Topic: Scientist confirms inexplicable nature of Our Lady of Guadalupe image

[Athanasios]

It could be a creation of the devil though ...

Within 40 years of Our Lady's appearance, the bloody human sacrifices of the Aztecs (which used to murder hundreds and thousands of people a day at times to their gods/goddesses) came to an end and the Indian population converted to Christianity. You should read a good history on Guadalupe, such as the Wonder of Guadalupe.

Some of the extraordinary things about the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe:

- The eyes behave like living eyes, contracting and dilating with light and reflecting images like real eyes. They also show the image of that encounter of Juan Diego at the Bishops residence.
- The stars on her cloak are the exact positions of the stars that were viewable at that location in Mexico at that time.
- The image is not on the cloak, but is suspended a fraction of an inch above the tilma
- The image defies copying; that is no copy, whether by hand or photograph, can duplicate the glorious splendor of the image in person.
- Many features, such as the eyes, are too fine of details to be painted on so coarse a material as the tilma.
- The tilma, made of coarse cactus fiber (its a poor peasant work apron) can only survive at best 40 years -- this one has survived over ten times as long.
- No evidence of artistic creation, such as sketching, brush strokes, over-coats, has been detected even in using state of the art computer and photographic analysis.
- The apparent size and color qualities change on distance from the tilma.
- etc.

I just can't believe that the Blessed Theotokos would appear  as a Indian Pagan Goddess or resembles one just to convert the Indians to Christianity..

She didn't come as a pagan goddess, she appeared as an young Indian woman. She did lead the Indian population away from their snake gods and human sacrifice.

The people torture them selfs by walking on there knees to that shrine some times for miles ..

And Eastern Orthodoxy has never been known for any sort of above average asceticism.



FYI -- did you know that the original Our Lady of Guadalupe was a statue carved by Saint Luke that found its way to Spain.

[Douglas]

FYI -- did you know that the original Our Lady of Guadalupe was a statue carved by Saint Luke that found its way to Spain.

I seriously doubt that.

[John Larocque]

Here is Joe Nickell's investigation into this:
http://www.csicop.org/sb/2002-06/guadalupe.html

In 1985, forensic analyst John F. Fischer and I reported all of this evidence and more in "a folkloristic and iconographic investigation" of the Image of Guadalupe in Skeptical Inquirer. We also addressed some of the pseudoscience that the image has attracted. (For example, some claim to have discovered faces, including that of "Juan Diego" in the magnified weave of the Virgin's eyes-evidence of nothing more than the pious imagination's ability to perceive images, inkblot-like, in random shapes) (Nickell and Fischer 1985).

Recently our findings were confirmed when the Spanish-language magazine Proceso reported the results of a secret study of the Image of Guadalupe. It had been conducted - secretly - in 1982 by art restoration expert José Sol Rosales. Rosales examined the cloth with a stereomicroscope and observed that the canvas appeared to be a mixture of linen and hemp or cactus fiber. It had been prepared with a brush coat of white primer (calcium sulfate), and the image was then rendered in distemper (i.e., paint consisting of pigment, water, and a binding medium). The artist used a "very limited palette," the expert stated, consisting of black (from pine soot), white, blue, green, various earth colors ("tierras"), reds (including carmine), and gold. Rosales concluded that the image did not originate supernaturally but was instead the work of an artist who used the materials and methods of the sixteenth century (El Vaticano 2002).

In addition, new scholarship (e.g. Brading 2001) suggests that, while the image was painted not long after the Spanish conquest and was alleged to have miraculous powers, the pious legend of Mary's appearance to Juan Diego may date from the following century. Some Catholic scholars, including the former curator of the basilica Monsignor Guillermo Schulemburg, even doubt the historical existence of Juan Diego. Schulemburg said the canonization of Juan Diego would be the "recognition of a cult" (Nickell 1997).

However, the skeptics are apparently having little if any effect, and Pope John Paul II seems bent on canonizing "Juan Diego" who is as demonstrably popular among Mexican Catholics as he is, apparently, fictitious.

[Athanasios]

FYI -- did you know that the original Our Lady of Guadalupe was a statue carved by Saint Luke that found its way to Spain.

I seriously doubt that.

I know, I know, wikipedia, but still: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Guadalupe,_Extremadura

[Elpidophoros]

It's hard to imagine such kind of "a private devotion"exists in Orthodoxy,in which you can venerate some image neither proved nor venerated by the Church and in the Church.

Well, there are as many private devotions as there are Orthodox Christians. I don't think the Church has approved the private veneration of images of our teacher Confucius.

I also do not think that the Church has approved any kind(private or not)veneration of images(or more'traditional' way,not images, but only ‘神主’） of our great teacher Confucius. It's not the responsibility of the Church to judge such thing.Just like in other cultures,people show their respect towards flags or other symbols,without asking blessing from SF or church authority.

But the case of "Our Lady of Guadalupe" is completely different from the veneration of Confucius or national flag——no one say Confucius should be venerated as a christian saint or the Korean national flag(太極+四卦象）should be venerated as an christian symbol.But the image of "Our Lady of Guadalupe"supposed to be one icon of most holy Theotos in the view of it's venerators.

