The snare of devotion to Mary.

[bbbbbbb]

You seem to be making Patricius79's argument for him. ???

Hardly. All mythologies have a creator-god(dess). That fact hardly means that all mythologies believe in God the Father as part of the unidivided Trinity, does it?

 

[patricius79]

Hardly. All mythologies have a creator-god(dess). That fact hardly means that all mythologies believe in God the Father as part of the unidivided Trinity, does it?

What is your guess as to where the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe came from?

 

[bbbbbbb]

What is your guess as to where the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe came from?

My guess, and it is only speculation on my part, is that the image could have been produced by human efforts, even as the very cunning Shroud of Turin was produced. The difficulty with relics is that they are exceedingly valuable, which provides a very strong incentive for many of them to be faked. The better the counterfeiting, the more lucrative the sale is for the seller. Thus, there was a veritable flood of relics from the Middle East during the Crusades, often sold by Muslim merchants with convincing stories of their provenances.

 

[Goatee]

My guess, and it is only speculation on my part, is that the image could have been produced by human efforts, even as the very cunning Shroud of Turin was produced. The difficulty with relics is that they are exceedingly valuable, which provides a very strong incentive for many of them to be faked. The better the counterfeiting, the more lucrative the sale is for the seller. Thus, there was a veritable flood of relics from the Middle East during the Crusades, often sold by Muslim merchants with convincing stories of their provenances.

With the Turin Shroud, science cannot determine how the image got there. They have stated that there is no known Human knowledge that could produce that image!

 

[Arsenios]

With the Turin Shroud, science cannot determine how the image got there. They have stated that there is no known Human knowledge that could produce that image!

I used to think that it was a fake, until I heard that the Latins stole it from the Orthodox during the 4th Crusade...

Then I read about it some, and how it failed a carbon-14 test on a repair fabric done shortly after its theft...

But the absolute kicker for me was the fact that the image left imprinted on the shroud is holographic...

1st century or 14th century, there is NO technology that could have made that image...

Nor even today - Efforts to duplicate such an image have all failed...

Arsenios

 

[bbbbbbb]

With the Turin Shroud, science cannot determine how the image got there. They have stated that there is no known Human knowledge that could produce that image!

That is not an accurate statement. As part of the group of scientists who examined the Shroud, Walter McCrone, the world's foremost microscopist, authoritatively identified the "blood" stains on the shroud as being composed of ferric oxide (a type of iron pigment) which could only have come from paint and not hemoglobin (human blood). Unless Jesus had red iron oxide paint instead of human blood, then the Shroud's authenticity cannot be trusted.

 

[Goatee]

That is not an accurate statement. As part of the group of scientists who examined the Shroud, Walter McCrone, the world's foremost microscopist, authoritatively identified the "blood" stains on the shroud as being composed of ferric oxide (a type of iron pigment) which could only have come from paint and not hemoglobin (human blood). Unless Jesus had red iron oxide paint instead of human blood, then the Shroud's authenticity cannot be trusted.

2 quotes for you from eminent people:

Heller and Adler: “…demonstrated that McCrone’s claims for the presence of red paint were prematurely and erroneously made with insufficient data….After hurried and superficial evaluation, he rushed into print to charge that the Shroud is a painted fake.”

Kersten and Gruber in “The Jesus Conspiracy”: “McCrone claimed that iron in the marks [Shroud image] was a clear indication of an iron oxide pigment. This theory from a man who had never seen the cloth itself [Not true. Dr. McCrone did see the Shroud in Turin in 1978] was decisively refuted by further tests.”

 

[patricius79]

My guess, and it is only speculation on my part, is that the image could have been produced by human efforts, even as the very cunning Shroud of Turin was produced. The difficulty with relics is that they are exceedingly valuable, which provides a very strong incentive for many of them to be faked. The better the counterfeiting, the more lucrative the sale is for the seller. Thus, there was a veritable flood of relics from the Middle East during the Crusades, often sold by Muslim merchants with convincing stories of their provenances.

Could you elaborate on your theory more as to the Guadalupan image, how it might have been produced by human/s, and how they made money from it? There's a lot of questionable claims about the image and the story on both sides, and I find it very confusing for a simpleton like me. But my understanding is that there is no undersketching of the image. That it is painted on a poor surface without any "sizing"/priming/preparation of the fabric. That master painters who tried to reproduce it even on ideal surfaces were unable to. That the master painters who examined the image in the 1600s and 1700s all agreed that it was artistically exquisite had to be miraculous given the poor quality of materials used to achieve it, etc. And that it has held up over four centuries in a way that doesn't make sense given the poor quality of the materials used and the adverse conditions--candles, humidity, salty lake air, people touching it, and even taking pieces off of it. (For the first century it had no glass around it, either).

