has montezumas tomb been found ...?

[Oroblanco]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

HOLA amigos 512Climber and everyone,

512Climber wrote

I'm just not as familiar with the Jesuit symbols as many on this list. Wanted to see what you guys thought. Thanks for any feedback you might have.

I am sure that others here with much more expertise could give a more definitive answer, in my opinion the stone with the markings might well be an American Indian petroglyph, there are some very interesting petroglyphs in the Superstitions and you may have one there. The healed wound scar on the cactus I would not want to make any absolute statements, but first impression would be just a happenstance/accidental wound scar on it. I could be completely wrong however and defer to our more experienced members opinions. As for any Jesuit connections, I would be doubtful as we do have fairly good records of the explorations of the Jesuit padres in the southwest, as far as I could determine none ever explored into the Superstitions. Perhaps our fellow member Lamar could venture an opinion?

Thank you for posting the pix 512Climber, photos are very helpful and always interesting.
Oroblanco

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[lamar]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

Dear group;
While it may defy all established beliefs, there is a VERY remote possiblity of some Jesuits being in the area of the Superstition mountains, unrecorded to history, as it were. It seems that when the Society of Jesus was suppressed and expelled from the New World colonies, there remained yet ANOTHER group of Jesuits who were left behind, to their own devices, so to speak.

The fact that all Jesuits priests were accounted for during their explusion leaves one to wonder who exactly the other group of Jesuits could be. The answer is this:

The Jesuit order was founded as a clerical Order within the parameters and blessings of the Vatican. Once stablished, the Jesuits constructed monasteries and schools throughout Western Europe. In order to effectively run these monasteries and schools, there needed to be a *working* Order as well as the *clerical* one. The members of this working Order were known as *temporal coadjutors* and unlike the Jesuit priests, these coadjutors only took *simple vows*, that is to state, vows of poverty, chasity and obedience.

In short, these temporal coadjutors were the laity society , members who were NOT ordained priests and did not take *formal vows*. Until as recently as the termination of the Vatican II Council of 1969, these unordained Jesuit Brothers lived almost exlcusively in Jesuit communities, and they performed an entire host of tasks such as cooks, tailors, farmers, bee keepers, secretaries, librarians, accountants, etc. The work which they performed in turn freed the ordained Jesuit priests to perform the spiritual and temporal callings of the Society of Jesus.

It is this particular class of Jesuit, the Jesuit Brother, that shouldered the largest burden of the Jesuits' menial burdens and it is also the Jesuit Brother who was effectively forgotten about when the Society of Jesus was expelled from the New World. It seems that while there exists detailed accounts of the ordained Jesuit priests of the day, very little detailed information was recorded in regards to the Jesuit laity. For example, while we know that all missions and reductions had Jesuit laity is varying numbers, we do not know precisely what those numbers were nor do we know the names of most of the lay society.

We also know that for every Jesuit priest there also existed at least one Jesuit Brother to serve him, and many times even more, however we can not state with certainty the true strength of the Jesuit Brotherhood at this time. And so, what became of the Jesuit Brothers who were left behind due to the Jesuit expulsion?

The vast majority of them continued to serve in their original capacities as before, in the same missions and reductions as previously, only under the auspices of the Francisians or the Dominicans, HOWEVER it has been SURMISED that a few of them may have returned to their native villages and lived out their lives in secular professions, and an even fewer number perhaps became nomadic, or semi-nomadic, wanderers.

Naturally, these Brothers were highly skilled in menial tasks, such as animal husbandry, cooking, sewing, cleaning, etc. and in light of this fact, they became excellent candidates to accompany the New World hidalgos on various expeditions. Therefore, it may be POSSIBLE that there were some former Jesuit Brothers who were part of later explorations into the Superstition Mountains, however please be aware that this only supposition as there exists no hard evidence except for various entries in Francisican and Domincan journals which tell of certain local members of the travelling parties as having unusually high skill levels in physical, as well as in spiritual matters.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

Good afternoon my friend Lamar: As they say, "absence makes the heart grow fonder" soo smooooch Lamar.

Another smooch for filling in a huge blank area for me. Gracias.

