CASES OF STIGMATA - Fact or Fiction?

[Front 242]

I have a question that has been nagging me for quite some time now concerning people throughout history bearing the stigmatic wounds of Christ. I am a firm believer that the Shroud of Turin is indeed the burial cloth of Jesus Christ, and based upon that belief, I pose the following observations for discussion and feedback.

Concerning the location of the five wounds as shown on the Shroud of Turin, with regard to the placement of the nails (through the carpal bones in each wrist at what is anatomically known as "the open mesocarpal space of Destot"), why is it that so many alleged stigmatists have "wounds" located in the center of their palms? In the case of Padre Pio, why were his wounds in the center of his palms? Were they possibly self inflicted as many sceptics have expressed throughout the years? If not, then why would they be located in the palms and not through the wrists as depicted on the Shroud? An observer would think that for someone to have the wounds of Christ, they would be exactly located on their body as they were inflicted on Christ's body. Also, I remember reading a book entitled "Padre Pio - The Stigmatist" by Fr. Charles Carty (available through TAN Books) in which a medical doctor who was to perform an operation on Padre Pio (for a medical condition which I fail to remember ... it may have been a case of hernia), the doctor placed Padre Pio under local anesthetic much to the protest of Padre Pio who wanted to undergo the operation without it. Apparently while unconscious, the doctor studied Padre Pio's wounds in his hands, feet, and side. The doctor found that Padre Pio's side wound was located on the LEFT SIDE of the chest in between the ribs below the heart in the form of an inverted cross about the size of a standard crucifix as found on a typical Rosary. As is depicted on the Shroud of Turin, the side wound of Christ is shown on the RIGHT SIDE of His chest from where the lance pierced His side. Why would Padre Pio's wound be in the form of an inverted cross and located on the left side of his chest according to the doctor's observation?

In trying to analyze this myself and determine possible scenarios and conclusions, it would seem that if Padre Pio were right handed, it would be plausible for him to either scratch with a sharp instument or heat up a small metal crucifix (perhaps on the end a Rosary) either over an open flame or dipped in some form of caustic solution with his right hand and then place it there on his left side to create a wound (as in the case of branding). The wound then could be continually reopened or reinflicted as needed with an easily obtainable source (i.e. the metal crucifix heated over an open flame such as a candle). Why then would he have this wound on his left side in the shape of an inverted cross? One of the ideas that has crossed my mind is that it would almost serve as a constant reminder to him of the cross on which Christ was crucified whereby that in looking down upon it daily from his vantage point (by nodding his head downward), it would appear as a normal depiction of an upright Roman crucifix, but to others (who were not meant to see it) it would appear inverted from the standpoint if you viewed Padre Pio chest while directly in front of him. A puzzling question indeed and as I mentioned at the beginning of this post, one that has bothered me for some time. Please do not feel that I am trying to tarnish Padre Pio's image in any way, it is just that I am trying to discern some type of plausible explination about the cause for his stigmata. Granted, this very much may be a case of Divine Intervention in which God chose Padre Pio in which to call the faithful to ponder the wounds of Christ and His Passion, but I don't understand why He would allow the wounds to be inaccurately depicted on someone with regard to comparing them to the wounds shown on the Shroud of Turin. That is to say that I am using the Shroud of Turin as a touchstone for all other possible cases of stigmatic wounds. On a side note here, I firmly believe that the wounds of St. Francis of Assisi were indeed genuine based upon, to my knowledge (in which I may be inaccurate here), no one up until the time of St. Francis had been blessed with the Stigmata other than Jesus Christ Himself. Please correct me if I am indeed wrong.

Also, what is one to make of the so-called stigmatic priest from Croatia by the name of Fr. Zlatko Sudac (pronounced "sue-dots")? It has been alleged in some circles (mainly those in favor of the apparitions in Medjugorje), that Fr. Sudac bears all five wounds of Christ in addition to a small blood-red crucifix "wound" located just above the middle of his eyebrows in the center of his forehead. Needless to say, this wound has never been heard of or seen in cases of alleged stigmata. In the few pictures that I have seen of Fr. Sudac's forehead wound, I have noticed that the length of the vertical line of the crucifix has in some depictions (most notably at the very bottom of the vertical portion of the crucifix located just about a quarter of an inch above his eyebrows), varied ever so slightly in that sometimes it is longer and at other times it is shorter. I have never heard of a wound that could modify itself in length or form unless it either were self-inflicted or manipulated into not healing correctly. With regard to Fr. Sudac's alleged hand wounds, it is said that his wounds are located in the wrist area. However, in all pictures that I have seen of him, no indication of any wound or mark is located on the wrist or hand area. Once again, is this a possible deception, and if so, what are we indeed looking at with regard to Fr. Sudac's motives? Thanks for your time everyone and I look forward to your feedback. Sincerely, Front 242

