Stigmata, Why Only Among Catholic Believers?

Originally posted by Sigismundus
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Hi Warmindy

Stigmata (from the Latin word: Stigma, 'mark' or 'brand'') is a peculiar form of 'psychosomatic-religious-hysteria' - often occuring in 'highly religious' (or 'superstitious') persons with the (comparatively) rare ability to project marks on to their body which sometimes do in fact bleed their own real human blood.

But 'Christian stigmatist-hysterics' have one defining characteristic which shows their mis-placed palm-wound symptoms are actually being created out of their own hysteric mind: the wounds on their bodies do not reflect the wrist-wounds of 1st century armed-seditionists who were routinely cruficied in breach of Lex Maiestatis (the so-called 'No King but Caesar' Law)

The fact that 1st century Galilean armed-seditionsits against Rome [see the 3rd canonical Greek gospel, 'according to Luke' whoever he was) chapter 22:35ff] were generally crucified with long metal spikes through the WRISTS (and not through the palms of the hands, where the stigmatists believe the wounds existed) shows that the actual perceived effect on the flesh 'is pschyo-somatic' in other words, produced by an hysteric who is quite able to project any wounds (and as deep as) he wants to on to his/her body.

If you told any of these religious manic-hysterics (the majority have a deep emotional bond to their own particular religious beliefs) that R. Yehoshua bar Yosef (the Galilean Nazir, c. BCE 12 to 36 CE) aka (Gk.) 'Iesous' was crucified through his elbow, they would have darkened 'bleeding elbow stigmata spots rather than their more common palm imprints....

Clear as mud?

That makes perfect sense. But still, I don't understand why this is found overwhelmingly among Catholics (but not Catholics as a whole) and not in other Fundamental or Evangelical faiths within Christianity.

I watched Le Passion de Jeanne d'Arc, the French film by Carl Theodor Dreyer and what is incredible of Joan of Arc was that she accomplished something extraordinary that no other young woman since has been able to do. She led an army against the invading British force. She had visions that described what she was to do. She became a political prisoner with religious leaders using religion to accuse her of being led by the Devil.

I won't say she did or did not have visions, only that she believed she did. Certainly she had great faith.

Here's at least a little insight into the history of the Catholic Church:-



1:52 onwards.

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
Here's at least a little insight into the history of the Catholic Church:-

1:52 onwards.

edit on 28-7-2011 by ExistentialNightmare because: (no reason given)

I would agree that historically the Catholic church can be accused of all those crimes. But yet we also forget that the church was comprised of individuals who placed themselves in power. There is an old phrase "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely".

Now while there were wicked men doing these things, there were also good men doing good things. I would not think it right however to make the good, devout Catholic person accountable for atrocities committed by others. Corruption occurs in all religious and political systems. It does not have to be a large system either.

John Calvin, the founder of Reform theology in Calvinism was also guilty of burning people and torturing people. The one book that tells of the horrors of those days is Foxe's Book of Martyrs. While that may be anti-Catholic, it explains who was martyred and how.

I think we need to address what the question is, and that is why is this phenomenon happening among Catholics? The Shroud of Turin is another example of faith in something that cannot be verified and it is still the subject of debate among Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

I think the Knights Templar was making a lot of money off relics that they claimed were of Jesus and various disciples when actually they were just pieces of wood or bones of random people.

Maybe that is what the reason is, people have to have something tangible before they have faith or if it justifies their faith.

reply to post by WarminIndy

I would agree that historically the Catholic church can be accused of all those crimes. But yet we also forget that the church was comprised of individuals who placed themselves in power. There is an old phrase "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely".

Now while there were wicked men doing these things, there were also good men doing good things.

Of course; I agree but how do you think the church gained it's following? it's mass following, it's power and it's dispersal across the Globe? A few men with power sprinkled with the preaching of hellfire and other sinister dogma taken from scripture; people were scared and pressured into belief or submission.

And Emperor Constantine was fond of the religion; and thus it's inevitable spread across the globe:-

Constantine became the emperor of Rome in 306, and was the most powerful person in his part of the world. His conversion to Christianity had far reaching effects on the common practice of the religion and on all the factions of Christianity that are present today. SOURCE

I would not think it right however to make the good, devout Catholic person accountable for atrocities committed by others.

There are good and bad people in all walks of life, despite belief in God or not. But the atrocities were committed because many believed God was on their side, and many believers supported that idea too.

John Calvin, the founder of Reform theology in Calvinism was also guilty of burning people and torturing people. The one book that tells of the horrors of those days is Foxe's Book of Martyrs. While that may be anti-Catholic, it explains who was martyred and how.

