St. Juan Diego: Ordinary Son of Mary

shutterstock_216859333

Juan Diego was born in 1474 in a place called Cuautitlán. Once a part of the Aztec Empire, Cuautitlán was conquered by the Spanish and is now in present day Mexico City. Born before the Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire, Juan Diego was an indigenous Mexican who was given the name Cuauhtlatoatzin at birth. When Franciscan missionaries arrived, Cuauhtlatoatzin and his wife were some of the first indigenous people to convert. At baptism, they were given the names Juan Diego and Maria Lucia. Juan Diego was not a slave but neither did he belong to any of the upper classes of priest, noble, or warrior. He owned a small piece of land and worked as a farmer and maker of mats.

After his conversion, Juan Diego walked a long distance from his home to church to attend Mass and receive religious education. During one of his trips, the Virgin Mary appeared to him on the road. Mary appeared not as European paintings showed her but as an indigenous woman with dark skin and hair. She revealed who she was to Juan and asked him to tell the bishop she wished a church to be built on that spot. Juan Diego did as he was told but was rebuffed by the bishop. On his return trip, the Virgin appeared again. Juan Diego reported his failure but she asked him to repeat the request again. He did so the next day and, this time, the bishop asked for a sign. When the Virgin appeared to Juan that evening, she informed him that she would give him the sign the next day. That night, Juan Diego’s uncle became gravely ill. In order to reach the church to fetch a priest for last rites, Juan avoided the spot where he’d seen Mary in the past. But the Blessed Mother appeared to him on this new path and gently rebuked him with the question, “Am I not here, I who am your mother?”

Mary assured Juan Diego that his uncle would be healed and asked him to collect flowers as the sign the bishop required. Juan found around him flowers in bloom long out of season. One tradition holds that the flowers were all Castilian roses. Another tradition includes roses, lilies, carnations, and many other flowers. Either way, Juan Diego gathered many flowers in his tilma, the cloak worn by indigenous mexicans. When he came to the bishop, Juan opened his tilma and poured the flowers at his feet. On his cloak was imprinted a beautiful icon of Mary with the moon beneath her feet. The bishop kept this beautiful image as proof of the truth of Juan Diego’s account. This appearance of Mary and the image she gave are now known as Our Lady of Guadalupe.

Popular throughout the Americas, Our Lady of Guadalupe is a beautiful picture of Mary’s motherhood over all people. Mary is the “Mother of God,”of course. But she is also the mother of all Christians and she desires more children. This is what is so wonderful about her apparitions to different people at different points in history. By taking on the appearance of indigenous Mexicans, Mary shows her great concern and advocacy for people who may be mistreated or forgotten.

In addition to this theme of universal motherhood, Juan Diego’s story is also a very personal one. In order to accomplish her purpose, Mary chose a single, ordinary man. The future saint recognized his unworthiness in the face of the Holy Lady but he still offered his tilma, his cloak. In this simple and tangible gesture, Juan laid down what he had to his Lady. Mary took the gift and filled it with blessings from her Son. She even transformed the cloak, changing the plain fabric into a banner bearing her image. It become a token and sign of her intercession. The story is a kind of spiritual chivalry, an entirely appropriate picture of Mary’s place in our faith. Christ is our King and Mary is our Lady, our patroness and intercessor before the throne.

When St. Juan Diego hurried past Mary in a rush to seek help for his uncle, Mary found him anyway and softly rebuked him with the question, “Am I not here, I who am your mother?” I am sure our Blessed Mother asks me this often as I rush past her in my worries. St. Juan Diego can now answer her question with a resounding “Yes! You are my mother and I am ready to receive your help.” St. Juan Diego Cuauhtlatoatzin, like all saints, is an exemplary Christian. And he is also a son of Mary. Let us all ask Our Lady of Guadalupe to live as her children.

>>Would love to see the actual tilma and all the evidence that non-believers have tried to destroy it.<<

I also saw the “sacrificial cross” — arguably one of the most amazing artifacts of the modern era. Actually, I might have been one of the last tourists to see the original Basilica as time and tide have all but condemned it. There must have been hundreds of cross-wires and struts holding it together. MUI they don’t let anyone inside anymore.

And “tilma” is a more accurate spelling (post in haste, etc.)

>>How many times did you go around on the tread?<<

I think 10 — and we were ALSO blessed to have a priest come out and bless us and with holy water (he actually flung it like a college dorm dude). But we did also get a moment when our holy cars were blessed and anointed.

WHEN (I pray not if), Mrs. FD is declared cancer free next Friday we will do a pilgrimage back to the Basilica (soon, in the next few months) to thank God for His divine intervention. Actually, no matter what, we will go there since He has already intervened with the prayers of all of FReepers and our family and friends. His will be done.

Mrs. FD who has never had a single bad thought about anyone ever, deserves His intervention. I have been not the best Christian, as in, pretty rotten — but I am doing my best for her.

It wasn’t until much later I realized how cool it was we were there when we were and all the surrounding things that are now lost to history.

Your OPINION only.

It's not "my opinion" only, but is the opinion of many whom have good reasons for holding that view, inclusive of a Franciscan priest who's order had centuries ago had custody of the artifact, until that artifact was taken away from them, and given over to the Dominicans --- if memory serves correct.

Do you not know also of the Virgin of Guadalupe Extremadura (Spain)?

Go look that one up> I could provide a link, for a decent place to begin one's own investigation -- but why should I?

Yet when or if you were to look upon image of that statue, she does have a dark face.

Men such as Columbus, (and many other New World explorers whom set off from Spain made pilgrimage to that statue)-- some time right before he sailed away to the West, on his first voyage.

There were paintings of that statue also, imagery or likeness of that icon.

The Mexican Guadalupe image bears striking resemblance to other Marian imagery of that era, which paintings also resembled and can traced in similarity to European/Middle Eastern paintings of yet greater antiquity.

It does not take a highly trained art historian, to be able to trace the 'art' aspect influences --- which quite likely made their way to Mexico almost as in form of token/talisman-like imagery that the one whom the Franciscan identified as Marcos the Indian was the one whom either painted the original image, or else other later and unnamed persons repainted the image as seen today.

There is said by some of the college student who participated in the [ahem] research that a Hispanic and Roman Catholic college professor engaged in, that there had been an original, and cruder image which had been painted over with a white paste of sorts, with that image having also been retouched upon numerous occasion.

Yet one will not find information of that sort (other than in possibly less-than-fully-truthful presentation) at any of dozens of web pages devoted to the image, and to "Mary".

So--- if you would like to find out the truth, then I will suggest that one engage in a diligent search for it -- beyond all the place where it is being promoted.

By which I mean, once it is known what the alleged details are, from there one need see if those same could be made subject to falsification.

In other words -- test the claims.

Which is far, far different that looking only for reassurance for what one desires to be true...

A bishop of Mexico City -- right about the time this Juan Diego person was canonized did so, but boy howdy, it cost him a great deal with that being yet more demonstration that "the church of frauds" as the Orthodox referred to Rome in regards to the various forged documents those of Rome produced (but many of Rome, themselves not knowing any better, did themselves accept) in support of the concept of there allegedly the bishop of Rome, that pope there, and not other "popes" was always pope over all from the earliest Church universal. The Orthodox protested, and still do, but do so quietly and circumspectly.

I could say more which runs contrary to that which is otherwise much repeated in varied ways concerning the image and it's history -- but again -- why should I bother?

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.