Scientists certify Our Lady of Guadalupe tilma

Western Catholic Reporter ^ | June 18, 2007 | By RAMON GONZALEZ

[HarleyD]

This miracle brought about the conversion of 9 million pagans, so it bore good fruit.

It doesn't matter HOW many conversions it brought about. I am sure that we both would agree that if tomorrow 9 million Hindus became Budhists we would not marvel and think this was God at work. From the Budhist's perspective they might.

Notice also that the image is Scriptural

So? Doesn't anyone stop and think that this person could have 1) been deceived or 2) been a deceiver?

Perhaps in this way, God could use Mary to lead the people away from their pagan religion and to Himself.

Perhaps, except to say that God the Father is not recounted in the story. Mary is talking about coming to her, not the Father.

The bishop dismissed Juan Diego's visions until the day when Juan Diego unfurled his tilma bearing the miraculous image, and fresh roses tumbled out. This was in wintertime, when roses were not in bloom.

And the magicians in Egypt were able to do miraculous signs. Simon in Acts was also. History, even recorded in scripture, have always been filled with people who can do miraculous things. This is not an indication of anything.

[HarleyD]

That's not at all clear from the text.

"that here on this plain a temple be built to me;"

I don't know how clearer the text can be.

In point of fact, the "temple" in question is a Catholic church. Every Catholic church in the world is a temple to the worship of Almighty God...

I don't know anywhere in Catholic doctrine that a church is called a "temple"; do you? This is a Mexican term going back to the temples of the pagan gods of Mexico. One would hope that Mary would have known enough to have told poor Juan Diego to erect a church to her and not a temple.

[HarleyD]

HD-It's a wonderful story but it does not call attention to God once

Sandyeggo-It's right there in the first sentence you put in red font:...

And that's all that is mentioned and then it's in an off-handed way. The rest is about doing things for Mary so that Mary will bless and take care of them.

[Campion]

Harley, the "temple" exists. It was built, past tense. It is not a pagan temple to Mary. It is a Christian church.

Juan Diego was a illiterate Indian. He was not a doctor of reformed theology, or any other kind of theology. Sometimes God reaches us down where we are, even though you don't approve.

[rbosque]

God bless all who venerate her!

[HarleyD]

What I’m not hearing is how anyone know this vision of Mary was from God? Every time there's a “virgin sighting”, Mary always ends up looking like one of the natives. Doesn’t that seem a tad odd? Our Lord Jesus, in His resurrected body, still appeared with the imprints in His hands and the wound in His side. In this case Mary probably would have had a sombrero on if it wasn’t for her halo.

I have yet to see Mary looking like a short dark Middle Eastern as she most likely was; rather than the African, Oriental or anything else. It is understandable when people paint pictures of Mary that she appears like this because it is an artist's interpretation. However, when people say that Mary stamped her picture on their T-shirt, then one would hope that it would be an exact likeness of her. If you compare Juan's pictures among all the other pictures from the few who have similar stories, then you would think the likeness would be the same. She wouldn't look like she just came off a catechism card.

It isn't a matter of what WE believe. It is a matter of what scripture tells us.

[Daffy]

“I don’t know anywhere in Catholic doctrine that a church is called a “temple”; do you?”

I heard St. Peter’s in Rome is so called.

[Aquinasfan]

It doesn't matter HOW many conversions it brought about.

"You will know a tree by its fruit." --Jesus

I am sure that we both would agree that if tomorrow 9 million Hindus became Budhists we would not marvel and think this was God at work. From the Budhist's perspective they might.

But we're not talking about non-Christian religions. We're talking about 9 million conversions to Christianity. Does that sound like the work of Satan?

"If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand?" --Jesus

So? Doesn't anyone stop and think that this person could have 1) been deceived or 2) been a deceiver?

See above.

Perhaps, except to say that God the Father is not recounted in the story. Mary is talking about coming to her, not the Father.

