If you are correct, and you are allowed to pray to anyone, saint or sinner, then that defense seems gutted to me, since communing with a dead sinner would be outside the Communion of the Saints.”
Oh, my goodness! I am sorry I led you astray without explaining this. Everybody in the Communion of Saints is a sinner. You know that. I’m not talking about asking a damned soul for intercessory prayer: I’m talking about my freedom to pray for/be prayed for by anybody in the “Communion-of-Saints-Which-Includes-Sinners”. For such is what we all are, sinners, and at the same time, being saved from our sins by Christ Our Lord. Only a person in a state of grace can help others, or be helped by them, via prayer. But venial sins, while injurious, do not deprive the souls of all grace. So you can still pray for me :o)
“How is it not [spiritism]? There is some spiritual difference between communing with the dead while seeking and answer and simply communing with the dead without seeking a reply? God forbade the act of communication, not the nature of communication.
Christ never forbade any members of His Body from loving and praying for each other. The very idea of such love and prayer being forbidden, negates what Jesus said about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, that they are living; because God is the God of the living, not the dead. You are very much mistaken if you think that we members of the Body of Christ on earth have no living, vital, connection with the saints in heaven who are also members of that same Body with us. Or do you think Christ’s Body is three quarters dead?
The sin of spiritism consists in trying to summon or get information from the spirits of the departed. That’s what the Bible teaches (and it’s the dictionary definition as well.) It is quite the opposite of intercessory prayer, because spiritism/necromancy is an impious attempt to get power, not the sweet interchange of love which goes on constantly throughout the entire Body of Christ, through all His members.
”Well, that [the opinion of Fr, McNamara concerning canonization] seems to hinge on what I talked about above: whether prayer to the dead is truly forbidden, or not. If the Catholic church is really of the opinion that it is never forbidden, then his answer is at least consistent, but I’d still think that it was foolish. However, if it’s at least consistent, then I guess the Bishop could have been afraid to report the miracle “upstairs”, for fear they would denounce it or suppress the Indians because of it.”
I think you’ve got the gist of it as far as Bishop Z goes, but don’t see how Fr. McNamara’s opinion directly touches on that situation at all (unless I’m misunderstanding you: the connection seems a little puzzling to me.) Zumarraga’s dilemma didn’t hinge on the canonization of anybody. I suppose (I’m guessing here) he feared the apparition of the Virgin Mary could be maliciously misrepresented to people in Spain as the natives’ reversion to the veneration of Tonantzin, a goddess in the Aztec pantheon. He (Zumarraga) was surrounded by deeply corrupt, politically powerful men who would not have had any scruples about fomenting controversy about this as a means of cutting his throat. It seems to me that Bishop Z. chose a prudent path of quietly affirming an evident miracle which opened the doors of Faith to the indigenous people, while not drawing unneeded attention from Spain. Maybe he thought it good advice not to cast one’s pearls before swine...!
“Knowing that Zumárraga meant to report their crimes to the Spanish Court, Nuno and his men intercepted and censored all letters from New Spain.”
Ah, but letters weren’t the only means he had available. Not too long after the supposed date of the miracle, Zumarraga returned to Spain personally. He was there for several years, so he should have had every opportunity to circumvent any Spanish interference and give his testimony directly to his superiors.”
I have no doubt that he discussed Guzman’s crimes, the Virgin’s appearance, the huge surge of conversions, and a great deal else: that’s probably one reason why he personally went back to Spain. It looks to me (again a surmise) that he did not make formal depositions about it all, but spoke to the most reliable people under confidence. These were times when paranoia was, so to speak, justified. Lots of greedy, ambitious men surrounded him, interested in nothing but accessing Indian gold and Indian slaves unperturbed by the interfering consciences of monks. This is the kind of stuff that drove Bartolome de las Casas almost mad.
By the way, I think Zumarraga and Las Casas are very much allies. Las Casas was of a more ardent, polemical nature, Zumarraga more melancholy and perhaps prone to depression. Nevertheless they both did what they thought they could, to serve the native people and either craftily circumvent or frontally oppose worldly, venal governors. The Love of Christ impelled them.
“You’re describing situation where the Indians are pretty much prey to the Spanish, and the only ones who provide any comfort or aid to them are the Catholics. I’d say that, at least in part, is itself a possible explanation for why so many decided to adopt Catholicism. Also, the Indians who converted surely enjoyed some social or material benefits as a side effect, which when seen by other desperate Indians, could cause a cascade.”
Granted. Any historic episode --- I should say any human action--- springs from multiple motivations and intentions, factors known only partially even by ourselves. It’s not only a miracle. “Normally, God acts normally” --- and Man, too.
“The author, Don Antonio Valeriano, was a nephew of emperor Montezuma and a witness, as he lived between 1520 and 1606. He was 11 years old in 1531, the year of the apparitions”
Are those the correct dates?
I had never seen the later dates your sources list. Here’s what I was going by: Don Antonio Valeriano” 1520 (Link)
”“...you either have to consider it “very probably reliable,” or dismiss native testimony altogether.”
No, it’s not really such a cut and dry choice...If the manuscripts are reliable, then we can say the story was older than the published version, but not that the story is necessarily accurate.
OK, but historic truth is evaluated via necessarily fragmentary evidence, and reasonable inferences from evidence. There's no inductive logic.no irrefutable syllogisms, as this thread points out (Link) --- go ahead, it’s worth a look, especially the first coupla paragraphs.