Furthermore,the veneration of Confucius or all kinds of traditional sinic 祭祀of聖賢are related to a prechristian philosophy which has nothing conflict with Orthodoxy. But he image of "Our Lady of Guadalupe"is related with one certain heresy,which is evil per se.

Practically,I do not see any problem to veneate 至聖先師大成孔子or亞聖孟子or復聖顏子or箕聖according to our tradition;but I'll never venerate any "lady"or"master"who reveal it's self by distrustful apparition(such phenomenon wildy exist in both sinic and korean folk religions),our teacher Confucius defined such thing as“怪力亂神”。

[PeterTheAleut]

I just can't believe that the Blessed Theotokos would appear  as a Indian Pagan Goddess or resembles one just to convert the Indians to Christianity..

She didn't come as a pagan goddess, she appeared as an young Indian woman. She did lead the Indian population away from their snake gods and human sacrifice.

The people torture them selfs by walking on there knees to that shrine some times for miles ..

And Eastern Orthodoxy has never been known for any sort of above average asceticism.

Like living life at the top of a pole (our pole sitters, a.k.a. stylites) or kneeling on a rock for 1000 consecutive nights, even through the debilitating pain of injuries suffered during a vicious robbery that left him almost dead (St. Seraphim of Sarov).  Yes, stashko, I think our own Tradition has examples of the extreme asceticism you just ridiculed.

[stashko]

I just can't believe that the Blessed Theotokos would appear  as a Indian Pagan Goddess or resembles one just to convert the Indians to Christianity..

She didn't come as a pagan goddess, she appeared as an young Indian woman. She did lead the Indian population away from their snake gods and human sacrifice.

The people torture them selfs by walking on there knees to that shrine some times for miles ..

And Eastern Orthodoxy has never been known for any sort of above average asceticism.

Like living life at the top of a pole (our pole sitters, a.k.a. stylites) or kneeling on a rock for 1000 consecutive nights, even through the debilitating pain of injuries suffered during a vicious robbery that left him almost dead (St. Seraphim of Sarov).  Yes, stashko, I think our own Tradition has examples of the extreme asceticism you just ridiculed.

I don't buy it ,,the Ascticism that the blessed saints practice isn't to appease an angry God Or Goddess but to disipline themselfs in taking control over their body that there spirit may rule it...

the mexicans and tourists that go there will punish them selfs silly ,by doing all kinds of sever torcher thinking there Pagan Goddess will grant there prayers and grant whatever their seeking by this abuse........

[Andrew21091]

I don't see any problem with having the painting in the Monastery of St. Anthony in Mexico. I don't think it has to be removed. I don't see the Russian Church running to remove all the heretical paintings from Christ the Savior Cathedral or any other church for that matter which have absolutely no Orthodox origin same with some paintings I've seen in Serbia also. And their are a ton of churches that have Davinci's Last Supper in it; where is that in Orthodox tradition? Our Lady of Guadalupe is a symbol for the Mexican people and if they want to keep it then fine if it brings them closer to God.

[Schultz]

I don't buy it ,,the Ascticism that the blessed saints practice isn't to appease an angry God Or Goddess but to disipline themselfs in taking control over their body that there spirit may rule it...

the mexicans and tourists that go there will punish them selfs silly ,by doing all kinds of sever torcher thinking there Pagan Goddess will grant there prayers and grant whatever their seeking by this abuse........

And you, of course, have the clairvoyance of an elder to know what is in the heart of "the mexicans and tourists that go there"?  What proof do you have that they do these things out of a desire to "appeace an angry God Or Goddess" and not out of some sort of a desire to bring their bodies in line with the spirit, ala St. Paul?

Until you can present some proof of your accusations, you, my friend, are just bearing false witness...or maybe just baring your omnipresent anti-Catholic sentiments once again?

[lubeltri]

Here is Joe Nickell's investigation into this:
http://www.csicop.org/sb/2002-06/guadalupe.html

Are you a regular reader of the magazine of this organization? As I'm sure you are aware, the Committee on Skeptical Inquiry was founded and is run by Paul Kurtz, the so-called "father of secular humanism." I shudder to think how his atheist operation "debunks" the existence of Jesus Christ or other foundational beliefs of Christianity. Might there be some bias/agenda here?

If everything has to be "proven" by "science," what is the point of believing anything?

[Robb]

I don't know much about this image (other then the fact that the RCC in America constantly pushes it on anglo parishes in an effort to appear PC and acceptin g to Mexican migrants). 

It would be kind of incorrect however for the Orthodox to venerate an image held in the esteem of the post schism RCC.  The OCC should be faithful to her own traditions and religious culture.  Even the RCC Vatican II called for Eastern Christians not to be latinized.

[John Larocque]

I'm aware of the slippery slope argument, but also adhere to a healthy skepticism. This was a mechanism by which I was able to discard most of the phenomenon associated with various Marian apparitions, weeping statues, icons and what not. None of these are things which are endemic to historic Christianity, and yet whenever you look at (popular) Catholicism, it is rife with it. So where does this phenomenon come from? I don't think that a naturalistic answer is the wrong answer. In the past I have admired the work of the Bollandist fathers and the above-mentioned Herbert Thurston, whose work affected the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia and the Revised Butler's Lives of the Saints.