Interesting, i'll have to read into that -Thanks. Calvinism seems to be a sinister reformation; taking much of scripture literally and holding that God extends grace and grants salvation only to the chosen, or elect; that can be a damaging and corrupt idea (as how would God choose?) The same applies to the selection of the Pope in Catholicism.

I think we need to address what the question is, and that is why is this phenomenon happening among Catholics? The Shroud of Turin is another example of faith in something that cannot be verified and it is still the subject of debate among Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

But there are many inconsistencies in the claims surrounding the Shroud of Turin and making a fake Shroud was no problem for a medieval artist.

I think the Knights Templar was making a lot of money off relics that they claimed were of Jesus and various disciples when actually they were just pieces of wood or bones of random people.

I think you're onto something there; another reason to be skeptical of any artifact that is claimed to be linked to Jesus.

Maybe that is what the reason is, people have to have something tangible before they have faith or if it justifies their faith.

Definetly; confirmation bias.

I can see why people in the Middle Ages could be psychologically inclined by superstition to manifest stigmata. Life was bad in those days with the Crusades and the Plague. Much of Europe was destroyed by that. And if people felt that it was Divine Judgment against them for their sins, then a few devout people would find it much more important to find signs of God's favor. And I suppose stigmata could be just that for them.

But we live today in a modern world. Our plagues are preventable. We have trouble with the concept of Divine Judgment or Divine Providence that is manifested in signs. I am sure there are a few who do believe that way, but overall, we don't talk about it as part of our collective understanding.

So what surprises me is that a few people today still exhibit the 5 Sacred Wounds. Perhaps they feel that their lives now have meaning because of it. Perhaps they are overwhelmed by previous emotional wounds. I can't really say.

But in other groups of people who face modern plagues, famines, starvation, disease, malnourishment, abuse, and all other forms of human cruelty, stigmata in religious terms still only affects those of Catholic leanings. I guess the average Muslim believer in Somalia isn't going to believe in the wounds of Christ anyway. But isn't there something their own adherents manifest that they believe is Divine in origin?

reply to post by WarminIndy


It's because the catholic church is the only one that Jesus founded and also the only true religion, suck it non believers lol

Originally posted by elpistolero1
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

It's because the catholic church is the only one that Jesus founded and also the only true religion, suck it non believers lol

LOL.

The Catholic church was not named until much later and it was a term from the Latin that means "universal".

reply to post by WarminIndy


Hi Warmindy

Actually the term CATHOLIC is from the Greek (kath'holou - lit. 'according to The Whole', i.e. universal) not the Latin...and is NOT to be confused with the Roman Catholic Church - which is only one TYPE of Catholic -
technically Protestants are 'protestant-Catholic' as opposed to 'Roman-Catholic' etc.

Words...words...words...as Shakespeare made Hamlet say !

catholics burned people at the stake by the tens of thousands, they make people buy confessions for forgiveness,they rape children...all organized religions are evil

Originally posted by blocula
catholics burned people at the stake by the tens of thousands, they make people buy confessions for forgiveness,they rape children...all organized religions are evil

What about unorganized religions?

a religion is a cult with political influence...a cult is a religion without political influence...

all in the name of domination and control,the flocks of sheeple are easily led astray....its called blind faith...i would have to see stigmata occuring right in front of me, but i suppose that it could be made to happen if someone focused enough psychic energy...i dont know.

reply to post by blocula


Even cults are organized. And I never implied a cult.

I think you may be interested in reading about the Lollards, an anti-Catholic group that had political power, and yet held no organized hierarchy in the sense that you are referring to. I think you need to move away from your present understanding of organized religion. You should not apply a narrow definition toward a broader scope of view.

There are those who use religion as a political power, but yet there are those who are political that use religion to enforce their agenda. Does that make the religion or the political ideologies individually contemptful? There are political groups that are just as dangerous. The Nazis were a political party that were not based in Catholicism at all. Some people might say "There were those Nazis who were Catholic", and yet there were Nazis who were atheist. The Nazis were contemptful and still are today. The Fascist party under Mussolini were not religious. And certainly we can say without a doubt that the Communist party was a solely political entity with no religion at all.

theres photographs of bishops and maybe even the pope himself at the time,standing with ss officers and giving the nazi salute...the foundations of all cults,religions and countries are built upon the tears and blood of the innocent people that got in the way of their cruel agendas...any thorough examination of the human condition has to take genocide into account...the 20th century,a century of supposed unequalled progress,is a century bathed in the blood of well over 250 million victims....its evil...in the past the popes were the rulers,law makers, war bringers and eliminators of all oppositions of the western world...we can thank napoleon for putting an end to that reign of fear and terror...

pope innocent the VIII issued a papal bull that added fury to the witchcraft delusion,resulting in 300 more years of the fabrication of imaginary enimies, tracking down,capturing,torture,terror and death of well over 100,000 innocent men, women and children...THIS IS UNFORGIVABLE !!!

