On Dec. 21, 2012, the Mayan calendar reaches the end of its 5,126 epoch. That’s a cause of consternation among some end-times adherents, and amusement among some descendants of the Maya.
Fresh from having survived one end-of-the-world prediction””a two-stage affair covering 2011’s drop-dead dates of May 21 and Oct. 21””we now plunge into the countdown for End Times 2012.
Should you be inclined, you can use your smart phone to check how many days are remaining before a date that was carved into rock by a pre-Columbian civilization.
You can blame””or credit””the Maya for the commotion. Or, more likely, their New Age adherents.
OK. But have you ever know a Mayan end of the world prediction to be wrong? Just saying….
All these pathetic New Age-ers are so willing to believe the “prophecies” of a culture that tore beating hearts out of human sacrifices. But believe the Gospel, documented by contemporaneous, synoptic accounts? Oh nooooooo!
This is confronting – not because a Mayan date might prove correct, but because it is reminder that in fact Christ may return at ANY instant!
[blockquote] ““But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.
Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come.” [Matt 24:36-42] [/blockquote]
Actually what is amazing is what happened the last time the Mayan end of the world came (almost 500 years ago). (Their worlds do end in cycles you know). My daughter (now a college senior) wrote a paper for her history of religion course on it which I thought was pretty good… 🙂 You can call it a series of amazing coincidences, however I think it would be hard for even the most fervent atheist to not wonder if the hand of God played a role, there. I append an abbreviated version.
—————-
” To understand both the outrage of the conquistadores, as well as the mass conversion of Latin America, it is necessary to more clearly see what Spanish rule replaced. In 1492, Central America was under the rule of the Mexicalli leader Tlacaellel, who had attained power in 1429. Tlacaellel, who is generally thought to have been the power behind the throne of the emperor Motecuhzoma, practiced a deliberate policy of human sacrifice. This policy was used to intimidate and weaken potentially rebellious cities. The Mexicalli pantheon included a large number of Gods, all of whom required thousands of lives annually in sacrifice. Their main god was Tezcatlipoca, “Lord of Darkness” and Huitzilopochtli, “the Hummingbird Wizard”. The dignity of Huitzilopochtli alone, required the death of 50,000 people each year. Tlaloc, the rain god, required twenty thousand children’s lives annually. It is estimated that prior to the conquest, one in five of those Central American children who survived to ages 4-8, died in human sacrifice. “Lesser” gods also required annual sacrifices numbering in the thousands. All Aztec nobility were required to attend these mass sacrifices, which continually increased in scope and number. When the temple of Huitzilopochtli was dedicated, Tlacaellel had relay teams of priests, sacrificing more than 80,000 men, without pause, over four days and four nights at a rate of fifteen seconds a victim. Tlacaellel watched the entire process to the end, to ensure no dignitary left prematurely. . .[snip]. When Cortes arrived, he arrived he had only 600 men but found thousands of willing allies in subject towns and cities, all too willing to throw in their lot with an unknown savior, if only to throw off the Mexicali yoke. (Padden pp 72-74).
The willingness of subject tribes to follow Cortes was increased not just by their human need, but by a powerful Central American legend. One related to Mayan and Aztec creation myths. According to Mexicali thought, the sun (and world) had been destroyed four times, and by the complex Mayan calendar, was due to be destroyed again. Quetzalcoatl, the gentle God who had created humans and who had instructed them in growing corn, had been involved in the creation of all four suns. His priest/servant/icon was the god/prince of the Toltec nation (that preceded the Aztec empire). Quetzalcoatl had been expelled across the Eastern sea by the Mexicali God Tezcatlipoca (“Lord of Darkness”), however he had promised that one day he would return. Quetzalcoatl’s totem, the black clad, god in human form was said to abhor human sacrifice. It was widely believed that when Quetzalcoatl returned, it would be in his name year (the year his human form had been born). This year “1-Reed” occurred only once every 52 years. It was also believed that when Quetzalcoatl returned, he would return on his name day, “9-Wind”. Good Friday, April 22, 1519 was a 9-Wind day in the 1-Reed year. Cortes, landing on this day was dressed in black in honor of Good Friday. When Aztec ambassadors, sounding out the strange Spanish apparition, offered him Easter dinner sprinkled with human blood, Cortes, previously friendly, spat on the ground, and challenged them all to personal combat. This they refused, however the challenge left them in no doubt. This must be Quetzalcoatl, prince and savior, mighty warrior and hater of human sacrifice. (Carrol 18-25).
The hatred of the Macehualtin (the Mexicali common people) for Mexicali rule explains the relative ease of the conquest. It does not explain their Christian conversion. Indeed, the new Bishop Zumarraga sent by Spain in 1528 to be Protector of the Indians, despaired that any such conversion could ever occur. . . [snip] By December 1531, twelve years after the landing of Cortes, and ten years after the fall of Tenochitlan, the Mexicali capital, only 1% of the total population had been baptized (Carroll p.107).
