CASES OF STIGMATA - Fact or Fiction?

[dangus]

Why would Padre Pio have wounds in his palms, not in his wrists?

(I don't know how Catholic you are, so pardon me if I give some very elementary Catholic instruction.)

When Catholics pray, particularly Catholic mystics, they often focus intently on the five wounds of Christ. The stigmata are the result of profound empathy for the sufferings of Christ. If Padre Pio felt empathy for being nailed to the cross by the palms -- believing Christ was crucified in this manner -- it makes sense to me that the stigmata would appear there. Picture his befuddlement if the stigmata appeared on his wrists if he did not know that's where Christ was wounded!

Christ does often work with people where they are, rather than impose a truth they will not understand. Hence, he ASCENDED into Heaven, even though Heaven -- and this was something his disciples even knew -- isn't really "up." It was the symbolism of elevation that was significant. Likewise, he used mud and spit to heal the blind man. He didn't need to use mud and spit -- it was a little mumbo-jumbo from healers of his day -- but it made the blind man feel like he was being healed, and thus aided his faith.

[SoothingDave]

Is there any hint, any place, that he "proved" anything by showing his stigmata?

Nobody hinted that he had to "prove" anything by his stigmata, if he indeed had them. If anything, the near absence of accounts of them are evidence that he regarded them as a personal thing and not as a sign of his own holiness or fitness for leadership.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Likewise, he used mud and spit to heal the blind man. He didn't need to use mud and spit -- it was a little mumbo-jumbo from healers of his day -- but it made the blind man feel like he was being healed, and thus aided his faith.

Just from left field here, but the use of mud and spit is an example or a foreshadow of the sacramental use of common materials.

SD

[dangus]

>>Random lumps and bruises? What an insult to the apostle!>>

Umm, you're the one insisting that they were random lumps and bruises, though you feign shock and horror at sych a description.

Superstition? Please tell me how they are superstition.

1. An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.
2. 1. A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.
2. A fearful or abject state of mind resulting from such ignorance or irrationality.
3. Idolatry.

So you equate empathy for Christ with idolatry? Do you accuse stigmatists of being of a "fearful or abject state of mind." Quite the opposite. Or is it that you hold that Christ is "not logically related to a course of events"? Of course you don't, but that's what you say when you call such things superstition.
Stigmata do not magically appear. These people are so in love with Christ that they joyfully share in his suffering, and by doing so enter into an unfathomably deep sense of prayer. It is not a cruelty they are inflicted with. Most describe being able to reach an ecstatic level of prayer which is truly experiencing Heaven on Earth.

[dangus]

>> Just from left field here, but the use of mud and spit is an example or a foreshadow of the sacramental use of common materials.

Mud and spit are sacramental? I'll give you a little of your point -- that Jesus worked through ordinary, even humble, materials, foreshadowing his use of them in sacraments... but that hardly negates my point. And I highly doubt that was why this was specifically mentioned, especially since there were much stronger foreshadowing available (e.g., miracle of the loaves and fishes).

[american colleen]

I'm thinking of the recent stigmatic, Theresa Neumann who was from Germany. I think she died in the early 60s. I have a book on her somewhere around here and the pictures are incredible.

Also St. Rita of Cascia (sp?) - had the wound on her forehead from a thorn... it bled all the time but smelled like roses... a phenomena associated with all stigmatics, I believe.

[SoothingDave]

Mud and spit are sacramental?

The use of matter to convey grace is sacramental. Contrast with a "faith alone" approach or a gnostic approach whereby the created world is evil. The sacramental economy demonstrates that the created world is a tool for God to use to repair the damage froim the Fall.

And I highly doubt that was why this was specifically mentioned, especially since there were much stronger foreshadowing available (e.g., miracle of the loaves and fishes).

Every Word from God can be used to His Glory. The loaves and fishes shows miraculous superabundance, but it only served as a routine meal, not as a conveyance of grace.

SD

[drstevej]

Read my posts again. Your post is non-responsive.

[drstevej]

"Unsubstantiated" is fine with me. I substitute it for "superstitious."

[dangus]

I don't believe we disagree... let it drop

[SoothingDave]

I agree.

SD

[SoothingDave]

We are all in agreement then.

SD

[drstevej]

Kumbayah........

[Tantumergo]

"Just from left field here, but the use of mud and spit is an example or a foreshadow of the sacramental use of common materials.

