Did St.Paul have Stigmata?

Onesimus

I found this passage to be interesting:
''From now on let no one cause trouble for me, for I bear on my body the brand-marks of Jesus.'' ( Gal:6:17 )

I know it could be taken both ways perhaps. Like he could be speaking symbolically because of all the beatings he got. But then it does make you think about it the other way too ( Stigmata ).

Fanny Cradock

The plain reading would suggest that Paul, no stranger to a beating, is referring to the wounds he received from the various encounters he had with those not too keen to hear his message.

PDN

Onesimus wrote: »

But then it does make you think about it the other way too ( Stigmata ).

Er, no, it doesn't make me think of it at all.

philologos

Given the context of Paul in 2 Corinthians 12 I'd agree it would be probably the beatings.

Speculating about whether Paul had stigmata is a huge off-topic point. The general rule of thumb for me is that if the Bible gives me no reason to assume something, I shouldn't. I sometimes can dwell on the minutae of a passage when Paul's trying to tell me a significant point.

Onesimus

philologos wrote: »

Given the context of Paul in 2 Corinthians 12 I'd agree it would be probably the beatings.

Speculating about whether Paul had stigmata is a huge off-topic point. The general rule of thumb for me is that if the Bible gives me no reason to assume something, I shouldn't. I sometimes can dwell on the minutae of a passage when Paul's trying to tell me a significant point.

Oh I know, its all assumptions on both sides. for example, in the passage St.Paul does not explicitly say the marks on his body are those he received in beatings. But one is led to ''assume'' that is what he is saying from having knowledge of his beatings elsewhere in the Bible.

And being Catholic ( who accepts Stigmata ), one can be easily led to assume he had Stigmata too because he does not explicitly rule that possibility out either.

hmmm. Interesting discussion I think but I feel my thoughts are merely theoretical with no grounding in evidence whatsoever to support it. Same with any thought that he may NOT be talking about having stigmata.

georgieporgy

If he had stigmata (and talked about it and wrote it in to Scripture), some of his companions would have been aware of it and references would be found in early christian writings.

I think the protestants are right this time

Fanny Cradock

I'm not Protestant.

Onesimus

georgieporgy wrote: »

If he had stigmata (and talked about it and wrote it in to Scripture), some of his companions would have been aware of it and references would be found in early christian writings.

I think the protestants are right this time

Very good post Georgie. I think you are right there.

Peregrinus

The Greek word that Paul uses here is in fact stigma, meaning a mark, brand or tattoo.

Still, I doubt that it refers to what we now call the stigmata. To Paul’s audience it would have suggested the marks that slaves commonly bore, which were also called stigma (and of course we still have the sense “stigma” as shame, disgrace, infamy in modern English). So Paul is picking up a theme that he uses elsewhere; that to the world his association with Christ is disgraceful.

The first recorded stigmatic in the wound-of-Christ sense is Francis of Assissi. It would be odd, to put it no higher, if this phenomenon occurred in a single instance in the Apostolic church, and then disappeared for 1,200 years or so, before recurring first in Francis and then in selected others. And, if that did happen, you’d expect Francis’s contemporaries to be making the link between Francis and Paul. But, so far as I know, there isn’t a whisper of this anywhere.

JimiTime

Whats the point of Stigmata again in RC doctrine?

Peregrinus

It has no point in RC doctrine.

As in, there is no church teaching about what the "point", or meaning, of the stigmata is. Nor is there any church teaching that the phenomenon is mystical or spiritual.

JimiTime

Peregrinus wrote: »

It has no point in RC doctrine.

As in, there is no church teaching about what the "point", or meaning, of the stigmata is. Nor is there any church teaching that the phenomenon is mystical or spiritual.

So whats the official line on stigmata in terms of the RC? Or is there an official line?

Peregrinus

So far as I know there is no official line. That the phenomenon exists is an observed fact. As to what it means, as far as the church is concerned you can make of it what you will. It's never treated as "miraculous" in anyone's canonisation process. If you want to believe that it's entirely psychosomatic, or even that most or all cases are simply fraudulent, you may upset some Catholics but you won't be contravening or rejecting any church teaching.

