The Reformation

[MC Just]

10 million proud people left the Catholic Church for the Protestant Reformation in the 1500's. A few month's later 10 million humble mexicans became Catholic , when our Lady appeared to Juan Diego in Guadelupe. So basically the Reformation got nothing. They may have led 10 million people out of the Catholic Church but the 10 million we're replaced. Hehe. Our Stainless Maiden is amesome.

Praise be to God!!!

[foundsheep]

I like dem Mexicans! :loco:

[CatholicAndFanatical]

lol thats amesome.

[Dave]

Hail Holy Queen!

[-I---Love]

hey that's GOD at work!!!!

thanks for sharing .... where'd u find out the info. bout 10 mil joining? Sry I always like to know my ref. cite to back my story up thanks

[Sammy Blaze]

Cool info Just,

I AM A MEXI-CAN, NOT A MEXI-CAN'T!!

VIVA LA RAZA!!!

...............ok I'll stop ~S.

[Bruce S]

The Europeans left after looking at some truths [forget doctrine here, the corruption alone was a huge role in that] the Mexicans came on a lie.

Catholic scholars themselves have pretty much agreed that Juan Diego is like Santa Claus, a fictious invention.

And the people in charge of elevating him to sainthood KNEW THAT, and did so anyway. One of the most shameful events in the past few years.

Many of the saints personified the intended Christian spirit of service and helped establish vital Catholic institutions. However, no contribution aided the Catholic church so much as Juan Diego's insistence that the 1531 apparition of Virgin Mary must be listened to. This would eventually lead to a tidal wave of conversion that would sweep the indigenous population. Unfortunately, Juan Diego was not present among the new saints.

Last year, Father Guillermo Schulenberg [former HEAD of the SHRINE, the man MOST in a postition to KNOW] sent a letter to the Vatican disputing the very existence of Juan Diego. Juan Diego, a humble native convert to Catholicism, is credited with having the first apparition vision of the Virgin Mary recognized by the Vatican. As the story goes, Juan Diego has the vision of a dark olive skinned Virgin Mary. After the local bishop disputes the likelihood of the vision several times, Juan Diego persists. Finally, after Juan Diego receives a final vision he walks before the bishop and lays out his tilma (a cape made from cactus fibers). Spanish roses fell to the ground, surrounding the image of Guadalupe imbedded forever in the cloak. After almost 500 years, the image remains on a cloak that should have deteriorated by now. This account was documented several ways, including the Nican Mopohua. This gospel was written in the native Aztec tongue, Náhuatl. Father Schulenberg, and many other critics, contend that Juan Diego is a myth and the vision is an excuse to worship the mother goddess Tonantzin. The same goddess whose temple was first destroyed when the Spanish discovered her in Tepeyac. Tepeyac, where a shrine to the mother Mary was built years later.

A great deal of Christian doctrine is built on tradition. This includes the Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant and Orisha. The most orthodox religion vary depending on the local culture. Only so much information is given to us directly from our deities. Everything else is made from men and women passing oral tradition and gospels to the next generation. And eventually the indigenous melts with the conquistador. The Latino mestizo is a bitter sweet mixture of Indigenous glory, African spirit and Spanish conquest. It's fitting that our dominant religion has such a rich history of mixing conquered gods.

The Vatican has said Juan Diego will likely be canonized when the Pope makes a trip to Mexico this fall. They must, however, make an honest effort to examine whether Juan Diego was a fraud. Let's go back one-thousand and one-hundred years to examine the possibilities. In 431, the Christian Council of Ephesus (Turkey) declared Mary to be Theotokos, God-bearer. Ephesus just happened to be the location of the temple of goddess Diana (Artemis), one of the seven wonders of the world. Diana was known as the Mother of All and the Queen of Heaven. In the same town where Mary is said to have lived her final days and where Diana was Holy Mother, the Council put into Christian doctrine that a Mary was our connection to the divine. Mary became the Mother of God and the Queen of Heaven.

It's possible that the indigenous people of Mexico found a way to continue worshipping their own goddess. Many Mexicans and Mexican-Americans who cherish Tonantzin will tell you that is exactly what happened. They will tell you how their goddess found a way to survive and how the indigenous people of the land helped to save her. Others treat them both as a single saint or an Orisha, gently melting the two identities into one figure of faith. It's also possible that the Turkish followers of Diana found a way to do the same a millennium ago. The Vatican isn't likely to denounce the existence of Juan Diego, or his motives. His perseverence to acknowledge the signs of God have been a standard of Catholic Latino character for over 500 years. Brazil and Mexico hold the largest Catholic populations, followed by the United States. To disturb the icon that started the Catholic explosion would injure Catholicism's place in Latin America

http://www.lasculturas.com/aa/aa060600a.php

There is no actual evidence of a miraculous origin for the image on the cloth, but there are signs of fraud and human origins. There are standard artistic motifs, evidence of underdrawing, pigments, cracking and flaking, and more. The image was, however, very helpful in the conversion of the Aztecs of the region, which is the likely reason why it was created and promoted in the first place. The bishop in question, Bishop Zumarraga, not only never mentioned it but in fact spoke out against the continued existence of miracles in the world, writing that "The Redeemer of the world doesn't want any more miracles, because they are no longer necessary."

