Scientist confirms inexplicable nature of Our Lady of Guadalupe image

[Douglas]

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.

Who said it's good for the goose? Two wrongs do not make a right the last time I checked.

[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?!

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.

First off, this isn't a research paper in a scientific journal -- he made a summary conclusion of this can't be explained by science. He finished with his statement that Our Lady visited. It should also be noted that this speech was given not at a scientific gathering either, but at a Marian Congress.

As for your last statement -- 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 -- is an attitude and position I completely reject.

[Athanasios]

Let me ask this question: if this had been painted by an Orthodox iconographer somewhere, would you have a problem with it being in an Orthodox church? why or why not?

[HandmaidenofGod]

Let me ask this question: if this had been painted by an Orthodox iconographer somewhere, would you have a problem with it being in an Orthodox church? why or why not?

Yes, because the apparition of Our Lady of Guadalupe is not part of Orthodox Tradition. Just as the icons of God the Father that have been painted by Orthodox iconographers are heretical, it is not the writer of the icon that makes it canonical, but rather the subject matter being painted.


Any Orthodox "apparitions" of Our Lady (i.e. Pokrov/Skepe) have the Theotokos appearing as she has always been recognized; not as a Native American or any other form. She has appeared as a Jewish woman dressed in the manner that she dressed in 1st Century Israel. Also, in the case of the Pokrov, it was after many hours of the faithful beseaching her for her assistance from the oncoming attackers.

So whether an Orthodox iconographer was to paint the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe or not, this image would not be considered canonical in the Orthodox Church.

[Athanasios]

Let me ask this question: if this had been painted by an Orthodox iconographer somewhere, would you have a problem with it being in an Orthodox church? why or why not?

Yes, because the apparition of Our Lady of Guadalupe is not part of Orthodox Tradition. Just as the icons of God the Father that have been painted by Orthodox iconographers are heretical, it is not the writer of the icon that makes it canonical, but rather the subject matter being painted.


Any Orthodox "apparitions" of Our Lady (i.e. Pokrov/Skepe) have the Theotokos appearing as she has always been recognized; not as a Native American or any other form. She has appeared as a Jewish woman dressed in the manner that she dressed in 1st Century Israel. Also, in the case of the Pokrov, it was after many hours of the faithful beseaching her for her assistance from the oncoming attackers.

So whether an Orthodox iconographer was to paint the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe or not, this image would not be considered canonical in the Orthodox Church.

What I meant was -- forget about the apparition for a moment. Imagine that there hadn't ever been an apparition in Mexico; but, it happens that an Orthodox iconographer created this icon, would you have an issue with it being in an Orthodox church?

[ozgeorge]

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?!

Who said a scientist had to be an atheist?

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.[/quote]Educated guesses are not science.

[Robb]

The very fact that this scientist is speaking at a pro Guadalupe conference also seems to be a little on the biased side.

[John of the North]

The plot thickens:

http://www.ukrainian-orthodoxy.org/prayer/akathists/OurLadyofGuadalupe.htm

"Some of these Akathists are familiar to Ukrainian Orthodox faithful (as listed below) while some have been composed by Alexander Roman, a longtime contributer to our site and are not served in Ukrainian Orthodox Churches.  Some are even dedicated to Saints and apparitions of the Theotokos which are part of the faith treasury of the Western Church.  They are published for your information and enjoyment."

[Robb]

Why does Dr Alex Roman, who is a Greek Catholic, post on a web site called "Ukrainian Orthodoxy"? 

This is still not approved by any canonical Orthodox Church.

[PeterTheAleut]

As for your last statement -- 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 -- is an attitude and position I completely reject.

Thankfully, the scientific community has not adopted your definition of science.

[Αριστοκλής]

Why does Dr Alex Roman, who is a Greek Catholic, post on a web site called "Ukrainian Orthodoxy"? 

This is still not approved by any canonical Orthodox Church.

He owns the site.

[mike]

Why does Dr Alex Roman, who is a Greek Catholic, post on a web site called "Ukrainian Orthodoxy"? 

This is still not approved by any canonical Orthodox Church.

He owns the site.

owned   

[griego catolico]

Well, it's not only the Antiochian Orthodox in Mexico who have images of Our Lady of Guadualupe in their churchces. Check out this picture from the website of the Russian Orthodox patriarchal parish in Mexico.

[griego catolico]

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

Are you aware that this custom also exists among Greek Orthodox pilgrims visiting the shrine of the miraculous icon of the Theotokos on the island of Tinos?

Here's the video: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8203792.stm   

Note: the BBC reporter erroneously refers to the shrine of Guadalupe as "Guadalajara"

[LBK]

Well, it's not only the Antiochian Orthodox in Mexico who have images of Our Lady of Guadualupe in their churches. Check out this picture from the website of the Russian Orthodox patriarchal parish in Mexico.

The mere presence of an uncanonical image in an Orthodox church does not confer canonical status to it, any more than images of God the Father as an old man that are present in so many Orthodox churches around the world, yet, over many centuries, this depiction has been repeatedly condemned as heretical by ecumenical and synodal council alike.

[LBK]

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

Are you aware that this custom also exists among Greek Orthodox pilgrims visiting the shrine of the miraculous icon of the Theotokos on the island of Tinos?

Here's the video: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8203792.stm   

Many of of the Greek islands, including Tinos, Rhodes, Zakynthos and Crete, having come under Venetian rule in the early 13th century, absorbed many liturgical and devotional customs common to the Roman Catholics, including such extreme practices of self-mortification.

[griego catolico]

This version of the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe was painted by a Greek Orthodox monk:


I even have a Russian Orthodox icon catalog that used to sell this icon.


There are several tropars and kondaks written for the feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe. Here is an example:

Troparion—Tone 6

The peasant joyfully held open his cloak to contain roses growing out of season, most Holy Mother, and he quickly carried the flowers to his bishop. In just such a way, you joyfully opened yourself to contain the Babe, growing before you had known man. The flowers carried by the peasant formed an image of you on his cloak. The Child carried by you formed you into an image of His grace. Therefore we cry out to you, Rejoice, most holy Mother of God.

Kontakion—Tone 4

When Adam and Eve sinned, they were promised that one would come that would crush the serpent. The serpent fled to the west, into a land of people that did not know God. But the serpent was not hidden from the wrath of God, and the Child that you so lightly carried in your arms was too heavy for the serpent’s skull. Therefore, we cry out to you, pray for us, most holy Theotokos.

Another Kontakion, Tone 8. Special melody: Ti hypermacho:
The precious mantle * of your Protection * which once pious Andrew saw * as you revealed yourself * to him praying * in the Emp’ror’s city * is now seen by all the faithful in the Tilma of Tepeyac * from which falls God’s grace * like a shower of roses from paradise * that will crush the ancient serpent’s head * as we all sing to you: * Rejoice, O Virgin of Guadalupe.

[LBK]

My dear griegocatolico

Even if an Orthodox monk has painted such an image (which I doubt), he may well have painted it on commission to a Roman Catholic patron. Of course, this throws up a real dilemma: One of the major principles of any Orthodox iconographer, monastic or layman, is that he (or she) prepares themselves by prayer and fasting before beginning to paint an icon, and, once he has started to paint the icon, he is engaged in constant prayer to whichever saint is being painted. This includes praying the troparion and kontakion of the saint or feast he is painting. Is it proper that any Orthodox iconographer prays to a saint, feast or apparition which is not part of Orthodox tradition? I think not.

The troparion and kontakion of the image of Guadelupe is not part of Orthodox tradition. There is no feast dedicated to this image in any Orthodox calendar, Greek, Slavic or other variant, nor is there any mention of any troparia or kontakia to this image in any list of troparia or kontakia of the Orthodox Church. It is certain that the hymns you have provided are of Byzantine Catholic origin, not Orthodox. Try as anyone might wish for it to be so, Our Lady of Guadelupe is not, and cannot be, an image which can be properly venerated as an icon by Orthodox Christians.

[griego catolico]

Dera LBK,

Thank you for your reply.

Yes, the image was painted by a Greek Orthodox monk. I know his name and the monastery he belongs to (it is canonical), but I refrain from posting them . 

As for the kondak and tropar I posted, they were composed by an Orthodox Christian, not a Byzantine Catholic.  The tropar and kondak used by Byzantine Catholics for the feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe are not the same. You can see for yourself here:http://www.metropolitancantorinstitute.org/sheetmusic/general/MenaionDecember.pdf
 
As a Catholic of Mexican descent, I was very surprised to see images of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Orthodox churches. I myself have personally seen an image of Our Lady of Guadalupe hanging next to the front door of an Orthodox parish (OCA jusrisdiction).

You state that Our Lady of Guadelupe [sic] is not, and cannot be, an image which can be properly venerated as an icon by Orthodox Christians. I completely understand your position, but the fact remains (as evidenced by the photos posted) that images of Our Lady of Guadalupe can be found in Orthodox churches.

As to why that is the case, it best to contact those parishes which have the image- such as the Antiochian and Russian parishes in Mexico- for an explanation.

God bless you. 


Griego Catolico

[LBK]

Dear griegocatolico

You wrote:

You state that Our Lady of Guadelupe [sic] is not, and cannot be, an image which can be properly venerated as an icon by Orthodox Christians. I completely understand your position, but the fact remains (as evidenced by the photos posted) that images of Our Lady of Guadalupe can be found in Orthodox churches.

As I have said before, the mere presence of an uncanonical image in an Orthodox church does not make it canonical. Having devoted many years to the study and practice of iconography, including writing at length on its various aspects, including on uncanonical images, it saddens me to say that while iconography is the most visible element of Orthodoxy which distinguishes it from all other faith traditions, it, after the better part of 2000 years, continues to be the least understood. Ignorance among laity can be excused to some degree, but ignorance among clergy is a different matter. One only needs to look at what has been allowed to be painted on the walls of one of the churches at New Skete monastery. Shameful.

[griego catolico]

Dear griegocatolico

You wrote:

You state that Our Lady of Guadelupe [sic] is not, and cannot be, an image which can be properly venerated as an icon by Orthodox Christians. I completely understand your position, but the fact remains (as evidenced by the photos posted) that images of Our Lady of Guadalupe can be found in Orthodox churches.

As I have said before, the mere presence of an uncanonical image in an Orthodox church does not make it canonical. Having devoted many years to the study and practice of iconography, including writing at length on its various aspects, including on uncanonical images, it saddens me to say that while iconography is the most visible element of Orthodoxy which distinguishes it from all other faith traditions, it, after the better part of 2000 years, continues to be the least understood. Ignorance among laity can be excused to some degree, but ignorance among clergy is a different matter. One only needs to look at what has been allowed to be painted on the walls of one of the churches at New Skete monastery. Shameful.

All the more reason to ask for an explanation from those Orthodox priests who are allowing the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe to be enshrined in their parishes.

I will send an e-mail to the pastor of the OCA parish that had the image of OLG hanging from its front door and ask for his explanation.

[LBK]

All the more reason to ask for an explanation from those Orthodox priests who are allowing the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe to be enshrined in their parishes.

I will send an e-mail to the pastor of the OCA parish that had the image of OLG hanging from its front door and ask for his explanation.

You do that, griegocatolico. And I'd be VERY interested to know what the response is.

[Athanasios]

As for your last statement -- 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 -- is an attitude and position I completely reject.

Thankfully, the scientific community has not adopted your definition of science.

Yup, it would be asking too much for science to acknowledge its Author. 

[Athanasios]

No one has answered my question yet, so I'll ask it again:

Imagine that there hadn't ever been an apparition in Mexico; but, it just so happens that an Orthodox iconographer created this icon, would you have an issue with it being in an Orthodox church?

[stashko]

This version of the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe was painted by a Greek Orthodox monk:


I even have a Russian Orthodox icon catalog that used to sell this icon.


There are several tropars and kondaks written for the feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe. Here is an example:

Troparion—Tone 6

The peasant joyfully held open his cloak to contain roses growing out of season, most Holy Mother, and he quickly carried the flowers to his bishop. In just such a way, you joyfully opened yourself to contain the Babe, growing before you had known man. The flowers carried by the peasant formed an image of you on his cloak. The Child carried by you formed you into an image of His grace. Therefore we cry out to you, Rejoice, most holy Mother of God.

Kontakion—Tone 4

When Adam and Eve sinned, they were promised that one would come that would crush the serpent. The serpent fled to the west, into a land of people that did not know God. But the serpent was not hidden from the wrath of God, and the Child that you so lightly carried in your arms was too heavy for the serpent’s skull. Therefore, we cry out to you, pray for us, most holy Theotokos.

Another Kontakion, Tone 8. Special melody: Ti hypermacho:
The precious mantle * of your Protection * which once pious Andrew saw * as you revealed yourself * to him praying * in the Emp’ror’s city * is now seen by all the faithful in the Tilma of Tepeyac * from which falls God’s grace * like a shower of roses from paradise * that will crush the ancient serpent’s head * as we all sing to you: * Rejoice, O Virgin of Guadalupe.

