Why Juan Diego is an American Saint

TCR News ^ | August 2, 2002 | Oswald Sobrino

[Zionist Conspirator]

Of course not. It doesn't happen much down here, because there simply aren't many Catholics. But go elsewhere, up north or out to California, and there are whole fundie/evangelical churches which are almost 100% ex-Catholic, including the minister, and which get most of their converts from (usually ill-catechized) Catholics. And it's often less about the truth than it is about finding warm Catholic bodies to fill fundie churches and fundie collection plates.

Do all your former Protestant friends sit around and discuss the "fundies" along with you?

We don't hold to the literal sense of the Six Day Creation, and really never have. (That doesn't mean it's wrong, just that it's legitimate for a Catholic to believe in it as metaphor or symbol.)

Why can't the real presence be a metaphor or a symbol? Or the multiplication of loaves and fishes? Or the resurrection? Or the virgin birth? Or transubstantiation? Can you see the point I'm trying to make when I point out to you that for you to accept the literalness of all these while insisting on a metaphorical interpretation of Genesis makes you a hypocrite???

Did all those CoC friends of yours who are still the same people they ever were accept evolution along with transubstantiation?

As far as inerrancy, it's dogma that the Bible is completely without error in everything it intends to teach. Vatican II said so, flatly.

Ah, but since you insist the Church has never interpreted Genesis literally, then the Catholic definition of "inerrancy" must be very, very different from what I always understood. What good is it to insist on the inerrancy of the Bible if you then redefine inerrancy out of existence?

You know, Campion, you're a nice person but you don't get it. I don't know why I can't get it into your skull. I doubt that a sledgehammer would help. But I'm going to say this one more time:

Any church or religion that can accept the resurrection of the Nazarene, the miracles of Fatima, or transubstantiation could accept the literal truth of Genesis 1. So what's the big deal? Why is the idea that the creation of the world did not follow "natural physical laws" (which were being created at the time) be so freaking difficult for you Catholics when you can accept the liquification of the blood of St. Januarius or that John the Baptist had two skulls? What is the deal with you? Why does Genesis 1 present such an insurmountable difficulty to the Church that no other violation of natural law ever has or ever will? Is it because you perhaps subconsciously believe that a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 makes the magisterium unnecessary? Why would that be any more true than the literal interpretation of the resurrection narratives???

Any Church or religion that can go out of its way to baptize totem poles and make saints out of traditional pagan "gxds" should be able to stomach Biblical literalism. That the Catholic Church cannot do this and that no Catholic can see the hypocrisy is merely confirmation of my claims.

"We can trace back this process to the Reformation, when a certain suspicion of the Bible entered into Catholic circles because of the way men such as Luther and Calvin interpreted it. The cleavage between Catholics and Protestants developed into a huge chasm as the centuries passed and was still a major factor at the time of Darwin."

The above quote is from this web site.

[Kolokotronis]

"First of all, the only Eastern Orthodox I tend to take seriously are the anti-ecumenical, Serafim Rose, orthdoxinfo.com types. They are very anti-Catholic...."

Ah, yes, Seraphim Rose, a convert from protestantism to a non canonical church (that ought to get me a veritable storm of flames!). Rose, like a number of converts, brought with him and never lost his basic, cultural protestant anti-catholicism. That is a shame, actually. The site you mention does have some good stuff on it, but it seems dedicated to a fringe "old calendarist, One True Orthodox Church" mentality which many in canonical Orthodoxy decry.

"I am sorry I attributed their attitudes to you."

That's OK; I suspect that won't happen again. As for the hexameron, Philo would disagree with you as would other Jewish theologians of the immediate pre and post Resurrection era, to say nothing of the great Rabbi Maimonides. The foregoing notwithstanding, you didn't answer my question as to why a literal interpretation of the Creation story in Genesis is important to the Truth of the Old Testament. I ask this sincerely since my mind simply doesn't work the way yours does, apparently, when it comes to the Faith and the Truth it has revealed to the Church.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Each is a claim, either literally true or not. Each claim rises or falls on its own merits.

