Our Lady Of Guadalupe


Our Lady of Guadalupe ‘completely beyond’ scientific explanation, says researcher

Dr. Adolfo Orozco at the International Marian Congress on Our Lady of Guadalupe in Glendale, Arizona.

Phoenix, Ariz., Aug 7, 2009 / 04:10 pm (CNA).- Researcher and physicist Dr. Aldofo Orozco told participants at the International Marian Congress on Our Lady of Guadalupe that there is no scientific explanation for the 478 years of high quality-preservation of the Tilma or for the miracles that have occurred to ensure its preservation.

Dr. Orozco began his talk by confirming that the conservation of the Tilma, the cloak of St. Juan Diego on which Our Lady of Guadalupe appeared 478 years ago, “is completely beyond any scientific explanation.”

“All the cloths similar to the Tilma that have been placed in the salty and humid environment around the Basilica have lasted no more than ten years,” he explained. One painting of the miraculous image, created in 1789, was on display in a church near the basilica where the Tilma was placed. “This painting was made with the best techniques of its time, the copy was beautiful and made with a fabric very similar to that of the Tilma. Also, the image was protected with a glass since it was first placed there.”

However, eight years later, the copy of the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe was thrown away because the colors were fading and threads were breaking. In contrast, Orozco said, “the original Tilma was exposed for approximately 116 years without any kind of protection, receiving all the infrared and ultraviolet radiation from the tens of thousands of candles near it and exposed to the humid and salty air around the temple.”

Dr. Orozco then discussed the Tilma’s fabric. He noted that “one of the most bizarre characteristics of the cloth is that the back side is rough and coarse, but the front side is ‘as soft as the most pure silk, as noted by painters and scientists in 1666, and confirmed one century later in 1751 by the Mexican painter, Miguel Cabrera.”

Following an analysis of some of the fibers in 1946, it was concluded that the fibers came from the Agave plant, however, noted Dr. Orozco, the researchers couldn’t figure out which of the 175 Agave species the Tilma was made from. Years later, in 1975, “the famous Mexican researcher Ernesto Sodi Pallares said that the species of the agave was Agave popotule Zacc,” Orozco explained, “but we don’t know how he reached this conclusion.”

Before concluding his presentation, Dr. Orozco made mention of two miracles associated with the Tilma.

The first occurred in 1785 when a worker accidentally spilled a 50 percent nitric acid solvent on the right side of the cloth. “Besides any natural explanation, the acid has not destroyed the fabric of the cloth, indeed it has not even destroyed the colored parts of the image,” Orozco said.

The second miracle was the explosion of a bomb near the Tilma in 1921. Dr. Orozco recalled that the explosion broke the marble floor and widows 150 meters from the explosion, but “unexpectedly, neither the Tilma nor the normal glass that protected the Tilma was damaged or broken.” The only damage near it was a brass crucifix that was twisted by the blast.

He continued, “There are no explanations why the shockwave that broke windows 150 meters (164 yards: 1  1/2 football fields) afar did not destroy the normal glass that protected the image. Some people said that the Son by means of the brass crucifix protected the image of His Mother. The real fact is that we don’t have a natural explanation for this event.”

Dr. Orozco thanked the audience for listening to his presentation and closed by reassuring them that “Our Lady visited Mexico 478 years ago, but she remains there to give Her Love, Her Mercy and Her Care to anyone who needs it, and to bring Her Son, Jesus Christ to everyone who receives Him.”

Advertisements

Why Did MARY HAVE TO BE ‘EVER VIRGIN’?


holy Family

Joan: When tradition is contrary to the scriptures I choose the scriptures.

BFHU: We both choose Scripture. Whether you realize it or not, you are, in addition to choosing Scripture, choosing your interpretation or an interpretation of Scripture you have been taught. I am choosing the interpretation that has been held for 2000 years. It is also the interpretation of the Catholic Church which was founded by Jesus Christ Himself, upon Peter and the Apostles. Our Apostolic Teaching (or SACRED TRADITION) is not contrary to Scripture at any point.

Joan:2 different scriptures say that Mary & Joseph did not have sexual relations until after the baby was born.