[Front 242]

Sorry folks ... I did a boo-boo in the course of posting this topic (my first one in that I am new to the Free Republic forum website) by hitting the "Submit" button three times in succession at the end of my post due to my thinking that my Internet Provider was on the blink. I sincerely apologize and I hope that the site administrator will have rectified the problem by removing the extra posts. Please use this current post with the most recent timestamp as the one in which to reply to. Thanks for your time and once again I sincerely apologize. Front 242

[Hermann the Cherusker]

St. Paul is thought to have said he had the sitgmata.

[drstevej]

***St. Paul is thought to have said he had the sitgmata.***

Source?

[sockmonkey]

** Source **

Galations 6:17

[drstevej]

Gal. 6:17 - From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.

Paul tells us he was repeatedly beaten [2 Corinthians 11:24, Acts 16:21]. He was beaten for his preaching of Jesus. He was beaten as was Jesus. Isn't this a sufficient explanation of "the marks of the Lord Jesus."

Is this not a more reasonable explanation of the verse than imagining the marks were stigmata?

Any other source?

[k omalley]

I am reading the life of St. Gemma Galgani(1878-1903). She had the stigmata on the palms of her hands, her side, and on her head, supposedly from the crown of thorns. According to those who examined her there were wounds present every Thursday evening till Friday evening. They would bleed so profusely as to soak the sheets. By Saturday morning there would be absolutely no wounds present, just a tiny healed mark. I find the whole subject fascinating and puzzling. I alternate between belief and skepticism.
I would love to hear what some of our knowledgeable members of the forum have to say about the subject.

[SoothingDave]

Isn't this a sufficient explanation of "the marks of the Lord Jesus."

No.

Is this not a more reasonable explanation of the verse than imagining the marks were stigmata?

No. Why would Paul refer to random lumps and bruises as "the marks of the Lord Jesus"? How would such traumas be "marks" of the Lord?

SD

[SoothingDave]

why is it that so many alleged stigmatists have "wounds" located in the center of their palms?

Because the stigmatics didn't know any better. They received the wounds they would recognize as authentic, based upon Crucifixes and other works of art.

SD

[Hermann the Cherusker]

"From henceforth let no man be troublesome to me: for I bear the marks of the Lord Jesus in my body." (Galatians 6.17)

[drstevej]

***Why would Paul refer to random lumps and bruises as "the marks of the Lord Jesus"? How would such traumas be "marks" of the Lord?***

Random lumps and bruises? What an insult to the apostle! Those cruel lashes were received for one reason only, because he preached the resurrected Christ!

When in Ecuador, I met a number of young pastors who bore on their bodies the scars of similar beatings from those who were now members of their churches.

Random lumps and bruises??? Shame on you.

Our Lord was beaten prior to His crucifixion, were those mere "random lumps and bruises"??? No they were evidence of hatred inflicted by those for whom He was to give His life.

Paul's beatings were inflicted by those who hated the message of Christ. Paul endured them because he was constrained by the love of Christ!

You insult him in order to maintain a superstition. In doing so, you also shame the Lord.

Shame on you.

[SoothingDave]

Random lumps and bruises??? Shame on you.

Spare me. I meant no disrespect. "Random" indicates that they make no pattern, like stigmata do.

Which was my point, that stigmata are "the marks of the Lord Jesus" in a significant (literally) way that random marks are not.

S

[drstevej]

***"the marks of the Lord Jesus"***

Your reasoning is circular Dave. You read your desired meaning into Paul's term and then argue from the term.

The phrase can refer as easily to the marks Jesus received in his scouraging as it can to the marks received in nailing Him to the cross.

Paul, in context, makes no statement that these marks were supernaturally manifest in his body. You assume they are.

