Virgen de Guadalupe (and other appiritions) in WRO

[Shanghaiski]

So images are only holy, if they follow eastern cultural standards. Got it.

Wrong. Images are holy if they proclaim and express what the Orthodox Church teaches. Have I not made this point often enough in so many of my posts on this forum?

You mean the Orthodox Church actually has a definite teaching on anything? I'm shocked.

[Ortho_cat]

So images are only holy, if they follow eastern cultural standards. Got it.

Wrong. Images are holy if they proclaim and express what the Orthodox Church teaches. Have I not made this point often enough in so many of my posts on this forum?

You mean the Orthodox Church actually has a definite teaching on anything? I'm shocked.

hardy har har...

[Volnutt]

I guess if the 1917 icon of the Theotokos enthroned can be miraculously created by God as a non canonical icon, then so can the Virgen de Guadalupe. He makes the rules, He can break them if He wants to.

So we could say the Virgen de Guadalupe is a specific type of icon all its own and its features are not to be transferred to other icons. It quite simply is what it is.

[Alpo]

Wrong emphasis. It's Eastern Orthodox, not Eastern Orthodox.

QFT. Also, thank you for new Faith status.

[LBK]

I guess if the 1917 icon of the Theotokos enthroned can be miraculously created by God as a non canonical icon, then so can the Virgen de Guadalupe. He makes the rules, He can break them if He wants to.

So we could say the Virgen de Guadalupe is a specific type of icon all its own and its features are not to be transferred to other icons. It quite simply is what it is.

False analogy. The Derzhavnaya which Irish Hermit referred to was an old, existing icon painted a good century or more before its rediscovery in 1917. Olifa, the traditional oil varnish used for icons, darkens with time, the darkening accelerating in the presence of soot and vapor given off by oil lamps and candlAfter about 50 years, the appearance is usually still recognizable, but noticeably darkened. After a century or two, many icons are almost black. It was common practice for blackened icons to be repainted over the top of the existing image; the new icon may or may not have borne the same subject matter as the original. Repeated overpaintings were common, so that a board which might have been painted in, say, the 16th century, might have been repainted three or four times by the twentieth century.

The time of the painting of the Derzhavnaya coincided with the height of the naturalistic, Synodal/Academic style which had all but obliterated traditional iconography. It is what it is, and I have never said that it is, in itself, uncanonical (there are many variants of the Mother of God Enthroned type), though the motif of God the Father in it is still problematic. However, it seems that God chose to use this imperfect vessel at that particular point in time to manifest His presence.

OTOH, the Guadalupe image remains outside Orthodox tradition. It never was part of it, and is highly unlikely it ever will be. This status has nothing at all to do with "Eastern culture". I make no apologies for saying this.

[Volnutt]

Wrong emphasis. It's Eastern Orthodox, not Eastern Orthodox.

QFT. Also, thank you for new Faith status.

Thanks 

[Volnutt]

I guess if the 1917 icon of the Theotokos enthroned can be miraculously created by God as a non canonical icon, then so can the Virgen de Guadalupe. He makes the rules, He can break them if He wants to.

So we could say the Virgen de Guadalupe is a specific type of icon all its own and its features are not to be transferred to other icons. It quite simply is what it is.

False analogy. The Derzhavnaya which Irish Hermit referred to was an old, existing icon painted a good century or more before its rediscovery in 1917. Olifa, the traditional oil varnish used for icons, darkens with time, the darkening accelerating in the presence of soot and vapor given off by oil lamps and candlAfter about 50 years, the appearance is usually still recognizable, but noticeably darkened. After a century or two, many icons are almost black. It was common practice for blackened icons to be repainted over the top of the existing image; the new icon may or may not have borne the same subject matter as the original. Repeated overpaintings were common, so that a board which might have been painted in, say, the 16th century, might have been repainted three or four times by the twentieth century.

The time of the painting of the Derzhavnaya coincided with the height of the naturalistic, Synodal/Academic style which had all but obliterated traditional iconography. It is what it is, and I have never said that it is, in itself, uncanonical (there are many variants of the Mother of God Enthroned type), though the motif of God the Father in it is still problematic. However, it seems that God chose to use this imperfect vessel at that particular point in time to manifest His presence.

