B
Bonnie
Guest
What I don’t understand is if it really was a miraculous image, why would anyone attempt to “improve” on it?
- Status
M
Mintaka
Guest
Bonnie said:
Why do the nuns feel the need to make thousands of outfits for the original Infant of Prague statue, when it’s already a miraculous statue?
Why are there other Spanish miraculous statues that Spanish people have painted on?
People like to glorify God by adding stuff to miraculous things. Usually people these days restrain themselves to adding boxes and coverings and frames and outfits, or to cleaning things up that are a little dingy or dirty. But there are plenty of times and places where a lot of devout Catholic people have thought that you could and should add stuff to the actual miraculous object. Usually this is because they think the original object is too plain, or too hard to see. Sometimes this sort of “help” miraculously disappears, while other times God generously lets it remain until it fades away naturally or is removed by later generations.
So yeah, I wouldn’t have done it. But it’s just one of those things.
There are a lot of miraculous icons. Why do people feel the need to create zillions of covers and frames for them?
Why do the nuns feel the need to make thousands of outfits for the original Infant of Prague statue, when it’s already a miraculous statue?
Why are there other Spanish miraculous statues that Spanish people have painted on?
People like to glorify God by adding stuff to miraculous things. Usually people these days restrain themselves to adding boxes and coverings and frames and outfits, or to cleaning things up that are a little dingy or dirty. But there are plenty of times and places where a lot of devout Catholic people have thought that you could and should add stuff to the actual miraculous object. Usually this is because they think the original object is too plain, or too hard to see. Sometimes this sort of “help” miraculously disappears, while other times God generously lets it remain until it fades away naturally or is removed by later generations.
So yeah, I wouldn’t have done it. But it’s just one of those things.
G
Goya
Guest
&
Gentlemen:
Thank y’all for the links. Very helpful.
Thank you–great thread!
P
patricius79
Guest
Okay so I tried to read from the site you kindly and appropriately linked to but I found it over my head. It looks good, it’s just too much for me. I have chronic fatigue and have trouble reading because of it.
I did get out of it that all the early documentary sources agree on the central features of the story.
I’m still not clear as to whether there are any documentary sources in the 1500s–is the Nican Mopohua really from the 1500s and was it really written by Valeriano?-- and if there are not, why there are not. I thought I read somewhere that some of the copies burned up or were deliberately destroyed by a priest or something, who later regretted it.
I hear what you are saying about how the Nican Mopouha and the other accounts are not inerrant, and should not be taken too literally. But I do think the story is so beautiful and fits with what I know of our Lady from personal experience and from the Glories of Mary by Liguori and with True Devotion to Mary by St. Louis.
As I struggle with my doubts or questions about this story, I still believe it is true for these reasons:
–the Church says the story is worthy of belief
–the miraculous properties of the image such as the people in Our Lady’s eyes
–the beauty of the image
–the beauty of the story
P
patricius79
Guest
Thanks Patrick. I don’t understand why they would have embellished the image.
What do you think of this article?
catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/science-sees-what-mary-saw-from-juan-diegos-tilma.html
It says that Calahan (and Smith(-whom you mention–found with infrared rays in 1979 that there were no traces of paint and that the fabric had not been treated with any kind of technique.
It says that Calahan found that the image is iridescent, meaning that it changes in color depending on the angle one views it, and that this cannot be done by painting
it says that a chemist named Kuhn–a nobel prize winner-- found in 1938 that the image had no animal or mineral colorings
It also talks about the miraculous longevity of the fibers of the tilma, and the people in the in eyes of Our Lady.
catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/science-sees-what-mary-saw-from-juan-diegos-tilma.html
P
patricius79
Guest
That’s helpful. I don’t understand the part about the Spanish not knowing about it and it being just a native thing for a long time.
I though that there were like 3000 conversions per day for a decade or something like that, totally several million conversions in several years.
