Was Our Lady of Guadalupe Wrong?

Christ or Chaos ^ | December 15,2004 | Thomas Droleskey

[Romulus]

To begin with, it implies that the Mass has always been uniform and static. In fact, the Mass that Juan Diego attended predates the Tridentine reforms by several decades. While substantially the same, before Trent the Holy Sacrifice as offered in the Latin Rite was characterised by a rich variety and elaboration according to location and the traditions of the celebrant's order, most (but not all of which) was pared away at Trent.

[HarleyD]

Considering that it is infallible Catholic doctrine, sure. Every Catholic is supposed to know and believe this.

God alone swears securely, because He alone is infallible.--Augustine of Hippo, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series: Volume VIII, St. Augustine on the Psalms, Psalm LXXXIX, Sec. 4

Please let me know when the Catholics decide to follow the infallible teachings of Vatican I or the infallible teachings of Vatican II.

[pascendi]

No argument here against St. Augustine. It refutes nothing. In fact, it is the very principle upon which the temporal aims of state are to be aligned linearly with the spiritual aims of the Church. That aim or objective is, of course, the eternal salvation of the immortal souls of Her members.

"Please let me know when the Catholics decide to follow the infallible teachings of Vatican I or the infallible teachings of Vatican II."

After they quit confusing what's infallible and what isn't, and as soon as they quit believing that there are any new Catholic teachings. After they've figured out that ultimate reality in 2005 is the same ultimate reality of 1302.

When it happens, it'll be self-evident.

[HarleyD]

It's convenient technique to say whatever we decide is the right decision and if we change our mind that is the right decision as well. There are many groups who use this same argument on me before including the Eastern Orthodox-as flawed as it is.

Am I'm to assume the RCC is correct or the Eastern Orthodox is correct? Both can be traced to the early church fathers. Both claim their church is infallible. Who's infallibility is correct?

[Pyro7480]

To begin with, it implies that the Mass has always been uniform and static. In fact, the Mass that Juan Diego attended predates the Tridentine reforms by several decades. While substantially the same, before Trent the Holy Sacrifice as offered in the Latin Rite was characterised by a rich variety and elaboration according to location and the traditions of the celebrant's order, most (but not all of which) was pared away at Trent.

I'm sure the author doesn't mean that at all. One thing all of the pre-Tridentine Latin "uses" had is the Roman Canon. Also, the bishop of Mexico City at the time was a Franciscan, and the Franciscans are the ones who spread the use of the Roman use which would become the "standardized" Tridentine Mass.

[Romulus]

That's as may be, but Droleskey's peddling the romantic fiction that liturgy throughout the West was characterised by a utopian uniformity. I realise the man's got his agenda, but it doesn't moot his obligation to be truthful.

[Mr. Jeeves]

Both claim their church is infallible. Who's infallibility is correct?

Whichever one happens to have you tied to a stake, ready to light the bonfire under your heretical feet, of course. ;)

[Guelph4ever]

The Church has always dictated to the government, in fact there would be no government without the Church. Even before the Christian era this has been so, it has been so since Samuel anointed Saul and David and so the other prophets and priests the other kings of Israel. It was so when St Ambrose forced Emperor Theodosius to do penance, it was so when Pope St Leo III crowned Charlemagne Emperor of the Romans, and so on and so forth. The only legitimate authority (not simply "power") that exists in this world comes from God through His Church.

Should we give up democratic principles? Not entirely perhaps, but we certainly have to give up "absolute democracy" which pretty much means, the majority is always right: a totally anti-Christian view. The Scriptures say we are to "lean not on our own understanding' and that the majority will most often do what is evil, while only a minority follow the path of righteousness. Similarly, this is all tied to tollerance, and as the great G.K. Chesterton said, "tolerance is the virtue of people who don't believe in anything". Jesus was far from "tolerant", He said whoever is not with him, is against him. simple.

As far as socialism, and the Church wanting money to finance their schemes, you couldn't be more misinformed. The Medieval Church was the great example of the opposite of socialism, which is public welfare, as the Church was the source of private welfare. The "schemes" the Church financed were things like schools, poor houses, widows, orphans, hospitals, universities, most of which recieved nothing from the state and for which the taxpayers paid nothing. In this time the government did almost nothing beyond defense, foreign relations and perhaps some artistic patronage. And even then, the military was extremely "privatized" most of the time anyway.

Christendom was not the horrible, oppressive regime the liberals would have you believe it was. It was in fact the basis for such things as constitutional government (though not in the hypocritic form we know it today), of "states rights" against federalism and before we started trying to build legal "walls" around our religion to try and exclude Christ the King from having any sway over government.

