Did Juan Diego even exist?

[pnewton]

The argument was that Bishop Zumarraga doesn’t mention the case of Juan Diego, or the apparition, or the flowers or the tilma at all. He didn’t say that huge chunks of correspondence are missing so we don’t know.

Exactly. It is still an argument from silence. He does not mention the tilma, though it has been dated to that time. I disagree about the reliability of communication from that error. There were too many things that could have happened, deliberate and accidental.

 

[ChadS]

Exactly. It is still an argument from silence. He does not mention the tilma, though it has been dated to that time. I disagree about the reliability of communication from that error. There were too many things that could have happened, deliberate and accidental.

Mine is not an argument from silence. What I’ve repeatedly said is that Zummaraga’s correspondence does not mention Juan Diego, the apparition or any other event associated with the story, to confirm what the documents do not say or allude to is merely agreeing to a positive. If only one letter or document from Zummaraga is extant then you have a point, however if is correspondence is fairly complete then I have to standby my original statements.

You’ve made the claim that Spanish colonial authorities were in a primitive society, they were not. Spanish civilization at that time was firmly in the era historians call the modern era, they were not primitives. The Spanish and other colonial authorities kept very rich records. For example there is a project out there that has compiled all the known slave voyages between 1500 and 1866 for the Portuguese, Spanish, English, French and Dutch. For slaving voyages alone they’ve come up with information for over 35,000 separate voyages, that does not include the solely trading voyages. Spanish missions in the New World kept quite detailed sacramental records for births, marriages, etc. that oftentimes recorded important notes that were important to the community like records of floods, fires or new construction.

I’m not sure as to why you keep making the claim that Spanish records are spotty or incomplete? The Vatican and Spanish governments have tons of volumes on the preceedings of the Spanish Inquisition and they are contemporaneous with this time period. I know people who’ve done archival work in Spanish colonial holdings and they are always overwhelmed with the amount of paper the Spanish generated – almost to the point of having too much for a dissertation (it also doesn’t help that some of the stuff is spread out among several different holdings in several different countries). I’m certainly not claiming that every last scrap of paper that crossed a desk in the New World made it into an archive, but I’m confident in saying that these records are as complete as one could hope for.

ChadS

 

[buffalo]

**OUR LADY OF GUADALUPE: HISTORICAL SOURCES

**

 

[Des]

I thought the Miracle needed after Juan Diego’s beatification was interesting as it happened, on the same day that John Paul II was celebrating Juan Diego’s beatification Mass.

On May 3, 1990, in Mexico City, nineteen-year-old Juan Jose Barragan suffered from severe depression and, wanting to commit suicide, he threw himself from the balcony of his apartment, striking his head on the concrete pavement thirty feet below, despite his mother’s frantic attempts to hold onto him as she cried out to Juan Diego for help. The young man was rushed to the nearby hospital, where the doctor there noted his serious condition and suggested that the boy’s mother pray to God. To this, the young man’s mother replied that she already had prayed for Juan Diego’s intercession. For three days, examination and intensive care continued, and physicians diagnosed a large basal fracture of the skull – a wound that normally would have killed at the moment of impact, and even now destroyed any hope of survival or repair. Given the mortal nature of the wounds, on May 6 all extraordinary medical support was ceased, and young Juan Jose’s death was thought to be imminent. But that same day, Juan Jose sat up, began to eat, and within ten days was entirely recovered, with no debilitating side-effects, not even so much as a headache. In the scans, the doctors could see clear evidence of the life-threatening fracture, but to their surprise they noticed that the bone was mended, with the arteries and veins all in place. Astonished, they requested more tests by specialists for second opinions, only to have their original assessment confirmed. Impossible, unexplainable, it was declared a miracle.

catholiceducation.org/articles/catholic_stories/cs0409.htm

 

[ChadS]

OUR LADY OF GUADALUPE: HISTORICAL SOURCES

Thank you for that. I found it very helpful.

