Is The Blessed Blessed Virgin Mary Offended?

[JReducation]

Well, there is something in Revelations about a woman crowned with the sun that folks like to say represents Mary, but I don’t think it does and a lot of other people don’t either.

This is actually the image on St. Juan Diego’s tilma. Juan Diego was not familiar with the Book of Revelation. Why choose this image if it did not refer to her and neither Juan nor the Church would understand it?

I think we might want to keep in mind that Mary was not the object of veneration she is today for the first 1000 years of our History. She became rather popular in the 13th century, I think it was.

Actually the cult to Mary goes back to the first generation Christians. They coined the term Thetokos, God-Bearer. The Eastern Christians coined the term The Dormition by the year 200. You may want to get your hands on this book, Mary and the Fathers of the Church The Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought.

Origen
The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first fruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first fruit of virginity (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).

Professes the belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Hilary of Poitiers
If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, “Woman, behold your son,” and to John, “Behold your mother” [John 19:26-27], as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).

Describes Mary as the consolation for the desolate.

Didymus the Blind
It helps us to understand the terms “firstborn” and “only begotten” when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin “until she brought forth her firstborn son” [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin" (The Trinity 3:4 [A.D. 386]).

Mary is to be honored and praised above all other saints.

As you see, by the fourth century, Mary’s place in Salvation History had been well defined and the cult to her as the Mother of God, the Perpetual Virgin, the Immaculate and the most exalted among the saints was well established.

Mary’s name is introduced into the canon of the mass shortly after the year 100. There are apocryphal writings that the early Church accredited to St. John the Apostle on Mary. Whether John actually wrote these is in question. However, what is not in question is that someone or some people, contemporaries of John wrote them. Even if they are not John’s writings, the fact that someone went to the trouble of writing them and that they contain the same truths about Mary that have been handed down through Sacred Tradition, tells us that there was a Marian cult long before the year 1000 AD.

1000 Ad places us in the early Middle Ages. By that time, the Ave Maria (Hail Mary) was already being prayed by Catholics. The second half (Holy Mary Mother of God) came later. The Dominicans were founded in 1208. They picked up the tradition of the Rosary and a Dominican Friar would later give it the form that we have today. The Franciscans were founded in 1209. They also picked up the tradition of the Rosary and would develop the Franciscan Crown Rosary.

Historically, it would not make sense that there be a fully developed Marian cult by the year 1200, if he only started in the year 1000. I’ll give you a simple example. The first house of the Franciscan Order was a small chapel that St. Francis rebuilt named, Our Lady of The Angels. That chapel was rebuilt in 1206. It had been abandoned for more than 100 years. It was abandoned aroiund 1106. If the Benedictines built a chapel under that name before 1106 it was because they had a devotion to Mary as Queen of the Angels. That devotion did not start with this building. It existed before the construction of the chapel.

The Last of the Fathers." Bernard Clairvaux explained the virginity of Mary, the “Star of the Sea”, how the faithful should pray on the Virgin Mary, and how he relied on the Virgin Mary as Mediatrix. Bernard is from the year 1090. Again, this was not a concept that he pulled out of his hat nor one that was born in the early part of the second millennium. These were concepts that were handed down through the first millennium.

The Great Schism came to a head in 1054. By that time, Eastern Christians had a fully developed Marian spirituality and mysticism. She was included in the liturgy of the East as well as the West. If the devotion to Mary and Marian mysticism were a product of a later era, the Orthodox would not have such a strong Marian theology.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Julia_Mae]

This is actually the image on St. Juan Diego’s tilma. Juan Diego was not familiar with the Book of Revelation. Why choose this image if it did not refer to her and neither Juan nor the Church would understand it?

It’s an interesting question, is it not? What’s also interesting is that Juan Diego’s tilma, or rather the image on it, is, afaik, the only thing in Time declared by the Church to be of supernatural origin. There are other objects purported to be, but not declared to be by the Vatican.

What does Revelations say?

A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman* clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.

Here is the image from a photo taken of the actual tilma:



No crown of 12 stars. She is actually clothed in, well, clothing. But it’s hard to resist the comparison what with the moon under her feet and the rays behind her. As Juan Diego was a Catholic, I’m not sure why you would think he would be unfamiliar with the passage. But the image wasn’t for him or the Bishop, except for the fact of it, it was for the millions of indigenous people reportedly converted by it.

