Topic: Virgen de Guadalupe (and other appiritions) in WRO

[HabteSelassie]

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

I understand that Images of God the Father were prohibited at the Seventh Council (The Second Council of Nicea) as part of the Iconoclast resolutions.  Since images of the Divine Godhead were condemned by the Iconoclasts, so much so that they condemned even Images of the Incarnate Son because of the Union of Divine-Human, and the Father remains Immaterial His images were prohibited to appease some of the Iconoclasts. 

Christians have never made an icon of the invisible and incomprehensible divinity, but it is only insofar as the Word became flesh and dwelt among us that we paint the mysteries of man’s redemption.”

http://www.symeon-anthony.info/Cathechism/con_error_icons_God_Father.html

I found this website on a google search, but when I read through the Seventh Council I couldn't find any references specifically to Images of the Father neither the above quotation.  Still, I had always heard that the Seventh Council prohibited Images of the Father.  If the above quote is correct, are there also images of the Holy Spirit in the Eastern Orthodox or are they also prohibited?

In the Ethiopian Orthodox we are Oriental so we are not part of those later Councils, and so we have images of both God the Father and also God the Holy Spirit depicted as a dove.

stay blessed,
habte selassie

[LBK]

If the above quote is correct, are there also images of the Holy Spirit in the Eastern Orthodox or are they also prohibited?

The Holy Spirit can be depicted in EO icons, but only in the specific revealed form at specific instances. IOW, the Spirit can be shown in the form of a dove, but only in icons of Christ's Baptism, as it is in this form that the Spirit became manifest at that particular place and time. In icons of Pentecost, the Spirit is shown as tongues of fire descending on the Apostles. However, to portray the Spirit as a dove in any other icon is wrong: the Spirit is not a dove by nature, but immaterial, infinite, indescribable, as is God the Father. God the Son, in taking up human nature, becoming incarnate and living among us, can, and indeed must, be depicted iconographically, as a Child, or as a Man. The iconoclasts, in denying this, in effect denied and diminished the Incarnation.

[Volnutt]

"When" did the Synaxis of the Archangels happen and what justifies portraying them as a bunch of winged men when they are the Bodiless Powers? What about portrait icons of angels?

If the Holy Spirit as a dove is only to be portrayed in the Theophany icon, then it follows that angels should only be depicted in the Biblical scenes in which they appeared to people.

[LBK]

"When" did the Synaxis of the Archangels happen and what justifies portraying them as a bunch of winged men when they are the Bodiless Powers? What about portrait icons of angels?

If the Holy Spirit as a dove is only to be portrayed in the Theophany icon, then it follows that angels should only be depicted in the Biblical scenes in which they appeared to people.

Angels are created beings. The Persons of the Holy Trinity are not.

Angels have appeared at various times in both OT and NT history in human form, though, of course, they are not human or material in essence. The iconographic motif of wings symbolizes their heavenly origins and abode, distinguishing them from human beings.

Iconography, at its core and essence, is an expression of the Incarnation, of the infinite and invisible God entering and becoming part of the material and visible world. The Word became flesh, and dwelled among us.

[Volnutt]

That's nothing but a cop out. If angels can be portrayed as men outside Biblical scenes in which they appeared as such, then is no logical reason that the Spirit as a dove or the Father as the Ancient of Days (Daniel 9) can't be portrayed. We're talking about forms for appearance sake and not incarnate bodies.

[FormerReformer]

That's nothing but a cop out. If angels can be portrayed as men outside Biblical scenes in which they appeared as such, then is no logical reason that the Spirit as a dove or the Father as the Ancient of Days (Daniel 9) can't be portrayed. We're talking about forms for appearance sake and not incarnate bodies.

Not quite. The difference is that angels are themselves created beings and fellow servants, the Father and the Spirit are not. Also, (I'm not entirely sure how in line with EO teaching I am on this, and open to correction) the Ancient of Days is more correctly interpreted as an Old Testament Christophany per Revelation 1:13-16.

[Volnutt]

Not quite. The difference is that angels are themselves created beings and fellow servants, the Father and the Spirit are not.

How is that a relevant distinction in this context?

Also, (I'm not entirely sure how in line with EO teaching I am on this, and open to correction) the Ancient of Days is more correctly interpreted as an Old Testament Christophany per Revelation 1:13-16.

