Celebrating 470 years of an ongoing miracle, the apparition of Our Lady of Guadalupe 1531

Catholic History | 12 12 2001 | Cap'n Crunch

[Cap'n Crunch]

See post 53 or 57. This is the miraculous tilma. That painting is on a poncho that was worn by Juan Diego, the man who saw Mary. The image miraculously appeared on it after Mary arranged roses in Juan Diegos poncho and presented them to the Bishop.

There have been an untold number of books about the appartion and the tilma, which is still on display in the Church in Mexico. You can go see it if you wish, millions do every year.

It is much like the Shroud of Turin in that scientistst cannot explain its manufacture let alone its existence after nearly 500 years. Nor can they explain the images in the eyes, which have been looked at by at least 16 opthamologists who have testified that looking into the eyes on the image is like looking into the eyes of a human being. There are roughly 6 or 7 people reflected in the eyes of the Virgin on the tilma.

The whole thing is very fascinating.

[wtc911]

Very kind of you CC to pretend not to see the insult in pro-life's post.

[Cap'n Crunch]

Thank you,

My Mother taught me some manners. ;0)

[babylonian]

No man cometh to the Father but by Me and Mom! Didn't you know that?

[newgeezer]

> By the way -- and I'm sure you RCs have an answer for this one -- if she was sinless, why did she say her spirit rejoiced in God her Savior (Luke 1:47)? Someone who's sinless doesn't need a Savior.

She was saved before she was born. She was knit before she was in her mother's womb.

Thanks. Sorry to be such a Berean but, do you have a Scripture reference for that, please?

[Cap'n Crunch]

Just reading some info in the back of one of my books. It says that 20 Million people visit the Basillica in Mexico to see the image every year, the natural life of such a cactus poncho is 20 years, after that they turn to dust. For the first 100 or 200 years it hung in the open air. Socialists tried to destroy it by planting a bomb under it in 1921.

In 1979 it underwent infra red testing that would have revealed overpainting, alterations, the presence of varnish, sizing or preliminary drawings.

Still unexplained.

I suggest getting a few books on the subject because the info and miracles fill volumes.

[Cap'n Crunch]

If any of you have cable and are interested, I'm sure Mother Angelica will have several stories on the apparition tonight on EWTN.

Great network. She had alot on Guadalupe last year.

[wtc911]

We have a winner! Fishtank was there as Jesus grew from childhood to adulthood. Fishtank knows and is kind enough to tell us that in all 33 years Jesus never once called Mary his mother. Quick, get me the Vatican, we have to change everything.

Before you fall back on the theory that if it's not in the NT Jesus didn't say it, think. What did he call Mary when he was five years old? or seven? ou profess to know what he d idn't call her, what name did he use?

[biblewonk]

Without feeling the need to be courteous themselves because they always have the "I'm defending my mother" attitude which lets them be hyper offended whenever they want.

[Woodkirk]

For your information, several years ago an article appeared in The St. Louis Review, Catholic newspaper, in which this story about Guadalupe was admitted to have been made up for political-religious reasons. I was stunned to see it but pleasantly surprised that they came clean on the issue.

[Gophack]

From Catholic Biblical Apologetics

First it is important to note that the Bible does not say that these "brothers and sisters" of Jesus were children of Mary.

Second, the word for brother (or sister), adelphos (adelpha) in Greek, denotes a brother or sister, or near kinsman. Aramaic and other semitic languages could not distinguish between a blood brother or sister and a cousin, for example. Hence, John the Baptist, a cousin of Jesus (the son of Elizabeth, cousin of Mary) would be called "a brother (adelphos) of Jesus." In the plural, the word means a community based on identity of origin or life. Additionally, the word adelphos is used for (1) male children of the same parents (Mt 1:2); (2) male descendants of the same parents (Acts 7:23); (3) male children of the same mother (Gal 1:19); (4) people of the same nationality (Acts 3:17); (5) any man, a neighbor (Lk 10:29); (6) persons united by a common interest (Mt 5:47); (7) persons united by a common calling (Rev 22:9); (8) mankind (Mt 25:40); (9) the disciples (Mt 23:8); and (10) believers (Mt 23:8). (From Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Thomas Nelson, Publisher.)

Protestant reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin also believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary.

God bless.

[Delbert]

i went to the page on post #57...it took me to a web page with a picture of mary and a cherub at the bottom....it didnt look like a poncho or a cactus...

[Delbert]

poor Joseph....bad enough that his fiance is pregant and not by him...but after Jesus is born...he still doesn't get any? thats unjust.

[onedoug]

#70: ...and the unborn.

[eastsider]

11,178 posts? I better pack a lunch...thats a lot of thread...

No need to start at post 1 -- just jump in and feel free to bring up any religious topic at any time, even if it's been brought up a gazillion times previously (and trust me, it has : ) The "Neverending" thread is a sand box (or mud bog, if you will) that is completely stream of (religious) consciousness.

[eastsider]

The tilma worn by the seer of Guadalupe (Juan Diego) was woven from cactus fibers. Despite its coarse weave, the underlying image has very distinct lines.

[onedoug]

No catholic bashing here. My irenic mom studied catholicism for several years, and took me along. The mysticism can be enveloping. I look back fondly on those years, and would like to think it's part of what built in me a questioning nature.

Perhaps that's Mary's intercession. (Though I'm a big Mary Magdelen fan, too.)

Thank you for posting this. Very interesting, and inspiring.

[laredo44]

To this day, the physical properties of this image remain scientifically inexplicable.

This is the sort of statement that exacerbates my confusion about religion. The implication seems to be that because science can offer no explanation it is evidence of some miracle beyond the ken of scientists and understandable only through religion. In other words, it is an appeal to my logic.

In the body of the original post, however, there is a description of events wherein Juan has several meetings with Mary. The description recounts how, on the one hand, Mary was unaware of whether Juan had met with the Bishop or not. Then, on the other hand, when the Bishop doesn't reveal to Juan what "sign" he expects, Mary somehow knows this. This strikes me as rather illogical.

I want to make it clear I am not attempting to bash Catholics or Christians and that I appreciate the "heavy lifting" done by these and other religions in the formation of Western values of life and liberty. I post to inform that some, me anyway, don't understand, and an occasional appeal to logic concerns me. It suggests deception.

[Salvation]

Bumping on the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe.