This can probably be a Gen Question, since it’s really a question about policy of a particular organization, but no doubt it will turn into a debate. Of course, mod’s choice to move it.
I was reading this story on CNN about Padre Pio being elevated to sainthood, and the story mentions “Pio was considered the first priest in centuries to bear the signs of the stigmata, the wounds that Christ suffered in his hands, feet and side, at crucifixion.”
Of course, it’s been pretty well established that the Romans crucified by hammering throught the wrists, and not the hands. Has the Catholic church ever addressed this apparant contradiction?
This is NOT an attack on the Catholic church or any faith; don’t take it as such. There are plenty of plausible explanations for this contradiction, like perhaps the church’s position is that the miracle has to follow the person’s conceptions of the crucifiction, correct or not, otherwise the meaning of the miracle will be lost on the recipiant.
where Cecil talks of Stigmata, and even the apparent contradiction. But there is no mention of an official Catholic policy about it, which is what I’m asking about.
Well, generally people aren’t being held still on a cross when they get stigmata. You try to drive a nail through a wrist if the target keeps moving around.
I suspect that people get stigmata (by whatever mechanism and/or hoax and/or self-infliction with heavy memory-editting and/or Genuine Miracle) based on what’s in their heads. A lot of people think “crucifixion” and they think of nails through the hands, not the wrists–so that’s what they get.
If the Romans had hung Jesus, saints would get stigmata by manifesting rope burns around their neck.
An excerpt of a vision she had from a book I have on her:
23*Then they tie his right hand to the cross beam in the neighborhood of the wrist and drive the nail through the right hand in the hole that was bored there beforehand. When they come to the left hand, they see that the hole has been bored too far outside. They tie a cord to his wrist and pull it out until it fits the position of the hole. In so doing they tear the arm out of the shoulder socket. Then this arm is also bound tight and the nail driven through the hand. Therese hears the individual hammer strokes. She jerks up her knee under the blanket as each hand is nailed in place. From the wounds and stigma fresh blood begins to flow. Her fingers are bent inwards and keep jerking back and forth in pain.
23. Author’s note: As a result of the hollowing out beneath heels and seat and the several bindings that hold him to the cross, there is considerably less weight on the hands than if the body had merely been fastened with only three nails to a smooth surface. This also does away with anatomical problems, such as that the surface of the hand must have been torn if the nails had been driven in through the middle of the hands, etc. Dr. Hynek, M.D., from Prague, was originally led by such considerations tp postulate a nailing through the wrists, but when he heard of the Konnersreuth visions, he abandoned this view and revised his position- he was a champion of Therese Neumann and an ardent follower of her progress.*
I asked about this awhile back & never got much feedback.
The evidence that JC would have been “crucified” on a post (not cross) through the wrists comes from other writings around that time, but more convincingly from (I think more than one) body that had been crucified with the nails driven through the wrists (and I can’t remember if it was the feet or ankles). I think the best article was in Biblical Archaeology and I’ll try to find it.
Regarding stigmata: my understanding is that it (the stigmatic wounds) are regarded as a sign of God’s favor. This seems to be a bit harsh…these wounds must be painful, to say the least. I read somewhere that the RC Church has recognized some 341 geniune cases of stigmata; most occurring before the year 1900. Are there any modern analyses of this phenomenon around?
Also, according to the Gospels, Christ was killed by the wound to the heart, caused by the roman soldier’s spear-does this wound also show up on the stigmatic’s body?
He had already died by the time the soldiers came to break his legs and make sure He died. They stabbed Him in the side after his death. The OP does mention a wound in the side in reference to Padre Pio.
The Catholic Church doesn’t have to “explain” stigmata, in that it doesn’t claim - and, so far as I know, never has claimed - that they are miraculous or supernatural. They might be, of course, or they might be purely psychosomatic. If they are psychosomatic, then of course they would reflect the individual sufferer’s conceptions about the crucifixion rather than the historical facts of the crucifixion.
I suspect that the “341 genuine cases” to which ralph124c refers are cases where the wounds of stigmata (or some of them; partial stigmatism also occurs) undoubtedly existed, and no physical cause has been identified. I don’t know if there’s been any case which includes a wound refecting the centurion’s spear-wound.
Yes, they can be very painful, I’m told. at least in Padre Pio’s case. COnsider it a lesson for the faithful: love hurts. But, by enduring and being faithful, we learn strength of will and reinforce our souls against evil.
To quote:
Endure. In enduring, grow strong.
~Dak’kon, Gerthzerai Zerth.
In the Gospel according to John, there is a specific reference to nail wounds in the hands. The resurrected Jesus appears to the apostles, but Thomas refuses to believe it’s really Jesus “[e]xcept I shall see in his hands the print of the nails.” (This is, of course, the original “doubting Thomas.”) Jesus then shows him the wounds in his hands.
The whole story is in John Chapter 20. Look specifically at verses 24-29.
Now I’m not saying that’s an accurate account. But that story is the source of information for believers.
Well, the Vatican doesn’t have to claim anything miraculous, yet it does. A newspaper article I read today stated that healings Padre Pio performed were officially declared miracles by the Vatican. Interestingly, his stigmata was not declared an official miracle.
UDS, do you think they specifically exclude stigmata as miracles, by policy?
Originally posted by ralph124c
Also, according to the Gospels, Christ was killed by the wound to the heart, caused by the roman soldier’s spear-does this wound also show up on the stigmatic’s body?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christ wasen’t killed by the soldiers’s spear.
This was done to make sure he was dead.
They knew he was dead by the water gushing out with the blood.
Padre Pio had the wound in the sise, along with the scourging wounds on his back.
Therese Neumann also had a wound in her side.
Another fasinating thing about Therese Neumann, it is claimed that she neither ate or drank anything for 30 plus years except the Eucharist.
Well, I don’t see how a psychosomatic explanation could ever be ruled out, so it would be hard to say in any case that they were definitely miraculous. And the Catholic church generally does try to exclude all possible scientific explanations before officially accepting anything as miraculous, so I don’t see that they could ever accept stigmata as miraculous.
Not to cast aspersions on this passage or the point you’re making, but how does the English translation of “hands” compare with the original Greek text? I’m wondering two things: (1) does the original Greek text use a word or phrase which could conceivably mean “wrist” as well as “hand”; and (2) could an English translator have imposed the tradition of “hands” on the translation, irrespective of what is actually implied by the Greek?
Has it been pretty well established that the they were hung by the wrists instead of the hands?
I have heard that a doctor performed experiments with corpses and felt that nails in the palms would not hold. But that is all I have heard. This is a little different than having good proof that this is how the Romans did things this way
Beats me. However, the site I linked earlier has eleven different translations of the passage. I checked several of them, and the ones I checked all used the word “hands.”
What exactly is the evidence that the Romans nailed the wrists? Or that they nailed the wrists exclusively?
Though the author of the Gospel of John was not an eyewitness to the execution of Jesus, I’m betting he had the opportunity to observe other crucifixions, and so would have been in a position to know how it was done.
Being an atheist, I don’t really have a dog in this fight, but I think the writings of John are pretty good evidence on this one point, at least.
Another question: do stigmatics generally recover from their wounds? I understand that Padre Pio had several periods when his hands were free of wounds, and then the wounds would re-appear. Was there a post-mortem examination of Padre Pio?
Also, I understand that there have been Protestant stigmatics…this is a bit hard to understand!