Padre Pio

Effects

I'm thinking of heading to see Padre Pio's glove later on this evening.
Am I wasting my time with a fraud, or what?

Some of the stories debunking his stigmata seem a bit far fetched and hard to believe.

But isn't it a general consensus that Jesus would have been nailed through the wrist rather than the palm?
And if that's the case then wouldn't Padre Pio's stigmata have been on his wrists?
Or does God create stigmata in people's palms as it's where most people would expect it to be?

Haven't been to see any relics since a rib and finger of some guy in St Michans a few years ago, and it was a great buzz.

homer911

"some guy", "a great buzz"

Hmmm..

Peregrinus

I think you're taking a rather biblical literalist approach to this.

A key point to grasp about stigmata is this; the Catholic church does not claim that they are, or need to be, supernatural in origin. They are seen as a sign of union with, and participation in, the sufferings of Christ. But of course they could be entirely psychosomatic, and still be a sign of mental/spiritual participation in the sufferings of Christ. Similarly, as a sign it doesn't matter if they are anatomically accurate; the fact that they resemble artistic depictions of the crucifixion rather than a likely historical reconstruction of a crucifixion doesn't diminish their value as signs in any way. (Any more than it diminishes the value of a crucfix as an image of the crucifixion.)

Literalism isn't really part of the Catholic tradition. Those who criticise Catholic beliefs or practices for being insufficiently literal are really criticising Catholics for not being biblica literalists. But, really, that's only a criticism which will find traction with people who are themselves biblical literalists, so it's preaching to the choir, so to speak.

Effects

homer911 wrote: »

"some guy", "a great buzz"

Hmmm..

I've been trying to remember his name, but can't. I'll try and find my photos of the evening.
And yeah, it was a great buzz. The queue was split in two, as there were two relics. I managed to see both.

uck51js9zml2yt

Effects wrote: »

I've been trying to remember his name, but can't. I'll try and find my photos of the evening.
And yeah, it was a great buzz. The queue was split in two, as there were two relics. I managed to see both.

So what benefit was it to you?

theological

I've never understood what benefit seeing a dead person's glove brings to anyone. Then again I am a Protestant which might explain why this element of folk Catholicism is a bit odd to me.

I guess my criticism of this sort of practice is that it seems to take the focus away from the main point of Christianity which is about the life, death and resurrection of sinners so that we can live new lives in relationship with God.

Perhaps I'm wrong. I'd love to discuss.

Edit: Am I wrong to suggest that Catholicism places more emphasis on the experiential rather than the substance. What I mean is I find often Protestantism puts more emphasis on the substance of what Scripture says to us and Catholics put more emphasis on experience and tradition. Another angle to discuss. Perhaps it explains my befuddlement at relics.

Nick Park

theological wrote: »

I've never understood what benefit seeing a dead person's glove brings to anyone. Then again I am a Protestant which might explain why this element of folk Catholicism is a bit odd to me.

I guess my criticism of this sort of practice is that it seems to take the focus away from the main point of Christianity which is about the life, death and resurrection of sinners so that we can live new lives in relationship with God.

Perhaps I'm wrong. I'd love to discuss.

Edit: Am I wrong to suggest that Catholicism places more emphasis on the experiential rather than the substance. What I mean is I find often Protestantism puts more emphasis on the substance of what Scripture says to us and Catholics put more emphasis on experience and tradition. Another angle to discuss. Perhaps it explains my befuddlement at relics.

I think it depends on the type of Protestantism. For example, the Wesleyan Quadrilateral brings together Scripture, tradition, reason, and Christian experience in theological reflection (although with an understanding that, of these four, only Scripture is foundational). Pentecostalism places a greater emphasis on the role of experience than do some other non-Catholic traditions.

Peregrinus

I think the Catholic/Orthodox tradition regarding relics doesn't come from a different take on the signficance of experience so much as a different take on the idea of incarnation. They lay perhaps a bit more emphasis on the idea God as entered not just into humanity but into the entirety of his creation, and so it is not just humanity which has been redeemed, but the whole of creation. So physical/material objects are more readily seen as imbued with transcendant spiritual signficance.

This attitude is probably seen also in the Catholic/Orthodox tradition with respect to the Eucharist, which emphasises the reality of Christ's presence in the consecrated elements, as compared to at least some Protestant traditions, which affirm the real presence but understand in in a way that lays less emphasis on the material aspect, or which assert that the consecrated elements are purely symbolic.

theological

The entire creation is God's handiwork (Psalm 19:1) so in that sense God has entered into creation. If God hadn't entered into creation nothing would exist at all (Hebrews 11:1-3, John 1:3).

So I get it in this respect, but my response is to simply both to give thanks for it and to mourn the fallen state of the world because of sin. Both hang in the balance.