 

[bbbbbbb]

Could you elaborate on your theory more as to the Guadalupan image, how it might have been produced by human/s, and how they made money from it? There's a lot of questionable claims about the image and the story on both sides, and I find it very confusing for a simpleton like me. But my understanding is that there is no undersketching of the image. That it is painted on a poor surface without any "sizing"/priming/preparation of the fabric. That master painters who tried to reproduce it even on ideal surfaces were unable to. That the master painters who examined the image in the 1600s and 1700s all agreed that it was artistically exquisite had to be miraculous given the poor quality of materials used to achieve it, etc. And that it has held up over four centuries in a way that doesn't make sense given the poor quality of the materials used and the adverse conditions--candles, humidity, salty lake air, people touching it, and even taking pieces off of it. (For the first century it had no glass around it, either).

I really cannot comment to your questions without any evidence one way or the other. The image has never been subjected to the scientific scrutiny such as was given to the Shroud of Turin. The best that one can say is that nobody knows with any degree of certainty how the image was produced.

That said, there are many non-Christian religious images and statues which are widely believed to have been created supernaturally. I just visited one early in February. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bái_Đính_Temple Although the temple complex today is entirely new, having just been completed in 2010, the original temple and its statues survive. The original temple is inside a cave which is believed to have been miraculously created for that very purpose.

 

[bbbbbbb]

2 quotes for you from eminent people:

Heller and Adler: “…demonstrated that McCrone’s claims for the presence of red paint were prematurely and erroneously made with insufficient data….After hurried and superficial evaluation, he rushed into print to charge that the Shroud is a painted fake.”

Kersten and Gruber in “The Jesus Conspiracy”: “McCrone claimed that iron in the marks [Shroud image] was a clear indication of an iron oxide pigment. This theory from a man who had never seen the cloth itself [Not true. Dr. McCrone did see the Shroud in Turin in 1978] was decisively refuted by further tests.”

I am not so sure that I would rely on statements from Kersten and Gruber, both of whom had a very specific and well-stated agenda to debunk orthodox Christianity, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holger_Kersten Neither has received any support for their theories from anyone within the Western or Indian scolastic communities. That said, I am curious as to what "further tests" were conducted on the Shroud which debunked Dr. McCrone's findings. Please provide them for my perusal. Thank you.

 

[patricius79]

I really cannot comment to your questions without any evidence one way or the other. The image has never been subjected to the scientific scrutiny such as was given to the Shroud of Turin. The best that one can say is that nobody knows with any degree of certainty how the image was produced.

That said, there are many non-Christian religious images and statues which are widely believed to have been created supernaturally. I just visited one early in February. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bái_Đính_Temple Although the temple complex today is entirely new, having just been completed in 2010, the original temple and its statues survive. The original temple is inside a cave which is believed to have been miraculously created for that very purpose.

I don't know about the non-Christian miracles you refer to. As to Our Lady of Guadalupe, what do you think of the evidence I mentioned in my last post, and the bio-physicist Callahan's infrared study of the image?

 

[patricius79]

I really cannot comment to your questions without any evidence one way or the other. The image has never been subjected to the scientific scrutiny such as was given to the Shroud of Turin. The best that one can say is that nobody knows with any degree of certainty how the image was produced.

I looked at the Wikipedia article you cited (I think it's a little interesting how we put a degree of faith in Wikipedia, but may be more skeptical about other things relating to Our Lady), and I've done some reflection and reading on the subject. I don't have any authority in the matter. But for me, this is what I believe at present. Of course I'm Catholic, so I believe strongly in devotion to Jesus through Mary, especially the teachings of the Popes and St. Louis DeMontfort and St. Alphonsus Liguori. Part of the reason I find Guadalupe credible is because she--as she is described by the Nican Mopohua-- reflects the Lady I know and love. Also, it sounds like there were very many miracles worked through the image, without which the devotion would not have caught on among so many people. The fact that the master painters who examined the image in the 1600s and 1700s--including Miguel Cabrera, the best painter in Mexico--said the image was exquisite and inexplicable by any known methods, and were unable to reproduce it, even on a far more ideal surface than the rough agave fiber of the tilma. Also, the bomb that blew up in 1921 which was intended to destroy the image did a lot of damage but didn't harm the image. Of course, I believe St. Juan Diego is a real saint, and the Popes have, as I understand it, approved the veneration of Our Lady of Guadalupe. If the painting was done by a painter, it sounds like he might have been the best painter in the history of the world, able to even to paint without sizing (priming) or undersketching and even to use the irregularities of the poor agave canvas to the advantage of his work. I don't know why there isn't more writing about the Guadalupe narrative in the 1500s. Maybe I'll learn more about that.

