Skip to comments.2 Questions related to Faith & Apologetics. A Feast day & Our Lady of Guadalupe [Catholic Caucus]
Posted on 11/06/2008 6:44:31 PM PST by RGPII
Ok, first off, I really don't write vanities, I even searched for help on how to write them so I am trying not to do this wrong. Also this is not a topic that one needs to get wrapped up about. Just mere questions.
This first one is just a point of information but it is not easily answered.
1. Has there ever been a feast day for the Holy Lance or Holy Spear (and Nails even I've believed I have also seen) (the spear meaning the one that pierced the side of Our Savior crucified)? I read about this in a book dated from around 1877. So this is quite a long time ago and I've found little. Possibly quotes about the Latin name of the soldier who did this only. I realize there are calendars on Feast Days but I have not found it on that. No biggie but a bit of a stunner.
2. Ok, I will start out here with a simple question and add some additional info. I don't want this to be too complex.
Concerning the painting of Our Lady of Guadalupe:
Basically, is there a chance Marcos Cipac de Aquino painted this? It is only a possibility and this historic detail is never mentioned in Catholic literature or on television shows.
Note, the Wikipedia quote (under controversies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Guadalupe (please cut and paste or see article ):
"As early as 1556 Francisco de Bustamante, head of the Colony's Franciscans, delivered a sermon before the Viceroy and members of the Royal Audience. In that sermon, disparaging the holy origins of the picture and contradicting Archbishop Alonso de Montúfar's sermon of two days before, Bustamante stated:
"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 (my note: Cipac de Aquino) the Indian is in any way miraculous.""
I've read two or three books on Our Lady of Guadalupe, one close to me is The wonder of Guadalupe. Francis Johnston, the author of this book writes in his/her acknowledgements, page 7, The wonder of Guadalupe- TAN books, 1981:
"Finally, this book is not intended to be an exhaustive treatise on the subject of Guadalupe, but simply an introduction to enable the reader to become acquainted with the story. While the author has made every effort to achieve the highest accuracy, he would be very grateful to be advised of any omission of importance, or error of fact or interpretation, which may have crept up in the work."
And so, I thought, oh yes, I have a question. If one browses some skeptic site, they mention this detail as well. I just wonder if anyone has ever come across any of this before. I am well aware of all of the lore on Our Lady of Guadalupe, concerning her eyes and how during the religious oppressions in Mexico, it was sought once to blow up the painting and it did not work though the explosion bent the metal of candle holders, so we don't really need to go through any of this other though I appreciate anyone's knowledge on such. Just if the Church has ever addressed this recorded history that conflicts a bit with what we normally hear.
I certainly don't wish for this to be offensive and only wish to discuss this. It is a beautiful image.
Also, I have asked this in other venues and have not received any satisfactory answers really and have even tried to get it to some "experts" like Karl Keating but that has been a bit time consuming.
This is no big deal but I have wondered and I thank you for your time.
Just a suggestion - next time you might want to put a ‘Caucus’ designation on a thread like this.
Sure, thanks, I saw that placed on a thread the other day.
Anyway, I hope if something comes in, no one will be offended and it can all be directed to me. Thanks again. I saw “Caucus” placed on a thread but I haven’t been here enough to become accustomed to the practice.
I don’t doubt that there were those questioning, taking the side of “devil’s advocate” (as someone was required to do in those days), or simply not believing at first the apparition at Guadalupe, just as there were people who didn’t believe St. Bernadette at Lourdes many centuries later.
Likewise I was tired last night to find references but the Holy Lance does indeed have an interesting history of it's own.
"The name of the soldier who pierced Christ's side is not given in the Bible, but in the oldest known references to the legend, the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus appended to late manuscripts of the 4th century Acts of Pilate, the soldier is identified with a centurion and called Logginus or Longinus (making the spear's "correct" Latin name Lancea Longini)." - Holy Lance article.
I wasn’t accusing you or anyone of planting doubt, however, if examples of such a thing are found, it doesn’t mean one should doubt. However, as you said, people aren’t required to believe in apparitions, however, they should accept the recognized ones. (Also, Ste. Marie Bernard Soubirous is one of my favorite saints, for the record).