So the assertion of the Bible has no merits? As I asked before, why do you even use it?

The Catholic Church doesn't say that a literal six-day creation can't have happened. However, it isn't necessary to the truth of the Catholic faith that a literal six-day creation did happen.

Why don't you take the same position with regard to the "new testament" miracles or transubstantiation or Marian apparitions??? Why don't you?????

I give up. You people simply don't have the capacity to understand.

As I said, Catholicism isn't for rednecks. I just had to find out the wrong way. If I'd had you people advising me back then I'd have saved myself the trouble.

[Zionist Conspirator]

That's OK; I suspect that won't happen again. As for the hexameron, Philo would disagree with you as would other Jewish theologians of the immediate pre and post Resurrection era, to say nothing of the great Rabbi Maimonides. The foregoing notwithstanding, you didn't answer my question as to why a literal interpretation of the Creation story in Genesis is important to the Truth of the Old Testament. I ask this sincerely since my mind simply doesn't work the way yours does, apparently, when it comes to the Faith and the Truth it has revealed to the Church.

It is important because it is an assertion of the Torah. I'm sorry my Western thinking is so alien to your superior philosophy.

I won't even ask you to address your own inconsistency, since I've learned that you won't do it no matter how many times I ask. I'm tired of providing you amusement.

I still fail to understand why you can accept a simpleton like Juan Diego but not a redneck simpleton like me.

[Campion]

Do all your former Protestant friends sit around and discuss the "fundies" along with you?

You're trying to bait me, and I'm not biting. I already told you what concerns us.

Did all those CoC friends of yours who are still the same people they ever were accept evolution along with transubstantiation?

I've never asked them.

Any church or religion that can accept the resurrection of the Nazarene, the miracles of Fatima, or transubstantiation could accept the literal truth of Genesis 1. So what's the big deal? Why is the idea that the creation of the world did not follow "natural physical laws" (which were being created at the time)

It's not a matter of "accepting" it, it's a matter of insisting on it. As I pointed out, a Catholic is free to believe in it. He's not free to go around excommunicating Catholics who don't, as you seem to insist on doing.

What God could have done is not at issue. God could have done anything he wanted to. So what did he do, and how did he tell us about it? You insist that he did one thing, and told us about it in hyper-literal detail. Okay. Not everyone agrees with you. Not everyone agrees with you that to understand Genesis in other than a hyper-literal form is tantamount to atheism.

[Zionist Conspirator]

I think I understand one thing: an oppenness to evolution is considered absolutely essential as proof that one is no longer a Protestant. Any convert who doesn't discard his creationism upon entering your churches is ipso facto "not fully converted."

I still say your churches are hypocritical for insisting the Creation follow unalterable natural laws which you then happily discard for every other miracle in history. But after all, these tribal markers are more emotional than rational.

[Campion]

It is important because it is an assertion of the Torah.

But the question is whether Torah actually asserts that as fact or merely uses it as a literary device. You're just ignoring that question and assuming it's settled.

I agree that, if Torah asserts it as fact, then we ought to believe in it. It's the premise I don't buy.

[Zionist Conspirator]

What God could have done is not at issue. God could have done anything he wanted to. So what did he do, and how did he tell us about it? You insist that he did one thing, and told us about it in hyper-literal detail. Okay. Not everyone agrees with you. Not everyone agrees with you that to understand Genesis in other than a hyper-literal form is tantamount to atheism.

And you're a freaking hypocrite for not taking the same position with regard to any and every other episode related in the Bible.

But it all comes down to "proving" one isn't still a Protestant, right? And rejecting creationism is where the rubber meets the road.

Meanwhile, the simpleton Juan Diego was a good simpleton whereas us rednecks are evil simpletons.