BFHU:There is no scripture that says Mary was a virgin until AFTER the baby was born. You have just broken the rule about not adding to Scripture. The way you interpret this is not wrong but there is Biblical precedence for interpreting until as follows:

Your interpretation of the UNTIL in:

And knew her not until she had brought forth her son and He called His name Jesus.’

to mean that Joseph and Mary had children after Jesus was born; would then mean we  HAVE to interpret the following verses like this:

As to Michal daughter of Saul, she had no child until the day of her death.2 Samuel 6:23

Interpretation: Using your hermenutic this would have to mean that Michal DID HAVE A CHILD AFTER HER DEATH.

In His days shall shine forth righteousness and an abundance of peace, until the moon be taken away. Psalm 71:7

Interpretation: At the end of the world, the moon will be taken away and righteousness and peace will no longer shine forth.

For He must reign, until He has put all enemies under his feet. I Corinthians 15:25

Interpretation: Once Christ has defeated His enemies, He will no longer reign supreme.

Lo, I am with you always, even until the end of the world. Matthew 28:20

Interpretation: God is with us always, but at the end of the world He will no longer be with us.

I am sure you would agree that the Catholic way of interpreting until would be more appropriate in all of the above verses. And based on historical evidence the Catholic interpretation of until in Matthew 1:25 is also more appropriate.

Joan:Jesus called Mary woman because she is the mother of Jesus & not of God. He is both God & man but He always called his mother “woman.”

BFHU:
Jesus is God as you say. But, He is also fully man. Mary gave birth to Jesus. She did not give birth only to a human person. Jesus was God/Man; fully both at the same time. Since Jesus was God Mary is the mother of God. Not because she created God or preexisted Jesus but b/c she was His mother.

Jesus addresses Mary as woman, not our of disrespect since that would be a sin against honoring father and mother, but because he was highlighting her role as the Second Eve. Whereas the 1st Eve sinned the 2nd Eve (Mary) was sinless.

Joan:I will have to seek the source but it is said that Jesus asked His disciple to take care of Mary because the brothers were not yet believers. I have never bothered to look that up.

BFHU:
That is a very common Protestant INTERPRETATION in a futile attempt to rebut the Catholic contention that Jesus disrespected his siblings by giving His mother to St. John; but you will not find that explanation anywhere in Scripture.

Joan:A previous marriage & children is mighty big news. It is incredible that it wouldn’t even be hinted at.


BFHU:
The Catholic Church is not dogmatic that Joseph had other children. This explanation is the earliest commentary on the brothers of Jesus. But in the 4th century St. Jerome pointed out that the word brother could denote a sibling or other close relationship. As it still does today in English. We use “brothers and sister” all the time and do not mean literal siblings.

Joan:Also if Mary was so sacred that she could not have other children of her own it doesn’t make sense to me that she would be given a husband that did.


BFHU:
Mary could have chosen to have children. But, Mary took a vow of virginity. Joseph was betrothed to her as a brother/husband to be her protector. Mary was the spouse of the Holy Spirit who conceived in her Jesus. If you were Joseph would you enter in to the place where God the Holy Spirit entered? Where God the Son dwelt for 9 months?

Joan:There is a scripture that says to not be unequally yoked. It sure makes sense if having other children would pollute her the to have a polluted husband is what she got. It doesn’t compute.


BFHU:
Yes, Joseph was not sinless. But he was a godly man. Mary was a Godly woman and both were devout Jews.But, I have never heard the admonition “not to be unequally yoked” to refer to the level of sinfulness. If every husband and wife had to be equal in sin and holiness there wouldn’t be too many marriages. Beside how would this even be determined?

The “New” Dogma of the Immaculate Conception



J: First of all my friend, I am not anti_Catholic. The word is a bit harsh as it forments hatred, but let me assure you that i am not an anti-Catholic. My wife in fact is a Catholic.

BFHU: I apologize, I did not in any way mean to imply that you were anti-Catholic. And I also did not mean anti Catholic people but people who are anti-the-Catholic-Church. They truly believe the Catholic Church is leading people astray and they trust the misinformation they have been taught about the Catholic Church without making sure it is true.

The errors of the “Reformation” had begun to confuse the faithful to such an extent that the declaration of the Immaculate Conception of Mary needed to be clearly and finally proclaimed. So this was done in 1859 in oppostition to the heresy that Mary was a sinner.

J: the basis of the “Reformation” movement is only the Bible. So are you saying that the Bible has erred in its teaching as this has confused the Catholic faithful?

BFHU: Not at all. Protestant interpretation of the Bible is in error. And based on these errors the Catholic Faithful became confused so the Church clearly states what is to be believed by Catholic Christians based on the authentic and historic Christian Faith. This is especially true in England and America where the culture has been more influenced by Protestantism than by Catholicism.

For instance, it has always been believed that marriage is between one man and one woman. We have no dogma on this but it is foreseeable that in the not too distant future we may need to make a dogmatic declaration of this doctrine because of the confusion our culture is injecting into the minds and hearts of the faithful. The date of that dogmatic declaration, if it becomes necessary, will not be the date it was first believed that marriage is between a man and a woman, but the date it was dogmatically defined. There is a big difference.

J: marriage between man and woman only is emphatically taught by the Scriptures as the only way to go.

BFHU: Yes you are correct it is clearly taught in scripture. But we are beginning to have Protestant churches accepting homosexual marriage. And the whole culture is pressing towards this acceptance by everyone. Many people of good will become confused by the cultural assertions of discrimination and unfairness and begin to wonder if maybe the Bible is wrong or the Church’s teaching is wrong. The English Protestant Church in America (Episcopalian) ordained an active homosexual a bishop!

J. Marriage between a man and a woman in the Biblical context, is a dogma.

BFHU:I agree it must be believed but a dogma in the Catholic Church is a juridical proclamation from the Holy See. It is more than just an interpretation of Sacred Scripture. It has more authority because it comes from the official and final teaching of the Church.

J. It is unbelievable that the Catholic church does not have any stand on this yet… that marriage is only between a man and a woman

BFHU: You are misunderstanding me. The Catholic Church does have a stand on this and has always had a stand on it. The Catholic Church has always taught that marriage is between a man and a woman. This has never been seriously questioned for 2000 years of the Church’s existence. But, today, that is no longer the case. Our culture is mounting an aggressive attack upon this belief. And they are making headway among those without faith, which is not as surprising as the fact that they are beginning to convince or at least confuse many people who are Christian. If this heresy begins to make serious inroads of confusion and acceptance among the baptized THEN the Church will issue the teaching as a DOGMA. This makes the teaching absolute, binding, forceful, with no more debate or calling it into question by anyone who is a faithful Catholic.

The purpose of defining a teaching or belief as a dogma of the faith is NOT to propose something new, or change anything at all. Its purpose is to END HERESY.

J: Again, this is not an apple to apple comparison, marriage between man and woman is scriptural while immaculate conception is not.

BFHU: I was not saying the two teachings were equivalent scripturally. I was trying to use a modern example to explain why Catholic teachings are made dogmatic at dates late in history. The immaculate conception of Mary had always been a tenent of the Historic Christian Faith. But when the heresy first arose that Mary was a sinner (1500’s) the Church did nothing. But after the heresy had been around for 300 years the Catholic Faithful were beginning to fall prey to this heresy and so in 1859 the Catholic Church dogmatically defined the Immaculate Conception of Mary once and for all.

The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity was defined as Dogma at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. Nearly 300 years after Jesus died. The Church did not invent the Doctrine of the Trinity , for the very first time, at the Council of Nicea. The Church made it a Dogma and clearly defined it in response to the Arian heresy that denied the divinity of Christ. It was not a new belief; it was defined dogamatically to stem the tide of heresy.

A Tradition of Men: Jesus had Siblings. Mary is NOT a Perpetual Virgin.


images-1

If you click on the image to the left and then make it larger you can read an explanation of the relationships of Jesus’ brothers.

Steve: never are His siblings referred to as anything else to lend credence to them being cousins, like “sister’s son” for example. Or, children from Joseph’s previous marriage, which has no standing in Scripture whatsoever. How is it possible to at the same time justify a belief in Joseph having a previous marriage without historical evidence, or even a single Bible verse to back it up? It is an indefensible argument.

