Our Lady of Guadalupe is Mary

[At16]

Hello, as many of you know yesterday December 12th was the feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe which many latin-American communitys have a great devotion to. I saw a publication online by a protestant pastor saying that Guadalupe is not the true name of the mother of Jesus because the true name is Mary and the protestant pastor also claims that the image of our blessed mother of Guadalupe is a cover up that the devil has used to take the glory of god. I have a great faith in our lord Jesus Christ in his Holy catholic church and a special devotion to his mother. My question is how do I defend my faith and how do I help this pastor understand that Guadalupe is Mary and the mother of our lord?

 

[Guest1]

Was her name really Mary? And not perhaps Mariam?

Maybe referred to in a jewish/Aramaic form of the name.

The image of our lady of Guadeloupe has possibly meanings in the picture that show she’s not a God and is pregnant and a virgin.

 

[westie]

My question is how do I defend my faith and how do I help this pastor understand that Guadalupe is Mary and the mother of our lord?

Not sure why so many feel compelled to “defend the faith”…why not just rejoice in the truth. There are always going to be non-believers, and if your faith is strong, they are not going to dissuade you from the truth.

 

[StephieNorthCo]

Your friend might want to consider that Guadeloupe is a place, not a name.

The rest seems to be just drivel. He needs to back that up that assertion.

Similarly, Our Lady of Fatima does not refer to the name. Mary’s name isn’t Fatima either.

 

[adamhovey1988]

Maryam, I believe is more accurate than Mary, Maria, Marija, Marie, etc. I’d ask him if he believes that Jesus is the lion of Judah, and then point out that he’d have been called Yeshua. Is this pastor non-denominational, or of a more fundamentalist variety, perhaps?

 

[adamhovey1988]

Or Notre dame de Paris. Or Notre dame des victoires. Or “Help of Christians”. This pastor seems a little ridiculous.

 

[MT1926]

I saw a publication online by a protestant pastor saying that Guadalupe is not the true name of the mother of Jesus because the true name is Mary and the protestant pastor also claims that the image of our blessed mother of Guadalupe is a cover up that the devil has used to take the glory of god.

Boy that Devil must be a complete idiot. All those sulfur fumes must have killed a few billion brain cells.

Our Priest gave an awesome homily on this last night. One of the things he pointed out was that within 10 years like 9 million people converted from Pagan worship to Catholicism. The nation turned away from worshiping other God’s which I guess we could say worshiping him, the devil, and offering him, the devil, something like a thousand human sacrifices a year.

Not quite sure how this takes the glory off of God?

That’s my thoughts on the subject anyway.

God Bless

 

[adamhovey1988]

And the interesting fact about this? It was during the reformation in Europe.

 

[adamhovey1988]

It’s interesting you mention that, because that belief is how Pentecostalism started. But, that’s a story for another thread.

 

[Francis]

@At16

Mary, has many titles and in many countries called in different names ,you don’t need to believe or pay attention to that protestant pastor, as he is giving his personal opinion, and believes what he has been taught from his childhoods ,which we know is false.

Genesis 3:15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman(Mary), and thy seed and her seed: she (Mary)shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

Sirach 24:18, I am the mother of beautiful love, of fear, of knowledge, and of holy hope; being eternal, I am given to all my children, to those who are named by him.

Catechism of the Catholic Church​

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p6.htm

Mother of Christ, Mother of the Church

**[963] Since the Virgin Mary’s role in the mystery of Christ and the Spirit has been treated, it is fitting now to consider her place in the mystery of the Church. "The Virgin Mary . . . is acknowledged and honored as being truly the Mother of God and of the redeemer. . . . She is ‘clearly the mother of the members of Christ’ . . . since she has by her charity joined in bringing about the birth of believers in the Church, who are members of its head."502 "Mary, Mother of Christ, Mother of the Church."503

I. MARY’S MOTHERHOOD WITH REGARD TO THE CHURCH

Wholly united with her Son . . .

**[964] Mary’s role in the Church is inseparable from her union with Christ and flows directly from it. “This union of the mother with the Son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ’s virginal conception up to his death”;504 it is made manifest above all at the hour of his Passion:

Thus the Blessed Virgin advanced in her pilgrimage of faith, and faithfully persevered in her union with her Son unto the cross. There she stood, in keeping with the divine plan, enduring with her only begotten Son the intensity of his suffering, joining herself with his sacrifice in her mother’s heart, and lovingly consenting to the immolation of this victim, born of her: to be given, by the same Christ Jesus dying on the cross, as a mother to his disciple, with these words: "Woman, behold your son."505

965 After her Son’s Ascension, Mary "aided the beginnings of the Church by her prayers."506 In her association with the apostles and several women, "we also see Mary by her prayers imploring the gift of the Spirit, who had already overshadowed her in the Annunciation."507

 

[Francis]

