Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Scientists certify Our Lady of Guadalupe tilma
Western Catholic Reporter ^ | June 18, 2007 | By RAMON GONZALEZ

Posted on 06/17/2007 2:37:44 PM PDT by NYer

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-118 next last
To: Uncle Chip
How much of the following about the Virgin of Guadalupe is true:

The bishop in question, Bishop Zumarraga, never mentioned Juan Diego nor the cape. And although the image was supposed to have appeared in 1531, the first recorded mention of it doesn't appear until 1555 at the earliest. Juan Diego himself isn't mentioned in any of the stories until 1648.

In 1556, Francisco de Bustamante writes: "The devotion that has been growing in a chapel dedicated to Our Lady, called of Gaudalupe, in this city is greatly harmful for the natives, because it makes them believe that the image painted by Marcos the Indian is in any way miraculous." Francisco de Bustamante was the head of the Franciscans in that region of Mexico.

In 1569, viceroy Martin Enriquez denounced the cult around the Virgin of Guadalupe as worship of the Aztec goddess Tonantzin in disguise.

In the 19th century, historian Joaquin Garcia Icazbalceta headed an inquest called by Bishop Labastida of Mexico City. Icazbalceta concluded in a confidential report that Diego may not have existed.

After Diego was made a saint in July, 2002, Miguel Olimon launched another investigation. Olimon was a priest and historian at the Pontifical University of Mexico, but he also found that Juan Diego probably never existed - and he was censored for that.

51 posted on 06/19/2007 5:19:46 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

LOLOLOLOL!
I stopped reading here...

“Mexico City basilica build in honor of the minor deity...”

Hmmmm, what kind of Anti-Catholic author wrote this? Minor deity? That’s so last century.


52 posted on 06/19/2007 5:20:34 AM PDT by netmilsmom (To attack one section of Christianity in this day and age, is to waste time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: pipeorganman
The following account of the five apparitions in three days is based on the oldest written record of the miracle of Our Lady of Guadalupe, the Nican Mopohua, written in Nahuatl about 1540 by Don Antonio Valeriano, one of the first Aztec Indians educated by the Franciscans at the Bishop's Colegio de la Santa Cruz.

Cool!

Bookmarking.

To Jesus through Mary.

53 posted on 06/19/2007 5:28:52 AM PDT by Aquinasfan (When you find "Sola Scriptura" in the Bible, let me know)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: topher; wmfights; Uncle Chip
Many Native Americans have touched the cloth before it was put under control probably about 200 years ago. It is a miracle in itself that this piece of cactus cloth did not disentegrate from the handling over about 200 years...

In fact, after Cortez conquered Montezuma and his people (in Mexico City), when Cortez returned to Spain, he spent 9 days in front of the statue in Spain

The image (Our Lady of Guadalupe [Mexico City]))had a special meaning to the Native Americans....For example, the BLACK QUARTER MOON that the woman is standing on is one of the Native Americans gods.


54 posted on 06/19/2007 5:40:44 AM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: pipeorganman
From your link.
"A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon at her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars."

The Image on the Tilma

The imprint of Mary on the tilma is striking, and the symbolism was primarily directed to Juan Diego and the Aztecs. The description that follows is that related by Father Elizondo,7 who references earlier writings. Mary appears as a beautiful young Indian maiden with a look of love, compassion, and humility, her hands folded in prayer. Her pale red dress is that of an Aztec princess. Her blue mantle symbolized the royalty of the gods, and the blue color symbolized life and unity. The stars on the mantle signified the beginning of a new civilization. Mary stands in front of and hides the sun, but the rays of the sun still appear around her, signifying she is greater than the sun god, the greatest of the native divinities, but the rays of the sun still bring light. Twelve rays of the sun surround her face and head. She stands on the moon, supported by an angel with wings like an eagle: to the Aztec, this indicated her superiority to the moon god, the god of night, and her divine, regal nature.

Most important are the two crosses and the black maternity band that were present in the image. Mary wore a black maternity band, signifying she was with child. At the center of the picture is found an Indian cross, the center of the cosmic order to the Indian. This symbol indicated that the baby Mary carried within her, Jesus Christ, the Word made Flesh, is the new center of the universe. On the brooch around her neck was a black Christian cross, indicating she is both a bearer and follower of Christ, the Son of God, our Savior, who died on the Cross to save mankind.

In summary, the image signified Mary bringing her Son Christ to the New World through one of their own!


55 posted on 06/19/2007 5:41:01 AM PDT by Aquinasfan (When you find "Sola Scriptura" in the Bible, let me know)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
"To say it's a "package deal" ... assumes God was incapable of bringing our Lord Jesus into the world any other way;"

You seem to prefer the ways God might have brought Our Lord to this earth, to the way He did bring Him. Knowing that God is unsurpassable in judgment, I'd be inclined to say that the way He did do it was the way of greatest wisdom and excellence, for His purpose and glory. And that was that God freely and willfully chose to save human beings with the consent of a human being: Mary of Nazareth.

"To say it's a "package deal" is nothing more that a Co-Redemptix view"

Depends what you mean by that. If you mean Mary is equal to Jesus, the answer is a big NO. If you mean that Mary cooperated in Jesus' incarnation and therefore our redemption, the answer is a big YES. We all cooperate in redemption, as Mary did: by saying Yes through the power of the Holy Spirit.

"Clearly if Mary was so significant to attracting followers then one wonders why there wasn't more history about a church that she started."

John 21:25
Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

The fact that something wasn't written in Scriptures doesn't mean it didn't exist or didn't happen. If that were the case, there would be no Reformed Christianity, especially in America: to start with, because "Reformed," "Christianity," and "America" are not in the Bible.

God is sovereignly free to employ His mother, or anybody else, as a messenger whenever and wherever and for whatever purpose He pleases. All by His grace, all by the work of the Holy Spirit.