I don't deny that they can both legitimately be called Ancient of Days, but the Ancient of Days that Daniel saw is obviously the Father. The One Like the Son of Man comes to Him and is allowed to sit on His Throne. If the Ancient of Days there is a Person other than the Father, then we're either talking about two hypostases or the passage doesn't make any sense.

[FormerReformer]

Not quite. The difference is that angels are themselves created beings and fellow servants, the Father and the Spirit are not.

How is that a relevant distinction in this context?

Also, (I'm not entirely sure how in line with EO teaching I am on this, and open to correction) the Ancient of Days is more correctly interpreted as an Old Testament Christophany per Revelation 1:13-16.

I don't deny that they can both legitimately be called Ancient of Days, but the Ancient of Days that Daniel saw is obviously the Father. The One Like the Son of Man comes to Him and is allowed to sit on His Throne. If the Ancient of Days there is a Person other than the Father, then we're either talking about two hypostases or the passage doesn't make any sense.

Or we're talking about the divine nature (the Ancient of Days, the Word begotten before the ages) taking the human nature (the Son of Man) and through the Incarnation making the humanity divine. The entire context of the Daniel passage suggests this; it is the Ancient of Days who defeats the Beast, and in the explanation of the prophecy at the end of the chapter it is the Ancient of Days who judges, and we are told that it is the holy people who receive the kingdom and dominion. St John, prophesying after the Incarnation and Ascension, identifies the Ancient of Days with the Son of Man and the Church in his prophecy is the Bride. Take all this in context with the Pauline passages on marriage, Our Lord's explanation on marriage, and with the Genesis passage both quote and the Daniel passage becomes crystal clear- if you read the whole thing and don't just proof-text certain verses.

 It would not be the first time an Old Testament passage presents us with an image of two distinct (and often incongruous) types as a prophecy of the Incarnation- Isaiah's "Lion lying with the lamb" passage is the first to come to mind.

[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.

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

As expressions of Orthodoxy, not as acts of a valid council.

[Shanghaiski]

"When" did the Synaxis of the Archangels happen and what justifies portraying them as a bunch of winged men when they are the Bodiless Powers? What about portrait icons of angels?

If the Holy Spirit as a dove is only to be portrayed in the Theophany icon, then it follows that angels should only be depicted in the Biblical scenes in which they appeared to people.

Bodiless does not mean invisible. The depiction of angels follows holy tradition, not human reasoning.

[HabteSelassie]

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

That's nothing but a cop out. If angels can be portrayed as men outside Biblical scenes in which they appeared as such, then is no logical reason that the Spirit as a dove or the Father as the Ancient of Days (Daniel 9) can't be portrayed. We're talking about forms for appearance sake and not incarnate bodies.

Well I and the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church surely agree with you which is why we portray both in our Iconography and Church art, but we're not Eastern Orthodox so that really doesn't count

stay blessed,
habte selassie

[Volnutt]

Or we're talking about the divine nature (the Ancient of Days, the Word begotten before the ages) taking the human nature (the Son of Man) and through the Incarnation making the humanity divine. The entire context of the Daniel passage suggests this; it is the Ancient of Days who defeats the Beast, and in the explanation of the prophecy at the end of the chapter it is the Ancient of Days who judges, and we are told that it is the holy people who receive the kingdom and dominion. St John, prophesying after the Incarnation and Ascension, identifies the Ancient of Days with the Son of Man and the Church in his prophecy is the Bride. Take all this in context with the Pauline passages on marriage, Our Lord's explanation on marriage, and with the Genesis passage both quote and the Daniel passage becomes crystal clear- if you read the whole thing and don't just proof-text certain verses.

I guess that makes sense as a possibility.

[HandmaidenofGod]

"When" did the Synaxis of the Archangels happen and what justifies portraying them as a bunch of winged men when they are the Bodiless Powers? What about portrait icons of angels?

God himself gave Moses the authority to depict the angels and to "design artistic works" (Ex. 31:4) on the Ark of the Covenant and throughout the temple and all of the vestments in the Book of Exodus.

If you read how God instructed Moses and Aaron to construct and decorate the temple, and then look at the modern architecture and design of the Orthodox Church, you will see parallels.





Also, if you look at how the Jewish Temple Priests dressed and how our priests vestments are put on, there are also similarities:





A description of what each part of the vestments mean can be found here.