P
patricius79
Guest
Patrick, Speaking of Callahan
In 1979, when Callahan, the Florida biophysicist, was analyzing the tilma using infrared technology, he apparently also discovered that the tilma maintains a constant temperature of 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit, the same as that of a living person.
cruxnow.com/faith/2014/12/12/four-awesome-facts-about-our-lady-of-guadalupe/
P
patricius79
Guest
This article claims there are sources from the 1500s:
Doubts have been raised about whether Juan Diego existed due to the lack of contemporary accounts. However, these doubts were quashed, at least any reasonable doubts, in 1995 with the coming to light of the Codex Escalada which has been dated to the sixteenth century. It bears the date of 1548 and is an illustrated account of the apparition with text in Nahuatl describing the encounter between Juan Diego and Mary. The document bears the signature of Father Bernadino de Sahagun, a missionary priest and historian in Mexico, and a contemporary of Juan Diego. The first mention of the image in Spanish is in 1556 in a sermon preached by Archbishop Alonso de Montufar, the successor to Archbishop Zumarraga, in which he recommended devotion to the image. Devotion to Our Lady of Guadalupe spread rapidly throughout the Catholic world, with Genoese Admiral Andrea Doria having a copy of the image on his flagship during the decisive Christian victory at the battle of Lepanto in 1571.
the-american-catholic.com/2011/12/12/our-lady-of-gaudalupe-fact-and-fancy/
Doubts have been raised about whether Juan Diego existed due to the lack of contemporary accounts. However, these doubts were quashed, at least any reasonable doubts, in 1995 with the coming to light of the Codex Escalada which has been dated to the sixteenth century. It bears the date of 1548 and is an illustrated account of the apparition with text in Nahuatl describing the encounter between Juan Diego and Mary. The document bears the signature of Father Bernadino de Sahagun, a missionary priest and historian in Mexico, and a contemporary of Juan Diego. The first mention of the image in Spanish is in 1556 in a sermon preached by Archbishop Alonso de Montufar, the successor to Archbishop Zumarraga, in which he recommended devotion to the image. Devotion to Our Lady of Guadalupe spread rapidly throughout the Catholic world, with Genoese Admiral Andrea Doria having a copy of the image on his flagship during the decisive Christian victory at the battle of Lepanto in 1571.
the-american-catholic.com/2011/12/12/our-lady-of-gaudalupe-fact-and-fancy/
P
patrick457
Guest
There are many sources which mention Guadalupe from the 1550s onward (especially Spanish ones), but there are only a few sources (many of which are vague and/or disputed) which mention it from before that date. 1555-6 is the watershed, when a Spanish ganadero (cattle rancher) was cured of his illness after praying to Our Lady of Guadalupe.
You might even see a hint of it in the nature of the original shrine at Tepeyac (as per the testimony of the Indians). The original chapel (a very small adobe house) was not a church properly speaking: there was no priest, nor even a resident staff (people from Cuautitlan regularly visited and maintained the shrine). It was a lay shrine or oratory built and maintained by the natives.
The mass conversions of the natives started in 1536 onwards. At that time, not even the friars knew what the exact cause was. At the time, Fray Toribio Motolinia (one of the Twelve Apostles of Mexico) noted that inexplicably, Indians began to appear by the thousands to him, asking to be baptized. He was close with the natives, but even he did not know what caused them to convert. A disciple of Motolinia, Fray Gerónimo de Mendieta, suggested that the conversions might have been caused by a prominent native ruler (tlatoque) converting to Christianity: the people were following suit. (This was a common pattern: when a ruler converts, so did the people under him. The same thing happened in Japan.)
However, none of the friars directly linked the mass conversions with Guadalupe. In fact, they treated the mass conversions with some suspicion: as I noted earlier, Fray Zumarraga began to use his inquisitorial powers to prosecute superstition and (relapse to) idolatry among the natives around the period 1536-1543.
