Posted on 03/09/2007 9:16:41 AM PST by freedomdefender
"Am I not here, I who am your Mother? Are you not under my shadow and protection?" The Blessed Virgin Mary spoke these words to an Indian merchant on December 12, 1531, during the last of her several appearances to him. It is quite probable that one of the consequences of these apparitions was the prevention of an armed revolt of the Mexican Indian population against their Spanish conquerors. Another was the greatest mass conversion to Christianity in the history of the Church.
Today, we are being told that there is a "clash of civilizations" between the Western and Islamic worlds. Few people, however, are asking if the Mother of God can help prevent this clash from becoming cataclysmic. Likewise few people know that the Koran -- yes, the Koran -- speaks of her in this manner: "The angels said O Mary, God has chosen and purifies you.... He has chosen you above the women of the world."
It has been nearly 500 years since Mary appeared to Juan Diego and his uncle Juan Bernardino in a series of five apparitions and left an image of herself on Juan Diego's tilma, in what might rightly be called history's greatest ongoing miracle. Many things have changed since December 12, 1531. The "age of faith," which contributed to the Spanish conquest of the New World, has essentially disappeared from the Western world. Ironically, if it exists at all, it is much more likely to be found in the Islamic world, albeit sometimes in a violent, corrupted, and even criminal form. Still, there are some lessons from the apparitions that can be very relevant to the problems of today, including the "clash of civilizations."
When Mary appeared to Juan Diego on Tepeyac Hill in 1531, it had been a little over 10 years since Spanish explorer Hernán Cortés, his fellow conquistadores, and their Indian allies conquered the Aztec empire. Like Isabella, the great Catholic Queen of Spain, Cortés and many of the conquistadores did have a desire to convert the native populations they subdued to the Catholic Faith. For Isabella, this was very important and a major reason she helped finance Christopher Columbus's first voyage to the New World in 1492. For many of the conquistadores, however, once they arrived in the New World, their concern for the spiritual welfare of the native populations seemed confined to the next world, and they acted like they wanted the natives to get there as soon as possible. The great distance between Spain and the New World greatly hampered the Spanish Crown's efforts to curb these abuses.
One thing the Crown did do to help alleviate their plight was to send Franciscan and Dominican missionaries to champion the Indians' cause and evangelize them in the Catholic Faith. Due to the abusive behavior of many conquistadores, however, converts to the Faith were small in numbers, and even these paltry few would be lost if an armed revolt by the Indians, which many feared was on the horizon, actually happened. There were nearly 1,000 Indians for every Spaniard, and because of the aforementioned treatment of the natives, the Spaniards were not likely to have many -- if any -- of the Indian allies that the Aztecs' practice of subjecting prisoners of war and others to human sacrifice had provided them during Cortés's conquest. Thus, there was a very good chance that the Spaniards could be defeated, if the armed revolt actually materialized. And there was also a very good chance that the triumphant Indian populations would attempt to wipe out every vestige of Spanish rule, including the Catholic Faith. This was the situation that existed in New Spain in 1531 when the Mother of God intervened. In addition to producing some of the most startling results in salvation history, her intervention provided future generations with much to reflect upon concerning not only its results but how she accomplished them.
Consider the man she chose to be the primary human instrument in this important mission. Juan Diego was a humble but prosperous merchant who, along with his recently deceased wife and uncle, Juan Bernardino, was among the relatively few Indians who had converted to Catholicism and devoutly practiced the Faith. In fact, he was on his way to receive further instruction in the Faith when Mary interrupted his journey on Tepeyac Hill and requested that he tell Bishop Juan de Zumárraga that she wanted a chapel built in her honor at that location. Juan had misgivings as to whether he was the appropriate messenger, particularly after Bishop Zumárraga told him he would take the matter into consideration and created the impression that he doubted that Mary had really appeared to him. Therefore, Juan requested Mary send another person, but Mary assured him that he was the right man for the job. And as events soon proved, Juan's ancestry, socioeconomic circumstances, ability to communicate, and, most importantly, personal piety confirmed the wisdom of her choice. Prior to his death in 1548, Juan told the remarkable story of how the Mother of God appeared to him and miraculously imprinted an image of herself on his tilma probably no less that 20,000 times. Next to the image itself, his retelling of these miraculous events led to the greatest mass conversion in the history of Christianity. Over eight million Indians converted to the Faith before the death of Juan Diego.