Mud and spit are sacramental?"

Puhleeese chaps - I don't want to negate either of your points, but there is much to be extrapolated from the mud and spit!

John 9,4 "I must work the works of him that sent me, whilst it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.
5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.
6 When he had said these things, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and spread the clay on his eyes,
7 And said to him: Go, wash in the pool of Siloe, which is interpreted, Sent. He went therefore, and washed, and he came seeing."

The verses in question are indeed sacramental for the following reasons:

1.) In doing the work of the One who sent Him, John is identifying Jesus as working the same type of work as the Father worked, i.e. CREATING. Jesus is also creator.

How did God create man?:

Gen 2,7 "And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul."

So as God created Adam from the slime of the earth, Jesus is now "re-creating" the blind man by using the same slime of the earth that He used in creating Adam at the beginning.

Jesus being the Light of the world also evokes the Genesis creation account.

2.) The One who is SENT by the Father now sends the blind man to the waters of the SENT ONE, i.e. BAPTISM.

The blind man is WASHED in the laver of regeneration, is made a NEW CREATION and receives the light again (in semitic understanding to be seeing is to have light in your eyes, whereas blindness is caused by losing the light from your eyes.)

He is thus ENLIGHTENED by the LIGHT OF THE WORLD through the sacrament of Baptism which has truly made him a NEW CREATION by the power of the CREATOR working through the sacrament.

This is why the patristic term for Baptism was often PHOTISMOS or enlightenment.

[Between the Lines]

Paul tells us he was repeatedly beaten [2 Corinthians 11:24, Acts 16:21]. He was beaten for his preaching of Jesus. He was beaten as was Jesus. Isn't this a sufficient explanation of "the marks of the Lord Jesus."

I though at first you might be correct. In Galations 6:11-17 Paul is arguing against those who would be circumcised to " avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ." But if you look in the Greek text for this verse, you find the word used for mark is stigma. Here is the definition for stigma:

1) a mark pricked in or branded upon the body. To ancient oriental usage, slaves and soldiers bore the name or the stamp of their master or commander branded or pricked (cut) into their bodies to indicate what master or general they belonged to, and there were even some devotee's who stamped themselves in this way with the token of their gods

[k omalley]

That perfume of sanctity, the smell of roses is quite common among stigmatics and even has been known to exude from their bodies when exhumed long after their deaths. Mysterious!

[drstevej]

What in the text makes you conclude these were supernaturally produced marks?

stigma:

Luow-Nida =
scar, mark (of a slave)

Liddell-Scott =
st°gma st°zw the mark of a pointed instrument, a tattoo-mark, brand, Hdt., Ntest.

Beatings were often done with chords tipped with metal which made whelps and punctures of the skin. The greek term describes well the marks of a scouraging. And Paul proclaimed himself a slave of Jesus Christ.

There is no contextual support for miraculous scars. And Paul's own account of his beatings and claim to be a slave of Jesus Christ make the term very accurate without imagining these marks to be "stigmata" in the sense the term is used in this article.

[Tantumergo]

"The loaves and fishes shows miraculous superabundance, but it only served as a routine meal, not as a conveyance of grace."

The loaves and fishes certainly showed miraculous superabundance, but also it serves as a proleptic account of the Eucharist especially in John's gospel, where he does not recount the institution narrative.

John 6,11 And Jesus took the loaves: and when he had given thanks (EUCHARISTEIN), he distributed to them that were set down. In like manner also of the fishes, as much as they would.
12 And when they were filled, he said to his disciples: Gather up the fragments that remain, lest they be lost. (THIS IS A LITURGICAL INSTRUCTION FROM THE PRIMITIVE RUBRICS OF THE MASS)
13 They gathered up therefore, and filled twelve baskets with the fragments of the five barley loaves, which remained over and above to them that had eaten.
14 Now those men, when they had seen what a miracle Jesus had done, said: This is of a truth the prophet, that is to come into the world.

Remember that this miracle and the subsequent account of Jesus walking on the water are followed immediately by the extensive "Bread of Life" discourse, where Jesus teaches the crowd that unless they eat His flesh and drink His blood, they cannot have life within them.

[SoothingDave]

The loaves and fishes certainly showed miraculous superabundance, but also it serves as a proleptic account of the Eucharist especially in John's gospel, where he does not recount the institution narrative.

Sure. Make me look up "proleptic." ;-)

SD

[Salvation]

To read later.