Legitimacy and Belief

The readings on Marian apparitions brought to the fore the shifting nature of legitimacy when it comes to seeing the Virgin. This concern is particularly clear in the Christian, which records the visions through a formalized documentation of their authentication. There is a change in who is receiving visions of the virgin and in why these recipients are considered worthy. In the previous accounts of Marian visions we have read the recipients of the visions are all women who have taken Holy orders [Technically, no--only priests take holy orders. The women had taken vows. --RLFB]. These women spent most of their lives immersed in prayer and meditation centering around Christ and the Virgin, and several of them were well known for their theological and scholastic work as well. They form a stark contrast with the recipients of visions in the Spanish account; poor, uneducated shepherd boys and a girl whose parents are “known to be stupid”. The factors that mark a given person as a suitable visionary have been altered.

The women were seen as acceptable and even perhaps natural recipients of visions because of their high levels of piety and devotion. They had all chosen a religious life and had received a more thorough spiritual education because of this. The young visionaries seem to have been seen as legitimate for exactly the opposite reasons. They were young, with no known special spiritual education or understanding before their visions. Their lack of education in spiritual matters is key. The previous visionaries would have had all kinds of detailed scriptural knowledge of what Mary should look like. Their religious education made them far more likely to have false visions - whether knowingly or unknowingly. Their knowledge was now seen as contaminating their possible vision. The young children did not have this problem; because of their supposed ignorance their visions could be “tested to determine their validity

Except it’s not quite that simple. Although the imagery in the visions draws on a long and theologically complex tradition there are ways in which the Spanish vision recipients could have been exposed to it despite their lack of higher religious education. The imagery of their visions came from the same tradition that would have influenced the sermons and services they heard at church. More importantly, it would have influenced the visual depictions of the Virgin, present at her alter. Despite not possessing the complex scriptural knowledge to interpret the visions, they very well may have seen visual representations of it before. In fact several of them even mention recognizing the Virgin because she resembled her statue. So while the idea may have been to locate visions in people deemed to be outside the tradition, it is possible that its permeation led to it being the latent image source in the population.

            This positional shift in legitimacy also plays into a couple of the larger questions which have been coming up in class, namely to what degree was the Marian tradition ”popular”  and what role skepticism played, particularly in light of the focus on authentication.

            To the first point, getting at the level of permeation this tradition had in the general population is incredibly difficult because the written records and examples of this tradition come from the educated, literate, religious elite. Those sources that do deal with unlettered masses tend to do so from a surface level perspective. They engage with the story through their actions but the finer points of their driving thought processes, which might contain clues as to how they arrived at their belief in the virgin, remain opaque. The surviving physical representations of this tradition - primarily statues and other alter decorations - and the accounts of the vision recipients in Spain point toward at least a rudimentary understanding of the practical application of the Marian tradition, if not its deeper theological basis. This could be compared to the many people today who recognize that H2O is water, but may not know that H20 stands for dihydrogen monoxide, or have any understanding of the molecules that compose it and the bonds that hold them together. They understand the end result, that the formula H2O stand for water, without seeing all the steps taken to reach that formula. It could be possible to understand that the alter statue of Mary represents her without seeing all the encoded meaning and scriptural interpretation required to create it. In this way the Marian tradition could be extremely “popular” while still remaining fully accessible only to a few.

            The second question centers around whether or not people where accepting these vision and miracle accounts at face value or with reservation. While there is potential skepticism at play here it is not, as might be expected by a modern reader, concerning the visions themselves. Belief in the Virgin’s power to work miracles and do the impossible seems to be as strong as it ever was. There is a marked concern with ensuring that the visions are authentic, however this actually strengthens the argument that people really believed. Fraudulent visions, whether wholly falsified or of demonic origin, are only of concern if people might believe them and be misled. If people where skeptical of the truth Marian visions then there would be no need to authenticate them because they would hold very little power. The idea of policing miraculous claims about the Virgin is also not a new development. Pilgrimage sights such as Rocamadour had done so for centuries by controlling the record of miracles attributed to their Virgin.  If there is skepticism at play here, it seems to be directed at the institutions of the Church, not the Virgin herself. There is a sense of unease with vision recipients who are to close to the church, not with the visions. Although the church still has the power to decide on the truth of visions it has lost at least part of its place as an acceptable source of them.

- M. Coker 

Change is not always bad: Conversion in the New World

After the Spanish conquest of Mexico and central America, Catholic monks traveled to the New World to set about converting the indigenous Nahua population. As history shows us, they succeeded in this venture. But how and why did a group of peoples that religiously sacrificed peoples to their gods and goddesses for rain and luck in battle take to a monotheistic religion with the only sacrifice that of Christ’s on the cross? Aside from not having enough information to answer this question, I think I’d need a whole book to properly answer it regardless. However, in the space of a blog, I can discuss some of the evidence pointing to the Virgin Mary as one of the influencing factors. From the class readings, we can deduct that their conversion was aided both by subtle alterations in Marian apparition stories and the parallels between the Virgin Mary and Nahua goddesses. It is also because of these that the Nahua’s view of Mary shifted to a more divine, yet more maternal image as compared to the previous European stories that we have seen. 

