Racial Makeup of Marian Apparitions

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stillness
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Stillness

Guest
I have little knowledge on this subject, so I would like to learn the Catholic explanation of why the apparitions of Mary appear to look so different from one another. They seem to mirror the ethnic group of the person who saw them.

For example, the Our Lady of Guadalupe image certainly has an indigenous look, with dark hair and skin. The apparitions depicted in Europe have lighter skin and generally lighter hair. Likewise, someone posted a link to an apparition that supposedly took place in Vietnam (I do not know if your Church approved it) and Mary had an East Asian apperance.

Does this indicate that it was imagined by the person who saw the apparition, as they projected familiar features onto a vision? What is the Catholic answer? Thank you.

Keep in mind that I am not referring to the “Black Marias” or other statues and art. I am referring to apparitions which someone was supposed to have actually seen a ghost.
 
The first thing to note about Marian apparitions, is that the Church takes them as she finds them. The Church doesn’t invent them, but investigates them. These are simply how Our Lady chose to appear to these persons…

Secondly, is that the Church doesn’t affirmatively declare the validity of any apparitions–rather it issues what amounts to a negative approval. It investigates thoroughly–and eliminates most of them–well over 99% of claimed apparitions. What the Church has done in cases like Guadalupe, Lourdes, and Fatima–is state that after thourough investigation, interviewing of witnesses, analysis of the representations, etc.–it found nothing to disprove those claims–and thereby permits adherents to treat them as authentic (and many Popes have done so–without expressly declaring that they are therefore completely genuine).

e.g.–the Tilma of Gudalupe has been exposed to some extremely vigorous scientific anaylses, which weren’t able to produce a credible alternative explanation for its origin;

e.g. 2–the events at Fatima were widely witnessed and confirmed by highly skeptical news media from Lisbon (many reporters were sent to ‘blow the cover off the hoax’–but rather came back converted, believers–and reported the miracles in their secular newspapers).

e.g. 3–in another thread today, someone posted a link showing the Church’s disapproval of Medigorge–which apparently failed the scrutiny.

The bottom line, is that I am not aware of any official Church statement pretending to know why Our Lady appeared as she did–she just takes 'em as she finds 'em.

Not that I’m an expert on the topic–just offering some lay opinion–and as one who has looked under the hood so to speak, of some of these apparitions.
 
Goya said:
The first thing to note about Marian apparitions, is that the Church takes them as she finds them. The Church doesn’t invent them, but investigates them. These are simply how Our Lady chose to appear to these persons…

Secondly, is that the Church doesn’t affirmatively declare the validity of any apparitions–rather it issues what amounts to a negative approval. It investigates thoroughly–and eliminates most of them–well over 99% of claimed apparitions. What the Church has done in cases like Guadalupe, Lourdes, and Fatima–is state that after thourough investigation, interviewing of witnesses, analysis of the representations, etc.–it found nothing to disprove those claims–and thereby permits adherents to treat them as authentic (and many Popes have done so–without expressly declaring that they are therefore completely genuine).

e.g.–the Tilma of Gudalupe has been exposed to some extremely vigorous scientific anaylsis, which hasn’t been able to produce a credible alternative explanation for its origin;

e.g. 2–the events at Fatima were widely witnessed and confirmed by highly skeptical news media from Lisbon (many reporters were sent to ‘blow the cover off the hoax’–and came back converted, believers.

e.g. 3–in another thread today, someone posted a link showing the Church’s disapproval of Medigorge–which apparently failed the scrutiny.

The bottom line, is that I am not aware of any official Church statement pretending to know why Our Lady appeared as she did–she just takes 'em as she finds 'em.

Not that I’m an expert on the topic–just offering some lay opinion–and as one who has looked under the hood so to speak, of some of these apparitions.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut. I realize that the Church does not teach that apparitions must be accepted, and I am aware that there is no official teaching on why they appeared in certain ways.

But what I was more interested in finding out is how those who believe in the various apparitions explain these differences in race.
 
Stillness said:
Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut. I realize that the Church does not teach that apparitions must be accepted, and I am aware that there is no official teaching on why they appeared in certain ways.

But what I was more interested in finding out is how those who believe in the various apparitions explain these differences in race.
Click to expand...
I see…those who believe in them–not the Church.

Ok, having spoke with a number of such persons–and being one myself–(for the big three aparitions, anyway)–the explanation I’ve heard, is that Our Lady chooses to appear to these people as one of them, in order to better relate to them. She usually appears with a message–and apparently, finds it more efficacious to disseminating her message–by being better able to relate to the intended recipients of the message. The case of Guadalupe is particulary compelling on this point, as she appeared to a poor Aztec–Saint Juan Diego–and by appearing as an indian women, the image of the Tilma resonated much more effectively with the Aztec people–bringing about the conversion of some 5,000,000 Aztecs.

Afterall, what does it matter how she appears? The Bible doesn’t tell us how she looked, and Our Lady is not just Jesus’s mother (To St. John: 'behold your mother…‘woman behold your son’)–she is Mother to us all–hence one of her recognzied titles, is ‘Mother of the Church’.

Now again, this is conjecture–as it was explained to me, on more than one occasion–and I am not aware of her making any statements as to why she appeard as she did, in any of the apparitions. She just does. Call it a mystery…speculate as you will…

…believe, or don’t believe–both are permissible to Catholics, let alone non-Catholics.
 
Our Lady chooses to appear as the same race as the person who sees her. Maybe to be unintimidating, or to demonstrate the universality of the Church.
I always imagined it as “being polite.” 😛
 
Stillness said:
I have little knowledge on this subject, so I would like to learn the Catholic explanation of why the apparitions of Mary appear to look so different from one another. They seem to mirror the ethnic group of the person who saw them.

For example, the Our Lady of Guadalupe image certainly has an indigenous look, with dark hair and skin. The apparitions depicted in Europe have lighter skin and generally lighter hair. Likewise, someone posted a link to an apparition that supposedly took place in Vietnam (I do not know if your Church approved it) and Mary had an East Asian apperance.

Does this indicate that it was imagined by the person who saw the apparition, as they projected familiar features onto a vision? What is the Catholic answer? Thank you.

Keep in mind that I am not referring to the “Black Marias” or other statues and art. I am referring to apparitions which someone was supposed to have actually seen a ghost.
Click to expand...

Good question. I have always assumed that the Guadalupe image is the only actual image of Our Lady, and that it represents how she really looks in all times and places. All the statues and icons that depict Our Lady as having “Caucasian” colored skin must be incorrect, must represent just an assumption on the part of the artist. Jews in Palestine in the 1st Century had, I believe, “racial” features similar to the native peoples of Mexico. Thus, I assume"** that the Guadalupe image is an actual “photograph” so-to-speak of Our Lady**. I likewise assume that Jesus and the 12 apostles did not have white skin such as do the peoples native to northern Europe.
 
Christ gave His Mother Mary to all of us.My thought is she appears to resemble the ethnicity of the individual’s she appears to for just that reason.😉
 
The Virgin appears to those in a way that they can understand. For example the Virgin of Guadalupe contains symbolic imagery that would be significant to an Aztec. She wears a cord around her wrists which was an Aztec symbol of pregnancy. Also, she appears to be a Mestiza. Mexicans refer to her as “La Morena” and her name is a westernized version of an Aztec word meaning, “she who crushes the serpent”. Also, I do believe that Jesus, Mary, and the apostles had darker skin than white Europeans, but there is no reason to believe that the image on the tilma is a literal portrayal of her during her earthly life. In life, she obviously did not exhibit the aztec traits mentioned above.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top