Prove that these marks were supernatural and "non-random." Cite evidence that they were such.

Otherwise, you present pure speculation as having biblical support. Not wise.

[SoothingDave]

I believe Thomas wanted to probe these very marks in order to prove to himself that the Lord has risen. They are, in this way in Scripture, distinctive signifying marks of Jesus.

But you are right that it is impossible to know exactly what is meant just from this passage. We require a tradition in order to understand. It could mean stigmata or not.

SD

[k omalley]

Whether Hermann and Dave's interpretation of scripture is correct or not, I think that the phenomena of the stigmata goes further than just being mere superstition.
These cases have been observed and documented, fraud has been ruled out in the more recent cases of saints who had these wounds. Blood has been observed pouring out of gaping wounds which often rapidly heal. Whether these are the authentic wounds of Christ, a psychological phenomena or are caused by satan can be debated. But thre is plenty of evidence that they are authentic.

[drstevej]

***But you are right that it is impossible to know exactly what is meant just from this passage. We require a tradition in order to understand. It could mean stigmata or not.***

Thank you.

What sources of tradition lead you, as a Catholic, to believe Paul is speaking of stigmata? Just curious.

[drstevej]

I did not say all claims stigmata are superstition.

My point was that the passage cited to show Paul that was a stigmatic was without substantiation and mere superstition.

Regarding claims of others, I have not researched them historically. Certainly God is able to produce stigmata if He so chooses. Likewise, Satan can offer counterrfeit miracles.

[OLD REGGIE]

I believe Thomas wanted to probe these very marks in order to prove to himself that the Lord has risen. They are, in this way in Scripture, distinctive signifying marks of Jesus.

But you are right that it is impossible to know exactly what is meant just from this passage. We require a tradition in order to understand. It could mean stigmata or not.

Paul was accepted as an Apostle based on what? Is there any hint, any place, that he "proved" anything by showing his stigmata?

No, this is a big stretch. Are you aware of any RCC teaching which shows Paul with stigmata? It certainly is the first time I have heard of it.

[SoothingDave]

What sources of tradition lead you, as a Catholic, to believe Paul is speaking of stigmata? Just curious.

Why, there is only One Source of Tradition. ;-)

Honestly, I believe that some saints have been given sitgmata. I think it's a real thing and not fraud or the devil.

That a great saint like Paul may have been gifted is not out of the realm of possibility and this seems to support that. But I am not certain if this is so or not.

SD

[SoothingDave]

My point was that the passage cited to show Paul that was a stigmatic was without substantiation and mere superstition.

Superstition? I don't think I like that word. It may be unsubstantiated by formal Scripture, but that doesn't mean it is superstition.

SD

[dangus]

Why would Padre Pio have wounds in his palms, not in his wrists?

(I don't know how Catholic you are, so pardon me if I give some very elementary Catholic instruction.)

When Catholics pray, particularly Catholic mystics, they often focus intently on the five wounds of Christ. The stigmata are the result of profound empathy for the sufferings of Christ. If Padre Pio felt empathy for being nailed to the cross by the palms -- believing Christ was crucified in this manner -- it makes sense to me that the stigmata would appear there. Picture his befuddlement if the stigmata appeared on his wrists if he did not know that's where Christ was wounded!

Christ does often work with people where they are, rather than impose a truth they will not understand. Hence, he ASCENDED into Heaven, even though Heaven -- and this was something his disciples even knew -- isn't really "up." It was the symbolism of elevation that was significant. Likewise, he used mud and spit to heal the blind man. He didn't need to use mud and spit -- it was a little mumbo-jumbo from healers of his day -- but it made the blind man feel like he was being healed, and thus aided his faith.

[SoothingDave]

Is there any hint, any place, that he "proved" anything by showing his stigmata?

Nobody hinted that he had to "prove" anything by his stigmata, if he indeed had them. If anything, the near absence of accounts of them are evidence that he regarded them as a personal thing and not as a sign of his own holiness or fitness for leadership.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Likewise, he used mud and spit to heal the blind man. He didn't need to use mud and spit -- it was a little mumbo-jumbo from healers of his day -- but it made the blind man feel like he was being healed, and thus aided his faith.

Just from left field here, but the use of mud and spit is an example or a foreshadow of the sacramental use of common materials.