Take for example the visions ascribed to Teresa of Avila or other ascetics, for example. Where do these visions come from? Do they come from God or Satan? Or is it the fact that you've subjected your body to various forms of asceticism, and that your mode of prayer creates the environment from which visions come? And then you treat these visions as authentic as a result of this bodily punishment. This approach allowed me to deconstruct or place sufficient doubt against the heavenly origins of many visions. Modern instances of inedia phenomenon (people who starve themselves and claim to live off only the Eucharistic hosts) have proven themselves to be frauds.

I do not equate skepticism with full-blown secular humanism. I am aware of the connection, but skepticism is a method, not a faith system.

With respect to Juan Diego, I simply don't believe that he ever existed, and the Catholic Church erred in canonizing him. And that there isn't anything supernatural about the Guadalupe image itself. I am sure that others do, but I do not..

[Jetavan]

Even the RCC Vatican II called for Eastern Christians not to be latinized.

Yeah, but there's nothing to prevent Eastern Christians from being Latino-ized.

[PeterTheAleut]

I just can't believe that the Blessed Theotokos would appear  as a Indian Pagan Goddess or resembles one just to convert the Indians to Christianity..

She didn't come as a pagan goddess, she appeared as an young Indian woman. She did lead the Indian population away from their snake gods and human sacrifice.

The people torture them selfs by walking on there knees to that shrine some times for miles ..

And Eastern Orthodoxy has never been known for any sort of above average asceticism.

Like living life at the top of a pole (our pole sitters, a.k.a. stylites) or kneeling on a rock for 1000 consecutive nights, even through the debilitating pain of injuries suffered during a vicious robbery that left him almost dead (St. Seraphim of Sarov).  Yes, stashko, I think our own Tradition has examples of the extreme asceticism you just ridiculed.

I don't buy it ,,the Ascticism that the blessed saints practice isn't to appease an angry God Or Goddess but to disipline themselfs in taking control over their body that there spirit may rule it...

the mexicans and tourists that go there will punish them selfs silly ,by doing all kinds of sever torcher thinking there Pagan Goddess will grant there prayers and grant whatever their seeking by this abuse........

How do you know their motivations?  Have you been blessed with the gift of telepathy?

[Andrew21091]

It would be kind of incorrect however for the Orthodox to venerate an image held in the esteem of the post schism RCC.  The OCC should be faithful to her own traditions and religious culture.  Even the RCC Vatican II called for Eastern Christians not to be latinized.

I agree that the Orthodox should stick to it's own traditions but what do you say about the Western paintings and so called icons that adorn the churches of Russia such as Christ the Savior in Moscow? Those are definitely not traditional in Orthodoxy since they were introduced by the Westernizations of Tsar Peter I. Our Lady of Guadalupe looks more like an icon than many of the Western paintings you see in many Orthodox churches today.

[LBK]

I agree that the Orthodox should stick to it's own traditions but what do you say about the Western paintings and so called icons that adorn the churches of Russia such as Christ the Savior in Moscow? Those are definitely not traditional in Orthodoxy since they were introduced by the Westernizations of Tsar Peter I. Our Lady of Guadalupe looks more like an icon than many of the Western paintings you see in many Orthodox churches today.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Neither the painting of the Trinity in the cupola of Christ the Savior Cathedral, nor Our Lady of Guadelupe conform with Orthodox theology, doctrine, or iconographic canon.

[stashko]

I just can't believe that the Blessed Theotokos would appear  as a Indian Pagan Goddess or resembles one just to convert the Indians to Christianity..

She didn't come as a pagan goddess, she appeared as an young Indian woman. She did lead the Indian population away from their snake gods and human sacrifice.

The people torture them selfs by walking on there knees to that shrine some times for miles ..

And Eastern Orthodoxy has never been known for any sort of above average asceticism.

Like living life at the top of a pole (our pole sitters, a.k.a. stylites) or kneeling on a rock for 1000 consecutive nights, even through the debilitating pain of injuries suffered during a vicious robbery that left him almost dead (St. Seraphim of Sarov).  Yes, stashko, I think our own Tradition has examples of the extreme asceticism you just ridiculed.

I don't buy it ,,the Ascticism that the blessed saints practice isn't to appease an angry God Or Goddess but to disipline themselfs in taking control over their body that there spirit may rule it...

the mexicans and tourists that go there will punish them selfs silly ,by doing all kinds of sever torcher thinking there Pagan Goddess will grant there prayers and grant whatever their seeking by this abuse........

How do you know their motivations?  Have you been blessed with the gift of telepathy?

  No! ...


Second Sight though,,, this is what i call it, I can tell things  like who will die also other things that my car was going to be hit i knew in what area and what part of the car was going to be damaged be fore it all happened... ...