First we see that changed small details in the apparition stories, but never ones that change the overall appearance of the Virgin or the overall miracle of the story. If we compare the European apparition stories to the Guadalupe story, we see that the overall structure is the same. A poorer person or shepherd is approached by the Virgin and for the most part, asked to tell their town or parish about her appearance and/or asked to build a church or monastery in the apparition spot. Furthermore, in the Medieval Spanish stories, Mary is usually depicted as “brighter than the sun…”, “…so resplendent that [the main character] could not look at her directly…” and “a beautiful lady…in cloth of gold” (Christian 29, 61). And in the Our Lady of Guadalupe apparition, she is described as “shining like the sun” and surrounded by “waves of light” (Anderson 173). The similarities between the two regions’ stories are immediately apparent. The stories from both regions have the Virgin asking the poor person to go back to their  town to build a shrine, church, monastery, etc in her honor. And the light imagery we have seen so prevalent in European Marian doctrine is also included in the Latin American stories. The plot line, structure, and imagery describing the Virgin made the transition to the New World in near exact form then. But there are (subtle) differences between the two as well, most notably in the scenery. For instance, in one of the Spain apparition stories, Mary is depicted as standing over a hawthorn tree surrounded by a great mass of people who are “singing, like priests chanting the hours” (Christian 29). In the Guadalupe story, the main character is also attracted to the hill on which Mary is standing by singing, but this singing of  “many precious songbirds” which exceeds that of “the coyoltototl and the tzinitzcan and other precious songbirds,” (Anderson 172). When he draws closer, he sees Mary surrounded by “stones…giving out rays like precious jades, like jewels…” as well as “mesquites, prickly pears, and the other little plants…[seeming] like quetzal feathers,” (Anderson 173). While both are attracted by singing, the Spanish character is attracted by that of traditional church chanting and the Nahua character is attracted by the beauty of the noise. While a seemingly insignificant detail, this change marks a difference in how the Virgin reaches out to the locals. As we have seen in the previous readings, music is important in Marian devotion. There are many hymns to Mary and in some opinions, the choir is where Mary’s presence could be felt the most (Baltzer). The singing style of the monks, while recognizable to the Spanish as important in the hymns of Mary, does not have the same reverential and traditional basis to the Nahua peoples. Thusly the beauteous and devoted chanting of the monks would have little meaning to the indigenous peoples if included in the Guadalupe story. The substitute was to include a reflection of beauty that the natives would recognize- that of their native song birds. While a small switch, this change allowed the story to keep the same element of wonder and beauty toward the Virgin. 

Regarding Mary’s surroundings in the Guadalupe story, the setting on top of the hill is paradise-like. And as Professor Fulton mentioned in class, this image is remarkably similar to traditional European images of heaven. The differences are the plants and gemstones mentioned. Being native to the New World, these objects would have been more recognizable to a Latin American audience. The small shift again allows the Nuaha listener/reader to gain a better picture of the Virgin and keep their sense of awe. By changing small details of the story to fit traditional, familiar images of the indigenous peoples’ landscape the monks and native priests made the stories more accessible to the native reader and/or listener. This accessibility allowed them to more fully gain a sense of respect and wonder at the Virgin Mary. 

It was not just the monks who were able to affect change however. The Nuaha people’s already grounded religious beliefs helped in their acceptance of the Virgin. In fact, these beliefs also probably influenced their view of the Virgin, giving her an even more divine, maternal image than the Europeans extended to her. 

To begin with, in the European tradition, Mary is traditionally associated with the “garden enclosed” that surrounds “Christ as a tree” and other plant imagery found in the Song of Solomon and subsequent devotions. In traditional Nahuan beliefs, many of their main gods turn into trees or are associated with a tree of life (Burkhart 15). If the parallel can be made between those main gods and Christ, it is only natural then that the subsequent parallel of Mary as garden can be made as the container of that tree. Thusly Mary can be seen as the all encompassing garden of the tree of life, Christ. Her role as an important maternal figure is thus solidified. 

The maternal image is further exacerbated by the natives’ use of the word “tonantzin” or “totlazohnantzin”, meaning “our mother” and “our precious mother” respectively (Burkhart 11). As Burkhart notes, these words were used to described the natives’ traditional goddesses. Thus, these terms were translated on to the Virgin because of her maternal role as titles of respect. This brought a more intimate, maternal depiction of the mother as opposed to the Spanish’s title of “Our Lady”, which Burkhart points out as being a regal title that separates the common man with the Virgin.  

Furthermore, the association of flowers and light imagery with Mary is common in the European tradition (e.g. Song of Solomon, Amadeus of Lausanne). Goddesses in the Nahuan tradition are also represented by light imagery and flowers, which are deeply connected with spiritual life (Burkhart 20). This imagery paired with the use of “tonantzin”, traditionally given to goddesses as a title of respect, give Mary a more divine image than the Europeans give her. The preconception for goddesses in Nahuan tradition paints Mary in a more divine light than European tradition typically depicted her. 

In total, these changes in tradition, both from the Nahuan and European side, allowed the natives to understand and grasp the image of the Virgin better, and gave them a better foothold  in their conversions to Christianity. 