Farewell. You refuse to answer any of my questions so I'll stop amusing you by asking them.

[Campion]

I think I understand one thing: an oppenness to evolution is considered absolutely essential as proof that one is no longer a Protestant. Any convert who doesn't discard his creationism upon entering your churches is ipso facto "not fully converted."

You'd better tell Thomas Howard; last time I checked he was definitely a Catholic and still considered himself a creationist.

[Campion]

And you're a freaking hypocrite for not taking the same position with regard to any and every other episode related in the Bible.

Okay, you win. Not everyone agrees with you about every other episode in the Bible, either. There, I've done it.

[Kolokotronis]

"It is important because it is an assertion of the Torah. I'm sorry my Western thinking is so alien to your superior philosophy."

The Torah was important to Rabbi Maimonides too. Your comment doesn't answer the question I posed. Your thinking is alien to me, honestly. I have an extremely difficult time understanding the way the protestant mind works when it comes to theology. I mean, I know the West tends to be scholastic and the East patristic, but that frankly hasn't helped me much. I have pinged an Orthodox fellow who is well versed in protestant thinking and perhaps he will chime in with something enlightening. In any event, what I am talking about is Faith, not philosophy and I certainly don't pretend that my way of thinking is "superior" to yours, just different.

"I still fail to understand why you can accept a simpleton like Juan Diego but not a redneck simpleton like me."

Frankly, I know you exist; I don't know if Juan Diego did so accepting the fact of you is certainly easier to accept than the fact of Juan Diego. Can I accept that Panagia could have appeared to a Mexican Peasant? Absolutely. In fact, I wouldn't find it particularly extraordinary. In the East, the Theotokos appears to holy people, simple or otherwise, with a surprising degree of regularity. It has happened in my own family. Could I accept that Panagia would appear to "redneck simpleton" like you? Yes. In fact, I think it would be a wonderful thing if she did.

[sitetest]

Dear Zionist Conspirator,

"So the assertion of the Bible has no merits? As I asked before, why do you even use it?"

False dichotomy.

Why use it? Because it's true.

But whether that means that God created all that is in six days as measured by the earth rotating once around its axis, or whether God created all that is in six days of other definition isn't a crucial point of Catholic theology.

"Why don't you take the same position with regard to the 'new testament' miracles or transubstantiation or Marian apparitions??? Why don't you?????"

The account of creation isn't a first-hand eyewitness account. Whether Moses wrote it, or other authors wrote it, it clearly wasn't written as a historical record. Nonetheless, we do believe it to be true, because it is the inspired Word of God.

As to the New Testament events, these are eyewitness accounts. The evidence is that they were written by folks who were there, or who wrote down the accounts of direct eyewitnesses. Why ascribe metaphor or whatnot to those accounts?

As well, whether Jesus' life, death, and resurrection from the dead are salvific depends on their actually having happened. If these things did not happen, there would be no cause for the Catholic or Orthodox Church, the Catholic/Orthodox faith. Jesus Christ would not be the Son of God or God the Son, and faith in Him would not be uniquely salvific.

If it could be proven that no one named Jesus of Nazareth lived, that He did not preach throughout Judea, that He was not crucified, and most importantly, that He was not raised by God the Father from the dead, then Catholicism and Orthodoxy fail.

If, however, creation didn't happen in precisely six days, courtesy of God, Catholicism and Orthdoxy don't fail.

As for Marian apparitions, or any other revelations after the close of the canon of Scripture, no Catholic is required to believe them. They are private revelations, and no one is required to have Catholic faith in private revelations.


sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear Zionist Conspirator,

"I think I understand one thing: an oppenness to evolution is considered absolutely essential as proof that one is no longer a Protestant. Any convert who doesn't discard his creationism upon entering your churches is ipso facto 'not fully converted.'"

Nope, not so.

It just isn't a theological, doctrinal point for us.