[Robb]

It would be kind of incorrect however for the Orthodox to venerate an image held in the esteem of the post schism RCC.  The OCC should be faithful to her own traditions and religious culture.  Even the RCC Vatican II called for Eastern Christians not to be latinized.

I agree that the Orthodox should stick to it's own traditions but what do you say about the Western paintings and so called icons that adorn the churches of Russia such as Christ the Savior in Moscow? Those are definitely not traditional in Orthodoxy since they were introduced by the Westernization's of Tsar Peter I. Our Lady of Guadalupe looks more like an icon than many of the Western paintings you see in many Orthodox churches today.

I see nothing wrong with the use of the Westernized style of Iconography popular in 19th century Orthodoxy.  The Ikon's are still Ikon's regardless of the way that they are written.  The older, more Byzantine ones certainly should have a pride of place within Orthodoxy, but not at the expense of refusing to allow different styles of Iconography to be introduced and used.

I'm actually a fan of Western style Iconography.  Many of the Orthodox Churches in America that date from the late 19th to mid 20th century have these type of Ikon's.  I know that there are purist who would insist that they be painted over with more "liturgically correct" Ikon's, but I'm not for it.

[Schultz]

I just can't believe that the Blessed Theotokos would appear  as a Indian Pagan Goddess or resembles one just to convert the Indians to Christianity..

She didn't come as a pagan goddess, she appeared as an young Indian woman. She did lead the Indian population away from their snake gods and human sacrifice.

The people torture them selfs by walking on there knees to that shrine some times for miles ..

And Eastern Orthodoxy has never been known for any sort of above average asceticism.

Like living life at the top of a pole (our pole sitters, a.k.a. stylites) or kneeling on a rock for 1000 consecutive nights, even through the debilitating pain of injuries suffered during a vicious robbery that left him almost dead (St. Seraphim of Sarov).  Yes, stashko, I think our own Tradition has examples of the extreme asceticism you just ridiculed.

I don't buy it ,,the Ascticism that the blessed saints practice isn't to appease an angry God Or Goddess but to disipline themselfs in taking control over their body that there spirit may rule it...

the mexicans and tourists that go there will punish them selfs silly ,by doing all kinds of sever torcher thinking there Pagan Goddess will grant there prayers and grant whatever their seeking by this abuse........

How do you know their motivations?  Have you been blessed with the gift of telepathy?

  No! ...


Second Sight though,,, this is what i call it, I can tell things  like who will die also other things that my car was going to be hit i knew in what area and what part of the car was going to be damaged be fore it all happened... ...

Second Sight, huh?

In Mexico, they usually call people like you Brujos.

[Andrew21091]

It would be kind of incorrect however for the Orthodox to venerate an image held in the esteem of the post schism RCC.  The OCC should be faithful to her own traditions and religious culture.  Even the RCC Vatican II called for Eastern Christians not to be latinized.

I agree that the Orthodox should stick to it's own traditions but what do you say about the Western paintings and so called icons that adorn the churches of Russia such as Christ the Savior in Moscow? Those are definitely not traditional in Orthodoxy since they were introduced by the Westernization's of Tsar Peter I. Our Lady of Guadalupe looks more like an icon than many of the Western paintings you see in many Orthodox churches today.

I see nothing wrong with the use of the Westernized style of Iconography popular in 19th century Orthodoxy.  The Ikon's are still Ikon's regardless of the way that they are written.  The older, more Byzantine ones certainly should have a pride of place within Orthodoxy, but not at the expense of refusing to allow different styles of Iconography to be introduced and used.

I'm actually a fan of Western style Iconography.  Many of the Orthodox Churches in America that date from the late 19th to mid 20th century have these type of Ikon's.  I know that there are purist who would insist that they be painted over with more "liturgically correct" Ikon's, but I'm not for it.

I don't mind Western style icons for the most part either but they were an innovation borrowed from the West so if churches have those then why can't the Mexican Orthodox keep Our Lady of Guadalupe? The Western stuff I really have a problem with are the Trinity icons such as the one in the dome of Christ the Savior in Moscow which depicts God the Father with the Christ child and a dove and such depiction is heretical.

[Robb]

There's a difference betwen a western STYLE Ikon (which is still of an Orthodox character just expressed from a Western artistic style) and an actual Western devotion which is not Orthodox in nature.

The OL of G image is connected to a miracle which is not sanctioned by any OC that I'm aware of.  Futher, the whole Guadalupe story took place outside the visible bonds of the Orthodox Church.  Why should Orthodox venerate an image that was used to convert millions of Indians to Church which is outside Orthodoxy?  By doing this, wouldn't we admit that God wanted people to join a non Orthodox Church and thus reject the faith we believe to be the only true one in existance on this Earth?

[lubeltri]

It would be kind of incorrect however for the Orthodox to venerate an image held in the esteem of the post schism RCC.  The OCC should be faithful to her own traditions and religious culture.  Even the RCC Vatican II called for Eastern Christians not to be latinized.

Such is true. Totally understandable. Our Lady has appeared to you folks too---so clearly she desired for you to focus on what she revealed to you.