P
patrick457
Guest
Exactly. Another thing is, the ‘additions’ might have been motivated by a desire to make the image ‘look more like’ Our Lady, at least Mary as she is depicted in European/Spanish art.
You also have to remember that early in its history, the image was simply placed on a frame, without any glass: it was continually exposed to the smoke and beeswax of candles and the kisses and touches of devotees. Just because the image is miraculous (or miraculously made) and just because it held up remarkably well for about four and a half centuries as a whole (despite all that abuse) doesn’t mean that it’s completely impervious to things like fading - hence the ‘retouches’ here and there.
P
patricius79
Guest
Thanks Patrick. I am finding the Castellano research interesting. He does seem to know what he is talking about. But I don’t understand the contradictory information out there. I had read repeatedly that there was no pain on the image, or at least the original image. But that’s not at all what Castellano says. Though he does say that all the master painters who examined it in the 1600s and 1700s–and maybe after, I don’t know–said that it was miraculous and the painters could not replicate it.
All are agreed that the painting of the Virgin is of sublime beauty, and that its contours are not replicable. Particular admiration is shown toward the face, which is at once brilliant and subtle in expression. The concurrence of all the painters that the Image is of heavenly origin derives in no small part from the powerful aesthetic impression of the Image, especially when contrasted with the poverty of most of its materials.
…
The original painting has no defects of technique…
The gold stars, rays, crown and mantle fringe appear to have been made with genuine gold dust, and Cabrera felt concavities indicating that they were imprinted into the cloth, unlike any known technique…
In general, all testimonies about the icon’s physical condition through 1900 agree that the tilma was in an exceptionally good state of preservation, with only minimal alterations. Its construction was considered inexplicable by any natural techniques known to the best Mexican painters of the baroque period. Apart from the perceived technical impossibility of accomplishing such artistry on mediocre, unsized cloth, the examining painters from every period were duly impressed by the aesthetic value and technical mastery displayed by the artwork itself. While such assessments are, to large extent, subjective and unquantifiable, the baroque painters at least attempt to give definite reasons for their admiration of the icon. Notably, none were able to make an exact copy of the Image, even when using superior materials, though skillful copies of masterpieces were then commonly achieved. Using the technical resources available at the time, all due diligence was taken to demonstrate that the Image could not have been made by natural means.*
arcaneknowledge.org/catholic/guadalupe12.htm#sec18_6
All are agreed that the painting of the Virgin is of sublime beauty, and that its contours are not replicable. Particular admiration is shown toward the face, which is at once brilliant and subtle in expression. The concurrence of all the painters that the Image is of heavenly origin derives in no small part from the powerful aesthetic impression of the Image, especially when contrasted with the poverty of most of its materials.
…
The original painting has no defects of technique…
The gold stars, rays, crown and mantle fringe appear to have been made with genuine gold dust, and Cabrera felt concavities indicating that they were imprinted into the cloth, unlike any known technique…
In general, all testimonies about the icon’s physical condition through 1900 agree that the tilma was in an exceptionally good state of preservation, with only minimal alterations. Its construction was considered inexplicable by any natural techniques known to the best Mexican painters of the baroque period. Apart from the perceived technical impossibility of accomplishing such artistry on mediocre, unsized cloth, the examining painters from every period were duly impressed by the aesthetic value and technical mastery displayed by the artwork itself. While such assessments are, to large extent, subjective and unquantifiable, the baroque painters at least attempt to give definite reasons for their admiration of the icon. Notably, none were able to make an exact copy of the Image, even when using superior materials, though skillful copies of masterpieces were then commonly achieved. Using the technical resources available at the time, all due diligence was taken to demonstrate that the Image could not have been made by natural means.*
arcaneknowledge.org/catholic/guadalupe12.htm#sec18_6
P
patricius79
Guest
I wonder on what basis exactly the Church canonized St. Juan Diego and to what extent that bears on the authenticity of the 4 accounts of the Guadalupe vision and on the authenticity of the image.