Peregrinus

As regards the stigmata of Paul, it seems that Pope Benedict agrees with us:

“In speaking of being crucified with Christ, St Paul was not only referring to his new birth in Baptism, but to the whole of his life at the service of Christ. This connection with his apostolic life appears clearly in the final words of his defence of Christian freedom at the end of the Letter to the Galatians: "Henceforth let no man trouble me; for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus" (6: 17).

This is the first time in the history of Christianity that the words "the marks of Jesus" [stigmata] appear. In the dispute on the right way of seeing and living the Gospel, it is not, in the end, the arguments that decide our thought: it is the reality of life that decides, communion lived and suffered with Jesus, not only in ideas or words but in the depths of our existence, also involving the body, the flesh.

The bruises that the Apostle received in the long history of his passion are the witness of the presence of the Cross of Jesus in St Paul's body; they are his stigmata. Thus, one can say that it is not circumcision that saves: these stigmata are the consequence of his Baptism, the expression of his dying with Jesus, day after day, the sure sign of his being a new creature (cf. Gal 6: 15).

Moreover, by using the word "marks", Paul is referring to the ancient practice of branding the slave with his owner's mark. Thus, the servant was "marked" as the property of his owner and was under his protection. The sign of the Cross, stamped on Paul's skin through long drawn-out suffering, was his boast. It legitimized him as a true servant of Jesus, protected by the Lord's love.”

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20070617_assisi_en.html

philologos

Onesimus wrote: »

Oh I know, its all assumptions on both sides. for example, in the passage St.Paul does not explicitly say the marks on his body are those he received in beatings. But one is led to ''assume'' that is what he is saying from having knowledge of his beatings elsewhere in the Bible.

And being Catholic ( who accepts Stigmata ), one can be easily led to assume he had Stigmata too because he does not explicitly rule that possibility out either.

hmmm. Interesting discussion I think but I feel my thoughts are merely theoretical with no grounding in evidence whatsoever to support it. Same with any thought that he may NOT be talking about having stigmata.

We have better reason to conclude that the marks are probably from beatings because they are mentioned in the passage. There's just no good reason to presume that it's stigmata.

Think about it this way. Paul doesn't rule out that he had massive tattoos either, but the passage gives me no reason to believe that so I don't.

georgieporgy

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm not Protestant.

No offense intended Fanny. I meant the comment in a very light hearted way.

totus tuus

Some Stigmata were invisible, in that some had the same sufferings as the Crucifixion but without the visible signs. Not saying that it referred to St. Paul, just a heads up!

Mystical Stigmata To decide merely the facts without deciding whether or not they may be explained by supernatural causes, history tells us that many ecstatics bear on hands, feet, side, or brow the marks of the Passion of Christ with corresponding and intense sufferings. These are called visible stigmata. Others only have the sufferings, without any outward marks, and these phenomena are called invisible stigmata

http://www.catholic.org/saints/stigmata.php

Onesimus

totus tuus wrote: »

Some Stigmata were invisible, in that some had the same sufferings as the Crucifixion but without the visible signs. Not saying that it referred to St. Paul, just a heads up!


http://www.catholic.org/saints/stigmata.php

It's interesting, I'm still leaning towards Paul being a Stigmatist but in a very different way of course.

georgieporgy

Peregrinus wrote: »

So far as I know there is no official line. That the phenomenon exists is an observed fact. As to what it means, as far as the church is concerned you can make of it what you will. It's never treated as "miraculous" in anyone's canonisation process. If you want to believe that it's entirely psychosomatic, or even that most or all cases are simply fraudulent, you may upset some Catholics but you won't be contravening or rejecting any church teaching.

What you say is quite true. Nevertheless, one should not rush to discard the phenomenon as quickly as one might discard the notion of life on Mars or perhaps.... evolution from apes!