Although the image was supposed to have appeared in 1531, the first recorded mentions of it don't appear until 1555 at the earliest. In 1556, Francisco de Bustamante wrote "The devotion that has been growing in a chapel dedicated to Our Lade, called of Gaudalupe, in this city is greatly harmful for the natives, because it makes them believe that the image painted by Marcos the Indian is in any way miraculous." Francisco de Bustamante was the head of the Franciscans in that region of Mexico. In 1569, viceroy Martin Enriquez denounced the cult around the Virgin of Guadalupe as worship of the Aztec goddess Tonantzin in disguise.

It isn't even clear that Juan Deigo himself (who isn't mentioned in any of the stories until 1648) existed. In the 19th century, historian Joaquin Garcia Icazbalceta headed an inquest called by Bishop Labastida of Mexico City; Icazbalceta concluded in a confidential report that Diego may not have existed. After Diego was made a saint in July, 2002, Miguel Olimon launched another investigation. Olimon was a priest and historian at the Pontifical University of Mexico, but he also found that Juan Diego probably never existed - and he was censored for that.

The Virgin of Guadalupe has been proclaimed as the patron of all of the Americas and, in 1988, her liturgical celebration was raised to the status of a feast for all diocese in the United States. As a figure, she is especially important for Latino Catholics because it represents a visit by the Mother of God to a poor peasant in a land of people otherwise oppressed by colonizers. She is, perhaps, their primary religious symbol and therefore of incredible significance - not only religiously, but also culturally and ethnically.

Increasing the status of the Virgin in Latin America and in the Western Hemisphere occurs alongside a general increase in the status of Mary in the Catholic Church as a whole. The basilica built in honor of the Virigin of Guadalupe today attracts over 10 million visitors per year, making it the most visited Catholic church in the world after the Vatican.

Bogus. I have another twenty citations, the BISHOP that Juan Diego supposedly went and talked with WAS IN SPAIN FOR TWO YEARS, the period when this apparition supposedly happened.

At least honor real people, there are MANY worthy of honor, it is this sort of thing that gives the Catholic Church a black eye with Protestants.

[cmotherofpirl]

THe Church approved and their credibility is a bit higher than these people. :)

[Bruce S]

THe Church approved and their credibility is a bit higher than these people.

No denying that the Church approved... ONLY over the objections of ANY OF THOSE within the church that KNEW the facts.

So, we have blind submission to a known fraud.

Like I said. This is what differentiates a Catholic from a Protestant. We don't trust the leaders if they are wrong, it isn't in our makeup. Sad that Catholics DO NOT INVESTIGATE ever, just blinding follow what they are told to.

This one to me, is the most glaring, provable, example of this in my recent lifetime.

In 1648, father Miguel Sanchez decided to capitalize on the image by writing a book titled “The image of the Virgin Mary.” It was in this book that the modern myth of “la Virgin” was born. The story, designed to attract more followers to the dwindling temple at Tepeyakak, went as follows: On December 9, 1531 a recently christianized Mexika by the name of “Juan Diego” was visited by the virgin Mary on the hill of Tepeyakak. “Juan” reported his encounter to the Catholic Archbishop Zumarraga, who at first did not believe him. Once again, Mary appeared to “Juan” and once again Archbishop Zumarraga did not believe him. A few days later on December 12, 1531, Mary appeared once more and caused flowers to grow on the barren hill. She then told “Juan” to gather the flowers up in his Tilma and show them to the bishop as proof of her appearance. When “Juan” unfolded his Tilma in front of the bishop to let the flowers fall out, it was revealed that “Mary” had left an image of herself on the Tilma. This “miracle” tilma, made of simple maguey fiber and bearing the image of La Virgin, is the same tilma which hangs in the temple at Tepeyakak. Or so the story goes....

The only problem with father Sanchez’ story is that Zumarraga wasn’t even in Mexiko during the time of the alleged appearances! As we already know, he was called away to Spain earlier that year and did not return until 1534. Not only that, but Zumarraga wasn’t even declared Archbishop until 1532. Why did Father Sanchez make up the story? Because the temple at Tepeyakak was losing money. All the priests wanted to be sent to the church of San Juan de Los lagos, where the sale of prints, indulgences, alms, and the massive number of pilgrims made the church very wealthy. These profits made the priests of Mexiko City jealous. They needed something that would attract more people to their church, they needed something that would attract the Mexikans - a DARK virgin. The small church at Tepeyakak had gone unnoticed for nearly a century, but when father Sanchez’ book came out, the story of the “miracle” quickly spread and became imbedded in the Mexikan consciousness. The Church at Tepeyakak would never be poor again.

