Stigmata

  • Thread starter Thread starter PJD1987
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PJD1987

Guest
I did not know where else to put this thread, but if there is a better place for it, feel free to move it.

We are all familiar with St. Pio’s stigmata, that of St. Francis, Therese Neumann, and others. I have recently found out that non-Christians, namely Muslims,. receive an Islamic form of stigmata that correspond to the wounds of Ali, or Quranic verses appearing on the skin, almost tattoo-like in nature, I suppose, link (monkeywah.typepad.com/paranormalia/2009/10/islamic-stigmata.html).

This begs the question, if stigmata is of supernatural origin, why would God give signs to reinforce a false religion? The options I have come up with are as follows:
  1. All stigmata are of supernatural origin.
  2. Catholic stigmata are of supernatural origin, others are some form of psychological manifestation.
  3. Catholic stigmata are a form of psychological manifestation, others are of supernatural origin.
  4. Catholic stigmata are a mix, others are a mix.
If 1, why would God reinforce false religions (as already stated)? If 2, What is the likelihood that all Catholic stigmata are real, and all others are not (not likely)? If 3, as a Catholic I would not even deign to consider that. Or 4, if stigmata is a phenomenon that can be supernatural in origin for other faiths, it still does not make sense?

I’m not sure what to think of this. Frankly, the fact that stigmata occurs in Islam makes me feel that it is a psychological thing, and those that are Saints and have had stigmata certainly are Saints even without the Stigmata. But, at the same time, it kind of takes away from the idea that they were “blessed with the wounds of Christ”. And it also brings in the whole question of their mindset and if they were not all just hysteric in their devotion to the point that their mind started playing tricks on them, and if it could manifest itself physically, what does that mean it could do mentally as far as visions and ecstacies and hearing voices?

Just some thoughts that I’ve been pondering, my faith does not depend on any of that, so I’m not concerned about it from that perspective, but it does make one think…and I hope to hear some thoughts on the matter

God bless.

-Paul
 
The way I like to see it is Catholic stigmata is real because it’s in relation to Jesus. The other faiths with stigmatic signs not in relation to Jesus , the signs are not of God but of the adversary. Possibly to confuse. That’s my opinion 😃
 
I could not view the link right now, but has that “Islamic stigmata” been examined by doctors and the possibility of self infliction ruled out?

My first assumption to all of this would be, that Islam is trying to replicate a supernatural occurence from Catholicism either in hopes of undermining the authentic miracles by making them seem like "anyone can experience this and the occurence is not unique to Catholicism o"r simply due to lack of originality in their own religion where they have to borrow ones from ours? Those are just my initial thoughts.

I also recall when Moses performed miracles how the Pharaoh had his magicians try to come up with equally convincing “miracles” and tricks to discredit God’s power. You can clearly see the difference between miracle and magic trick there.
 
My understanding is that St. Francis is the first to report the stigmata. I can believe they were present with St. Francis, but beyond that I’m skeptical that they’re not humanly produced. Padre Pio, I don’t know, but will investigate.
 
The holy roman catholic church is the true faith founded by jesus, muslims deny jesus was god, if there are any " signs " then they wont be sent by god, why would he do that in a faith that goes against jesus and what he taught, it is likely the evil one sending those signs to deceive muslims, we should pray for their conversion
 
Couple of days ago we were talking about the way Jesus was crucified, and another girl asked the Priest about stigmata. Our parish Priest says that they’re of psychological origin. It’s hard to believe though that one can make their hands bleed by will only. There were medical doctors that examined stigmata and they said that Padre Pios’ ones were of supernatural kind. What’s everyone elses’ opinion on this? 🙂
 
Like so many other things, sigmata can be from God, or psychologically induced or fraudulent. This applies also to apparitions. See Fr. Benedict Groeschel’s book, “A Still, Small Voice”.
Sorry to say, the picture I saw of the Islamic “stigmata,” looked like a recent and healing tatoo.
 
This is a great topic. I am glad to see such an honest assessment of the situation. I think it is something that is worth looking into further. I can only speak to the stigmata of Francis so that is what I will do. Any further analysis will have to come from someone else or from your own research.