I also would like to know on what basis the Church determined to declare Our Lady of Guadalupe “Empress of the Americas”, and to make a feast day for her (Dec 12), and to declare that the apparition is worthy of belief.
I’m sort of muddle headed over the whole thing right now. I still believe in the story because the four historical sources of the story all agree on the basic story, and because the Church says it is worthy of belief, and because of the evidence about the painting, such as the longevity of it under terrible conditions, its beauty, the testimony of the master painters who declared that no human could have painted it using any known techniques on such a poor/mediocre surface; etc.
But I’m confused about many things, including the way Castellano’s understanding doesn’t fit with some of what is passed around in Catholic newspapers and websites about how there is no paint in the image, and how there are people in the eyes of the Blessed Virgin (which Castellano) denies, etc.
I also would like to know on what basis the Church determined to declare Our Lady of Guadalupe “Empress of the Americas”, and to make a feast day for her (Dec 12), and to declare that the apparition is worthy of belief.
I’m sort of muddle headed over the whole thing right now. I still believe in the story because the four historical sources of the story all agree on the basic story, and because the Church says it is worthy of belief, and because of the evidence about the painting, such as the longevity of it under terrible conditions, its beauty, the testimony of the master painters who declared that no human could have painted it using any known techniques on such a poor/mediocre surface; etc.
But I’m confused about many things, including the way Castellano’s understanding doesn’t fit with some of what is passed around in Catholic newspapers and websites about how there is no paint in the image, and how there are people in the eyes of the Blessed Virgin (which Castellano) denies, etc.
P
patricius79
Guest
patrick, thank you. I don’t understand, however. WOuldn’t the new converts have told the friars why they had converted?
P
patricius79
Guest
As I understand it, one of the points that Patrick’s source–Castellano–makes, is that most of pre-modern history relies on oral tradition, that oral tradition is basically as reliable as written tradition, and that anthropology has shown that complex oral traditions can be transmitted accurately for at least 200 years.
In other words, if we throw out oral tradition, we’ll have to throw out almost all ancient history.
The fact that all four of the Guadalupan written sources from the 1600s agree on the basic story also helps me.
P
patricius79
Guest
That’s interesting, especially about the stars. A lot of Catholics believe that the stars themselves are miraculous, and show the precise position of the stars at the time Mary appeared to Juan Diego, from the perspective of looking down at the stars from Heaven.
But you’re saying that the stars weren’t on the original tilma.
I looked at Castellano’s bottom lines conclusions, and he apparently thinks the image is miraculous and that Juan Diego was a holy man at Tepeyac, and that the miracles were real.
M
Mintaka
Guest
Re: stars – It was pretty common in the 16th and 17th century for painters to paint the ceilings of churches with the stars and planets visible on the night of the church’s dedication. So it’s not surprising that the guys doing additions to the original tilma painting would have added stars seen in the sky on December 12th.
Re: reasons for the canonization of St. Juan Diego, and reasons for declaring Guadalupe an approved apparition: You can look up a lot of this stuff on the Vatican’s website, you know. You might have to look it up in Spanish or Latin, but it’s on there.
Re: urban legends - All famous apparitions and saints tend to attract urban legends, for much the same reason that urban legends accumulate around famous secular people or worldly events. The thing about seeing stuff in the eyes is a nice idea, but it’s essentially like looking at Rohrschach inkblots and convincing yourself that it’s a complete battlefield map of Gettysburg.
Re: reasons for the canonization of St. Juan Diego, and reasons for declaring Guadalupe an approved apparition: You can look up a lot of this stuff on the Vatican’s website, you know. You might have to look it up in Spanish or Latin, but it’s on there.
Re: urban legends - All famous apparitions and saints tend to attract urban legends, for much the same reason that urban legends accumulate around famous secular people or worldly events. The thing about seeing stuff in the eyes is a nice idea, but it’s essentially like looking at Rohrschach inkblots and convincing yourself that it’s a complete battlefield map of Gettysburg.