The Christian conversion of Mexico began in earnest on December 12, 1531. Some time prior to that date, Bishop Zumarraga reportedly had said of his flock that “roses would bloom in the winter” before “these people” accepted Christ. On Saturday, December 9, 1531, a 57 year old peasant, who had been baptized Juan Diego was on his way past Tepayac hill, to attend Mass at dawn. Tepayac Hill was the site of a destroyed temple to the goddess Tonantzin, patron of childbirth and giver of life and death. On this occasion, Diego heard bird song, and saw a white cloud at the top of the hill. From this cloud, intense white light appeared to emanate. A beautiful woman, dressed in the turquoise blue cloak of an Aztec princess, bearing the dark skin of the Toltec people appeared to him from the cloud. The woman, speaking in his own Nahuatl language, told Diego that she was the Virgin Mary .. . [snip] The woman asked Diego to go to Bishop Zumarraga and to have him build her a chapel on that hill, from which she could begin her ministry. Diego initially asked that some more convincing messenger be sent, but on being told that none other would do, went to the Bishop. Zumarraga, not surprisingly, doubted the tale, and …[snip – eventually after 3 visits from Diego, advised him that he would need a sign before proceeding]. . . [snip …When Diego returned to the hill of Tepayac] … the lady was waiting for him, and assured him that the next morning she would give him the sign that the bishop wanted. The next morning, however, Diego’s uncle was very ill, and fearing he would die, asked Diego to go and bring back a priest to anoint him. Diego therefore avoided the top of Tepayac hill, however the lady intercepted him, and advised him that she herself would take care of his uncle who would not die and was “already well”. “Am I not here?” (she continued). “I, who am your Mother, and is not my help a refuge? Am I not of your kind?” The Lady told Diego to climb up the hill, saying he would find flowers blooming there which he should pick and bring to her. Diego found in this desert place, in winter, where normally only cactus and thornbrush grew, beautiful Castilian roses. He picked these and brought them to the Lady who put them in his “tilma” (the cactus fiber one piece poncho that was all the clothing besides a loincloth worn by the poor). The Lady tied the ends of the tilma around his neck and told him “This is the sign that you must take to the Lord Bishop”. Diego returned to the Bishop, where he was kept waiting a long time. When the Bishop finally saw him, he told him all he had seen, and opened his tilma. The roses fell to the floor but the Bishop was not looking at the roses. On the cactus fiber tilma was a full portrait of the Mother of God, in the dress of an Aztec princess, just as Diego had seen her. Her bosom was high and was girdled by the black maternity band that only pregnant women wear. She wore the turquoise cloak of Aztec royalty. On her gown was embroidered the Aztec symbols of resurrection, and behind her shone the golden rays of the new (fifth) sun. (Carrol 97-101).
The tilma of Juan Diego, which bears the portrait of what is now called the “Virgin of Guadalupe”, hangs proudly in the Cathedral that Bishop Zumarraga built on Tepayac hill. Any one may see it, and I have seen it there myself. The portrait has undergone numerous scientific studies. There is no doubt that the cloth dates from the 16th century and is made of cactus fiber (which usually decays in 10 years but which in this case remains untouched after almost 500 years). The colors of the portrait remain vivid and bright, despite the fact that all blue pigments are semi-permanent and fade in hot climates, and fade in weeks if there is no protective varnish. (No protective varnish is present in the tilma of the Virgin of Guadalupe). ..[snip]… It is not thought possible to reproduce the Tilma with any modern methods today, and it is unknown how it came to be made in 16th century Mexico almost 500 years ago. (Carroll 103-106).
What is known is the effect that the apparition had on the people of Mexico. In the twelve years prior to the appearance of the Virgin of Guadalupe to an unknown peasant, only 200,000 Indians had been baptized. This is about par for conversion by conquest. After 300 years of Portugese conquest, 50% of Angola was Christian. After 200 years of Spanish rule, 50% of the Philippines was Christian. It took 100 years for 50% of Peru to become Christian, and India despite 90 years of British rule remains only 2.3% Christian even now. By contrast, in Mexico, despite lack of transport and some 114 separate languages, it took less than 30 years for half the population to convert to Christianity. It was the fastest conversion in the world and has never been rivaled. Between 1532 and 1548 more than 9 million Indians were baptized. Indeed, the pace of the baptisms rivaled the pace of the sacrifices seen in the earlier temples of the old gods, with Father Toribio Motolinea reporting in 1536 that he and one other priest had baptized 14,200 Indians in five days. (Carroll 107-108). Mexico is currently 95% Roman Catholic with the remaining 5% being Protestant, and Latino Catholics have brought their love of the Virgin of Guadalupe to the United States where they are transforming Roman Catholic parishes.