SD

[dangus]

>>Random lumps and bruises? What an insult to the apostle!>>

Umm, you're the one insisting that they were random lumps and bruises, though you feign shock and horror at sych a description.

Superstition? Please tell me how they are superstition.

1. An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.
2. 1. A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.
2. A fearful or abject state of mind resulting from such ignorance or irrationality.
3. Idolatry.

So you equate empathy for Christ with idolatry? Do you accuse stigmatists of being of a "fearful or abject state of mind." Quite the opposite. Or is it that you hold that Christ is "not logically related to a course of events"? Of course you don't, but that's what you say when you call such things superstition.
Stigmata do not magically appear. These people are so in love with Christ that they joyfully share in his suffering, and by doing so enter into an unfathomably deep sense of prayer. It is not a cruelty they are inflicted with. Most describe being able to reach an ecstatic level of prayer which is truly experiencing Heaven on Earth.

[dangus]

>> Just from left field here, but the use of mud and spit is an example or a foreshadow of the sacramental use of common materials.

Mud and spit are sacramental? I'll give you a little of your point -- that Jesus worked through ordinary, even humble, materials, foreshadowing his use of them in sacraments... but that hardly negates my point. And I highly doubt that was why this was specifically mentioned, especially since there were much stronger foreshadowing available (e.g., miracle of the loaves and fishes).

[american colleen]

I'm thinking of the recent stigmatic, Theresa Neumann who was from Germany. I think she died in the early 60s. I have a book on her somewhere around here and the pictures are incredible.

Also St. Rita of Cascia (sp?) - had the wound on her forehead from a thorn... it bled all the time but smelled like roses... a phenomena associated with all stigmatics, I believe.

[SoothingDave]

Mud and spit are sacramental?

The use of matter to convey grace is sacramental. Contrast with a "faith alone" approach or a gnostic approach whereby the created world is evil. The sacramental economy demonstrates that the created world is a tool for God to use to repair the damage froim the Fall.

And I highly doubt that was why this was specifically mentioned, especially since there were much stronger foreshadowing available (e.g., miracle of the loaves and fishes).

Every Word from God can be used to His Glory. The loaves and fishes shows miraculous superabundance, but it only served as a routine meal, not as a conveyance of grace.

SD

[drstevej]

Read my posts again. Your post is non-responsive.

[drstevej]

"Unsubstantiated" is fine with me. I substitute it for "superstitious."

[dangus]

I don't believe we disagree... let it drop

[SoothingDave]

I agree.

SD

[SoothingDave]

We are all in agreement then.

SD

[drstevej]

Kumbayah........

[Tantumergo]

"Just from left field here, but the use of mud and spit is an example or a foreshadow of the sacramental use of common materials.

Mud and spit are sacramental?"

Puhleeese chaps - I don't want to negate either of your points, but there is much to be extrapolated from the mud and spit!

John 9,4 "I must work the works of him that sent me, whilst it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.
5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.
6 When he had said these things, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and spread the clay on his eyes,
7 And said to him: Go, wash in the pool of Siloe, which is interpreted, Sent. He went therefore, and washed, and he came seeing."

The verses in question are indeed sacramental for the following reasons:

1.) In doing the work of the One who sent Him, John is identifying Jesus as working the same type of work as the Father worked, i.e. CREATING. Jesus is also creator.

How did God create man?:

Gen 2,7 "And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul."

So as God created Adam from the slime of the earth, Jesus is now "re-creating" the blind man by using the same slime of the earth that He used in creating Adam at the beginning.

Jesus being the Light of the world also evokes the Genesis creation account.

2.) The One who is SENT by the Father now sends the blind man to the waters of the SENT ONE, i.e. BAPTISM.

The blind man is WASHED in the laver of regeneration, is made a NEW CREATION and receives the light again (in semitic understanding to be seeing is to have light in your eyes, whereas blindness is caused by losing the light from your eyes.)

He is thus ENLIGHTENED by the LIGHT OF THE WORLD through the sacrament of Baptism which has truly made him a NEW CREATION by the power of the CREATOR working through the sacrament.

This is why the patristic term for Baptism was often PHOTISMOS or enlightenment.

[Between the Lines]

Paul tells us he was repeatedly beaten [2 Corinthians 11:24, Acts 16:21]. He was beaten for his preaching of Jesus. He was beaten as was Jesus. Isn't this a sufficient explanation of "the marks of the Lord Jesus."