-HG

New World Mary vs. Old World Mary

            One difference between the “Old World” Marian apparition stories found in the William Christian reading and the “New Word” Marian apparition story recounted by Carl Anderson and Eduardo Chavez is that the “New World” Mary seems to be gentler and more interested in making a personal connection with the people she appears to. This may be an accident of the versions of the stories we were assigned to read, or it may be evidence that Mary in the New World took on a more personal and motherly role to her devotees. I hesitate to jump to the later conclusion based on a small sample of stories, but the difference I noticed is interesting nonetheless. The New World Mary seems more gentle and personable than the Old World Mary based on how she interacts with her witnesses, the witnesses’ reaction to the visions, and the signs she produces as proof of the apparition.

            In the Santa Gadea story, Mary first appears to the witnesses as part of a procession. The witnesses, two boys, were frightened by what they saw and heard and “fled” the scene. (Christian 29). It was not until the second appearance that Mary finally spoke to the boys, and in telling them what she wanted, she said, “I order you to explain” and, “I order you to keep declaring this publicly.” (Christian 31). When one boy did not do as he was ordered, Mary had him beaten. It was not until the entire town “saw the welts and injuries” that the boy did as he was told. Several details of this story stand out to me: Mary first appeared from a distance, her initial request was characterized as an order, and the signs she produced for the town were the welts and bruises resulting from the boy’s beating. In this story, Mary does not seem very gentle or very interested in forming a personal connection with her witnesses.

            In the Jaen story, Mary did not interact with her witnesses at all. She only ever appeared at a distance as part of a procession. Additionally, the vision was not initially pleasant to the witnesses. The witness Juan’s reaction was lukewarm at best, as he states that he experienced “neither pleasure nor fear.” (Christian 43). The witness Pedro first experienced pleasure, but seeing soldiers in the procession with Mary made him frightened. (Christian 46). The witness Maria Sanchez “suddenly took fright” upon seeing Mary. (Christian 47). Lastly, the witness Juana Fernandez, immediately “fell down, paralyzed with fright, and began to tremble all over” when she saw the vision. Like the previous story, Mary here is impersonal, and the vision is on the whole, unpleasant to the witnesses.

            In the Cubas story, Mary is much more personal, addressing the witness Ines as “Daughter,” (Christian 61) but several aspects of the story still stand out as suggesting the difference between Old World and New World apparitions. Regarding Mary’s interaction with Ines, Mary’s requests are initially and frequently referred to as “orders.” (Christian 61). Ines also notes that in their interactions, Mary never calls Ines by her first name. (Christian 69). In several points in the story, Ines is reported as being afraid because of the visions. (Christian 62, 67, 68, 69). Finally, in order to get the townspeople to believe Ines, Mary makes a sign out of Ines’s hand, forcing Ines’s fingers into the shape of a cross. Ines states that this hurt her, but not much, and that it caused her arm to feel paralyzed and numb; the pain did not go away until her hand was restored days later. (Christian 71). Notably, as in the other stories, the apparition of Mary is frightening to the witness, and the sign Mary sends causes the witness pain.

            The final story in the William Christian reading does not contain many details, but it does state that the witness experienced “great fear.” (Christian 90). Furthermore, it characterizes Mary’s request as an “order.” (Christian 91).

            An additional detail that each of these Old World stories share is that the church officials required notarized affidavits and investigation into the witnesses’ accounts before accepting the stories as true. In class we discussed several possible reasons for this, but perhaps something about how Mary presented herself in these apparitions explains why the church officials sought legal verification.

            The one New World apparition story we read differed in the details discussed above. Mary does not appear to the witness, Juan Diego, from a distance, but instead calls out to him personally using his name. (Anderson and Chavez 173). She goes even further, and calls Juan Diego, “dearest” and “Juanito” which implies some affection toward the witness. In none of the Old World apparitions does Mary call to the witness by name.

While in the Old World apparition stories, Mary is described as “ordering” her witnesses, in this story, Mary is said to “reveal[] her precious will,” and she tells Juan Diego that she “want[s] very much” for the town to build a church. (Anderson and Chavez 173). She does eventually say “I strictly order you,” but that is after the first request, and after she says “I beg you.” (Anderson and Chavez 173). This may be a small difference, but it paints Mary as acting more gently toward her witness.

 When the bishop does not believe Juan Diego, Mary sends Juan Diego back with a sign, like she did in the Santa Gadea and Cubas stories. However, unlike in those stories, the sign did not cause the witness any pain. Instead the sign was meant to be beautiful; it consisted of flowers and a miraculous image of her on Juan Diego’s tilma.

Finally, perhaps because of Mary’s more gentle and personal presentation of herself, the Bishop did not require any sort of legal verification in order to believe Juan Diego. Instead he was deeply moved and immediately believed and asked Mary forgiveness for ever having doubted.

            In conclusion, unlike Old World Mary, New World Mary reached out to her witness in a more personal manner, and even showed affection toward her witness. Additionally, New World Mary did not scare her witness by her appearance or hurt the witnesses to provide a sign. Perhaps because of these details, the Bishop in the New World story did not require a signed affidavit in order to accept the truth of the vision. These details suggest to me that the New World Marian apparition stories depict Mary as kind and amiable, unlike how she was depicted in the Old World apparition stories.

-N.C.Y.