Don Jose d e La Mancha

 

[lamar]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

Dear Real de Tayopa and all;
Please be aware that this is nothing more than a proposed THEORY of mine and as yet it is NOT widely supported. I gave examples of the Jesuit Brothers to POSSIBLY explain why some accounts by reputable authors descibed certain local men in exploration parties after the Jesuit suppression with a decent grasp of Latin, the rites and rituals associated with Mass and a wide variety of various skills. It seems that these craftsmen were not skilled in one or two fields, but many different inter-related ones.

Please understand that I am NOT proposing a conspiracy theory, but merely wish to provide a POSSIBLE explanation for these as yet unexplainable entries. Also, be remain aware that the Society of Jesus has never specified a habit( certain type or style or dress) for it's members, to include it's lay society. It would therefore stand to reason that the Jesuit Brothers would have worn the same type and styles of clothing that the jesuit priests wore. Taking this fact into consideration it would have been all too easy for an unknowing secular person to mistake an ordained Jesuit priest with an unordained Jesuit Brother.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[cactusjumper]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

Hello Lamar,

I believe you would need to stretch the facts somewhat to justify Jesuit Temporal Coadjutors being mistaken for Jesuits. It could just as easily have been Franciscan Coadjutors. It could also have been Jose de Galvez's men, posing as Jesuits, in an effort to pry information about Jesuit treasure and mines from the natives.

Trying to rewrite history at this point in time must be a daunting task.

Good luck,

Joe Ribaudo

 

[Oroblanco]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

Cactusjumper wrote

posing as Jesuits

Now THAT is an angle I had NOT thought of, may explain some interesting things....
Oroblanco

 

[Old Dog]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

Hello Lamar,

I believe you would need to stretch the facts somewhat to justify Jesuit Temporal Coadjutors being mistaken for Jesuits. It could just as easily have been Franciscan Coadjutors. It could also have been Jose de Galvez's men, posing as Jesuits, in an effort to pry information about Jesuit treasure and mines from the natives.

Trying to rewrite history at this point in time must be a daunting task.

Good luck,

Joe Ribaudo

Thanks Joe.

 

[lamar]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

Dear group;
Of course the Jesuit Brothers could not be mistaken for Jesuit priests!!! Or,,,,,,, could they Please remember that from it's inception, right up until today, the Jesuits have never had a formal habit! In other words, they don't have a particular style of dress which identifies them as being a part of the Society of Jesus, however, most Jesuits in the New World colonies soon starting wearing grey robes, mostly as a matter of local convienence. Since the Jesuits have no formal code of dress, this rule extends down to the Jesuit laity as well. The Jesuit brothers also starting wearing grey robes, again, mostly as a matter of convienence. In light of this fact, the possibility does exist.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[cactusjumper]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

Lamar,

"Dear group;
Of course the Jesuit Brothers could not be mistaken for Jesuit priests!!! Or,,,,,,, could they Please remember that from it's inception, right up until today, the Jesuits have never had a formal habit! In other words, they don't have a particular style of dress which identifies them as being a part of the Society of Jesus, however, most Jesuits in the New World colonies soon starting wearing grey robes, mostly as a matter of local convienence. Since the Jesuits have no formal code of dress, this rule extends down to the Jesuit laity as well. The Jesuit brothers also starting wearing grey robes, again, mostly as a matter of convienence. In light of this fact, the possibility does exist.
Your friend;
LAMAR"

I have no idea where you are going with this one but believe you are, pretty much, completely wrong.

There are thousands of references to the Jesuit, where they have been called "Black Robes" by the Native Americans they came into contact with. Beyond that, the most respected Jesuit historians have termed the Society Of Jesus......"Black Robes". In my small, modest library of Jesuit books, I can find dozens of such appellations.

Father Charles Polzer, S.J., dedicated "Rules and Precepts of the Jesuit Missions of Northwestern New Spain" in this way:

"To the Blackrobes of the northwestern frontier who lived by these rules and worked for a better day this book is humbly dedicated."

Peter Masten Dunne, S.J., Ph.D., authored the book: "Pioneer Black Robes on the West Coast".

"Fools Crow" by, Thomas E. Mails and Dallas Chief Eagle, had this passage in their book:

"Red Cloud was eventually converted to Catholicism. One of his last wishes was to be buried in a black robe, like those the priests and lay brothers wore. It was granted."

From another source, this about Jesuit training:

[Jesuit training is famous and may last for more than 15 years. The novice spends two years in spiritual training, after which he takes the simple vows of the regulars—chastity, poverty, and obedience. Then as a scholastic he spends 13 years and sometimes longer in study and teaching, completed by an additional year of spiritual training. Toward the end of this period he is ordained and becomes a coadjutor. He may then take a fourth vow of special obedience to the pope and become professed.]

