Author Topic: Questions abou Orthodox visionaires and mystics  (Read 4973 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rakovsky

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,254
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Questions abou Orthodox visionaires and mystics
« Reply #45 on: March 29, 2017, 01:06:56 PM »
If someone wants to accept a miracle, the normal process is one of discernment, which the Church carries out.

For discernment, one must consider alternate possibilities and explanations.

Quote
In a letter leaked to the press, the former abbot of the basilica in Mexico City, Guillermo Schulenburg, warned Pope John Paul II not to canonise Juan Diego, a native American whose vision of the Virgin 500 years ago was decisive in converting Latin America to Christianity.
In the face of centuries of devotion, ecclesiastical research and plans to make him a saint next year, Mr Schulenburg said that Diego had never existed except as a tool to convert native Americans.
He warned that there was insufficient evidence that the vision of a dark Madonna - adopted as Mexico's patron saint - appeared on Diego's cloak in Mexico City in 1531.
...
The Pope has visited the shrine, and in 1990 beatified Diego, the first step to making him a saint. Reports that he would complete the canonisation next year prompted the letter from Mr Schulenburg, 83, and two other Mexican prelates, Carlos Wanholtz and Esteban Martinez. ... Mr Schulenburg, who guarded the shrine for 33 years, claimed three years ago that the miracle was symbolic rather than literal.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/dec/21/rorycarroll

Quote
The only problem with father Sanchez story is that Zumarraga wasnt even in Mexiko during the time of the alleged appearances! As we already know, he was called away to Spain earlier that year and did not return until 1534. Not only that, but Zumarraga wasnt even declared Archbishop until 1532.
...
As years passed, Markos Zipaktlis painting became badly deteriorated from mold and exposure to the elements. In 1751, Archbishop Rubio commissioned famed painter Miguel Cabrera... to retouch the painting. In order to cement the idea that the image was a miracle, Cabrera published a book in 1756 titled American Marvel. ...  in 1787, Jose Ignacio Bartolache took it upon himself to examine the miracle image. Aided by a group of skilled painters, Bartolache discovered that the image had been heavily retouched and was covered with patches and that in places is falling apart due to the effect of fungus and moisture. ...

In 1883, Joaquin Garcia Icazbalceta was directed by Archbishop Labastida to investigate the matter. ... In his report back to the Archbishop, Icazbalceta stated "With all my heart, I had hoped this miracle which would prove to be such a great honor for my country would prove to be true, But I do not find it to be. If we are obliged to believe in and proclaim miracles which have occured, we are also prohibited from publicizing false ones."
http://xcatholic.yuku.com/reply/64823#.WNvkVmeP7IU

Quote
Frays Alonso Montufar and Francisco Bustamante – There was a controversy in Mexico City in 1556 over the cult that had developed in Tepeyac with Fray Bustamante petitioning the King of Spain to have Alonso Montufar, the current archbishop, defrocked and put under charges for promoting the worship of idols. He referred to the cult of Guadalupe as something that was invented yesterday and claimed the tilma had been painted by an Indian named Marco. Of interest is that Montufar never defended himself by describing the story of Juan Diego, even though Fray Zumarraga was his direct predecessor.
...
http://vridar.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/how-quickly-a-historical-person-can-emerge-from-a-myth-a-case-study/
« Last Edit: March 29, 2017, 01:08:54 PM by rakovsky »
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,786
  • I am the Provisional Supreme Church Authority
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Questions abou Orthodox visionaires and mystics
« Reply #46 on: March 29, 2017, 01:18:11 PM »
Is the woman depicted in the image of Guadalupe anyone other than the Virgin Mary?

I think that's up for debate. Orthodox tend to be skeptical about visions and their true origins. Couldn't this hold true in this case as well?

Visions of angels are frequently outright dismissed as demonic. Yet the "angels" claim to be angels and certainly look the part. So just because a supposed vision of the Virgin Mary claims to be her and looks pretty much like we think she should look like doesn't prove much in itself. Maybe Guadeloupe has been more "vetted" than others though, and a more accepting view has been adopted.

Clearly RCs believe it to be the Virgin, and intend their depictions to be the Virgin.  It seems equally clear that Orthodox Mexicans regard the depiction as being the Virgin and honour it as such.  I think that's sufficient for establishing the legitimacy of venerating such an image, as long as there is nothing else obviously heretical or suspect about the image.   