OTOH, the Guadalupe image remains outside Orthodox tradition. It never was part of it, and is highly unlikely it ever will be. This status has nothing at all to do with "Eastern culture". I make no apologies for saying this.

Oh ok. I was under the impression it was an icon made with hands.

[LBK]

Oh ok. I was under the impression it was an icon made with hands.

Just to clarify: The Derzhavnaya was indeed originally painted, not "not made by hands" as a few have been. It then went "missing" and was forgotten about some time later, to be rediscovered in 1917 through the efforts of the woman Evdokia, where it was cleaned to reveal the image under the darkening.

[Volnutt]

Oh ok. I was under the impression it was an icon made with hands.

Just to clarify: The Derzhavnaya was indeed originally painted, not "not made by hands" as a few have been. It then went "missing" and was forgotten about some time later, to be rediscovered in 1917 through the efforts of the woman Evdokia, where it was cleaned to reveal the image under the darkening.

Ooops, typo. My post should have read, "not made by hands."

[Volnutt]

So, going back to Deacon Lance's point vis a vis Acts 10:5 in post #102, if God works genuine miracles via the Virgen de Guadalupe (or even a non-canonical Orthodox icon such as the Sitka Mother of God) why doesn't this sanctify the previous errors in the composition and origin?

[Shanghaiski]

So, going back to Deacon Lance's point vis a vis Acts 10:5 in post #102, if God works genuine miracles via the Virgen de Guadalupe (or even a non-canonical Orthodox icon such as the Sitka Mother of God) why doesn't this sanctify the previous errors in the composition and origin?

If the grace of God operates through non-Orthodox things, people, and churches, it does so in spite of the errors. Error cannot be sanctified. You can't call what is wrong right just because good happened through what was wrong. If someone comes to such a state of repentance after committing murder, for example, so that he works miracles, it does not mean that the murder was good or a right thing.

[Schultz]

So, going back to Deacon Lance's point vis a vis Acts 10:5 in post #102, if God works genuine miracles via the Virgen de Guadalupe (or even a non-canonical Orthodox icon such as the Sitka Mother of God) why doesn't this sanctify the previous errors in the composition and origin?

If the grace of God operates through non-Orthodox things, people, and churches, it does so in spite of the errors. Error cannot be sanctified. You can't call what is wrong right just because good happened through what was wrong. If someone comes to such a state of repentance after committing murder, for example, so that he works miracles, it does not mean that the murder was good or a right thing.

I think your analogy here is quite flawed, but I'll let those who have a stake in this elaborate.  Suffice to say, comparing the Sitka Mother of God to a repentant murderer is a stretch, to say the least.

[Shanghaiski]

So, going back to Deacon Lance's point vis a vis Acts 10:5 in post #102, if God works genuine miracles via the Virgen de Guadalupe (or even a non-canonical Orthodox icon such as the Sitka Mother of God) why doesn't this sanctify the previous errors in the composition and origin?

If the grace of God operates through non-Orthodox things, people, and churches, it does so in spite of the errors. Error cannot be sanctified. You can't call what is wrong right just because good happened through what was wrong. If someone comes to such a state of repentance after committing murder, for example, so that he works miracles, it does not mean that the murder was good or a right thing.

I think your analogy here is quite flawed, but I'll let those who have a stake in this elaborate.  Suffice to say, comparing the Sitka Mother of God to a repentant murderer is a stretch, to say the least.

You misunderstand me. The previous poster mentioned Sitka. I have no problem at all with that icon. I was referring to Guadalupe, and in general, to the other churches and their miracles, etc, and grace. Reread.

[Volnutt]

I still think it's a stretch to equate the Virgin of Guadalupe with an ex-murderer, but mostly I was asking in relation to Acts 10:5. "What God has cleansed, do not call common."

[Schultz]

So, going back to Deacon Lance's point vis a vis Acts 10:5 in post #102, if God works genuine miracles via the Virgen de Guadalupe (or even a non-canonical Orthodox icon such as the Sitka Mother of God) why doesn't this sanctify the previous errors in the composition and origin?

