Are there any non-Catholic cases of the Stigmata?

[MrPolo]

This is not a thread to supposedly "debunk" Catholic cases of the Stigmata (although we all know it will lead to that)

But, does anyone know of any non-Catholic cases of the Stigmata? I would love to read about it!!

 

[Albion]

This is not a thread to supposedly "debunk" Catholic cases of the Stigmata (although we all know it will lead to that)

But, does anyone know of any non-Catholic cases of the Stigmata? I would love to read about it!!

According to the Wikipedia article on "Stigmata," the answer is "yes." Unfortunately, however, I wasn't able with this computer to run down the reference cited. It's an interesting article in itself, and maybe you'll have more luck following up on non-Catholics cases of this phenomenon.

 

[MrPolo]

According to the Wikipedia article on "Stigmata," the answer is "yes." Unfortunately, however, I wasn't able with this computer to run down the reference cited. It's an interesting article in itself, and maybe you'll have more luck following up on non-Catholics cases of this phenomenon.

Thanks for the link...it was an interesting read. Sadly, I think Wiki has disappointed again. It says: "...no case of stigmata is known to have occurred before the thirteenth century, when the crucified Jesus became a standard icon of Christianity in the west" and cites the Catholic Encyclopedia as its source. But the Catholic Encyclopedia cites the 5th-6th century onward as when "many images" of the cross had the crucified Christ on it.

I didn't see where in the article it talks of non-Catholic stigmatists? Maybe you meant at the end of the article describing "similar phenomena" in other traditions?

 

[Albion]

Thanks for the link...it was an interesting read. Sadly, I think Wiki has disappointed again. It says: "...no case of stigmata is known to have occurred before the thirteenth century, when the crucified Jesus became a standard icon of Christianity in the west" and cites the Catholic Encyclopedia as its source. But the Catholic Encyclopedia cites the 5th-6th century onward as when "many images" of the cross had the crucified Christ on it.

Well, that would be a phenomenon somewhat along the lines of the Stigmata, but not the Stigmata itself.

I didn't see where in the article it talks of non-Catholic stigmatists? Maybe you meant at the end of the article describing "similar phenomena" in other traditions?

No, it's further up in the body of the article.

"In modern times, increasing numbers of ordinary people as opposed to the usual mystics or members of religious orders, have began to report stigmata. Cases have also been reported among non-Catholic Christians." [4].

 

[MrPolo]

Cases have also been reported among non-Catholic Christians." [4].

Oh, I missed that. But I can't read more about it either...the footnote is a broken link.

 

[simonthezealot]

You'll never see stigmata on a bible CHRISTian afterall there is NO scriptural support for it, its a device used by the adversary to bolster teachers and believers of unscriptural doctrines.

 

[MrPolo]

there is NO scriptural support for it

Good day Simon! While this thread is not to debunk stigmatists, (and while demanding explicit Scriptural support is a false criteria

) such a physical manifestation would certainly fit with the likes of:

1 Peter 4:13 But rejoice inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings that when his glory shall be revealed ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.​

Genuine Stigmata is not from the evil one, but a distinct manner of participating in Christ's sufferings.

 

[simonthezealot]

Good day Simon! While this thread is not to debunk stigmatists, (and while demanding explicit Scriptural support is a false criteria

) such a physical manifestation would certainly fit with the likes of:

1 Peter 4:13 But rejoice inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings that when his glory shall be revealed ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.
​

Genuine Stigmata is not from the evil one, but a distinct manner of participating in Christ's sufferings.

Do stigmatas in any way confirm your faith in the "church at Rome"?

I completely disagree with you, it is truly the work of satan, the one whom can disguise himself as an angle of light.

BTW is that how you understand that piece of scripture from Peter?

 

[Yarddog]

Do stigmatas in any way confirm your faith in the "church at Rome"?

I completely disagree with you, it is truly the work of satan, the one whom can disguise himself as an angle of light.

BTW is that how you understand that piece of scripture from Peter?

Hello Simon,
Though many of the people that claim to have a stigmata may have been faking the phenomenon, the Catholic Church does not except them without first going through extensive examination to rule out fakes.

If you choose to disbelieve their origin being Godly, I'd at least advise you not to attribute them to Satan unless you have some absolute knowledge.

Jesus warned us against saying something Godly was from Satan.

When we look at someone, such as Saint Francis of Assisi, and examine his life work in fellowship with Christ, I'd never say anything that he experienced was from Satan.

God Bless,
yarddog

 

[simonthezealot]

I've no doubt that stigmatas are not of the Lord and that they are used to bolster bad doctrine...

 

[Yarddog]

I've no doubt that stigmatas are not of the Lord and that they are used to bolster bad doctrine...

Whether you are right or wrong, would you risk blaspheme if a small portion are spiritually true.

Yarddog

 

[sunlover1]

Do stigmatas in any way confirm your faith in the "church at Rome"?

Stigmatas like any sort of miraculous 'sign' can indeed come from the devil.
I've read of many strange things happening in the physical realm that
were obviously done in the spiritual, and by and to people who werent
even Christians.