[Pilgrim]

Anyway, who says that the Holy Theotokos cannot appear to pagan or non-Orthodox peoples to spread the gospel? Is she bound to appear only before Orthodox?

[stashko]

Anyway, who says that the Holy Theotokos cannot appear to pagan or non-Orthodox peoples to spread the gospel? Is she bound to appear only before Orthodox?

Really why did she appear in the semblance of a pagan Goddess so that the people could identify with... isn't that kind of sneaky for conversion ....
Even the special i watched about that mentioned it ,i believe it was on a EWTN special...

Stick with the ancient holy Apostolic way given to us ,stop chasing after new revelation in shadows, visions ,Apparitions that speak and preach .....
Thank God For Orthodoxy we don't need shades ,spooks demons or whatever taking us off the ancient tried and true path of salvation....

[HandmaidenofGod]

I don't buy it ,,the Ascticism that the blessed saints practice isn't to appease an angry God Or Goddess but to disipline themselfs in taking control over their body that there spirit may rule it...

the mexicans and tourists that go there will punish them selfs silly ,by doing all kinds of sever torcher thinking there Pagan Goddess will grant there prayers and grant whatever their seeking by this abuse........

Then perhaps you should read about the ascetic practices surrounding the icon of PANAGIA PROUSIOTISSA.

The Icon awaits the crowds of pilgrims who flock there from the 15th to the 22nd of August, which are the days of the feast. In olden times the quiet of the mountains was disturbed by the voices of groups of people going to the feast. They had to walk on goat paths, among ancient chestnut, fir and plane trees. The journey was 15 hours long and the people carried baskets of food and bundles of blankets balanced on their heads. Riding on horseback was reserved for the old and the infirm. Some of them could be seen walking barefoot or crawling on their knees, fulfilling a promise given for a miraculous healing. The pilgrims would go there, light their candles of faith and stay overnight in the monastery's guesthouse or out in the open. In the morning people would attend a very early church service and then depart hoping to return next year.

Source: http://www.panagiaprousiotissa.org/iconhistory.html

[ozgeorge]

Is anyone else troubled by the quality of the "science" in the OP?
The scientist Dr. Orozco begins by claiming the image on the tilma  “is completely beyond any scientific explanation.” Sounds credible, no? After all, it's coming from a scientist. However, he also states: “Our Lady visited Mexico 478 years ago, but she remains there to give Her Love, Her Mercy and Her Care to anyone who needs it, and to bring Her Son, Jesus Christ to everyone who receives Him.” Did he scientifically prove this too?
And I question the quality of his research and scholarship when Dr. Orozco says of the plant fibres the tilma is made of: "the famous Mexican researcher Ernesto Sodi Pallares said that the species of the agave was Agave popotule Zacc but we don’t know how he reached this conclusion.”
Isn't science about demonstratable, measurable and repeatable results and data? If we don't know how someone reached a conclusion, then we don't know whether that conclusion is correct, accurate or true.

[Athanasios]

The scientist Dr. Orozco begins by claiming the image on the tilma  “is completely beyond any scientific explanation.” Sounds credible, no? After all, it's coming from a scientist. However, he also states: “Our Lady visited Mexico 478 years ago, but she remains there to give Her Love, Her Mercy and Her Care to anyone who needs it, and to bring Her Son, Jesus Christ to everyone who receives Him.” Did he scientifically prove this too?

Why is the assumption that for a scientist to be credible, he must be an atheist -- and making any sort of religious statement that doesn't ridicule God or the faithful is absolute taboo?!

And I question the quality of his research and scholarship when Dr. Orozco says of the plant fibres the tilma is made of: "the famous Mexican researcher Ernesto Sodi Pallares said that the species of the agave was Agave popotule Zacc but we don’t know how he reached this conclusion.”
Isn't science about demonstratable, measurable and repeatable results and data? If we don't know how someone reached a conclusion, then we don't know whether that conclusion is correct, accurate or true.

Do we even know if this researcher performed any decisive tests? It could be an expert's educated guess.

[HandmaidenofGod]

The scientist Dr. Orozco begins by claiming the image on the tilma  “is completely beyond any scientific explanation.” Sounds credible, no? After all, it's coming from a scientist. However, he also states: “Our Lady visited Mexico 478 years ago, but she remains there to give Her Love, Her Mercy and Her Care to anyone who needs it, and to bring Her Son, Jesus Christ to everyone who receives Him.” Did he scientifically prove this too?

Why is the assumption that for a scientist to be credible, he must be an atheist -- and making any sort of religious statement that doesn't ridicule God or the faithful is absolute taboo?!

The scientist's faith or lack of faith has nothing to do with the Scientific Method. No facts or figures or lab results were provided in the report. He did not state how he proved or disproved Our Lady visiting Mexico 478 years ago.

[Andrew21091]

There's a difference betwen a western STYLE Ikon (which is still of an Orthodox character just expressed from a Western artistic style) and an actual Western devotion which is not Orthodox in nature.

What do you say about heretical icons of the Trinity which are not Orthodox in nature but can be found in Orthodox churches around the world? Those are Western in nature and are not Orthodox at all when God the Father is depicted holding Christ.

