Stigmata and the actual wounds of Christ

  • Thread starter Thread starter Slow_Burn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Slow_Burn

Guest
Is there a consensus among Catholic theologians regarding the location of the actual nail wounds of Christ’s hands? Is it believed that the nails pierced Christ’s palms, or his wrists? I know that many (including Hank Hanagraaff) have stated that it’s common knowledge that Christ was pierced through his wrists, as scientific study has shown that piercing through the palms would not allow for the bearing of the body weight of the victim. If this is true, how is it that those with the stigmata bleed from their palms (as it appears Padre Pio did) as apposed to having their wounds show up in on their wrists? Does this cast doubt on the validity of the stigmata, or on the “scientific studies” noted by those like Hanagraaff?
 
Hank Hanagraaff has an agenda (to disprove the Church’s claim to be the one True Church established by Jesus Christ) and will not acknowledge the fact of the location of stigmata on many Saints. Does anyone really believe the Lord would grant the stigmata to a worthy person and put the wounds in the “wrong” places on the anatomy? Come on Hank get with it. :rolleyes:
 
Christs body was held there on the Cross more so by love than by nails. Stigmata are extra “private revelation” no one should base their faith on private revelation.
 
Slow Burn:
Is there a consensus among Catholic theologians regarding the location of the actual nail wounds of Christ’s hands? Is it believed that the nails pierced Christ’s palms, or his wrists? I know that many (including Hank Hanagraaff) have stated that it’s common knowledge that Christ was pierced through his wrists, as scientific study has shown that piercing through the palms would not allow for the bearing of the body weight of the victim. If this is true, how is it that those with the stigmata bleed from their palms (as it appears Padre Pio did) as apposed to having their wounds show up in on their wrists? Does this cast doubt on the validity of the stigmata, or on the “scientific studies” noted by those like Hanagraaff?
Click to expand...
I believe that the bodys of those crucified where tied at the wrists, so therefore taking the weight of their body.
 
Be that as it may, how do we address the apparent scientific proofs regarding the claims of the nails piercing the wrists? Is there evidence that crucifixion was accomplished by piercing of the wrists in some victims and the palms of others (say, heavier victims through the wrists and lighter victims through the hands)? If the consensus is that the victims were exclusively pierced through the wrists, then how are we to view stigmatics? It seems to me that true stigmatics would all have consistent wounds, and that the location of those wounds would then almost definitively provide us with the proof of the true location of Christ’s wounds.
 
One should also note that some historical accounts of crucifixion note that rope was used to support the arms, in addition to nails in the palm. And when the feet are also nailed, the hands themselves don’t have to support as much on their own.

Then again, I see little value in over-analyzing the location of such wounds, either on Christ or on the stigmatic.

Palms or wrists? The debate will never end on this Earth. Better to spend time in prayer than picking apart saintly people.
 
I remember hearing that comparing the Stigmata among the saints the received it, that they were not all in the same places. There is some deviation. I would guess that they would have been received as the saint perceived Jesus having them.
 
Br. Rich SFO:
Christs body was held there on the Cross more so by love than by nails. Stigmata are extra “private revelation” no one should base their faith on private revelation.
Click to expand...
Isn’t it true that private revelation (even those which have been “approved” by the Church) are not considered to be inerrant?

The revelation is affected by the one to whom it is revealed. So mystic visions while they might truly come from God are not necessarily interpreted or written down without error. It may also be true that the location of the stigmata might even be affected by the recipient’s fallible understanding of the location of Christ’s wounds.
 
40.png
Socrates:
Isn’t it true that private revelation (even those which have been “approved” by the Church) are not considered to be inerrant?

The revelation is affected by the one to whom it is revealed. So mystic visions while they might truly come from God are not necessarily interpreted or written down without error. It may also be true that the location of the stigmata might even be affected by the recipient’s fallible understanding of the location of Christ’s wounds.
Click to expand...
And who says that God must give the gift in the exact same place every time? I mean it would great for apologists and doubtful folks if God chose to be absolutely and critically consistent in that area, but who am I to know the mind and will of God?

Again, the post is correct - the Church does not demand that anyone believe in another’s private revelation or gift of the stigmata. So it goes.
 
Consider the thousands of different images we have of Jesus and Mary. Visionaries have seen them in many forms, forms best suited for their spirituality at the time or those around them. I see no reason why the stigmata shouldn’t follow the same mold.
 
often the stigmata appears in the places where the greatest object of devotion has them. For instance where the nailmarks are on the favorite cross of one saint may be different than on another. This goes for the slash that the solider made on Jesus’ side. The location, side is different, and typically co-incides with the sigmatist’s favortie crucifix
 
Interesting, what about the Shroud of Turin? There was a book called “A Doctor at Calvary” where a doctor did tests and came to the conclusion that Jesus must have been nailed through the wrists. Also the shroud shows the nail marks at the wrists. What do you think?
 
Super Mom:
Interesting, what about the Shroud of Turin? There was a book called “A Doctor at Calvary” where a doctor did tests and came to the conclusion that Jesus must have been nailed through the wrists. Also the shroud shows the nail marks at the wrists. What do you think?
Click to expand...
I do believe in the Shroud of Turin… :cool:
 
I read that book this Lent, & it was before I saw “The Passion” where Christ is depicted as being nailed through the palms. I would have to consult a photo from the movie to recall if He was also tied with ropes. “A Doctor at Calvary” is very interesting and it’s still in print, but most of it is quite technical from a medical standpoint. However, I would still recommend it - it added another dimension to my appreciation of the film and the sufferings of our Lord in general.

Talk about spending all those years in Catholic school only to keep finding out things that you didn’t know: it was only very recently that I learned exactly what an approved apparition is. The approved part only means that the Church considers it worthy of belief, i.e. that you can choose to believe it or not. It is not an article of faith that you must accept. However, it’s hard to argue with modern examples of the stigmata like Padre Pio. There are plenty of films and photos which clearly show his wounds, and plenty of people still around who met him - in fact, at the university where I work, there are 2 professors who not only met him but made the mistake of shaking his hand!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top