If the grace of God operates through non-Orthodox things, people, and churches, it does so in spite of the errors. Error cannot be sanctified. You can't call what is wrong right just because good happened through what was wrong. If someone comes to such a state of repentance after committing murder, for example, so that he works miracles, it does not mean that the murder was good or a right thing.

I think your analogy here is quite flawed, but I'll let those who have a stake in this elaborate.  Suffice to say, comparing the Sitka Mother of God to a repentant murderer is a stretch, to say the least.

You misunderstand me. The previous poster mentioned Sitka. I have no problem at all with that icon. I was referring to Guadalupe, and in general, to the other churches and their miracles, etc, and grace. Reread.

YOU may not have a problem with it, but it is clearly an erroneous, non-canonical icon.  It is therefore de facto "non-Orthodox".

[Shanghaiski]

I still think it's a stretch to equate the Virgin of Guadalupe with an ex-murderer, but mostly I was asking in relation to Acts 10:5. "What God has cleansed, do not call common."

Ugh. I was talking about the grace of God, and ways that it works through things sometimes in spite of problems.

[Volnutt]

I'm sorry if I offended. I just found the comparison repugnant in it's extremity.

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

If the grace of God operates through non-Orthodox things, people, and churches, it does so in spite of the errors. Error cannot be sanctified. You can't call what is wrong right just because good happened through what was wrong. If someone comes to such a state of repentance after committing murder, for example, so that he works miracles, it does not mean that the murder was good or a right thing.

+1000

Post of the Month!

This is the exact same point I was trying to make in regards to Orthodox Sacramental Marriage vs Evangelical Symbolic Marriage and the capital "G" Grace of God

stay blessed,
habte selassie

[Shanghaiski]

I'm sorry if I offended. I just found the comparison repugnant in it's extremity.

I wasn't trying to be extreme, sorry. I was merely trying to say how something which is mistaken and imperfect can be a vehicle for grace, but it doesn't mean that thing is no longer mistaken or imperfect.

[Volnutt]

Ok. No problem.

Deacon Lance, LBK? What do you guys think?

[LBK]

Shanghaiski summed it up pretty well.

[Deacon Lance]

He is exactly right.  Error can't be sanctified.  So if an Icon is sanctified it must not be an error.  The error is with  man-made rules denying grace where it is found.

[LBK]

This is what Shanghaiski wrote:

I was merely trying to say how something which is mistaken and imperfect can be a vehicle for grace, but it doesn't mean that thing is no longer mistaken or imperfect.

This is what Deacon Lance wrote in response to it:

He is exactly right.  Error can't be sanctified.  So if an Icon is sanctified it must not be an error.  The error is with  man-made rules denying grace where it is found.

For the life of me, I can't understand how the latter draws such a conclusion from the former. 

[Sleeper]

Deacon Lance is saying if something is sanctified, it obviously is error-free, since error cannot be sanctified. Where one chooses to deny a miracle or grace in something due to man-made rules, the problem is with that person, not the thing they reject.

[Volnutt]

Who here is denying the miracles? All she is saying is that miracles and grace working through something don't mean the thing is sanctified.

Deacon Lance and I came to an impasse on this with my point about the brass serpent. I'm still thinking about his point. Kind of hard to carry on a conversation if we're just assuming the Virgen de Guadalupe was, in fact, made without hands...

[ChristusDominus]

This is what Shanghaiski wrote:

I was merely trying to say how something which is mistaken and imperfect can be a vehicle for grace, but it doesn't mean that thing is no longer mistaken or imperfect.

This is what Deacon Lance wrote in response to it:

He is exactly right.  Error can't be sanctified.  So if an Icon is sanctified it must not be an error.  The error is with  man-made rules denying grace where it is found.

For the life of me, I can't understand how the latter draws such a conclusion from the former.  

It would've been so much easier had LBK been present when the Madonna transferred her image onto St.Juan Diego's tilma to ensure she did so according to "Orthodox" guidelines.  

[ialmisry]

This is what Shanghaiski wrote:

I was merely trying to say how something which is mistaken and imperfect can be a vehicle for grace, but it doesn't mean that thing is no longer mistaken or imperfect.