Communicating and Receiving Marian Devotion in the New World

            In class, we discussed whether we should look at the Guadalupe stories and Nahuatl Marian tradition as New World Mary or Mary in the New World. Instead of distinguishing between two different “Marys,” I suggest that we should look at this tradition as Marian devotion through the physical and preexisting religious circumstances of the New World. A close reading of Juan Diego’s encounter with the Virgin at Tepeyac in 1531 and comparison with stories of Late Medieval Spain first show that the Marian tradition did indeed blend with the context of the New World. By then consulting the Nahualt homilies surrounding the Virgin, we see that the monks and priests of the New World communicated Marian devotion in a New World context and that indigenous people understood Mary through their preexisting beliefs—helping explain the blending of European Mary with her New World setting.

            I focus on who Mary appears to, Mary’s physical description, and the task Mary gives to her servant to understand the commonalities of the New World Marian vision of Juan Diego to those of Spain. In the Mexican myth, Mary appears before the Indian Juan Diego who is “a poor man of the people” (The Nican Mophua 172). Similarly, Mary also chooses to appear to poor, everyday people in Spain (as opposed to her previous habit of visiting nuns and monks). Mary appears to Pedro and Juan (two shepherd boys in Gadea), to Juan and Pedro (residents of Jaen), to Maria Sanchez and Juana Fernandez (wives of shepherds in Jaen), and to Ines (the simple and poor girl from Cubas) (Christian 28, 41-41, 46, 48, 59). In both Mexico and Spain, Mary appears to lowly and common people.

            Juan Diego’s description of Mary is incredibly similar to the Mary portrayed in the Spanish stories. Juan Diego describes Mary’s clothing as “shining like the sun, as if it were sending out waves of light” (NM 173). Earlier, Juan Diego further connects Mary to sun imagery, placing her on the hill in the direction “from which the sun rises” (NM 172). The Spanish stories also show this strong emphasis on Mary and light, particularly the sun: “[Mary] shone brighter than the sun” (Pedro of Santa Gadea), “she [Mary] shone as the sun shines at its zenith on a clear day” (Juan of Jaen), “brilliance went out from her [Mary’s] face that it shone brighter than the sun” (Pedro of Jaen), “her [Mary’s] face was shining” (Ines of Cubas) (Christian 28, 42, 44, 67). These common descriptions of Mary suggest that the Spanish Marian tradition probably influenced the Mexican Marian tradition as seen in Juan Diego’s story.

            The tasks that Mary gives to her servants also draw parallels between the Mexican and Spanish Marian traditions. In Tepeyac, Mary tells Juan Diego to go to the Bishop of Mexico and tell him to build her a house, a “temple” (NM 175). Mary similarly commands her servants to seek out church officials to build her a “church and [] monastery” in Santa Gadea and a “church [] called Saint Mary” in Cubas (31, 63). In Tepeyac, Santa Gadea, and Cubas, Mary calls upon her lowly servants to communicate her desire for a space of worship to church officials.

            While emphasizing these similarities, we should not forget the local particularities of Juan Diego’s story. Descriptions of local place and local things connect Juan Diego’s story to its place in Mexico. Juan Diego uses the coyoltototl and tzinitzcan birds to describe the singing that drew him to Mary’s spot on the hill (NM 172). Similarly, the description of the hill where Mary comes down to Juan Diego includes local plants like “mesquites” and “prickly pear” (173). Most importantly, when describing the hill that may be the “land of heaven,” Juan Diego describes the “place of [his] ancestors, [his] grandparents” that is the “land of the flowers, in the land of corn, of our flesh, of our sustenance” (172). Here Juan Diego seemingly mixes what might be considered aspects of Aztec religion (with reference to the place of his ancestors) with a Christian notion of heaven (the place Mary is located in the story). By using indigenous imagery to describe the setting for Mary’s appearing to Juan Diego, Juan Diego connects Mary to a New World physical and religious setting.

            By first tracing the similarities of Juan Diego’s story with those of Castile and then looking at the particular context of Juan Diego’s Marian vision, we have seen that the New World Mary was not completely distinct from the Mary seen in Castile. At the same time, Juan Diego’s Mexican Mary was not completely Spanish. How do we explain this adaptation of Mary to her new environment in Mexico? I suggest that we can understand the New World Marian tradition as the Old World Marian tradition through the physical and preexisting religious experiences of the New World.

This thought makes intuitive sense. Catholic priests would be preaching to an indigenous audience who was familiar with a very different, polytheistic Aztec religious tradition. By relating Mary in a way that indigenous people could understand, priests may have helped create a Mary who had roots in a European tradition and local particularities. Moreover, the priests’ audience may have interpreted the Catholic message through their preexisting views. By looking at parts of Nahuatl homilies that clarified what Mary and Mary’s mother did not represent, we can see the potential for mixing of Spanish Mary with pre-existing views in the New World.

The Protoevangelium of James seems to have spread to Mexico as Fray Juan de la Annunciation speaks about the importance of Mary’s mother, Anne, in his sermon about the Festival of Saint Anne (Burkhart 12-13). He tells the story of how Anne could not get pregnant until God’s messenger comes. In addition to this theological usage, this story was also used to steer indigenous people away from the “healers” who “place children for people” (14). The editor contextualizes this statement by explaining that the use of fertility healers was common in Mexico at the time. Thereby, Fray Juan mixes Old World Marian devotion with New World circumstances.