He should be Defrocked booted out,also Must be a new calendar Greek under the ecumenical patriarch ....We don't need these type of monks that infect the pure orthodox faith with this garbage and heretical image ,,, though  Catholics have elevated her to a demi goddess or pagan goddess status,,,images of guadalupe ,lourds,fatima,testifiy to it.......

[Fr. David]

This version of the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe was painted by a Greek Orthodox monk:

Oh, that is beautiful. 

Uncanonical, yes, but if there's anything worth "baptizing" into the Church for missionary purposes, this would be it.  Seriously, if Orthodox faithful in Mexico want to make any inroads, La Virgen has to be recognized, period.  And why would this be a stretch?

Sigh...I know, "Wow; the guy's starting seminary; wonder if they'll 'straighten him out' or if he'll fit right in as is"...seems to me that the story behind the Guadalupe apparition fits right in to how she is...comfort to the downtrodden, identification with the δουλοι, etc...that the material and colors are miraculously preserved is not a surprise to me.

Santísima Madre, ora por nosotros...

[John Larocque]

Ah "She who has vanquished the serpent" is a reference to St. Jerome's translation of Genesis 3:15. "I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel."

[John Larocque]

http://orthodoxanswers.org/details.asp?ID=407

There's a bit on the New Skete situation here.

[lubeltri]

Uncanonical, yes, but if there's anything worth "baptizing" into the Church for missionary purposes, this would be it.  Seriously, if Orthodox faithful in Mexico want to make any inroads, La Virgen has to be recognized, period.  And why would this be a stretch?

But wouldn't that be...ahem...poaching? Just what Catholics are always accused of on this forum? Just askin'....

[PeterTheAleut]

Uncanonical, yes, but if there's anything worth "baptizing" into the Church for missionary purposes, this would be it.  Seriously, if Orthodox faithful in Mexico want to make any inroads, La Virgen has to be recognized, period.  And why would this be a stretch?

But wouldn't that be...ahem...poaching? Just what Catholics are always accused of on this forum? Just askin'....

But do Catholics own Mexico the way Orthodox own this forum?

[LBK]

http://orthodoxanswers.org/details.asp?ID=407

There's a bit on the New Skete situation here.

I don't know who wrote the answer to the query on New Skete, but I can assure you that what he says is quite wrong, and, indeed, damaging to Orthodoxy. The images of Dorothy Day, Mother Theresa and other non-Orthodox people referred to simply should not be there.

[John Larocque]

The webmaster of orthodoxanswers.org is Laurent Cleenewerck, an OCA priest, and I'm assuming he wrote the reply himself. Oddly enough, he was my first introduction (lately) into Orthodoxy - at the time I was trying to find a translation of the bible that reflected the Orthodox tradition and grabbed a file of his website. Anyway, the site email is info@orthodoxanswers.org.

[ialmisry]

Ah "She who has vanquished the serpent" is a reference to St. Jerome's mistranslation of Genesis 3:15. "I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel."

Fixed it for you.

[John Larocque]

Fixed it for you.

BTW the Nova Vulgata (the current official bible of the Catholic Church) has actually corrected that.

[ialmisry]

No one has answered my question yet, so I'll ask it again:

Imagine that there hadn't ever been an apparition in Mexico; but, it just so happens that an Orthodox iconographer created this icon, would you have an issue with it being in an Orthodox church?

I've seen in an Orthodox Church (at least one), and only mildly have a problem with it:the icon doesn't have Christ in the icon, which is a problem for the canons of iconograpy.  But I've been told that supposedly in the image she is pregnant, so...

The nimbus is also a problem I believe:I've never seen on surrounding anyone but Christ.

The moon and sun things is also a problem, but I understand that they are painted on, and are not original.

Uncanonical, yes, but if there's anything worth "baptizing" into the Church for missionary purposes, this would be it.  Seriously, if Orthodox faithful in Mexico want to make any inroads, La Virgen has to be recognized, period.  And why would this be a stretch?

But wouldn't that be...ahem...poaching? Just what Catholics are always accused of on this forum? Just askin'....

When our parish came back from Project Mexico, they shared that the couple for whom they build a house were shocked when the priest came to bless it, and immediately asked him to marry them: they had not seen a priest any where their village ever, and couldn't afford the fee if they had.  (the priest didn't marry them because, they not being Orthodox, he had no authority to do so).  So we're supposed to meet neglect with neglect?