Dome of Christ the Savior in Moscow:


I have a just as much as a problem with that than OL of Guadalupe.

I do agree with you though that the story connected with the image is something that we cannot accept.

[Robb]

This same Ikon of the Trinity was also on the interior dome of the Russian cathedral in Shanghai, the same one which was consecrated and served in by St John Maximovitch (it is now a French restaurant if I'm not mistaken).  St John did not have any problems serving in a church which had this image in it.  Why then should we make a big issue of of it?  Everyone has their own preferences for Iconography, music, and ritual when it comes to religion.  Why can't we just respect each others taste?

[LBK]

This same Ikon of the Trinity was also on the interior dome of the Russian cathedral in Shanghai, the same one which was consecrated and served in by St John Maximovitch (it is now a French restaurant if I'm not mistaken).  St John did not have any problems serving in a church which had this image in it.  Why then should we make a big issue of of it?  Everyone has their own preferences for Iconography, music, and ritual when it comes to religion.  Why can't we just respect each others taste?

Robb, the criticism of the image of the Trinity at Christ the Savior and in Shanghai as uncanonical has nothing to do with esthetics or artistic preference or taste, but everything to do with proper theology and doctrine. Canons from ecumenical and synodal councils abound in their prohibition of this sort of image, yet, for any number of reasons, such images continue to be painted. Undeniably great saint that he was, St John nevertheless erred in allowing such an image to be painted in the cathedral in Shanghai.

[Pilgrim]

Pardon my ignorance of iconography, but what is heretical about the icon in the cathedral?

and Stashko, she did not appear (if it was her) as a pagan goddess, but as an aztec woman.

[Michael L]

Icons depicting God the Father do not conform to the teachings of the Seventh Ecumenical Council. God the Father is invisible and not able to be depicted. Since Christ was born of the indescribable Father, the Father cannot have an image.

But icons such as the Ancient of Days icon depict God the Father as an old man with a white beard, sometimes at the top of other icons. Russian Trinity icons sometimes show Christ and the Father setting on two thrones with a dove between them.

Another icon, that depicts the Father, is the Paternity icon. It also depicts God the Father as an old man with a white beard with the young boy Jesus, sitting on his lap, holding a dove.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/God_the_Father#God_the_Father_in_iconography

It is an error to have God the Father depicted in an icon, but no worse than other canons being broken for the sake of local tradition such as kneeling on Sundays.

[Hamartolos]

I don't see the Russian Church running to remove all the heretical paintings from Christ the Savior Cathedral...

Many apologies for asking, but I am still learning as much as I can about Orthodoxy.  What heretical images are you speaking of?  I'm assuming the images appeared during USSR rule? 

[LBK]

I don't see the Russian Church running to remove all the heretical paintings from Christ the Savior Cathedral...

Many apologies for asking, but I am still learning as much as I can about Orthodoxy.  What heretical images are you speaking of?  I'm assuming the images appeared during USSR rule? 

No, images of God the Father as an old man first appeared in the Orthodox world since at least as far back as the 16th century, via western influences. It must be noted that the western church, having never adopted the canons and rulings of the Quinisext Ecumenical Council with regard to iconography, continued to perpetuate imagery through its religious art which is contrary to the doctrines and theology of the Orthodox Church. The images in Christ the Savior and Shanghai have nothing to do with the Soviet period or its influence.

[LBK]

Icons depicting God the Father do not conform to the teachings of the Seventh Ecumenical Council. God the Father is invisible and not able to be depicted. Since Christ was born of the indescribable Father, the Father cannot have an image.

But icons such as the Ancient of Days icon depict God the Father as an old man with a white beard, sometimes at the top of other icons. Russian Trinity icons sometimes show Christ and the Father setting on two thrones with a dove between them.

Another icon, that depicts the Father, is the Paternity icon. It also depicts God the Father as an old man with a white beard with the young boy Jesus, sitting on his lap, holding a dove.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/God_the_Father#God_the_Father_in_iconography

It is an error to have God the Father depicted in an icon, but no worse than other canons being broken for the sake of local tradition such as kneeling on Sundays.

There is a world of difference between an error involving pious custom and an error of expression of proper theology and doctrine. Iconography is not simply religious art. Apples and oranges.

[Andrew21091]

Everyone has their own preferences for Iconography, music, and ritual when it comes to religion.  Why can't we just respect each others taste?

That's my point. Some Mexican Orthodox taste may include the image of Out Lady of Guadalupe since it's probably an image they grew up with as did their parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc. I think condemning one and not the other is not right since they both came from Western influence. It is a matter of taste. If one respects the right of the Russians having their God the Father then why not also respect the right for Mexican Orthodox to have the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe which is an image so ingrained in Mexico's Christian history.

[LBK]

Once one becomes baptised into the Orthodox faith, one puts the "old man" aside, and becomes a "new man". Folk culture is all very well if it is not contrary to Orthodox doctrine and theology, but sentiments such as it's probably an image they grew up with as did their parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc.is not at all enough to justify the perpetuation of images such as OL of Guadelupe in Orthodox Churches.