Clueless –
But I always read that the Mexican peasants were baptized at gunpoint. You are sure about this?
I’m not Clueless, Charles52, but yes, the story of the Virgin of Guadalupe and the mass conversions which followed that event are common knowledge. It is also true that the missionaries were the ones who argued, eventually successfully, for decent treatment for the indigenous peoples of the New World and insisted that they were fully human and worthy of being saved.
In all honesty, Katherine, I never heard the story as Clueless tells it. I was raised on the story that the conversions/baptisms were forced at gunpoint. I think I remember seeing a picture of that in a history book at some point.
There were very few conversions at “gunpoint” as you put it. The minimum conversion during the 12 years post Cortez is a matter of record, despite the fact that plague killed 90% the Indian population (both in Protestant North America which we don’t talk about – See Banner) as well as in Catholic South and Central America (See Cook and De Casas). In addition, those 12 years included a long period under the brutal and corrupt “Auditors.” Cortez who (contrary to popular belief) was a devout and honest man, well loved by the Aztec common people, was recalled to Spain shortly after the conquest, and the Auditors appointed by Emperor Charles of Spain to govern Mexico were base and cruel men. These men, led by Nuno de Guzman abused and enslaved Cortes’ former Native American allies. Catholic Priests, attempting to defend the Indians were flogged and maimed. Eventually, Empress Isabel in 1530, appointed new auditors, prohibited the enslavement of the Indians, and confirmed Bishop Zumarraga as Protector of the Indians, giving him legal powers to put an end to many of the abuses. Be that as it may, by December 1531, twelve years after the landing of Cortes, and ten years after the fall of Tenochitlan, the Mexicali capital, only 1% of the total population had been baptized (Carroll p. 107).
I must say that becoming a Catholic has opened my eyes to the last “respectable” bigotry in America. The numbers are a matter of public record. Look it up.
1. S. Banner, How the Indians Lost Their Land: Law and Power on the Frontier
(Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA 2005).
2. W. Carroll, Our Lady of Guadalupe and the Conquest of Darkness, (Christendom Press : Front Royal, VA: 1983).
3. N.D. Cook, Born to Die: Disease and New World Conquest, 1492-1650. (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1998).
4. B. De Las Casas, A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies (Penguin books, London, UK, 1992)
5. B. Diaz, The Conquest of New Spain (Penguin Books, London, UK, 1963)
6. E. Gaustad and L.Schmidt, The Religious History of America (Harper Collins, New York 2004).
7. R.C. Padden, The Hummingbird and the Hawk; Conquest and Sovereignty in the Valley of Mexico, (1503-1541) (TorchbooksTB1898: New York: 1967).
8. G. Symcox and B. Sullivan, Christopher Columbus and the Enterprise of the Indies: A Brief History with Documents (Bedford/St. Martin’s New York, 1989).
Clueless, I don’t doubt you at all. It’s just a radical shift from what I’ve always “known”.
I did once read that the vision of Guadelupe was a message to the bishop and the people that the Gospel isn’t just a Spanish religion, but is for all peoples (indigenous people in this case). But it didn’t shake loose my preconception.
Another example of how what we think we know from history isn’t necessarily true. Thank you.
I’m sorry.
I really spoke in haste. Thank you for your Irenic response.
For one, the Mayan Calendar does not [i]end[/i] in 2012, it is simply the end of the 13th bak’tun. As most of the Mayan mathematical and calendrical system is based on the number 20 there is every reason to believe the ancient Maya expected the calendar to continue to the 20th bak’tun (a few thousand years from now).
Secondly, who cares? What makes us think the Maya knew anything more than we do? What makes us think that an ancient calendar is at all significant? As I like to point out, the table for finding Easter in the 1979 BCP ends in 2089. Does that mean it’s the official position of TEC that there won’t be an Easter in 2090? (Headline: Episcopal Church predicts the end of the world before spring 2090!). No, that was just a convenient place to end the table, 110 years out from publication.
Thirdly, I’m with sophy at #2, our world is casting about for ancient wisdom and prophecy at the very same time it is mocking the ancient wisdom of scripture and the message of life that is the Gospel. Believing in “Ancient Aliens” is more culturally respectable than believing in the Resurrection. We must realize that this is an opening, as our world is hungry for mystery and wisdom.
Lastly, Clueless, I’ve always found it significant that Mexico exchanged a religion where humans needed to die so that their blood would feed the gods, for a religion where God incarnate died so that his blood would feed humanity (in a eucharistic sense) with eternal life. I for one think that was a good change. But it is not respectable to say so in modern academia. Is your daughter attending a Catholic university? If not, how did her professor respond to this essay?