BFHU:In the semitic languages there is no word for aunt, uncle, cousin etc b/c in the small communities in which language developed everyone knew what you meant when you called a particular person your brother or sister. They knew they were a sibling or other relative and they knew the relationship. To be precise they could certainly have used “sister’s son” but that is cumbersome and required more analysis than saying “brother” Please see this post–>Who Were the Brothers & Sisters of Jesus?
Brothers and Sisters of Jesus
The Protoevangelium of James
has Joseph being widowed and older; having children from a previous marriage.

This is one possibility: that the brothers and sisters were step-brothers and step-sisters. The other possibility is that the words brothers and sisters refer to kinsman rather than siblings. Just like it does elsewhere in Scripture.

Steve: Whereas, believing what the Bible says offers all of the knowledge and understanding we need on the subject.

BFHU: We believe what the Bible says but we interpret it differently based on historical information from the ancient Church and history.Protestants pretty much ignore Christian History after the Book of Acts until the Protestant Reformation era.

Steve:  This dogma has done nothing more than cause countless people to worship Mary

BFHU: We do not worship Mary. Adam and Eve were also created immaculate. Sinlessness does not equal deity.

Steve: Claiming it as a “tradition” is not proof, and it does not lend historical evidence.

BFHU: When we talk about tradition we can mean two things. First of all there is what we call TRADITION which is not folksy or something that evolved over time to be a practice of the Catholic Faith. When we talk about Scripture and TRADITION with a capital “T” for instance, we mean nothing less than the TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES.

Scripture is the TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES and

Tradition is the TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES.

That is why we hold both of them sacred. We have other traditions of our Faith that are not Apostolic teaching. The Immaculate Conception and Perpetual Virginity of Mary are TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES or what we call, for short, TRADITION. The Traditions that are also TEACHINGS OF THE APOSTLES are also called DOGMA. So if you come across a tradition that is not a dogma, it is NOT Apostolic teaching but tradition with a lower case “t”.

Steve: I won’t bother quoting Scripture from Exodus 20 about idols and bowing before them.

BFHU: Regarding the worship of idols please see this post—>Protestant Tradition of Men: Catholics worship Idols.
Regarding Mary Co-Redemptrix

Steve:  Many Catholics wish to see her raised to the status of co-redeemer. As if to say, “the job was just too much for Jesus alone, Mary had to have helped him.”

BFHU: First, we are not “raising” her  status. She already is a cooperator or coredemptrix. There is simply debate about whether to officially give her this title. Secondly, are you aware that Muslims vehemently reject that God begot a son because that would mean He needed help and it takes away from the sovereignty and power of Allah!

We both believe no such thing about Jesus, Son of God. And Catholics believe no such thing about Mary being  needed by Jesus. He certainly did NOT need  Mary. But, throughout Biblical history God has chosen to accomplish His purposes through faithful men and women. God could have just zapped a Man-God baby or man to earth and carried on from there but He chose to be incarnate with the help and seed of Mary. I don’t pretend to know why God insists on having people help Him. But it is undeniable that He has people help Him throughout history.

 Steve: But it seems strange to me, that we should both claim the Bible as our base for a foundation,

BFHU: Yes. And this is true of all the Protestant denominations as well. Despite using the same Bible, people interpret scriptures differently when their faith is unhinged from 1500 years of Christian history. The Catholic Faith however, is the Church founded by Jesus Christ Himself and has existed continuously for nearly 2000 years.

Steve:  …..yet one of these beliefs has no grounds to stand on in the Bible to even begin to prove it.

BFHU: Neither view of the “brothers of Jesus” can be proved from Scripture alone. We must therefore, look to historical evidence to settle the question.

Steve: Nor Biblical wording to account for such behavior and thinking.

BFHU: And yet, nothing we believe contradicts Scripture. It only contradicts Protestant interpretations, which is not the same thing.

Catholics Are Just Wrong


imagesAman: It is still the pope that had the final word on which books made it. Which is the most distubing thing Ive learned in a while. In history, and the present, how good is the track record for cardinals, bishops and popes? There isnt enough room on this page to count all the scandals.