This is what Deacon Lance wrote in response to it:

He is exactly right.  Error can't be sanctified.  So if an Icon is sanctified it must not be an error.  The error is with  man-made rules denying grace where it is found.

For the life of me, I can't understand how the latter draws such a conclusion from the former.  

It would've been so much easier had LBK been present when the Madonna transferred her image onto St.Juan Diego's tilma to ensure she did so according to "Orthodox" guidelines.  

That does assUme that she did so.

[Volnutt]

Indeed.

[Deacon Lance]

I realize some, perhaps most, do not accept that the Virgin of Guadalupe is an icon not made by hands as I do but the point applies equally to miraculous Icons that do not follow the medieval Russian rules.

[NicholasMyra]

(or even a non-canonical Orthodox icon such as the Sitka Mother of God)

What canon?

[Volnutt]

(or even a non-canonical Orthodox icon such as the Sitka Mother of God)

What canon?

It shows God the Father.

[NicholasMyra]

(or even a non-canonical Orthodox icon such as the Sitka Mother of God)

What canon?

It shows God the Father.

What canon forbids it?

[Volnutt]

The 1666 Council of the Hundred Chapters, either canon 2 or 3.

[William]

The 1666 Council of the Hundred Chapters, either canon 2 or 3.

Are these ecumenical canons?

[Volnutt]

No, but I believe they're widely accepted.

[Iconodule]

No, but I believe they're widely accepted.

The main purpose of the 1666 council was condemning the Old Rite. Since the Old Rite is once again approved I'd say the legitimacy of the council in general is doubtful. With the politically motivated deposition of Patriarch Nikon, this council also represents an unwelcome incursion of the Moscow state into the life of the Church which bore much evil fruit in subsequent centuries.

If the canons were really so universally received then it's a wonder that no one enforces them.

[LBK]

No, but I believe they're widely accepted.

The main purpose of the 1666 council was condemning the Old Rite. Since the Old Rite is once again approved I'd say the legitimacy of the council in general is doubtful. With the politically motivated deposition of Patriarch Nikon, this council also represents an unwelcome incursion of the Moscow state into the life of the Church which bore much evil fruit in subsequent centuries.

If the canons were really so universally received then it's a wonder that no one enforces them.

You are forgetting the many patristic denunciations and condemnations of depicting God the Father in icons in the centuries before the 1666 Russian council. St John of Damascus is particularly blunt in this condemnation, as is, IIRC, St Theodore of the Studion. Both are rightly pillars of the defense of icons against the iconoclast heresy. These are but two saints who held this view, there are many others. Some food for thought:

Of old, God the incorporeal and uncircumscribed was not depicted at all. But now that God has appeared in the flesh and lived among men, I make an image of the God who can be seen. I do not worship matter, but I worship the Creator of matter, who for my sake became material and deigned to dwell in matter, who through matter effected my salvation. I will not cease from venerating the matter through which my salvation has been effected. (St John of Damascus)

No one could describe the Word of the Father; but when He took flesh from you, O Mother of God, He consented to be described, and restored the fallen image to its former state by uniting it to divine beauty. We confess and proclaim our salvation in word and images.(kontakion for the Sunday of Orthodoxy)

The kontakion is particularly pertinent: Has God the Father consented to be described? Has God the Father revealed Himself in any visible, tangible form? Only as a voice from heaven, at the baptism of Christ, and at Christ's Transfiguration. Can a voice be seen? Can it be depicted pictorially? No, it cannot. And He has certainly never manifested Himself as a bearded old man.

[Iconodule]

No, but I believe they're widely accepted.

The main purpose of the 1666 council was condemning the Old Rite. Since the Old Rite is once again approved I'd say the legitimacy of the council in general is doubtful. With the politically motivated deposition of Patriarch Nikon, this council also represents an unwelcome incursion of the Moscow state into the life of the Church which bore much evil fruit in subsequent centuries.

If the canons were really so universally received then it's a wonder that no one enforces them.

