Stigmata

[Elizium23]

Ask an Apologist says that canonizations are irrevocable.

There are two negative things that can happen to saints by decree of the Holy See. One, they can be removed from the Roman Calendar. Two, their cultus can be suppressed.

These two things generally occur at the same time, because they are interrelated (being on the General Roman Calendar means that their cultus is approved for universal veneration). Quite a few removals were done in the calendar reform of 1969, this is when St. Christopher, Catherine of Alexandria, and others were suppressed. Catherine was restored to the calendar a few years ago.

 

[The_Scott]

Wasn’t St. Christopher’s canonization revoked or something?

No. His Feast Day was removed from the general calender. He’s still a saint, but his feast day isn’t celebrated universally (only locally). However, he’s still a saint and forever shall be one.

 

[ClayPots47]

thistle;9211321:

They ARE infallible and not a single canonisation has been revoked. You are mistaken.
Removing saints from the calendar is not revoking canonisation.

Got a source for that?

Canonizations are not infallible. In fact, half a dozen or so were revoked just a couple years ago.

You got a source for this? (This should be very interesting, because I am quite sure that thistle is correct). I’d really like to know who’s was revoked, when, and why?

 

[Farsight001]

You got a source for this? (This should be very interesting, because I am quite sure that thistle is correct). I’d really like to know who’s was revoked, when, and why?

Not my job to prove a negative as proving a negative is impossible. It’s your job to provide the documentation in support.

 

[The_Scott]

Not my job to prove a negative as proving a negative is impossible. It’s your job to provide the documentation in support.

Good sir/ma’am, you are the one who made the claim first.
And the one example you gave was discredited.

 

[ClayPots47]

Not my job to prove a negative as proving a negative is impossible. It’s your job to provide the documentation in support.

Cop-out! You claimed:

Originally Posted by Farsight001
Canonizations are not infallible. In fact, half a dozen or so were revoked just a couple years ago.

List the names of those revoked. That proves your point, yes? If it happened, as you claimed, you should be able to do it. Has nothing to do with “proving a negative”, and everything to do with providing your source for your claim. It is just as much your job to provide documentation as it is thistle’s, you get no pass. And it’s not “My job” as I didn’t make the claim for which you asked for a source, thistle did. And while I have no doubt that thistle would have no trouble doing so, I provide one anyway,

May the Church ever “uncanonize” a saint? Once completed, the act of canonization is ** irrevocable**.

Source at This Rock Magazine Courtesy of EWTN.

Will be interesting to see if you can provide the list of a half-dozen or so of revoked canonizations you claim exists.

 

[Farsight001]

Good sir/ma’am, you are the one who made the claim first.
And the one example you gave was discredited.

You can’t have been reading this thread. I made the statement in response to someone else’s claim and I never gave a specific example.

Either way, the onus of evidence falls on the one making the positive claim. That is not me.

I also must say I am not fond of your belittling tone. I merely made a statement I believed to be true, even admitting that I could be wrong, despite being fairly certain I wasn’t. There is no justification whatsoever for the mocking tone or the hostility directed at me by other users in this thread.

 

[Faith1960]

1. Canonizations cannot be revoked. And the modern process used currently is very thorough in examining every possible negativity that could indicate a person is not a saint. Several saints who’s existence is questionable, and for whom there is a lack of established history (St Valentine and St Philomena come to mind) were removed from the Roman Calendar. Though their existence is uncertain, they are still privately venerated by the faithful, and some churches have been given permission to celebrate a public liturgy. At no time was their canonization revoked. It is a done deed that cannot be undone.
2. Drawing from the Church’s theology on mystical phenomena; it is a known fact that a person’s mystical experiences are colored by their life experiences. How they see things effects how they experience things. Therefore there is no cookie-cutter stigmata exactly alike from one individual to another. St Francis of Assisi is the first known stigmatic.

We know from various statues and pictures where the Stigmata are pictured on him. We also have writings by his contemporaries describing the phenomena. Francis prayed before the famed crucifix of San Damiano, look at where the wounds are shown on Our Lord on this icon. It is no coincidence therefore, that Francis would bear the wounds of Christ where they are shown on Christ, on the icon crucifix of San Damiano.