The elements in the image are actually a lot of symbols that the native people, neither Catholic nor literate, would immediately interpret in a certain way. Here are some I pulled offline:

The 470-year-old image of Our Lady of Guadalupe is more than simply a picture. It contains symbols – in a sense, hieroglyphics, or a story in pictures – that reveal part of the message the Blessed Mother brought through Juan Diego to the Indians of Mexico and to all the people of the Americas. But the symbols had a special meaning to the Indians, who because of their culture could decipher the code in the Image.

**Maternity Band **
The maternity band around the woman’s waist was the sign of a pregnant woman, a mother who is about to give birth, it was a sign to the Indians that someone is yet to come.

Mantle
The predominant color in the image’s mantle is turquoise, the blue-green color reserved for the great god Omecihuatl. Although the Indians had many “intermediary gods.” Omecihuatl was considered the supreme god. It was a mother-father god who sometimes was represented as a man and sometimes as a woman. It was a source of unity for everything that exists.

**Moon **
The woman is standing on the moon, indicating that she is greater than the god of night, the moon god.

Angel
The angel at the bottom of the image was seen by the Indians as an “intermediary god” carrying in a new era, the beginning of a new civilization. One era was at an end – had died – and a new one was beginning, was being born.

BTW - I never said no one heard of Mary or that there was no mention of her or that she wasn’t noted by theologians. I said the Church, as in the laity, had no devotion to her as we do now. Possibly she was more venerated in the East, but I haven’t read that. If you have a source for Marian veneration as a common practice in the first thousand years, I’d like to see it.

In fact, however, Christians seemed to get along for rather a long time without such.

 

[JReducation]

It’s an interesting question, is it not? What’s also interesting is that Juan Diego’s tilma, or rather the image on it, is, afaik, the only thing in Time declared by the Church to be of supernatural origin. There are other objects purported to be, but not declared to be by the Vatican.

What does Revelations say?

A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman* clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.

Here is the image from a photo taken of the actual tilma:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Wu1BlU073gE/TrNpcG1hYLI/AAAAAAAAAN8/3-njJzuKFA4/s1600/guadaloupe.JPG

No crown of 12 stars. She is actually clothed in, well, clothing. But it’s hard to resist the comparison what with the moon under her feet and the rays behind her. As Juan Diego was a Catholic, I’m not sure why you would think he would be unfamiliar with the passage. But the image wasn’t for him or the Bishop, except for the fact of it, it was for the millions of indigenous people reportedly converted by it.

The elements in the image are actually a lot of symbols that the native people, neither Catholic nor literate, would immediately interpret in a certain way. Here are some I pulled offline:

The 470-year-old image of Our Lady of Guadalupe is more than simply a picture. It contains symbols – in a sense, hieroglyphics, or a story in pictures – that reveal part of the message the Blessed Mother brought through Juan Diego to the Indians of Mexico and to all the people of the Americas. But the symbols had a special meaning to the Indians, who because of their culture could decipher the code in the Image.

**Maternity Band **
The maternity band around the woman’s waist was the sign of a pregnant woman, a mother who is about to give birth, it was a sign to the Indians that someone is yet to come.

Mantle
The predominant color in the image’s mantle is turquoise, the blue-green color reserved for the great god Omecihuatl. Although the Indians had many “intermediary gods.” Omecihuatl was considered the supreme god. It was a mother-father god who sometimes was represented as a man and sometimes as a woman. It was a source of unity for everything that exists.

**Moon **
The woman is standing on the moon, indicating that she is greater than the god of night, the moon god.

Angel
The angel at the bottom of the image was seen by the Indians as an “intermediary god” carrying in a new era, the beginning of a new civilization. One era was at an end – had died – and a new one was beginning, was being born.

BTW - I never said no one heard of Mary or that there was no mention of her or that she wasn’t noted by theologians. I said the Church, as in the laity, had no devotion to her as we do now. Possibly she was more venerated in the East, but I haven’t read that. If you have a source for Marian veneration as a common practice in the first thousand years, I’d like to see it.

In fact, however, Christians seemed to get along for rather a long time without such.

To answer one of your questions above, Juan Diego would not have been familiar with the passage from scripture for several reasons:

1. He did not speak Spanish and the Scriptures had not yet been translated into the different languages of the Americas. Juan Diego spoke Quichua.
2. He lived in a Franciscan diocese. This particular reading was not in the Franciscan Liturgical Calendar. It was added in the 1950s on the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception. This reading was only in the Roman Liturgical Calendar. Juan Diego would not have heard it preached or mentioned at mass.
3. The images correspond to both, the image in the Book of Revelation and to symbols in the indigenous culture, which is no suprise. We call this “foreshadowing”. We see this everywhere. God is present in the shadows of many pagan worlds.