You are forgetting the many patristic denunciations and condemnations of depicting God the Father in icons in the centuries before the 1666 Russian council. St John of Damascus is particularly blunt in this condemnation, as is, IIRC, St Theodore of the Studion. Both are rightly pillars of the defense of icons against the iconoclast heresy. These are but two saints who held this view, there are many others. Some food for thought:

Of old, God the incorporeal and uncircumscribed was not depicted at all. But now that God has appeared in the flesh and lived among men, I make an image of the God who can be seen. I do not worship matter, but I worship the Creator of matter, who for my sake became material and deigned to dwell in matter, who through matter effected my salvation. I will not cease from venerating the matter through which my salvation has been effected. (St John of Damascus)

No one could describe the Word of the Father; but when He took flesh from you, O Mother of God, He consented to be described, and restored the fallen image to its former state by uniting it to divine beauty. We confess and proclaim our salvation in word and images.(kontakion for the Sunday of Orthodoxy)

The kontakion is particularly pertinent: Has God the Father consented to be described? Has God the Father revealed Himself in any visible, tangible form? Only as a voice from heaven, at the baptism of Christ, and at Christ's Transfiguration. Can a voice be seen? Can it be depicted pictorially? No, it cannot. And He has certainly never manifested Himself as a bearded old man.

I agree that the depictions of God the Father are questionable, but citing the 1666 council against them is problematic and weakens the case.

[LBK]

I agree that the depictions of God the Father are questionable, but citing the 1666 council against them is problematic and weakens the case.

Why is citing the canon from this council "problematic" and "weakening the case"? Is the canon inconsistent with patristic and liturgical precedent?

[Iconodule]

I agree that the depictions of God the Father are questionable, but citing the 1666 council against them is problematic and weakens the case.

Why is citing the canon from this council "problematic" and "weakening the case"? Is the canon inconsistent with patristic and liturgical precedent?

If you invoke the canonical authority of the 1666 council, you imply that all of its rulings are legitimate. The council was really a disaster for the Russian church.

[LBK]

I agree that the depictions of God the Father are questionable, but citing the 1666 council against them is problematic and weakens the case.

Why is citing the canon from this council "problematic" and "weakening the case"? Is the canon inconsistent with patristic and liturgical precedent?

If you invoke the canonical authority of the 1666 council, you imply that all of its rulings are legitimate. The council was really a disaster for the Russian church.

The rulings of this council not concerned with iconography are irrelevant to this discussion. The iconographic canon from that council is consistent with the clear and unequivocal testimony of the church. Or do you wish to argue otherwise?

[Iconodule]

I agree that the depictions of God the Father are questionable, but citing the 1666 council against them is problematic and weakens the case.

Why is citing the canon from this council "problematic" and "weakening the case"? Is the canon inconsistent with patristic and liturgical precedent?

If you invoke the canonical authority of the 1666 council, you imply that all of its rulings are legitimate. The council was really a disaster for the Russian church.

The rulings of this council not concerned with iconography are irrelevant to this discussion.

Binding canons come from binding councils. If you don't think the council is binding then its canonical rulings are irrelevant, regardless of their consistency with tradition. 

[Shanghaiski]

We recognize the canons or at least the sentiments of canons and writings from several councils of dubious validity or outright heresy. Several Arian councils, I understand, opposed not only Orthodoxy, but papal supremacy. We, of course, reject the heresy and take the Orthodoxy, because we know our faith, which is enshrined not only in the Ecumenical Councils, but in all the received gifts of holy tradition, in totality.

[Iconodule]

We recognize the canons or at least the sentiments of canons and writings from several councils of dubious validity or outright heresy. Several Arian councils, I understand, opposed not only Orthodoxy, but papal supremacy.

But do we cite these Arian councils in polemics against Papal supremacy?

[Asteriktos]

Binding canons come from binding councils. If you don't think the council is binding then its canonical rulings are irrelevant, regardless of their consistency with tradition. 

Things aren't always that simple. Consider the Council of Antioch (341), which is a mess to figure out. It's canons are accepted, yet a condemnation of St. Athanasius might have happened there (or at least been issued a sizable number of the bishops from the council speaking in it's name).

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Liturgy > Western Rite Discussion (Moderator: arimethea) > Topic: Virgen de Guadalupe (and other appiritions) in WRO