Now move forward to St (Padre) Pio. As a spiritual son of St Francis, he was of course also inspired and influenced by images of Francis, and that same San Damiano crucifix. Like his Savior and Seraphic Father, St Pio carries the wounds in the locations on the images of Christ and Francis.

Here is another example of how a mystic is influenced by personality, again using St Francis of Assisi. God told Francis to “Rebuild My Church”. Francis naively thought that Our Lord was talking about the crumbling Portiuncula, not the larger Catholic Church itself. He literally rebuilt the stone church with his own hands. Only much later did he actually carry out the work of rebuilding the Church with the founding of the First, Second and Third Orders; though he did not recognize that as such. Despite his not fully understanding what he was to do to rebuild the church, he nevertheless managed to do just that.

If the Shroud of Turin should be shown to be the burial cloth of Jesus Christ, there will not be any conflict with where the stigmata is shown on the Shroud, and where it appears on many stigmatics. Simply because the mystics’ experience of the stigmata is colored by their personal perception of it.

Thanks!

 

[Faith1960]

No. His Feast Day was removed from the general calender. He’s still a saint, but his feast day isn’t celebrated universally (only locally). However, he’s still a saint and forever shall be one.

Why was his feast day removed from the calendar? Is he still the patron saint of travelers?

 

[Jaguar]

To the OP. It actually looks like the nails may have entered the bottom of the wrists. The blood shown here, from the shroud, doesn’t positively show where the nail entered. The stain of blood is both on the wrist and the upper part of the hand.

Isn’t it also possible for him to have been tied to the cross at the wrists, if indeed the nails went thru his palms?

 

[Elizium23]

Why was his feast day removed from the calendar? Is he still the patron saint of travelers?

If you follow the links I provided back in post #21, you will see that the Ask An Apologist answer answers this quite thoroughly, by quoting a Church document, and there are also provided more citations to sources such as EWTN and the Catholic Encyclopedia.

 

[boomerang]

I think the Shroud of Turin may very well be the genuine burial cloth of Christ, but the Saints often have stigmata through their palms.

Thoughts?

I think the Shroud of Turin may very well be the genuine burial cloth of Christ, but the Saints often have stigmata through their palms.
Thoughts?

Faith1960: I have pondered this question also. It is a legitimate concern. I think the Shroud could very well be the burial cloth of the Lord. But if the nail holes are showing in the wrist, then the stigmatics are incorrect. That’s worrying. BUT- we don’t need to worry. This whole business of “nails in the wrist” is a recent controversy. I think it’s complete hogwash. Look closely at the pictures of the hands in the Shroud. The blood is coming out of the back of the hand, not the wrist. It’s very close to the end of the wrist, but not quite. It certainly looks to me like blood is emerging from the lower end of the back of the hand, near the wrist, but not IN the wrist. Now if the nail was driven into the palm at an angle, which is plausible, it could very well exit at the point seen on the lower back of the hand very near the wrist as seen on the shroud. The nail could have gone in at an angle because we are dealing with a living, moving, squirming victim, not an inanimate object. They probably had to hold him down while he may have been moving and straining. So they had to pound the nails in any way they could- angled, straight, whatever. This whole controversy started with the “nails through the palm can’t hold a person up without ripping through, so they must have nailed him throuth the wrist” nonsense someone dreamed up. The bible says he was nailed through the hands. Jesus showed Thomas the holes in his hands. The stigmatics have holes in their hands. The Shroud does not rule out the hands at all, if the nails were driven in at an angle.

The argument of nails ripping through the hands because of the weight of the body hanging on them is moot because crucifixion victims were given a small platform to hold them up, so their body weight wouldn’t just hang from their hands. The platform was under their feet or their rear end (a little seat). They were also sometimes (or perhaps always, who knows?) tied to the cross. Google the picture of the Alexamenos Graffito to see the earliest known portrait of a crucifixion victim. He was tied to the cross and was standing on a little platform.

Don’t have doubts about the veracity of the stigmatics. They have holes in their hands because our Lord had holes in His hands!