Here are some examples of muslim miracles:
Indonesian Mosques Stand through Earthquake and Tsunami

Including their own "stigmata"

Jesus told Thomas,
"Because you have seen me, you have believed:
blessed are those who have not seen, and yet have believed."
John 20:29

I dont care if it's catholics, muslims, protestants or aliens who
manifest stigmata, something in my heart says no, and that's
all I have to go by. Look at some of these protestants on stage
"healing the sick" by blowing on them etc. Hmmmmmmm.
Seems like showtime if you ask me.

Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin.
His blood WAS shed for us. What good would our blood do?
Should we whip each other so we can 'suffer' with Christ?
Maybe God could manifest our backs torn to bits as well,,,
how is that glorifying? I just cant wrap my mind around it.
We are supposed to be out there holding forth the Word
of Life, these other things seem like parlour games, designed
to once again, put the focus on men, rather than God.
To get us off track. (tis hard to know the real from the
fake. The only way we can know is through discernment)
When I'm in doubt, I stay away.


Sacrifice and offering You did not desire,
But a body You have prepared for Me.
6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin
You had no pleasure.
7 Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come—
In the volume of the book it is written of Me—
To do Your will, O God.’”[a]

 

[simonthezealot]

Whether you are right or wrong, would you risk blaspheme if a small portion are spiritually true.

Yarddog

If a small portion were true??????hmmm a small portion of what JW's teach is true, does it make it blasphemous to oppose it to its face?

 

[simonthezealot]

Stigmatas like any sort of miraculous 'sign' can indeed come from the devil.
I've read of many strange things happening in the physical realm that
were obviously done in the spiritual, and by and to people who werent
even Christians.

Here are some examples of muslim miracles:
Indonesian Mosques Stand through Earthquake and Tsunami

Including their own "stigmata"

Jesus told Thomas,
"Because you have seen me, you have believed:
blessed are those who have not seen, and yet have believed."
John 20:29

I dont care if it's catholics, muslims, protestants or aliens who
manifest stigmata, something in my heart says no, and that's
all I have to go by. Look at some of these protestants on stage
"healing the sick" by blowing on them etc. Hmmmmmmm.
Seems like showtime if you ask me.

Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin.
His blood WAS shed for us. What good would our blood do?
Should we whip each other so we can 'suffer' with Christ?
Maybe God could manifest our backs torn to bits as well,,,
how is that glorifying? I just cant wrap my mind around it.
We are supposed to be out there holding forth the Word
of Life, these other things seem like parlour games, designed
to once again, put the focus on men, rather than God.
To get us off track. (tis hard to know the real from the
fake. The only way we can know is through discernment)
When I'm in doubt, I stay away.


Sacrifice and offering You did not desire,
But a body You have prepared for Me.
6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin
You had no pleasure.
7 Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come—
In the volume of the book it is written of Me—
To do Your will, O God.’”[a]

Good post sister...Err on the safe side always...

 

[Kristos]

My personal opinion is that such things indeed may be signs from God, or they could be deceptions or distractions from the devil, but that if one remains focused on Christ one should not make too much of them. The real miracle in such instances is found, not in the phenomena themselves, but, rather, in the repentance and changed lives that they inspire.

In other words, one should not allow such things to overshadow the attention that is due God and God alone, nor to allow such things to become more central to life than the Gospel.

 

[sunlover1]

Whether you are right or wrong, would you risk blaspheme if a small portion are spiritually true.

Yarddog

Excellent point yarddog.

That went through my mind as I just made a post too.
Men blowing on folks, they fall over, magically healed etc.
Stigmata, weeping statues....


The one thing that I do know, is that God can and does
use any of those things to touch His people.
You can go to a charlatan who only wants your money,
and still be touched by the masters hand.

imo,
sunlover

 

[Yarddog]

If a small portion were true??????hmmm a small portion of what JW's teach is true, does it make it blasphemous to oppose it to its face?

You said that stigmata were a work of satan. If 10 out of 100 are real gifts of the Spirit, then to attribute these stigmata to satan would be blaspheme.
To have doubt of their origin is not blaspheme but we should be careful what we attribute to satan.

Yarddog

 

[simonthezealot]

You said that stigmata were a work of satan. If 10 out of 100 are real gifts of the Spirit, then to attribute these stigmata to satan would be blaspheme.
To have doubt of their origin is not blaspheme but we should be careful what we attribute to satan.

Yarddog

Stop trying to box me into the label of blaspheming the Spirit, it is a serious charge. I personally as I mentioned have little doubt of their origin, just because you disagree with my view does NOT entitle you to judge MY spirit of discernment.

 

[PujolsNonRoidHomerHitter]

What's the purpose of the stigmata? And did I see someone calling it a spiritual gift?

Go Cards!

 

[simonthezealot]

Stop trying to box me into the label of blaspheming the Spirit, it is a serious charge. I personally as I mentioned have little doubt of their origin, just because you disagree with my view does NOT entitle you to judge MY spirit of discernment.

I got to thinking about this, I truly think stigmatism is satan BLASPHEMING our Dear Lord, think about it...those marks are the sign of Christs finished work, He bears them still at the right hand of the Father like a slain Lamb.
That passion of our Lords can't be repeated, and never needs to be...
Stigmatas would seem contradictory to Hebrews I beleive the 9th or 10th chapter.