As for your observations of Third World Catholicism: the Bible --- straight Scripture, read, proclaimed, and sung --- is the first half of every Mass. The second half is eating His body and drinking His blood. As we were commanded to do.

56 posted on 06/19/2007 5:43:48 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (The Bible tells me so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: wmfights
I am a Baptist and we question everything and test it against what Scripture says.

Everything?

Do you question Luther's notion of "The Bible Alone," which isn't mentioned in Scripture?

57 posted on 06/19/2007 5:49:28 AM PDT by Aquinasfan (When you find "Sola Scriptura" in the Bible, let me know)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD

>>Catholics, IMO, tend to be too focus on the issue of Mary to overlook such an obvious issue. <<

Careful with those generalization FRiend.
I know many a Catholic who use the name of Jesus only and have Mary as an afterthought.

When I say the rosary, I reflect on the passion only. We are not required to reflect on any other or all mysteries directed by the church. Perhaps your limited view should be taken into account.


58 posted on 06/19/2007 5:54:03 AM PDT by netmilsmom (To attack one section of Christianity in this day and age, is to waste time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip; wmfights; HarleyD
Do you really expect anyone to take this seriously? Your proof is from the Positive Atheism website.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/tocapox4.htm#9-96

59 posted on 06/19/2007 6:06:17 AM PDT by pipeorganman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom; HarleyD; wmfights; Dr. Eckleburg; Diego1618
I stopped reading here... “Mexico City basilica build in honor of the minor deity...” Hmmmm, what kind of Anti-Catholic author wrote this? Minor deity? That’s so last century.

Here's something more this century:

Juan Diego The Saint That Never Was

Mario Mendez Acosta

[The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 23, Number 2.]

"The saint that never was” may sound like the title of a cheap thriller of the forties, something from the pen of Leslie Charteris or G.K Chesterton. But it’s more like a modern-day melodrama. It’s the story of how the Catholic Church, just to test its strength, tried to show the world that it had the power to change reality by canonizing a man whom everyone in its inner circle knew never existed.

I refer to Juan Diego, the Aztec Indian who supposedly witnessed the apparition of the Virgin Mary as the Virgin of Guadalupe.

Back in the sixteenth century, the very name “Juan Diego” meant something like “John Doe” in modern-day America: a man whose name and identity are not only unknown, but really don’t matter.

Over the centuries the church has launched several inquests into the reality of Juan Diego. It’s an important problem, given that the Virgin of Guadalupe—in whose form the Virgin Mary assumed the physiognomy of an American Indian woman—is so central to Catholic devotion throughout Latin America. In the nineteenth century, Bishop Labastida of Mexico City held an inquest headed by the historian Joaquin Garcia Icazbalceta, a devout Catholic. Icazbalceta wrote a confidential report to the bishop that clearly disputed the existence of Juan Diego.

Real or not, Juan Diego was made a saint last July. In the wake of that event, clergyman Miguel Olimon—a historian of the Pontifical University of Mexico, a very prestigious official Catholic institution—launched another inquest. This inquiry, too, found clearly against the existence of Juan Diego. Olimon was censored and threatened by the apparitionist hierarchy. One bishop actually lamented in public that there was no more Inquisition to silence troublemakers like Olimon. But this historian decided to publish his work anyway. A Spanish publisher, Plaza & Janes, accepted the manuscript and published it this year under the title La Búsqueda de Juan Diego (The Search for Juan Diego).

Certainly Diego’s first appearances in the historical record do little to inspire confidence. As David Brading of Cambridge University points out, the image of the virgin was supposedly miraculously imprinted on Juan Diego’s cape in 1531, yet the first recorded reference to the image of the virgin dates from 1555 or 1556. Another priest-historian, Stafford Poole of Los Angeles, points out that Juan Diego himself doesn’t appear in any record until 1648, when Miguel Sanchez, a theological writer based in New Spain (later Mexico), mentioned him in his book The Apparitions of the Virgin Mary.

The following year, the Juan Diego story resurfaces in another book titled Nican Mopohua, written in the Nahuatl language of the Aztecs by a criollo1 priest, Luis Lasso de la Vega. Nican Mopohua’s plot is simple, based on several more ancient legends including that of Moses on Mount Sinai. The book claims that, in 1531, just ten years after the Spaniards led by Hernan Cortez conquered the Aztec empire, a Christian Indian named Juan Diego walked up the hill of Tepeyac just north of Mexico City. On the hilltop the Virgin appeared to him and asked him to build a temple at that place. Juan Diego told Bishop Juan de Zumarraga what he had heard. The bishop demanded some kind of proof. After several encounters with the Virgin, Juan Diego was instructed by her to pick some wild roses and carry them in his cape so the bishop could see them. When Juan Diego returned to the bishop’s quarters in downtown Mexico City, he opened his cape and the roses fell to the ground. On the cloth had appeared the image of the Virgin, supposedly the same image now on exhibit at the Basilica of Guadalupe.

This story has several holes. First of all, Bishop Zumarraga wasn’t yet a bishop. He wasn’t consecrated until 1534. Second, up to his death in 1548 Zumarraga never mentioned anything concerning this matter. Finally, in a catechism he wrote the year before his death he clearly stated: “The Redeemer of the world doesn’t want any more miracles, because they are no longer necessary.” This bishop’s silence—more, his hostility toward latter-day miracles—is eloquent. No one would write about the supposed apparitions for more than a hundred years.

The cult of the virgin on the hill of Tepeyac starts around 1550. The first temple was built a couple of years later, under Zumarraga’s successor Alonso de Montufar. Bishop Montufar is known to have commissioned the now-sacred image from Marcos Cipac de Aquino, an Indian painter famous throughout the regions north of the city. The painter based his initial sketch on a previously existing image of the Virgin of Guadalupe, already revered as the patroness of Extremadura, a province of Spain.

