The issues presented here are discipline matters, and do not touch on dogma. I am a Catholic, a loyal one, and I shudder at some of these things. The way in which some expressed their faith doesn't necessarily mean all Catholics must accept these ideas or that, in retrospect, they were good ideas. I am sure future generations may see some of our spiritual practices as barbaric and ridiculous, but being present in our cultures, we can't see that. Hindsight is always 20/20 of course!

Apparitions are considered "private revelation" and one does not have to believe in them to be Catholic. Some however, are "church approved" and are considered ok to believe. I personally am not much into apparitions, but do believe in their possibility.

David

The need for self-torture to appease God does not sound like a matter of "discipline" to me -- unless you are using a double meaning here, since the instrument used in self-flagellation by certain monks and nuns was called "the discipline".

No, this is a question of doctrine -- does God need our suffering for there to be atonement?

The self-flagellation practiced by the English priest mentioned by Cardinal Newman sounds more like the priests of Baal (who cut themselves on Mt. Carmel) than like sensible Christian mortification....

But I'd appreciate other insights. Perhaps my understanding is incorrect.

Seraph,
You don't understand me. I should have been clearer. Some things in Catholic traditions are dogma, i.e. you are required to believe it. Other things are not required. They are things done by some Catholics that can be good, neutral, or even bad. Some of these practices are referred to as "discpline" which has nothing to do with discipline as in punishment, but as in church order. For instance, celibate clergy is a discipline. It could change tomorrow if the church decided. The Trinity could not.

Also, there is the matter of private opinion. The belief that God needs our physical punishment is private opinion, not the Church's. As far as I know the Church does not teach that God "needs" our physical sufferings, even if some good Catholics held the view privately. Catholics are not required to believe it. A good example would be animals in the afterlife. A Catholic can choose to believe it or not, since there have been no dogmatic statements about it, nor will there likely be. Saying God needs are physical suffering is an expansion upon the doctrine of the atonement and suffering that the Church teaches.

The things mentioned above can change, and did change with the times. Discipline and Private revelation change and will change because the former is contexttual and the latter is merely opinion. They are not like the Trinity.

I suggest that if you want to see what the Church teaches as public revelation check out the Catechism...no weird visions of one saint, no odd practices of a few folks in the middle ages, just what Catholics collectively believe.

Dear David,

Don't worry, I understand what "Church discipline" means! :D

I guess my points of concern are, (1) Doesn't this raise the question of the all-sufficiency of the Work of Christ -- "It is finished"?

But even granting some kind of co-redemption understanding of our salvation -- totally based on grace of course -- there still remains (2) the question of the weirdness of self-flagellation, torture racks in purgatory, the need for victims who suffer, etc. It sounds like that could be kind of a toxic understanding of the Lord, I am not sure, but could be unhealthy for ones mental and emotional life.

And, yes, of course, this is not considered by Catholics to be part of the "Deposit of Faith" -- but it seems to have been an understanding shared by plenty of Catholics, and I find it disturbing.

I accept the importance of fasting, and I do remember that the prophet Ezekiel was commanded to "bear the sins of your people" by lying on his side many days and eating food cooked on dung! But self-flagellation and images of Divine torture racks just smacks of unhealthiness to me. Even if the Church doesn't officially teach it, it sounds like plenty of folks thought She did.

Would love your thoughts, or those of any other takers!

Seraph,

St Hilary and I agree with much of what you are saying here.

I really do not see how, for example, St. Francis' putting sand in his food so as not to enjoy it too much or jumping into a rose bush when he would lust impugned the work of Calvary. There are things we do that help us to keep our physical desires in check and in submission. However not everything is healthy and I do not justify it. The Catholic Church has spoken against flagellation, to include Pope Benedict, so I am amiss to see why this is a point.

What would be healthy about what you mention that Elijah did either? Also, is fasting 40 days really healthy? (Moses, Elijah and Jesus) Who sets the bar? I know many folks who think this is extreme. However our Lord did it.

Also, concerning Elijah cooking food on dung, in Arab culture, some of the bedouins will use camel dung, which with its methane gases is flammable, to cook and keep warm in the desert. Therefore this is not unusual but beating yourself till you bleed internally and/or externally is.

I do not know of anyone who believes this but of course I am not in Paradise being purged so as to confirm or deny any torture racks. By the way, Purgatory is a process, not a place.

However, since this is weird and you do sound level headed, come on over to the Catholic Church and light the candle of clarity. Please do not let this keep you out.

"Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church," Colossians 1:24 NAB.

Paul obviously thought that his suffering had some sort of salvific relevance. I see mortification in that light. Our sufferings (even those self imposed) united to those of Christ dispense graces on the world. And that there are temporal punishments for our actions and God allows people to pay for others. I would say that that is basic Catholic teaching right there.

However At the same time the human being and the human body has dignity that certian forms of "penance" can infringe to highly upon.

That is the struggle between those two points. One must find a medium.

Really, can you source this? I'm interested to read it. I looked into it and I know that The Flagellants were condemed but I thought it was their heretical doctrines not the practice itself.

The Catholic Church does not believe that anything is lacking from Christ's One Sacrifice, made once for all on Calvary. She DOES, however, believe that our small sacrifices and disciplines have real worth in God's eyes when we make them for the sake of the One who made that One Sacrifice. Outside of Christ and His Cross, nothing has any real worth, but for Christians, everything they do can be redemptive. That isn't a difficult concept. There is one proviso, though: One must offer one's sacrifices and disciplines without ego, for the salvation or help of others, and for the glory of God alone.

Today is the feast of St. Peter Damian (died 1072). The Catholic Encyclopedia states he wrote a special treatise in praise of self-flagellation; though blamed by some contemporaries for excess of zeal, his example and the high esteem in which he was held did much to popularize the voluntary use of the scourge or "discipline" as a means of mortification and penance. Thenceforth it is met with in most medieval religious orders and associations. The practice was, of course, capable of abuse, and so arose in the thirteenth century the fanatical sect of the Flagellants, though in the same period we meet with the private use of the "discipline" by such saintly persons as King Louis IX and Elizabeth of Thuringia.

Based on this, there is a use for flagellation in the Church but certainly not the misuse or abuse. The Flagellants were condemned for their heresy and their abuse of self-flagellation.

Well in one sense yes and in another no. I also think that there are things that are said in scriptures or even that Christ said that should be stated more clearly. Ultimately I think that my pride blinds me and I must be wrong. They are as clear as they should be. Either they are clear or they weren’t mean to be. But that is a side point. Paul did say that we make up for what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ. While it was the perfect sacrifice and nothing more than it is needed for our salvation, if we unite ourselves to it we do in a sense bring Graces into the world that would not otherwise be there. And thus, by being the means through, which the Graces, already won by Christ, enter the world, we do make up for, what is lacking in His.

Question; My "sainted" parents reminded us, their children on numerous occassions to "offer up" our perceived suffering of the moment, on behalf of.... Do any of you longer term Catholics or shorter term remember this saying? What does/did that mean to you?