@At16

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a3p2.htm

Mary’s divine motherhood

**[495] Called in the Gospels “the mother of Jesus”, Mary is acclaimed by Elizabeth, at the prompting of the Spirit and even before the birth of her son, as “the mother of my Lord”.144 In fact, the One whom she conceived as man by the Holy Spirit, who truly became her Son according to the flesh, was none other than the Father’s eternal Son, the second person of the Holy Trinity. Hence the Church confesses that Mary is truly “Mother of God” ( Theotokos ).145

Mary’s virginity

496 From the first formulations of her faith, the Church has confessed that Jesus was conceived solely by the power of the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary, affirming also the corporeal aspect of this event: Jesus was conceived “by the Holy Spirit without human seed”.146 The Fathers see in the virginal conception the sign that it truly was the Son of God who came in a humanity like our own. Thus St. Ignatius of Antioch at the beginning of the second century says:

You are firmly convinced about our Lord, who is truly of the race of David according to the flesh, Son of God according to the will and power of God, truly born of a virgin,. . . he was truly nailed to a tree for us in his flesh under Pontius Pilate. . . he truly suffered, as he is also truly risen.147

497 The Gospel accounts understand the virginal conception of Jesus as a divine work that surpasses all human understanding and possibility:148 “That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit”, said the angel to Joseph about Mary his fiancee.149 The Church sees here the fulfillment of the divine promise given through the prophet Isaiah: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son."150

**[498] People are sometimes troubled by the silence of St. Mark’s Gospel and the New Testament Epistles about Jesus’ virginal conception. Some might wonder if we were merely dealing with legends or theological constructs not claiming to be history. To this we must respond: Faith in the virginal conception of Jesus met with the lively opposition, mockery or incomprehension of non-believers, Jews and pagans alike;151 so it could hardly have been motivated by pagan mythology or by some adaptation to the ideas of the age. The meaning of this event is accessible only to faith, which understands in it the "connection of these mysteries with one another"152 in the totality of Christ’s mysteries, from his Incarnation to his Passover. St. Ignatius of Antioch already bears witness to this connection: "Mary’s virginity and giving birth, and even the Lord’s death escaped the notice of the prince of this world: these three mysteries worthy of proclamation were accomplished in God’s silence."153

 

[Francis]

@At16

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/why-the-devil-hates-mary-especially-during-exorcisms-93682

Images That Prove Why Satan Is Terrified of Mary – EpicPew

Satan is terrified of Mary. TERRIFIED. And not just cuz she's got a thing for crushing serpent heads. These images prove why satan is terrified of Mary.

epicpew.com

https://www.bluearmy.com/marian-consecration-is-a-battle-cry-against-satan/

satan Immaculate Heart of Mary

pride 1. humility: “he has seen my lowliness…” (Lk 1:48)

rebellion 2. obedience: “let it be done to me…” (Lk 1:38)

autonomy 3. submission: “I am the handmaid of the Lord…” (Lk 1:38)

confusion 4. truth: “she kept all these things in her heart…” (Lk 2:51)

sin 5. grace: “rejoice, o full of grace…” (Lk 1:28)

blasphemy 6. praise: “my soul rejoices…” (Lk 1:47)

atheism 7. faith: “blessed are you who have believed…” (Lk 1:45)

resentfulness 8. joy: “when she heard Mary’s greeting, the infant leapt for joy…” (Lk 1:44)

selfishness 9. service: “she went out in haste…” (Lk 1:39)

riches 10. simplicity: “they did not have a place in the inn…” (Lk 2:7)

avoidance of pain 11. sacrifice: “a sword will pierce your heart…” (Lk 2:35)

self-glory 12. glory to her Son: “do whatever He tells you…” (Jn 2:5)

infidelity 13. fidelity: “at the foot of the cross…” (Jn 19:25)

hatred 14. forgiveness: “with them (apostles)was the Mother of Jesus…” (Acts 1:14)

 

[Francis]

@At16

http://www.olgaustin.org/symbolism.shtml

https://mtncatholic.com/2014/12/11/4-literally-awesome-facts-about-our-lady-of-guadalupe/

The Miraculous Image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, Explained in One Infographic

[See also: 4 Literally Awesome Facts About Our Lady of Guadalupe] [See also: The Earliest Alleged Marian Apparition Dates to… A.D. 40] [See also: The Night Charles Dickens Was Haunted By the Spirit of… the Virgin Mary?] [See also: 8 of the Oldest Images of the Blessed Virgin Mary]

www.churchpop.com

https://www.ewtn.com/jp99/image.htm

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I think this pastor is beyond logical discussion. Pray for him, ask Mother Mary to open his eyes, and go about your business.

Also, please remember that the Guadalupe apparition is an approved private revelation, not part of the deposit of faith, and even good Catholics aren’t required to believe in it. Belief in approved apparitions is like belief in approved miracles. It’s largely a matter of faith, not something handled via apologetics because belief in such apparitions isn’t required, even of Catholics. I of course believe wholeheartedly that Mary appeared at Guadalupe and the whole nine yards, but I don’t try to convince others. I just say that she did appear and I will pray for their minds to be opened, then I change the subject.