One only needs to see the most unfortunate example of the New Skete monasteries who have continued to cling to their former denomination's customs, which include the liturgical veneration of non-Orthodox saints, and the painting on the interior walls of one of their churches figures who are not Orthodox Christians (there are a couple who are), and, in some cases, not even Roman Catholics. Haloes or no haloes, the non-Orthodox figures should not be there.

http://holytrinityorthodox.org/photos/new_skete.htm

[Andrew21091]

Once one becomes baptised into the Orthodox faith, one puts the "old man" aside, and becomes a "new man". Folk culture is all very well if it is not contrary to Orthodox doctrine and theology, but sentiments such as it's probably an image they grew up with as did their parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc.is not at all enough to justify the perpetuation of images such as OL of Guadelupe in Orthodox Churches.

I think the same argument could be made for the God the Father depictions in Orthodox churches as well since those depictions are contrary to Orthodox Tradition and canons yet they have been in Russia for so long, I don't see them going away the same thing goes for the Guadalupe image. You see what I'm getting at here? I'm not really advocating putting the image in churches but I don't have a problem if the Mexican Orthodox faithful want to keep it.

One only needs to see the most unfortunate example of the New Skete monasteries who have continued to cling to their former denomination's customs, which include the liturgical veneration of non-Orthodox saints, and the painting on the interior walls of one of their churches figures who are not Orthodox Christians (there are a couple who are), and, in some cases, not even Roman Catholics. Haloes or no haloes, the non-Orthodox figures should not be there.

http://holytrinityorthodox.org/photos/new_skete.htm

Oh don't get me started on New Skete, the frescos there are horrifying and so are a lot of their practices. There is a difference though since the image of Guadalupe is one of Mary which I don't see as the problem but there is a problem when you pick and choose saints that you want who are not Orthodox. If the Mexican Orthodox faithful keep the image of Guadalupe, fine, but if they celebrate a feast for it or Juan Diego then that is a problem but if they have the image there to remind them of the Christian heritage of Mexico then I don't see that much of a problem.

[LBK]

If the Mexican Orthodox faithful keep the image of Guadalupe, fine, but if they celebrate a feast for it or Juan Diego then that is a problem

My dear Andrew, you are missing a very large point. Even if a feast of OL of Guadelupe never eventuates (which it won't), iconography is, at its essence, liturgical as well as doctrinal. To have images in an Orthodox Church which do not have any basis in Orthodox doctrine, theology or liturgical tradition is simply wrong, no matter what "touchy-feely" spin anyone wants to put on it.

During Vespers and Matins, does not the priest at certain times circle the nave of the church, censing every icon? Ask yourself, what does this mean? Is this not a veneration of every saint and feast depicted on the walls (in mural, or as portable icons)? How, then, can the Guadelupe image, which is beyond question outside Orthodox tradition, and, to this day, has not been bestowed even a troparion or kontakion, let alone a Vespers and Matins service, be seen as fit to be present in an Orthodox church?

[PeterTheAleut]

The scientist Dr. Orozco begins by claiming the image on the tilma  “is completely beyond any scientific explanation.” Sounds credible, no? After all, it's coming from a scientist. However, he also states: “Our Lady visited Mexico 478 years ago, but she remains there to give Her Love, Her Mercy and Her Care to anyone who needs it, and to bring Her Son, Jesus Christ to everyone who receives Him.” Did he scientifically prove this too?

Why is the assumption that for a scientist to be credible, he must be an atheist -- and making any sort of religious statement that doesn't ridicule God or the faithful is absolute taboo?!

That's not what ozgeorge said.  In truth, there's nothing saying that the only credible scientists are those who don't believe in God.  A scientist who is also a Christian can still be credible as a scientist, and a scientist can even speak of God doing something without this automatically being a scientific statement.  What I DO read ozgeorge as saying is that truly scientific statements can be based only on proper scientific research and can neither make religious statements nor draw upon the influence of religious statements.

[mike]

Once one becomes baptised into the Orthodox faith, one puts the "old man" aside, and becomes a "new man". Folk culture is all very well if it is not contrary to Orthodox doctrine and theology, but sentiments such as it's probably an image they grew up with as did their parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc.is not at all enough to justify the perpetuation of images such as OL of Guadelupe in Orthodox Churches.

I don't think folk culture should be abandoned as it through ages was used to spread Christian faith and root it people's mind's. Recalling to non-Orthodox practises and beliefs was started by St. Paul and I don't think it should have been stopped. I also don't think that Theotokos pictured in Western style and without Christ is more non-canonical than 5 or 6 Bishops who rule over the Parishes in Mexico.

If the Mexican Orthodox faithful keep the image of Guadalupe, fine, but if they celebrate a feast for it or Juan Diego then that is a problem

My dear Andrew, you are missing a very large point. Even if a feast of OL of Guadelupe never eventuates (which it won't), iconography is, at its essence, liturgical as well as doctrinal. To have images in an Orthodox Church which do not have any basis in Orthodox doctrine, theology or liturgical tradition is simply wrong, no matter what "touchy-feely" spin anyone wants to put on it.

