JESUIT TREASURES - ARE THEY REAL?

[sailaway]

I have noticed that the 1707 map by Padre Kino only shows one Mountain in the middle of the Superstition Mountains with a black sombrero with a heart on the east side of that mountain, between the Salt and Gila Rivers. On the south bank of the Gila River is a Pyramid called Cala Grande.

Doesn't anyone know about the Chimera and Orb? They are in my actual photo I took in MY Hunt posted here.(taken while I was on the trail)

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[Oroblanco]

Another long winded one - extra coffee alert

I have noticed that the 1707 map by Padre Kino only shows one Mountain in the middle of the Superstition Mountains with a black sombrero with a heart on the east side of that mountain, between the Salt and Gila Rivers. On the south bank of the Gila River is a Pyramid called Cala Grande.

Doesn't anyone know about the Chimera and Orb? They are in my actual photo I took in MY Hunt posted here.(taken while I was on the trail)

The Chimera and Orb are new to me - can't say I have run across it before.




Don Jose, suerta de dueno el Real de Tayopa wrote

Fellow coffee slurpers and addicts: First, I would like you to clarify just what would be considered a large treasure in 'those' days, not our present, extremely inflated, values.


50 centavos was considered a normal monthly wage in the 1800's, in the 1500's ?

By that standard then, even the meager 250 pesos stipend living allowance granted to the Franciscan padres in Alta California, was impressive? I must respectfully disagree on this amigo, to a degree; look at what father Segesser complained of, having to pay 700 to 800 dollars to hire a field manager for a year, which was more than his own pay. This is far more than fifty centavos a month, which amounts to only six pesos (or dollars) per year.


Don Jose el Tropical Tramp also wrote

Second, Yes the various missions did mine, a conspicuous example was Baroyeca in Sonora. Check on it.

True however a key search phrase to watch for, which took me some time to look for was a "mining mission". It does not occur often and I read past it repeatedly before picking up on it. Baroyeca is one of this type of mission, in fact I am certain it was classed as such.


Don Jose el Real de Tayopa also wrote

Third, I disagree with my normally infallible ORO in that while the mission Priest did normally have full control of his area, he always was subject to higher authority sent by Rome on mining matters, or 'any' subject in furthering the Jesuit society.


Remember. They were originally a Military order, and as such the area commander is always subject to higher command. <snip>

I must agree in part, and respectfully disagree in part. No argument that the Jesuits had and still have a well defined chain of command, and that padres stationed at various missions (which often had satellite visita type mission) had to answer to those higher in rank, however each padre was fully in charge of all operations of commerce in his mission where it pertained to the Indians. The Indians had a legal standing similar to that of minors today, not considered as "adults" able to conduct their own businesses, thus the padres had to act as the "legal guardians" of the Indians, especially since the Indians owned nothing.

Don Jose' le gringo de la Mancha also wrote

As for Jesuit mining openly in South America, but supposedly not in North America, this was due entirely to the rulings of the council of the Indies who were the direct representatives of the King , they made the rules and advised him directly.
Why the two different groups had such divergent basic ideas on the Mining is questionable. For example why did the king order against mining, not once but various times when the Jesuits were freely mining everywhere else in the known world except North America, and continued to do so ?.

I would suggest perhaps a re-read of the Royal edicts concerning religious operating mines amigo, which was openly flaunted by not just the Jesuits but apparently almost all Orders including nuns had a hand in it, in one way or another. I do not have them at hand, but think the orders may have applied to all of Spanish America, perhaps even in the Philippines.


I look forward to the rest of your post,
Oroblanco

 

[sailaway]

Here you can see the chimera (Lion, Dragon, Goat ) and Orb
The Mina Virgon is on the Lion
The Orb drains batteries so anything you take there is dead before you get there.
I read a story about the Chimera and orb from world war one in the Philippines. It said it was fictional but yet here we see one. It was a story about the expulsion of the Spanish. I was wondering if they found ancient technology in Egypt and this is still out in the superstitions after the padres who were all killed by the Apache and there before Padre Kino had arrived. Namely a Edge-bonded surface acoustic wave transducer array. Black Orbs are associated with particle accelerators today.
http://www.ondacorp.com/images/EdgeBondedSurfaceAcousticWave.pdf

 

[cactusjumper]

Roy,

"Certainly your evidence supports the argument that statue is, and always was intended to be of Junipero Serra, however where did this story come from? Why is not Serra's name engraved below it, to remove all question? Why did this church decide to honor a Franciscan, Serra? Can you show other Jesuit churches with statues honoring Franciscans? This in itself is odd."
___________________________________

I will answer your questions in order, as best I can:

I don't know who started the rumor that the statue of Father Serra was originally Father Rocha, but imagine it was someone trying to create a new history for a book they were writing. I won't mention anyone's name, but there was a fledgling writer trying to tie Rocha to the Superstitions. That was many years ago, and we are all still waiting for his book. I will try to be first in line to buy it.