The befuddlement enters in when we start thinking about why revering Padre Pio's glove is even an act of worship when it takes glory away from God. That sounds experiential to me.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something else.

Peregrinus

Sure, the whole of creation is God's handiwork but, by the same token, the whole of creation was corrupted by the Fall and is redeemed by the sacrifice of Christ.

I think probably all (or all major?) Christian traditions would affirm the truth of these statements but, like so much else, the difference between the traditions largely consists of the different emphases that they put on them, and the different ways they are reflected in their worship, practices, etc.

Frankly, I'm with you to this extent; the veneration of relics doesn't have enormous traction with me, and doesn't reallly form part of my spiritual life. Others, obviously, feel differently, and I don't see that their feeling differently "takes away from the glory of God". And I'm not sure I understand your point about the practice being "experiential"; are reading the scriptures, or hearing the scriptures proclaimed, or praying with others, or praying alone, not also experiences? Is feeling moved to respond gospel with an act of faith ("accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and saviour") not also an experience? Indeed, for many Christians, it's one of the central experiences of their lives. So - apologies if I am misreading you here - if you intend some kind of criticism by describing the veneration of relics as "experiential", I'm not sure that I understand what the criticism is.

NIMAN

The glove is a plesebo for some if they are ill, many swear it cures them.

My own aunt who had leukaemia had a mitt delivered to her but still died. Others will say it cures others, but I often think this gives little or no credit to the many highly trained medical professions and medicines that actually did the real curing.

To put store in an inanimate object is strange imho.

kneemos

theological wrote: »

I've never understood what benefit seeing a dead person's glove brings to anyone. Then again I am a Protestant which might explain why this element of folk Catholicism is a bit odd to me.

I guess my criticism of this sort of practice is that it seems to take the focus away from the main point of Christianity which is about the life, death and resurrection of sinners so that we can live new lives in relationship with God.

Perhaps I'm wrong. I'd love to discuss.

Edit: Am I wrong to suggest that Catholicism places more emphasis on the experiential rather than the substance. What I mean is I find often Protestantism puts more emphasis on the substance of what Scripture says to us and Catholics put more emphasis on experience and tradition. Another angle to discuss. Perhaps it explains my befuddlement at relics.

The whole relic thing used to be a thriving money making scam back in the day,most of them fake.

One of the few points of interest I had when I did have to attend Mass as a youngster was the amount of idolatry and symbolism involved.
No idea why people flock to these things or what they want. Doubt they know themselves.

theological

Peregrinus wrote: »

Frankly, I'm with you to this extent; the veneration of relics doesn't have enormous traction with me, and doesn't reallly form part of my spiritual life. Others, obviously, feel differently, and I don't see that their feeling differently "takes away from the glory of God". And I'm not sure I understand your point about the practice being "experiential"; are reading the scriptures, or hearing the scriptures proclaimed, or praying with others, or praying alone, not also experiences? Is feeling moved to respond gospel with an act of faith ("accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and saviour") not also an experience? Indeed, for many Christians, it's one of the central experiences of their lives. So - apologies if I am misreading you here - if you intend some kind of criticism by describing the veneration of relics as "experiential", I'm not sure that I understand what the criticism is.

Yes and no. For example. If one feels Y because of the objectively revealed substance X. Then the feeling is in response to the objective truth. Responding to truth is an experience but it is grounded in objective truth revealed by God. It is a response to the truth. Y is simply something that follows from X.

The reason why I think that Padre Pio's glove takes glory away from God and His objective work in Christ is that the focus is on Padre Pio and not on God. Perhaps someone can convince me otherwise but that's why I think this practice is unhealthy.

Provided that experience is secondary to objective truth I have no problem with it. If experience reinforces truth even better. I don't see how the glove searching does that.

Again perhaps I'm missing something here. I'm willing to be challenged.

Peregrinus

Let’s take it back to basics for a moment.

We can agree, I’m sure, that the summit of all revelation is Jesus Christ himself, in whom God is revealed in a human person - who is, of course, a material as well as a spiritual being. So the ultimate revelation is both spiritual and material, And, at the other end of the scale, the Christian tradition has always seen the whole of creation, including its material part, as a revelation of God, the creator. (“The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.”)

It seems to me that these things argue strongly against any reluctance or caution about accepting revelation in material objects, or any temptation to discount this. I think any notion that a focus on the material is or tends to be a distraction from the divine would be fundamentally flawed. I’m tempted to ascribe it to the influence of a kind of Manichean dualism in which material, earthy, substantial realities are somehow seen as lesser than, or even opposed to, spiritual, abstract, realities. (Not that I am accusing you of holding this notion, theological. But it’s the kind of thinking that sometimes colours consideration of this topic.)