What they can mean is that the apparition in question underwent a rigorous process before being declared as recognized, and therefore there should be even more reason to believe, and not just accepted on blind faith.
Karl Keating (and his organization Catholic Answers - www.catholic.org)...an outstanding resource, if I must say myself.
As to your comments on the spear of St. Longinus, I must say that I don’t have much knowledge in that area (other than the time in the 8th grade at St. Josaphat Elementary when I played the part in the Passion play).
Would you be saying there is no paint on the telma? I believe there is. That does nothing against it being of a Divine origin. However, “sacred image” does seem to be a better choice of words.
Also as this article reads, the story is well known.
The story is well known.- http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_12_38/ai_82803348/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1
Thank you for your input.
Ping to post #4.
For guidelines pertaining to the Religion Forum, click here.
Actually, I found an answer to my question and when we sometimes find an item we wonder about and it is then credibly answered, my faith at least is strengthened.
But to go right to the matter, from the book The wonder of Guadalupe, pages 68-71, excerpted:
“A number of the missionary friars in the country had earlier been infected by Luther’s misguided preaching against the so-called worship of images, and had convinced themselves that the passionate devotion of the natives to the sacred portrait at Tepeyac represented a perilous leaning in this direction....”
So, it’s really two pages long and the original wiki article mentioned said artist Cipo de Aquino but he is not mentioned in the book. It’s difficult to take quotes out of context, however
“Two days later, Montufar journeyed to the hermitage and told the newly baptised natives who were praying there “how they were to understand devotion to the sacred image of Our Lady, how they honoured not the tableau, nor the portrait, but Our Lady herself whose representation this was.” The response from his opponents was immediate and shattering.
Later that day, the Franciscan Provincial, Fray Bustamante (the reference point really and mentioned in my wikipedia quote), preached to a packed congregation at High Mass in the cathedral of Mexico City, fully aware that among his listeners were the Viceroy of the country and his magistrates. He openly lashed out at the cult of the sacred image because “it was very injurious to the natives since it fostered a belief that the picture, which was painted by an indian, worked miracles and was therefore a god.” (These were Fray Bustamante’s words) whereas “the missionaries had exerted every effort to make the natives understand that images were only things of wood and stone and they must not be adored...”
The Provincial’s words caused a widespread scandal, and the very next day the indignant Archbishop opened a juridical inquest into the unfortunate episode, during which nearly all the witnesses sided with him against Bustamante and his vociferous supporters. During the following weeks, acrimony between the two factions grew so fierce that the Viceroy was forced to intervene and counsel moderation (Hmmn, we saw that story of the Monks of Armenia and Greece getting into scuffles in Rome). Though Montufar was reluctant to initiate canonical proceedings against Bustamante, he withdrew the custody of the Tepeyac (which is really where Our Lady of Guadalupe was, Tepeyac hill) hermitage from the Franciscans, which was about the only effective action he could take in these trying circumstances.
This regrettable affair, although stimulating an even greater devotion to the sacred image, proved that Zumurraga’s (Zumurraga, I believe is the Bishop who received Juan Diego initially and received the cloak and the Castillian roses as tradition tells it) earlier prudence was the wiser counsel. As a result, a mantle of official silence descended on Guadalupe, imposed, it is believed, by Charles V in Spain. This in itself, would certainly account for the scarcity of documents on Guadalupe.
(finally, an interesting parallel here)
Perhaps it is more than coincidence that a similar fate overtook the Holy Shroud when Pierre d’Arcis denounced those who regarded the relic as genuince “when the said cloth had been cunningly painted.” Pope Clement VII felt oblged to intervene (in 1389) and enjoin silence on both factions in the dispute, while permitting devotion to the Shroud to continue on condition that it was considered a “representation” of the burial cloth of Christ. In consequence, the later transfer of the Shroud to the Charney family is still veiled in mystery.
But the Bustamante incident is important in one respect: the proven existence of his sermon confirms that the sacred image was already an object of widespread veneration at that time, and hence regarded as of miraculous origin, prior to 1556.”