Originally posted by blocula
pope innocent the VIII issued a papal bull that added fury to the witchcraft delusion,resulting in 300 more years of the fabrication of imaginary enimies, tracking down,capturing,torture,terror and death of well over 100,000 innocent men, women and children...THIS IS UNFORGIVABLE !!!

Nobody is debating this.

It is your assumption though that religion is the root cause of this. It is not. The root cause is greed and corruption. I grew up as a Christian. I was never taught that it is ok to murder in the name of religion. My religious teachers never taught it, in fact they taught against it.

There have been many evil men throughout history proclaiming their right to murder others in the name of religion, but those who have done it under the disguise of Christianity are not right. I will not debate that. But what you are doing is trying to place blame of evil men onto the whole of Christianity, without even knowing what Christianity is about.

If you read history then you must know that Christians were persecuted as Christians.

en.wikipedia.org...

Christians have been killed by the millions since the beginning of the religion. But no one wants to hear about that ancient history, of only 1,600 years ago. Yes, evil men do evil things. But you don't hear Christians today screaming for revenge against the descendents of Rome. Some do against the Jews but it is not accepted by any Christian standard. You must remember that Lutherans and other denominations were murdered by Adolph Hitler.

The GOD I know and love would not give human suffering as a miracle to the world as his signature.
I did grow up Roman Chatholic, I am no longer. I see these things and wonder why.
A GOD that loved humanity so much and gave his son, would offer up someone's suffering as a devine miracle.

Some of these wounds can cause death or serious illnesses. Most of these people are very devout Catholics.
Who take their dogma very serously. So I dont believe all tobe fake. And in todays modern age, Vatacin would send medical staff to make sure it is not fake or a flesh disease. After all this is done, it is deemed a maricle.By the POPE. I believe they are being decieved by the false maricle's Jesus warned of.


LOTZA LUV

reply to post by Mividau
in other words... deceived by demons?

reply to post by blocula


It could be a mind of matter thing,their faith is so strong that it manifest's through their bodies.
Or yes even demons, Catholics follow the pauline doctorine. Which is against what Jesus taught.
So they would not test the spirits to know if they are true. It contradicts the faith alone teachings.
Only the priests and higher ups are allowed the athourity to test the spirits. (Appaerntly whats good for the goose is not good for the gander LOL)


The NATZI, HITLER THING
Also if you do not believe the Hitler thing, I how ever do. They didnt say nothing or interviened in any way.
For those who claim to be Jesus's proxy on Earth and have full athourity of GOD they used it well dont you think. They have allowed so much human suffering their "miracles" dont suprise me to be anything other.

Here is a link to a bunch of photo's of hitler with the catholic church LINK HERE

Also, Cardinal Secretary of State, Eugenio Pacelli (later to become Pope Pius XII) signs the Concordat between Nazi Germany and the Vatican at a formal ceremony in Rome on 20 July 1933. The Concordat effectively legitimized Hitler and the Nazi government to the eyes of Catholicism, Christianity, and the world. LINK to Full Text of Concordat LINK

Then we need to place blame entirely on that Pope and his bishops for allowing this.

We are going to have to have to pull back the viewfinder however and stop defining all Christians under the name of Catholics. All Christians are not Catholic and many Christians do not consider them Christian at all. The Catholics do not accept other people as Catholic.

So you have all other denominations that cannot be defined as Catholic. So for the purposes of this discussion, when I say Catholic I mean the group of people who follow the Roman Catholic faith and who I call Christian are those people who do not follow the Roman Catholic faith.

Let's talk a minute about two non-Catholic Christians...Dietrich Bonhoefer and Corrie Ten Boom.

Bonhoefer was a Lutheran theologian who vocally and loudly opposed the Nazi party and the treatment of Jews. He was captured, sent to Buchenwald concentration camp and then executed by hanging.

Corrie Ten Boom was a child when she was arrested by the Nazis. Her father was a devout Christian that took Jews into the home to hide them from the Nazis. They were arrested and Corrie eventually sent to Ravensbruck concentration camp. Corrie was a child that had a young childrens Bible study.

And these are merely two examples of Christians in Nazi Germany who opposed the Nazis. So when I say that we need to put the blame on individual people, such as that Pope, then we need to hold him and his bishops and the people who followed them. Not everybody followed them. So you can't apply an umbrella term to include innocent people.

www.catholiceducation.org...

There were those who were guilty and there were those who were not. There were Catholics who died in concentration camps because they opposed Hitler. He practiced Tuetonic Norse Paganism that he incorporated into his philosophy. So now, do we blame Norse Pagans for the holocaust?