All you can do is assemble the historical material you have, assess its quality, and judge not by proof but by preponderance of evidence.
Oh, and thanks for the population estimates: that’s valuable to me, and helps me put the conversion numbers in context.
I never proposed that there isn’t any other possible explanation for a mass conversion like that besides the miracle. I do say that the timing and magnitude of that particular event tracks well with the influence of Cuautlatoatzin’s tilma, the news of which was rapidly spread by Indian runners and which attracted highly impressed viewers from all parts of the former Aztec Empire.
Even that would not be nearly so interesting, if the records said that the tilma was then taken up to heaven, as Joseph Smith alleged of his golden plates with their (thoroughly discredited) “Reformed Egyptian” hieroglyphics. On the contrary, the tilma --- a coarse, burlap-like fabric made of ayate, a fiber derived from maguey cactus, -- ought to have disintegrated rapidly. Unprotected, the tilma was particularly vulnerable to deterioration caused by the humidity and saltpeter characteristic of the Tepeyac hill climate.(Saltpeter accelerates natural decomposition by supplying nitrogen for the fungi attacking wood, cellulose, cloth, and so forth.) It ought to have fallen to tatters in 20 years --- sooner, because it was handled, kissed, contaminated with perspiration, saliva, and other accelerants to decomposition.
On the contrary, 481 years later – now behind glass, to be sure --- there she is.
That impressed people even 200 years ago:
"Hymn that the Junta Guadalupana of Puebla consecrates to the most Holy Mary of Guadalupe, upon completing three hundred years since her apparition in Mexico." (1821)
Verse 10
Your heavenly Image
In fragile ayatl
Neither time consumes
Nor niter erases.
If a linen as bronze
You could keep,
Will your incorruptible faith,
Your love ever fail?
“Only a person in a state of grace can help others, or be helped by them, via prayer.”
Right, but the implication of that is, one must be able to know in someone who has died was in a state of grace, in order to know if prayer to them is acceptable by that standard. We as individuals divine that information for ourselves. However, the Catholic church contends that it has the keys of Peter, and is the dispenser of grace on Earth, so it, as a body, can officially make declarations as to such things.
That’s what declaring a Saint is, in part, is it not? The church is declaring that this person is holy, and that is, under your doctrine of the Communion of Saints, a “go ahead” to pray to them without worry. However, if you wanted to pray to someone who is not a saint, then you would, even under your own standard, have no certainty that it would be proper or effective.
“You are very much mistaken if you think that we members of the Body of Christ on earth have no living, vital, connection with the saints in heaven who are also members of that same Body with us. Or do you think Christ’s Body is three quarters dead?”
No, but firstly, as I said above, with the exception of those who have been officially declared saints, if you believe in the Catholic church’s authority on those matters, we really have no idea who is a part of that Communion for certain. I could have a great belief that someone was saved, but only Christ really knows for certain. That’s not really a problem when it comes to dealing with living people, since there is no prohibition with communicating with the living, whether they are saved or not.
Secondly, even though there’s surely a connection between all believers, that does not imply the type of connection that is proposed by the Catholic church. I can’t use prayer to communicate telepathically with a living Christian, yet you assume that those who may be in Heaven have this supernatural power, extending to the point of omniscience. So, while the Holy Spirit connects us all, I see know reason to assume this creates a mystical channel of communication to anyone besides God. We’re the body of Christ, and in the human body, the toes do not talk to the elbows, or the liver to the lungs. All communication goes from the members of the body to the nervous system, or back from the nervous system to the members of the body. In the body of Christ, Christ is the head, so I expect that communication straight to him is the natural path.
“The sin of spiritism consists in trying to summon or get information from the spirits of the departed. That’s what the Bible teaches (and it’s the dictionary definition as well.) It is quite the opposite of intercessory prayer, because spiritism/necromancy is an impious attempt to get power, not the sweet interchange of love which goes on constantly throughout the entire Body of Christ, through all His members.”
I think you’re splitting hairs here. Consulting the dead is forbidden, not just consulting them for a specific purpose. The Bible prohibits many spiritual practices specifically, but there are also generally condemnations which cover nearly ever form of occult practice, including simply communicating with the dead.
“All you can do is assemble the historical material you have, assess its quality, and judge not by proof but by preponderance of evidence.”
Sure, I don’t expect a miracle to necessarily be scientifically provable, or for a historical narrative to be verified to such a great degree. However, if the narrative is fantastic, and miracles by their very nature are so, it requires a higher standard of proof than is usual.
So, I might take General Grant’s diary pretty much at face value, if it is describing ordinary events. I’d only require that we not have more certain evidence disputing his account. However, with the Guadalupe story, it must meet that standard, but also must be accompanied by some additional evidence that could overcome the proper skepticism to a fantastic story. To accept it with a lesser standard opens us up to accepting all sorts of folklore and myths as being true.
As for the condition of the tilma, I’m not certain that is as impressive as its proponents suggest. First of all, fibers that would normally disintegrate quickly do not always do so, and some can last for thousands of years under the right conditions. We don’t know the exact conditions that it has been kept in over the years, but religious relics are normally treated with reverence, so I would expect that it would show more longevity than a cloak in everyday use. Also, there certainly doesn’t seem to have been a miraculous preservation of the painting, since it is seriously flaking, and appears to have been restored and at least partially repainted several times.