As early as September 1556, Francisco de Bustamante, provincial head of Mexico’s Franciscans, read a memorable sermon in which he clearly dismissed the whole myth: “The devotion that has been growing in a chapel dedicated to Our Lady, called of Guadalupe, in this city is greatly harmful for the natives, because it makes them believe that the image painted by Marcos the Indian is in any way miraculous.”

In 1569, Martin Enriquez de Almanza, fourth viceroy of Mexico, denounced the cult of the Virgin of Guadalupe as a harmful imposture, indeed as disguised worship of the Aztec goddess Tonantzin.

Olimon’s book also surveys the studies made upon the so-called miraculous cloth itself. In 1982, Guillermo Schulenburg, Abbot of the Basilica of Guadalupe, had the image examined by an expert art restorer. Jose Sol Rosales determined that the picture was executed using different variations of the technique now known as template painting. The pigments are a mixture of caccus cacti extract, calcium sulphate, and soot commonly used in the sixteenth century. (In 1996, Schulenburg would be forced to resign of after publicly stating that Juan Diego was a mythical figure.)

Those religious scholars, clergymen themselves, who have challenged the historicity of Juan Diego have been made the object of a veritable lynching in the media. There are few modern examples of so much hatred being vented from within the Church against those who differ from the prevailing “official truth.” The canonization of Juan Diego clearly paints the modern Roman Catholic Church in all its historic intolerance and irrationality. This comes as no surprise to many Mexicans who never really accepted the Church’s new face of pretended tolerance and moderation.

Note:

1. Criollo: one born in Mexico or another Spanish colony, both of whose parents were born in Spain.

References

Joaquin Garcia Icazbalceta, "Juan Diego y las Apariciones del Tepeyac" (Mexico City: Publicaciones para el Estudio Cientifico de las Religiones, 2002), pp. 3-8.

Luis Alfonso Gamez, "Juan Diego ¿El santo que nunca existío?" Diario El Correo, July 27, 2002 (Bilbao, Spain).

Miguel Leon Portilla, Tomantzin-Guadalupe, Pensamiento Nahuatl y mensaje Cristiano (Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Economica, 2000)

Manuel Olimon, La Búsqueda de Juan Doego (Mexico City: Plaza & Janes, 2002).

60 posted on 06/19/2007 6:08:05 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom
LOLOLOLOL!

I stopped reading here...

See post #59.

LOLOLOLOL indeed!!!

61 posted on 06/19/2007 6:09:30 AM PDT by pipeorganman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: pipeorganman
Do you really expect anyone to take this seriously? Your proof is from the Positive Atheism website. http://www.positiveatheism.org/tocapox4.htm#9-96

Isn't it a shame when you can find more truth at an atheist website than at a Catholic one???

62 posted on 06/19/2007 6:11:46 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

Free Inquiry?
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=fi&page=index

Yup, that publication is where I go to find correct information on any faith, right.


63 posted on 06/19/2007 6:17:41 AM PDT by netmilsmom (To attack one section of Christianity in this day and age, is to waste time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: pipeorganman

Check out 63 as well.

Let’s get the secular humanists in on this.

*snicker*


64 posted on 06/19/2007 6:19:25 AM PDT by netmilsmom (To attack one section of Christianity in this day and age, is to waste time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom
You beat me to posting a response. What rubbish.
65 posted on 06/19/2007 6:23:28 AM PDT by pipeorganman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip
Isn't it a shame when you can find more truth at an atheist website than at a Catholic one???

Well, if you prefer to get the "truth" from an atheist website, more power to you. As for me, I'll continue to receive the Truth from the Catholic Church, the pillar of Truth, established by Jesus Christ.

Good day!

66 posted on 06/19/2007 6:32:01 AM PDT by pipeorganman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom
Free Inquiry? http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=fi&page=index Yup, that publication is where I go to find correct information on any faith, right.

So then, what part of the article is incorrect???

67 posted on 06/19/2007 6:38:14 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

Personally, I wouldn’t take a single word as correct. Maybe “the”.

Really, do you go to DU to find out about conservatives?
Do you watch the Loose Change films to find out about 911?

Going to secular humanists and atheist website to find out anything about religion is just silly.


68 posted on 06/19/2007 6:43:47 AM PDT by netmilsmom (To attack one section of Christianity in this day and age, is to waste time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: pipeorganman
As for me, I'll continue to receive the Truth from the Catholic Church, the pillar of Truth

Is that the same church that Francisco de Bustamante, provincial head of Mexico’s Franciscans belonged to, who in September 1536, read a memorable sermon in which he clearly dismissed the whole myth of Our Lady, called of Guadalupe, because it makes the natives believe that "the image painted by Marcos the Indian is in any way miraculous.”

LOLOLOL

69 posted on 06/19/2007 6:46:01 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

You don’t get that you are taking that quote from an article written for people who can’t stand religion at all.

Can you quote that from some place reputable?


70 posted on 06/19/2007 6:49:12 AM PDT by netmilsmom (To attack one section of Christianity in this day and age, is to waste time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom
Personally, I wouldn’t take a single word as correct. Maybe “the”.

Let me get this straight. You are saying that everything in the following paragraph from the article is incorrect:

"...clergyman Miguel Olimon—a historian of the Pontifical University of Mexico, a very prestigious official Catholic institution—launched another inquest. This inquiry, too, found clearly against the existence of Juan Diego. Olimon was censored and threatened by the apparitionist hierarchy. One bishop actually lamented in public that there was no more Inquisition to silence troublemakers like Olimon. But this historian decided to publish his work anyway. A Spanish publisher, Plaza & Janes, accepted the manuscript and published it this year under the title La Búsqueda de Juan Diego (The Search for Juan Diego)."

71 posted on 06/19/2007 6:51:15 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

Even a Google search of the quote puts it into doubt...
http://www.google.com/search?q=Francisco+de+Bustamante+%22the+image+painted+by+Marcos+the+Indian%22&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1


72 posted on 06/19/2007 6:54:41 AM PDT by netmilsmom (To attack one section of Christianity in this day and age, is to waste time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

what does your atheist website say about Jesus?