B
Bonnie
Guest
Yep - pareidolia. Like seeing shapes in clouds or wood grain. It’s a fun game.
P
patrick457
Guest
I’m familiar with the star thing, but to be honest, as time goes on my doubts about it grow larger. First off, all we have are 46 stars on Our Lady’s mantle. How can we be sure that the identifications of the constellations are correct (especially since a key element of the thesis is that these constellations are supposedly represented in reverse; i.e. not as we see them on the night sky, but as seen ‘from outside’ the sphere) - especially since some of these supposed constellations are not even represented on the cloth at all?
Another thing is, given the nature of the image, the supposed star map on the tilma is sort of too distorted. I took the liberty of using the sky chart on this website to check how the sky would have appeared from Tepeyac Hill and Mexico City during 10:30 AM, December 22nd, 1531. (In the traditional account, Mary appeared to Juan Diego on December 9th-12th. But this would have been a date on the Julian calendar, since the Gregorian calendar was not introduced until 1582 (and did not become universal until much later); the corresponding Gregorian date would have been December 19th-22nd.)
I personally think that the stars were painted onto the Virgin’s mantle because, it was an occasional template in Renaissance/early modern Spanish/colonial depictions of Mary (especially those of the Immaculate Conception / Assumption). For example, this late-15th century statue in Guadalupe, Extremadura, Spain (this isn’t the Extremaduran Our Lady of Guadalupe, but an image within the same church, note.)
Or this. Or this.
I don’t entirely rule out the possibility of the supposed image of a bearded man in Our Lady’s eyes (Juan Diego?) being real - I personally think it is real - but we can’t entirely rule out the possibility of this being mere pareidolia either. (That doesn’t of course mean that the image can’t work miracles or wasn’t miraculous in origin.) The figure seems to be reflected in both eyes, but at the same time, the figure is more clearly recognizable in the right eye than it is on the left eye.
Now the thing about Dr. Jose Aste Tonsmann supposedly seeing more people in Our Lady’s eyes - including what is purported to be a half-naked Aztec, the heads of bishop Zumarraga and his interpreter, a guy wearing a hat and his wife and their kid, etc. - is harder to believe, not least because of the method he used to ‘see’ these images (which was essentially ‘magnifying photographs of the eyes and tinkering with them until you see something that vaguely resembles human figures’).
P
patricius79
Guest
Not wanting to argue about this, but just wrestling with these issues…I haven’t believed the vision was real for a long time, based on the lack of historical proof. Fortunately, the Church doesn’t require that we believe private apparitions.
In spite of that, I still like the image.
If one doesn’t believe in the vision, in what sense does one agree with the Church that St. Juan Diego is a saint, and that Dec 12 is Our Lady of Guadalupe’s Feast Day?
I find some of story difficult to believe, and, as you say, some of the urban legends out there, everywhere, are probably false.
But I find the spiritual message of Our Lad in the Nican Mopohua to be beautiful and true.
And I find it very difficult to disbelieve the basic traditional story, too.
For one thing, because the Church investigated the matter in the 1666–reviewing the testimony of both natives and Spaniards as to the oral traditions-- and found it to be credible.
And because I don’t know of an alternate documented tradition explaining things like (in no particular order)
–the devotion to the image at the Tepeyac chapel, and the connection of this devotion with St. Juan
–the conversion of millions of native Mexicans in a short period
–how this image could possibly have been painted by a human–but if by a human, then by who,?-- given that the master painters who repeatedly examined it found it was inexplicable and miraculous, having been painted on a poor surface without sizing and without undersketching
–the longevity of the image under poor conditions
– the many reported miracles
– the way the 1921 bomb didn’t even crack the glass around the image
– the acid spill that didn’t harm the image
P
patricius79
Guest
Obviously I meant Our Lady, not “Our Lad”. I’m sure our Lady has a sense of humor.
- Status