[William]

Just saw this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMpCQYEtorg

They're venerating an icon of Our Lady of Guadalupe in the OCA Exarch of Mexico's cathedral.

[ag_vn]

Just saw this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMpCQYEtorg

They're venerating an icon of Our Lady of Guadalupe in the OCA Exarch of Mexico's cathedral.

It is an  icon of Our Lady of Guadalupe indeed, but the church is St. John the Baptist Orthodox Church in Passaic, New Jersey. The interior of the OCA Cathedral in Mexico is completely different. Some info about the visit of Bishop Alejo in Passaic - http://ocamexico.org/visitanj.html

Saturday, March 19th, 2011 at 5:30 pm  - This service will be a supplication to Our Lady of Guadalupe in Spanish. This will be followed by a discussion in Spanish about Orthodoxy and the Orthodox Church in Mexico led by Bishop Alejo.

There are also icons of Our Lady of Guadalupe in the OCA church in Veracruz - http://ocamexico.org/news_110923_1.html

[Andrew21091]

^ I really like those pictures. That is a very beautiful church.

I also think its beautiful that they have the Guadalupe image in the church.

[WeldeMikael]

Orthodox Churches in Latin America ? 

I thought they were all Catholic ! 

[Ortho_cat]

Orthodox Churches in Latin America ? 

I thought they were all Catholic ! 

nope...we even have Orthodox bishops in Rome...

[Ortho_cat]

Just saw this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMpCQYEtorg

They're venerating an icon of Our Lady of Guadalupe in the OCA Exarch of Mexico's cathedral.

No reason we can't adopt this icon. It's an important part of their culture down there. I particularly like this aspect of the icon:

"Due to a claim that her black girdle indicates pregnancy on the image, the Blessed Virgin Mary, under this title is popularly invoked as Patroness of the Unborn and a common image for the Pro-Life movement." ~wiki

[Alpo]

No reason we can't adopt this icon. It's an important part of their culture down there.

Is there are a precedent of adopting images or apparitions from a heterodox tradition?

[Ortho_cat]

No reason we can't adopt this icon. It's an important part of their culture down there.

Is there are a precedent of adopting images or apparitions from a heterodox tradition?

Yep, images and symbols from ancient heterodox traditions were adopted and Christianized and re-defined to be understood in an Orthodox context.

[LBK]

No reason we can't adopt this icon. It's an important part of their culture down there.

Is there are a precedent of adopting images or apparitions from a heterodox tradition?

Yep, images and symbols from ancient heterodox traditions were adopted and Christianized and re-defined to be understood in an Orthodox context.

The Mother of God is neither an image, nor a symbol. She is the Mother of our Lord.

And must I reiterate that icons are not simply religious art, but proclamations of Orthodox teaching, as is Orthodox hymnography? Invoking popular culture to justify the presence of the Guadelupe image in an Orthodox church is not enough reason. This image simply falls short of what an icon is and stands for.

[Volnutt]

And must I reiterate...

You must if you want to keep on confirming the worst of Adolf Harnack's "frozen church" accusations. It's a far different world than ninth century Byzantium (which, needless to say, didn't have any Mexicans). If the Church can't flex a little with the times then it will not only die but deserve to die.

[LBK]

And must I reiterate...

You must if you want to keep on confirming the worst of Adolf Harnack's "frozen church" accusations. It's a far different world than ninth century Byzantium (which, needless to say, didn't have any Mexicans). If the Church can't flex a little with the times then it will not only die but deserve to die.

What does the Guadalupe image have to say regarding the Orthodox POV of the Mother of God? Why are there no stars on her head and shoulders symbolizing her perpetual virginity? Where is the hymnography, when is the Orthodox feastday for the image? Where does Orthodox tradition record the apparition which led to the appearance of the image? Where in Orthodox iconographic history or practice has the Mother of God been depicted with a bulging pregnant belly?

[Volnutt]

And must I reiterate...

You must if you want to keep on confirming the worst of Adolf Harnack's "frozen church" accusations. It's a far different world than ninth century Byzantium (which, needless to say, didn't have any Mexicans). If the Church can't flex a little with the times then it will not only die but deserve to die.