It has always amused me to put the Vatican's pronouncements on, say, Russia, next to those on the Protestants in Latin America.  The height of that was the Peruvian election of 1990 where the Vatican's bishops spoke out for Llosa, at best a lapsed Catholic who had an affair with his aunt (whom he dumped for a cousin), against the Vatican's loyal son Fujimori, because the latter had the support of the Pentacostals.

When the Orthodox try to recover properties they stole in the first place, or reconstitute hierachies they had established by force, in Mexico, then we can compare.

[ialmisry]

Fixed it for you.

BTW the Nova Vulgata (the current official bible of the Catholic Church) has actually corrected that.

Yes, I'm aware of that.  But not before  Ineffabilis Deus used it.

[Jetavan]

When our parish came back from Project Mexico, they shared that the couple for whom they build a house were shocked when the priest came to bless it, and immediately asked him to marry them: they had not seen a priest any where their village ever, and couldn't afford the fee if they had.  (the priest didn't marry them because, they not being Orthodox, he had no authority to do so).  So we're supposed to meet neglect with neglect?

So you're saying he should have married them?

[LBK]

Ialmisry wrote:

The nimbus is also a problem I believe:I've never seen on surrounding anyone but Christ.

Indeed the mandorla is a problem, as it represents the uncreated light and glory of God. The Mother of God, though justifiably the most exalted of mortals, greater in honor than even the angels and heavenly hosts, and graced with Divinity in that she conceived and gave birth to the Son of God, is, nevertheless, fully human and mortal. She is not the source of this uncreated divine light, therefore she should not be portrayed in true icons surrounded by a mandorla.

[Athanasios]

Ialmisry wrote:

The nimbus is also a problem I believe:I've never seen on surrounding anyone but Christ.

Indeed the mandorla is a problem, as it represents the uncreated light and glory of God. The Mother of God, though justifiably the most exalted of mortals, greater in honor than even the angels and heavenly hosts, and graced with Divinity in that she conceived and gave birth to the Son of God, is, nevertheless, fully human and mortal. She is not the source of this uncreated divine light, therefore she should not be portrayed in true icons surrounded by a mandorla.

It is a direct reference to Rev 12:1 -- ...a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet...

Anyways the mandorla, according to Orthodoxwiki: It is also used for the Mother of God in those cases when it has to represent her glory beyond the earthly plane.

Such as with this icon of the Dormition on a Greek Orthodox site.

[griego catolico]

Some believe that Juan Diego never existed and therefore the picture is not of a supernatural character.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1252/is_12_129/ai_87869035/

This is one of those things where the church claims infallibility but this is a pill I've never chosen to swallow.

Do Orthodox venerate St. Philemona? This is a very early saint (venerated by the Cure d'Ars, John Vianney) for which there is a body of work challenging its historicity.

Well, Saint Juan Diego would not be the only native American whose existence has been doubted. What about Peter the Aleut?
 http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Peter_the_Aleut

[ialmisry]

When our parish came back from Project Mexico, they shared that the couple for whom they build a house were shocked when the priest came to bless it, and immediately asked him to marry them: they had not seen a priest any where their village ever, and couldn't afford the fee if they had.  (the priest didn't marry them because, they not being Orthodox, he had no authority to do so).  So we're supposed to meet neglect with neglect?

So you're saying he should have married them?

Not my call. My priest said he would have chrismated them and married them.

[ialmisry]

Ialmisry wrote:

The nimbus is also a problem I believe:I've never seen on surrounding anyone but Christ.

Indeed the mandorla is a problem, as it represents the uncreated light and glory of God. The Mother of God, though justifiably the most exalted of mortals, greater in honor than even the angels and heavenly hosts, and graced with Divinity in that she conceived and gave birth to the Son of God, is, nevertheless, fully human and mortal. She is not the source of this uncreated divine light, therefore she should not be portrayed in true icons surrounded by a mandorla.

It is a direct reference to Rev 12:1 -- ...a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet...

you mean the Vatican's inference. How early is it?

Rev. 12:2 contradicts the Fathers on the Theotokos.  I think we hashed this on CAF.

Anyways the mandorla, according to Orthodoxwiki: It is also used for the Mother of God in those cases when it has to represent her glory beyond the earthly plane.

Such as with this icon of the Dormition on a Greek Orthodox site.

