Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

To: wmfights
"The greatest stumbling block to anyone searching for the psychological origins of the Tepeyac apparitions is the fact that there are no accounts of these apparitions that date from the period of the apparitions themselves."

Would this satisfy as coming from the period of the apparations thenselves?

"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."


From the same source: "He (Juan Diego) died peacefully on May 30, 1548 and was buried at Tepeyac. Bishop Zumarrage died only three days after Juan Diego."

Appears that Don Antonio Valeriano wrote of the apparations while Juan Diego and Bishop Zumarrage were still among the living. Yet we accept the accounts of Jesus eventhough the New testament was written some 30+ years after He ascended into Heaven.

There are, for instance, no references to any apparitions occurring at Tepeyac in the writings of Bishop Zumarraga, even though he was supposed to have been a central participant in the drama."

So that proves that Guadalupe did not occur? Doesn't this college professor know that an argument from silence is useless and proves nothing. All he has is conjecture.

"The greatest stumbling block to anyone searching for the psychological origins of the Tepeyac apparitions"

No, the greatest stumbling block is searching for psychological origins rather than searching for the spiritual origins, or better yet, having faith that God deigned, through the Virgin Mary, to manifest Himself to the Indian people of Mexico.

Some may think that the major and Church confirmed apparations of the Blessed Virgin Mary are rooted in psychosis. Fine, go ahead. Just don't be suprised when we get the following scholarly study:

The Cult of the Jesus, and on page 183 it states:

The greatest stumbling block to anyone searching for the psychological origins of the life of Jesus is the fact that there are no accounts of his life that date from the period of his life. There are, for instance, no references to his life in the writings of his mother Mary, even though she was supposed to have been a central participant in the drama."

Sorry, but all that your author proves is that he is wacky.

49 posted on 06/19/2007 12:57:05 AM PDT by pipeorganman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies ]

To: pipeorganman; wmfights; HarleyD
And now another side of the story -----

Virgin of Guadalupe a Fraud, Says Abbot

by Conrad Goeringer [June 10, 1996]

"Debate, accusations and anger erupted last week throughout Mexico amidst charges that "the Mother of all Mexicans" -- the Virgin of Guadalupe -- is a legend or hoax. Abbot Guillermo Schulemburg, who operates the enormous Mexico City basilica build in honor of the minor deity, was quoted in an Italian magazine as saying that the peasant Juan Diego (to whom the Virgin supposedly appeared) never existed. According to Reuters, that admission is having the effect of "casting the entire legend into doubt."

"According to the legend, the Virgin of Guadalupe appeared to Diego on a hilltop near Mexico City -- a site which, coincidentally, was sacred to Aztec Indians who populated the region. The dark-skinned apparition supposedly told Juan Diego to construct a temple in her honor; she was soon dubbed the Virgin of Guadalupe, referring to an Aztec term "Coatlallope" which means "the one who crushed the serpent."

"All of which is interesting, especially to religious skeptics who see various social and political factors at work in constructing the legend -- not a metaphysical apparition. Present-day Mexico City sits on top of the old Aztec Island capitol once known as Tenochtitlan. After the founding of the city, the theocratic empire quickly absorbed neighboring tribal groups through a series of "flower wars", and eventually included a good portion of modern Mexico and ranged as far south as Guatamala. In 1521, the Spaniard Hernando Cortes forged an alliance with discontented tribes, and crushed the "Triple Alliance" which ruled the Aztec state.

"While the Aztec empire was warlike and practiced religious rituals of blood sacrifice, Cortes and his Catholic missionaries began their own bloody campaign to dismantle the culture and enslave the population. Huge amounts of gold were appropriated and shipped to Spain (or ended up as sunken treasure which is still sought today.)

"Meanwhile, Christian missionaries began mass-conversion of the newly colonized Indians, and started to graft Catholic rituals and symbols onto the old religious metaphors. The giant Aztec Temple of the Sun was demolished, and rubble from it and other structures was used to fill in the surrounding swampland, including Lake Texcoco. On the site of the old Temple was erected an enormous Catholic cathedral.

"With the political colonization complete, Catholic authorities moved to finish off the social, religious and mental colonization of the indigenous peoples. Was the "Virgin of Guadalupe" part of this process?

"Today, the Virgin is a national symbol. Notes Reuters: "Known simply as 'La Virgen' throughout Mesoamerica, her image, which miraculously appeared on Juan Diego's cloak, is standard decoration in any Mexican home or car." The site of the alleged apparition was earlier a shrine devoted to the worship of the Indian goddess, Tonantzin, known as "Our Mother."

"The Abbot Tells All: The recent flap began when the Mexican daily paper Reforma quoted Abbot Schulemburg as saying: "(Juan Diego) is a symbol, not a reality." The abbot, who is now 81, then claimed he was misquoted, and Archbishop Sergio Obeso Rivera commented that: "The statement of the abbot must have been misinterpreted because you just can't say that (Diego did not exist.)"

"Schulemburg's quote was first thought to have been published in the Italian magazine "30 Giorno": but it then turned out that the Giroro article was based on an interview given "months earlier" (Reuters) with the local Catholic publication known as Ixtus. Reuters reported that "In that interview -- never denied by the abbot -- Schulemburg said Juan Diego symbolized the marriage between Catholicism and traditional Indian religions and said his beatification recognized a 'cult', not a real person."

"Associated Press reported similar wording. Abbot Schulenburg (sic) is reported to have said that the 1990 beatification of Juan Diego by the Pope "is a recognition of a cult. It is not a recognition of the physical, real existence of a person."

"AP also reports that "small protests" broke out once the statement was made public, and that "Demonstrators scrawled graffiti on church walls vilifying the abbot and demanding his ouster."

"Even so, local religious fanatics are apparently unaware that Abbot Schulemburg is not alone in his opinions. "Some church leaders," noted AP last week, "argued the apparition of the brown-skinned Virgin was a fable created to allow the Indians to continue to worship their own goddess. Others said the Spanish made up the story to help convert Mexico's Indians to Catholicism."

"The man who orchestrated the campaign for the beatification to sainthood of Juan Diego is now demanding that Abbot Schulemburg resign.

"A final word about the Virgin of Guadalupe. Today, she is depicted as having fair skin; she stands on the horns of a bull, said to symbolize fertility and potency, or on the outline of a crescent moon -- another symbol of the earth goddess.

50 posted on 06/19/2007 4:32:43 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 49 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

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