If we are going to apply a healthy skepticism to spiritual phenomena (a principle I agree with in general), then many things we take for granted in Orthodoxy could also be called into question and possibly delegitimised.  As long as we're OK with that... 

Offline rakovsky

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,254
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Questions abou Orthodox visionaires and mystics
« Reply #47 on: March 29, 2017, 01:53:28 PM »
Is the woman depicted in the image of Guadalupe anyone other than the Virgin Mary?

I think that's up for debate. Orthodox tend to be skeptical about visions and their true origins. Couldn't this hold true in this case as well?

Visions of angels are frequently outright dismissed as demonic. Yet the "angels" claim to be angels and certainly look the part. So just because a supposed vision of the Virgin Mary claims to be her and looks pretty much like we think she should look like doesn't prove much in itself. Maybe Guadeloupe has been more "vetted" than others though, and a more accepting view has been adopted.

Clearly RCs believe it to be the Virgin, and intend their depictions to be the Virgin.  It seems equally clear that Orthodox Mexicans regard the depiction as being the Virgin and honour it as such.  I think that's sufficient for establishing the legitimacy of venerating such an image, as long as there is nothing else obviously heretical or suspect about the image.   

If we are going to apply a healthy skepticism to spiritual phenomena (a principle I agree with in general), then many things we take for granted in Orthodoxy could also be called into question and possibly delegitimised.  As long as we're OK with that...
Discernment is part of Christianity, and that includes skepticism, since even the RCC requires a process for verifying miracle claims.
What is suspect or heretical need not be obvious.
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,786
  • I am the Provisional Supreme Church Authority
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Questions abou Orthodox visionaires and mystics
« Reply #48 on: March 29, 2017, 02:48:03 PM »
Is the woman depicted in the image of Guadalupe anyone other than the Virgin Mary?

I think that's up for debate. Orthodox tend to be skeptical about visions and their true origins. Couldn't this hold true in this case as well?

Visions of angels are frequently outright dismissed as demonic. Yet the "angels" claim to be angels and certainly look the part. So just because a supposed vision of the Virgin Mary claims to be her and looks pretty much like we think she should look like doesn't prove much in itself. Maybe Guadeloupe has been more "vetted" than others though, and a more accepting view has been adopted.

Clearly RCs believe it to be the Virgin, and intend their depictions to be the Virgin.  It seems equally clear that Orthodox Mexicans regard the depiction as being the Virgin and honour it as such.  I think that's sufficient for establishing the legitimacy of venerating such an image, as long as there is nothing else obviously heretical or suspect about the image.   

If we are going to apply a healthy skepticism to spiritual phenomena (a principle I agree with in general), then many things we take for granted in Orthodoxy could also be called into question and possibly delegitimised.  As long as we're OK with that...
Discernment is part of Christianity, and that includes skepticism, since even the RCC requires a process for verifying miracle claims.

I'm not sure how this observation is relevant, given that I agree.

Quote
What is suspect or heretical need not be obvious.

Then perhaps it would be better to pursue how, if at all, the Guadalupe image might be heretical or suspect rather than just presuming that it is so because it comes out of post-schism Roman Catholicism.  After all, a lot of things that come out of post-schism Roman Catholicism have been enthusiastically adopted by Eastern Orthodoxy, and at least some of them are likely more suspect than the Guadalupe image. 

Offline Deacon Lance

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,047
  • Faith: Byzantine Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Re: Questions abou Orthodox visionaires and mystics
« Reply #49 on: March 29, 2017, 11:59:11 PM »
Is the woman depicted in the image of Guadalupe anyone other than the Virgin Mary?
That depends on whether you accept it as an apparition of the Virgin or someone's mistake for her.

I think this is the apparition at Fatima:


Was the image seen by the children at Fatima, with which some EO theologians disagree, actually the Virgin Mary, or something else?
That is not an image of Our Lady Of Fatima, but one of Our Lady of Guadalupe reimagined.  This is Fatima:
My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.

Offline rakovsky

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,254
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Questions abou Orthodox visionaires and mystics
« Reply #50 on: March 30, 2017, 12:10:12 AM »
Is the woman depicted in the image of Guadalupe anyone other than the Virgin Mary?