            The perception of Mary as a divine “mother goddess” also shows the mixing of Old World Mary with her New World context. Burkhart explains that some indigenous people conceived of Mary as a “mother goddess” to accompany the creator God in a tradition male-female ruling pair (11). This thinking of Mary as a goddess seemed to worry Mexican priests. The Doctrina, evangelios y epistolas en nahuatl text makes clear that Mary is not a God. The text retells the story of St. Paul telling Saint Dionysius that “she [Saint Mary] was not a divinity” (103). This point is underscored later when Mary’s death is used as proof of her being a woman (and therefore not God) (104). This connection and confusion about Mary with divinity illustrates how Marian tradition may have been explained and interpreted through preexisting religious beliefs. (I emphasize the mother aspect of the New World Marian tradition less because of its connections to Old World Mary. Conrad of Saxony and Walter of Wimborne both use extensive mother language in their writings about Mary.)

            By working through aspects of Juan Diego’s encounter with Mary, characteristics, of Castilian Mary, and the descriptions of Mary in Nahuatl sermons, this post argued that New World Mary should by seen as Old World Mary through the physical and preexisting religious context of the the New World. Instead of a complete remaking of Mary, New World Mary resembles Old World Mary in her choice of servant, connection to sun imagery, and desired service. However, New World Marian tradition also changes to include the New World physical context and indigenous religious beliefs. In this way, the debate over Mary in the New World or New World Mary becomes clarified if we view Old World Mary through a New World perspective.    

    

-MM-T

Guadalupe as a continuation of Pre-Hispanic Religion

One thing that I wanted to expand from class is the name Guadalupe. The nahuatl text of the Nican Mopohua, and subsequently Spanish translations use the name Guadalupe for the image that is believed to have appeared to Juan Diego in Tepeyacac hill. Applying the Spanish name of Guadalupe to the Mexican Virgin apparition tends to distract from the nahuatl term that mary would have been used…since it is recorded Mary spoke to Juan Diego in his native language. 

 “Nican mopoua, motecpana, in qenin yancuican ueytlamauisoltica monexiti in senquisca ichpochtli Sancta Maria Dios Inantzin tocihuapilatocatzin, in oncan Tepeyacac, moteneua Guadalupe.”

The first section of the Nican Mopohua names her “Sancta Maria Dios Inantzin tocihuapilatocatzin… Guadalupe”.  It uses the Latin term “holy” (Sancta) and the Nahuatl honorific mode of “Mother”. Most of the references to her by Juan Diego seem to be in this respectful mode; titles and names in Nahuatl used for a person of high status usually end in “-tzin”. The name Guadalupe itself could be a hispanization of a nahuatl term Mary used when she spoke to Juan Diego and Juan Diego’s uncle.

The term "cihuatpilatocatzin" literally means reigning female counterpart... basically Queen. The term implies status as both favorite and as spouse which is important since this treats her almost as an equal to God and parallels pre-hispanic ideas of reigning deities which usually existed in couples. 

As early as the 1660s theologians, such as Luís Becerra y Tanco, were debating the Náhuatl name of Guadalupe. His conclusion; Coatlaxopeuh. This may seem trivial but in fact the name would have been important not only in an indigenous but in a Christian context. Coatlaxopeuh literally means “(she) who crushes the snake”.  An extensive mythology of pre-Hispanic gods narrates the rule, leaving and hoped-for return of a principal serpent god. The fact that Mary (Guadalupe) would “crush” the serpent would allude to scripture (Revelation 11:19, the dragon of Apocalypse) and possibly the snake in the Garden of Eden who deceived the first woman (Genesis 3:1). Mary brings the good news of Jesus Christ our (the) messiah (Iesu Christo in totemaquizticantzin) and of the True God (neli Teotl Dios). In doing so she 1) adopts the indigenous people as Her children 2) destroys the old sinful ways (human sacrifice, worship of other gods). It was not uncommon for writers at the time to describe indigenous religious practice as Satanic since they often assumed the things they saw were inspired by none other than Satan (tzitzimitl).

The Nican Mopohua seems to incorporate Classical Nahuatl literary style especially in the way it describes people and places of respect. Section 25 of page 173 in the nican mopohua text reads as “"Maxikmatti, ma uel yu ye in moyolo, noxocoyou, ca neuatl in nisenquisca semicac Ichpochtli Sancta Maria, in Inantzin in uel neli Teotl Dios, in Ipalnemouani, in Teyocoyani, in Tloque Nauaque, in Iluicaua, in Tlalticpace” “She said to him, ‘know for sure my dearest and youngest son, that I am truly the most perfect (immaculate) most Holy Virgin Mary, who has the honor to be the Mother (use of honorific title) of the  only and most true God for whom we all exist, the Creator of (all) people, the Lord of all around us and of what is near us, the Lord of Heaven and the Lord of Earth.  Mary reinforces Catholic teaching by reiterating that she is not an indigenous goddess, she is Mary and that the God that is Hers is also their (Juan Diego’s, Mexicans’) God.