.http://www.pdtsigns.com/pioscientific.html

Critics who claim that the stigmata of
the likes of Padre Pio are not authentic, have a tough opponent to contend
with: modern science.

philologos

totus tuus wrote: »

Some Stigmata were invisible, in that some had the same sufferings as the Crucifixion but without the visible signs. Not saying that it referred to St. Paul, just a heads up!

Is there any Biblical basis for such a view?

georgieporgy

philologos wrote: »

Is there any Biblical basis for such a view?

The Gospel of John 21:25

philologos

georgieporgy wrote: »

The Gospel of John 21:25

Where's the mention of stigmata, I'm just curious?

I don't think that passage means that we can just make up whatever we like and add it to the Gospel.

Gumbi

Peregrinus wrote: »

So far as I know there is no official line. That the phenomenon exists is an observed fact. As to what it means, as far as the church is concerned you can make of it what you will. It's never treated as "miraculous" in anyone's canonisation process. If you want to believe that it's entirely psychosomatic, or even that most or all cases are simply fraudulent, you may upset some Catholics but you won't be contravening or rejecting any church teaching.

I wouldn't at all agree that it's an observed fact, at least in the sense of it being of any kind of supernatural origin.

georgieporgy

philologos wrote: »

Where's the mention of stigmata, I'm just curious?

I don't think that passage means that we can just make up whatever we like and add it to the Gospel.

Agreed. But let's look at the verse
John 21:25

New International Version (NIV)

25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.


The verse is in the bible and and deserves more attention than it gets.

Peregrinus

Gumbi wrote: »

I wouldn't at all agree that it's an observed fact, at least in the sense of it being of any kind of supernatural origin.

Yes. That the phenomenon of stigmata exists is an observed fact. The idea that it is of supernatural origin is not.

But the (very limited) references to stigmata in authoritative Catholic teaching do not suggest that it is of supernatural origin, or that whatever significance it may have depends on it being of supernatural origin. It would well have a psychological or psychosomatic basis; that wouldn't change its meaning. Broadly speaking, the stigmata is generally taken as a sign of the "communion" of the stigmatic with Christ, or of his "conformity with the crucified Jesus", or of an "intimate bond" with the death and ressurection of Jesus, or some such language. The stigmata don't have to be of supernatural origin to signify these things.

In other words, from a Catholic point of view the significance of the stigmata does not lie in how you got it, but in what it means. You can choose to believe that a particular case of stigmatism is of supernatural origin, but it really doesn't matter whether it is or not, and an excessive focus on the question is a distraction from more important things.

philologos

georgieporgy wrote: »

Agreed. But let's look at the verse
John 21:25

New International Version (NIV)

25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

The verse is in the bible and and deserves more attention than it gets.

This doesn't concern stigmata and it doesn't mean we can make a load of stuff up and attach it to the Gospel.

John is right Jesus did do much more than in his gospel, some of it is in other gospels. A lot probably isn't. This doesn't mean we have free license to assume what we like. If there's no reason to assume something then it's you who is adding it into the passage not the other way around. This id just good reading. If I did that with any other book it'd be utterly bizarre.

Peregrinus

Can I take a step back here?

In post #17, totus tuus mentioned the phenomenon of “invisible stigmata”, where people feel the pain of wound in their hands, feet, side, etc but have no visible wounds or marks.

In post #20, philologos asked if there was “any biblical basis for such a view”.

The answer, I think, is “no, but why would there be?” Unless it’s claimed that a scriptural figure experienced invisible stigmata, why would you expect any scriptural reference to, or support for, the phenomenon? Totus tuus expressly says that he is not suggesting that Paul suffered the invisible stigmata. (And rightly so - it does seem fairly clear from what Paul says that, whatever his “stigmata” were, they were visible to all.)

There’s no “biblical basis” for saying that people have suffered invisible stigmata in the same way that there is no “biblical basis” for saying that Paul was martyred in Rome, or that Augustine wrote about original sin, or that the Wesley brothers wrote lots of hymns. But none of these look to me like claims that require a “biblical basis”.

Where a claim is made for which it is reasonable to look for a biblical basis, I don’t think Jn 21:25 is all that relevant, unless the claim is specifically about Jesus. And, even then, that verse is not so much a biblical basis for the claim, as a biblical basis for an argument that we shouldn’t require a biblical basis for the claim.

