C
cjforJesus
Guest
Some saints and blesseds have also suffered the passion in ecstasy and though st Bridget says the nail pierced the hand where the bones were firmest,others like ven Mary of Agreda say the palm.
- Status
C
cjforJesus
Guest
Authentic stigmata is consistent with the gospel accounts and the words of Jesus Christ.His hands were pierced.
J
JReducation
Guest
There are many stories and paintings of it. The only one that St. Bonaventure allowed as the official version was the testimony given by Br. Elias who was Francis’ vicar and by Br. Leo who nursed his wounds. Br. Bonaventure ruled that all other versions of Francis’ life and miracles be burned and prohibited their use in the order. Br. Bonaventure filed the testimony of these two friars in the official archives, which were then in France. Today, those are the earliest testimonies that we have.
Thomas of Celano refers to it, but is not specific enough. He uses the word “hand”. But in Italian, the hand goes from the tips of the fingers to the joints at the wrists. The only specific descriptions by eye witnesses were those of Elias and Leo.
There is not much left to the Holy Father to examine. There are a few bones, but not a complete hand or foot.
All that being said, it’s not important. The important part of this is the fact that God shows his glory and power through miracles. He communicates his mystery through that which we can’t explain with human reason.
As Pope Gregory said about Francis and Br. Bonaventure later repeated in his theology, in this particular case, Christ signed his life to affirm that he had indeed become the perfect disciple of the Master. This thought is still held by the Church to this day and expressed in many different papal statements. Pope Benedict recently called Francis “the Giant of Sanctity”. He mentions the stigmata as one of the signs. The stigmata, in any saint, is like a preaching tool. It says something about the relationship between the Master and the Disciple.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
C
cjforJesus
Guest
I think the wounds and the placement of them is significant as God is not a God of confusion. I do believe the paintings of St Francis to be accurate depictions,and St Angelico painted the stigmata exactly as St Pio displayed them.I find that extraordinary considering they lived over 500 years apart.There are many stories and paintings of it. The only one that St. Bonaventure allowed as the official version was the testimony given by Br. Elias who was Francis’ vicar and by Br. Leo who nursed his wounds. Br. Bonaventure ruled that all other versions of Francis’ life and miracles be burned and prohibited their use in the order. Br. Bonaventure filed the testimony of these two friars in the official archives, which were then in France. Today, those are the earliest testimonies that we have.
Thomas of Celano refers to it, but is not specific enough. He uses the word “hand”. But in Italian, the hand goes from the tips of the fingers to the joints at the wrists. The only specific descriptions by eye witnesses were those of Elias and Leo.
There is not much left to the Holy Father to examine. There are a few bones, but not a complete hand or foot.
All that being said, it’s not important. The important part of this is the fact that God shows his glory and power through miracles. He communicates his mystery through that which we can’t explain with human reason.
As Pope Gregory said about Francis and Br. Bonaventure later repeated in his theology, in this particular case, Christ signed his life to affirm that he had indeed become the perfect disciple of the Master. This thought is still held by the Church to this day and expressed in many different papal statements. Pope Benedict recently called Francis “the Giant of Sanctity”. He mentions the stigmata as one of the signs. The stigmata, in any saint, is like a preaching tool. It says something about the relationship between the Master and the Disciple.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
I also believe that the staue of Mary at Akita was stigmatised in the right palm.There must be a meaning to this.Yes,Akita is a fully approved apparition.
J
jimcintosh
Guest
In Catholic tradition, the stigmata is generally seen as a sign of holiness.
I doubt that the stigmata can tell us much about historical Roman crucifixion practices. Although there is a thread on this forum which quotes this page in saying that the wound in the side (when the stigmatics have a wound in the side) is always on the left-hand side. In fact, a quick Google search will show you that stigmatics have had the wound in either the right side or the left side, and the wound in the hands are sometimes in the palm and sometimes in the wrist. The key seems to be the crucifix in front of which the stigmatic is praying.
As to crucifixion protocols, condemned prisoners were crucified to all sorts of poles and stakes in all sorts of ways. It does seem, though, that the “tau” form of the cross, without the top upright piece, was most common, and medical experiments have shown that the the flesh in the palm would simply rip out if faced with the weight of the body over the days it sometimes took for the prisoner to die. It seems more likely, although we don’t know for sure, that the wrist was used.
As for the ankles,the bones of one young man who was crucified have been discovered. (Most crucifixion victims were left to rot on the cross, and so their bones weren’t buried so that they could be found – this one man seems the exception.) In his case, the nail apparently hit a knot of wood and bent which prevented its removal before burial. In his case, his feet were nailed through the ankles to the sides of the crucifix.
I doubt that the stigmata can tell us much about historical Roman crucifixion practices. Although there is a thread on this forum which quotes this page in saying that the wound in the side (when the stigmatics have a wound in the side) is always on the left-hand side. In fact, a quick Google search will show you that stigmatics have had the wound in either the right side or the left side, and the wound in the hands are sometimes in the palm and sometimes in the wrist. The key seems to be the crucifix in front of which the stigmatic is praying.
As to crucifixion protocols, condemned prisoners were crucified to all sorts of poles and stakes in all sorts of ways. It does seem, though, that the “tau” form of the cross, without the top upright piece, was most common, and medical experiments have shown that the the flesh in the palm would simply rip out if faced with the weight of the body over the days it sometimes took for the prisoner to die. It seems more likely, although we don’t know for sure, that the wrist was used.
As for the ankles,the bones of one young man who was crucified have been discovered. (Most crucifixion victims were left to rot on the cross, and so their bones weren’t buried so that they could be found – this one man seems the exception.) In his case, the nail apparently hit a knot of wood and bent which prevented its removal before burial. In his case, his feet were nailed through the ankles to the sides of the crucifix.