I though at first you might be correct. In Galations 6:11-17 Paul is arguing against those who would be circumcised to " avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ." But if you look in the Greek text for this verse, you find the word used for mark is stigma. Here is the definition for stigma:

1) a mark pricked in or branded upon the body. To ancient oriental usage, slaves and soldiers bore the name or the stamp of their master or commander branded or pricked (cut) into their bodies to indicate what master or general they belonged to, and there were even some devotee's who stamped themselves in this way with the token of their gods

[k omalley]

That perfume of sanctity, the smell of roses is quite common among stigmatics and even has been known to exude from their bodies when exhumed long after their deaths. Mysterious!

[drstevej]

What in the text makes you conclude these were supernaturally produced marks?

stigma:

Luow-Nida =
scar, mark (of a slave)

Liddell-Scott =
st°gma st°zw the mark of a pointed instrument, a tattoo-mark, brand, Hdt., Ntest.

Beatings were often done with chords tipped with metal which made whelps and punctures of the skin. The greek term describes well the marks of a scouraging. And Paul proclaimed himself a slave of Jesus Christ.

There is no contextual support for miraculous scars. And Paul's own account of his beatings and claim to be a slave of Jesus Christ make the term very accurate without imagining these marks to be "stigmata" in the sense the term is used in this article.

[Tantumergo]

"The loaves and fishes shows miraculous superabundance, but it only served as a routine meal, not as a conveyance of grace."

The loaves and fishes certainly showed miraculous superabundance, but also it serves as a proleptic account of the Eucharist especially in John's gospel, where he does not recount the institution narrative.

John 6,11 And Jesus took the loaves: and when he had given thanks (EUCHARISTEIN), he distributed to them that were set down. In like manner also of the fishes, as much as they would.
12 And when they were filled, he said to his disciples: Gather up the fragments that remain, lest they be lost. (THIS IS A LITURGICAL INSTRUCTION FROM THE PRIMITIVE RUBRICS OF THE MASS)
13 They gathered up therefore, and filled twelve baskets with the fragments of the five barley loaves, which remained over and above to them that had eaten.
14 Now those men, when they had seen what a miracle Jesus had done, said: This is of a truth the prophet, that is to come into the world.

Remember that this miracle and the subsequent account of Jesus walking on the water are followed immediately by the extensive "Bread of Life" discourse, where Jesus teaches the crowd that unless they eat His flesh and drink His blood, they cannot have life within them.

[SoothingDave]

The loaves and fishes certainly showed miraculous superabundance, but also it serves as a proleptic account of the Eucharist especially in John's gospel, where he does not recount the institution narrative.

Sure. Make me look up "proleptic." ;-)

SD

[Salvation]

To read later.

[Salvation]

Welcome to FR! Don't worry about it.

Boo-boos can be fixed!

God bless!

[Between the Lines]

What in the text makes you conclude these were supernaturally produced marks?

I never said they were supernaturally produced marks nor do I believe so. I think you are possibly correct because in Galations 6:11-17 where this verse was found, Paul was arguing against those who would be circumcised to " avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ." The implication being that by marking themselves by circumcision they are avoiding the marks of persecution for their belief in Jesus. But on the other hand the definition of stigma used for the word mark, implies that the wounds may have possibly been self inflicted. I only pointed out two possibilities in this argument (yours and that of self infliction) and neither promoted the idea that Paul had stigmata.

I am sorry if I didn't make myself clear the first time.

[drstevej]

no problem.

Neither Christ's or Paul's were self inflicted, but stigma is the greek word that best describes them.

[dangus]

I don't feel negated at all... It's awe-inspiring what can be unfolded from an (apparently) simple passage.

But I still think it's going far to call mud and spit sacramental, and I still stand by my initial statement that Jesus was (yes, among other things, I concede) helping the man's faith by what he did...

I immediately thought of Genesis when considering the symbolism of the act, but I still am at a loss for saliva... except that's what folks did back then.

[Conservative til I die]

Ease up, slappy.