Sometimes Christians aid other people without invoking God's name. That does't make their actions intrinsically evil. Besides, in the account I read she identified herself as the Mother of God. She also instructed Juan Diego to go to see his bishop --to go to the Church. The connection with Christ's Church is quite clear.

1 Timothy 3:15

if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

And the magicians in Egypt were able to do miraculous signs. Simon in Acts was also.

And the devil may appear as an angel of light.

But what fruit did these signs bear? Again, Satan would not work a sign that would result in the mass conversion of pagans. His kingdom would be divided against itself.

[HarleyD]

I heard St. Peter’s in Rome is so called.

I believe it's called the St. Peter's Basilica unless they've begun instituting animal sacrifices.

[RightWhale]

the four-petal flower resting on her womb, which in Nahualt culture is a symbol of pregnancy

Total cultural integration.

[HarleyD]

HD-It doesn't matter HOW many conversions

Jesus-"You will know a tree by its fruit."

Numbers of conversions are a poor measurement of spiritual life. Elijah lamented that no one in Israel was left. Jeremiah weeped at the people's hardness. Noah preached all the while building an ark for eight.

If we want to use conversion as a measuring tool, we would have to say Islam is correct which is the fastest growing religion.

We're talking about 9 million conversions to Christianity. Does that sound like the work of Satan?

At great risk of drawing the ire of many Catholics, if we objectively look at this incidence, we are basing this whole situation on an apparition of Mary telling people to construct a "temple" to her so she will bless the people. If people followed her advise, they were not converted because there is no call for repentence and asking God for forgiveness as required in scripture. God uses all things to His glory so it is entirely possible that some of these people understood the message and "saw the light" so to speak. But, based upon what Juan told everone, this is not the gospel message.

Sometimes Christians aid other people without invoking God's name. That does't make their actions intrinsically evil.

And invoking God's name doesn't make their actions entirely righteous.

[Nihil Obstat]

Thank God for Our Lady of Guadalupe.

[wmfights]

And the magicians in Egypt were able to do miraculous signs. Simon in Acts was also. History, even recorded in scripture, have always been filled with people who can do miraculous things. This is not an indication of anything.

Amen!

We have been warned about those that will mislead. I only know of one instance where God will use humans (we believe are dead) to bring his message to us and that has not occurred yet. In Scripture God reveals his message to us through his Son, the Holy Spirit, or angels.

[Aquinasfan]

We're talking about 9 million conversions to Christianity. Does that sound like the work of Satan? At great risk of drawing the ire of many Catholics, if we objectively look at this incidence, we are basing this whole situation on an apparition of Mary telling people to construct a "temple" to her so she will bless the people.

But weren't they blessed? They became Christians. In doing so, they were baptized. Adult baptism requires repentance and belief. With this miraculous event, God, working through Mary, established the divine nature of His Church, so much so that millions of pagans were led into Christ's Church.

If people followed her advise, they were not converted because there is no call for repentence and asking God for forgiveness as required in scripture.

But in entering the Church through baptism, they repented of their sins and professed belief in Christ.

God uses all things to His glory so it is entirely possible that some of these people understood the message and "saw the light" so to speak. But, based upon what Juan told everone, this is not the gospel message.

Why would Mary be limited to strictly speaking the gospel message? She led the pagans to Christ's Church, and Christ Himself, as the woman whose offspring "crushed the head of the serpent."

[Aquinasfan]

I believe it's called the St. Peter's Basilica unless they've begun instituting animal sacrifices.

Somewhere in St. Peter's the church is referred to as a temple, at least according to Mother Angelica. (I saw this rerun last week).

She herself claims to have been told by the infant Jesus to "build a temple for me." She said that she was confused, because she had never heard of a Catholic temple. But one day when she was in St. Peter's, she saw that it was called a temple.

The Solomonic columns used in the high alter of St. Peter's provide converging evidence. Catholic Churches are heavily influenced by the design of Solomon's Temple.

Finally, we Christians can regard ourselves as completed or messianic Jews. So the idea of calling a church a temple should not pose too great of a problem for us.

