Since today is the Feast day of Our Lady of Guadalupe I think it is a good time to remind people about some of the myths involved with this miraculous image, and yes I do believe this is a miraculous image.
As Catholics we are quite use to unhistorical elements developing in the stories of the saints, especially of the early saints. Though this is something that still happens. Over the years I have compiled some interesting facts that Catholic historian Sandra Miesel has written about some of these items that have developed around the story and image of Our Lady of Guadalupe. The following are from what she has written in the past.
- Our Lady of Guadalupe’s appearance to Juan Diego in 1531 did not halt Aztec human sacrifices. Those had already been stopped by the Spanish capture of Mexico City, more than a decade previously.
- Today is the date of the feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe which prompts me to vent some pet peeves concerning this apparition. First, Our Lady is not, not, not dressed like "an Aztec princess." The Aztecs wore calf-length wrap skirts and loose sleeveless blouses, no veils. The Guadalupana’s garments are those of a typical late medieval Marian image. Rose and blue were favorite colors. Nor is her apparent pregnancy unique. Pregnant Madonnas used to be quite popular in the Middle Ages until Trent decided they were in poor taste. (Some had see-though bodies or fetal Infants who could be taken in and out.)
Next, the sun, moon, stars, and angel were painted by human hands at some point in the 16th C. They are discoloring and flaking as was seen up close when the tilma was removed from its case for scientific examination in the 1980s. These features bring Mary’s iconography in line with medieval Immaculate Conceptions or Assumptions. She used to wear a silly little crown, too, but that was removed in the 1890s.
- A recent academic study of the history of devotion to the Guadalupana is MEXICAN PHOENIX by DA Brading (Cambridge, 2001). One surpise there is that the earliest record of the apparition refers to a variety of flowers, not just roses.
Can you imagine even thinking of painting on a miraculous image? How could anybody have thought that was a good idea at the time. Surely some artists have giant egos and you must have a pretty good sized one to decide to "improve upon" a miraculous image.
13 comments
I love the devotion of Our Lady of Gaudalupe!! It is especially fitting with all the news about Planned Parenthood lately.
Our Lady of Gaudalupe, protectress of the unborn, pray for us!!!
P.S. Another common but wrong thought is that Guadalupe was where Mary appeared, when in fact Guadalupe is in Spain, Our Lady simply asked to be called that.
Ok, maybe I am missing some “humor” here but I have read quite extensively about the image (from serious sources) and a few of the comments here are completely new to me. Maybe Ms. Miesel went to school with my theology professor who told us that one day the Israelites “suddenly felt the urge” to leave Egypt and walked through a marsh that the Egyptian chariots were too heavy to cross.
She appeared on the Tepeyac hill.
Thank you, Mr. Flapatap.
I pray for the day when Our Lady of Guadalupe’s foot crushes Planned Parenthood!
I’ve never heard anyone claim that the apparition stopped human sacrifice. Obviously the Spanish were there as Juan Diego was a Christian already and went to the Catholic bishop.
Ok. Ms. Miesel has a great track record of being an orthodox catholic writer. I will have to admit with embarrassment that I had read some of her works in the past and always liked it. My problem has to do with the claim on the stars being painted. I had never seen that claim in reputable sources and, it is my understanding that, early written descriptions and copies included the sun and the stars. Also, I had never read about any evidence that any part of the image had been painted (ink, brushstrokes, etc.).
Sorry if I am jumping the gun here but the Guadalupana is the Patron Saint of my hometown (Ponce, Puerto Rico) and my childhood parish bears her name so it is a bit sensitive to me. I will remember to pray to her so that she can let me know if I am being stupid here.
I have a copy of A Handbook on Guadalupe, an outstanding, scholarly work edited by the rock solid Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate and bearing a glowing preface and imprimatur by then-Bishop Sean O’Malley of Fall River.
On pages 68-69, there is this:
“Infrared examinations of the Image have led some persons to suppose that the stars on the Guadalupan mantle are add-ons. Father Mario doubted this, and wondered if the stars might not be imaging the constellations of the winter sky of 1531. He shared his hunch with his friend, Dr. Juan Homero Hernandez Illescas, an amateur astronomer who has an observatory on his roof, a Spitz Planetarium, various computer programs which show the positions of the heavenly bodies (including Halley’s Comet, overhead at dawn on December 12, 1531) at any time for centuries into the past, and astronomical journals and books and charts published by universities and researchers. The findings and methods of Hernandez and Rojas were published in 1983, to the effect that the stars on Mary’s mantle are indeed the ones present over Mexico City just before sunrise on December 12, 1531, the morning of the Winter Solstice, which occurred that morning at 10:40, probably just when Juan Diego was opening his tilma before Bishop Zumarraga . . . (footnote omitted).”
I will quote from HLI’s recent newsletter which can be read in full here – http://www.hli.org/sl_2007-12-07.html: “…They [Aztecs] had their own priests, rituals and a theology/cosmology tied to the idea that only blood sacrifice would appease their gods and so keep the world in order. It is estimated that as many as 50,000 victims a year were offered on the pyramidic temples of these gods … After Hernando Cortes conquered the kingdom of Montezuma in 1521 he wiped out all the temples and put a legal end to the abomination of human sacrifice; yet, the murderous practice continued under the cover of darkness because the people were not converted from their killing instincts and practices which were deeply-rooted in culture and history. Enter Our Lady of Guadalupe with Her maternal love a decade later when the crisis of culture in the newly-conquered land had reached an apex. The Virgin Mary appeared to St. Juan Diego, one of the early Christian converts from the pagan religion, and decreed by Her magnificent authority that the killing would stop in the hearts of the people as well as in their law…” I thought the latter information about habits of killing sacrifices were still in practice despite the laws should be noted.
I’m with you, Joanne!
Actually, it’s pretty common for people to go through times when they want to “improve” art — even miraculous art. There are some studies of early copies of the Guadelupana which show a much simpler image than what we have today. I believe the intention wasn’t bad; they wanted to make the image more glorious and bright. But instead of doing this as an Eastern European would (big honking jeweled frame and cover for a painting, covering up everything but the Virgin’s face and hands), they painted right on the tilma.
And yeah, the stars were probably an add-on. Yes, they do supposedly show the stars for the date. But this was pretty common symbolism in European painting back then; many buildings, for instance, have domes painted with the stars and planets for the time they were built, and sometimes portraits feature similar starmaps for dates of weddings, victories, etc.
Very good to mention the human sacrifices were legally ended by Cortez and the Boys when they came to Mexico, and also that Guadalupe is in Spain.
Regarding the name “Guadalupe,” I read somewhere that the Blessed Mother’s message to Juan Diego was given in his native language, but when he related it to the Spanish Bishop, Zumarraga, he (the Bishop) had trouble understanding the name (whatever it was) and heard it as Guadalupe, with which he was familiar. Kinda analagous to the anglicization of names that occured with immmigrants to the USA at certain periods.
Comments are closed.