I think that's up for debate. Orthodox tend to be skeptical about visions and their true origins. Couldn't this hold true in this case as well?

Visions of angels are frequently outright dismissed as demonic. Yet the "angels" claim to be angels and certainly look the part. So just because a supposed vision of the Virgin Mary claims to be her and looks pretty much like we think she should look like doesn't prove much in itself. Maybe Guadeloupe has been more "vetted" than others though, and a more accepting view has been adopted.

Clearly RCs believe it to be the Virgin, and intend their depictions to be the Virgin.  It seems equally clear that Orthodox Mexicans regard the depiction as being the Virgin and honour it as such.  I think that's sufficient for establishing the legitimacy of venerating such an image, as long as there is nothing else obviously heretical or suspect about the image.   

If we are going to apply a healthy skepticism to spiritual phenomena (a principle I agree with in general), then many things we take for granted in Orthodoxy could also be called into question and possibly delegitimised.  As long as we're OK with that...
Discernment is part of Christianity, and that includes skepticism, since even the RCC requires a process for verifying miracle claims.

I'm not sure how this observation is relevant, given that I agree.

Quote
What is suspect or heretical need not be obvious.

Then perhaps it would be better to pursue how, if at all, the Guadalupe image might be heretical or suspect rather than just presuming that it is so because it comes out of post-schism Roman Catholicism. 
I took first steps in my skeptic quotes toward suspect aspects for discernment.
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline Alpo

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,878
  • Why am I still here?
  • Faith: Mongol-Finnic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Priestly Society of St. John Ireland
Re: Questions abou Orthodox visionaires and mystics
« Reply #51 on: March 31, 2017, 01:38:20 AM »
Some were under the Ottomans, actually, so that explanation does not hold.

It does. Being under a Muslim ruler is not that different from being under a RC ruler in that both inhibit contact and support from Orthodox countries. Rus was even more farther away than Rome so going to schism had probably seen only viable option.

Actually Rus was quite proximate to Rome, or rather Rome's minions, since it was the behavior of the Poles during the Time of Troubles that made something like the Greek intercommunion unthinkable.

What am I missing here? Proximate to Poles, not to folks under Caliphate.
I just need to find out how to say it in Slavonic!

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,430
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: Questions abou Orthodox visionaires and mystics
« Reply #52 on: March 31, 2017, 09:15:44 AM »
Some were under the Ottomans, actually, so that explanation does not hold.

It does. Being under a Muslim ruler is not that different from being under a RC ruler in that both inhibit contact and support from Orthodox countries. Rus was even more farther away than Rome so going to schism had probably seen only viable option.

Actually Rus was quite proximate to Rome, or rather Rome's minions, since it was the behavior of the Poles during the Time of Troubles that made something like the Greek intercommunion unthinkable.

What am I missing here? Proximate to Poles, not to folks under Caliphate.

Are you saying that the Orthodox in the Greek isles went into schism? Because they did not.
“Steel isn't strong, boy, flesh is stronger! That is strength, boy! That is power! What is steel compared to the hand that wields it?  Contemplate this on the tree of woe.” - Elder Thulsa Doom of the Mountain of Power

Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Come look at my lame blog

Offline J Michael

  • Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,549
  • Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!
  • Faith: Cafeteria CHRISTIAN Heretic
  • Jurisdiction: Here and now (well...sometimes...)
Re: Questions abou Orthodox visionaires and mystics
« Reply #53 on: April 01, 2017, 01:27:39 PM »
Pretty much what I meant by analogy: if we should paint the Immaculate Heart on iconostases or compose canons to pray in a Vigil for Padre Pio, why venerate Guadalupe?

What is "Guadalupe"?  I know what "Immaculate Heart" is and why I think such a devotion is incompatible with Orthodoxy, and I know what "Padre Pio" is and why I think an official veneration of him would be inappropriate in Orthodoxy, but what is a "Guadalupe"?

A "Guadalupe" is a place name.  In Mexico.  Then there is what Catholics call "Our Lady of Guadalupe".  You can read about it here.

I guess it didn't come across as a sort of rhetorical question...  :P

I guess not. :P
"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)