother to nineteen grandchildren, God continues to bestow upon her extraordinary gifts and charismata: The stigmata, visions of the future or the gift of prophecy, the gift of healing, appearance or "materialization" of a Holy Host in her mouth, emission of scents of flowers and fruits, apparition of rose petals, levitation, bilocation. And maybe one of the most impressive mystical phenomena: The birth of a rose, or a rose which sprouts out spontaneously from her chest, a phenomenon which now has taken place sixteen times. Some claim to see rose petals fall from the sky around her, not just the smell of roses.
During her younger years Esperanza made the acquaintance of Padre Pio, the most famous mystic since Francis of Assisi, who had told people he expected to be visited by an extraordinary woman. “There is a young woman who is going to come from South America,” Pio said. “When I leave, she will be your consolation.” When finally they met, Maria would hear his “call” even though she was far away near Rome and she would head for his monastery at San Giovanni Rotundo on the barren east side of Italy – where despite throngs waiting to see him the aged priest called out, “Esperanza!”
On September 23, 1968, Maria had a vision of Padre Pio. “Esperanza,” he said in the vision, “I have come to say good-bye. My time has come. It is your turn.” As this was happening Geo watched with amazement as his wife’s face transfigured into that of the Italian priest. The next day they saw in the newspaper that Pio (whose funeral would be attended by more than a million) had died.
My Douai notes; "Formerly it was not unusual to stamp certain characters on the bodies of soldiers, fugitives, and of domestics, purposely to identify them"
I hadn't heard that Paul might have had the stigmata. I was learnt St. Francis was the first.
It is only when Steve comes over to my house and says, "T'heck is the deal with that wall-hanging, the one of St. Francis with his wounds?...and I say, "oh, he received the Stigmata. He was the first one you know."
And you say to me, "well, I gotta get going..and you race out of the house...
Ha Ha Ha...I rarely do think about this. Obviously, one doesn't have to accept this as Doctrine, as least as far as I know, but it is just part of our Tradition and, thankfully, there are much smarter men here than me who can explain it to you. It was Chesterton who noted that many of us know these things in our hearts but it is really tough to put it into words.
I can see why another not raised in our family would be surprised at some of the things I take for granted.
It is only when Steve comes over to my house and says, "T'heck is the deal with that wall-hanging, the one of St. Francis with his wounds?...and I say, "oh, he received the Stigmata. He was the first one you know."
And you say to me, "well, I gotta get going..and you race out of the house...
Ha Ha Ha...I rarely do think about this. Obviously, one doesn't have to accept this as Doctrine, as least as far as I know, but it is just part of our Tradition and, thankfully, there are much smarter men here than me who can explain it to you.
I was learnt it was a sign of God's love and that those He loves the most are willing to undergo suffering for others because, done with right intent, our undergoing suffering for others can be both Salvific and Redemptive.
It was Chesterton who noted that many of us know these things in our hearts but it is really tough to put it into words.
I can see why another not raised in our family would be surprised at some of the things I take for granted.
It is curious. Perhaps the Schism, which introduced a visible wound in the Mystical Body of Christ led to the showing of the wounds of the Body of Christ on certain mystics?
SD
He notes "The wounds do not become festered and the blood flowing from them is pure, whereas the slightest natural lesion in some part of the the body develops an infection. Moreover, the wounds do not yeild to the natural medical treatment and yet they remain for as long as thiry to forty years....Finally true stigmata are not found except in persons who practice the most heroic virtues and possess a special love of the Cross"
That Dictionary is a "must own" for Catholics.
You're welcome. Next time bring your bat and ball and we'll try to hit the ball over ol' man Johnson's house.
If we break a window, we can blame it on Dicky Wilson. He is a Mormon.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.