The argument from silence is the best argument against the story. But there's a problem:

The problem with arguments from silence is that silence admits of the most diverse interpretations. If indeed, as the anti-apparitionists contend, the silence of Zumárraga and other early Franciscans is evidence that the Guadalupan narrative is of later provenance, we ought to find some positive evidence of this later origin. Otherwise, the anti-apparitionist will be facing an equally difficult argument from silence, perhaps even more difficult, since there is more documentation from the 1550s than the 1530s.
http://www.arcaneknowledge.org/catholic/guadalupe7.htm#ch12

One learned person I talked to said that the devotion originally was merely among the natives, and that the Franciscans were skeptical. (An important related point is that we need not believe every detail of the Nican Mopohua to believe the basic gist of the story.) Contrary to the syncretism allegations, the Franciscans--including Zumarraga--were very skeptical and concerned about idolatry and superstition. So that could account for the silence in part I guess. But we do know that sometime in the 1530s--after 1536 I guess-- natives started asking for baptism by the thousands. I don't know whether the Codex Escallada is valid or not. But if so, this also helps the case. The fact that the four writers about the Guadalupe events tell basically the same story in the mid 1600s does lend credence to the story in my view. The fact that the canvas and image has held up so well under such humid conditions is remarkable. the Wikipedia article you cited had Callahan the bio-physicist marvelling that there wasn't any cracking or peeling of the original image. I had thought that the image didn't have any paint, but apparently it is painted, though miraculously so. I think it's very possioble that parts of the story or understanding of many Catholics about the image are false. But I think the evidence is more in favor of the miraculous character of the events and image than against them. ALso, there's the acid that was spilled on the tilma but which apparently didn't harm it or "healed" miraculously over the course of some days (I don't remember which). But even if the Nican Mopohua is mostly fabulous as history, I believe that it very accurately depicts the personality of the Mother of God, our Mother.

 

[Arsenios]

But even if the Nican Mopohua is mostly fabulous as history,
I believe that it very accurately depicts
the personality of the Mother of God,
our Mother.

Well, that is precisely where I felt it was off base,
showing Her to be smarmy, warm and motherly,
appealing to the lower emotional states of dependent and immature children...
She is not known to the Orthodox in that way...

Arsenios

 

[patricius79]

Well, that is precisely where I felt it was off base,
showing Her to be smarmy, warm and motherly,
appealing to the lower emotional states of dependent and immature children...
She is not known to the Orthodox in that way...

Arsenios

I don't see how Our Lady of Guadalupe is smarmy. As to the other terms, don't the Orthodox experience Mary as warm and motherly as the New Eve? I might not have this exactly right, but I think it's in Luke's 18th chapter that they were bringing even infants to Jesus and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, let the children come to me, and do not prevent them. For the Kingdom belongs to such as these.

 

[patricius79]

As I continue to wrestle with the matters of related to Our Lady of Guadalupe, here are some of my thoughts:

Again, the most difficult problem with the story given by the "four evangelists" of Guadalupe (from the 1600s) is the silence of Zumarraga and the other church writers in the 1530s and beyond.

But the miraculous qualities of the image on the other hand, coupled with the many miracles which caused the devotion to catch on not only among the Indians but even among the Spanish, whose Bishop--the second Bishop of Mexico (Montafur) approved the devotion despite objections from the Franciscans who were concerned about idolatry and superstition among the natives.

Just my thoughts... maybe something like this happened... either the painting was painted by an unknown master painter who had some kind of miraculous help from Heaven (such as the help of the Mother of God) or it was miraculously painted by Heaven.

The possibility that it was just painted by by a really excellent painter without supernatural help seems like nonsense, given many factors, including the poor quality of the canvas, the lack of sizing (preparation techniques to make the canvas smoother and more workable), the lack of undersketching. Plus, who was this painter and why would nobody know among the natives, given the importance of this image to the natives.