ChadS

 

[pnewton]

Mine is not an argument from silence. What I’ve repeatedly said is that Zummaraga’s correspondence does not mention Juan Diego, the apparition or any other event associated with the story, to confirm what the documents do not say or allude to is merely agreeing to a positive. If only one letter or document from Zummaraga is extant then you have a point, however if is correspondence is fairly complete then I have to standby my original statements.

Perhaps you are not familiar with the term, but even reiterated, it is a textbook example.

The argument from silence (also called argumentum ex silentio in Latin) is generally a conclusion based on silence or lack of contrary evidence.[1] In the field of classical studies, it often refers to the deduction from the** lack of references to a subject** in the available writings of an author to the conclusion that he was ignorant of it.

FYI - This can be an inductive reason, evidence, but it is a far cry from proof. So what we have is evidence that there was no miracle, but not proof, and then we have evidence of the miracle (the dated tilma) and the Church making a statement. You may or may not choose to believe in the Catholic Church on this, but there is not proof either way.

Is it possible a record could have been lost? That depends on whether you believe hurricanes exist. Do you think anti-catholics exist? Do you believe that Cortez was in Mexico? Any of these may have resulted in this being lost.

I personally do not think there was a record. With Cortez having an army that was brutal to the natives and the Bishop being assigned as the protector of these natives, I can see where he might have thought it prudent to keep it quiet. Also, you speak of this bishop like he was a experienced member of the Curia. He was a new, unordained bishop that didn’t even have a specific job description. He was the first bishop on site and at the mercy of one of the most brutal of conquistadors. Yes, I consider that primative circumstances.

 

[pnewton]

I missed one more explaination: fire.

Theft, fire [especially the fire in the Municipal Archives of Mexico City in 1692], the recycling for commercial use of written legislation, etc., further explain the scarcity of archival sources).

ewtn.com/library/mary/ladyguad.htm

There are other explainations, if you are really interested, at the EWTN link. Oops, I see Buffalo has alredy linked it.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

I missed one more explaination: fire.

I don’t mind so much that proofs of the faith are lost in the time of history. It allows us to dig deeper and contemplate the depth of our faith life. Happy are those who have not seen and still believed.

 

[ChadS]

FYI - This can be an inductive reason, evidence, but it is a far cry from proof. So what we have is evidence that there was no miracle, but not proof, and then we have evidence of the miracle (the dated tilma) and the Church making a statement. You may or may not choose to believe in the Catholic Church on this, but there is not proof either way.

Is it possible a record could have been lost? That depends on whether you believe hurricanes exist. Do you think anti-catholics exist? Do you believe that Cortez was in Mexico? Any of these may have resulted in this being lost.

I personally do not think there was a record. With Cortez having an army that was brutal to the natives and the Bishop being assigned as the protector of these natives, I can see where he might have thought it prudent to keep it quiet. Also, you speak of this bishop like he was a experienced member of the Curia. He was a new, unordained bishop that didn’t even have a specific job description. He was the first bishop on site and at the mercy of one of the most brutal of conquistadors. Yes, I consider that primative circumstances.

I beg your forgiveness I’ve been interchangeably using evidence and proof when I clearly mean evidence.

Is it possible that some or many of Zummaraga’s correspondence has been lost? Absolutely, I saw one website that talked about a letter he wrote in the Basque language and only a copy is still in existence. Also, I think in the Catholic Encyclopedia under the article for Guadulupe it mentions that at the time of the original inquiries into the apparition a letter from Zummaraga to Spanish Franciscans mentioning Juan Diego and the apparition was in existence. However, it seems that even at that time the Franciscans could only vouch for its existence and not produce the original or even a copy.

In the course of doing my own research I’ve run into stumbling blocks where things simply no longer exist so yes I know what damage fires, floods, earthquakes and hurricanes can do to official records. I also wander at what treasure trove of information has been lost. But, yet the Spanish colonial authorities managed to produce mountains of documents - and I realize some were “recycled” for other purposes. The Spanish were working in primitive conditions and they were brutal towards the natives, but the Spanish were not primitive themselves and they tried to administer their colonies the best they could the way the Crown wanted them to.