 

[midori]

Guadalupe is not the true name of the mother of Jesus because the true name is Mary

Well, yeah. Mary’s true name isn’t Guadalupe. Guadalupe is a place-name-- a Spanish river that has its roots in an Arabic word. (“Wadi” means river; “lupe” is wolf. Or whatever it is.)

Interesting use of capitalized pronouns and ‘goddess’ in this Houston Press article, but–

But another school of thought favored by many Mexican and Chicano scholars argues that Guadalupe got Her name thanks to Spanish stupidity. They maintain that Spanish clerics misunderstood Juan Diego when he told them la virgen called Herself Tlecuauhtlapcupeuh (“She who comes flying from the region of light and music and intones a song, like the eagle of fire” in Nahuatl) and Coatlaxopeuh (“I crushed the serpent with my foot”). The two terms are rough homonyms of Guadalupe, goes the tale, and so the Spaniards assumed Juan Diego meant their goddess and renamed his brown virgin Guadalupe. The problem with this revisionist theory, however, is that it has no basis in historical fact. The German theologian Richard Nebel pointed out in his 1992 study Holy Mary Tonantzin Virgin of Guadalupe: Religious Continuity and Transformation in Mexico , “Until today, no one has found any document from the sixteenth century in which one can verify the Nahuatl phonetic origins of the word that the Spaniards supposedly thought resembled ‘Guadalupe.’”

So, if you want to be cheerful about that part of his concern, you can agree. “Oh, I don’t like the term “Guadalupe” either. It reminds me so much of European colonialism. I prefer to think of her as Our Lady of Tepeyac, myself.”

(Because the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe is built on top of Tepeyac Hill.)

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Except that St Juan Diego said Mary told him she wanted to be known specifically as “Our Lady of Guadalupe”.

If Mary says she’d like to be called one thing, I’m not going to contradict her and call her something else.

 

[midori]

Yes, but she was speaking Nahuatl.

“Guadalupe” isn’t a Nahuatl word. It’s a river in Spain, not a place in Mexico— and it’s what the Spaniards thought the Nahuatl word sounded like, so that’s what they used when they revealed it to the other Europeans back home.

Except there is no documentation as to the original conversation in Nahuatl, so we’re only left guessing as to what the word-that-sounds-like-Guadalupe actually was.

But if you have a primary source on the subject that you could copy-paste, that would be very helpful?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Except there is no documentation as to the original conversation in Nahuatl, so we’re only left guessing as to what the word-that-sounds-like-Guadalupe actually was.

No, I don’t have a “primary source”. As you point out, this was all originally in oral tradition, so we have the Saint reporting the words of Our Lady. To the extent sources are written down, they’re in a language I can’t read and not available in primary form on the Internet, which only contains various articles talking about them.

The word “Guadalupe” is apparently close enough sounding to whatever was originally said, that no one near the time of the apparition objected to its use.
She has granted many blessings under the title of “Our Lady of Guadalupe”.
The Vatican calls her “Our Lady of Guadelupe” in approving the apparition.

It would be presumptuous at this point to start calling her something else based on some human researcher’s conclusion.

Now Our Blessed Lady is very patient, and probably wouldn’t hold it against someone who just absolutely had to, in their scientific hubris, complain about her name, but I think it’s disrespectful to go changing the title of a Vatican-approved apparition where the name is said to have come from Our Lady, or we have in our language the name as close as we can get to whatever Our Lady said.

 

[midori]

(whispers) My first comment was very tongue-in-cheek, with a side helping of random trivia-- just a way of saying, “Y’know, there are parishes and schools named after OLOT.” I don’t actually have any problem about “Guadalupe” at all. But I also don’t mind pointing out that it’s inaccurate to say “Mary says—” when we know what happened, and we know the results, but we don’t technically have those records of exactly what was said, what words were used, and so on.

We get stuff wrong all the time, even when it gets spelled out in a language a bit more common than some Uto-Aztecan dialect. Just look at the fiasco of the whole Catherine Laboure apparitions— what ended up happening at Lourdes could have happened at the Rue de Bac in Paris, but there were so many roadblocks, she eventually went elsewhere. The medal was struck, but only after an incredible amount of resistance and drama. The altar/statue didn’t get handled correctly. The chapel got enlarged, but wasn’t open to the public. The monumental cross never materialized, even to this day.

But when we do our best, it all works out, even if it’s not exact. And “Our Lady of Guadalupe” is way easier to say than “She who comes flying from the region of light and music and intones a song, like the eagle of fire”.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

We’ll have to agree to disagree on this point, as I firmly believe that if something was wrong with using the title “Our Lady of Guadalupe”, God and Our Lady would have made this known in some way, as this is a major approved apparition that affected millions, probably billions of people over the course of the centuries.

I have absolutely no problem with saying “Mary said” when we are dealing with a major approved apparition. You are free to believe that Mary called herself Jane Doe if you like. I will follow what I firmly believe Our Mother Mary said.