73 posted on 06/19/2007 6:56:25 AM PDT by Nihil Obstat (Kyrie Eleison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

I said I would doubt EVERYTHING in that article unless it could be verified by another source.

Sorry, that only makes sense. Secular Humanists hate religion. Lies, half truths and spin need verification.

People publish books with conspiracy theories all the time. It proves nothing.


74 posted on 06/19/2007 6:58:05 AM PDT by netmilsmom (To attack one section of Christianity in this day and age, is to waste time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

Comment #75 Removed by Moderator

Comment #76 Removed by Moderator

To: sandyeggo

Truth be told.

Some of us only agree with everything we read on the internet if it agrees with us.


77 posted on 06/19/2007 7:09:18 AM PDT by netmilsmom (To attack one section of Christianity in this day and age, is to waste time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Nihil Obstat
what does your atheist website say about Jesus?

They would probably think more of Jesus if they could get some honest answers to the following questions from those who claim to follow Jesus:

Is it true that clergyman Miguel Olimon—a historian of the Pontifical University of Mexico, a very prestigious official Catholic institution—launched an inquest that found clearly against the existence of Juan Diego???

Is it true that Olimon was then censored and threatened by the Vatican for his inquest findings???

Is it true that a Spanish publisher, Plaza & Janes, accepted the manuscript and published it under the title La Búsqueda de Juan Diego (The Search for Juan Diego)???

78 posted on 06/19/2007 7:18:49 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

>>Is it true that clergyman Miguel Olimon—a historian of the Pontifical University of Mexico, a very prestigious official Catholic institution—launched an inquest that found clearly against the existence of Juan Diego???

Is it true that Olimon was then censored and threatened by the Vatican for his inquest findings???

Is it true that a Spanish publisher, Plaza & Janes, accepted the manuscript and published it under the title La Búsqueda de Juan Diego (The Search for Juan Diego)???<<

These are really good questions. You posted them, how about if you give us the references to prove that the facts you present are true. Answer the questions, FRiend.

It’s on you to prove them. I gave you the google link on your last quote. It comes up with NO credible evidence.

Now, unless you can give us a reference from a credible source, you are blowing smoke.


79 posted on 06/19/2007 7:22:24 AM PDT by netmilsmom (To attack one section of Christianity in this day and age, is to waste time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: topher
The other occurred in the 1920s when the FREE MASONS tried to blow up the image, but even with powerful explosives, they did not even crack the glass (it was not protected by bullet proof glass back then)...
In a nearby museum is a large, solid-metal crucifix that stood underneath the tilma when the explosion occurred. It was bent in half by the force of the explosion -- which also destroyed the marble steps of the altar and blew out several windows of nearby buildings -- yet there was no damage to the tilma.
80 posted on 06/19/2007 7:24:40 AM PDT by eastsider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

googling “Miguel Olimon” only gets you links to atheist websites, so I don’t know. Nor do I care really. A lot of so-called “Catholic” professors should be thrown out of the Church.


81 posted on 06/19/2007 7:28:46 AM PDT by Nihil Obstat (Kyrie Eleison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

Comment #82 Removed by Moderator

To: Nihil Obstat
The story of Miguel Olimon's inquest at the Pontifical Institute in Mexico and the subsequent findings appeared in an article in the Catholic St Louis Review some time back in the 1990's. I read it, cut out the article, and probably still have it somewhere.
83 posted on 06/19/2007 7:44:39 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

Hmmm, that doesn’t come up either
http://www.google.com/search?q=Miguel+Olimon++St+Louis+Review+&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1

Nor this..
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Miguel+Olimon+inquest+at+the+Pontifical+Institute+in+Mexico&spell=1


84 posted on 06/19/2007 7:54:40 AM PDT by netmilsmom (To attack one section of Christianity in this day and age, is to waste time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

This week’s St Louis Review:

June 15, 2007

Guadalupe pilgrims return spiritually refreshed

Anne Steffens
ON TO MASS — On June 8, the fifth day of the pilgrimage, Archbishop Raymond Burke walks with pilgrims Patricia and Jorge Viamontes to morning Mass at the chapel at the top of Tepeyac Hill, where St. Juan Diego witnessed the apparitions of Our Lady of Guadalupe in 1531. The Viamonteses are members of St. Anselm Parish in Creve Coeur.
Archbishop Raymond L. Burke said he was deeply moved and pleased by the experiences he shared last week in Mexico City with his fellow pilgrims from the St. Louis Archdiocese.

In an interview June 11, he described the six-day pilgrimage he led to the holy places associated with Our Lady of Guadalupe and her apparitions to St. Juan Diego in 1531. He traveled with 75 people from the archdiocese; they left June 4 and returned June 9. The youngest on the trip was a ninth-grader; the eldest, an octogenarian. Archbishop Burke said he was “very deeply impressed by the unity of the pilgrims, who Our Blessed Mother very quickly brought together, and also by (their) great devotion.”

It was such an edifying experience, the archbishop said, that he hopes to lead more pilgrimages of the archdiocesan faithful to Mexico City. He would like to do so every other year, if possible.

The trip was extra special for him as it was the first time he had led a pilgrimage of archdiocesan faithful to Mexico City. It was his fifth pilgrimage and sixth visit to the Marian sites.

The reason he keeps going back is “really simple,” he said. “It’s our Blessed Mother. She’s there in an extraordinary way in the image that she’s left behind and in the dedication and devotion which she inspires. So I love going back to her whenever I can, and, of course, it always brings me special joy to be able to take others with me.”

The pilgrims, he said, spent much time together in prayer and devotion, and in particular, participating in daily Mass, “the source of their joy and the heart of the activity.”

He added, “It was not only a holy time but also a time to enjoy one another’s company, so it was good.”

The pilgrims attended Mass at the central holy sites associated with the Blessed Mother, St. Juan Diego and his dying uncle, to whom Mary appeared and healed. The Masses were celebrated by the archbishop, who speaks fluent Spanish, and other archdiocesan priests on the pilgrimage.