C
cjforJesus
Guest
I was curious,can you give a citation for the info about the particular saints stigmatised in the wrist.I never heard of this.
The most recent was St Pio and his stigmata was exactly like the depictions in St Angelicos paintings of St Francis.
J
JReducation
Guest
Brother Jim is correct. There are not enough historical details to confirm that St. Francis’ stigmata was on the palm of the hand.
The key here is not to get stuck on the stigmata. To the millions of men and women who have followed St. Francis through the last 800 years, the placement of the wounds is insignificant. The important part is what does this miracle tell us about the man and his relationship to Christ.
We’re not going to grow in holiness because Francis or Pio had a stigmata. But we do grow in holiness by learning from them how to be faithful disciples of the Master. The wounds call attention to two important facts: the glory of God and the cross as the path to holiness.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
A
aragonjohn1
Guest
The majority of the 128 stigmatics are woman.
D
Darran
Guest
Yes, a lot of private revelation also shows this. Or to be exact, one further into the palm of one hand due to a Roman error of putting the nail holes too far apart on the cross.
J
JReducation
Guest
I didn’t realize that there were that many confirmed stigmatas. Wow!
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
jimcintosh
Guest
Again, my point that the stigmata generally follows the object to which the stigmatic is meditating. This is not to diminish in any way the holiness of the person, just to point out that you cannot use the evidence of the stigmatas to try and discern historical fact. They do not appear to be related.
As for the first recorded stigmatic, St. Francis of Assisi, you have to realize that his stigmata was not seen by either St. Angelico or St. Bonaventure. It was seen by at most a dozen friars and by torchlight in the dark.
When alive, Francis spoke to no one about the stigmata nor does it appear in any of his writings, including his last Testament. The sources indicate that Francis was careful to keep his wounds hidden after the stigmata on Mount Alverna so that even his closest companion didn’t see them.
At his death, the sources say that Francis asked to be stripped naked so that he could die naked like Jesus. (This, of course, may be hagiography to show that Francis was “naked, following the naked Christ.”) In any case, the dozen or so friars who were present at Francis’s death would have stripped him to washed the body in preparation for burial.
The sources indicate that the friars carried the body up from the Portziuncula to San Damiano to show the body to St. Clare. The sources say that they showed the stigmata to Clare, but, if they did, she didn’t think to record anything about it in her letters. After San Damiano, the body was immediately buried in the church of St. George. When the body was moved in 1230 to the new basilica, the move was carried out quickly and in secret to prevent the body from being stolen. There are no records about the body being examined. When the body was rediscovered in 1818, there were only bones remaining.
The only contemporary source we have for Francis’s stigmata is a letter sent to the whole order by the general minister, Br. Elias, who was present at Francis’s death, and his letter is not very descriptive. The part about the stigmata says in its entirety:
Now that I have told you these things, I announce to you a great joy and a new miracle. It is a sign which has been unheard of from the very beginning of time except in the Son of God, Christ the Lord. Not long before his death, our brother and our father was seen to resemble the crucified Lord, bearing in his body the five wounds which are the marks of Christ.
That’s it. Nothing about the appearance of the wounds nor their placement.
You cannot really use Bonaventure’s life as historical evidence. Bonaventure was five years old the year Francis died. He wrote his major life 40 years after the death of Francis and used primarily the lives of Thomas of Celano as sources. Yes, some of the friars present may have still be living some 40 years later, but how much were their memories influenced by time?
The best sources are the contemporary ones, and they, sadly, do not tell us much.
J
JReducation
Guest
In one of his sermons, Bonaventure makes a quick reference to the eye witnesses whom he used as his sources. He says that he was anxious to get to them, because time was passing. These friars were getting older and they were dying off too. It is from them that he got the description of the wounds. But the language of the early Italians is not as specific as our own. The word hand meant any part from the wrist to the fingers.
Bonaventure and the Franciscans are not really interested in the “physiological details.” They are interested in its theological meaning. Wen we get bogged down with the silly question about the wrist vs the palm of the hand, we miss the most important part of what Bonaventure is telling us.
A better source on the stigmata and it’s place in tradition, is not Bonaventure’s biography of St. Francis. A better resource are the sermons that he wrote on St. Francis. He spent 12 years doing nothing but preaching about Francis. He actually dropped his diocese and his episcopal ministry to focus on the man whom he afffectionately called, “Our Blessed Father.” For about 12 years, he was obsessed with Francis. The only sermons left and writing left form that period of his life are all about Francis. In those sermons he speaks a great deal on the meaning of the stigmata for all Catholics.
It was Bonaventure who pushed the Holy See to recognize Francis stigmata as part of Divine Revelation and to include it in the Church’s liturgical calendar. It’s the only stigmata that has that label and that is a feast day in the Church’s calendar. Bonaventure used his influence as a cardinal to get the pope to acknowledge the stigmata as something more than “worthy of belief.” That’s how it becomes part of the belief of the Catholic Church.
Many people don’t know this difference between Francis’ stigmata and that of all others. If we apply the law that the Church believes as she prays and prays as she believes, then the stigmata is part of the life of faith of the Church, because it’s on her liturgical calendar and has its own liturgy, which is celebrate Sept 17.
If we listen to the words of that liturgy, the focus is on the meaning of the stigmata, not on the actual physical details. Any Franciscan will tell you that to us, those details have very little relevance, because they contribute nothing to our spiritual life. Whereas, the the meaning of the stigmata is of great significance to the life of the Christian.
We really have to shift our attention to that which is important. Bonaventure’s sermons offer the best example of what’s really important about the stigmata.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
- Status