As to your other question about the devotion to the Blessed Mother. It was actually stronger and more popular up to the late 1700s and early 1800s than it is today. The devotions were actually liturgical and very mstyical.

See if you can get your hands on this book. It’s awesome.

Mary and the Fathers of the Church The Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought… I can’t remember the author’s name. Maybe you can find it through Amazon. They have all kinds of books.

But look at the examples that I gave you from the Fathers and from the ancient religious orders that go way back. They point to a very strong Marian cult, just different from our own. There are icons of Mary that date back to the early Church, mostly in Constantinople.

Check out that book. I think you’ll like it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Julia_Mae]

1. He did not speak Spanish and the Scriptures had not yet been translated into the different languages of the Americas. Juan Diego spoke Quichua.

Why do you believe this? I’m not trying to be argumentative, but I’m having a lot more trouble featuring the Bishop speaking the native tongue, than I’m having with Juan Diego being bilingual and speaking and understanding Spanish. He made a case to the Bishop. Twice. Mary of course is multi-lingual He was baptized at the age of 50, he could have been involved with the local religious for several years.

Also, just because the reading wasn’t included, doesn’t mean it wasn’t used, and indeed considering the symbolic impact of the sun and standing on the moon to the people I’d be surprised if it wasn’t, to convert the locals?

I don’t think it matters, really, as Juan didn’t make the image, but there has to be some reason besides military threat that brought about the massive conversion of the indigenous people.

 

[Warrenton]

To answer one of your questions above, Juan Diego would not have been familiar with the passage from scripture for several reasons:

He might have learned about the passage in the Little Office of the BVM? Perhaps from a Spanish soldier, or a servant of a Spanish lady?

Not that that takes away from the miracle.

The monastery of Mount Sinai has icons going back to the 500 and 600s. Wikipedia shows one of them, and the Theotokos is clearly represented on the upper right hand corner. The site has a number of photos also, including one of the Madonna from the 6th or 6th century.

 

[JReducation]

Why do you believe this? I’m not trying to be argumentative, but I’m having a lot more trouble featuring the Bishop speaking the native tongue, than I’m having with Juan Diego being bilingual and speaking and understanding Spanish. He made a case to the Bishop.

We know this from the Franciscan Archives in Assisi. The Friars operated through translators and gradually learned Quichua. The bishop at the time was the Franiscan Guardian of the friary in Tepeyac,which was also the chancery of the time. He did not speak Quichua and Juan Diego did not speak Spanish. The conversation between the bishop and Juan Diego was translated by a layman who served as the bishop’s aid. We have the original notes written by the bishop and the translator. Scientific studies of the tilma actually reveal that the image of the bishop, the translator and another friar are impressed in they eyes of the Virgin Mary as they would be impressed in a living eye due to the reflection by the fluids surrounding our eyes.
The people of Tepeyac did not begin to use Spanish until the 1800s. Even today, there are still pockets in Tepeyac where Spanish is not spoken.

He might have learned about the passage in the Little Office of the BVM?

The would not have been likely. Franciscans were not allowed to use the Office of the BVM until after Vatican II and never for liturgical use. People in Franciscan dioceses were only exposed to the Franciscan breviary, missal and lectionary. The friars, nuns and secular Franciscans also used the Seraphic Office written by St. Francis. There is even a Franciscan Ritual, which is a book of all the rites of the Church to be celebrated per the directions of St. Francis and his successors.

The people in the Franciscan missions would not have been exposed to any other form of liturgical prayer. Just as the people in the Dominican missions were not exposed to the Roman Liturgy or breviary. They only knew the Dominican Rite. It was the Jesuits who first brought the Roman Missal, Breviary and other forms of Roman prayer to the Americas.

In the Latin American missions, the dioceses were divided by religious communities, not as they are today. The Dominicans had some and the Franciscans had others. The Jesuits did not have dioceses, because they were not allowed to be bishops until much later. They operated in what today would be called “unincorporated” areas., where there was no local Church. The Carmelites also came, but not to Mexico. They went south.