Archbishop Burke called on the pilgrims to be “missionaries of God’s mercy and love in our society today, especially on behalf of those who are suffering in any way and those whose dignity as human beings is not fully respected.” He said he hoped they would be renewed in the Respect Life apostolate, “but also in all forms of bringing God’s mercy and love to others.”

Archbishop Burke has long revered Mary under the title of Our Lady of Guadalupe. He first learned about her from the sisters who taught him at grade school while growing up in Wisconsin. In 1999 as bishop of La Crosse, Wis., he founded a Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe in his home diocese to renew devotional life there.

It was in reading Pope John Paul II’s apostolic exhortation on the Church in America that the archbishop “came to a really deeper appreciation of the importance of Our Lady of Guadalupe for the Church in our country, and that’s what has led me to an ever deeper devotion. The more I have gotten to know her apparitions and the message that she gave to St. Juan Diego the more I’ve been inspired. It’s just been a kind of growing relationship with her.”

The Blessed Mother under her title of Our Lady of Guadalupe “makes it very clear that her sole mission is to bring us to her Son that we might know God’s mercy and love in our lives,” he said.

“She came right at the beginning of the first evangelization of America. Columbus discovered America in 1492, and then not quite 40 years later, the Blessed Mother appeared. And she really inspired the first evangelization of our continent. So now as we face the growing secularization of our society and the particular challenges of living the faith in our time, it is our Blessed Mother under her title of Our Lady of Guadalupe who guides us and inspires us.”

Archbishop Burke added that Pope John Paul II had accepted a title which had been given to Our Lady of Guadalupe by the bishops of South and Central America. That title is “‘Star of the New Evangelization.’ By ‘star,’ we mean that she is the one who is leading us and guiding us in the New Evangelization of our time.”

Several pilgrims became nearly speechless when asked to describe their experience in Mexico City.

Jeanne Fluri, a member of St. Clement of Rome Parish in Des Peres, became tearful when she described seeing the tilma with the image of Our Lady at the Basilica of Guadalupe.

“My last time (seeing the tilma) before we had to leave — oh, I get tears now — I thought, Our Lady, will I get to see you again like this? It was so beautiful,” she said. “To me, it’s about as close to heaven as you can get. To be right there where the actual tilma was.”

Fluri said she also was overcome by the poverty she saw all around her in Mexico City. However, “they’re all joyous. Nobody is like, ‘Poor me.’ They’re very joyous, and our guides were so loving and knowledgeable.”

Being able to make a pilgrimage with Archbishop Burke also was a highlight for Fluri. She said he created “such joy” in those who made the trip.

“It’s kind of like having an ambassador to God go with you,” she said. “Each liturgy he prepared so beautifully.”

Tracy Rice, a member of St. Peter Parish in Kirkwood, said the experience of seeing the tilma left her speechless. She said she also observed the immense reverence that pilgrims and native Mexicans seemed to have for Our Lady.

“We saw pilgrims kneeling, crawling on their knees into the shrine,” she said. “The people in Mexico, this is such gift for them. You saw sisters, you saw priests, you saw brothers, how they stand there and just gaze and pray with their Rosaries.”

“It was so wonderful to be there with her,” said Rice, “and thinking about what it must have been like for St. Juan Diego and Bishop Zumárraga, what they must have been experiencing.”

Rice also enjoyed a little alone time on the trip. Her husband, John, stayed home with their six young children so she could make her first pilgrimage.

“It was a large effort to make all of this happen,” she said. “He stayed home from work. I did get my own room. I loved it. I had my own bathroom and my own space.”

Rice also said the trip renewed her faith life and gave her a new energy.

“When I came home, I was like, ‘Where’s my Rosary?’ So maybe Our Lady’s working in me.”

Rosemary and Bob Popp, members of Assumption Parish in O’Fallon, also were among those who made their first pilgrimage to Mexico.

Rosemary Popp said that what was most striking to her on the trip was “the churches and the Masses. The buildings were really breathtaking.

“Every day was a different church, and they all had something special,” she said.

Popp’s cousin, she said, told her about the tilma years ago “and that it’s something you really should see if you can. It really was kind of like a fulfillment of a dream. It was definitely worth the trip.”

The pilgrimage was a family trip for the Langs — husband Gary, wife Lynne and son Joseph, a seminarian at Kenrick-Glennon Seminary. “It was one of the highlights of my life,” said Lynne Lang. “It is something that I will look back on years from now and say it was one of the most spiritually significant things that ever happened to me.”

The Langs, members of St. Margaret Mary Alacoque Parish in Oakville, knew Archbishop Burke when he was the bishop of La Crosse. Joseph, now almost 21, attended Holy Cross Seminary, the high school seminary in La Crosse. It was there they learned much about Our Lady of Guadalupe, as then-Bishop Burke led a project to create a shrine in La Crosse to Mary under that title. That shrine is to be formally dedicated in the summer of 2008.

“When we found out the archbishop was thinking about taking a trip to Guadalupe and was leading this group, there was no question but that we would go. It was one of the highlights of our lives. We were all so spiritually moved by the trip and by the presence of the archbishop,” Lynne Lang said.

“I would heartily recommend a pilgrimage to anyone, especially a pilgrimage with the archbishop. I think with Archbishop Burke as shepherd of a pilgrimage, his presence and his prayerfulness and his knowledge and his heart and his spirit and his accessibility — I can’t imagine anyone on that trip feeling anything other than that it was a wonderful opportunity. Archbishop Burke is without a doubt a true blessing for our archdiocese. We think as a spiritual role model and guide he is truly divinely inspired,” Lang said.

Julie Weber of St. Peter Parish in St. Charles called the pilgrimage to Mexico “very moving.”

“I felt so close to God. It was wonderful. And Archbishop Burke was a wonderful shepherd. We all grew so close, the people on the trip.”