Right. We no longer encounter Jesus the man - at least, not in the way that a first-century Palestinian could encounter him. But the Christian tradition insists that Jesus is very much present in the (material) world today, in a variety of ways. For example, He is present in the proclamation of the scriptures. He is present in the assembly of believers. (“Where two or three meet in my name, I am there among them” is not a metaphor, as far as Christians are concerned.) He is present in the Eucharist. Christians themselves are called to make real the presence of Christ. (“Christ has no body but yours, no hands, no feet on earth but yours, yours are the eyes with which he looks compassion on this world, yours are the feet with which he walks to do good . . .”)

Now, I’m not about to suggest that relics are divine, or that Christ is present in relics. Apart from anything else, most relics derive their status from a connection with a particular saint - an example of heroic virtue, not doubt, but not divine. But for the reasons pointed out there is no reason to be wary of seeing material objects as capable of signifying, embodying or realising transcendant truths in a material way. The glove of Padre Pio may seem a strange, even slightly repellent, object, but is it fundamentally different from the hem of the robe of Jesus? And we have unquestionable scriptural warrant for the significance of the latter. The glove calls to our attention, and so makes us present to, the significance of Padre Pio and, in particular, of his stigmata, which in turn calls our attention to the sufferings and sacrifice of Christ. They’re not supposed to distract you from God but to call your attention to him and, in particular, to his incarnation and participation in his creation.

But do relics do that or do they become, in effect, magical items in people’s minds, objects of superstition? The truth is, of course, that they can do both - different people may engage with them differently, or the same person may, at different times. Which is why a lot of Christians view the whole practice with, um, considerable reserve. But the anti-relic view, if I can call it that, is also capable of leading people astray, by reinforcing the dualist spiritual-is-superior-to-physical thinking that I referred to earlier, which leads to seriously distorted thinking, and indifference to or denial of much of the grace of Creation.

hinault

theological wrote: »

The befuddlement enters in when we start thinking about why revering Padre Pio's glove is even an act of worship when it takes glory away from God. That sounds experiential to me.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something else.

The misunderstanding starts with your perception about there being an act of worship involved.

uck51js9zml2yt

hinault wrote: »

The misunderstanding starts with your perception about there being an act of worship involved.

Worship is defined as showing reverence or adoration. There is definitely an act of worship in going to see the gloves.

Peregrinus

Jace Future Cornet wrote: »

Worship is defined as showing reverence or adoration. There is definitely an act of worship in going to see the gloves.

Well, no; if that was the definition then anyone who addressed or referred to a pastor as "reverend" (= "one who is to be revered") would worshipping him.

Latreia is the worship due to God alone, whereas douleia is the reverence or veneration appropriate for anyone (or anything) worthy of respect or reverence. Greek is good at making these subtle distinctions; English is less good, which is why both terms are often translated as "worship", and there is no word in English for the attitude proper towards God alone. Hence the pastor being called "reverend" and the magistrate addressed as "your worship".

And if going to see someone or something is an act of worship due to God alone, then we are pretty much all constant idolators, no? This evening I shall idolise my aunt, who is in hospital and would welcome a bit of idolatry. Tomorrow night I have plans to idolise a new film.

uck51js9zml2yt

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, no; if that was the definition then anyone who addressed or referred to a pastor as "reverend" (= "one who is to be revered") would worshipping him.

Latreia is the worship due to God alone, whereas douleia is the reverence or veneration appropriate for anyone (or anything) worthy of respect or reverence. Greek is good at making these subtle distinctions; English is less good, which is why both terms are often translated as "worship", and there is no word in English for the attitude proper towards God alone. Hence the pastor being called "reverend" and the magistrate addressed as "your worship".

And if going to see someone or something is an act of worship due to God alone, then we are pretty much all constant idolators, no? This evening I shall idolise my aunt, who is in hospital and would welcome a bit of idolatry. Tomorrow night I have plans to idolise a new film.

Didn't know we were getting into the Greek. I would have got my lexicons out.

How was your aunt and the film. I hope both were worth seeing

branie2

He could really look into your soul

Peregrinus

Jace Future Cornet wrote: »

Didn't know we were getting into the Greek. I would have got my lexicons out.

How was your aunt and the film. I hope both were worth seeing

My aunt was in better health, and the film was more entertaining, than a bit of dead saint.

The Witches Cat

Effects wrote: »

I'm thinking of heading to see Padre Pio's glove later on this evening.
Am I wasting my time with a fraud, or what?

Some of the stories debunking his stigmata seem a bit far fetched and hard to believe.

But isn't it a general consensus that Jesus would have been nailed through the wrist rather than the palm?
And if that's the case then wouldn't Padre Pio's stigmata have been on his wrists?
Or does God create stigmata in people's palms as it's where most people would expect it to be?

Haven't been to see any relics since a rib and finger of some guy in St Michans a few years ago, and it was a great buzz.

Where can you see the glove? Is it in Dublin????