There is something else that we know. As a result of a campaign that was begun by St. Francis Xavier, the Jesuits, Franciscans, Dominicans and Carmelites of Spain avoided bringing European Catholicism to the Americas. St. Francis Xavier had written back to Spain to leave the local culture in place, take from it what could be incorporated into Christianity, put aside the rest, but avoid forcing the people to accept European religious customs and devotions as a condition for Catholicism. Teach them the doctrine and use their symbols, their language, and their piety.

This became a norm followed by Spanish missionaries. It was customary for these orders to avoid imposing Europe on the local people. The weave, if you will, came though intermarriage. It was the Mestizos who brought the two together.

At the time of the apparition of Guadalupe, there literally had ethnic parishes. There were parishes for the Spanish colonists and parishes for the local people. The four orders made it a point to defend this all the way until the mid 1600s when the other religious started to arrive from Europe and took on more missions until the mendicants and the Jesuits were outnumbered.

That would also explain why Juan did not speak Spanish. He did not need to do so. He would not have been familiar with anything that was not in the Franciscan books and catechisms, if he knew how to read. We don’t know that he did or did not. We have nothing written by him. The entire story is narrated by him, but written by a translator who may have been a first generation Mexican. We say frist generation Mexican, because Juan Diego and his people were part of the Teotihuacan Nation, not what later became known as the United Mexican States.

One good thing about those days was that the missionaries kept journals and very good ledgers. We get a lot of information from these other sources, a letter here, a diary there, a royal edict over there and so forth.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[prettiefly]

”Let those who think that the Church pays too much attention to Mary give heed to the fact that Our Blessed Lord Himself gave ten times as much of His life to her as He gave to His Apostles.” -Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen"

 

[Waiting]

I have a devout Catholic friend who says that she doesn’t think the Blessed Virgin Mary would like being portrayed as a queen with crown of jewels, rich garments, etc. in pictures, statues, icons. She knows this has been done for centuries in Vatican,cathedrals, churches, but still thinks this is wrong way to show Mary how we look at her.
She says Mary was simple, humble, servant of the Lord and non worldly, and that this goes against who she was.

I tried to tell her we do this to show honor and respect to the Mother of God. Is there some place in the bible that shows this is appropriate to adorn Mary, and would not be offensive to her?

I’d appreciate your help and (name removed by moderator)ut.

Blessings

When I pray the Glorious Mysteries, I think of how Our Lord must have felt when He took His mother home. My guess is that He took her directly to her throne. After Mary had spent a lifetime devoted to His care, sacrificing and not complaining, I don’t doubt that for Jesus nothing was too good for His mother. To picture her crowning moment to be anything but the finest, would be to discredit the love and appreciation that Jesus felt for His mother. Picture Mary in royal attire. I do.

 

[TimothyH]

See if you can get your hands on this book. It’s awesome.

Mary and the Fathers of the Church The Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought… I can’t remember the author’s name.

Mary and the Father’s of the Church: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought By Luigi Gambero is available for free online from Google books.

tinyurl.com/7el8vuh

-Tim-

 

[JReducation]

Mary and the Father’s of the Church: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought By Luigi Gambero is available for free online from Google books.

tinyurl.com/7el8vuh

-Tim-

Thanks Tim. That’s a wonderful work.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, OSF

 

[terrig]

When I pray the Glorious Mysteries, I think of how Our Lord must have felt when He took His mother home. My guess is that He took her directly to her throne. After Mary had spent a lifetime devoted to His care, sacrificing and not complaining, I don’t doubt that for Jesus nothing was too good for His mother. To picture her crowning moment to be anything but the finest, would be to discredit the love and appreciation that Jesus felt for His mother. Picture Mary in royal attire. I do.

 

[terrig]

When I pray the Glorious Mysteries, I think of how Our Lord must have felt when He took His mother home. My guess is that He took her directly to her throne. After Mary had spent a lifetime devoted to His care, sacrificing and not complaining, I don’t doubt that for Jesus nothing was too good for His mother. To picture her crowning moment to be anything but the finest, would be to discredit the love and appreciation that Jesus felt for His mother. Picture Mary in royal attire. I do.

I do the same thing. I picture the Blessed Mother dressed as a queen when I’m praying the Glorius mysteries. This is as far as my human imagination can do because we can’t imagine Heaven and how she must be crowned in her glorified body. I don’t think it offends her at all. Sin, blasephamies and indifference to God is what I would think would offend her. She loves us all and wants souls to be saved. I love Our Lady and it’s ashamed how some Catholics think so little of her and want to be like Protestants in ignoring her. However, there are still many of us who honor her and do Marian devotions.