With the stigmata of Francis it is important to set the stage so you can get some idea of the context. Francis is the first recorded stigmata in the Christian west. There are some that include Paul “For I have been crucified with Christ…” ) as a stigmatic as well but more on that later. We also know that there are reports of Muslims receiving the stigmata that predate Francis. We also know that Francis went to the holy land and met with the Sultan of the time, the nephew of the famed Saladin, Malik al-Kamil. We have it from reliable sources from the Christian side and, believe it or not, the Saracen side as well. The problem is no one knows exactly what happened. We just know that it did happen.

So, and this is the part that will probably annoy the most people, what we know about the stigmata itself. The honest answer is not much. We know that Francis was on a hill called La Verna essentially on a retreat. A few brothers were with him. No one saw anything. Francis never talks about it and even more astonishing he manages to hide it from the brothers for 2 years (1224-his death in 1226) save a few brothers. There is a letter sent out by the leader of the order after Francis’ death that basically says “holy cow, new miracle. We totally didn’t see this.”

The angel (seraph) presents a particularly big problem. The original story about Francis appears to use this to make sense of the event. The actual text is so laden with symbolism and metaphor it is hard to determine what is his interpretation and what is actually “history.” All the other stories about Francis pick up on this imagery, with minor changes, throughout the corpus of Franciscan writing (at least 120 years present in the magisterial 3 volume set of Francis of Assisi: Early Documents.)

So, Francis dies. Brothers find out about it. The actual description of it changes throughout history too. I don’t have the documents with me (they are in storage) but you can go to the library and look them up. Even Celano, who writes 2 different lives of Francis can’t keep his story straight. What is interesting is that the pope at the time, Gregory IX, who knew Francis personally and well, is skeptical about the stigmata. His bull of canonization does not mention it. It does, however, quote Galatians 2 around the actual “I have been crucified with Christ… “ but never the actual statement. Stigmata is confirmed later, I think about 12 years after Francis’ death.

There’s lots of great theories scholars have thrown out there to explain the stigmata from the totally divine God did it sort of answer all the way to it’s actually a tattoo (that one is particularly wild). My own take, since inevitably someone will ask, is that it’s leprosy and I think this is a far deeper explanation than “God forced it on him.” Let me explain. If it is leprosy then that means Francis contracted it while working and serving with them- out of love of his neighbor and not expecting anything in return. The stigmata, you could say, came inside-out as opposed to outside-in. This would make sense of the use of the seraph (the angel associated with a fiery fervent love of God) and the crucifix which is the ultimate expression of love. Perhaps the original author was trying to make sense of the service-and-love-of-neighbor that eventually cost Francis his life and that’s why the painfully detailed description. He was THAT loving, and THAT much of a follower of Christ that he conformed to the life of self-sacrifice that Christ models.

Anyway, that’s a long answer but I hope it helps some. Feel free to keep the conversation going. Good luck on the journey.
 
PJD1987 said:
I did not know where else to put this thread, but if there is a better place for it, feel free to move it.

We are all familiar with St. Pio’s stigmata, that of St. Francis, Therese Neumann, and others. I have recently found out that non-Christians, namely Muslims,. receive an Islamic form of stigmata that correspond to the wounds of Ali, or Quranic verses appearing on the skin, almost tattoo-like in nature, I suppose, link (monkeywah.typepad.com/paranormalia/2009/10/islamic-stigmata.html).

This begs the question, if stigmata is of supernatural origin, why would God give signs to reinforce a false religion? The options I have come up with are as follows:
  1. All stigmata are of supernatural origin.
  2. Catholic stigmata are of supernatural origin, others are some form of psychological manifestation.
  3. Catholic stigmata are a form of psychological manifestation, others are of supernatural origin.
  4. Catholic stigmata are a mix, others are a mix.
If 1, why would God reinforce false religions (as already stated)? If 2, What is the likelihood that all Catholic stigmata are real, and all others are not (not likely)? If 3, as a Catholic I would not even deign to consider that. Or 4, if stigmata is a phenomenon that can be supernatural in origin for other faiths, it still does not make sense?

I’m not sure what to think of this. Frankly, the fact that stigmata occurs in Islam makes me feel that it is a psychological thing, and those that are Saints and have had stigmata certainly are Saints even without the Stigmata. But, at the same time, it kind of takes away from the idea that they were “blessed with the wounds of Christ”. And it also brings in the whole question of their mindset and if they were not all just hysteric in their devotion to the point that their mind started playing tricks on them, and if it could manifest itself physically, what does that mean it could do mentally as far as visions and ecstacies and hearing voices?

