Posted on 12/08/2018 7:17:28 AM PST by NYer
Have you ever heard of this? I thought you might find it very interesting.
It must be acknowledged, however, that recent historical criticism has shown that in other directions the Lauretan tradition is beset with difficulties of the gravest kind. These have been skilfully presented in the much-discussed work of Canon Chevalier, "Notre Dame de Lorette" (Paris, 1906). It is possible that the author has in some directions pressed his evidence too far and has perhaps overstated his case, but despite the efforts of such writers as Eschbach, Faloci-Pulignani, Thomas, and Kresser, the substance of his argument remains intact and has as yet found no adequate reply. The general contention of the work may be summarized under five heads: (1) From the accounts left by pilgrims and others it appears that before the time of the first translation (1291) there was no little cottage venerated at Nazareth which could correspond in any satisfactory way with the present Santa Casa at Loreto. So far as there was question at all in Nazareth of the abode in which the Blessed Virgin had lived, what was pointed out to pilgrims was a sort of natural cavern in the rock. (2) Oriental chronicles and similar accounts of pilgrims are absolutely silent as to any change which took place in 1291. There is no word of the disappearance at Nazareth of a shrine formerly held in veneration there. It is not until the sixteenth century that we find among Orientals any hint of a consciousness of their loss and then the idea was suggested from the West. (3) There are charters and other contemporary documents which prove that a church dedicated to the Blessed Virgin already existed at Loreto in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, that is to say, before the epoch of the supposed translation. (4) When we eliminate certain documents commonly appealed to as early testimonies to the tradition, but demonstrably spurious, we find that no writer can be shown to have heard of the miraculous translation of the Holy House before 1472, i.e., 180 years after the event is supposed to have taken place. The shrine and church of Loreto are indeed often mentioned; the church is said by Paul II in 1464 to have been miraculously founded, and it is further implied that the statue or image of the Blessed Virgin was brought there by angels, but all this differs widely from details of the later accounts. (5) If the papal confirmations of the Loreto tradition are more closely scrutinized it will be perceived that not only are they relatively late (the first Bull mentioning the translation is that of Julius II in 1507), but that they are at first very guarded in expression, for Julius introduces the clause "ut pie creditur et fama est", while they are obviously dependent upon the extravagant leaflet compiled about 1472 by Teramano.
There is considerably more at the link. An alternate hypothesis is given that pilgrims brought a much venerated image or statue of Mary, which was associated with miracles, and placed it in an existing crude chapel. The association with miracles was then transferred to the chapel, over time.
My cousin lives in Loreto and gives tours. It’s really impressive. The shrine has parallel groves worn into the marble where pilgrims have slid on their knees over the centuries.
Mary’s house needed to be saved from defilement by the Muslims.
Hail Mary
According to Slick Willy, they were homeless.
The house doesn’t fit the description of the family nor the time period. They were a working class family with Joseph being a carpenter.
Yeah, cause everyone knows where Mary was born and knows that she grew up in a house that looked like that.
Some people will believe anything.
Some fabricated story that some *expert* confirms, and viola, it happened.
And here’s proof because SCIENCE says so.
Seems like some people trust science more than God or their church.
However, I bet this is a good source of tourist revenue.
And look at this...
But Roman Catholics don't worship Mary.
If the building moved in 1291 to Croatia, then how/when did it get to Loreto, Italy?
Just more of the idolatry of Roman Catholicism.
The Holy House itself is tiny and extremely simple. It is a plain stone building, 8.5 m by 3.8 m and 4.1 m high; it has one door on the north side and one window on the west. Around the house was built a tall, highly ornamented marble screen by Andrea Sansovino. That's what you're looking at in the picture.
The large Basilica was built over the marble-screened Holy House. The Holy House and the grotto form part of the crypt of this huge, later structure, which was many decades in the making. It was begun as a Late Gothic structure and finished by Renaissance architect Donato Bramante. It is 93 meters long, 60 meters wide, and its campanile is 75.6 meters high.
To repeat: the Holy House from Nazareth is INSIDE that structure.
Nobody has to believe it was transported by angels. No Catholic "has" to believe this. It is not part of what we call the "deposit of Faith."
From an empirical point of view, then, what needs explaining is how the physical structure, in those exact dimensions and that exact physical composition, got there, without anybody noticing its being transported there or built there, and why.
Psssss.....I got some real nails and wood from the real cross.....just PM mail me and I will tell you where to send the $1000
....Keep this on the downlow....
....and If you know anymore gullable ‘religious’ people...pass this along!!
..
News Flash.
Christianity is Not abut ‘things’...places....people or bones
...its ONLY about JESUS CHRIST....and his death on the cross for you and I.
That is IT!!
amazing.
And --- what about Walsingham in England, hey?
Kind of reminds me of an Asherah pole.
You might keep zour seal closer to home, though, and inveigh against the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial. They attract far more devotees.
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.