Do we need to rely on Zummaraga’s letters for proof that the apparition happened? No, there is the Native American oral tradition which was recorded within 20 or so years of its occurrence and there is also the fact that a chapel has existed at the house where tradition says Juan Diego was born. Then there is the tilma which has been around since then and by rights should’ve rotted away centuries ago.

ChadS

 

[Philthy]

Ooooh. Now that’s not a very good answer, though.

It is a fact, my friend, and there was a reason I put a after it!

I thought the Church was so official, and didn’t announce things unless they are certain (in things dealing with apparitions and miracles and such). This doesn’t sound so certain.

You lost me here. What, exactly, is uncertain?

The thing is, I was just bored and so looked up info on the tilma and Juan Diego…just because I was curious. And I end up finding out there’s not much historical info dealing with him, and the story as we have it today originates about 100 years after his life. This makes me wonder how many other instances there are like his dealing with other saints and such.

I read a book called, “Our Lady of Guadelupe and the Conquest of Darkness” by a guy named Carroll. He is a professor of history and goes into quite a bit of detail regarding the life of a number of individuals during Cortez’s campaign and also regarding Juan Diego.
Im not surprised that the info we have is so late after the event - we’re talkin’ illiterate times and cultures here my friend. They had an oral tradition I would imagine. Maybe drawing and such, but who would be writing stuff down and saving it in Mexico (it wasnt even called that then) in the 1500’s? I suppose the best source might have been the Spanish records, but their focus was on the conquest, not on a miracle that happened years afterwards.

Of course the ma in concern is that the Church is supposed to be infallible during canonization.

Yeah…I have a hard time getting excited about this. Assuming the worst, what would possibly motivate the bishops - collectively - to canonize Juan Diego 500 years after the fact without significant tangible evidence? Have faith. Conduct your own study if you must, but I wouldn’t rush to paranoia after investigating for a couple hours and reading Wiki…

 

[goforgoal]

Ooooh. Now that’s not a very good answer, though.

I thought the Church was so official, and didn’t announce things unless they are certain (in things dealing with apparitions and miracles and such)

This doesn’t sound so certain.

The thing is, I was just bored and so looked up info on the tilma and Juan Diego…just because I was curious. And I end up finding out there’s not much historical info dealing with him, and the story as we have it today originates about 100 years after his life. This makes me wonder how many other instances there are like his dealing with other saints and such.

Of course the main concern is that the Church is supposed to be infallible during canonization.

EDIT:
**This sounds like a Catholic Answers Live question for Jimmy Akin. Anyone willing to ask? lol

I “accidently” read online that St. Juan Diego did not exist too. I’ve also read that Blessed Kateri Tekakwitha did not exist either.

However, I do believe that they both existed and are real. My family, friends, and I have prayed for them to intercede for us.

I wouldn’t put too much in wiki the information provided isn’t 100%.

Trust God, ask St. Juan Diego to intercede for you.

Off topic question: Even though people say that St. Juan Diego and Blessed Kateri Tekakwitha did not exist is this another way of *persecuting or condemning * <–(sorry if these are not the right words) the Catholic Church?

God bless,
goforgoal

 

[Cat_Herder]

The Church does not claim that its canonisation process has always been infallible. A few years ago a number of dubious and legendary saints were removed or downgraded in the lists, for example St. George and Ss Barlaam and Josaphat.

Saints are not “graded.” Their feast days are.

Removal from the calendar is not a revocation of canonization.

Those last two were from a Christianised version of the life of the Buddha – a nice gesture on the part of the Church

“Barlaam and Josaphat” were never canonized. The St. Josaphat who was canonized has nothing to do with the Buddha.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I “accidently” read online that St. Juan Diego did not exist too. I’ve also read that Blessed Kateri Tekakwitha did not exist either.

Plenty of people think the Holocaust wasn’t real either.

