The [X] portal reports on a 16th-century painting in Rome’s Church of San Vitale claimed as the “first image of Our Lady of Guadalupe painted in the Italian capital.” The article presents this artwork as a devotional treasure connected to the 1531 Tepeyac apparitions, attributing it to Jesuit artist Giovanni Battista Fiammeri circa 1550 based on missionary sketches. This uncritical promotion of the Guadalupe narrative exemplifies the neo-church’s systematic distortion of authentic Marian piety through historical revisionism and religious syncretism.
Fabricated Historical Continuity
The claim that this painting constitutes “the first image of Our Lady of Guadalupe” in Rome relies on speculative assumptions contradicted by chronological evidence. The Tepeyac events occurred in 1531, yet the earliest documented papal recognition comes from Benedict XIV’s 1754 bull Non est equidem – a two-century gap exposing the cult’s lack of immediate ecclesiastical approval. The Jesuit artist’s alleged use of missionary sketches lacks documentary substantiation, violating the historiographical principle of sine fontibus nihil (nothing without sources).
The article’s assertion that the painting “predates by several decades the other representations of the Virgin of Guadalupe preserved in Rome” ignores the dogmatic impossibility of such early diffusion for an unapproved apparition. Pope Benedict XIV’s 1748 letter to Spanish bishops explicitly states: “Private revelations, even those recognized as probable, do not demand Catholic assent” (De Servorum Dei Beatificatione). The painting’s existence, if accurately dated, demonstrates not devotion but disciplinary negligence in permitting unauthorized iconography.
Syncretic Iconography and Naturalized Piety
The described image contains telltale signs of syncretism:
“the large crescent moon beneath her feet” and “the same belt that symbolizes Our Lady’s maternity”
These elements directly correlate with pre-Columbian fertility goddess iconography, particularly Coatlicue worship. The crescent moon symbol appears in Revelation 12:1, but its application to Guadalupe follows Aztec cosmological motifs rather than patristic interpretation. This constitutes communicatio in sacris (sharing in sacred things with unbelievers), condemned by Pope Benedict XIV in Ex quo singulari (1742).
The article’s emphasis on the painting as “a testament to the early European reception of a devotion” reveals the modernist heresy of doctrinal evolution. Pius XII condemned such historical relativism: “The deposit of faith is a body of revealed truths… not an ensemble of conjectural interpretations” (Humani Generis, 21). True Marian devotion centers on Deipara (God-bearer) dogmas defined at Ephesus (431), not localized apparitions.
Anti-Ecclesial Implications
The portal’s promotion of this narrative serves the neo-church’s agenda to substitute sacramental religion with naturalized folk piety. By celebrating Guadalupe as “one of the pillars of the Americas’ religious identity,” the article commits the heresy of americanismo – condemned by Leo XIII in Testem benevolentiae (1899) as elevating national sentiment above catholicity.
The reference to “Pope Leo XIV” entrusting his pontificate to Guadalupe confirms the apostate nature of conciliar structures. True popes entrust their ministry to Christ the King (Quas Primas, Pius XI), not unapproved Marian devotions. The painting’s preservation in San Vitale – a fourth-century church dedicated to martyr-soldiers – becomes sacrilegious when used to promote syncretic imagery antithetical to the Ecclesia martyrum (Church of martyrs).
Omission of Supernatural Realities
Notably absent from the article is any mention of the sine qua non criteria for evaluating private revelations:
1. Conformity to revealed truth (Dei Verbum 4)
2. Fruits in personal sanctification (Matthew 7:16-20)
3. Ecclesiastical approval (Canon 823 §1, 1917 Code)
Instead, we find naturalistic appeals to “artistic and devotional treasure” and “religious identity” – classic modernist reductions excoriated in Pius X’s Pascendi (36-39). The silence on Guadalupe’s theological contradictions (e.g., the miraculous tilma’s resemblance to Tonantzin worship sites) constitutes suppressio veri (suppression of truth), condemned by moral theology as fraudulent.
Conclusion: Reaffirming Marian Orthodoxy
Authentic Marian devotion adheres to the Church’s defined dogmas: Divine Motherhood (Ephesus 431), Perpetual Virginity (Lateran 649), Immaculate Conception (Ineffabilis Deus 1854), and Assumption (Munificentissimus Deus 1950). The Guadalupe cult distracts from these dogmata fidei (dogmas of faith) through emotionalism and cultural nationalism. As St. Louis de Montfort warned: “The devil tries to make people… neglect true devotion to Our Lady” (True Devotion, 92).
Let us heed Pius XI’s admonition: “The peace of Christ can only be achieved through the reign of Christ” (Quas Primas, 1), not through syncretic mariophanies. The Church’s true treasures remain the Most Holy Sacrifice and the communion of saints, not contested apparitions that divide rather than unite Christ’s flock under His royal standard.
Source:
First painting in Rome of Our Lady of Guadalupe preserved in fourth-century church (catholicnewsagency.com)
Date: 17.12.2025