What does the Guadalupe image have to say regarding the Orthodox POV of the Mother of God? Why are there no stars on her head and shoulders symbolizing her perpetual virginity? Where is the hymnography, when is the Orthodox feastday for the image? Where does Orthodox tradition record the apparition which led to the appearance of the image? Where in Orthodox iconographic history or practice has the Mother of God been depicted with a bulging pregnant belly?

All that is now old was once new. How do think those traditions developed in the first place?

[LBK]

And must I reiterate...

You must if you want to keep on confirming the worst of Adolf Harnack's "frozen church" accusations. It's a far different world than ninth century Byzantium (which, needless to say, didn't have any Mexicans). If the Church can't flex a little with the times then it will not only die but deserve to die.

What does the Guadalupe image have to say regarding the Orthodox POV of the Mother of God? Why are there no stars on her head and shoulders symbolizing her perpetual virginity? Where is the hymnography, when is the Orthodox feastday for the image? Where does Orthodox tradition record the apparition which led to the appearance of the image? Where in Orthodox iconographic history or practice has the Mother of God been depicted with a bulging pregnant belly?

All that is now old was once new. How do think those traditions developed in the first place?

Orthodoxy accepts traditions from elsewhere only if they do not conflict with accepted teaching. The Guadelupe image appeared centuries ago. The Orthodox Church has seen it fit to not accept it within its hagiographic, hymnographic and iconographic deposit.

[Ortho_cat]

And must I reiterate...

You must if you want to keep on confirming the worst of Adolf Harnack's "frozen church" accusations. It's a far different world than ninth century Byzantium (which, needless to say, didn't have any Mexicans). If the Church can't flex a little with the times then it will not only die but deserve to die.

What does the Guadalupe image have to say regarding the Orthodox POV of the Mother of God? Why are there no stars on her head and shoulders symbolizing her perpetual virginity? Where is the hymnography, when is the Orthodox feastday for the image? Where does Orthodox tradition record the apparition which led to the appearance of the image? Where in Orthodox iconographic history or practice has the Mother of God been depicted with a bulging pregnant belly?

All that is now old was once new. How do think those traditions developed in the first place?

Orthodoxy accepts traditions from elsewhere only if they do not conflict with accepted teaching. The Guadelupe image appeared centuries ago. The Orthodox Church has seen it fit to not accept it within its hagiographic, hymnographic and iconographic deposit.

It seems that at least some bishops in the OCA-Mexico deemed it appropriate to include in the worship space. I trust their judgment that they are doing the best for the benifit of their parishoner's salvation, unless I hear otherwise by some synodical decision.

[Shanghaiski]

And must I reiterate...

You must if you want to keep on confirming the worst of Adolf Harnack's "frozen church" accusations. It's a far different world than ninth century Byzantium (which, needless to say, didn't have any Mexicans). If the Church can't flex a little with the times then it will not only die but deserve to die.

LOL! "Just a pinch of incense...You can repent later."

[Shanghaiski]

And must I reiterate...

You must if you want to keep on confirming the worst of Adolf Harnack's "frozen church" accusations. It's a far different world than ninth century Byzantium (which, needless to say, didn't have any Mexicans). If the Church can't flex a little with the times then it will not only die but deserve to die.

What does the Guadalupe image have to say regarding the Orthodox POV of the Mother of God? Why are there no stars on her head and shoulders symbolizing her perpetual virginity? Where is the hymnography, when is the Orthodox feastday for the image? Where does Orthodox tradition record the apparition which led to the appearance of the image? Where in Orthodox iconographic history or practice has the Mother of God been depicted with a bulging pregnant belly?

All that is now old was once new. How do think those traditions developed in the first place?

Orthodoxy accepts traditions from elsewhere only if they do not conflict with accepted teaching. The Guadelupe image appeared centuries ago. The Orthodox Church has seen it fit to not accept it within its hagiographic, hymnographic and iconographic deposit.

It seems that at least some bishops in the OCA-Mexico deemed it appropriate to include in the worship space. I trust their judgment that they are doing the best for the benifit of their parishoner's salvation, unless I hear otherwise by some synodical decision.

LOL. Do not assume the bishop knows what is going on in the church. And do not assume the bishop is in a position to correct abuses.

[Nadege]

I once went to an OCA church in Passaic, NJ, where an Orthodox bishop from Mexico was visiting, we served an Orthodox moleben to Our Lady of Guadalupe in Spanish.  I still have the booklet with text of the moleben in Spanish at my home.