Of course, the image itself is the most remarkable thing about the Guadalupe apparitions story. It has been asserted that the Indians were greatly impacted by the image because Mary appeared dressed like an Indian princess. The garments she wore, however, were not the style of dress of 16th-century Mexican Indian women. They were the style of garments worn by Jewish maidens when Mary walked on this earth, and as those following the current events in the Middle East can testify, resemble the type of clothing still worn by many women in that area today. Because Mary appeared in the type of clothing she wore when she gave birth to and raised her divine Son, many believe that the face seen on the miraculous image is the same one Jesus, Joseph, and the Apostles saw 2,000 years ago.
Even though the style of clothing she wore may not have had any special significance to the native Indian population, the symbols on the clothing and her positioning on the image had enormous meaning for them. By standing on the moon and obscuring the sun's rays, she indicated that she was greater than any of the elements they worshiped as gods. But by folding her hands in prayer, she indicated that there was a God greater than herself. This same basic message was communicated in the symbolism contained in her clothing. After viewing the image, the Indians realized that they could now worship the one true God rather than the false gods they had been serving in various manners, including the barbaric practice of human sacrifice.
Mary may have also used the inability of the Spanish to correctly pronounce the languages of the Indians to unify both of these races in devotion to her. When she sent Juan Diego to Bishop Zumárraga with the sign requested by the Bishop to prove she was really appearing to Juan, she assured him that his critically ill uncle, Juan Bernardino, would be cured of his illness. She performed this healing in person and told Juan Bernardino the name she wished to be referred to in relation to these apparitions. To the Spanish, this name sounded like Guadalupe, a site in Spain of a famous Marian shrine associated with the Spanish reconquest of their nation from the Moors. Many of the Spanish associated with the exploration and conquest of the New World had made pilgrimages to this famous shrine. These individuals included Queen Isabella, Christopher Columbus, Hernán Cortés, and Bishop Zumárraga.
Although he was quite reluctant to accept the office of bishop in the most important city in New Spain, Juan de Zumárraga was a saintly Franciscan friar who possessed many qualities that were badly needed in the New World and also made him ideally suited for our Lady's plan. The original skepticism he manifested concerning whether Mary was really appearing to Juan Diego was an act of prudence the Church expects from someone in his position. Also prudent was the request he made concerning some sign to validate the reality of the apparitions. His great faith and piety was manifested in the penitential sorrow that he expressed when he saw the miraculous image imprinted on Juan Diego's tilma and the subsequent quick approval he gave for the requested chapel to be built. This chapel, the first of several that have housed the sacred image, was built in two weeks with both Indian and Spanish labor working together on the project.
For modern man, however, there is another aspect of Bishop Zumárraga's role in this drama that needs to be examined. The willingness of the Mother of God, the Queen of Heaven, to request, not order, the chapel be built demonstrates her respect for the magisterial or teaching office of the Church. Mary seems to be telling men of all ages that it is to the Magisterium of the Church that they must turn in order to discover the Truth and learn how to properly use their freedom. Her actions made these teachings of the Catechism come alive: "The pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abide in truth..." (#890), and "Personal conscience and reason should not be set in opposition to the moral law or Magisterium of the Church" (#2039).
In asking others to do what she did at Guadalupe and when she lived on earth, she was showing them what her divine Son meant when He said, "You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free" (Jn. 8:32). In Redemptoris Mater, Pope John Paul II wrote, "Mary is totally dependent upon God and completely directed towards him, and at the side of her Son, she is the perfect image of freedom and of the liberation of humanity and of the universe" (#37).
Those directing the current efforts to bridge the cultural differences between the West and Islam through the introduction of democracy and ill-defined notions of freedom should ponder the following words of the late Holy Father to be certain that the concept of freedom that they are trying to introduce will resonate in the Islamic world: "Patterned on God's freedom, man's freedom is not negated by his obedience to the divine law, indeed, only through this obedience does it abide in the truth and conform to human dignity" (Veritatis Splendor, #42), and "democracy is a 'system' and as such is a means and not an end. Its 'moral' value is not automatic, but depends on conformity to the moral law to which it, like every other form of human behavior, must be subject..." (Evangelium Vitae, #70).