Can you provide a source for Jesuits in "grey robes". Since that was the garb of the Franciscans, it seems unlikey that Jesuits would wear that color robe.

There is no changing this kind of history. On the other hand, someone may someday prove that there were Jesuit mines, or a Jesuit treasure. I doubt it, but anything is possible.

Take care,

Joe

 

[lamar]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

Dear CactusJumper;
Yes, you are correct my friend. In the northern colonies they mostly wore black robes and mantles, the key word being *mostly*. They made their garments out of whatever cloth they could get locally most of the time and color was never a practical consideration. In the Philipines they mostly wore gray, probably because the cloth there was predominantly gray. Again, it was never of formal habit but local conditions which guided the individual jesuits int heir choice of garb.

I've been knee deep researching some recently discovered documents from the Secret Vatican Archives and this has been taking up most of my free time and as such I have been able to give this topic only passing thought. Please excuse any inconsistencies in my writings.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[cactusjumper]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

Lamar,

You seem to have a purpose here, my friend. What, exactly, do you mean by the "northern colonies"? I don't believe you can change the "Black Robes" to "Gray Robes", but would love to see some source material. I have provided a few sources for the term "Black Robes", as applied to the Jesuits.

Thanks in advance, and take care,

Joe

 

[Old Dog]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

My only source of Jesuits wearing grey robes comes from a word of mouth source.
An author friend in his interviewing of Native American elders came out with the theory ...
Not all Jesuits left but disguised themselves as Franciscans to avoid capture and imprisonment.
I can say only what is here by his permission.
But it is a solid theory based on good facts from eye witness sources.

 

[Oroblanco]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

Old Dog wrote

Not all Jesuits left but disguised themselves as Franciscans to avoid capture and imprisonment.

and Lamar wrote

In the northern colonies they mostly wore black robes and mantles, the key word being *mostly*. They made their garments out of whatever cloth they could get locally most of the time and color was never a practical consideration. In the Philipines they mostly wore gray,

That is very interesting amigos, and would explain something puzzling about a couple of reports.
Oroblanco

 

[cactusjumper]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

Roy, O.D. and Lamar,

It's an interesting story and should be worth hearing.

The Spanish were really good at keeping written records of everything, and the Jesuits were even better. Each and every priest was documented.....somewhere. When they were rounded up, more records were created. Can you tell us where it is written that the King's men went to a mission, and found the priest missing? Who, exactly, were these missing priests? Names please.

Thank you in advance,

Joe

 

[lamar]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

Dear group;
First, to dispel some popular myths regarding the Jesuits from the New World colonies.
The Jesuits were NOT imprisioned at any time during their various expulsions. They were escorted wherever they travelled, but they were never incarcerated. Imprisonment was expressly forbidden and it was never carried out, either in theory or deed.

In the case of their expulsion from the New World colonies, they were marched to the coast, placed onboard ships and sent back to the lands of Papal rule, ie, returned to the Papal territories. Because of scrupulous record keeping, all Jesuit priests that had been sent to the New World colonies were accounted for upon their expulsion. This is a matter of historical record and as such we have no reason to doubt the validity and veracity of the facts.

This only leaves the Jesuit lay brothers unaccounted for and alas, their history has passed with time. One can not state with any validity the theory that some jesuit priest remained behind after the expulsion, however there was a multitude of Jesuit Lay Brothers left behind to soldier onwards as best as they were able when all the Jesuit preists left the colonies. Please bear in mind that the Jesuits were primarily a pedalogical order, that is, the vast majority of Jesuits were scholars, professors and teachers. Naturally, they taught their lay society everything that they could and this would account for mysterious *priests* who could recite the Tridentine Mass in full and perform all other manner of priestly chores.

In all likelyhood, the Jesuit Brothers who assisted those Jesuit priests with ecclestical duties who have eventually become as familiar with theology and the rubrics of the Society and the Church as the priests themselves. And, taking into account mankinds' natural instinct to wish to better civilization, the Jesuit priests most likely taught their unordained Brothers every aspect of Jesuit life, probably doing so unconsciously.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[cactusjumper]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

Dear Lamar,

I have no idea what you have been reading lately, but believe you have come to some erroneous, historical, conclusions:

Miguel del Barco:

"In 1768 he was exiled with all the other Lower California Jesuits, reaching Spain on July 8, 1768. After a long, arbitrary and unjust imprisonment in Spain he was deported to Bologna, Italy.