The only people to question the assertion that the statue is of Father Serra, are those who believe in vast Jesuits (Superstition Mountain) treasures. Some can be found on this site and I once counted myself among them. I doubt, in 1959, the builders found engraving Father Serra's name in the statue was necessary.

I have explained the connection between this particular church and the Franciscan Order, as well as the Jesuit founder's respect, and association, with the Franciscans.

I don't know about other Jesuit Churches honoring Franciscans, in general, but believe you might find some that would pay some respect to recognized Franciscan Saints, and to Father Serra in particular. I don't find any value in seeking out the answer to that question. You or deducer, on the other hand, might find it of value.

If I have missed some of your other questions, please ask them again. I have been, somewhat, out of sorts lately.

Take care my friend,

Joe

 

[deducer]

I don't know about other Jesuit Churches honoring Franciscans, in general, but believe you might find some that would pay some respect to recognized Franciscan Saints, and to Father Serra in particular. I don't find any value in seeking out the answer to that question. You or deducer, on the other hand, might find it of value.

If you make a statement, then the burden is on you to prove it.

If you state that there are examples of Jesuit churches honoring Franciscans, then the burden is on you to back that statement up by providing specific examples, not Roy or me.

FYI, Serra isn't a saint. He did pass the third step of canonization in 1988 by being beatified by John Paul II. It is doubtful that he will achieve the last step towards canonization because of the accusations brought against him of mistreatment of Indians when he was in charge.

 

[cactusjumper]

If you make a statement, then the burden is on you to prove it.

If you state that there are examples of Jesuit churches honoring Franciscans, then the burden is on you to back that statement up by providing specific examples, not Roy or me.

FYI, Serra isn't a saint. He did pass the third step of canonization in 1988 by being beatified by John Paul II. It is doubtful that he will achieve the last step towards canonization because of the accusations brought against him of mistreatment of Indians when he was in charge.

deducer,

I feel no "burden" to prove anything to you. I did not say that Father Serra was a Saint. That's your reading of my post, tainted by your own ill feelings towards me.

Here is one church that you might just agree is very important to the Jesuits:

http://www.sfxavier.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2013/02/Entire-Tour-Guide-Reduced.pdf

Since you are the one who thinks it so important that I prove points, that I only suggest may be true, I will leave it to you to prove me wrong.

Good luck,

Joe Ribaudo

 

[Oroblanco]

Sailaway wrote

Here you can see the chimera (Lion, Dragon, Goat ) and Orb

I am sorry but I can not pick out any of those features, it looks like a rocky hillside to me?

Sailaway also wrote

The Mina Virgon is on the Lion

Do you have any evidence to prove that long-lost silver mine, which had a hilltop or ledge blasted down onto it, is there? I don't see anything to suggest this is the case, nor even if this is the right distance from the mission church.

Sailaway also wrote

The Orb drains batteries so anything you take there is dead before you get there.

Rather a strange thing, perhaps old style mechanical cameras might be a better choice there?

Cactusjumper wrote

Roy,


___________________________________

I will answer your questions in order, as best I can:

The only people to question the assertion that the statue is of Father Serra, are those who believe in vast Jesuits (Superstition Mountain) treasures. Some can be found on this site and I once counted myself among them.

I doubt, in 1959, the builders found engraving Father Serra's name in the statue was necessary.

I have explained the connection between this particular church and the Franciscan Order, as well as the Jesuit founder's respect, and association, with the Franciscans.

I don't know about other Jesuit Churches honoring Franciscans, in general, but believe you might find some that would pay some respect to recognized Franciscan Saints, and to Father Serra in particular. I don't find any value in seeking out the answer to that question. You or deducer, on the other hand, might find it of value.

If I have missed some of your other questions, please ask them again. I have been, somewhat, out of sorts lately.

I have questioned the identification of that statue as Serra, and do not believe there are "vast" Jesuit treasures in the Superstition mountains, nor have I ever made that assertion. I believe I already stated that some Franciscan mission churches have a visual 'nod' to the Jesuits as can be seen in the mission at Tumacacori and makes sense since the original missions were founded by Jesuits, but since this particular church in question was not founded by the Franciscans, it does seem unusual to honor Serra as opposed to other Jesuit figures.

The questions are now a page or three back, I don't see any point in repeating them. Sorry to hear you have not been up to par lately, hope you are back to full bore ASAP. Take it easy amigo and don't over-do things for a while.