Despite these words, Pope John Paul II recognized that the Western world has made more advances in the promotion of human rights than anywhere else. "This heightened sense of the dignity of the human person and of his or her uniqueness and of the respect due to the journey of conscience, certainly represents one of the positive achievements of the modern culture" (Veritatis Splendor, #31).
Nevertheless, in the West, this respect for personal conscience and individual uniqueness is often translated into a vision of moral autonomy, an autonomy lacking any reference to the truths of the moral law or the common good. Nothing better illustrates this crisis in Western thought and values than the positions being taken by many Western nations on women's and children's rights, particularly at international conferences. Often these nations are asserting in conjunction with sexual behavior and reproductive issues that, if women and at least adolescent children wish to engage in premarital, extramarital, or homosexual sex, there is nothing wrong with their behavior, if they have freely chosen to engage in it. Obviously, this notion of freedom conflicts with the teaching of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It is also a prime example of how "freedom negates and destroys itself and becomes a factor leading to the destruction of others, when it no longer recognizes and respects its essential link with truth" (Evangelium Vitae, #19).
Islam means submission to the will of God, and any attempt to foist upon the Islamic world the idea that man should have the freedom to violate the moral law of God with impunity is a recipe for disaster.
Let us not forget that the Catechism recognizes the limitations of freedom. "The exercise of freedom does not imply a right to say or do everything" (#1740). The Virgin Mary understood this perfectly and always used her freedom to do God's will, which is why she is the most "perfect image of freedom." This is why she is not only the most revered woman in Christianity but also of Islam. There are actually more references to her in the Koran than the Bible.
Therefore, might Mary serve as the bridge between the Western and Islamic worlds? Actually, many Moslem women not only resemble our Lady in their style of dress but also in the practice of a virtue that Western women must once again embrace if Western civilization is going to endure, let alone expand. That virtue is chastity.
Many years ago, Archbishop Fulton Sheen noted the difficulties Christian missionaries were having in converting Moslems to the Faith. He proposed a solution to the problem: Fostering devotion to the Virgin Mary. In his book The World's First Love, he wrote, "It is our firm belief that the fears some entertain concerning the Moslems are not to be realized, but that Islam will eventually be converted to Christianity. This will not happen through the direct teaching of Christianity but through the summoning of the Moslems to a veneration of the Mother of God.... Because Moslems have a devotion to Mary, our missionaries should be satisfied merely to expand and develop that devotion with full realization that Our Lady will carry the Moslems the rest of the way to her Divine Son."
When and if such an effort is ever made is in the hands of God -- and sometimes the mysterious ways of Divine Providence are not ours to fathom. It certainly is not likely that on the night of December 12, 1531, either Juan Diego or Bishop Juan de Zumárraga had any idea that the miraculous events of the day would soon lead to the conversion of over eight million Mexican Indians to the Catholic Faith.
Only God knows whether a similar type of intervention is going to be required to prevent the "clash of civilizations" between the Western and Islamic worlds from threatening the continued existence of mankind.
We "poor banished children of Eve" should not only ask our Lady of Guadalupe to pray for us, but under one of her other titles, the Seat of Wisdom, grant us the guidance to use our freedom to seek the Truth. This is the only certain way of bringing peace to mankind.
Or in prayer??
Where would you get that idea from???
Of course I do...I pray for you folks to get saved all the time...And I know it will be a miracle if it happens but God is pretty good at miracles...
I'm almost afraid to ask, what's a tilma??? Do men have one???
Well, I knew this subject matter would descend into Catholic bashing and BV Mary bashing. I was not disappointed.
One would think that the possiblity of a massive conversion of the Moslems to Christianity would be a welcome thought. But, no!!! Some folks hate Catholics and the Mother of Jesus so much, that will not even contemplate the concept that if it happened they would appreciate it. They seem to be totally unwilling to conceed that With God Anything Is Possible. After all, both Catholic and Orthodox Churches revere Mary, but realize that it is God who works all the miracles that occur following private apparitions. Mary is simply an instrument bringing the world back to her Son, Jesus Christ!