[Bruce S]

In 1883, Joaquin Garcia Icazbalceta was directed by Archbishop Labastida to investigate the matter. After an intensive and thorough examination of the tilma, Icazbalceta conceded that the image was in fact a fraud. In his report back to the Archbishop, Icazbalceta stated “With all my heart, I had hoped this miracle which would prove to be such a great honor for my country would prove to be true, But I do not find it to be. If we are obliged to believe in and proclaim miracles which have occured, we are also prohibited from publicizing false ones.’’ Incidently, after Izcalbacet died, the Catholic Church had a Jesuit historian write a book to refute what Izcalbacet had writren. The result was the “Historical album of the Virgin of Guadalupe” which had 25 worthless, unprovable and long since debunked “proofs” of the Virgin’s appeaarance. Among the “proofs” presented in the Album were varying stories describing the event, and dates which did not match for the events described.

By 1895 the tilma had deteriorated beyond repair and Father Antonio Plancarte ordered that it be switched with a new one. Plancarte’s statement can be read in the Dec. 3rd, 1895 issue of El Universal. However, when the new image was put into place, the priests made a stunning discovery - the artists had completely left out the crown which rested on “La Virgin’s” head! In an attempt to cover up this mistake, the church declared that the crown had miraculously disapeared, and those faithful to the image actually believed it. This entire sordid event was recorded in great detail in the book “Echoes of Olvido” which was published in 1900 by Bishop Sanchez Camacho.

In 1928 the new, crownless version of the image was examined by the great painter and Mexikanista Dr. Atl. Dr. Atl concluded that the image was definitely not on maguey fiber as claimed, and he went on to add that “The painting of Guadalupe is a parody of her image which is in Fuenterrabla Spain, which is in turn a parody of Byzantine images of decadence. The Virgin of Guadalupe is a purely decorative work, executed by someone with mediocre imagery. “

Despite all of the historical documentation (not to mention common sense) which clearly illustrates how the Guadalupe hoax was pulled off, millions of devout Mexikans still pray to her image and dedicate themselves to her worship. 

We can go on forever, ALL RELIABLE Catholics who KNEW what is going on , the VATICAN did too, however, the desire to have some Mexicans Sainted overruled common sense.

I guess the massive inroads that Pentacostalism is making in Mexico had no role in this decision....NOT, grin.

Que tal?

[MC Just]

Our Church has investigated it and found it to be authentic. Protestants worry too much about the church being corrupt, rather then just believing that Jesus is leading it. Wake up. It's the new and ever lasting covenant which means there will be no more destroying and rebuilding the true Religion it's here to stay.

[MC Just]

Alll that, as usual is just lies put together by evil men inspired by the devil. "I will put emnity between you and the woman and her seed will crush your head"

[RJS]

Bruce,

Getting sick of the one sided debates over at the christianity forum where users get kicked for doing or debating anything remotely pro-Catholic? At least when your here you are somewhat amiable, which is good because I was beginning to think that you were just a copy and paste shove it down your throat kind of guy.

Hope to see you here more often. Also I would like to recommend to you a book which I think you will find really intriguing it is called By What Authority? An Evangelical Discovers Catholic Tradition by Mark Shea. I would defianately encourage you to read it. Heck I will even buy you a copy if you would permit me.

[littleflower+JMJ]

VIVA DE VIRGEN DE GUADALUPE!!!

O Virgen de Guadalupe, Pray for us!!

thanks just for sharing this with us!

anything is possible with God!!! :wub: :wub: :wub:

[CatholicAndFanatical]

They talk about the cloak being made up from a mediocre artist, if you look in the eyes of the Virgin Mary on the cloak, you will see an image of Juan Diego. Im sorry, they didnt have that type of technology in the 1500's. I Trust the Church. And wouldnt that 'new' cloak deteriorated by now? What the old cloak could magically disappear but the new cloak that these people claim took its place was able to stay in shape all this time?

Like I said. This is what differentiates a Catholic from a Protestant. We don't trust the leaders if they are wrong, it isn't in our makeup. Sad that Catholics DO NOT INVESTIGATE ever, just blinding follow what they are told to.

No, what differentiates Catholics from Protestants is that Catholics have an Authority to look to, prots are alone in their journey, by no fault but their own. The Church is here to guide us in our life to Christ. Jesus was not going to leave us stranded in life. He gave us a Church to help us through.

I trust the Church. so should you.

CatholicAndFanatical