If a Catholic believes in the literal six-day creation, that's perfectly acceptable. But if the Catholic insists that this should be Catholic teaching, that it is wrong for the Church not to teach it, then, perhaps that Catholic isn't fully converted.

It's a point where Catholics have some freedom as to what they accept as true.


sitetest

[Zionist Conspirator]

Could I accept that Panagia would appear to "redneck simpleton" like you? Yes. In fact, I think it would be a wonderful thing if she did.

Ain't gonna happen. "Panagia" likes Mexicans and Greeks, not Judaizing, Bible-thumping rednecks.

The Torah was important to Rabbi Maimonides too. Your comment doesn't answer the question I posed. Your thinking is alien to me, honestly. I have an extremely difficult time understanding the way the protestant mind works when it comes to theology. I mean, I know the West tends to be scholastic and the East patristic, but that frankly hasn't helped me much. I have pinged an Orthodox fellow who is well versed in protestant thinking and perhaps he will chime in with something enlightening. In any event, what I am talking about is Faith, not philosophy and I certainly don't pretend that my way of thinking is "superior" to yours, just different.

Re RaMBa"M, he is one of those personalities who is invoked by everyone across the theological spectrum as one of their own (much like Aquinas). I know there are non-literalists who invoke RaMBa"M. I know there are also literalists who invoke him. I also know that Rav Nachman of Breslov warned Jews not to delve into science and philosophy, saying that great Sages who did so went into enemy territory to win back the fallen and that we are not on their level to do this.

As to the rest of your paragraph, I have no earthly idea what you are talking about. I simply don't understand why accepting as factual every incident recorded in a supposedly inerrant book is so strange to you. Sorry.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Why use it? Because it's true.

Just not literally true, eh? True in some other sense?

But whether that means that God created all that is in six days as measured by the earth rotating once around its axis, or whether God created all that is in six days of other definition isn't a crucial point of Catholic theology.

So you believe the earth turning on its axis six times during creation is silly but its revolving around the sun fifteen and a half billion times during the same process makes perfect sense?

The account of creation isn't a first-hand eyewitness account. Whether Moses wrote it, or other authors wrote it, it clearly wasn't written as a historical record. Nonetheless, we do believe it to be true, because it is the inspired Word of God.

Excuse my bluntness, but you are in no position whatsoever to say what the Torah was written as. It was not written by Moses but by G-d Himself before the very Creation itself. It is more than a book. It is the "dna of the universe." It was dictated to Moses letter-by-letter (this isn't redneck fantasy but the authentic Jewish tradition) and every single letter and space is full of meaning. Not one letter is there for no reason. Even the sizes, shapes, and names of the letters are loaded with meaning that neither one of us will ever be able to comprehend. It contains the whole world. Furthermore it contains encoded within it the names of every single human being who will ever live during all of history. Not quite what your higher critical Church taught you, eh?

Did you know that molad tohu (the first and theoretical "new moon" that is necessary in order to computer the times of the molads for all time) is actually encoded in the opening verses of the Torah at equidistant letter sequences? I have seen them with my own eyes! Do you read Hebrew?

Please refrain from making blasphemous remarks about the Torah.

As well, whether Jesus' life, death, and resurrection from the dead are salvific depends on their actually having happened. If these things did not happen, there would be no cause for the Catholic or Orthodox Church, the Catholic/Orthodox faith. Jesus Christ would not be the Son of God or God the Son, and faith in Him would not be uniquely salvific.

If it could be proven that no one named Jesus of Nazareth lived, that He did not preach throughout Judea, that He was not crucified, and most importantly, that He was not raised by God the Father from the dead, then Catholicism and Orthodoxy fail.

If, however, creation didn't happen in precisely six days, courtesy of God, Catholicism and Orthdoxy don't fail.

In other words, you begin with the assumption that your religion is true and then work backwards, accepting or rejecting the necessity of Biblical episodes depending on the how necessary they are for your prior conclusions.