Perhaps because that wasn't a religious struggle, but a political one? (it did have religious components, but it was primarily a battle of two sovereigns)
My remark is directed explicitly to you.
Catholics as a rule do not practice the eucharist EXACTLY as taught by Jesus nor has it been practiced EXACTLY for many years, if ever.
Please note "Drink from it, all of you...". If you insist on following His teachings EXACTLY then do so. If you feel a "modification" is permissable you can't claim to follow His teaching EXACTLY.
St. Thomas Aquinas answers that criticism in the Summa Theologica: Article 12. Whether it is lawful to receive the body of Christ without the blood? The key part is:
Two points should be observed regarding the use of this sacrament, one on the part of the sacrament, the other on the part of the recipients; on the part of the sacrament it is proper for both the body and the blood to be received, since the perfection of the sacrament lies in both, and consequently, since it is the priest's duty both to consecrate and finish the sacrament, he ought on no account to receive Christ's body without the blood.
But on the part of the recipient the greatest reverence and caution are called for, lest anything happen which is unworthy of so great a mystery. Now this could especially happen in receiving the blood, for, if incautiously handled, it might easily be spilt. And because the multitude of the Christian people increased, in which there are old, young, and children, some of whom have not enough discretion to observe due caution in using this sacrament, on that account it is a prudent custom in some churches for the blood not to be offered to the reception of the people, but to be received by the priest alone....
Our Lord's Passion is represented in the very consecration of this sacrament, in which the body ought not to be consecrated without the blood. But the body can be received by the people without the blood: nor is this detrimental to the sacrament. Because the priest both offers and consumes the blood on behalf of all; and Christ is fully contained under either species, as was shown above (76, 2).
Please direct me to your definition of EXACT.
In the bible this would constitute apostasy...As you know, you are not to eat the bread and drink the juice until you examine yourself...Now you're saying this isn't even necessary...
You guys make the stuff up as you go along and you have absolutely everything covered...
That's not Christianity...That's religion...
St. Thomas Aquinas referred to a previous section where he answered a similar objection at the end of the excerpt. As to the rest of your usual accusations, I will feel free to continue to ignore them.
Feel free...At your own peril...What you are teaching this time is not x-tra biblical...It is anti-biblical...
You chose to do that willingly...No problem here...But there are sinners out there searching for the truth...Do all Catholics know they don't have to participate in the 'Eucharist'???
If God should do something simple and humble, there are always those who will insist the Blessed Trinity cannot do something like that and would not do something like that. His ways are not our ways, and His thoughts are not our thoughts.
A little respect please for the Lord who leaves the 99 to go after the 1 even if it makes him look like a fool.
A tilma is a pocho, (cape or cloak), made of coarse cactus fibers, worn by Aztec Indians of Mexico.
Men and women alike worn them, just as men and women in Biblical times wore cloaks for warmth.
It doesnn't have to be an object of ridicule.
Should we erect a shrine around it?
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:
Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Complete un-biblical nonsense...That will send countless numbers of muzlims to Hell...Perhaps iscool can be gently shown the Biblical basis for the Miracle of the Eucharist. Perhaps.I guess if you guys can drink some BoonesFarm and let some guy in a robe convince you it's not only Blood, but God's blood, I suppose you can believe statues bleed and it's normal to see and talk to the ghost of Mary...
No I do not think they are the same, but I do believe God would use a pizza pan if He wanted to do so. So I observe respect.
Don't be so gullible, McFly.
Why make a big deal about the Eucharist when no one has to get involved other than the priest??? In fact, if the pew people don't have a need for the Eucharist, perhaps it's just a gimmick to keep the people and their money coming back to your church...
I've seen many miracles...Likely some of you have also...One of the great things about miracles is that when one happens, you can see it...And never once in the bible did Jesus or an apostle heal a blind person and the person still couldn't see after the miracle...
When a priest prays over a bottle of wine and a cracker to turn it into God's flesh and God's blood, it still looks and tastes like wine and crackers...
That's not a miracle...
Put it to the test...Have your priest pray over a couple bottles of your wine and drink it down...Then tell us if you got drunk on God's blood...I'll bet the only miracle you'll see is the miracle of fermentation...
The name is not McFly. It is Maeve. And with your calling me "gullible" I can see your deductive reasoning ability is in need of a transplant asap.
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.