I haven't seen this, say, on an icon of the Protection of the Theotokos.

[ialmisry]

Some believe that Juan Diego never existed and therefore the picture is not of a supernatural character.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1252/is_12_129/ai_87869035/

This is one of those things where the church claims infallibility but this is a pill I've never chosen to swallow.

Do Orthodox venerate St. Philemona? This is a very early saint (venerated by the Cure d'Ars, John Vianney) for which there is a body of work challenging its historicity.

Well, Saint Juan Diego would not be the only native American whose existence has been doubted. What about Peter the Aleut?
 http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Peter_the_Aleut

Already hashed:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19775.0.html

[LBK]

Ialmisry wrote:

The nimbus is also a problem I believe:I've never seen on surrounding anyone but Christ.

Indeed the mandorla is a problem, as it represents the uncreated light and glory of God. The Mother of God, though justifiably the most exalted of mortals, greater in honor than even the angels and heavenly hosts, and graced with Divinity in that she conceived and gave birth to the Son of God, is, nevertheless, fully human and mortal. She is not the source of this uncreated divine light, therefore she should not be portrayed in true icons surrounded by a mandorla.

It is a direct reference to Rev 12:1 -- ...a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet...

Anyways the mandorla, according to Orthodoxwiki: It is also used for the Mother of God in those cases when it has to represent her glory beyond the earthly plane.

Such as with this icon of the Dormition on a Greek Orthodox site.

This Dormition icon of Greek provenance is stylistically of post-17thC origin, and therefore of a time in iconographic history which had been greatly influenced by western trends in religious art. The presence of the Virgin in the upper section of the icon, with or without a mandorla, is somewhat superfluous to the doctrinal and theological meaning of the icon. If one looks at earlier versions of icons of the Dormition (of which I have seen many) prior to the time of western influence, the figure of the Mother of God surrounded by a mandorla is singularly absent. To quote from a post in the "Canonical Icons" thread:

The Multiplier of Wheat shows the Mother of God surrounded by a mandorla, an oval motif of rays and stars which represents the uncreated light and glory of God. This is a major error in iconography, as the Virgin, while, of course, partaking of the glory and life of God, is not divine herself. She does not generate this light. Christ alone may be depicted in this light, such as in icons of Christ in Majesty (Christ enthroned, surrounded by the bodiless hosts), the Transfiguration, the Dormition of His mother (where He is seen holding her soul in the form of a babe in swaddling clothes, surely one of the loveliest of iconographic motifs, and truly loaded with theological meaning), and in icons of the Mother of God of the Sign, where He, as Christ Emmanuel, is surrounded by a circular mandorla over His mother's body as she holds her arms raised in supplication. By contrast, a mandorla is often seen in western images (paintings and statues) of the Virgin, notably in Our Lady of Guadelupe.

Indeed, when one looks at the liturgical text of the Vigil to this feast, her exalted status above all mortals, and above the heavenly hosts, of the Mother of God, is inescapable. The iconography of the Dormition expresses this so eloquently, through the motif of Christ Himself holding His mother's soul, escorting it to heaven, not even entrusting it to "mere" angels, speaks volumes. So why try to falsely "gild the lily" with a mandorla which has no theological or doctrinal basis from the Orthodox tradition?

[ozgeorge]

Anyways the mandorla, according to Orthodoxwiki: It is also used for the Mother of God in those cases when it has to represent her glory beyond the earthly plane.

The mandorla is the shape created where two circles intersect:



In Iconography it is used to indicate the Incarnation, that is, where the Divine and the Human intersect. Thus it is a symbol about Christology. The Theotokos- she who is "Broarder than the Heavens"- was the Place God became Human, but she herself is not the Incarnation. The Mandorla in the Dormition Icon you posted is actually around Christ Who is receiving the soul of the Theotokos in His arms (a contrast with the Icon of the Theotokos holding the infant Christ).
Because the Mandorla is used to indicate the Incarnation (the intersection of the Divine and Human), it is uncanonical to use it as a symbol for the Theotokos alone, which is the main objection often cited against the Russian "Multiplier of Wheat" Icon of the Theotokos, but the Multiplier of Wheat Icon does not actually depict the Theotokos in a mandorla since the shape is not complete, and in fact it may actually be a an attempt at depicting "The Heavens opening":

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > General Forums > Christian News (Moderator: Yurysprudentsiya) > Topic: Scientist confirms inexplicable nature of Our Lady of Guadalupe image