Fr. James Bruse?

I hope this is in an appropriate forum.

I just read about Fr. Bruse who, from 1991-1993 apparently had the wounds of the stigmata and statues wept when he was near them. I can’t seem to find any articles regarding what the Diocese of Arlington concluded from their investigations. All I know is that 1. Fr. Bruse is now at St. Francis de Sales in Kilmarnock, VA and 2. the St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Catholic Church website still mentions the weeping statues. I am supposed to attend Mass there this Sunday and was just curious as to the results of the investigation.

Thanks.

visionsofjesuschrist.com/weeping73.htm

I tend to lend little credence to anything that associates itself with Medjugorje. It is usually a warning sign of those obsessed with private revelation and miracle chasing. I am not saying it is not possible, it just seems like a good practice to be cautious.

I’m not writing because I know of Fr Bruse because I don’t. Just that if it is true, and these things happen, it wouldn’t be unusual for Fr Bruse to be surrounded by skeptics. Padre Pio had many skeptics about him as well. As you know, his skeptics became believers.

The Church has only ever officially declared one person having authentic stigmata and that was St Francis so don’t hold your breath for another announcement. Although I believe the wounds on Padre Pio were genuine the Church never declared that.

newadvent.org/cathen/14294b.htm

ewtn.com/padrepio/mystic/stigmata.htm

You seem to be missing the point. While some or all of the stigmatics may be genuine, the Church has only ever **officially declared **St Francis to have genuine stigmata.
Neither of these links contradicts my point.

The list
[LIST]
*]ARE genuine stigmatas.
*]The Church recognizes them on the list.
*]St Francis isn’t alone on the list
[/LIST]You seem to want to make a distinction without a difference.

Sorry but EWTN and Catholic Encyclopedia are NOT official Church documents. They are simply listing those people who it is claimed were stigmatics.
Show me an official Church document that declares all or even some of those on these lists are genuine stigmatics and I will readily stand corrected.

Those are reputable sources, making those lists reputable… until disproven. You say St Francis is the ONLY official stigmatist recognized by the Church. Where do you get THAT?

Ann Emmerick (Catherine Emmerich) is on the list of stigmatists, the list you don’t believe.

[LIST]
*]JPII recognized her and her stigmata in a homily.
[/LIST]vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/saints/ns_lit_doc_20041003_emmerick_en.html

[LIST]
*]I met Fr Alesio, who was personal assistant to Padre Pio. I met him while I was visiting San Giovanni Rotundo. Padre Pio’s wounds were real.
[/LIST]

You still don’t get it.
I believe Padre Pio had the stigmata. I believe his wounds were the real deal. What I’m saying is the Church NEVER officially declared his stigmata to be authentic. Even if the Pope or other individuals in the Church think they are genuine that is opinion and not a Church declaration. Showing reputable lists (or even a homily by the Pope) is NOT an official Church document or declaration.

Excuse me but I will take the popes opinion any day.

Again you are missing the point. I am not saying that those on the lists are not authentic stigmatists. I certainly believe that many, if not all, of them are genuine. However, you have to differentiate between someone’s opinion and what the official Church position is.

As I said the Pope’s opinion is just that. It is not an official Church position.
For example, Pope Gregory the Great voiced his opinion that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. However, that is not in Scripture and is NOT the official position of the Church.

As for Saint Francis his stigmata was the first and only one officially recocgnised by the Church.
The (Roman) Catholic Church officially celebrates The Feast of the Stigmata of Saint Francis on September 17.

One of the main reasons that the Church has not been in a hurry to officially recognise stigmatas is because it is one of the easiest things to fake.

To sum up. Don’t get your knickers in a twist. I am not disputing the authenticity of those mentioned, I am simply stating the Church has not officially declared them to be genuine.

does a genuine stigmata ≠ authentic stigmata unless there is a feast day for the saint’s stigmata? Where do you find that definition?

Fr Saunders gives a list of symptoms to look for to weed out fakes from the genuine.
[/FONT]http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0108.html
The Church doesn’t keep referencing these saints stigmatas if their stigmata is not genuine.

You don’t even read carefully what I say. I did not say a stigmata is only genuine/authentic unless there is a feast day. Please think before you speak. I said that was the OFFICIAL Church recognition of the stigmata of St Francis. Official recognition can be done in other ways. What I said was that the Church has not OFFICIALLY declared any other stigmata to be genuine/authentic. That does not mean the Church thinks they are not. Can’t you understand the difference?

Please show me OFFICIAL Church documents that declare the other stigmatas to be genuine/authentic. If you can’t then further discussion is fruitless.

2 popes JPII, BXVI, re: Padre Pio. JPII also associates Pio’s stigmata with Francis.

[/FONT]http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/homilies/1999/documents/hf_jp-ii_hom_02051999_padre-pio_en.html

[/FONT]http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1999/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_03051999_padre-pio_en.html

[/FONT]http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/angelus/2005/documents/hf_ben-xvi_ang_20050918_en.html

As I said, you have still NOT produced any Church documents which officially declare those on the lists to have genuine stigmatas. You seem to be scratching around digging up homilies and opinions, neither of which are official Church declarations.
Remember, I have not denied that those on the list are genuine and nor have I denied that more than one Pope have expressed opinions (some through homilies) in their favour. However, none of that is an OFFICIAL Church position.

Why are you two going at it like this? You are arguing over a nit. You’re probably both right. I don’t think the Catholic Church would put out an official position on Father Bruse, whether he had the stigamat or not. what would be the point of calling attention to it in either situation? That would only serve to create a personal cult when our attention should be on Jesus. That said, after they die, several saints have been described as having the stigmata, including St. Catherine of Siena, St. Francis Pio, Blessed Catherine Anne Emmerich.

I fully agree with what you are saying.
However, I am stating that the stigmata of St Francis is the only one ever OFFICIALLY declared to be authentic by the Church and Stev b is saying I am wrong. He has so far failed to come up with official Church douments to support his view.
I’m trying to get him to see there is a difference between Popes, bishops or whoever believing that the other stigmatas are authentic and the Church officially declaring them to be. He seems to think lists in Catholic Encyclopedia and EWTN, and opinions and homilies of Popes constitute an official Church declaration which of course they are not.

Why is any of that important?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.