You're not overly familiar with logic or argumentation, are you?

[Campion]

Excuse my bluntness, but you are in no position whatsoever to say what the Torah was written as.

Why do you argue this stuff with Catholics, but not with Jews? To whom was Torah given by Hashem, do you believe? To the goyim, or to the children of Israel? (Torah itself answers this question!)

If it is the Law of Israel, why do you not seek to convince those Israelites who reject not only the Torah of God, but God himself? Millions of halakhic Jews do not even keep kosher, much less believe what you believe about Torah. Why are you bothering with us?

You profess to believe that Torah is given to Israel, but act like it matters what we believe about it. Why? Most of us follow something fairly close to the Noachide laws; why do you seek to persuade us to do or believe more?

[Zionist Conspirator]

You profess to believe that Torah is given to Israel, but act like it matters what we believe about it. Why? Most of us follow something fairly close to the Noachide laws; why do you seek to persuade us to do or believe more?

I posted to this old thread for one simple reason: the initial article hit home with me when it mentioned the fact that the USA doesn't have a wholistic culture like Mexico does. As a "redneck" in the Catholic Church I felt very much the orphan, coming to the Church without a mediating traditional Catholic culture.

And I wanted to point out again how galling it is to me for overly-sophisticated, higher critical, evolutionist, "rednecks are morons" Catholics to cream in their pants at the thought of some peasant who's just as dumb as I am just because he's from some exotic foreign and Catholic culture.

There's nothing more to say.

[Aliska]

Thank you for posting the lovely icon of her. I'm glad to know she is commemorated in the Orthodox Church as well.

[pachomi33]

(that ought to get me a veritable storm of flames
:)

[Salvation]

American Catholic's Saint of the Day

December 9, 2006

St. Juan Diego

(1474-1548)

Thousands of people gathered in the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe July 31, 2002, for the canonization of Juan Diego, to whom the Blessed Mother appeared in the 16th century. Pope John Paul II celebrated the ceremony at which the poor Indian peasant became the Church’s first saint indigenous to the Americas.

The Holy Father called the new saint “a simple, humble Indian” who accepted Christianity without giving up his identity as an Indian. “In praising the Indian Juan Diego, I want to express to all of you the closeness of the church and the pope, embracing you with love and encouraging you to overcome with hope the difficult times you are going through,” John Paul said. Among the thousands present for the event were members of Mexico’s 64 indigenous groups.

First called Cuauhtlatohuac (“The eagle who speaks”), Juan Diego’s name is forever linked with Our Lady of Guadalupe because it was to him that she first appeared at Tepeyac hill on December 9, 1531. The most famous part of his story is told in connection with the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe (December 12). After the roses gathered in his tilma were transformed into the miraculous image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, however, little more is said about Juan Diego.

In time he lived near the shrine constructed at Tepeyac, revered as a holy, unselfish and compassionate catechist who taught by word and especially by example.

During his 1990 pastoral visit to Mexico, Pope John Paul II confirmed the long-standing liturgical cult in honor of Juan Diego, beatifying him. Twelve years later he was proclaimed a saint.

Comment:

God counted on Juan Diego to play a humble yet huge role in bringing the Good News to the peoples of Mexico. Overcoming his own fear and the doubts of Bishop Juan de Zumarraga, Juan Diego cooperated with God’s grace in showing his people that the Good News of Jesus is for everyone. Pope John Paul II used the occasion of this beatification to urge Mexican lay men and women to assume their responsibilities for passing on the Good News and witnessing to it.

Quote:

“Similar to ancient biblical personages who were collective representations of all the people, we could say that Juan Diego represents all the indigenous peoples who accepted the Gospel of Jesus, thanks to the maternal aid of Mary, who is always inseparable from the manifestation of her Son and the spread of the Church, as was her presence among the Apostles on the day of Pentecost” (Pope John Paul II, beatification homily).