[Aliska]

Here is one name; I can't take the time to look up the other one. I got this book on inter-library loan from a local catholic college:

Our Lady of Guadalupe, Mexican National Symbol by Stafford Poole (a Vincentienne priest)

It is the kind of book that you have to really concentrate on to follow the chronology and reasoning, almost take notes. Each chapter is built upon the previous developments, and it was a difficult read because his intellect far surpasses mine.

I don't have the time to look up the other priest who was in charge of the shrine for some years. It's out there on the net somewhere, but I'm not in "catholic heavy research mode right now". He didn't believe it was literally true and may have been one of the few who warned JPII before the canonization of Juan Diego. Anyway there is controversy surrounding him. They moved him somewhere and I read something on the net that may be spurious or caluminous about him so I'd prefer not to repeat it because I have no way of knowing if it is true or not.

My point on that is that "true believers" will often say negative things to discredit people who have taken a stand in opposition to theirs.

My personal research led me to a monastery in Spain where a very similar painting is owned. I can't go there to see for myself and read a travelougue that said photo taking was not allowed in there, but I would be very curious to compare that painting with the image (as is was originally; it is my understanding that details have been added from the original).

As to the alleged image in the eyes, I used to buy into that kind of stuff, too, but that far from clinches it for me now. Lots of things look like something they aren't.

If it makes people happy to take everything at face value, that is fine, but for me, when there are serious, legitimate doubts about one prodigy, it casts doubts on other ones.

I base my faith on scripture and the sacraments mainly and the teachings of the church that make sense, most of which do.

[Aliska]

Is this not correct?

You didn't ask me, but I believe the church given it "worthy of belief" status.

Let's face it. If it turns out not to be true, what will that do to the millions who revere this icon?

Best leave well enough alone, I suppose. History tells us what happened in the Russian Orthodox church when they tried to correct an historical mistake.

[RnMomof7]

Our Lady is the Mother of the Word

I hate to nit pick, but the WORD is self existent and eternal . Mary was the mother of the word made flesh

Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Jhn 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Jhn 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

The word created Mary , He was not dependent on Mary for existence

[PennsylvaniaMom]

Bookmarking for a later read...AskSt.Philomena...please add me to your 'ping' list. Thanks.

PaMom

[Pyro7480]

I hate to nit pick, but the WORD is self existent and eternal . Mary was the mother of the word made flesh

Nestorianism alert!

[Pyro7480]

Actually, I shouldn't have jumped the gun with my "alert." Are you saying Mary "only" bore the human "part" of Jesus in her womb, or was Jesus true God and true Man in her womb?

[Salvation]

American Catholic’s Saint of the Day

December 12, 2006

Our Lady of Guadalupe

The feast in honor of Our Lady of Guadalupe goes back to the sixteenth century. Chronicles of that period tell us the story.

A poor Indian named Cuauhtlatohuac was baptized and given the name Juan Diego. He was a 57-year-old widower and lived in a small village near Mexico City. On Saturday morning, December 9, 1531, he was on his way to a nearby barrio to attend Mass in honor of Our Lady.

He was walking by a hill called Tepeyac when he heard beautiful music like the warbling of birds. A radiant cloud appeared and within it a young Native American maiden dressed like an Aztec princess. The lady spoke to him in his own language and sent him to the bishop of Mexico, a Franciscan named Juan de Zumarraga. The bishop was to build a chapel in the place where the lady appeared.

Eventually the bishop told Juan Diego to have the lady give him a sign. About this same time Juan Diego’s uncle became seriously ill. This led poor Diego to try to avoid the lady. The lady found Diego, nevertheless, assured him that his uncle would recover and provided roses for Juan to carry to the bishop in his cape or tilma.

When Juan Diego opened his tilma in the bishop’s presence, the roses fell to the ground and the bishop sank to his knees. On Juan Diego’s tilma appeared an image of Mary as she had appeared at the hill of Tepeyac. It was December 12, 1531.

Comment:

Mary's appearance to Juan Diego as one of his people is a powerful reminder that Mary and the God who sent her accept all peoples. In the context of the sometimes rude and cruel treatment of the Indians by the Spaniards, the apparition was a rebuke to the Spaniards and an event of vast significance for Native Americans. While a number of them had converted before this incident, they now came in droves. According to a contemporary chronicler, nine million Indians became Catholic in a very short time. In these days when we hear so much about God's preferential option for the poor, Our Lady of Guadalupe cries out to us that God's love for and identification with the poor is an age-old truth that stems from the Gospel itself.

Quote:

Mary to Juan Diego: “My dearest son, I am the eternal Virgin Mary, Mother of the true God, Author of Life, Creator of all and Lord of the Heavens and of the Earth...and it is my desire that a church be built here in this place for me, where, as your most merciful Mother and that of all your people, I may show my loving clemency and the compassion that I bear to the Indians, and to those who love and seek me...” (from an ancient chronicle).