My two cents, anyway 8-)

[Mrs. Don-o]

HarleyD, you are quite right to be skeptical about this or any other alleged apparition. It is far more common for an apparition to be the product of wishful thinking, imagination, abnormal mental processes, or hoax than for it to be a true miracle of God: and even demonic deception is always a possibility.

This particular apparition has some strong evidence in its favor; but other FReepers have posted lots of links, so I encourage you to train you critical eye on it, and evaluate things for yourself.

Here's a reasonable hypothesis of why Christ's mother--- if this is His mother---- would want to emphasize so much her own motherhood. And that would be hinted at by the location of her visit. It was the hill of Tepeyac, where previously there had been the pyramid of the Aztec goddess Tonantzin, which means simply "Venerable Mother."

The Aztecs had as great an interest in and reverence for sacred realities as did the pagan Greeks at Areopagus. But it's hard for us even to grasp the profound humiliation and disorientation they suffered when their whole society was shattered by this utterly alien invasion and conquest. It would be very hard for them to accept Christ from the aliens at Castilian knifepoint; Christianity would be seen as something that almost deified the Spanish, while annihilating the Aztec.

So it was necessary for them to be evangelized by "one of their own," so to speak. And thus Mary came, very young, very dark, very much NOT a goddess, hands folded reverently and eyes meekly downcast, using elaborate Aztec iconographic aymbolism to tell them --- as Paul told the Greeks at Mars Hill --- who their "unknown god" really is.

Don't be misled by thinking her whole message is in her words. It's all in her visual symbolism. She is not the Supreme Being. But she is carrying Him.

The fact that she wanted a 'temple' under the authority of Bishop Zumarraga clearly means she wanted to draw people into the church of the Christians, for here many millions have encountered Christ.

If it were not for her, I believe the Mesoamerican people would overwhelmingly be Huitzilopochtli-worshippers to this day.

In fact, thinking of the titanic struggle going on in Mexico even now as we speak, with their vile government oppressing the poor (abort them or export them!), rapidly and comprehensively embracing the Culture of Death (legalizing abortion, promoting contraception, honoring perverse sexuality, and prostitution) I suspect Huitzilopochtli is still a strong contender.

Give a thought to the significance of that snake under Mary's foot. "I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and hers..."

[HarleyD]

...It would be very hard for them to accept Christ from the aliens at Castilian knifepoint; Christianity would be seen as something that almost deified the Spanish, while annihilating the Aztec. So it was necessary for them to be evangelized by "one of their own," so to speak. And thus Mary came, very young, very dark, very much NOT a goddess, hands folded reverently and eyes meekly downcast, using elaborate Aztec iconographic aymbolism

I would suggest the Catholic Church has gone positively wacky with Mary. Even the Orthodox roll their eyes over the Marian doctrine that has been coming out of the Church for the last 200 years. People are seeing Mary more often (thousands of reported sightings yearly) simply because Mary is hip.

It was very poor form for the Spainards to run into Central America to loot and plunder at the same time they were trying to convert the lost souls. However I sincerely doubt that Mary was, or would have been, more appealing to the people than the word of God. God's word, after all, is the power of salvation and the method by which He instills faith. Visions of Mary, while they make make everyone feel good, just doesn't have that type of power.

Milan hospital replaces crucifix with (statue of) Mary to please Muslims

[Mrs. Don-o]

"I sincerely doubt that Mary was, or would have been, more appealing to the people than the word of God."

Be careful not to set up a false dichotomy here. Mary, pregnant, is carrying Jesus, the Word of God. Pretty clearly this is a package deal, not an either/or.

And if you go to the Basilica of Guadalupe (or any other Catholic church) you can't help but notice that the Mass is drenched with Scripture: not only the Epistle, the Old Testament lesson, the Psalm, and the Gospel at EVERY Sunday Mass, but in fact all the prayers are either straight Scripture or based on Scripture.

So if Mary got them into the Church, she got them into the Word.

[Mrs. Don-o]

You certainly don’t believe, “For God so loved the world, that He sent a book...”?