Just some thoughts that I’ve been pondering, my faith does not depend on any of that, so I’m not concerned about it from that perspective, but it does make one think…and I hope to hear some thoughts on the matter

God bless.

-Paul
Click to expand...
Almost all alleged stigmatas are fake. The Church recognises hardly any as being genuine.
 
pgnat1 said:
Thistle, do you know which stigmatas are approved by the Church?

Thank you 🙂
Click to expand...
It depends what you mean by “approved”. I’m not sure any are officially “approved”. I think we can assume the stigmata of St Francis is recognised as genuine by the Church because it has a feast day (The Feast of the Stigmata of St Francis), albeit there is not formal declaration that the stigmata is real.

I believe the stigmata of Padre Pio to be real but there is no official approval by the Church. Although Padre Pio was canonised the stigmata being real is not required for that.

Our Lady of Akita private revelations are deemed worthy of belief by the Church but I don’t know if that includes the stigmata as well.

I can’t think of any more that have at least some recognition.
 
thistle said:
It depends what you mean by “approved”. I’m not sure any are officially “approved”. I think we can assume the stigmata of St Francis is recognised as genuine by the Church because it has a feast day (The Feast of the Stigmata of St Francis), albeit there is not formal declaration that the stigmata is real.

I believe the stigmata of Padre Pio to be real but there is no official approval by the Church. Although Padre Pio was canonised the stigmata being real is not required for that.

Our Lady of Akita private revelations are deemed worthy of belief by the Church but I don’t know if that includes the stigmata as well.

I can’t think of any more that have at least some recognition.
Click to expand...
Thanks!
 
There actually is a bull of “approval” so to speak. Again, I don’t have my books with me (I just moved) but there must have been some contraversy about it and the pope issued a bull “authenticating” it. But, Francis is what I know. I can not speak for the others.
 
Franciscanguy said:
There actually is a bull of “approval” so to speak. Again, I don’t have my books with me (I just moved) but there must have been some contraversy about it and the pope issued a bull “authenticating” it. But, Francis is what I know. I can not speak for the others.
Click to expand...
When googling I see references to a papal bull of 1237 by Pope Gregory IX allegedly in defence of the stigmata of St Francis but I have failed to find it yet. I have looked here: papalencyclicals.net/Greg09/index.htm but its not there.
If you can come up with the actual bull and its complete text I would be interested.
 
I’m also searching for answers about this stigmata. I didn’t grow up catholic so this is a new concept, like most people i’m skeptical. Mainly skeptical because I have had strange callouses or markings in the middle of my own hands and feet for years. The exact middle of both hands and both feet. They have been there since I was 7, and i’m now 19. I’m certainly not proclaiming to be a saint or to have supernatural experiences. They are just there. Once I went to a doctor and got wart medicine but it didn’t work. I have been looking for a scientific reason for years but I just can’t find anything. So if anyone can help me find an answer to why these mysterious markings are there please let me know!
 
What do people think of Myrna Nazzour? I watched almost the whole documentary on youtube and I’m pretty convinced that she’s the real deal. I’m usually skeptical about this stuff but I can’t imagine she’s faking the whole thing.
 
J_Peterson said:
What do people think of Myrna Nazzour? I watched almost the whole documentary on youtube and I’m pretty convinced that she’s the real deal. I’m usually skeptical about this stuff but I can’t imagine she’s faking the whole thing.
Click to expand...
I am not aware of any Church approval (at least as far as the Roman Church is concerned).
 
PJD1987 said:
This begs the question, if stigmata is of supernatural origin, why would God give signs to reinforce a false religion? The options I have come up with are as follows:
  1. All stigmata are of supernatural origin.
  2. Catholic stigmata are of supernatural origin, others are some form of psychological manifestation.
  3. Catholic stigmata are a form of psychological manifestation, others are of supernatural origin.
  4. Catholic stigmata are a mix, others are a mix.
Click to expand...
Within your supernatural category will also fall diabolical supernatural.

You mention Padre Pio, I’ve been looking into his apparition that diverted the bombers, really piques my interest. Along the way I noticed that part of his life there were several within the Church who attacked him for having, per their thinking, diabolic manifestations. Eventually it was decided all was ok.

I must confess the stigmata give me the heebie jeebies. I’ll accept they can be real but I am skeptical. But in the case of a canonized saint, even if they are not addressed, they’d have to be assumed legit, to my thinking. I don’t think we’d canonize someone we thought was self inflicting to gain attention etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top