BFHU: Hmmmmm. You are right. It would be very disturbing to Sola Scriptura Protestants. Since you do not trust mere men…..but wait! All of the authors of all of the books of Sacred Scripture were mere men. Isn’t that disturbing to you as well? So, how could you trust Scripture to be TRUE since it is written by mere men who were also subject to sin?

Aman:I dont know about you but I dont trust a man, and I repeat a man, that surrounds himself with the luxuries and wealth of the world, wears red prada shoes, expensive jewelery,wears a hat that originally was designed for pagan leaders for worship to their fish god Dagon.Billions of dollars has been spent to build the worlds most lavish churches instead of using it feed and shelter the hungry and poor.

BFHU: Let me clear some things up for you. All the wealth at the Vatican and the museums and the beautiful Catholic churches around the world were donations by the faithful to offer things and build churches of great beauty. You know someone in scripture also complained about the expense “wasted” on Jesus. 

The Precious Ointment

Mark 14:While He was in Bethany at the home of Simon the leper, and reclining at the table, there came a woman with an alabaster vial of very costly perfume of pure nard; and she broke the vial and poured it over His head. But some were indignantly remarking to one another, “Why has this perfume been wasted? For this perfume might have been sold for over three hundred denarii, (Nearly a year’s worth of wages) and the money given to the poor.” And they were scolding her. 6 But Jesus said, “Let her alone; why do you bother her? She has done a good deed to Me. For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you wish you can do good to them; but you do not always have Me.

Bishops hat

The hats worn by bishops is very odd. But they are to look like the flames of fire that fell on the apostles on Pentecost.

Aman: Pretty sure this is not what jesus had in mind. Tell me one story where Jesus put money or scripture in front of caring for others in need. Show me one description of jesus wearing expensive jewelery or expensive clothes. Think as if you were Jesus and then ask yourself if you would accept the corrupt nature of the Vatican and its hierarchy.

BFHU: The Popes personally do not desire to wear expensive anything. These things are given to the pope to honor the vicar of Christ on Earth. To honor Jesus through the man chosen as pope. And as we see above Jesus certainly accepted a gift of precious oil as the woman sought to honor Him. I think you are imposing your own opinion on Jesus rather than reading scripture  and letting it form your faith.

Aman:Why would the pope pray to the Madonna for protection and pray to statues instead of god???!! Might as well build a golden calf in the middle of St peters Square for people to worship as well. This is sounding familiar. God didnt like it the first time people prayed and worshiped to statues, what makes you think hes ok with that now?

BFHU: The pope and Catholics do not worship statues. You are mistaken because you are judging us based on your own bias. We believe in asking for intercessory prayer from our brothers and sisters in Christ. Unlike Protestants we know that those who died in Christ are alive in Heaven and we also ask for their prayers. That is all we are doing when we pray in front of a statue or picture of a Saint. And we know God is OK with that b/c He answers our prayers more quickly through His Saints. If it was not efficacious we would have stopped long ago.

Aman: Popes and priests cannot forgive you for your sins. ONLY GOD CAN DO THAT!

BFHU: Where does it say this in Scripture? Wait there is something about this in scripture.

Mark 2:And Jesus seeing their faith *said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” But some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, “Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?

How do you explain this verse where Jesus gave His apostles the power to forgive or not forgive sin?

JOHN 20:21 So Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” 22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.”

How did the Church Fathers explain the perpetual virginity of Mary?


How Mary Led Her Back to Jesus!


If there was one thing about Catholicism that totally freaked me out, it was Mary. I just didn’t get it. Why did the Catholics make such a big deal out of her? After all, she was just a human being who needed salvation like everyone else. So far as I could tell, there wasn’t anything special about her.

God could have chosen anyone to be the mother of Jesus. Catholics, I believed, had falsely elevated a human woman–a glorification that would have probably horrified Mary herself. Indeed, it was a glorification that flew too closely to goddess worship and plain ol’ idolatry.

When I saw those Catholic bumper stickers that said: “If you can’t find Jesus, look for His Mother,” I was astounded and offended. How could Catholics be so blatant about their blasphemy? By giving Mary such a place of preeminence, weren’t they diminishing the centrality of the cross and work of Christ?

For the rest of Elizabeth’s story –> How Mary Brought Me back to Jesus Part I

& Part II

Thank you Hoc Est for this link. Great journey of faith!