[A.A. Cunningham]

St. Paul originally wrote in Greek:

tou loipou kopouV moi mhdeiV parecetw, egw gar ta stigmata tou ihsou en tw swmati mou bastazw.

which St. Jerome translated into Latin:

de cetero nemo mihi molestus sit ego enim stigmata Iesu in corpore meo porto

[drstevej]

***Ease up, slappy.***

OK, OK. I guess it is self-flagellation time...

"Bad Pope, Bad Pope."
There now, it's all better.

- Pope Piel

[NYer]

I believe that some saints have been given sitgmata. I think it's a real thing and not fraud or the devil.

While not addressing specifically the case of St. Paul, from the time information on stigmata was compiled, here is the official list, compliments of catholic.org

2. There are 62 saints or blessed of both sexes of whom the best known were:

St. Francis of Assisi (1186-1226)
St. Lutgarde (1182-1246)
St. Margaret of Cortona (1247-97)
St. Gertrude (1256-1302)
St. Clare of Montefalco (1268-1308)
Bl. Angela of Foligno (d. 1309)
St. Catherine of Siena (1347-80)
St. Lidwine (1380-1433)
St. Frances of Rome (1384-1440)
St. Colette (1380-1447)
St. Rita of Cassia (1386-1456)
Bl. Osanna of Mantua (1499-1505)
St. Catherine of Genoa (1447-1510)
Bl. Baptista Varani (1458-1524)
Bl. Lucy of Narni (1476-1547)
Bl. Catherine of Racconigi (1486-1547)
St. John of God (1495-1550)
St. Catherine de' Ricci (1522-89)
St. Mary Magdalene de' Pazzi (1566-1607)
Bl. Marie de l'Incarnation (1566-1618)
Bl. Mary Anne of Jesus (1557-1620)
Bl. Carlo of Sezze (d. 1670)
Blessed Margaret Mary Alacoque (1647-90)
St. Veronica Giuliani (1600-1727)
St. Mary Frances of the Five Wounds (1715-91)
St. Pio of Pietrelcina (Padre Pio) (1887-1968)

3. There were 20 stigmatics in the nineteenth century. The most famous were:

Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824)
Elizabeth Canori Mora (1774-1825)
Anna Maria Taïgi (1769-1837)
Maria Dominica Lazzari (1815-48)
Marie de Moerl (1812-68) and Louise Lateau (1850-83)

* * *

And, then there is the modern day mystic, Maria Esperanza from Venezuela. Mrs. Maria Esperanza is considered by many, one of the greatest mystics of these times. In the midst of her household chores as a wife, mother and grandmother to nineteen grandchildren, God continues to bestow upon her extraordinary gifts and charismata: The stigmata, visions of the future or the gift of prophecy, the gift of healing, appearance or "materialization" of a Holy Host in her mouth, emission of scents of flowers and fruits, apparition of rose petals, levitation, bilocation. And maybe one of the most impressive mystical phenomena: The birth of a rose, or a rose which sprouts out spontaneously from her chest, a phenomenon which now has taken place sixteen times. Some claim to see rose petals fall from the sky around her, not just the smell of roses.

During her younger years Esperanza made the acquaintance of Padre Pio, the most famous mystic since Francis of Assisi, who had told people he expected to be visited by an extraordinary woman. “There is a young woman who is going to come from South America,” Pio said. “When I leave, she will be your consolation.” When finally they met, Maria would hear his “call” even though she was far away near Rome and she would head for his monastery at San Giovanni Rotundo on the barren east side of Italy – where despite throngs waiting to see him the aged priest called out, “Esperanza!”

On September 23, 1968, Maria had a vision of Padre Pio. “Esperanza,” he said in the vision, “I have come to say good-bye. My time has come. It is your turn.” As this was happening Geo watched with amazement as his wife’s face transfigured into that of the Italian priest. The next day they saw in the newspaper that Pio (whose funeral would be attended by more than a million) had died.

[drstevej]

How do Catholic theologians account for over a millenium of no record of stigmata and then it starts occuring? It is curious at least.

[As you well know...]

I have a copy of "A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture" by Dom Orchard, et al and the notes, "The marks of the Lord Jesus are almost certainly the marks of the ill-teatment he had already received in Galatia during his first missionary journey.

My Douai notes; "Formerly it was not unusual to stamp certain characters on the bodies of soldiers, fugitives, and of domestics, purposely to identify them"

I hadn't heard that Paul might have had the stigmata. I was learnt St. Francis was the first.