On page 18 of the Conception excerpt; the author plays with a lot of pre-Christian Mesoamerican imagery. Mary seems at a certain level as a continuation or fulfillment of pre-Christian religion. By comparing Mary to the Ark of the covenant and fine and fragrant lumbers the author appeals to Nahua ideas of godly anointment (fragrance) as well as drawing a parallel between the “Cedar of Lebanon” with the ahuehuetl, a cosmic tree of sorts with importance to the indigenous people before and after Christianity.

The author of the Nican Mopohua and the ecclesiastical authors writing on the topic of the apparition attempt to create a tender picture of Christianity that may contrast against the tragedies of the conquest, famine and plagues at the time. In speaking to Juan Diego, Mary explicitly terms Juan Diego as Her son; “¿Cuix amo nican nica nimonantzin ¿Cuix amo noseualotitlan, necauyotitlan in tika ¿Cuix amo neuatl in nimopakcayelis Cuix amo nocuixanco nomamaluasko in tica ¿Cuix oc itla in motech monequi?”… “Am I not here, I that am your mother? Are you not under my shadow and my protection? Am I not the source of your joy? Are you not in the hollow of my mantle and in the crossing of my arms? Do you need anything more?”.  She offers her protection and guidance to Juan Diego and requests that a shrine be built in Her honor. For this reason Mary does not simply Destroy (the serpent, old pagan ways) but also Creates since she reinforces the importance of accepting the True God and all the while maintains a delicate balance found in pre-Hispanic theology such as God couples and motherly motifs in the objective of public cults.

EA

From Visions to Apparitions

Before beginning to read the texts for Monday, I remember noticing a shift in reference that was striking to me in the headings: the use of a word that had  not appeared before in the readings, apparition. Previously, in works of Hildegard, Mechtild, Elizabeth of Schonau, and so on, we have seen experiences of “seeing” referred to primarily as “visions.” What then constitutes this shift from visions to apparitions? Prof. Fulton-Brown touched on considering the ways in which thought about these experiences of seeing and experiencing the supernatural had begun to change. Somehow the heavens have become more accessible by this time.

Yet, I want to suggest that the shift in vocabulary, from visions to apparitions, is characterized by a shift in a certain kind of accessibility—a specifically physical or concrete accessibility. I wonder whether this characteristic is the most salient feature that distinguishes visions from apparitions. Examining these distinctions/features, I hope to arrive at a clearer picture of the difference between visions and apparitions. 

This urge for and awareness of the physical is latent throughout the texts and manifests itself in a number of different ways. We identified one in class: the very striking new kind of legality in the accounts of these experiences. As we noticed, the reports of these visions were not written necessarily in moments of spiritual sharing but rather the see-ers are interrogated and giving testimony to what they have seen so that it can, to whatever degree, be judged in authenticity. Witnesses are examined, facts are double checked, stories are compared. At the end of the investigation of Ines, it is stated that no blatant contradictions were found in the stories and that, in fact, enough minor variations indicated that the testimony had not been arranged in advance. Even a level of scientific study is made by Martin Ruiz on the position of Ines’ thumb. There is a critical eye watching these events; all of sudden, it seems, that it matters whether these events are actually happening in a way that it simply did not before.

Another feature of this new accessibility is the “group” or community aspect of these experiences. Previously, we have seen in St. Gertrude, for example, that her experience of the Virgin is quite intimate and exclusive. It serves no immediate purpose outside of her own spiritual encounter with the virgin. “Revelations” are made exclusively to her though she shares them with the world through the writings. The visions are addressed directly to her and are regarding her specific character and spiritual development. This is radically different from what we see in the accounts of the apparitions. In the story of Pedro of Burgos, it is clear that both Pedro AND Juan see the lady and the many people in white processing on the Wednesday of Holy Week. They hear themselves being called to Matins with them. Though the next day only Pedro is visited by the Virgin, it is significant that they both see previously and are equally afraid. The story of Jaen makes this point more strongly. What is interesting about the Jaen story is not only that they all see the same procession, their locality with relation to the event is also striking and described in detail: they are all at different distances with relation to what is happening. Juan and Pedro are beyond the walls of the city while Maria Sanchez is in her house and Juana Fernandez is in the yard of her house. Because of this, they all see different aspects of what seems to be the same phenomenon. Further, this event is directly linked to referents in their own familiar reality. In the case of Pedro and Juan the barking dogs signal that something is happening and in the case of Juana she is able to trace the procession as passing over the muladar near the chapel, etc. In the Story of Juan Diego of Guadalupe, though he is primarily receiving the visits of the apparition, it is revealed that his uncle was also visited by the Virgin “and he saw Her in exactly the same way She had appeared to his nephew.” (Anderson/Chavez, 183)