How does St. Juan fit into this? Maybe he was the one to who the image was given. Maybe early on the devotion was only among the natives, who hid it from the Franciscans, whom they feared because of the Franciscan hunting for idolatry (again, the idea of syncretism is really questionable, since the Franciscans were really concerned about idolatry).

So for some decades after the image was painted--maybe it was painted in about the 1540s--it was merely a local devotion in St. Juan's village area. Maybe St. Juan was a sort of wise hermit whom people went to for advice and spiritual guidance.

As for the story about the miraculous flowers, I don't know how that fits in, since apparently there is no record of it among the churchmen of the time, though it is uniformly attested by the natives and the Spandiards in the "Informacion" of 1666.

Perhaps the story with the flowers has been altered from its original form or is the product of pious imagination, bearing symbolic but not literal truth.

Also, the sudden influx of hundreds of thousands of Mexican converts... this is recorded in the documents of the 1530s and 40s as I understand it. but what caused this if not miracles related to the image.

Anyway, those are my confused thoughts for now.

What seems beyond reasonable doubt are the many miracles attributed to the Lady of the image, as well as the inexplicable nature of the image itself--and its remarkable longevity under poor conditions-- as attested by the master painters who examined the painting in the 1600s and 1700s.

My heart tells me the tradition account in the four evangelists and the Nican Mopohua fundamentally does reflect the miraculous character of the image, St. Juan's devotion to Our Lady, and Our Lady's compassion on the people and working miracles for them in Christ, and Our Lady's desire for the cultural union of Spaniards and native Mexicans.

 

[Aldebaran]

I don't see how Our Lady of Guadalupe is smarmy. As to the other terms, don't the Orthodox experience Mary as warm and motherly as the New Eve? I might not have this exactly right, but I think it's in Luke's 18th chapter that they were bringing even infants to Jesus and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, let the children come to me, and do not prevent them. For the Kingdom belongs to such as these.

What does that have to do with Mary? It's says something only about Jesus.

 

[patricius79]

Just some other thoughts...

If the traditional story is made up, if we suppose it is largely made up....some of my questions--along with the issue of the miraculous image and the miracles--would be:

--who made it up and why did people believe it?
--if there is no record of who made up the story, why isn't there one? And is this problem of silence greater than the problems related to believing the traditional story?
--where is the evidence of a counter-story; I mean, did anyone say "wait now, that's not the story my grandfather told me", or " that's not the way we were taught"?

 

[Aldebaran]

Just some other thoughts...

If the traditional story is made up, if we suppose it is largely made up....some of my questions--along with the issue of the miraculous image and the miracles--would be:

--who made it up and why did people believe it?
--if there is no record of who made up the story, why isn't there one? And is this problem of silence greater than the problems related to believing the traditional story?
--where is the evidence of a counter-story; I mean, did anyone say "wait now, that's not the story my grandfather told me", or " that's not the way we were taught"?

If it were made up, then it would have to proven a lie, which is not easy to do. How does someone prove something to not be true? It's just like the idea of UFO's being alien ships coming to earth. People say that they are alien ships, and many people believe that as well.

 

[Arsenios]

I don't see how Our Lady of Guadalupe is smarmy. As to the other terms, don't the Orthodox experience Mary as warm and motherly as the New Eve? I might not have this exactly right, but I think it's in Luke's 18th chapter that they were bringing even infants to Jesus and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, let the children come to me, and do not prevent them. For the Kingdom belongs to such as these.

There is a difference between warm, emotional reassurance of a mother's unconditional love of her errant children, and the clear and decisive direction, and intervention, and intercession that is known in the Orthodox Faith. What you have with the Lady of Guadalupe is between the RCC and the Theotokos... And our prayers for your souls...

I love your faith, Patricius...

You are a much better man of faith than I am...

But not your dogmas...

Arsenios

 

[bbbbbbb]

There is a difference between warm, emotional reassurance of a mother's unconditional love of her errant children, and the clear and decisive direction, and intervention, and intercession that is known in the Orthodox Faith. What you have with the Lady of Guadalupe is between the RCC and the Theotokos... And our prayers for your souls...

I love your faith, Patricius...

You are a much better man of faith than I am...

But not your dogmas...

Arsenios

Thank you for your perceptive response. Your input on this thread has enabled me to understand the differences between the RCC and the EOC on this issue.