It's not the only one thing non-canonical. Thousand of Churches have non-canonical images, there are hundreds of practises which are against canons, but are common in modern Church's life. If such an image would encourage Mexicans to converting to Orthodoxy I would be first to vote for placing it in every Church in Mexico. Even St. Paul started from mentioning Greek gods while preaching in Athens.

During Vespers and Matins, does not the priest at certain times circle the nave of the church, censing every icon? Ask yourself, what does this mean? Is this not a veneration of every saint and feast depicted on the walls (in mural, or as portable icons)? How, then, can the Guadelupe image, which is beyond question outside Orthodox tradition, and, to this day, has not been bestowed even a troparion or kontakion, let alone a Vespers and Matins service, be seen as fit to be present in an Orthodox church?

What prevents us from writing a troparion, kontakion or even an akathyst to that icon?

[stashko]

Once one becomes baptised into the Orthodox faith, one puts the "old man" aside, and becomes a "new man". Folk culture is all very well if it is not contrary to Orthodox doctrine and theology, but sentiments such as it's probably an image they grew up with as did their parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc.is not at all enough to justify the perpetuation of images such as OL of Guadelupe in Orthodox Churches.

I don't think folk culture should be abandoned as it through ages was used to spread Christian faith and root it people's mind's. Recalling to non-Orthodox practises and beliefs was started by St. Paul and I don't think it should have been stopped. I also don't think that Theotokos pictured in Western style and without Christ is more non-canonical than 5 or 6 Bishops who rule over the Parishes in Mexico.

If the Mexican Orthodox faithful keep the image of Guadalupe, fine, but if they celebrate a feast for it or Juan Diego then that is a problem

My dear Andrew, you are missing a very large point. Even if a feast of OL of Guadelupe never eventuates (which it won't), iconography is, at its essence, liturgical as well as doctrinal. To have images in an Orthodox Church which do not have any basis in Orthodox doctrine, theology or liturgical tradition is simply wrong, no matter what "touchy-feely" spin anyone wants to put on it.

It's not the only one thing non-canonical. Thousand of Churches have non-canonical images, there are hundreds of practises which are against canons, but are common in modern Church's life. If such an image would encourage Mexicans to converting to Orthodoxy I would be first to vote for placing it in every Church in Mexico. Even St. Paul started from mentioning Greek gods while preaching in Athens.

During Vespers and Matins, does not the priest at certain times circle the nave of the church, censing every icon? Ask yourself, what does this mean? Is this not a veneration of every saint and feast depicted on the walls (in mural, or as portable icons)? How, then, can the Guadelupe image, which is beyond question outside Orthodox tradition, and, to this day, has not been bestowed even a troparion or kontakion, let alone a Vespers and Matins service, be seen as fit to be present in an Orthodox church?

What prevents us from writing a troparion, kontakion or even an akathyst to that icon?

Its not part of orthodoxy ....These apparitions [lourds]Fatima]
Medugoije],,,Guadalupe and others are all false,,deceptions...Let the catholics chase after the false apparitions and make them part of there church belief if they want ....
At fullerton Ave and kennedy express way the people were venerating  a smudge they said was the virgin and creating a heavy traffic jam ,,


With some of these Apparitions and the messages they bring shelfs the old way and replaces it with some   new Revelation...i believe the sacred heart of jesus is celibrated a week after pasca the feast of feast and billed as a greater mercy,,pasca is shelved or made second or thrid place and new Revelation  of the sacred heart is advanced unknown to holy early church fathers Faith once delivered....

[Andrew21091]

If the Mexican Orthodox faithful keep the image of Guadalupe, fine, but if they celebrate a feast for it or Juan Diego then that is a problem

My dear Andrew, you are missing a very large point. Even if a feast of OL of Guadelupe never eventuates (which it won't), iconography is, at its essence, liturgical as well as doctrinal. To have images in an Orthodox Church which do not have any basis in Orthodox doctrine, theology or liturgical tradition is simply wrong, no matter what "touchy-feely" spin anyone wants to put on it.

But do you see my point? It's not the only non-canonical icon that you find in churches. The God the Father icon is not Orthodox at all but how many churches do you think have them? I think there is a huge "touchy-feely" spin on those as well.

During Vespers and Matins, does not the priest at certain times circle the nave of the church, censing every icon? Ask yourself, what does this mean? Is this not a veneration of every saint and feast depicted on the walls (in mural, or as portable icons)? How, then, can the Guadelupe image, which is beyond question outside Orthodox tradition, and, to this day, has not been bestowed even a troparion or kontakion, let alone a Vespers and Matins service, be seen as fit to be present in an Orthodox church?

A priest will also cense an icon of God the Father too which is just as not part of Orthodox Tradition than Guadalupe is. Why can the Russians (and others) have their non-canonical icons of the Trinity if the Mexican Orthodox can't have Guadalupe?

[Jetavan]

Why can the Russians (and others) have their non-canonical icons of the Trinity if the Mexican Orthodox can't have Guadalupe?

What's good for the goose is good for the Guadalupe.