But the tilma is there, and sadly, so is Auschwitz.

Denial of Our Lady of Guadalupe, like denial of the Holocaust, may well be racially motivated.

 

[goforgoal]

Plenty of people think the Holocaust wasn’t real either.

But the tilma is there, and sadly, so is Auschwitz.

Denial of Our Lady of Guadalupe, like denial of the Holocaust, may well be racially motivated.

I know this thread is a bit older but I hope nobody didn’t misunderstand me…I’ve read somewhere that even St. Rita of Cascia did not exist.

You can’t always trust what you read but always trust in God.

St. Juan Diego, pray for us. Amen.

americancatholic.org/features/saints/saint.aspx?id=1224

sancta.org/juandiego.html

Our Lady of Guadalupe, intercede for us all. Amen.

wf-f.org/Guadalupe.html

sancta.org/intro.html

catholicculture.org/culture/liturgicalyear/overviews/months/12.cfm

Lord hear our Prayers. Amen.

 

[EricFilmer]

Spanish missionaries had been trying to spread Christianity in the Americas since the end of the 15th Century with very limited results.

In the 16th Century, masses of Christians were leaving the Catholic Faith due to the Protestant Reformation.

In 1531, not long after after the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, something happened in Guadalupe, a location which could be seen as the center of the American continents. This vision resulted in 8 million conversions to Catholicism within a seven year time span! Catholicism has continued to be the main religion in Central and South America, and is generally practiced with great fervor and devotion.

So we can ask ourselves, what exactly happened in Guadalupe? If we believe what the Church and the people say, it was a vision of Mary. Where there is a vision, there is also a visionary. The Church and the people say that it was St. Juan Diego. If we dismiss this claim due to lack of concrete historical evidence of the man, we still have to ask ourselves who the visionary was.

If we say that nothing miraculous happened in Guadalupe, then we are challenged to explain the phenomenon of such incredible amounts of conversions over such a brief time-span. Was it a scam created by the Spanish? Obviously not, because their track record in the Americas certainly makes such a notion lack credibility. Plus, if this was something concocted by the Spanish then they would have created documents to support their claim. In other words, the lack of concrete historical evidence to support the existence of St. Juan Diego works both ways. Objectively speaking, it can also argue against his existence as a real person, but it can argue against his existence as a fabrication.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Spanish missionaries had been trying to spread Christianity in the Americas since the end of the 15th Century with very limited results.

In the 16th Century, masses of Christians were leaving the Catholic Faith due to the Protestant Reformation.

In 1531, not long after after the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, something happened in Guadalupe, a location which could be seen as the center of the American continents. This vision resulted in 8 million conversions to Catholicism within a seven year time span! Catholicism has continued to be the main religion in Central and South America, and is generally practiced with great fervor and devotion.

So we can ask ourselves, what exactly happened in Guadalupe? If we believe what the Church and the people say, it was a vision of Mary. Where there is a vision, there is also a visionary. The Church and the people say that it was St. Juan Diego. If we dismiss this claim due to lack of concrete historical evidence of the man, we still have to ask ourselves who the visionary was.

If we say that nothing miraculous happened in Guadalupe, then we are challenged to explain the phenomenon of such incredible amounts of conversions over such a brief time-span. Was it a scam created by the Spanish? Obviously not, because their track record in the Americas certainly makes such a notion lack credibility. Plus, if this was something concocted by the Spanish then they would have created documents to support their claim. In other words, the lack of concrete historical evidence to support the existence of St. Juan Diego works both ways. Objectively speaking, it can also argue against his existence as a real person, but it can argue against his existence as a fabrication.

Plus, the Mexicans rebelled against the Spanish and won their indepedence. If the Mexican people had seen Catholicism as something foreign that the Spanish had imposed on them, then they would have abandoned the Faith upon ridding themselves of foreign influence. But that did not happen–because the Faith did not come to them through their colonial oppressors.

 

[goforgoal]

EricFilmer and Cat Herder- Thank you and God bless you for this…Very interesting.