Weber said during the pilgrimage she prayed for others, including a sick relative. Other pilgrimage participants prayed with her. “The Blessed Mother made me feel very calm about everything.”

This was not Weber’s first pilgrimage. “I went to Rome in 2003 for the beatification of Mother Teresa. I think that’s the only way to go, to take a pilgrimage. Everything else seems pretty frivolous unless God’s at the center of it. I recommend it to everyone.”

Joseph Keusenkothen also gave high praise to the pilgrimage to the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe. A parishioner at St. Paul in Fenton, Keusenkothen said “It was great.”

He continued, “I read about it in the Review and thought it would be a good thing to do. This increased my faith in the Blessed Virgin and in conversion. Seeing the tilma itself and the churches — that was really interesting. And I enjoyed being with all these people.”

Carol Smith, a member of St. Clare of Assisi Parish in Ellisville, also learned about the pilgrimage by reading the Review.

“My husband couldn’t go, but a friend of mine from our parish — Pat McLeese — wanted to go, so I had someone to go with. It was simply wonderful.”

Smith said actually being at the historic shrine was very moving. “I knew something of the history behind it and about the tilma. When you see the tilma, it’s enclosed in glass, but you’ve seen the picture of Our Lady of Guadalupe so often you think at first, ‘oh, I’ve seen this.’ Then you suddenly realize — this is the tilma. This tilma is from 1531. It’s amazing it’s still there.”

Smith said the sheer size of the shrine was amazing. “Where the shrine is is such a huge area. I was just overwhelmed with all the people in the shrine praying. You feel like you are in a holy, holy place.”


God bless ArchBishop Burke.


85 posted on 06/19/2007 8:00:12 AM PDT by Nihil Obstat (Kyrie Eleison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip
I have read this too as you posted.I was sent a book in 1999 from a film committee.The name of the book is Prince of Eden written by Christine Jones.It describes the Dirty Papers,which I have read about before.Nican Mopohua was one of the documents used in the canonization of Juan Diego and that was written in 1545,”Called “Nican Mopohua” because of the exact chronological order in which it relates the various phases of the apparitions, this account is also the first and oldest written source on Guadalupe. It is considered a masterpiece of Nahuatl literature and was written by Don Antonio Valeriano .”http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:MjKxSxREiCYJ:campus.udayton.edu/mary/meditations/guadalupe.html+Nican+Mopohua&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us
Also found was the death certificate,http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:XKp6dfcAvn8J:www.livingmiracles.net/Guadalupe.html+Escalada,%E2%80%9D+death+certificate+of+Juan+Diego.&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us.
86 posted on 06/19/2007 8:01:14 AM PDT by fatima (Remember our Troops with a little prayer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom
So does that mean that the article never appeared in the St Louis Review????

Try these references and see if they are real or just apparitions:

Joaquin Garcia Icazbalceta, "Juan Diego y las Apariciones del Tepeyac" (Mexico City: Publicaciones para el Estudio Cientifico de las Religiones, 2002), pp. 3-8.

Luis Alfonso Gamez, "Juan Diego ¿El santo que nunca existío?" Diario El Correo, July 27, 2002 (Bilbao, Spain).

Miguel Leon Portilla, Tomantzin-Guadalupe, Pensamiento Nahuatl y mensaje Cristiano (Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Economica, 2000)

Manuel Olimon, La Búsqueda de Juan Diego (Mexico City: Plaza & Janes, 2002).

87 posted on 06/19/2007 8:08:49 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

You’re still not getting this.
I’m not doing your research. If you post information, it’s YOUR job to give the references, not mine.

I’m cutting you a break because you’ve been here for less than a year, but FRiend, the research is yours to verify your information. Unless you do that, you are just posting (the same) unverifiable stuff, yet disregard the afirmative references given to you.


88 posted on 06/19/2007 8:14:52 AM PDT by netmilsmom (To attack one section of Christianity in this day and age, is to waste time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom
You’re still not getting this. I’m not doing your research. If you post information, it’s YOUR job to give the references, not mine. I’m cutting you a break because you’ve been here for less than a year, but FRiend, the research is yours to verify your information. Unless you do that, you are just posting (the same) unverifiable stuff, yet disregard the afirmative references given to you.

I'm terribly sorry!!! but these are the references and I posted them for your benefit not mine ----------

89 posted on 06/19/2007 8:50:34 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
Do you question Luther's notion of "The Bible Alone," which isn't mentioned in Scripture?

Of course I do. I also see examples of Christians who measured everything against Scripture. IOW, just because someone dictates something doesn't mean I believe it. Our Saviour Jesus Christ proved who he was for those with eyes to see and ears to hear.

90 posted on 06/19/2007 9:42:40 AM PDT by wmfights (LUKE 9:49-50 , MARK 9:38-41)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: pipeorganman; Uncle Chip; HarleyD
Do you really expect anyone to take this seriously? Your proof is from the Positive Atheism website.

Actually, yes. I noted my source and the page and the source you are mentioning I didn't look at.

Doesn't it strike you as odd that the Bishop that was supposed to be involved in this event never wrote about it? I am making an assumption, but I think he was educated and could read and write.

91 posted on 06/19/2007 9:48:58 AM PDT by wmfights (LUKE 9:49-50 , MARK 9:38-41)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

Those are not references unless one holds Amazon.com to be a reference source. Along with that, all but one are in Spanish.

For the sake of those Spanish impared readers, and those who would prefer not to buy four books to find the quotes you are stating, how about a nice link in English that all of us can read. Something from a non Atheist nor Secular Humanitanian website.

Google doesn’t have them from what I can see. Please give us a link to the quotes or they mean nothing.


92 posted on 06/19/2007 11:25:24 AM PDT by netmilsmom (To attack one section of Christianity in this day and age, is to waste time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

Sorry, all four are in Spanish.

Strikes me as being funny that none of this was picked up in the English speaking press, short of the Secular Humanitarian websites.