Oroblanco

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Gentlemen, I posted an article on the present Pope adopting a Franciscan name 'in a political play' to heal the long standing rift between the Jesuits and the Franciscans

Twasn't there this moring and I had wiped my board clean when I closed down last night, so I have no Idea where I found ir, so accept it for what it is worth, but it akes complete sense to me, which means no precedet has been estblished.

Incidentally has any reciprocal effort ever been found??


don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Springfield]

Gentlemen, I posted an article on the present Pope adopting a Franciscan name 'in a political play' to heal the long standing rift between the Jesuits and the Franciscans ...
don Jose de La Mancha

The world doesn't care about that. It appears that his task is universal damage control and image repair - try to get some butts back on the pews.

 

[deducer]

deducer,

I feel no "burden" to prove anything to you.

Since you are the one who thinks it so important that I prove points, that I only suggest may be true, I will leave it to you to prove me wrong.

In regard to the above two statements, you certainly have no obligations to do so, but when you make statements such as the below:

Can you tell us the source for the above article. Was it found in an official church document?

You do have an obligation in that you should hold yourself to the same standard that you extend to others. I understand that you have a very extensive history of researching this subject, and certainly have spent many more years at it than I, but as I have mentioned before it is not only fair and ethical, but also helpful to cite sources not just to back your statements but to provide further avenues of research in that you share your resources with everyone on this board, thereby making it accessible to them.

It also is not helpful when you post like this:

I don't know who started the rumor that the statue of Father Serra was originally Father Rocha, but imagine it was someone trying to create a new history for a book they were writing.

If you or anyone read the origin of how that statue came to be thought as a likeness of Fr. Rojas, there is a strong likelihood that it did not start as a rumor (unless three people conspired together to spread this rumor). And unless you can prove that there was devious intent to craft this rumor and spread it, I don't think there's really any ground for you to imply something like this.

My approach to this forum is that everyone's ideas, theories, or proposition in this thread and this forum has equal merit, no matter how crazy or farfetched they may seem to me. Naturally the burden is on them to make a realistic argument for their theory or idea, or to cite sources to back them up, or they won't be taken seriously, but even then there still isn't ground to shoot them down or dismiss them so quickly.

Who knows.. a valuable clue or insight could be hidden in one of the many theories posted on this thread or forum.

 

[sailaway]

For those that want an answer to proof then see the last post by me in Survey of Mina Virgon in Member Hunts.

 

[somehiker]

The Encyclopedia Americana (1920)/Pious Fund of California - Wikisource, the free online library

The two bookends of the pious fund, the expulsion and suppression were Kino and Serra.
Could be that's the story behind the statues.....?

A review of the discussion at DUSA also gives further insight to the Rojas/Serra confusion.

 

[cactusjumper]

In regard to the above two statements, you certainly have no obligations to do so, but when you make statements such as the below:



You do have an obligation in that you should hold yourself to the same standard that you extend to others. I understand that you have a very extensive history of researching this subject, and certainly have spent many more years at it than I, but as I have mentioned before it is not only fair and ethical, but also helpful to cite sources not just to back your statements but to provide further avenues of research in that you share your resources with everyone on this board, thereby making it accessible to them.

It also is not helpful when you post like this:



If you or anyone read the origin of how that statue came to be thought as a likeness of Fr. Rojas, there is a strong likelihood that it did not start as a rumor (unless three people conspired together to spread this rumor). And unless you can prove that there was devious intent to craft this rumor and spread it, I don't think there's really any ground for you to imply something like this.

My approach to this forum is that everyone's ideas, theories, or proposition in this thread and this forum has equal merit, no matter how crazy or farfetched they may seem to me. Naturally the burden is on them to make a realistic argument for their theory or idea, or to cite sources to back them up, or they won't be taken seriously, but even then there still isn't ground to shoot them down or dismiss them so quickly.

Who knows.. a valuable clue or insight could be hidden in one of the many theories posted on this thread or forum.

deducer,

Each time one of my old "friends" from DUSA comes over here and immediately starts baiting me, even though they use a new name, it's the same game.

People here know me, or we have exchanged posts or email for years. I still identify myself as Joe Ribaudo. You are an unknown, because you can't say what your real name is.

When you come here and start quoting Jim Hatt or Azmula, it's obvious that you are not a friend of mine. I never hid my feelings about either man. Thing is, I never hid who I was or backed away from the truth. Some people may find that offensive and seek to bring me down with snide remarks or baseless accusations.

When I say "I think" or "It may be" or,

"I don't know who started the rumor that the statue of Father Serra was originally Father Rocha, but imagine it was someone trying to create a new history for a book they were writing."

It should be obvious to anyone, I am only offering an opinion. If you don't like my opinions......Ignore them.