Ash.J.Williams

Peregrinus wrote: »

It has no point in RC doctrine.

As in, there is no church teaching about what the "point", or meaning, of the stigmata is. Nor is there any church teaching that the phenomenon is mystical or spiritual.

or real

philologos

Peregrinus: read my post to totus tuus again. My objection was to the bolder section in that post. I asked what Biblical reasoning does he have for believing firstly in invisible stigmata but also that those with invisible stigmata suffer as much if not moreso that Jesus on the cross.

Peregrinus

philologos wrote: »

Peregrinus: read my post to totus tuus again. My objection was to the bolder section in that post. I asked what Biblical reasoning does he have for believing firstly in invisible stigmata but also that those with invisible stigmata suffer as much if not moreso that Jesus on the cross.

Ah. Right. Sorry.

I don't think that's what it means. When they say "the same sufferings" I don't think they means sufferings of equal gravity or intensity. I think the mean sufferings which correspond to the crucifixion wounds, i.e. pains in the hands, feet and side, the same as the pains you would have if there were actually wounds there.

I don't see that anyone who has the stigmata, visible or invisible, could possibly suffer to the same extent as the crucified Jesus. Sure, they could conceivably suffer wound-pains of the same intensity as Jesus' wound-pains, but where is the humiliation and degradation? Where is the squalor? Where is the grief? Where is the knowledge that you are going to be killed? Where is the taking on oneself of the sin of the world? Where is the sense of abandonment?

lmaopml

Onesimus wrote: »

I found this passage to be interesting:
''From now on let no one cause trouble for me, for I bear on my body the brand-marks of Jesus.'' ( Gal:6:17 )

I know it could be taken both ways perhaps. Like he could be speaking symbolically because of all the beatings he got. But then it does make you think about it the other way too ( Stigmata ).

St. Paul speaks extensively about the joy that one can find in their 'suffering' or being 'crucified' in the flesh - obviously he doesn't mean he is 'actually' crucified, and it can be a difficult topic to understand - but perhaps not so much for those who recognise another 'Paul' - in a different era.

Some Christians concentrate on Christ 'Risen' and some on Christ 'Crucified' - but we preach a Gospel of 'both' - it has to be both. We preach Christ 'Crucified' because we are circumcised in Baptism to death of the flesh, of the world etc.


He is speaking metaphorically (St. Paul was beheaded ) AND physically about the 'world' and 'sin' and about human hardships, about 'loss' about all the most serious loss one can suffer in life, about all the natural evil that exists and he still sees this as a 'triumph' - He is literally being Christ for others...

He lived and was an Apostle in the early Church, and after all he was a human being, he was 'hated' by some, abused by others, and he struggled with every single thing every person does...and mingled in there he explained the meaning of 'suffering' or being 'crucified in the flesh' and how it can be ( in the big scheme of things ) a thing one can extract 'joy' from because it unites us more to Christ and his walk - it can even bring us closer. Which is the mystery of the Cross.


It's a difficult teaching I think, it's hard to understand 'suffering' but St. Paul does a great job! Especially to get one thinking on it...

I suppose as far as 'Stigmata' is concerned - well it could be one of very many things -

Still, I don't think it would be beyond the power of Christ to show in a supernatural way his presence in the faithful soul? I don't think any Christian thinks that it should only manifest itself 'their' way - they are not Christ, they don't see the big picture of salvation, or how an individuals 'suffering' can be an example or indeed an inspiration when they are Christ like for the sake of others, and how this suffering can be salvific because Christ is manifest in it.

Especially in a person who has walked closely with him, and has indeed crucified the flesh in a desire to be closer to touch his hem - just like St. Francis!

I think he shows his power every day in many ways, the biggest miracles are when the cement around a heart is torn down ( and sometimes suffering takes off the blinker of the world and gives new clarity to see Christ on the Cross and know love )

He has his ways, who are we to argue? Is there a Christian alive who hasn't seen Christ manifest himself in others?