Francisco Escalante:

"He was long imprisoned on return to his ungrateful homeland."

Jose Mariano Rotea:

"After long imprisonment in Spain he was exiled to Italy."

Georg Retz:

"After the long voyage into exile and imprisonment in Spain, he happly reached his homeland ......"

Victoriano Arnes:

"Arnes went to Baja California in 1794, and assisted Linck at San Borja until he founded Santa Maria in 1766. On his return to Spain in 1768 he was long imprisoned, and on being released was deported to Italy."

Lucas Ventura:

"Ventura was long imprisoned in Spain, and then deported to Bologna, Italy, where he died on December 9, 1793."

Francisco Javier Fernandez Franco:

"After the usual long imprisonment of the Baja California missionaries who failed to get away on March 19, 1769, he was deported to Bologna, Italy."

Juan Villavieja:

"After his long imprisonment in Spain, he was banished to Bologna, Italy."

Juan de Armesto:

"After a long imprisonment in Puerto de Santa Maria, Spain, he was deported to Bologna, where he died........"

Toribio Garcia:

He was detained with Father Armesto in Mexico City and not allowed to leave the country until November 29, 1767, when he sailed with him on the Buen Suceso. He was again imprisoned in Puerto de Santa Maria. After these two periods of detention, neither of whhich produced the hoped-for millions, he was deported to Bologna, Italy."
____________________________________________________

I would suggest you research the history of Father Carlos Rojas (Roxas). Not only was he imprisoned, but he was tortured.

I assume you know where the above quotes came from. I am aware that some of the names were "lay brothers". All are included to show that it was no easy task to escape the King's men.

This is a very short list of those who were imprisoned.

Take care,

Joe

 

[lamar]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

Dear cactusjumper;
You wrote:
I have no idea what you have been reading lately, but believe you have come to some erroneous, historical, conclusions:

Please be advised that my sources come strictly from historical archives and as such I disclude personal accounts and journals as viable sources of research material.

Yes, all of the allegations you wrote about were in fact addressed by members of the Holy See at various times and no factual evidence could be produced. Upon questioning, the same Jesuits who supposedly imprisoned and/or tortured, they themselves stated in formal enquiries into the subject that they were not ill-treated. Those references which you've produced have been surmised as speculation and exaggeration. It has also been surmised that the wild claims made by various authors was due to the colonists having made wild claims of their own against the Jesuits and those allegations were perhaps nothing more than a revenge tactic, or a tete-a-tete.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[cactusjumper]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

Dear Lamar,

The author you speak of was, himself, a Jesuit and was one of the imprisoned Fathers. His account is well accepted as factual, as far as I know. The source I am quoting is, "Ducrue's Account of the Expulsion". I don't know how you could find anything better than one who was there.

Can you name the exact "historical archives" that dispute his account? Is there some place where they are available to the public? If not, I will have to accept the words of Benno Ducrue, S.J., who was the Visitor or Superior of all the Lower California Jesuits when the decree of expulsion was executed.

I would especially like to see the archive document where Father Ducrue calls himself a liar, and admits that he was just speculating and surmising his imprisonment.

Thank you again for your replies,

Joe

 

[lamar]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

Dear cactusjumper:
You asked:
Can you name the exact "historical archives" that dispute his account? Is there some place where they are available to the public?
My reply is thus:
Operor vos teneo Latin, meus amicus? Nisi, tunc meus referos es nequam vobis.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[cactusjumper]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

Dear Lamar,

I am, of course, working hard to develop a knowledgeable source for this material. Because, as you say, you are "my friend", what better source could I find? What comes easy is, of course, sometimes not so good. If I had the resources to find the information, I would not need to go to someone who knows more than I. As you say, that would be you.

Perhaps I came across as demanding the information. I sense from your reply, in Latin, that you were somewhat angry. My apologies. I am often too blunt for my own good.

I have supplied the source for my conclusions and anyone who is interested can follow that path. My own sources don't come cheaply or without some personal effort. I am always ready to share the results of that work, inadequate though it may be. After all, in proving my information wrong........everyone benefits, especially me.

Take care,

Joe