Finally, I think that the visionary experiences are quite distinct from those of the apparitions in what they see. Again, let us look to Gertrude as an example. Gertrude is kept company by the presence of the Blessed Virgin and Christ. Though in Chapter 3 of “The Revelations of St. Gertrude” we read the experience she has of the Infant Jesus on the Feast of the Nativity as “apparition,” what she sees is a display of saints and angels surrounding the heavenly throne. She sees Christ in the womb of the virgin as transported into Gertrude’s own heart. The experience she describes is one of rumination; it is a deeply personal experience. Compare this to what we find in our readings for Monday. There is an undeniable shift from the internal to the external. Mary appears not to further any personal spiritual experience but with an agenda and plan for the community she appears to. She wants her holy people to be remembered, a monastery or church to be built, a message delivered and most of all to be believed. So, she offers very physical signs. Mary takes a cross and plants it in the ground in Ines’ story; in the story of the herdsman of Guadalupe, a partly-butchered cow goes on to be very productive; and Mary gives Juan Diego’s skeptic a tapestry of her divine image on his tilma.
What then do we make of this adamant insistence on bringing together this world and the divine or supernatural world? Why does this matter of faith and devotion suddenly find itself under scrutinizing investigation and perhaps even needing it? I definitely do not have the answer to these questions. They are a product of my reflection. I am hoping to get some insight via this post. There are some considerations I would like to make, however.

I wonder if this need for legitimacy and authentication stems forth as a reaction to the earlier reformation thinkers and their claims regarding the extent of Marian devotion as extra-scriptural and the need to “trim” out the excesses that have seemed to have grown out of control. Could this directing toward the physical/concrete be a response that says, “Hey, we have proof here that our practices are legitimate” because they are divinely ordained or being responded to? This response is intensified by the reflective doubt that permeates the apparition accounts. The doubt on the part of Ines’ parents and the shepherd boys is interesting to note, here. When they initially disbelieve Ines, it makes Ines’ “unbelievable” and extraordinary experience all the more believable because it is so fantastic and real.

Perhaps, the manner and tone of her apparitions can also be explained by who she is appearing to. We talked about this in class discussion but I would like to consider it a little differently. In the case of Gertrude, a woman who engages deep contemplation, encounters spiritual imagery and liturgy frequently, has experiences that reflect the depth of her thoughts. She sees flowery images of heaven. I don’t mean to suggest there is no symbolism in the apparitions accounts but there is something quite raw about the experiences described by the see-ers of the apparitions. I wonder whether the intellectual state of the see-er is a factor in this switch from visions to apparitions.

In any case, I find the movement from visions to apparitions to a significant one and as I see in our readings I think this shift is deeply rooted in the focus on the realm of natural and physical that seems to saturate the readings.

I look forward to your thoughts!

Is There Something Underlying the Questions?

As we sat in class discussing the Castilian apparitions, a pattern began to come forth. In a nutshell, Mary appears to a poor layman and asks him to go to those in power and instruct them to build a structure for the betterment of the people as well as an act of devotion to her. However, when they do, there is disbelief and intense questioning. Here is where I would like to ask a very simple question: Why? Why the disbelief? Why the inquisition? Why IS there this legalistic aspect suddenly against the laymen and not against (or at least not to the same intensity) those like Elizabeth of Schonau or Gertrude of Helfta?

As was discussed in class, Elizabeth of Schonau and Gertrude of Helfta were both faithful to the liturgy and received their apparitions while deep in said liturgy. In contrast, we see these laymen at work, doing daily tasks in very humble settings, out in the countryside, not in a physical or spiritual state for the liturgy. No church, just sheep. No liturgy, just mundane conversations with friends. And yet, Mary appears and communicates with these folks. With this in mind, I propose a couple possibilities as to the reasoning for the questioning.

The first is a psychological/theological one. These are ordinary laymen with no spiritual training who suddenly receive these apparitions of Mary. I can imagine the priests asking themselves and even each other, “How do these ordinary folk know they’ve seen Mary in an apparition?” (It was explained in class that they must have known it was Mary because of the ubiquitous amount of Marian statues in and around town.) I believe that the inquisition of these laymen could have support if they were simply trying to verify that the visions seen were of Mary. The priests, who more than likely have at least heard of other priestly visions if not they have not themselves seen apparitions, will know what to look for in these visions in order to verify that the layman has seen actually Mary. They need to make sure of this because if they simply go on this untrained layman, they could very easily be falling into a theological trap (or even a physical one at that) by following a lunatic.

The second possible reasoning for the questioning has its base in the heart of the inquisitor. Could it be possible that those questioning the layman, or those who try to stand in the way of the layman getting his message across, have never themselves seen a vision? I am not claiming that any one of the inquisitors definitely has this sort of malice or jealousy in their heart but I am bringing up something that could very easily be looked over when looking at a story like this. For example, I am thinking about the servants of the Bishop from the Juan Diego story. They were made fools of themselves because they lost Juan Diego as they were attempting to follow him. As a result, “they put into his [the Bishop’s] head that he shouldn’t believe him (Juan Diego), they told him he was only telling him lies, that we was making up what he cam eto tell him, or that he was only dreaming or imagining what he was telling him, what he was asking of him” (177). Do they put this idea into the mind of the Bishop simply because they lost Juan Diego? Or is there an underlying envy towards Juan Diego for seeing a vision before them, the faithful servants of the “Reverend Bishop?”

But then this also brings up a slight tangent that I think would be interesting to bring up here. If Mary is supposed to be relatable and approachable, as we had seen going back to the readings from Mater dolorosa, why does it seem that Mary appears only in liturgical practices up until now (or at least in what we’ve read thus far for class)? It would make sense that Mary, humble servant that she is, would meet the lowly, poor, and marginalized where they are, just as the angle Gabriel did to her. She was, traditionally, doing simple household chores when she was met by Gabriel and conceived by the Holy Spirit with Christ. Why would Mary only meet those in a specific spiritual state when she herself wasn’t at the start of her glorious 9 month journey?