Look at this website. It explains in more detail just what I was trying to say: crucifixion-shroud.com/Barbet.htm
It’s all about the hand-or-wrist controversy and the Shroud. It even has very graphic and gross pictures!

 

[Jaguar]

If the Stigmatic’s had holes in their wrists, they would bleed to death.

 

[Farsight001]

If the Stigmatic’s had holes in their wrists, they would bleed to death.

No they wouldn’t. It’s quite difficult to bleed to death from a wrist puncture, especially when there’s a nail in it working (crudely) to seal blood in.

 

[Faith1960]

Now if the nail was driven into the palm at an angle, which is plausible, it could very well exit at the point seen on the lower back of the hand very near the wrist as seen on the shroud. The nail could have gone in at an angle because we are dealing with a living, moving, squirming victim, not an inanimate object. They probably had to hold him down while he may have been moving and straining. So they had to pound the nails in any way they could- angled, straight, whatever. This whole controversy started with the “nails through the palm can’t hold a person up without ripping through, so they must have nailed him throuth the wrist” nonsense someone dreamed up. The bible says he was nailed through the hands. Jesus showed Thomas the holes in his hands. The stigmatics have holes in their hands. The Shroud does not rule out the hands at all, if the nails were driven in at an angle.

Yes, IF the nails were driven in on an angle. But will we ever know? Also, was there even a specific word for wrist used back then or was the wrist called the “hand?”

 

[James224]

We have another thread going on about whether Christ was nailed through His wrists or through His palms. The thread is beginning to veer toward stigmata and how their wounds are usually in their palms, so I wanted to begin a new thread about stigmata and the Church instead of highjacking the other thread.

Are the cannonizations of Padre Pio and any other Saints a title that can be revoked should it eventually be known later on that the reasons for their Sainthood is called into question? IOW, is Sainthood bestowed upon these Saints with Papal infallibility or does it allow for a possible mistake?

I think the Shroud of Turin may very well be the genuine burial cloth of Christ, but the Saints often have stigmata through their palms. Some of these may be supernatural, then again, maybe not. Perhaps they occur for a psychological reason. I think the Shroud has undergone far more scientific study than each individual stigmatist.

Thoughts?

Padre Pio didn’t become a saint because of the stigmata. He lived a virtuous life to a heroic level and that’s why he’s a saint.

 

[Faith1960]

Padre Pio didn’t become a saint because of the stigmata. He lived a virtuous life to a heroic level and that’s why he’s a saint.

True, but wouldn’t his (or any other Saints) wounds mimic Christs?

 

[James224]

True, but wouldn’t his (or any other Saints) wounds mimic Christs?

Maybe not. If we found out that the stigmatist’s wounds were not the same as Christ’s, it wouldn’t be a scandal. These wounds always appear on first friday’s and friday was the day Christ was crucified. By the way, there are some who receive the stigmata and are not canonized saints. The one I know of off the top of my head is Theresa Newman. I’ve read her book and it has some graphic pictures of her going through the stigmata.

 

[Jaguar]

No they wouldn’t. It’s quite difficult to bleed to death from a wrist puncture, especially when there’s a nail in it working (crudely) to seal blood in.

I disagree. It would be quite possible for large nail to rupture and sever the main artery in the wrist (as one slashes his wrist), but in this case it is a thru & thru wound. Also, the weight of the body would stretch the tissue downward at the sight of the nail, preventing the nail from acting like a cork.

 

[Farsight001]

I disagree. It would be quite possible for large nail to rupture and sever the main artery in the wrist (as one slashes his wrist), but in this case it is a thru & thru wound. Also, the weight of the body would stretch the tissue downward at the sight of the nail, preventing the nail from acting like a cork.

I didn’t say it wouldn’t be able to rupture the main artery in the wrist. It’s just not a big enough hole for the average person to bleed out before it clots, even if done to both wrists. Those who attempt suicide by slashing their wrists seldom succeed for this reason.

There is a “right” way to slash wrists, but I can’t say I’m about to tell people what that is. The less people know how to kill themselves, the better. I don’t want to give even a single person any ideas for improved success in such a thing.