It’s kind of like quoting from “Spirit Daily”. One must verify everything with another source, that we here on English Speaking FR can read.

God Bless the Spanish speakers. Maybe one of them can help you.


93 posted on 06/19/2007 11:29:26 AM PDT by netmilsmom (To attack one section of Christianity in this day and age, is to waste time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: wmfights
Of course I do. I also see examples of Christians who measured everything against Scripture.

That's good, but not sufficient.

Our faith is in Christ, who is Truth itself. We must accept all the truths that Christ has revealed to us. So how do we acquire these truths? Through Bible-only Christians who lead exemplary lives? But their beliefs may be contradictory. The Bible? But if the Bible is the sole rule of faith, why do so many "Bible alone" Christians hold contrary beliefs?

"The pillar and foundation of truth," is Christ's Church. Therefore, what we believe about Christ and His teachings, in its fullness, must come through Christ's Church. To have full faith in Christ requires full consent to the teachings of his Church.

Jesus doesn't just want all men to be saved, but "wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth." (1 Timothy 2:4)

94 posted on 06/19/2007 12:08:26 PM PDT by Aquinasfan (When you find "Sola Scriptura" in the Bible, let me know)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip
It's the story of how the Catholic Church, just to test its strength, tried to show the world that it had the power to change reality by canonizing a man whom everyone in its inner circle knew never existed.

Wow. That's an amazing history for all with ears to hear.

"Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him.

Out of heaven he made thee to hear his voice, that he might instruct thee: and upon earth he shewed thee his great fire; and thou heardest his words out of the midst of the fire.

And because he loved thy fathers, therefore he chose their seed after them, and brought thee out in his sight with his mighty power out of Egypt;

To drive out nations from before thee greater and mightier than thou art, to bring thee in, to give thee their land for an inheritance, as it is this day.

Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else.

Thou shalt keep therefore his statutes, and his commandments, which I command thee this day, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days upon the earth, which the LORD thy God giveth thee, for ever." -- Deuteronomy 4:35-40


95 posted on 06/19/2007 12:25:31 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: fatima
Thanks for the links --- they were very interesting. This from one of them:

"In April 1990 Juan Diego was declared Blessed by the Vatican. The following month, during his second visit to the Basilica of Guadalupe, John Paul II performed the beatification ceremony. And finally in July 2002 Juan Diego was canonized, during a ceremony celebrated also by John Paul II, in the Basilica of Guadalupe.

"This event flared up a debate, which had been off and on since the 18th century about the historical authenticity of Juan Diego. Critics have argued that the Spanish Franciscans in Mexico make no mention of him or the alleged apparitions of Our Lady prior to 1648, raising questions as to why they would be silent about such an important event.

"The Vatican subsequently established a commission of 30 researchers from various countries to investigate the question. The results of their research were presented to the Vatican Congregation for the Causes of Saints on Oct. 28, 1998 and according to the commission it successfully proved that Juan Diego had indeed existed. Among the research documents submitted were 27 Indian documents regarding Guadalupe, which among other things contained the alleged death certificate of Juan Diego. Regarding the lack of historic evidence for nearly 20-years following the Guadalupe events, the researchers claimed that many Indian documents from that era were destroyed, in part due to a paper shortage, or lost in the great Mexico City fire of 1692.

"This evidence has however been questioned by other historians and a polemical spirit tends to prevail over documentary research regarding Juan Diego and the Guadalupe events."

96 posted on 06/19/2007 12:32:00 PM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip
Battle of Lepanto

On October 7, 1571, a great victory over the mighty Turkish fleet was won by Catholic naval forces primarily from Spain, Venice, and Genoa under the command of Don Juan of Austria. It was the last battle at sea between "oared" ships, which featured the most powerful navy in the world, a Moslem force with between 12,000 to 15,000 Christian slaves as rowers. The patchwork team of Catholic ships was powered by the Holy Rosary of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Knowing that the Christian forces were at a distinct material disadvantage, the holy pontiff, St. Pope Pius V called for all of Europe to pray the Rosary for victory. We know today that the victory was decisive, prevented the Islamic invasion of Europe, and evidenced the Hand of God working through Our Lady. At the hour of victory, St. Pope Pius V, who was hundreds of miles away at the Vatican, is said to have gotten up from a meeting, went over to a window, and exclaimed with supernatural radiance: "The Christian fleet is victorious!" and shed tears of thanksgiving to God.

What you may not know is that one of three admirals commanding the Catholic forces at Lepanto was Andrea Doria. He carried a small copy of Mexico's Our Lady of Guadalupe into battle. This image is now enshrined in the Church of San Stefano in Aveto, Italy. Not many know that at the Monastery of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Spain, one can view a huge warship lantern that was captured from the Moslems in the Battle of Lepanto. In Rome, look up to the ceiling of S. Maria in Aracoeli and behold decorations in gold taken from the Turkish galleys. In the Doges' Palace in Venice, Italy, one can witness a giant Islamic flag that is now a trophy from a vanquished Turkish ship from the Victory. At Saint Mary Major Basilica in Rome, close to the tomb of the great St. Pope Pius V, one was once able to view yet another Islamic flag from the Battle, until 1965, when it was returned to Istanbul in an intended friendly token of concord.