This is not to say that the pious should cease being pious. It is very clear that Mary rewards those who have been faithful to her and her Son through serving the Church and the needy. Obviously, Mary would not appear and call out to those who WON’T serve the Church to build her churches and memorials. But why leave out those who can’t serve the Church for various reasons? Those that CAN’T serve the Church shouldn’t be left to the side simply because they can’t make it to church or are too poor to help out the Church.

To bring it back, these questions might have a deeper reasoning than simple curiosity on the part of the inquisitor. But here we throw in another wrench into this large machine that is the inquisition of the layman. If the priests confirm that it was in fact Mary that the layman saw, why ask for more proof? Why does Juan Diego need to bring back the flowers? It is obvious that it is unbelief but why? Is it shock that a layman truly did see Mary? IS it jealousy? These are the questions I would like to see the inquisitors answer.

Blessings,

-- OGC

Marian Apparitions

One of the important things about these Marian apparitions is the change in how they are considered and viewed by others. The legality and authenticity question of these visions is evident in the transcript of Ines’ interrogation. We have seen stories of apparitions before, such as Elizabeth of Schonau or Gertrude of Helfta, but the stories of Juan Diego, Ines, or the boy and cow herder differ in many ways. This change in apparitions suggests that apparitions were thought of differently.

The visions that Elizabeth and Gertrude saw could be characterized by the fact that they recognized Mary and they saw her during liturgy services. Mary was seen and she participated in the liturgy with Elizabeth and Gertrude. A question here could be asked, what is the relationship between apparitions and liturgy? Barbara Newman’s article “What does it mean to Say “I Saw”?” (Outside reading for my final paper) suggests that visionary experiences during the Middle Ages were common and practiced. She described how visions led the soul into greater intimacy with God and visions could be formed with intense devotional meditation or recitation of prayers. The adoration of the Eucharist was a way to “see God”. This emphasis on prayers, devotion, and the Eucharist may be the reason why Elizabeth and Gertrude saw Mary during the liturgy. This brings up more questions, however, such as did they actually “see” Mary or did they visualize her? Did Mary appear or did they imagine her presence? There is some evidence that Mary was related to liturgy in the stories we read yesterday, such as the boys not attending Matins, or Ines fasting and saying 150 Ave Marias, and how the people were coming out of church. But they were not part of that liturgy, the visions were not triggered by parts of liturgy, and this is a major difference in apparition genre.

This view of apparitions during the Middle Ages suggest that visions were strived for by, presumably, monks or nuns because they dedicated their lives for devotions and they prayed a lot. This probably meant that lay people did not experience this visionary experience as much so it is surprising that people such as Juan Diego saw Mary. A change in legality of visions emerged somehow and the change from visual experience to actual apparition took place. This is evident by the ordeal that Ines and others had legally to prove that they saw Mary. While Elizabeth’s brother recorded her visions, legal investigators questioned Ines about her vision. The fact that it was lay people, even poor and marginalized people, who were having these visions gave the apparitions greater authority because it may have been assumed that they did not try to create these visions; they were spontaneous and possibly, more authentic apparitions.

The vision stories that we read on Monday followed a pattern. Mary appeared to a humble person and gave that person a directive. The directive was either build a church or dig in a certain place, but the person was given a command. The command often was related to the specific place where she appeared. Another similarity was the command to go and tell others-everyone, especially the powerful who could carry out the directive. A common element in these apparitions was a sign that was given to prove the authenticity of the apparition. The presence of Mary’s sign as proof is greatly different than earlier visions and this shows that the attitude of apparitions changed. Some sort of physical proof needed to be given because a person’s word was not enough. This was not seen as a part of getting closer to God or something that was visualized, but these visions were real and had to be legally proven. The proof of the presence of the divine was presented in a new way as well as the way the supernatural was accessible to people.

I think that Mary’s role in the New World that we talked about in class is very interesting. She is our Mother, and the mother of the new place and new era. I think Mary appeared to Juan Diego because she represents universality of the church and the centralized church. While different areas pay attention to different saints, Mary is a common factor among all. Her role as mother is played out here as she called Juan Diego her son and she is a mother to all of us, no matter where we live.

Marian apparitions have been around for some time and the accounts of them seem to have changed. Legal proofs of the accounts of very important and some type of sign or physical proof was given to prove the authenticity. This is a change from earlier apparitions which were accepted much more easily. The apparitions seem to have changed as well. Mary is not recognized and she does not participate in liturgy, although the liturgy relationship is carried on in some form. Mary appears to someone because she wants something done, such as a church to be built. The vision is not personal and meant to increase personal devotion, but it has a goal. Devotion is certainly increased, but the increased devotion is meant for everyone. The apparitions of Mary are an important part of Mariology, but I’m unsure of how they could be used in Marian devotion. Mary is our mother and our intercessor, but how do the apparitions impact her other roles? Why does she appear, other than to increase our devotion? And what do the apparitions mean?

KP