I can't attribute motives for people who may have made up, or lied about which priest may be depicted in the statue. On the other hand, I can offer an opinion as to what may have motivated them.

Good luck,

Joe Ribaudo

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

G'd morning Sprinfgfield You posted --> butts back on the pews
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Butts ? pews ? hmmmmm Ya mean no beans before mass? or? good one.

Don Jose de La Mancha ( el sicko humor )

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Joe, Deducer, are ya sure one of your ancestors didn't get funny with a mule ?? I know that neither of you are ORISH so relax.

I, above all, cannot give any sources, except for myself, since I personally developed them or put two and two together --Even today Wickie doesn't accept 'my' data, but does that of Dobie.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[deducer]

The Encyclopedia Americana (1920)/Pious Fund of California - Wikisource, the free online library

The two bookends of the pious fund, the expulsion and suppression were Kino and Serra.
Could be that's the story behind the statues.....?

A review of the discussion at DUSA also gives further insight to the Rojas/Serra confusion.

That is very interesting. I did read that post, which led me to consider the theory that I had posted earlier, in that I wonder if the priest who told the story to Wright may have mistook the statue for being Rojas, and let slip a story he wasn't supposed to share?

 

[deducer]

deducer,

Each time one of my old "friends" from DUSA comes over here and immediately starts baiting me, even though they use a new name, it's the same game.

People here know me, or we have exchanged posts or email for years. I still identify myself as Joe Ribaudo. You are an unknown, because you can't say what your real name is.

When you come here and start quoting Jim Hatt or Azmula, it's obvious that you are not a friend of mine. I never hid my feelings about either man. Thing is, I never hid who I was or backed away from the truth. Some people may find that offensive and seek to bring me down with snide remarks or baseless accusations.

When I say "I think" or "It may be" or,

"I don't know who started the rumor that the statue of Father Serra was originally Father Rocha, but imagine it was someone trying to create a new history for a book they were writing."

It should be obvious to anyone, I am only offering an opinion. If you don't like my opinions......Ignore them.

I can't attribute motives for people who may have made up, or lied about which priest may be depicted in the statue. On the other hand, I can offer an opinion as to what may have motivated them.

Good luck,

Joe Ribaudo

I know neither Jim Hatt or Azmula, having never met them. Jim Hatt passed away before I ever learned of the stones.

It still remains that if you expect others to reveal their sources or cite sources, you, yourself, should be held to the same standard. That's fair, don't you think?

 

[cactusjumper]

I know neither Jim Hatt or Azmula, having never met them. Jim Hatt passed away before I ever learned of the stones.

It still remains that if you expect others to reveal their sources or cite sources, you, yourself, should be held to the same standard. That's fair, don't you think?

deducer,

There is no single source for an opinion, usually. My opinions are a melding of the knowledge acquired through decades of research and knowing the people I am talking about. If you don't know the people who started this story, how can you vouch for their truthfulness?

The difference between you and I, is that I ask for sources, you demand them.

It is fair to expect sources when you (politely) ask for them. It does not follow that they will be supplied. I might ask a second time, but I don't believe I badger folks for them.

A few people have pointed out that you are off base here with me, and more have said the same thing in private. Take a hint and ignore me.

Good luck,

Joe Ribaudo

 

[somehiker]

That is very interesting. I did read that post, which led me to consider the theory that I had posted earlier, in that I wonder if the priest who told the story to Wright may have mistook the statue for being Rojas, and let slip a story he wasn't supposed to share?

I think that's probably the case. History often comes in differing versions.... one for private and one for public.
And sometimes those who are not infallible get the pieces mixed up. More so as time marches on.
I see no problem rationalizing either version, and don't see the display itself as being indicative of minimal or especially any "vast" treasure accumulated and concealed by Jesuits or Franciscans. Roxas built a church at Arispe, which I am sure he equipped with a bell, so it wouldn't be out of place for a statue of him to feature both bell and church were the Jesuits inclined to honour him with such. That they haven't simply suggests a lack of recognition on their part IMO, perhaps because he was one who helped to turn out the lights on an era they would sooner was forgotten. Perhaps the story related to the posters on DUSA was a muddied version of something related to the contents of this letter from Roxas.... https://uair.arizona.edu/item/217866...
Although Bacoachi is located about 70 mi to the NE of Arispe, rather than to the SE where the "bell" story placed the mines.

Regards:SH.

 

[deducer]

deducer,

There is no single source for an opinion, usually. My opinions are a melding of the knowledge acquired through decades of research and knowing the people I am talking about. If you don't know the people who started this story, how can you vouch for their truthfulness?

Like I said, I don't know the posters that you have (or had) issues with, but as I mentioned before, I give everyone the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are telling the truth unless shown otherwise.