97 posted on 06/19/2007 12:39:31 PM PDT by Nihil Obstat (Kyrie Eleison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip
This is true from my research Uncle Chip.But there are the Diego files and the Nican Mopohua written by Valeriano at the request of the Bishop to record all the details that Juan could remember before his death.
98 posted on 06/19/2007 1:47:52 PM PDT by fatima (Remember our Troops with a little prayer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Nihil Obstat
Here is more from a non Atheist website, aka Wikipedia:

As early as 1556 Francisco de Bustamante, head of the Colony's Franciscans, delivered a sermon disparaging the holy origins of the painting:

“The devotion that has been growing in a chapel dedicated to Our Lady, called of Guadalupe, in this city is greatly harmful for the natives, because it makes them believe that the image painted by Marcos the Indian is in any way miraculous.[24][2]”

In 1611 the Dominican Martin de Leon, fourth viceroy of Mexico, denounced the cult of the Virgin of Guadalupe as a disguised worship of the Aztec goddess Tonantzin.[2] The missionary and anthropologist Bernardino de Sahagún held the same opinion: he wrote that the shrine at Tepeyac was extremely popular but worrisome because people called the Virgin of Guadalupe Tonantzin. Sahagún said that the worshippers claimed that Tonantzin was the proper Nahuatl for "Mother of God" -- but he disagreed, saying that "Mother of God" in Nahuatl would be "Dios y Nantzin."[25]

In 2002, art restoration expert José Sol Rosales examined the icon with a stereomicroscope and identified calcium sulfate, pine soot, white, blue, and green "tierras" (soil), reds made from carmine and other pigments, as well as gold. Rosales said he found the work consistent with 16th century materials and methods.[26]

Guadalupe of ExtremaduraNorberto Rivera Carrera, Archbishop of Mexico, commissioned a 1999 study to test the tilma's age. The researcher, Leoncio Garza-Valdés, had previously worked with the Shroud of Turin. Upon inspection Garza-Valdés found three distinct layers in the painting, at least one of which was signed and dated. He also said that the original painting showed striking similarities to the original Lady of Guadalupe found in Extremadura Spain, and that the second painting showed another Virgin with indigenous features. Finally, Garza-Valdés indicated that the fabric on which the icon is painted is made of conventional hemp and linen, not agave fibers as is popularly believed.[27] The photographs of these putative overpaintings were not available in the Garza-Valdés 2002 publication, however.[28] Gilberto Aguirre a San Antonio optometrist and colleague of Garza-Valdés who also took part in the 1999 study, examined the same photographs and stated that, while agreeing the painting had been tampered with, he disagreed with Garza-Valdes' conclusions. Gilberto Aguirre claims the conditions for conducting the study were inadequate. No control of the lighting and the fact that the painting was shot through an acrylic plate scientifically invalidates any results. He also questions Garza-Valdés' claim of ultraviolet light revealing two underlying images because according to Aguirre, ultraviolet light can't penetrate sub-surfaces. The team did take Infrared pictures but those didn't show additional images underneath the present one. [29]

99 posted on 06/20/2007 6:23:39 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip; Nihil Obstat; fatima
And a little more from that non Atheist website known as Wikipedia:

Documentation

A number of primary historical documents are used to support this apparition account, including: the Nahuatl-language Huei tlamahuiçoltica or Nican mopohua ("here it is recounted"), a tract about the Virgin which contains the aforementioned story, and which was printed in 1649; a Spanish-language book about the apparitions titled Imagen de la Virgen María ("Image of the Virgin Mary"), printed in 1648; a seventeenth-century engraving by Samuel Stradanus which used the Virgin's image to advertise indulgences; and the Codex Escalada, a pictographic account of the Virgin on Tepeyac, printed on deerskin and said to date back to 1548.[1]

First page of the Nican Mopohua.The apparition account is also strengthened by a document called the Informaciones Jurídicas of 1666, a collection of oral interviews gathered near Juan Diego's hometown of Cuautitlan. In the "Informaciones Jurídicas," various witnesses affirmed, in interview format, basic details about Saint Juan Diego and the Guadalupan apparition story.[2]

Some historians and clerics, including the U.S. priest-historian Fr.Stafford Poole, the famous Mexican historian Joaquín García Icazbalceta, and former abbot of the Basilica of Guadalupe, Guillermo Schulenburg, have expressed doubts about the historicity of the apparition accounts. Schulenburg in particular caused a stir with his 1996 interview with the Catholic magazine Ixthus, when he said that Juan Diego was "a symbol, not a reality." [3][4]

One problem with the apparition tradition is that Juan Diego is said to have met the Virgin in 1531, while the earliest account about their meeting was published in 1648. When discussing the 117-year gap between the apparition and written accounts describing it, apparition believers point to the Codex Escalada, a recently-discovered document which illustrates the Tepeyac apparition and which dates to 1548. The document, a painting on deerskin which illustrates the apparition and discusses Juan Diego's death, was used to shore up Juan Diego's 1990s canonization process. Critics, including Stafford Poole and David A. Brading, find the document suspicious -- partly because of when it was discovered, and partly because it contains the handiwork of both Antonio Valeriano (a man many apparition partisans believe to be the true author of the Nican mopohua) and the signature of Bernardino de Sahagún, the Franciscan missionary and anthropologist. Brading said that:

Codex Escalada.Within the context of the Christian tradition, it was rather like finding a picture of St. Paul's vision of Christ on the road to Damascus, drawn by St. Luke and signed by St. Peter.[5]

Believers in the Codex counter that the Codex has been vetted by scientific tests which prove it is an authentic 16th-century document.[6]

Zumárraga was silent on the topic of the apparition: there is no mention of Juan Diego nor the Virgin in any of his writings. In a catechism written the year before his death he stated: “The Redeemer of the world doesn’t want any more miracles, because they are no longer necessary.[2]”. Furthermore, in 1531 Zumárraga was not Mexico's Archbishop but merely Bishop-elect: he would not be consecrated until 1533.[7]

Guillermo Schulenburg, the Basílica's abbot for over 30 years, declared in 1996 Juan Diego as a symbol and myth, a constructed character made to conquer the hearts of the native people and seize their religiosity in order to redirect it to the Vatican's will. He also commisioned a serious study, "out of sheer love for truth", which demonstrates the Lady of Guadalupe as a man-made painting, with no supernatural elements whatsoever. There is ample evidence of a 16th century shrine to Guadalupe at Tepeyac: however skeptics contend that this shrine was dedicated to the Spanish icon Our Lady of Guadalupe in Extremadura.

100 posted on 06/20/2007 6:45:26 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-118 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson