Author Topic: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?  (Read 5896 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Done
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,607
  • Intercede for my wretched soul, Saint Alban.
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: Lost for now.
Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« on: January 08, 2018, 07:05:01 PM »
Here's a question: without getting into the specifics of Catholic Marian apparitions, it seems that the Guadalupe image has played a significant role in Latin America, such that even Orthodox Churches have used it in their iconography - even using it as an "Incarnation" icon.

I know that it may be in part subjective, but is the Guadalupe painting a valid icon in its art?

« Last Edit: January 08, 2018, 07:05:41 PM by LivenotoneviL »
I'm done.

Offline Jackson02

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 904
  • Faith: Genuine Orthodox Church
  • Jurisdiction: Inquiring
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #1 on: January 08, 2018, 07:09:05 PM »
No its Roman Catholic and has nothing to do with Orthodoxy.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2018, 07:09:47 PM by Jackson02 »

Offline RaphaCam

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,960
  • It is honourable to reveal the works of God
    • Em Espírito e em Verdade
  • Faith: Big-O Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Exarchate of Gotham City
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #2 on: January 08, 2018, 07:35:29 PM »
I believe we have enough obviously Orthodox Marian art to go on endless and pointless discussions about publicly venerating particular stuff from outside the Church.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2018, 07:35:51 PM by RaphaCam »
"May the Lord our God remember in His kingdom all Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, which heralds the Word of Truth and fearlessly offers and distributes the Holy Oblation despite human deficiencies and persecutions moved by the powers of this world, in all time and unto the ages of ages."

May the Blessed Light shine Forth

Offline Dominika

  • Troublesome Sheep
  • Global Moderator
  • Taxiarches
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,811
  • Serbian/Polish
    • My youtube channel
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian Patriarchate/POC
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #3 on: January 08, 2018, 07:48:02 PM »
It's used in the iconostasis of the Orthodox cathedral in Mexico:



Personally - I have no problems with it, since:
1. It's an event that has brought lots of people to Christ (and the hadn't any possiblity to know and embrace Orthodoxy then);
2. It shows that Orthodoxy can be compatible with Mexican history and heritage.
Pray for persecuted Christians, especially in Serbian Kosovo and Raška, Egypt and Syria

My Orthodox liturgical blog "For what eat, while you can fast" in Polish (videos featuring chants in different languages)

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,590
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #4 on: January 08, 2018, 08:00:10 PM »
It's used in the iconostasis of the Orthodox cathedral in Mexico:



Personally - I have no problems with it, since:
1. It's an event that has brought lots of people to Christ (and the hadn't any possiblity to know and embrace Orthodoxy then);
2. It shows that Orthodoxy can be compatible with Mexican history and heritage.

Jackson02 and RaphaCam's posts are completely correct.

The presence of this image in an Orthodox church is an error, just as "icons" of St Francis of Assisi at New Skete are wrong. Neither the Guadalupe Madonna nor Francis were or are part of Orthodox tradition, and to attempt to shoehorn them into the Church in the name of cultural relevance is a grave mistake.
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Done
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,607
  • Intercede for my wretched soul, Saint Alban.
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: Lost for now.
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #5 on: January 08, 2018, 08:28:57 PM »
But from the artwork style in of itself, and if this icon were detached from the events of Our Lady of Guadalupe's apparition to Juan Diego (whether real, really demonic, or complete fiction), would it be acceptable from an iconographic point of view?
I'm done.

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,054
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #6 on: January 08, 2018, 08:29:14 PM »
There's nothing wrong with this holy icon. Raise it proudly.
Quote
When a time revolts against eternity, the only thing to set against it is genuine eternity itself, and not some other time which has already roused, and not without reason, a violent reaction against itself.
- Berdyaev

If you would like a private forum for non-polemical topics, comment here.

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,590
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #7 on: January 08, 2018, 08:33:19 PM »
But from the artwork style in of itself, and if this icon were detached from the events of Our Lady of Guadalupe's apparition to Juan Diego (whether real, really demonic, or complete fiction), would it be acceptable from an iconographic point of view?

The Juan Diego story is central to why the image is venerated by Roman Catholics. So the answer is no, it cannot be acceptable for Orthodox veneration.
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Done
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,607
  • Intercede for my wretched soul, Saint Alban.
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: Lost for now.
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #8 on: January 08, 2018, 08:37:19 PM »
Rob Schneider is derp de derp derp derp, and coming this Summer, he will derp de derp derp derp derp. He will soon find out derp de derp de derp derp derp derp derp! Derp derp derp derp derp!

In theaters June 2018, Derp de Derp!
« Last Edit: January 08, 2018, 08:41:02 PM by LivenotoneviL »
I'm done.

Offline biro

  • Site Supporter
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,383
  • Excelsior
    • Archive of Our Own works
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #9 on: January 08, 2018, 08:43:05 PM »
Rob Schneider is derp de derp derp derp, and coming this Summer, he will derp de derp derp derp derp. He will soon find out derp de derp de derp derp derp derp derp! Derp derp derp derp derp!

In theaters June 2018, Derp de Derp!

You realize you're laughing at yourself, because it's a thread you started?

Other people have to pay for the bandwith.
https://archiveofourown.org/users/Parakeetist


Warning: stories have mature content.

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,590
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #10 on: January 08, 2018, 08:46:46 PM »
Francis of Assisi did not paint or commission the San Damiano cross, and there is little if anything that is doctrinally objectionable in what is depicted on it. OTOH, if Juan Diego had not seen the vision, there would not be an Our Lady of Guadalupe for his church to venerate.
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Done
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,607
  • Intercede for my wretched soul, Saint Alban.
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: Lost for now.
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #11 on: January 08, 2018, 08:50:19 PM »
Rob Schneider is derp de derp derp derp, and coming this Summer, he will derp de derp derp derp derp. He will soon find out derp de derp de derp derp derp derp derp! Derp derp derp derp derp!

In theaters June 2018, Derp de Derp!

Oh my goodness... I didn't at all mean to sound like a jerk! 

This was an error post - that is, I posted something really stupid that I didn't realize, so I added in content about how stupid I am with my posts to replace the text.

However, without any context, it sounds like I'm immaturely picking on people here. I'm so sorry!
« Last Edit: January 08, 2018, 08:51:59 PM by LivenotoneviL »
I'm done.

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Done
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,607
  • Intercede for my wretched soul, Saint Alban.
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: Lost for now.
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #12 on: January 08, 2018, 08:58:20 PM »
Rob Schneider is derp de derp derp derp, and coming this Summer, he will derp de derp derp derp derp. He will soon find out derp de derp de derp derp derp derp derp! Derp derp derp derp derp!

In theaters June 2018, Derp de Derp!

You realize you're laughing at yourself, because it's a thread you started?

Other people have to pay for the bandwith.

My bad.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2018, 09:03:45 PM by LivenotoneviL »
I'm done.

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,386
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Greek
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #13 on: January 08, 2018, 09:22:03 PM »
The Juan Diego story is central to why the image is venerated by Roman Catholics. So the answer is no, it cannot be acceptable for Orthodox veneration.
The Mother of God is central to the veneration of this image made not by human hands by Catholics, not St. Juan Diego.
Sanctus Deus
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ
Άγιος ο Θεός

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,590
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #14 on: January 08, 2018, 09:27:28 PM »
The Juan Diego story is central to why the image is venerated by Roman Catholics. So the answer is no, it cannot be acceptable for Orthodox veneration.
The Mother of God is central to the veneration of this image made not by human hands by Catholics, not St. Juan Diego.

This apparition is not, and has never been, part of Orthodox tradition, either as an icon, or, just as importantly, in liturgical commemoration. Just as there is no Orthodox acceptance of Fatima or Medjugorje.  Let the Roman Catholics venerate it, by all means. It's their tradition, it can never be ours.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2018, 09:29:18 PM by LBK »
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline Jackson02

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 904
  • Faith: Genuine Orthodox Church
  • Jurisdiction: Inquiring
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #15 on: January 08, 2018, 09:57:18 PM »
The Juan Diego story is central to why the image is venerated by Roman Catholics. So the answer is no, it cannot be acceptable for Orthodox veneration.
The Mother of God is central to the veneration of this image made not by human hands by Catholics, not St. Juan Diego.

This apparition is not, and has never been, part of Orthodox tradition, either as an icon, or, just as importantly, in liturgical commemoration. Just as there is no Orthodox acceptance of Fatima or Medjugorje.  Let the Roman Catholics venerate it, by all means. It's their tradition, it can never be ours.
+1

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,054
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #16 on: January 08, 2018, 10:07:57 PM »
Parts of the Orthodox Church were in communion with Rome up through 1724 so Saint Juan Diego is pre-schism.
Quote
When a time revolts against eternity, the only thing to set against it is genuine eternity itself, and not some other time which has already roused, and not without reason, a violent reaction against itself.
- Berdyaev

If you would like a private forum for non-polemical topics, comment here.

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,229
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #17 on: January 08, 2018, 10:20:19 PM »
Parts of the Orthodox Church were in communion with Rome up through 1724 so Saint Juan Diego is pre-schism.

Even so, including this icon in veneration is a big stretch. On what basis would you include it? You're gonna have to find a bigger bridge to build on this one. Catholics did a lot of things before 1724, and yet we have not willy nilly adopted all of those other traditions. I would just as soon have icons painted like a 1930's Disney cartoon than include something so far out of mainstream Orthodoxy.
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline Xavier

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 621
  • Immaculate Heart of Mary, Pray for US!
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #18 on: January 08, 2018, 10:21:27 PM »
Guadalupe, Wow! What a signal mark of Heaven's favor. Had it been in the first Christian millenium, all Christians would have revered and venerated the Virgin who there crushed infanticide, heathen serpent worship, ritual child-killing and much else besides. "He opened the tilma to show them and, to everyone's astonishment, the Image of Our Lady appeared on it. The Bishop then built the church as Our Lady had requested and ten million natives were converted and baptized to the one, true faith within the next 10 years. Human sacrifice ended in Mexico forever. Our Lady of Guadalupe, which means Crusher of the serpent's head, brought the light of the true faith, crushed the false gods of Mexico, and established an era of peace." https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/the-amazing-truth-of-our-lady-of-guadalupe.html

St. Juan Diego learnt the serpent gods were false and that the Virgin Mary was "the Virgin Mother of the true God for Whom we must live." A fulfilment of the ancient prophesy, "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." (Gen 3:15). Untold millions came into the Church in droves; hardly had the greatest of Apostles ever been able to do what the Queen of the Apostles did with such ease in 10 years; when the sacred icon of Our Lady of Guadalupe was carried into Lepanto, as Catholic Europe sought the intercession of the Mother of God, the Islamist invasion there was driven back. http://catholicexchange.com/lepanto-the-day-our-lady-saved-christendom Everywhere, the veneration of Our Lady of Guadulupe brought the richest fruits and the greatest blessings.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2018, 10:24:17 PM by Xavier »
"My daughter, look at My Heart surrounded with thorns with which ungrateful men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, try to console Me, and say that I promise to assist at the hour of death, with all the graces necessary for salvation, all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months go to confession and receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary and keep Me company for a quarter of an hour" - The Theotokos to Sr. Lucia.

Offline Jackson02

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 904
  • Faith: Genuine Orthodox Church
  • Jurisdiction: Inquiring
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #19 on: January 08, 2018, 10:26:49 PM »
Parts of the Orthodox Church were in communion with Rome up through 1724 so Saint Juan Diego is pre-schism.
What parts remained in communion? It sounds like the unia before it was the unia.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2018, 10:27:07 PM by Jackson02 »

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,054
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #20 on: January 08, 2018, 10:31:29 PM »
Parts of the Orthodox Church were in communion with Rome up through 1724 so Saint Juan Diego is pre-schism.

Even so, including this icon in veneration is a big stretch. On what basis would you include it? You're gonna have to find a bigger bridge to build on this one.

:Shrug: It's a fait accompli. The bishops in Mexico/ Guatemala are fine with it.
Quote
When a time revolts against eternity, the only thing to set against it is genuine eternity itself, and not some other time which has already roused, and not without reason, a violent reaction against itself.
- Berdyaev

If you would like a private forum for non-polemical topics, comment here.

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,590
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #21 on: January 08, 2018, 10:37:55 PM »

:Shrug: It's a fait accompli. The bishops in Mexico/ Guatemala are fine with it.

Bishops are not infallible.
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline Jackson02

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 904
  • Faith: Genuine Orthodox Church
  • Jurisdiction: Inquiring
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #22 on: January 09, 2018, 12:12:01 AM »
Parts of the Orthodox Church were in communion with Rome up through 1724 so Saint Juan Diego is pre-schism.

Those churches were the Melkites which were thinking of reuniting with the Roman Catholic Church anyway. This doesn't make the Guadalupe image a true icon.

Offline Agabus

  • The user formerly known as Agabus.
  • Section Moderator
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,488
  • Faith: without works is dead.
  • Jurisdiction: Foolishness to the Greeks
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #23 on: January 09, 2018, 01:02:58 AM »

:Shrug: It's a fait accompli. The bishops in Mexico/ Guatemala are fine with it.

Bishops are not infallible.

Quote from: yeshuaisiam
I'll admit there is truth to your post.  The trust for bishops & theologians (mostly) I have unlearned. 


Time and again, over many threads and countless posts, folks here have tried to show you the error of your ways regarding icons, drawing from all areas of Orthodox tradition...You persist in using yourself as the ultimate authority on this matter.

;)
Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH

Take a breath, read Ecclesiastes 1:9.

Offline Agabus

  • The user formerly known as Agabus.
  • Section Moderator
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,488
  • Faith: without works is dead.
  • Jurisdiction: Foolishness to the Greeks
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #24 on: January 09, 2018, 01:12:10 AM »
(whether real, really demonic, or complete fiction)

I know some Orthodox polemicists love to lean on this crutch when it comes to RC apparitions, but that's one seriously dumb demon if his long con was to get people to pray to the Mother of God and worship Jesus.
Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH

Take a breath, read Ecclesiastes 1:9.

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,229
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #25 on: January 09, 2018, 03:27:22 AM »
Parts of the Orthodox Church were in communion with Rome up through 1724 so Saint Juan Diego is pre-schism.

Even so, including this icon in veneration is a big stretch. On what basis would you include it? You're gonna have to find a bigger bridge to build on this one.

:Shrug: It's a fait accompli. The bishops in Mexico/ Guatemala are fine with it.

That does not answer the original inquiry. I am not asking what the status quo is for the bishops of Mexico and Guatemala. I am asking on what basis is it included?
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,590
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #26 on: January 09, 2018, 04:03:45 AM »

:Shrug: It's a fait accompli. The bishops in Mexico/ Guatemala are fine with it.

Bishops are not infallible.

Quote from: yeshuaisiam
I'll admit there is truth to your post.  The trust for bishops & theologians (mostly) I have unlearned. 


Time and again, over many threads and countless posts, folks here have tried to show you the error of your ways regarding icons, drawing from all areas of Orthodox tradition...You persist in using yourself as the ultimate authority on this matter.

;)

Nice try.  ::)

How many Orthodox bishops support the veneration of the Guadalupe image, not just by allowing the image into churches, but by liturgical veneration as well? What is the feast day for it? What hymns to the image are read, chanted and sung? How do these bishops justify the liturgical extolling of the vision of a man who was never part of the Orthodox Church? Etc.

I stand fully by my earlier posts.
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,054
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #27 on: January 09, 2018, 06:34:50 AM »
Parts of the Orthodox Church were in communion with Rome up through 1724 so Saint Juan Diego is pre-schism.

Even so, including this icon in veneration is a big stretch. On what basis would you include it? You're gonna have to find a bigger bridge to build on this one.

:Shrug: It's a fait accompli. The bishops in Mexico/ Guatemala are fine with it.

That does not answer the original inquiry. I am not asking what the status quo is for the bishops of Mexico and Guatemala. I am asking on what basis is it included?

On the basis that the Mother of God appeared to an indigenous man and helped bring the light of Christ to a place where demonic idolatry was rampant.

So the question is begged, on what basis is it excluded?
Quote
When a time revolts against eternity, the only thing to set against it is genuine eternity itself, and not some other time which has already roused, and not without reason, a violent reaction against itself.
- Berdyaev

If you would like a private forum for non-polemical topics, comment here.

Offline ErmyCath

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 285
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #28 on: January 09, 2018, 09:02:41 AM »
Parts of the Orthodox Church were in communion with Rome up through 1724 so Saint Juan Diego is pre-schism.

Even so, including this icon in veneration is a big stretch. On what basis would you include it? You're gonna have to find a bigger bridge to build on this one.

:Shrug: It's a fait accompli. The bishops in Mexico/ Guatemala are fine with it.

That does not answer the original inquiry. I am not asking what the status quo is for the bishops of Mexico and Guatemala. I am asking on what basis is it included?

On the basis that the Mother of God appeared to an indigenous man and helped bring the light of Christ to a place where demonic idolatry was rampant.

So the question is begged, on what basis is it excluded?

Your argument seems to rest on the foundation that bringing indigenous peoples to Roman Catholicism is a good in itself that is at least approximately equal to bringing indigenous peoples to Orthodoxy.

We don’t know, for example, if the flourishing of Roman Catholicism in Mexico and Central America as a result of this apparition and devotion actually dissuaded or impaired Orthodox missionary work that might have otherwise been fruitful.

So the question is why it would be appropriate to venerate an icon based on an event that didn’t lead people to the Church, but instead led them to something that approximates the Church, potentially keeping generations of people in error. Seems an inappropriate thing to venerate unless you accept the premise that Roman Catholicism is just as good as Orthodoxy (a premise that many would reject, including many saints who are properly venerated in their own icons — not the least among them being the saint depicted in my avatar).
« Last Edit: January 09, 2018, 09:03:57 AM by ErmyCath »
"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,054
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #29 on: January 09, 2018, 10:14:44 AM »
Your argument seems to rest on the foundation that bringing indigenous peoples to Roman Catholicism is a good in itself that is at least approximately equal to bringing indigenous peoples to Orthodoxy.

We don’t know, for example, if the flourishing of Roman Catholicism in Mexico and Central America as a result of this apparition and devotion actually dissuaded or impaired Orthodox missionary work that might have otherwise been fruitful.

So the question is why it would be appropriate to venerate an icon based on an event that didn’t lead people to the Church, but instead led them to something that approximates the Church, potentially keeping generations of people in error. Seems an inappropriate thing to venerate unless you accept the premise that Roman Catholicism is just as good as Orthodoxy (a premise that many would reject, including many saints who are properly venerated in their own icons — not the least among them being the saint depicted in my avatar).

I'll be honest, there was a time I thought this way too. But you really have to wonder when your obdurate sectarianism takes you to a place where you would rather people keep sacrificing each other to Tezcatlipoca than convert to Catholicism. This is simply insane.

The Mother of God appeared in Mexico, and thank God for it.
Quote
When a time revolts against eternity, the only thing to set against it is genuine eternity itself, and not some other time which has already roused, and not without reason, a violent reaction against itself.
- Berdyaev

If you would like a private forum for non-polemical topics, comment here.

Offline ErmyCath

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 285
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #30 on: January 09, 2018, 11:29:49 AM »
Your argument seems to rest on the foundation that bringing indigenous peoples to Roman Catholicism is a good in itself that is at least approximately equal to bringing indigenous peoples to Orthodoxy.

We don’t know, for example, if the flourishing of Roman Catholicism in Mexico and Central America as a result of this apparition and devotion actually dissuaded or impaired Orthodox missionary work that might have otherwise been fruitful.

So the question is why it would be appropriate to venerate an icon based on an event that didn’t lead people to the Church, but instead led them to something that approximates the Church, potentially keeping generations of people in error. Seems an inappropriate thing to venerate unless you accept the premise that Roman Catholicism is just as good as Orthodoxy (a premise that many would reject, including many saints who are properly venerated in their own icons — not the least among them being the saint depicted in my avatar).

I'll be honest, there was a time I thought this way too. But you really have to wonder when your obdurate sectarianism takes you to a place where you would rather people keep sacrificing each other to Tezcatlipoca than convert to Catholicism. This is simply insane.

The Mother of God appeared in Mexico, and thank God for it.

While I understand your thought process, I cannot concede that it is so clear cut that the Mother of God would appear in such a manner as to give credence to the institutional Roman church in the way that the story of this apparition would have us believe. Perhaps that means that she did appear and the details of the story have been corrupted, or perhaps the entire thing is a hoax.

It is not "obdurate sectarianism" to argue that the Mother of God could not possibly appear in accordance with the accepted version of this apparition. Again, your argument assumes an indifferentism that is unfounded and unsupported, regardless of the phrases you use to describe the contrary position. Your argument also assumes that the Church has engaged in "obdurate sectarianism" every time it has sorted truth from error -- perhaps that is not your intention, but that result seems inescapable.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2018, 11:35:47 AM by ErmyCath »
"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,054
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #31 on: January 09, 2018, 11:38:28 AM »
No, in no place does my argument assume indifferentism. I can and do believe that Orthodoxy is the fullness of truth, while Catholicism has serious defects, while also acknowledging that the latter is not completely worthless or getting paranoid about possible contamination by RC cooties if I recognize some providential or grace-filled events in the RC fold. What your argument seems to assume is this: That in 1531 Satan hatched a brilliant scheme to fake an apparition of the Mother of God in Mexico so that, 400+ years later, Orthodox missionaries trickling into the region might have a hard time winning converts. It's nuts. And what's more, it's clearly wrong as one of the biggest mass conversions in modern Orthodoxy happened among Guatemalan Maya who brought Our Lady of Guadalupe with them.
Quote
When a time revolts against eternity, the only thing to set against it is genuine eternity itself, and not some other time which has already roused, and not without reason, a violent reaction against itself.
- Berdyaev

If you would like a private forum for non-polemical topics, comment here.

Offline ErmyCath

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 285
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #32 on: January 09, 2018, 11:51:54 AM »
No, in no place does my argument assume indifferentism. I can and do believe that Orthodoxy is the fullness of truth, while Catholicism has serious defects, while also acknowledging that the latter is not completely worthless or getting paranoid about possible contamination by RC cooties if I recognize some providential or grace-filled events in the RC fold. What your argument seems to assume is this: That in 1531 Satan hatched a brilliant scheme to fake an apparition of the Mother of God in Mexico so that, 400+ years later, Orthodox missionaries trickling into the region might have a hard time winning converts. It's nuts. And what's more, it's clearly wrong as one of the biggest mass conversions in modern Orthodoxy happened among Guatemalan Maya who brought Our Lady of Guadalupe with them.

I'm not convinced that the caricature of my argument that you present is more "nuts" than your argument that the Mother of God would appear to lead pagan people to Roman Catholicism as part of a long game wherein ultimately Guatemalan Mayans would convert en masse to Orthodoxy.

Perhaps both our arguments sounding "nuts" indicates there's something more (or less) to this story than meets the eye.
"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic

Offline Agabus

  • The user formerly known as Agabus.
  • Section Moderator
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,488
  • Faith: without works is dead.
  • Jurisdiction: Foolishness to the Greeks
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #33 on: January 09, 2018, 11:55:38 AM »
No, in no place does my argument assume indifferentism. I can and do believe that Orthodoxy is the fullness of truth, while Catholicism has serious defects, while also acknowledging that the latter is not completely worthless or getting paranoid about possible contamination by RC cooties if I recognize some providential or grace-filled events in the RC fold. What your argument seems to assume is this: That in 1531 Satan hatched a brilliant scheme to fake an apparition of the Mother of God in Mexico so that, 400+ years later, Orthodox missionaries trickling into the region might have a hard time winning converts. It's nuts. And what's more, it's clearly wrong as one of the biggest mass conversions in modern Orthodoxy happened among Guatemalan Maya who brought Our Lady of Guadalupe with them.

+1

If you believe in some kind of Orthodox triumphalism (I do; never been able to shake that postmillennial mumbo I picked up in my wandering years), it's just not out of range of the question to believe that God will legitimately use an imperfect institution to put his people in position to receive his full truth. As it was, the people of Mexico had Christ available to them in the form of the RC, so that is what they got. (And it's worth repeating that at that time the RC was in communion with some of Orthodox...I mean, this was before Trent, even.) Think of it as preparing hearts and minds.
Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH

Take a breath, read Ecclesiastes 1:9.

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,054
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #34 on: January 09, 2018, 12:02:48 PM »
No, in no place does my argument assume indifferentism. I can and do believe that Orthodoxy is the fullness of truth, while Catholicism has serious defects, while also acknowledging that the latter is not completely worthless or getting paranoid about possible contamination by RC cooties if I recognize some providential or grace-filled events in the RC fold. What your argument seems to assume is this: That in 1531 Satan hatched a brilliant scheme to fake an apparition of the Mother of God in Mexico so that, 400+ years later, Orthodox missionaries trickling into the region might have a hard time winning converts. It's nuts. And what's more, it's clearly wrong as one of the biggest mass conversions in modern Orthodoxy happened among Guatemalan Maya who brought Our Lady of Guadalupe with them.

I'm not convinced that the caricature of my argument that you present is more "nuts" than your argument that the Mother of God would appear to lead pagan people to Roman Catholicism as part of a long game wherein ultimately Guatemalan Mayans would convert en masse to Orthodoxy.

Hardly. We see time and time again that omniscient, omnipotent God does in fact have such a "long game." That's basic Christian historiography. We do not ascribe such power and foresight to Satan, however clever he may be.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2018, 12:03:15 PM by Iconodule »
Quote
When a time revolts against eternity, the only thing to set against it is genuine eternity itself, and not some other time which has already roused, and not without reason, a violent reaction against itself.
- Berdyaev

If you would like a private forum for non-polemical topics, comment here.

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Done
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,607
  • Intercede for my wretched soul, Saint Alban.
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: Lost for now.
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #35 on: January 09, 2018, 12:38:45 PM »
The Mother of God appeared in Mexico, and thank God for it.
As an inquirer into Orthodoxy, I can only say that
I think my problem with your opinion on the manner - Iconodule - is how definitively certain you are about the Guadalupe vision, and how you are absolutely certain that this vision was indeed from God, claiming to know the intentions of God  in terms of this apparition being allowed to take place, and how you try to justify it with erroneous ideas about canonicity in terms of ecclesiology.

Considering that the Orthodox Church - and ONLY the Orthodox Church is the Body of Christ, possessing the fullness of Truth, she is the Light of the world which enlightens it - and without the Orthodox Church, there is darkness.

Now certainly, the Guadalupe apparition has characteristics of a legitimate Orthodox visitiation of the Theotokos - unlike many other "Marian apparitions" in the Roman Catholic Church, like Fatima or La Salette, or the unapproved but extremely popular Medjugorje - bringing people to some kind of relationship with Christ, and leaving an icon for veneration.

Of course, God can work in darkness - this is seen in Acts, with the "Unknown God" in the Pagan temple -
However, how can we make judgments in darkness? Maybe Our Lady is somewhere in that darkness, guiding some souls living in darkness to light - but I can't see anything in this darkness; so how can I definitively say that "Our Lady is there" when I can't see her without the Church?

At best, all we can do is give speculative opinions and not give any absolute, definitive judgments on this, simply because it is without the Church.
Unlike Fatima, La Salette, and Medjugorje - which I can say are heterodox in content, and most likely not from God - the Guadalupe vision seems more legitimate, but nonetheless, this doesn't give one authority to give an absolute judgment , especially when it led people to a church that isn't salvific in the immediate. I can't see Our Lady in the Light, I'm still looking at immediate darkness; maybe one day I will see her in the light working in Mexico - but now I don't.

And to suggest that the Roman Catholic Church was somehow made canonical or "completely-Grace filled" because it was in communion with some other Orthodox Churches is absolute bollocks; by that logic, the Council of Florence and Lyons should've been legitimate councils!

It isn't mere culture that separated the Roman Catholic Church from the Orthodox Church, but from the heresy of Papal Supremacy and the Filioque (understood clearly incorrectly), which only sprouted into so many innovative and heterodox doctrines.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2018, 12:47:12 PM by LivenotoneviL »
I'm done.

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,054
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #36 on: January 09, 2018, 12:57:10 PM »

At best, all we can do is give speculative opinions and not give any absolute, definitive judgments on this, simply because it is without the Church.

It's not without the Church. The Church in Mexico and Guadalupe has sanctioned this image.  We know that the Orthodox in Guatemala venerate this image and, when they came into Orthodoxy (I trust you agree that's a very good thing- hopefully you'll follow their example) they brought it with them. It was on the basis of an already-formed Christian faith that they chose Orthodoxy, and the Virgen de Guadalupe was there with them. So I choose, on a solid basis, to agree with my brethren in Christ who believe that the image is holy, because I trust God and I do not believe him to be some kind of trickster who is littering the religious landscape with traps. On the contrary, if there is any trickery in him, it is in luring us into his fold.

I'm not going to belabor the point anymore. The faithful in Mexico and Guatemala have made their choice and I trust the opinions of OC.net puritans will continue to be ignored in those countries.
Quote
When a time revolts against eternity, the only thing to set against it is genuine eternity itself, and not some other time which has already roused, and not without reason, a violent reaction against itself.
- Berdyaev

If you would like a private forum for non-polemical topics, comment here.

Offline ErmyCath

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 285
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #37 on: January 09, 2018, 01:13:29 PM »
No, in no place does my argument assume indifferentism. I can and do believe that Orthodoxy is the fullness of truth, while Catholicism has serious defects, while also acknowledging that the latter is not completely worthless or getting paranoid about possible contamination by RC cooties if I recognize some providential or grace-filled events in the RC fold. What your argument seems to assume is this: That in 1531 Satan hatched a brilliant scheme to fake an apparition of the Mother of God in Mexico so that, 400+ years later, Orthodox missionaries trickling into the region might have a hard time winning converts. It's nuts. And what's more, it's clearly wrong as one of the biggest mass conversions in modern Orthodoxy happened among Guatemalan Maya who brought Our Lady of Guadalupe with them.

I'm not convinced that the caricature of my argument that you present is more "nuts" than your argument that the Mother of God would appear to lead pagan people to Roman Catholicism as part of a long game wherein ultimately Guatemalan Mayans would convert en masse to Orthodoxy.

Hardly. We see time and time again that omniscient, omnipotent God does in fact have such a "long game." That's basic Christian historiography. We do not ascribe such power and foresight to Satan, however clever he may be.

I disagree with your opinions on this subject because I think it impossible that the Mother of God would appear to lead people to error as part of a long-term strategy of eventually leading a small portion of them to truth. While I agree that God has a "long game," he does not reach his good end by way of bad means. It is possible that this apparition is a hoax and so God has used a man-created bad means to his good purposes, but it is not possible that God would cause the bad means in the first place. That being said, I don't anticipate I'll change your mind so I'll not argue the point further.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2018, 01:13:43 PM by ErmyCath »
"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic

Offline Dominika

  • Troublesome Sheep
  • Global Moderator
  • Taxiarches
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,811
  • Serbian/Polish
    • My youtube channel
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian Patriarchate/POC
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #38 on: January 09, 2018, 02:22:32 PM »
No, in no place does my argument assume indifferentism. I can and do believe that Orthodoxy is the fullness of truth, while Catholicism has serious defects, while also acknowledging that the latter is not completely worthless or getting paranoid about possible contamination by RC cooties if I recognize some providential or grace-filled events in the RC fold. What your argument seems to assume is this: That in 1531 Satan hatched a brilliant scheme to fake an apparition of the Mother of God in Mexico so that, 400+ years later, Orthodox missionaries trickling into the region might have a hard time winning converts. It's nuts. And what's more, it's clearly wrong as one of the biggest mass conversions in modern Orthodoxy happened among Guatemalan Maya who brought Our Lady of Guadalupe with them.

+1

If you believe in some kind of Orthodox triumphalism (I do; never been able to shake that postmillennial mumbo I picked up in my wandering years), it's just not out of range of the question to believe that God will legitimately use an imperfect institution to put his people in position to receive his full truth. As it was, the people of Mexico had Christ available to them in the form of the RC, so that is what they got. (And it's worth repeating that at that time the RC was in communion with some of Orthodox...I mean, this was before Trent, even.) Think of it as preparing hearts and minds.
+1 to both of you.

I want to add that it's not necesarry to broaden a cult of the Guadalupean image across Orthodoxy, but it's not a problem to keep it among Orthodox Mexicans and Mayans.

Such situation - miraclous icon, place - that happened during the Catholic period nad has been embraced by Orthodoxy were happening a lot in Poland, Ukraine...
For example, the greatest Polish Orthodox sanctuary - Holy Mount Grabarka - started during the period of Greek Catholicism. A man had a miraclous vision that everybody that comes to this place, say a prayer, drink water from the nerby spring and leave a cross on the mount, will be saved from the epidemy of cholera. And it was true. Well, close area to this sanctuary (but not exatly the same mount) had been considered as a holy place even in the 13th century, maybe even at Pagan times (but it's a long story).
Similar story is with the Holy Mount Jawor, the miraclous icon of st. Anne in Stary Kornin etc.
Edit: and there are people that because of the visit to these places, that are now Orthodox, and the experience they had there, convert to Orthodoxy.
So, I believe it may be also the case of the Guadalupe icon.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2018, 02:23:49 PM by Dominika »
Pray for persecuted Christians, especially in Serbian Kosovo and Raška, Egypt and Syria

My Orthodox liturgical blog "For what eat, while you can fast" in Polish (videos featuring chants in different languages)

Offline Lepanto

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 515
  • Faith: Roman Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Munich and Freising
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #39 on: January 09, 2018, 02:44:18 PM »
What does the icon display? Is it not Mary, the Sancta Dei Genetrix, or Mother of God? Do you truly believe that an evil force would use an image of her to lead people astray? Sounds like completely crazy to me. Anyway, my (of course biased) takeaway from this thread: Splitting apart from Rome just leads to ever more division and disagreements.
Sanctus Deus, Sanctus fortis, Sanctus immortalis, miserere nobis.

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,054
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #40 on: January 09, 2018, 03:22:59 PM »
Thankfully there are no serious divisions or disagreements in Rome’s camp.
Quote
When a time revolts against eternity, the only thing to set against it is genuine eternity itself, and not some other time which has already roused, and not without reason, a violent reaction against itself.
- Berdyaev

If you would like a private forum for non-polemical topics, comment here.

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,229
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #41 on: January 09, 2018, 03:26:33 PM »
What does the icon display? Is it not Mary, the Sancta Dei Genetrix, or Mother of God? Do you truly believe that an evil force would use an image of her to lead people astray? Sounds like completely crazy to me. Anyway, my (of course biased) takeaway from this thread: Splitting apart from Rome just leads to ever more division and disagreements.

Do not pretend that there were no contentious debates in the early Church, prior to schism, concerning the extent of what pagan learning could be used for in explaining Christian ideas or living in an increasingly Christian world. If this small amount of debate is enough to rustle your jimmies, then perhaps you should examine your own sensitivity levels.

I appreciated Iconodule's responses, and found them convincing in some measure. I can't say I am willing to embrace the icon myself, but that's a matter of my own personal taste in my book. I am not going to hold it against the the Church in Mexico and Guatemala.
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Done
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,607
  • Intercede for my wretched soul, Saint Alban.
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: Lost for now.
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #42 on: January 09, 2018, 03:29:15 PM »
What does the icon display? Is it not Mary, the Sancta Dei Genetrix, or Mother of God? Do you truly believe that an evil force would use an image of her to lead people astray? Sounds like completely crazy to me. Anyway, my (of course biased) takeaway from this thread: Splitting apart from Rome just leads to ever more division and disagreements.

Um...
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-three-bishops-call-popes-reading-of-amoris-laetitia-alien-to-catho

Um...
http://catholicherald.co.uk/news/2017/08/24/pope-francis-says-vatican-iis-liturgical-reform-is-irreversible/

Um...
https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=19232.0

Um...


Um...


Um...


Um...

« Last Edit: January 09, 2018, 03:34:04 PM by LivenotoneviL »
I'm done.

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Done
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,607
  • Intercede for my wretched soul, Saint Alban.
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: Lost for now.
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #43 on: January 09, 2018, 03:31:25 PM »
The "infallible 'Vicar of Christ'" is trying to force adulterous men and women to communion - but this surely isn't divisive, correct?


Here there is debate about a Roman Catholic apparition that isn't relevant to Orthodoxy - OH BOY! Those Orthodox sure are creating problems amongst each other, right?
I'm done.

Offline Lepanto

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 515
  • Faith: Roman Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Munich and Freising
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #44 on: January 09, 2018, 03:32:59 PM »
Thankfully there are no serious divisions or disagreements in Rome’s camp.
Not about whether the enemy sees to it that icons of Our Lady are spread, no.
We would certainly not consider that specific trick.
Without any irony, I of course agree that my church faces disagreements of another nature.
Sanctus Deus, Sanctus fortis, Sanctus immortalis, miserere nobis.

Offline Lepanto

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 515
  • Faith: Roman Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Munich and Freising
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #45 on: January 09, 2018, 03:35:00 PM »
The "infallible 'Vicar of Christ'" is trying to force adulterous men and women to communion - but this surely isn't divisive, correct?


Here there is debate about a Roman Catholic apparition that isn't relevant to Orthodoxy - OH BOY! Those Orthodox sure are creating problems amongst each other, right?
Meh. Obviously, Orthodox churches in Middle America are using the icon. How is it not relevant?
« Last Edit: January 09, 2018, 03:35:51 PM by Lepanto »
Sanctus Deus, Sanctus fortis, Sanctus immortalis, miserere nobis.

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Done
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,607
  • Intercede for my wretched soul, Saint Alban.
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: Lost for now.
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #46 on: January 09, 2018, 03:35:51 PM »
Thankfully there are no serious divisions or disagreements in Rome’s camp.
Not about whether the enemy sees to it that icons of Our Lady are spread, no.
We would certainly not consider that specific trick.

Without any irony, I of course agree that my church faces disagreements of another nature.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vaticans-sexually-suggestive-nativity-has-troubling-ties-to-italys-lgbt-act




Also

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pro-lgbt-priest-and-vatican-advisor-tweets-immodest-image-of-mary-on-guadal
« Last Edit: January 09, 2018, 03:37:30 PM by LivenotoneviL »
I'm done.

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Done
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,607
  • Intercede for my wretched soul, Saint Alban.
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: Lost for now.
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #47 on: January 09, 2018, 03:39:04 PM »
I'd also say that this is a question about Guadalupe liturgical usage in the Orthodox Church and whether or not the apparitions were legitimate or not; not whether or not it is bad to have icons of the Theotokos.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2018, 03:39:37 PM by LivenotoneviL »
I'm done.

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Done
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,607
  • Intercede for my wretched soul, Saint Alban.
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: Lost for now.
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #48 on: January 09, 2018, 03:42:13 PM »
The "infallible 'Vicar of Christ'" is trying to force adulterous men and women to communion - but this surely isn't divisive, correct?


Here there is debate about a Roman Catholic apparition that isn't relevant to Orthodoxy - OH BOY! Those Orthodox sure are creating problems amongst each other, right?
Meh. Obviously, Orthodox churches in Middle America are using the icon. How is it not relevant?

To suggest that the Roman Catholic Church has no division while Orthodoxy has so much division is ridiculous; by your own standards, it shouldn't be relevant if you consider the state of the Roman Catholic Church today to be "undivided."

If the pushing of Amoris Laetitia is a sign of "undivided unity" by the Pope, then how can an internet thread about a Christian apparition be the "epitome of division?"

Take your "infallible glasses" off and see reality as it is, please. The Papacy has created more division, starting with the Photian Schism all the way to the Great Schism, to the Fourth Crusade, to the Western Schism, to the burning of heretics at the stake, to the Protestant Reformation by Luther, Cramner, and Calvin, to the Old Catholic Schism, to Vatican II and the Sedevacantist / SSPX / Traditionalist movement, to Pope John Paul II and his heterodox ecumenism, to Pope Francis and his moral relativism.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2018, 03:51:50 PM by LivenotoneviL »
I'm done.

Offline Lepanto

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 515
  • Faith: Roman Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Munich and Freising
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #49 on: January 09, 2018, 03:47:04 PM »
The "infallible 'Vicar of Christ'" is trying to force adulterous men and women to communion - but this surely isn't divisive, correct?


Here there is debate about a Roman Catholic apparition that isn't relevant to Orthodoxy - OH BOY! Those Orthodox sure are creating problems amongst each other, right?
Meh. Obviously, Orthodox churches in Middle America are using the icon. How is it not relevant?

To suggest that the Roman Catholic Church has no division while Orthodoxy has so much division is ridiculous; by your own standards, it shouldn't be relevant if you consider the state of the Roman Catholic Church today to be "undivided."

If the pushing of Amoris Laetitia is a sign of "undivided unity" by the Pope, then how can an internet thread about a Christian apparition be the "epitome of division?"

Take your "infallible glasses" off and see reality as it is, please.
The iron law of OC.net: If nothing else helps, pull the AL one. It will silence nasty Romans and immediately wins any argument.
Sanctus Deus, Sanctus fortis, Sanctus immortalis, miserere nobis.

Offline ErmyCath

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 285
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #50 on: January 09, 2018, 03:48:08 PM »
Thankfully there are no serious divisions or disagreements in Rome’s camp.
Not about whether the enemy sees to it that icons of Our Lady are spread, no.
We would certainly not consider that specific trick.
Without any irony, I of course agree that my church faces disagreements of another nature.

Have you heard of Medjugorje?
"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Done
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,607
  • Intercede for my wretched soul, Saint Alban.
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: Lost for now.
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #51 on: January 09, 2018, 03:49:02 PM »
The "infallible 'Vicar of Christ'" is trying to force adulterous men and women to communion - but this surely isn't divisive, correct?


Here there is debate about a Roman Catholic apparition that isn't relevant to Orthodoxy - OH BOY! Those Orthodox sure are creating problems amongst each other, right?
Meh. Obviously, Orthodox churches in Middle America are using the icon. How is it not relevant?

To suggest that the Roman Catholic Church has no division while Orthodoxy has so much division is ridiculous; by your own standards, it shouldn't be relevant if you consider the state of the Roman Catholic Church today to be "undivided."

If the pushing of Amoris Laetitia is a sign of "undivided unity" by the Pope, then how can an internet thread about a Christian apparition be the "epitome of division?"

Take your "infallible glasses" off and see reality as it is, please.
The iron law of OC.net: If nothing else helps, pull the AL one. It will silence nasty Romans and immediately wins any argument.

It wasn't just the AL argument; it was the history of the RCC which I posted in my now edited post as well as my original post and all the divisions the Papacy has caused.

Also, you started this whole argument with your ridiculous and antagonistic comment of "you guys should have stayed with Rome," to which I showed you - not of theology but even just plain old pragmatism - how that is such a ridiculous idea.

And even then, how is the AL argument bad? It's a counterargument to your initial premise that there is "no division in Rome."
« Last Edit: January 09, 2018, 03:50:39 PM by LivenotoneviL »
I'm done.

Offline Lepanto

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 515
  • Faith: Roman Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Munich and Freising
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #52 on: January 09, 2018, 03:54:20 PM »
The "infallible 'Vicar of Christ'" is trying to force adulterous men and women to communion - but this surely isn't divisive, correct?


Here there is debate about a Roman Catholic apparition that isn't relevant to Orthodoxy - OH BOY! Those Orthodox sure are creating problems amongst each other, right?
Meh. Obviously, Orthodox churches in Middle America are using the icon. How is it not relevant?

To suggest that the Roman Catholic Church has no division while Orthodoxy has so much division is ridiculous; by your own standards, it shouldn't be relevant if you consider the state of the Roman Catholic Church today to be "undivided."

If the pushing of Amoris Laetitia is a sign of "undivided unity" by the Pope, then how can an internet thread about a Christian apparition be the "epitome of division?"

Take your "infallible glasses" off and see reality as it is, please.
The iron law of OC.net: If nothing else helps, pull the AL one. It will silence nasty Romans and immediately wins any argument.

It wasn't just the AL argument; it was the history of the RCC which I posted in my now edited post as well as my original post and all the divisions the Papacy has caused.

Also, you started this whole argument with your ridiculous and antagonistic comment of "you guys should have stayed with Rome," to which I showed you - not of theology but even just plain old pragmatism - how that is such a ridiculous idea.

And even then, how is the AL argument bad? It's a counterargument to your initial premise that there is "no division in Rome."
Most of the things you mentioned, e.g. the Great Schism, Luther, Calvin, sedevacantism, is a story of people breaking away from Rome. Proving my point exactly.
Sanctus Deus, Sanctus fortis, Sanctus immortalis, miserere nobis.

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Done
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,607
  • Intercede for my wretched soul, Saint Alban.
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: Lost for now.
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #53 on: January 09, 2018, 04:00:08 PM »
So, forcing down the Donation of Constantine as well as forgeries in order to justify Papal Supremacy, forcing Byzantines to use unleavened bread, Reformation era indulgences with clerical corruption, and forcibly taking away generations upon generations of Western liturgical heritage just to make some low-liturgical Protestants happy, are all the fault of those "dang rebels?"

And if your logic is that "Rome can't be divided as the Body of Christ can't be divided," that's what the Orthodox believe too (that is, the True Body of Christ can't be divided; those who leave the Church or err are outside the Church), so your argument fails in the first place.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2018, 04:02:48 PM by LivenotoneviL »
I'm done.

Offline Lepanto

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 515
  • Faith: Roman Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Munich and Freising
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #54 on: January 09, 2018, 04:03:13 PM »
So, forcing down the Donation of Constantine as well as forgeries in order to justify Papal Supremacy, forcing Byzantines to use unleavened bread, Reformation era indulgences with clerical corruption, and forcibly taking away generations upon generations of Western liturgical heritage just to make some low-liturgical Protestants happy, are all the fault of those "dang rebels?"
Live, what are you trying to prove? This is no longer about Guadeloupe - if it ever was - but your same doubts again. Let's stay with the topic at hand.
Sanctus Deus, Sanctus fortis, Sanctus immortalis, miserere nobis.

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Done
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,607
  • Intercede for my wretched soul, Saint Alban.
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: Lost for now.
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #55 on: January 09, 2018, 04:55:00 PM »
Okay.
I'm done.

Offline byhisgrace

  • AOCB
  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,265
  • Memory Eternal to my Younger Brother
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOARCH
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #56 on: January 09, 2018, 06:32:26 PM »

The Mother of God appeared in Mexico, and thank God for it.
If the Mother of God really appeared in Guadalupe, then why didn't she reveal the Orthodox Church to Juan Diego?

But you really have to wonder when your obdurate sectarianism takes you to a place where you would rather people keep sacrificing each other to Tezcatlipoca than convert to Catholicism. This is simply insane.
A lot of non-Orthodox institutions and practices led to good results. Doesn't necessarily prove that some divine miracle was involved.
 
Oh Holy Apostle, St. John, pray for us

Offline RaphaCam

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,960
  • It is honourable to reveal the works of God
    • Em Espírito e em Verdade
  • Faith: Big-O Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Exarchate of Gotham City
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #57 on: January 09, 2018, 11:25:24 PM »
Western motifs from after the schism have entered the Orthodox Church before (e.g. The Softener of Hearts), but I don't feel that safe adopting one that refers to a specific apparition, rather than just ideas.
"May the Lord our God remember in His kingdom all Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, which heralds the Word of Truth and fearlessly offers and distributes the Holy Oblation despite human deficiencies and persecutions moved by the powers of this world, in all time and unto the ages of ages."

May the Blessed Light shine Forth

Offline Xavier

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 621
  • Immaculate Heart of Mary, Pray for US!
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #58 on: January 10, 2018, 07:02:38 AM »
Hmm. The first thing the Catholic Church looks for is (1) clear evidence of the supernatural - here, it is absolutely manifest, even in the miraculous Tilma, which is an image achieropoieta (not made by human hands) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acheiropoieta there are other known instances of such miraculous images throughout Christian history. As for the tilma, https://www.americaneedsfatima.org/Our-Blessed-Mother/our-lady-of-guadalupe-she-who-smashes-the-serpent.html "Scientists are baffled how the image was imprinted on the tilma. There are no brush strokes or sketch marks on it. Richard Kuhn, a Nobel Prize winner in chemistry, ascertained that Our Lady of Guadalupe’s image does not contain natural, animal, or mineral pigments. The tilma defies natural explanation."

(2) Manifest changes of life and growth in holiness as a result of the heavenly apparitions - this is seen in the end of idolatry and demonic serpent worship and the conversion of several millions already mentioned earlier; neither could this have been brought about by man or by any power other than God.

(3) Finally, the judgment of the local Bishop: neither layman nor priest, nor the bishop of any other territory, can overturn this. Only the Roman Pontiff, on behalf of the universal Church, can; though in practice that rarely happens. "With this, they ushered Our Lady’s ambassador in to see the bishop. Juan Diego knelt down and began to explain all he saw and heard from Our Lady. The bishop listened intently. To prove what he said was true, he untied his tilma and let the roses fall to the ground. Those watching fell to their knees in silent amazement. Miraculously imprinted on the tilma was Our Lady’s perfect image. Recalling their disbelief and mistreatment of the Blessed Mother’s ambassador, the servants were filled with shame.
Bishop Zumarraga tearfully took the tilma from Juan Diego, placed it in his private chapel, and entreated the saint to stay with him for the night in the palace. The next day, with a crowd following behind them, the two went to the site where Our Lady wanted her church built."
"My daughter, look at My Heart surrounded with thorns with which ungrateful men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, try to console Me, and say that I promise to assist at the hour of death, with all the graces necessary for salvation, all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months go to confession and receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary and keep Me company for a quarter of an hour" - The Theotokos to Sr. Lucia.

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,054
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #59 on: January 10, 2018, 10:26:09 AM »

The Mother of God appeared in Mexico, and thank God for it.
If the Mother of God really appeared in Guadalupe, then why didn't she reveal the Orthodox Church to Juan Diego?

You see, there was a spike in jet fuel prices in 1531, rendering plane tickets from Tenochtitlan to Moscow prohibitively expensive for the average Aztec peasant. Really, this question is so bizarre I'm not sure there is any way to seriously answer it.  Why didn't God inscribe the Nicene creed on Moses' tablets? Would've saved a lot of trouble!
Quote
When a time revolts against eternity, the only thing to set against it is genuine eternity itself, and not some other time which has already roused, and not without reason, a violent reaction against itself.
- Berdyaev

If you would like a private forum for non-polemical topics, comment here.

Offline byhisgrace

  • AOCB
  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,265
  • Memory Eternal to my Younger Brother
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOARCH
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #60 on: January 10, 2018, 04:42:11 PM »

The Mother of God appeared in Mexico, and thank God for it.
If the Mother of God really appeared in Guadalupe, then why didn't she reveal the Orthodox Church to Juan Diego?

You see, there was a spike in jet fuel prices in 1531, rendering plane tickets from Tenochtitlan to Moscow prohibitively expensive for the average Aztec peasant.

Why didn't God inscribe the Nicene creed on Moses' tablets? Would've saved a lot of trouble!
She could have started by telling Diego that the true Church is not the one under the universal and immediate  jurisdiction of the Pope, but the one who has kept the faith of the Creed which doesn’t include the Filioque. No transportation necessary.

As for your Moses analogy, I think there’s a big difference. God revealed to Moses the Jewish Old Covenant, which was the most correct religion of the time. Diego lived post-schism, and Mary was in every position to tell him what the true Church is. Catholicism was not the most correct religion in the 16th century, so that’s where your analogy breaks down.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2018, 04:49:22 PM by byhisgrace »
Oh Holy Apostle, St. John, pray for us

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,386
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Greek
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #61 on: January 10, 2018, 10:22:30 PM »
I know some Orthodox polemicists love to lean on this crutch when it comes to RC apparitions, but that's one seriously dumb demon if his long con was to get people to pray to the Mother of God and worship Jesus.
1010D chess!
Sanctus Deus
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ
Άγιος ο Θεός

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,386
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Greek
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #62 on: January 10, 2018, 10:30:40 PM »
I disagree with your opinions on this subject because I think it impossible that the Mother of God would appear to lead people to error...
Was it an error that over 8 million people were baptized into a life in Christ Jesus over a decade?  That's like 1.5 person baptized every minute for a decade!
Sanctus Deus
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ
Άγιος ο Θεός

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #63 on: January 10, 2018, 11:47:41 PM »
What does the icon display? Is it not Mary, the Sancta Dei Genetrix, or Mother of God? Do you truly believe that an evil force would use an image of her to lead people astray? Sounds like completely crazy to me.

Well, there's a highly influential cult calling itself the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" and claiming that Christ appeared to Joseph Smith. If evil can use the name and image of the Son of God Himself, why not the image of Mary?

Not saying that the V of G is evil. Just questioning this logic.
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,054
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #64 on: January 11, 2018, 06:37:54 AM »

The Mother of God appeared in Mexico, and thank God for it.
If the Mother of God really appeared in Guadalupe, then why didn't she reveal the Orthodox Church to Juan Diego?

You see, there was a spike in jet fuel prices in 1531, rendering plane tickets from Tenochtitlan to Moscow prohibitively expensive for the average Aztec peasant.

Why didn't God inscribe the Nicene creed on Moses' tablets? Would've saved a lot of trouble!
She could have started by telling Diego that the true Church is not the one under the universal and immediate  jurisdiction of the Pope, but the one who has kept the faith of the Creed which doesn’t include the Filioque. No transportation necessary.

So the setting is 1531 Mexico. No Orthodox within a 5000 mile radius. Many people are still worshiping Tlaloc, Tezcatlipoca, and other gods to whom, not long ago, they would offer human sacrifice on festive occasions. But the most important message the holy Virgin could have delivered to them is about some incomprehensible dispute about a single word, and how a church they will never encounter in their lives had taken the correct position on it. Wow.

Quote
As for your Moses analogy, I think there’s a big difference. God revealed to Moses the Jewish Old Covenant, which was the most correct religion of the time. Diego lived post-schism, and Mary was in every position to tell him what the true Church is. Catholicism was not the most correct religion in the 16th century, so that’s where your analogy breaks down.

1. Judaism that denies the incarnation was never correct at any point in time. The basic Christian approach to the OT is to read the prophecies as veiled allusions to Christ. Why not just pull up the veil to begin with? 2. Diego wasn’t post schism. Parts of Orthodoxy were in communion with Rome until 1724. 3. Catholicism was the most correct religion within a 5000 mile radius of 16th century Mexico.
Quote
When a time revolts against eternity, the only thing to set against it is genuine eternity itself, and not some other time which has already roused, and not without reason, a violent reaction against itself.
- Berdyaev

If you would like a private forum for non-polemical topics, comment here.

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Done
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,607
  • Intercede for my wretched soul, Saint Alban.
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: Lost for now.
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #65 on: January 11, 2018, 10:06:18 AM »
Just because some Orthodox Churches were in communion with Rome doesn't make Rome canonical or free from heterodoxy.
Once again, by your logic, Florence and Lyons should have been legitimate.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2018, 10:06:48 AM by LivenotoneviL »
I'm done.

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,054
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #66 on: January 11, 2018, 10:10:21 AM »
Just because some Orthodox Churches were in communion with Rome doesn't make Rome canonical or free from heterodoxy.
Once again, by your logic, Florence and Lyons should have been legitimate.

Your avatar is of a filioquist whom you nevertheless venerate.
Quote
When a time revolts against eternity, the only thing to set against it is genuine eternity itself, and not some other time which has already roused, and not without reason, a violent reaction against itself.
- Berdyaev

If you would like a private forum for non-polemical topics, comment here.

Offline Alpha60

  • Pray without ceasing!
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,553
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #67 on: January 11, 2018, 01:11:49 PM »

The Mother of God appeared in Mexico, and thank God for it.
If the Mother of God really appeared in Guadalupe, then why didn't she reveal the Orthodox Church to Juan Diego?

You see, there was a spike in jet fuel prices in 1531, rendering plane tickets from Tenochtitlan to Moscow prohibitively expensive for the average Aztec peasant. Really, this question is so bizarre I'm not sure there is any way to seriously answer it.  Why didn't God inscribe the Nicene creed on Moses' tablets? Would've saved a lot of trouble!

ROFL!
"It is logical that the actions of the human race over time will lead to its destruction.  I, Alpha 60, am merely the agent of this destruction."

- The computer Alpha 60, from Alphaville (1964) by Jean Luc Godard, the obvious inspiration for HAL-9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey. 

This signature is not intended to offend any user, nor the relatives of Discovery 1 deputy commander Dr. Frank Poole,  and crew members Dr. Victor Kaminsky, Dr. Jack Kimball, and Dr. Charles Hunter.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #68 on: January 11, 2018, 01:28:59 PM »
Just because some Orthodox Churches were in communion with Rome doesn't make Rome canonical or free from heterodoxy.
Once again, by your logic, Florence and Lyons should have been legitimate.

No, even then they could still have been robber councils.

And it seems to me that your logic leads to a sort of "Orthodox Feeneyism" where if God isn't miraculously teleporting Russian priests to Mexico, everybody there is screwed.
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Done
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,607
  • Intercede for my wretched soul, Saint Alban.
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: Lost for now.
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #69 on: January 11, 2018, 01:55:22 PM »
Just because some Orthodox Churches were in communion with Rome doesn't make Rome canonical or free from heterodoxy.
Once again, by your logic, Florence and Lyons should have been legitimate.

No, even then they could still have been robber councils.

And it seems to me that your logic leads to a sort of "Orthodox Feeneyism" where if God isn't miraculously teleporting Russian priests to Mexico, everybody there is screwed.

This whole argument is illogical; you think that an apparition outside the Church which is encouraging falsehood to an extent has the potential of being demonic or a complete fabrication. Therefore, you must believe that there cannot be a "Baptism of Blood" or some sort of "Baptism of Desire."

It seems by YOUR LOGIC that you are conjuring up a strawman argument, and I can only assume your intention is to discredit any theological fact which states the Orthodox Church alone possesses the fullness of Truth.

I guess Saint Photios and Saint Mark of Ephesus were "bigoted Feeneyites" who just can't hold hands the Pope singing Kumbayah, communing each other, am-i-rite? Let's all abandon Orthodox doctrine and forget any kind of doctrinal differences that people died over.
I'm done.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #70 on: January 11, 2018, 02:53:15 PM »
How is it encouraging falsehood when the RCC was the only game in town in 1531? What should God have done differently, tell them to go back to worshiping Tlaloc? Appear to Tsar Vasily III and inspire him to conquer Mexico?

The Orthodox Church having the fullness of truth doesn't mean that the RCC has zero of it (and also doesn't mean that RCCs and Orthos should just sing Kumbayah).

Either one of us is seriously missing some nuance here or we both are (kind of an ironic statement, I know).
« Last Edit: January 11, 2018, 02:55:31 PM by Volnutt »
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Done
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,607
  • Intercede for my wretched soul, Saint Alban.
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: Lost for now.
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #71 on: January 11, 2018, 06:15:35 PM »
How is it encouraging falsehood when the RCC was the only game in town in 1531? What should God have done differently, tell them to go back to worshiping Tlaloc? Appear to Tsar Vasily III and inspire him to conquer Mexico?

The Orthodox Church having the fullness of truth doesn't mean that the RCC has zero of it (and also doesn't mean that RCCs and Orthos should just sing Kumbayah).

Either one of us is seriously missing some nuance here or we both are (kind of an ironic statement, I know.

But why should an apparition convert an indigenous people to Orthodoxy, let alone to a heterodox religion? Isn't that the Church's job?

I ask the question: "Why shouldn't the apparition tell them that the Truth is Orthodoxy, or at least wait until Orthodoxy was established in Latin America?"

You're right with Roman Catholicism being one of the closest options.

My biggest problem with Iconodule's musings aren't the fact that it's indeed a possibility that Our Lady appeared, but how unequivocally certain he is about it.

As Ermy pointed out, we don't know if Roman Catholicism even helped them to find Orthodoxy - we have had more success  converting Pagan Alaskans than we have Mexicans. Even now in America, missionary work is much harder because of Christian pluralism; Orthodoxy for the outside viewer just seems to be an ethnic knockoff of Catholicism (which it isn't). Even after telling my Protestant grandmother about it, I met one of her friends who asked me what religion I am. I said I was looking into Orthodoxy, she asked what was it, and my grandmother responded "Their a couple of Churches that broke off of the Roman Catholic Church."

Maybe the conversion to Catholicism was inevitable with Spanish imperialism and colonialism, so Our Lady took some extra steps to make sure the inevitable is less violent overall.

If she appeared again with the same clothes and told people to convert to Orthodoxy 100 years from now, when Orthodoxy is more established there, then I would most likely believe in Guadalupe.

And then there is even the question / possibility if this was just a myth overall.

I think if any Catholic Marian apparition was legitimate, it would be Guadalupe - but considering that so far there has been almost no fruitful conversions to Orthodoxy, and possibly made it way more difficult to interest people in Orthodoxy, all I can do is at best move on from it and say "Who knows?"

If you recall this whole conversation started with Iconodule attacking me after I said it's a possibility this may be demonic - which there might be.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2018, 06:16:03 PM by LivenotoneviL »
I'm done.

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Done
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,607
  • Intercede for my wretched soul, Saint Alban.
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: Lost for now.
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #72 on: January 11, 2018, 07:23:54 PM »
Just because some Orthodox Churches were in communion with Rome doesn't make Rome canonical or free from heterodoxy.
Once again, by your logic, Florence and Lyons should have been legitimate.

Your avatar is of a filioquist whom you nevertheless venerate.

That fact is debatable because the problem of Filioque is twofold.

1. The fact that Filioque can be understood in a heterodox manner (as Thomas Aquinas describes; as the Son being a cause of the Spirit; which they justify because they claim the Holy Spirit proceeds out of the Essence and not from the Father, or the Holy Spirit being the creation of a Divine Love from the Father and the Son)
2. The fact that the Roman Church can't alone change the Nicene Creed, let alone demanding the entire Church to obey their decision.

See Saint Mark of Ephesus,

https://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2008/01/16/saint-mark-of-ephesus-on-false-union-and-the-filioque/

Saint Gregory the Great only used the Filioque once at the end of Book 2 of his dialogues.

So, a couple of things.

First, the idea of Filioque - as understood to be the economic sending of the Holy Spirit from the Father to the Son - is not incorrect; Saint Maximus said that the Filioque as a theological concept is okay as long as the theology is correct.

"With regard to the first matter (the Filioque), they (the Romans) have produced the unanimous documentary evidence of the Latin fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the sacred commentary he composed on the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit— they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession; but [they use this expression] in order to manifest the Spirit’s coming-forth (προϊέναι) through him and, in this way, to make clear the unity and identity of the essence….
One should also keep in mind that they cannot express their meaning in a language and idiom that are foreign to them as precisely as they can in their own mother-tongue, any more than we can do."

As such, reading the Filioque outside of the Creed in a theologically correct manner - in my opinion - I would say is not erroneous.

Even then, two popes after Saint Gregory - Pope Leo III and Pope John VIII - both condemned the Filioque in the Creed as departing from the Faith; it makes little sense that 100 years before Saint Gregory professed a belief in a heretical idea of procession.

Second, even if Saint Gregory the Great did teach the Filioque once in one of his books in an erroneous manner - so what?

The Church Fathers made mistakes.

Saint Ambrose said that if you have a Baptism with One of the Persons of the Trinity named, you have a valid Baptism, because when you name One Person of the Trinity, you are naming the Same God. So, according to Him, if you just baptize "in the name of Jesus Christ" in the Church, the Baptism will be valid. However, this is a completely egregious statement from the Orthodox view in terms of Church discipline.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/34021.htm

Saint Gregory the Great's writings about Saint John the Faster and the Universal Bishop controversy, his Dialogues, and his other epistles are way more of a treasure for us .
« Last Edit: January 11, 2018, 07:25:16 PM by LivenotoneviL »
I'm done.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #73 on: January 11, 2018, 10:06:29 PM »
How is it encouraging falsehood when the RCC was the only game in town in 1531? What should God have done differently, tell them to go back to worshiping Tlaloc? Appear to Tsar Vasily III and inspire him to conquer Mexico?

The Orthodox Church having the fullness of truth doesn't mean that the RCC has zero of it (and also doesn't mean that RCCs and Orthos should just sing Kumbayah).

Either one of us is seriously missing some nuance here or we both are (kind of an ironic statement, I know.

But why should an apparition convert an indigenous people to Orthodoxy, let alone to a heterodox religion? Isn't that the Church's job?

You're right that apparitions are not necessary, but it's something with incredible staying power amongst the Mexican people and if it helps bring them to Christ and is not obviously heretical, I want to ere on the side of approval. Unless one is of the opinion that RCs are devil worshipers, I think it's pretty clear that Guadalupe has brought much good into the world.

I ask the question: "Why shouldn't the apparition tell them that the Truth is Orthodoxy, or at least wait until Orthodoxy was established in Latin America?"

You're right with Roman Catholicism being one of the closest options.

Tell them the truth is Orthodoxy then? That makes no sense for the reasons Iconodule already enumerated.

Wait until now? Maybe, but then again there's a lot of things God has done that confuse me. I'm trying to be pragmatic and deal with this important spiritual fact as it is.

My biggest problem with Iconodule's musings aren't the fact that it's indeed a possibility that Our Lady appeared, but how unequivocally certain he is about it.

Fair enough.

As Ermy pointed out, we don't know if Roman Catholicism even helped them to find Orthodoxy - we have had more success  converting Pagan Alaskans than we have Mexicans. Even now in America, missionary work is much harder because of Christian pluralism; Orthodoxy for the outside viewer just seems to be an ethnic knockoff of Catholicism (which it isn't). Even after telling my Protestant grandmother about it, I met one of her friends who asked me what religion I am. I said I was looking into Orthodoxy, she asked what was it, and my grandmother responded "Their a couple of Churches that broke off of the Roman Catholic Church."

It may not have helped them find Orthodoxy, but it helped them find Christ over against a background of an extremely harmful form of paganism and Guadalupe was a big factor there.

Also, AFAICT only about 1/4 of Alaska Natives are Orthodox (and even then it was always strongest in the southern tribes). The rest got carved up by a coalition of Protestant denoms following US Statehood.

Maybe the conversion to Catholicism was inevitable with Spanish imperialism and colonialism, so Our Lady took some extra steps to make sure the inevitable is less violent overall.

I could buy that, yeah.

If she appeared again with the same clothes and told people to convert to Orthodoxy 100 years from now, when Orthodoxy is more established there, then I would most likely believe in Guadalupe.

Given how popular Guadalupe seems to be among Mexican Orthodox, in an indirect way maybe she has.

And then there is even the question / possibility if this was just a myth overall.

I think if any Catholic Marian apparition was legitimate, it would be Guadalupe - but considering that so far there has been almost no fruitful conversions to Orthodoxy, and possibly made it way more difficult to interest people in Orthodoxy, all I can do is at best move on from it and say "Who knows?"

If you recall this whole conversation started with Iconodule attacking me after I said it's a possibility this may be demonic - which there might be.

I think the "it's demonic" thing should be a very last resort. Even something like Mary Ann "the Virgin told me to board a UFO to get away from V II" Van Hoof is probably better off explained as sincere but nuts. Guadalupe isn't even in the same ballpark.
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline byhisgrace

  • AOCB
  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,265
  • Memory Eternal to my Younger Brother
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOARCH
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #74 on: January 12, 2018, 10:02:20 AM »

The Mother of God appeared in Mexico, and thank God for it.
If the Mother of God really appeared in Guadalupe, then why didn't she reveal the Orthodox Church to Juan Diego?

You see, there was a spike in jet fuel prices in 1531, rendering plane tickets from Tenochtitlan to Moscow prohibitively expensive for the average Aztec peasant.

Why didn't God inscribe the Nicene creed on Moses' tablets? Would've saved a lot of trouble!
She could have started by telling Diego that the true Church is not the one under the universal and immediate  jurisdiction of the Pope, but the one who has kept the faith of the Creed which doesn’t include the Filioque. No transportation necessary.

So the setting is 1531 Mexico. No Orthodox within a 5000 mile radius. Many people are still worshiping Tlaloc, Tezcatlipoca, and other gods to whom, not long ago, they would offer human sacrifice on festive occasions. But the most important message the holy Virgin could have delivered to them is about some incomprehensible dispute about a single word, and how a church they will never encounter in their lives had taken the correct position on it. Wow.

Quote
As for your Moses analogy, I think there’s a big difference. God revealed to Moses the Jewish Old Covenant, which was the most correct religion of the time. Diego lived post-schism, and Mary was in every position to tell him what the true Church is. Catholicism was not the most correct religion in the 16th century, so that’s where your analogy breaks down.

1. Judaism that denies the incarnation was never correct at any point in time. The basic Christian approach to the OT is to read the prophecies as veiled allusions to Christ. Why not just pull up the veil to begin with? 2. Diego wasn’t post schism. Parts of Orthodoxy were in communion with Rome until 1724. 3. Catholicism was the most correct religion within a 5000 mile radius of 16th century Mexico.
I disagree with point 2, but I digress. Your points are fair, but let me just tell you where I'm coming from with this:

If the Orthodox worldview is true, then I cannot accept the idea that our Mother would lie to Juan Diego that the RCC is the true Church of Christ. I also cannot conceive the idea that she would unintentionally mislead Diego and most people after him into RCism rather than Orthodoxy, as that would demonstrate a huge incompetence on her part. (Being with God, I'm sure she had every power and will to reveal the fullness of faith to the Natives.) Finally, I cannot see how one can subscribe to the traditional narrative of OLoG, and still maintain that the Orthodox Church is the true Church, and not the RCC. I think that the demonic theory is untenable for reasons already explained, but I see no reason not to believe that the entire thing is just a legend.

Perhaps some reasonable ways around this is that Mary did try to tell Diego to hold to the Orthodox faith, but he either didn't listen or misunderstood her. Perhaps she knew that Diego wasn't ready to hear the fullness of truth, and that she accommodated to his weakness and only told him what was most important for him to hear at the time. But both alternatives are still a break from the traditional narrative of the miracle, and I'm not sure which one you subscribe too.

« Last Edit: January 12, 2018, 10:05:45 AM by byhisgrace »
Oh Holy Apostle, St. John, pray for us

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Done
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,607
  • Intercede for my wretched soul, Saint Alban.
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: Lost for now.
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #75 on: January 12, 2018, 10:16:29 AM »
So the setting is 1531 Mexico. No Orthodox within a 5000 mile radius. Many people are still worshiping Tlaloc, Tezcatlipoca, and other gods to whom, not long ago, they would offer human sacrifice on festive occasions. But the most important message the holy Virgin could have delivered to them is about some incomprehensible dispute about a single word, and how a church they will never encounter in their lives had taken the correct position on it. Wow.

It was much more than a "single word" - it was the Papacy claiming Papal Supremacy over the entire Church.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2018, 10:18:30 AM by LivenotoneviL »
I'm done.

Offline MalpanaGiwargis

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 541
  • Māran etraḥam 'lay!
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #76 on: January 12, 2018, 10:33:07 AM »
What the Virgin is alleged to have said at Guadalupe is actually very little, and there's not anything that seems uniquely Roman Catholic apart from directing Juan Diego to go to the Bishop of Mexico, who of course was RC, about building a temple. And even that is not a particular endorsement of RC doctrine, just reality – Juan Diego would need the permission and support of the Christian leader in the area to build such a temple.
Woe is me, that I have read the commandments,
   and have become learned in the Scriptures,
and have been instructed in Your glories,
   and yet I have become occupied in shameful things!

(Giwargis Warda, On Compunction of Soul)

Offline byhisgrace

  • AOCB
  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,265
  • Memory Eternal to my Younger Brother
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOARCH
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #77 on: January 12, 2018, 10:38:53 AM »
What the Virgin is alleged to have said at Guadalupe is actually very little, and there's not anything that seems uniquely Roman Catholic apart from directing Juan Diego to go to the Bishop of Mexico, who of course was RC, about building a temple. And even that is not a particular endorsement of RC doctrine, just reality – Juan Diego would need the permission and support of the Christian leader in the area to build such a temple.
Fair enough.
Oh Holy Apostle, St. John, pray for us

Offline Lepanto

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 515
  • Faith: Roman Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Munich and Freising
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #78 on: January 12, 2018, 10:43:42 AM »
Do you think it would have been better for the people in Mexico if there would have been no such apparition?
Would it have made a large difference? Who knows?

I would recommend extreme caution when it comes to Marian apparitions in general:
The depositum fidei is complete without any Marian apparitions whatsoever, one can very well do without.
So it is perfectly fine if one personally decides they cannot do anything with Fatima, Guadalupe, Lourdes or whatnot.
Even if it officially permitted (!) to believe in some like Fatima, they need not be important at all.

Of course, if those apparitions lead people to come to Christ, it cannot be a really bad thing.
In that single respect, I would note even altogether condemn Medjugorje - with all the superstition and outgrowth it produces.
Sanctus Deus, Sanctus fortis, Sanctus immortalis, miserere nobis.

Offline ErmyCath

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 285
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #79 on: January 12, 2018, 10:49:24 AM »
If the Orthodox worldview is true, then I cannot accept the idea that our Mother would lie to Juan Diego that the RCC is the true Church of Christ.

[snip]


Thank you for your post -- your formulated precisely what I was thinking.
"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic

Offline JoeS2

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,662
  • St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #80 on: January 15, 2018, 03:53:38 PM »
No its Roman Catholic and has nothing to do with Orthodoxy.

The OCA Cathedral in Mexico City does contain the Icon of Our Lady of Guadalupe..... it this means anything

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,590
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #81 on: January 15, 2018, 05:59:20 PM »
No its Roman Catholic and has nothing to do with Orthodoxy.

The OCA Cathedral in Mexico City does contain the Icon of Our Lady of Guadalupe..... it this means anything

The New Skete monastery liturgically commemorates Francis of Assisi and Clare of Assisi, has "icons" of them in its church, and sells prints of "icons" in its bookstore. Still doesn't make it right.
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline hecma925

  • Non-clairvoyant, but you can call me Elder
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,907
  • Unbreakable! He's alive, dammit! It's a MIRACLE!
  • Faith: Truthful Chalcedonian Truther
  • Jurisdiction: In Hell I'll be in good company
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #82 on: July 19, 2018, 09:44:43 PM »


Virgen de Guadalupe in the Monastery of the Holy Archangel Michael in Cañones, New Mexico (Orthodox Church in America - Diocese of the South)

Valid?  Yes.
Happy shall he be, that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. Alleluia.

Once Christ has filled the Cross, it can never be empty again.

"But God doesn't need your cookies!  Arrive on time!"

Offline Alpha60

  • Pray without ceasing!
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,553
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #83 on: July 19, 2018, 10:09:20 PM »
Your argument seems to rest on the foundation that bringing indigenous peoples to Roman Catholicism is a good in itself that is at least approximately equal to bringing indigenous peoples to Orthodoxy.

We don’t know, for example, if the flourishing of Roman Catholicism in Mexico and Central America as a result of this apparition and devotion actually dissuaded or impaired Orthodox missionary work that might have otherwise been fruitful.

So the question is why it would be appropriate to venerate an icon based on an event that didn’t lead people to the Church, but instead led them to something that approximates the Church, potentially keeping generations of people in error. Seems an inappropriate thing to venerate unless you accept the premise that Roman Catholicism is just as good as Orthodoxy (a premise that many would reject, including many saints who are properly venerated in their own icons — not the least among them being the saint depicted in my avatar).

I'll be honest, there was a time I thought this way too. But you really have to wonder when your obdurate sectarianism takes you to a place where you would rather people keep sacrificing each other to Tezcatlipoca than convert to Catholicism. This is simply insane.

The Mother of God appeared in Mexico, and thank God for it.

This is valid.  Before the apparition the Aztecs had hardly been enthusiastic about the new religion being imposed on them by Cortes.  I did oncd run the numbers, to compare the body count of the Inquisition to that of the Aztec human sacrifice, and I found the scale tilting towards the latter to what one might call a considerable point.
"It is logical that the actions of the human race over time will lead to its destruction.  I, Alpha 60, am merely the agent of this destruction."

- The computer Alpha 60, from Alphaville (1964) by Jean Luc Godard, the obvious inspiration for HAL-9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey. 

This signature is not intended to offend any user, nor the relatives of Discovery 1 deputy commander Dr. Frank Poole,  and crew members Dr. Victor Kaminsky, Dr. Jack Kimball, and Dr. Charles Hunter.

Offline Alpha60

  • Pray without ceasing!
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,553
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #84 on: July 19, 2018, 10:09:48 PM »


Virgen de Guadalupe in the Monastery of the Holy Archangel Michael in Cañones, New Mexico (Orthodox Church in America - Diocese of the South)

Valid?  Yes.

Very nice
"It is logical that the actions of the human race over time will lead to its destruction.  I, Alpha 60, am merely the agent of this destruction."

- The computer Alpha 60, from Alphaville (1964) by Jean Luc Godard, the obvious inspiration for HAL-9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey. 

This signature is not intended to offend any user, nor the relatives of Discovery 1 deputy commander Dr. Frank Poole,  and crew members Dr. Victor Kaminsky, Dr. Jack Kimball, and Dr. Charles Hunter.

Offline Agabus

  • The user formerly known as Agabus.
  • Section Moderator
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,488
  • Faith: without works is dead.
  • Jurisdiction: Foolishness to the Greeks
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #85 on: July 19, 2018, 10:13:05 PM »


Virgen de Guadalupe in the Monastery of the Holy Archangel Michael in Cañones, New Mexico (Orthodox Church in America - Diocese of the South)

Valid?  Yes.

Very nice

I like that it doesn't have all the canonical tinkering that you see in some BC renderings of the image.
Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH

Take a breath, read Ecclesiastes 1:9.

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,386
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Greek
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #86 on: July 19, 2018, 10:39:12 PM »

Virgen de Guadalupe in the Monastery of the Holy Archangel Michael in Cañones, New Mexico (Orthodox Church in America - Diocese of the South)

Valid?  Yes.
+1

I like that it doesn't have all the canonical tinkering that you see in some BC renderings of the image.
Indeed, the image is beyond question not made by human hands.  It helps that it's almost iconographic, but the original image has to be respected.
Sanctus Deus
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ
Άγιος ο Θεός

Offline Ainnir

  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,524
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #87 on: July 20, 2018, 12:53:18 AM »
I love the whole set up.
Is any of the above Orthodox?  I have no clue, so there's that.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,495
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #88 on: July 20, 2018, 04:06:50 AM »
Just because some Orthodox Churches were in communion with Rome doesn't make Rome canonical or free from heterodoxy.
Once again, by your logic, Florence and Lyons should have been legitimate.

Your avatar is of a filioquist whom you nevertheless venerate.

That fact is debatable because the problem of Filioque is twofold.

1. The fact that Filioque can be understood in a heterodox manner (as Thomas Aquinas describes; as the Son being a cause of the Spirit; which they justify because they claim the Holy Spirit proceeds out of the Essence and not from the Father, or the Holy Spirit being the creation of a Divine Love from the Father and the Son)
You couldn’t be more wrong. *Steps in*: Lateran IV.. If you don’t know, that ecumenical council defined that the filioque means the Holy Spirit proceeds from the persons not the essence :

The Substance does not generate, is not begotten, does not proceed; but it is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, the Holy Spirit who proceeds: so that there is distinction in Persons and unity in Nature. Although other (alius) is the Father, other the Son, other the Holy Spirit, they are not another reality (aliud), but what the Father is the Son is and the Holy Spirit equally; so, according to the orthodox and catholic faith, We believe that they are consubstantial. For the Father, generating eternally the Son, has given to Him his substance … It is clear that, in being begotten the Son has received the substance of the Father without this substance being in any way diminished, and so the Father and the Son have the same substance. So the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, Who proceeds from them both, are one same reality"
« Last Edit: July 20, 2018, 04:08:32 AM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,386
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Greek
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #89 on: July 20, 2018, 06:32:07 PM »
You couldn’t be more wrong. *Steps in*: Lateran IV.. If you don’t know, that ecumenical council...
It wasn't an ecumenical council, but a Latin synod.

The Substance does not generate, is not begotten, does not proceed; but it is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, the Holy Spirit who proceeds: so that there is distinction in Persons and unity in Nature. Although other (alius) is the Father, other the Son, other the Holy Spirit, they are not another reality (aliud), but what the Father is the Son is and the Holy Spirit equally; so, according to the orthodox and catholic faith, We believe that they are consubstantial. For the Father, generating eternally the Son, has given to Him his substance … It is clear that, in being begotten the Son has received the substance of the Father without this substance being in any way diminished, and so the Father and the Son have the same substanceSo the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, Who proceeds from them both, are one same reality"
The underlined passage is contradictory to the first bold passage, with the result that the second bold passage is a non sequitur.  Talk about confusion...
« Last Edit: July 20, 2018, 06:34:52 PM by Sharbel »
Sanctus Deus
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ
Άγιος ο Θεός

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,495
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #90 on: July 22, 2018, 01:47:34 AM »
You couldn’t be more wrong. *Steps in*: Lateran IV.. If you don’t know, that ecumenical council...
It wasn't an ecumenical council, but a Latin synod.
It was ecumenical. At least in the Catholic Church. Relevant to you is even the Maronite patriarch was at Lateran IV.

Quote
The Substance does not generate, is not begotten, does not proceed; but it is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, the Holy Spirit who proceeds: so that there is distinction in Persons and unity in Nature. Although other (alius) is the Father, other the Son, other the Holy Spirit, they are not another reality (aliud), but what the Father is the Son is and the Holy Spirit equally; so, according to the orthodox and catholic faith, We believe that they are consubstantial. For the Father, generating eternally the Son, has given to Him his substance … It is clear that, in being begotten the Son has received the substance of the Father without this substance being in any way diminished, and so the Father and the Son have the same substanceSo the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, Who proceeds from them both, are one same reality"
The underlined passage is contradictory to the first bold passage, with the result that the second bold passage is a non sequitur.  Talk about confusion...

Absolutely not. The Father and the Son having the same substance is straight from the council of Nicaea  :o. The next line just confirms that the persons have the same nature but beget, are begotten and proceed ,respectively, each other/from each other. If you think any of that is heretical then you seriously need to revisit the nicene faith. The essence (nature) does not generate, is not generated nor proceeds as if it were a person.... persons generate and proceed and the substance is give to the person through these acts.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2018, 01:53:02 AM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline hecma925

  • Non-clairvoyant, but you can call me Elder
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,907
  • Unbreakable! He's alive, dammit! It's a MIRACLE!
  • Faith: Truthful Chalcedonian Truther
  • Jurisdiction: In Hell I'll be in good company
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #91 on: July 22, 2018, 02:08:33 AM »
Ecumenical, but not really. 
Happy shall he be, that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. Alleluia.

Once Christ has filled the Cross, it can never be empty again.

"But God doesn't need your cookies!  Arrive on time!"

Offline coptic orthodox boy

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 566
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #92 on: July 22, 2018, 02:24:02 AM »
No its Roman Catholic and has nothing to do with Orthodoxy.

The OCA Cathedral in Mexico City does contain the Icon of Our Lady of Guadalupe..... it this means anything

The New Skete monastery liturgically commemorates Francis of Assisi and Clare of Assisi, has "icons" of them in its church, and sells prints of "icons" in its bookstore. Still doesn't make it right.

LBK

Do you have qualms of Orthodox iconography/canonization of Isaac the Syrian in Orthodox churches?  Not saying I believe the Orthodox church should recognize Francis of Assisi (though I did revere him while a Catholic as he was my patron and still drew inspiration from him while practicing Orthodoxy) but many of the arguments you have against Francis of Assisi could also be applied to Isaac the Syrian, no?  Not an attack, a genuine inquiry into your thoughts.  Thanks.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,495
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #93 on: July 22, 2018, 02:58:27 AM »
Ecumenical, but not really.

What makes a council ecumenical?
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline hecma925

  • Non-clairvoyant, but you can call me Elder
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,907
  • Unbreakable! He's alive, dammit! It's a MIRACLE!
  • Faith: Truthful Chalcedonian Truther
  • Jurisdiction: In Hell I'll be in good company
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #94 on: July 22, 2018, 06:39:57 AM »
Ecumenical, but not really.

What makes a council ecumenical?

The food.
Happy shall he be, that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. Alleluia.

Once Christ has filled the Cross, it can never be empty again.

"But God doesn't need your cookies!  Arrive on time!"

Offline Sethrak

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,110
  • Faith: Armenian Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Etchmiadzin, Armenia
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #95 on: July 22, 2018, 12:01:24 PM »
While visiting a friend in Santa Cruz, California ( some years ago ) ~ I happened to be at Pinto Lake ~ near there ~ in a grove of trees ~ high up where a branch had broken away was a shape that looked very like the Guadalupe Madonna ~ if I may call it that ```

There were many people gathered ~ using mirrors to reflect light on the shape and I believe praying for or to it ```






seth

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,530
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #96 on: July 22, 2018, 04:39:58 PM »
My brother recently returned from Cancun and brought back a 5x7ish image of the Virgin of Guadalupe on leather, ostensibly made by some local craftsman, as a gift for me.  What do I do with it?

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,495
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #97 on: July 22, 2018, 04:40:39 PM »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline hecma925

  • Non-clairvoyant, but you can call me Elder
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,907
  • Unbreakable! He's alive, dammit! It's a MIRACLE!
  • Faith: Truthful Chalcedonian Truther
  • Jurisdiction: In Hell I'll be in good company
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #98 on: July 22, 2018, 05:17:27 PM »
My brother recently returned from Cancun and brought back a 5x7ish image of the Virgin of Guadalupe on leather, ostensibly made by some local craftsman, as a gift for me.  What do I do with it?

Who are you asking?
Happy shall he be, that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. Alleluia.

Once Christ has filled the Cross, it can never be empty again.

"But God doesn't need your cookies!  Arrive on time!"

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,386
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Greek
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #99 on: July 22, 2018, 06:52:57 PM »
It was ecumenical. At least in the Catholic Church. Relevant to you is even the Maronite patriarch was at Lateran IV.
Interestingly, most bishops were absent...

Absolutely not. The Father and the Son having the same substance is straight from the council of Nicaea  :o. The next line just confirms that the persons have the same nature but beget, are begotten and proceed ,respectively, each other/from each other. If you think any of that is heretical then you seriously need to revisit the nicene faith. The essence (nature) does not generate, is not generated nor proceeds as if it were a person.... persons generate and proceed and the substance is give to the person through these acts.
No, Lateran used the language of Nicea and extrapolated from it by giving substance just to the Son - is ether given to the Spirit - and making him equal with the Father and the Spirit, someway less substantial.
Sanctus Deus
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ
Άγιος ο Θεός

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,530
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #100 on: July 22, 2018, 07:35:32 PM »
My brother recently returned from Cancun and brought back a 5x7ish image of the Virgin of Guadalupe on leather, ostensibly made by some local craftsman, as a gift for me.  What do I do with it?

Who are you asking?

All OCNet.

Offline hecma925

  • Non-clairvoyant, but you can call me Elder
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,907
  • Unbreakable! He's alive, dammit! It's a MIRACLE!
  • Faith: Truthful Chalcedonian Truther
  • Jurisdiction: In Hell I'll be in good company
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #101 on: July 22, 2018, 07:52:42 PM »
My brother recently returned from Cancun and brought back a 5x7ish image of the Virgin of Guadalupe on leather, ostensibly made by some local craftsman, as a gift for me.  What do I do with it?

Who are you asking?

All OCNet.

BURN IT, but keep the ashes to be blended in wood pulp to make the paper on which an akathist to Psalm 51 is printed.
Happy shall he be, that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. Alleluia.

Once Christ has filled the Cross, it can never be empty again.

"But God doesn't need your cookies!  Arrive on time!"

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,495
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #102 on: July 23, 2018, 03:30:13 AM »
It was ecumenical. At least in the Catholic Church. Relevant to you is even the Maronite patriarch was at Lateran IV.
Interestingly, most bishops were absent...
Most bishops probably couldn’t afford the trip or maybe it was just too long. Or maybe they felt it sufficient that their patriarch represent them. Kinda like how most western bishops never attended the first seven councils? Or are those now not ecumenical but rather Byzantine synods? ::)

Quote
Absolutely not. The Father and the Son having the same substance is straight from the council of Nicaea  :o. The next line just confirms that the persons have the same nature but beget, are begotten and proceed ,respectively, each other/from each other. If you think any of that is heretical then you seriously need to revisit the nicene faith. The essence (nature) does not generate, is not generated nor proceeds as if it were a person.... persons generate and proceed and the substance is give to the person through these acts.
No, Lateran used the language of Nicea and extrapolated from it by giving substance just to the Son - is ether given to the Spirit - and making him equal with the Father and the Spirit, someway less substantial.
What????  :o

Did you miss the part where it says ”but what the Father is the Son is and the Holy Spirit equally”

No you’re forcing the issue Sharbel. Let it go. You clearly have a chip on your shoulder when it comes to the CC. What’s was said there is 100% orthodox even by EO standards concerning the essence not proceeding, begetting or being begotten

Honestly all Lateran IV is saying is:

“Hey guys, Gods nature does not beget, is not begotten and does not proceed. The persons beget, are begotten and proceed. So the Father begets the Son, the Son is Begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeds from both. That is how they get their essence and  equality. Thanks for coming :)
« Last Edit: July 23, 2018, 03:40:28 AM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline RaphaCam

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,960
  • It is honourable to reveal the works of God
    • Em Espírito e em Verdade
  • Faith: Big-O Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Exarchate of Gotham City
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #103 on: July 23, 2018, 05:24:00 AM »
My brother recently returned from Cancun and brought back a 5x7ish image of the Virgin of Guadalupe on leather, ostensibly made by some local craftsman, as a gift for me.  What do I do with it?
FWIW, I have RC plaster statues of Ss. Raphael and Sebastian just beside my icon corner. They belonged to my great-grandmother. A bit further from it, I have some Francis of Assisi piece of memorabilia my mother brought me from Italy. I feel in this way these religious articles are in a respectful spot, but they don't get the special spot of the icons.
"May the Lord our God remember in His kingdom all Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, which heralds the Word of Truth and fearlessly offers and distributes the Holy Oblation despite human deficiencies and persecutions moved by the powers of this world, in all time and unto the ages of ages."

May the Blessed Light shine Forth

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,386
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Greek
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #104 on: July 23, 2018, 10:24:47 AM »
Interestingly, most bishops were absent...
Most bishops probably couldn’t afford the trip or maybe it was just too long. Or maybe they felt it sufficient that their patriarch represent them. Kinda like how most western bishops never attended the first seven councils? Or are those now not ecumenical but rather Byzantine synods? ::)
Touché. :)

Quote
No, Lateran used the language of Nicea and extrapolated from it by giving substance just to the Son - is ether given to the Spirit - and making him equal with the Father and the Spirit, someway less substantial.
What????  :o

Did you miss the part where it says ”but what the Father is the Son is and the Holy Spirit equally”

No you’re forcing the issue Sharbel. Let it go. You clearly have a chip on your shoulder when it comes to the CC. What’s was said there is 100% orthodox even by EO standards concerning the essence not proceeding, begetting or being begotten

Honestly all Lateran IV is saying is:

“Hey guys, Gods nature does not beget, is not begotten and does not proceed. The persons beget, are begotten and proceed. So the Father begets the Son, the Son is Begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeds from both. That is how they get their essence and  equality. Thanks for coming :)
No, that's not all.  If only it were!  When it hamfisted the Filioque in its musings, downgrading, so to say, the Holy Spirit, it drifted away from the Trinitarian Faith.  Your blinds prevent you from gleaning the meaning of the words of the council.
Sanctus Deus
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ
Άγιος ο Θεός

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,495
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #105 on: July 23, 2018, 11:10:48 AM »
Interestingly, most bishops were absent...
Most bishops probably couldn’t afford the trip or maybe it was just too long. Or maybe they felt it sufficient that their patriarch represent them. Kinda like how most western bishops never attended the first seven councils? Or are those now not ecumenical but rather Byzantine synods? ::)
Touché. :)

Quote
No, Lateran used the language of Nicea and extrapolated from it by giving substance just to the Son - is ether given to the Spirit - and making him equal with the Father and the Spirit, someway less substantial.
What????  :o

Did you miss the part where it says ”but what the Father is the Son is and the Holy Spirit equally”

No you’re forcing the issue Sharbel. Let it go. You clearly have a chip on your shoulder when it comes to the CC. What’s was said there is 100% orthodox even by EO standards concerning the essence not proceeding, begetting or being begotten

Honestly all Lateran IV is saying is:

“Hey guys, Gods nature does not beget, is not begotten and does not proceed. The persons beget, are begotten and proceed. So the Father begets the Son, the Son is Begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeds from both. That is how they get their essence and  equality. Thanks for coming :)
No, that's not all.  If only it were!  When it hamfisted the Filioque in its musings, downgrading, so to say, the Holy Spirit, it drifted away from the Trinitarian Faith.  Your blinds prevent you from gleaning the meaning of the words of the council.

Okay from your POV what is that decree saying and reference the words.
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Ainnir

  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,524
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #106 on: July 23, 2018, 12:38:58 PM »
My brother recently returned from Cancun and brought back a 5x7ish image of the Virgin of Guadalupe on leather, ostensibly made by some local craftsman, as a gift for me.  What do I do with it?
Recreate the photo above.   :P
Is any of the above Orthodox?  I have no clue, so there's that.

Offline Lepanto

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 515
  • Faith: Roman Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Munich and Freising
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #107 on: July 23, 2018, 02:37:02 PM »
My brother recently returned from Cancun and brought back a 5x7ish image of the Virgin of Guadalupe on leather, ostensibly made by some local craftsman, as a gift for me.  What do I do with it?
Recreate the photo above.   :P
@Mor Ephrem: Send it to me. I can use it.  ;D
Sanctus Deus, Sanctus fortis, Sanctus immortalis, miserere nobis.

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,386
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Greek
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #108 on: July 23, 2018, 09:32:49 PM »
No, that's not all.  If only it were!  When it hamfisted the Filioque in its musings, downgrading, so to say, the Holy Spirit, it drifted away from the Trinitarian Faith.  Your blinds prevent you from gleaning the meaning of the words of the council.
Okay from your POV what is that decree saying and reference the words.

As I said above:
The Substance does not generate, is not begotten, does not proceed; but it is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, the Holy Spirit who proceeds... so the Father and the Son have the same substanceSo the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, Who proceeds from them both, are one same reality"
The underlined passage is contradictory to the first bold passage, with the result that the second bold passage is a non sequitur.  Talk about confusion...
Lateran is saying that, since the Son is begotten from the Father, the one in whom lies the substance of the Godhead, the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, confusing the primacy of the Father by making the Son equal to him.  This is contradictory because the Father is, so to say, the sole source of the Trinity, from whom the Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds.  To say that either of the other two Divine Persons can be the source of the other, even if together with the Father, is a huge problem.
Sanctus Deus
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ
Άγιος ο Θεός

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,386
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Greek
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #109 on: July 23, 2018, 09:33:23 PM »
My brother recently returned from Cancun and brought back a 5x7ish image of the Virgin of Guadalupe on leather, ostensibly made by some local craftsman, as a gift for me.  What do I do with it?
Regift it back to him.
Sanctus Deus
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ
Άγιος ο Θεός

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Done
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,607
  • Intercede for my wretched soul, Saint Alban.
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: Lost for now.
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #110 on: July 23, 2018, 09:49:56 PM »
No, that's not all.  If only it were!  When it hamfisted the Filioque in its musings, downgrading, so to say, the Holy Spirit, it drifted away from the Trinitarian Faith.  Your blinds prevent you from gleaning the meaning of the words of the council.
Okay from your POV what is that decree saying and reference the words.

As I said above:
The Substance does not generate, is not begotten, does not proceed; but it is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, the Holy Spirit who proceeds... so the Father and the Son have the same substanceSo the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, Who proceeds from them both, are one same reality"
The underlined passage is contradictory to the first bold passage, with the result that the second bold passage is a non sequitur.  Talk about confusion...
Lateran is saying that, since the Son is begotten from the Father, the one in whom lies the substance of the Godhead, the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, confusing the primacy of the Father by making the Son equal to him.  This is contradictory because the Father is, so to say, the sole source of the Trinity, from whom the Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds.  To say that either of the other two Divine Persons can be the source of the other, even if together with the Father, is a huge problem.

Wandile, here's my interpretation with the problem of Lateran IV, and what I think Sharbel is trying to say.

The thin, sharp, large black circle is the Essence, while the blurry, thick, small circle is the Personhood of the Trinity.

Orthodox Trinity:




With Lateran IV, we are left with one of two conclusions:






The first model denies the Essence of the Trinity, which makes the Holy Spirit a created entity,
while the second model is modalism, which says there is no Personhood with distinct functions.
Neither are correct.

Now, if you believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son in the sense of the Father Sending the Holy Spirit to the Son, and the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son in that manner, I don't think it's a problem. However, the Personhood in of Himself cannot generate the Holy Spirit, only the Father. However, Lateran IV seems to say that the Father has shared his "Generating Substance" to the Son, which allows Him to Generate the Holy Spirit, which only leads to one of the two conclusions as above, depending on what you denote the differences between "Personhood" and "Substance" to be.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2018, 09:58:54 PM by LivenotoneviL »
I'm done.

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Done
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,607
  • Intercede for my wretched soul, Saint Alban.
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: Lost for now.
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #111 on: July 23, 2018, 09:50:43 PM »
Excuse the "SOH," trying to break Cyrillic habits but am unsuccessful at it, as "H" in Russian is "N."
I'm done.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,495
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #112 on: July 24, 2018, 05:11:22 AM »
No, that's not all.  If only it were!  When it hamfisted the Filioque in its musings, downgrading, so to say, the Holy Spirit, it drifted away from the Trinitarian Faith.  Your blinds prevent you from gleaning the meaning of the words of the council.
Okay from your POV what is that decree saying and reference the words.

As I said above:
The Substance does not generate, is not begotten, does not proceed; but it is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, the Holy Spirit who proceeds... so the Father and the Son have the same substanceSo the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, Who proceeds from them both, are one same reality"
The underlined passage is contradictory to the first bold passage, with the result that the second bold passage is a non sequitur.  Talk about confusion...
Lateran is saying that, since the Son is begotten from the Father, the one in whom lies the substance of the Godhead, the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, confusing the primacy of the Father by making the Son equal to him.  This is contradictory because the Father is, so to say, the sole source of the Trinity, from whom the Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds.  To say that either of the other two Divine Persons can be the source of the other, even if together with the Father, is a huge problem.

Why is the father called the father?
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,495
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #113 on: July 24, 2018, 05:16:07 AM »
No, that's not all.  If only it were!  When it hamfisted the Filioque in its musings, downgrading, so to say, the Holy Spirit, it drifted away from the Trinitarian Faith.  Your blinds prevent you from gleaning the meaning of the words of the council.
Okay from your POV what is that decree saying and reference the words.

As I said above:
The Substance does not generate, is not begotten, does not proceed; but it is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, the Holy Spirit who proceeds... so the Father and the Son have the same substanceSo the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, Who proceeds from them both, are one same reality"
The underlined passage is contradictory to the first bold passage, with the result that the second bold passage is a non sequitur.  Talk about confusion...
Lateran is saying that, since the Son is begotten from the Father, the one in whom lies the substance of the Godhead, the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, confusing the primacy of the Father by making the Son equal to him.  This is contradictory because the Father is, so to say, the sole source of the Trinity, from whom the Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds.  To say that either of the other two Divine Persons can be the source of the other, even if together with the Father, is a huge problem.

Wandile, here's my interpretation with the problem of Lateran IV, and what I think Sharbel is trying to say.

The thin, sharp, large black circle is the Essence, while the blurry, thick, small circle is the Personhood of the Trinity.

Orthodox Trinity:




With Lateran IV, we are left with one of two conclusions:






The first model denies the Essence of the Trinity, which makes the Holy Spirit a created entity,
while the second model is modalism, which says there is no Personhood with distinct functions.
Neither are correct.

Now, if you believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son in the sense of the Father Sending the Holy Spirit to the Son, and the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son in that manner, I don't think it's a problem. However, the Personhood in of Himself cannot generate the Holy Spirit, only the Father. However, Lateran IV seems to say that the Father has shared his "Generating Substance" to the Son, which allows Him to Generate the Holy Spirit, which only leads to one of the two conclusions as above, depending on what you denote the differences between "Personhood" and "Substance" to be.

I’ll ask the age old question... in the EO model, how is the Spirit not just a second son? Secondly why is the holy trinity 3 and only?

Secondly the HS is not generated...

What Lateran IV is saying is Father—-> Son——> Holy Spirit
« Last Edit: July 24, 2018, 05:24:46 AM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 930
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Layman in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #114 on: July 24, 2018, 06:09:00 AM »
Quote
I’ll ask the age old question... in the EO model, how is the Spirit not just a second son? Secondly why is the holy trinity 3 and only?
The doctrine is the Holy Trinity is a revelation not a calculation.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2018, 06:09:53 AM by Vanhyo »

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,495
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #115 on: July 24, 2018, 06:57:19 AM »
Quote
I’ll ask the age old question... in the EO model, how is the Spirit not just a second son? Secondly why is the holy trinity 3 and only?
The doctrine is the Holy Trinity is a revelation not a calculation.

Theologically it cannot be proved and I wouldn’t take its revelation for granted as scripture mentioned three but some groups asked who’s to say there isn’t more like in the case of the OT??? Filioque answers the question of why 3 and only 3 but in the EO model?
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Done
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,607
  • Intercede for my wretched soul, Saint Alban.
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: Lost for now.
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #116 on: July 24, 2018, 07:07:49 AM »
What function does the Holy Spirit have in the Roman Catholic model that He doesn't have in the Eastern Orthodox model, other than spirating from the Son as a source (whatever that means)? And how does it answer the question of "Why 3" in a way that the Orthodox model doesn't?

You can't just beg to prove a negative while assuming that similar logic doesn't fit your own model.

I can just say "Why not modalism? Why not a 2-person Trinity ("Dinity")?" Or say "Why isn't the Holy Spirit a Creation of the Father and the Son?"

I think you're trying to argue that if the Holy Spirit didn't pass through the Son, then there is no need for Him to be the Holy Spirit.
But that's a stupid argument, because the Holy Spirit in relation to us serves a completely different function than the Son.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2018, 07:15:25 AM by LivenotoneviL »
I'm done.

Offline Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 930
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Layman in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #117 on: July 24, 2018, 07:42:29 AM »
Quote
Filioque answers the question of why 3 and only 3 but in the EO model?

Your philosophizings are not needed if you are in the Church, The Holy Spirit of God leads the faithful in all truth, so you are asking a type of a quetion that is a non question and completely irrevelent from an orthodox pov.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2018, 07:43:17 AM by Vanhyo »

Offline MalpanaGiwargis

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 541
  • Māran etraḥam 'lay!
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #118 on: July 24, 2018, 08:03:32 AM »
Quote
I’ll ask the age old question... in the EO model, how is the Spirit not just a second son? Secondly why is the holy trinity 3 and only?
The doctrine is the Holy Trinity is a revelation not a calculation.

Theologically it cannot be proved and I wouldn’t take its revelation for granted as scripture mentioned three but some groups asked who’s to say there isn’t more like in the case of the OT??? Filioque answers the question of why 3 and only 3 but in the EO model?

Then those groups need to stop speculating and receive the apostolic faith in three and only three Divine Persons. Also, the "EO model" is simply what the Nicene Council taught, no need for speculative models.

How does the Filioque answer the question of "why 3"? Some theoretical group could say something audacious like "who's to say another Person doesn't also proceed from the Father and the Son?" If one is not bound to the received faith, he can talk himself into any error.
Woe is me, that I have read the commandments,
   and have become learned in the Scriptures,
and have been instructed in Your glories,
   and yet I have become occupied in shameful things!

(Giwargis Warda, On Compunction of Soul)

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,495
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #119 on: July 24, 2018, 08:54:40 AM »
EDIT: it’s menas to say “Theologically it can be proved”
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,495
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #120 on: July 24, 2018, 09:13:09 AM »
What function does the Holy Spirit have in the Roman Catholic model that He doesn't have in the Eastern Orthodox model, other than spirating from the Son as a source (whatever that means)? And how does it answer the question of "Why 3" in a way that the Orthodox model doesn't?
Wait wait wait... you can’t ask me a series of questions without answering my question.

But let’s do an even more ancient/patriotic inquiry...
How are the person distinguished between each other? It’s is their power? Greatness? Relations between one another?

Quote
can just say "Why not modalism?
My question of How the Holy Spirit isn’t a second Son is essentially a question of how your model isn’t modalism. The filioque squashes modalism. But this will all be shown if you answer the question I asked you above.

Quote
I think you're trying to argue that if the Holy Spirit didn't pass through the Son, then there is no need for Him to be the Holy Spirit.
Not even...

Quote
But that's a stupid argument, because the Holy Spirit in relation to us serves a completely different function than the Son.

Functionality has nothing to do with the distinguisment of persons. It’s a consequence of their distingushment.
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,495
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #121 on: July 24, 2018, 09:14:21 AM »
Quote
Filioque answers the question of why 3 and only 3 but in the EO model?

Your philosophizings are not needed if you are in the Church, The Holy Spirit of God leads the faithful in all truth, so you are asking a type of a quetion that is a non question and completely irrevelent from an orthodox pov.

Philosophizing... If you’re  so hostile to it then best you don’t read the fathers. They have a whole lot of philosophizing in their writings. ;)
« Last Edit: July 24, 2018, 09:14:41 AM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,495
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #122 on: July 24, 2018, 09:16:58 AM »
Quote
I’ll ask the age old question... in the EO model, how is the Spirit not just a second son? Secondly why is the holy trinity 3 and only?
The doctrine is the Holy Trinity is a revelation not a calculation.

Theologically it cannot be proved and I wouldn’t take its revelation for granted as scripture mentioned three but some groups asked who’s to say there isn’t more like in the case of the OT??? Filioque answers the question of why 3 and only 3 but in the EO model?

Then those groups need to stop speculating and receive the apostolic faith in three and only three Divine Persons. Also, the "EO model" is simply what the Nicene Council taught, no need for speculative models.

How does the Filioque answer the question of "why 3"? Some theoretical group could say something audacious like "who's to say another Person doesn't also proceed from the Father and the Son?" If one is not bound to the received faith, he can talk himself into any error.

Because it closes the internal divine processions and proves the truth of the divine intellect (Will/thought, Word, breath) revealed in scripture or as Saint Augustine’s gave, He is reciprocal  between the Father and the Son.
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Done
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,607
  • Intercede for my wretched soul, Saint Alban.
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: Lost for now.
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #123 on: July 24, 2018, 01:44:02 PM »
What function does the Holy Spirit have in the Roman Catholic model that He doesn't have in the Eastern Orthodox model, other than spirating from the Son as a source (whatever that means)? And how does it answer the question of "Why 3" in a way that the Orthodox model doesn't?
Wait wait wait... you can’t ask me a series of questions without answering my question.

Which is what you did in response to my objection.


Quote
Quote
I think you're trying to argue that if the Holy Spirit didn't pass through the Son, then there is no need for Him to be the Holy Spirit.
Not even...

Then how does the Orthodox model not fulfill what the Roman model claims, and how does it open the question of "Why isn't the Holy Spirit another Son?"

Quote
Quote
But that's a stupid argument, because the Holy Spirit in relation to us serves a completely different function than the Son.

Functionality has nothing to do with the distinguisment of persons. It’s a consequence of their distingushment.

Which is why suggesting that simply because they have the same Essence, and thus they have the same Function, implies there is indistinguishability - which is what Modalism is.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2018, 01:45:13 PM by LivenotoneviL »
I'm done.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,495
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #124 on: July 24, 2018, 03:13:17 PM »
What function does the Holy Spirit have in the Roman Catholic model that He doesn't have in the Eastern Orthodox model, other than spirating from the Son as a source (whatever that means)? And how does it answer the question of "Why 3" in a way that the Orthodox model doesn't?
Wait wait wait... you can’t ask me a series of questions without answering my question.

Which is what you did in response to my objection.
Because you never answered mine to begin with. How are the persons distinguished? This answer is straight from the fathers and consistent. I hope you know.

Quote
Quote
Quote
I think you're trying to argue that if the Holy Spirit didn't pass through the Son, then there is no need for Him to be the Holy Spirit.
Not even...

Then how does the Orthodox model not fulfill what the Roman model claims, and how does it open the question of "Why isn't the Holy Spirit another Son?"
Needs is the wrong word. What I’m saying is the EO model makes the Holy Spirit non-existent and reduces the Holy Trinity to a Bi-nity. The EO model, as you present it, results in modalism because the Son and the Spirit are indistinguishable by the patristic standard. Which is the answer to how we distinguish. Their relations. For in ALL other things they are equal. How they relate to each other is how they are distinguished. If the Son and the Holy Spirit are both from the Father alone, how are they different? It’s why the question is raised, how is the Holy Spirit not just a second Son? It’s absolutely necessary that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son so they can be distinguished.

The Father is called the Father because he begets the Son. Nothing else.
The Son is he Son because he is begotten of the Father. Nothing else
The Holy Spirit proceeds which is not a property of filiation (Either Actively or passively) thus what is not unique is common to both the Father and the Son as it’s not a relation between them to distinguish themselves. So he proceeds from both and thus can truly be called the Spirit of the Father and equally the Spirit of the Son. Thus it confirms that the Father gave everything to the Son except being the Father i.e. the property of Filiation.

Quote
Quote
Quote
But that's a stupid argument, because the Holy Spirit in relation to us serves a completely different function than the Son.

Functionality has nothing to do with the distinguisment of persons. It’s a consequence of their distingushment.

Which is why suggesting that simply because they have the same Essence, and thus they have the same Function, implies there is indistinguishability - which is what Modalism is.
Essence does NOT = function.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2018, 03:21:43 PM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Done
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,607
  • Intercede for my wretched soul, Saint Alban.
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: Lost for now.
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #125 on: July 24, 2018, 03:22:30 PM »
But that's what Lateran IV said - because they have they have the same Substance, they have the same function of sending the Holy Spirit.
I'm done.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,495
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #126 on: July 24, 2018, 03:31:25 PM »
But that's what Lateran IV said - because they have they have the same Substance, they have the same function of sending the Holy Spirit.

Essence, substantance, and Nature are synonyms = Divinity

Function is not even the same thing at all.

Lateran IV is saying they are consubstantial, nothing more. Or in deatail: The Holy Spirit received what he is from the Father and the Son. They are the same substance so the Holy Spirit too is of the same substance. That’s why at the end it says they are “one same reality”.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2018, 03:34:40 PM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Dominika

  • Troublesome Sheep
  • Global Moderator
  • Taxiarches
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,811
  • Serbian/Polish
    • My youtube channel
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian Patriarchate/POC
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #127 on: July 24, 2018, 03:48:40 PM »
Essence, substantance, and Nature are synonyms = Divinity

That's why West can't understand East and its dilemmas.
Pray for persecuted Christians, especially in Serbian Kosovo and Raška, Egypt and Syria

My Orthodox liturgical blog "For what eat, while you can fast" in Polish (videos featuring chants in different languages)

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,530
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #128 on: July 24, 2018, 05:26:19 PM »
Essence, substantance, and Nature are synonyms = Divinity

That's why West can't understand East and its dilemmas.

It really is a different religion.  Something other than Christianity.

Offline biro

  • Site Supporter
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,383
  • Excelsior
    • Archive of Our Own works
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #129 on: July 24, 2018, 08:28:10 PM »
Essence, substantance, and Nature are synonyms = Divinity

That's why West can't understand East and its dilemmas.

Are you kidding?

You live in the West.

I am tired of hearing the West so derided on these boards.

The Roman Catholics may teach some things that are wrong. I don't understand what Wandile says half the time.

But never would I say that they "don't have Christianity."

Yes, they do.

I tell you, I'm half on the verge of becoming Episcopalian, because I'd rather deal with the problems they have than deal with all the "Eastern supremacy" nonsense.

If you really think that someone from the big, bad West "can't understand the East and its dilemmas," then stop accepting us as converts.
https://archiveofourown.org/users/Parakeetist


Warning: stories have mature content.

Offline platypus

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 88
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #130 on: July 24, 2018, 10:31:20 PM »
What I’m saying is the EO model makes the Holy Spirit non-existent and reduces the Holy Trinity to a Bi-nity.

How can you actually type that? Have you ever actually been inside an Orthodox Church, prayed with any of us, or read anything written by our saints?
"Eternal truth finds no favorable soil where one encounters at every turn the skeptical, sarcastic query 'what is truth,' where life insurance takes the place of eternal hope." -Hieromonk Antonius

Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity. -Ecclesiastes 12:8

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,530
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #131 on: July 24, 2018, 10:49:36 PM »
Essence, substantance, and Nature are synonyms = Divinity

That's why West can't understand East and its dilemmas.

Are you kidding?

You live in the West.

I am tired of hearing the West so derided on these boards.

The Roman Catholics may teach some things that are wrong. I don't understand what Wandile says half the time.

But never would I say that they "don't have Christianity."

Yes, they do.

I tell you, I'm half on the verge of becoming Episcopalian, because I'd rather deal with the problems they have than deal with all the "Eastern supremacy" nonsense.

If you really think that someone from the big, bad West "can't understand the East and its dilemmas," then stop accepting us as converts.

You don’t need Dominika to push you into Episcopalianism, you’ve been doing that on your own for quite a while.  They have even less Christianity than the Rome espoused by the RCs in this thread.

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Done
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,607
  • Intercede for my wretched soul, Saint Alban.
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: Lost for now.
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #132 on: July 24, 2018, 10:56:09 PM »
-
« Last Edit: July 24, 2018, 11:00:59 PM by LivenotoneviL »
I'm done.

Offline Brilko

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 173
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: ?
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #133 on: July 24, 2018, 11:12:43 PM »
OH, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet.
Unless you live on a globe.

Offline RaphaCam

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,960
  • It is honourable to reveal the works of God
    • Em Espírito e em Verdade
  • Faith: Big-O Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Exarchate of Gotham City
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #134 on: July 25, 2018, 03:54:12 AM »
Essence, substantance, and Nature are synonyms = Divinity
That's why West can't understand East and its dilemmas.

Are you kidding?

You live in the West.

I am tired of hearing the West so derided on these boards. [...]

If you really think that someone from the big, bad West "can't understand the East and its dilemmas," then stop accepting us as converts.
Is it deriding to say one culture cannot fully understand the complexity another? No, this is just some cultural perspective. You're being a nitpicker.

If there is something Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox can do to deride each other, it is reductionism and pretensiousness, which is what happens when Roman Catholics lazily misrepresent the Eastern Orthodox, like Wandile did in the comment Dominika responded to. No need to get defensive, the West barely exists on its own.

Plus, last time I checked, Poland was in Eastern Europe. Which doesn't matter much because the West is a narrative rather than a civilisation.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2018, 04:02:05 AM by RaphaCam »
"May the Lord our God remember in His kingdom all Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, which heralds the Word of Truth and fearlessly offers and distributes the Holy Oblation despite human deficiencies and persecutions moved by the powers of this world, in all time and unto the ages of ages."

May the Blessed Light shine Forth

Offline Dominika

  • Troublesome Sheep
  • Global Moderator
  • Taxiarches
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,811
  • Serbian/Polish
    • My youtube channel
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian Patriarchate/POC
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #135 on: July 25, 2018, 05:24:47 AM »
Essence, substantance, and Nature are synonyms = Divinity
That's why West can't understand East and its dilemmas.

Are you kidding?

You live in the West.

I am tired of hearing the West so derided on these boards. [...]

If you really think that someone from the big, bad West "can't understand the East and its dilemmas," then stop accepting us as converts.
Is it deriding to say one culture cannot fully understand the complexity another? No, this is just some cultural perspective. You're being a nitpicker.

If there is something Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox can do to deride each other, it is reductionism and pretensiousness, which is what happens when Roman Catholics lazily misrepresent the Eastern Orthodox, like Wandile did in the comment Dominika responded to. No need to get defensive, the West barely exists on its own.

Plus, last time I checked, Poland was in Eastern Europe. Which doesn't matter much because the West is a narrative rather than a civilisation.
This.


Plus, my commentary, despite being short, was deeper than biro thought (I hope).
Pray for persecuted Christians, especially in Serbian Kosovo and Raška, Egypt and Syria

My Orthodox liturgical blog "For what eat, while you can fast" in Polish (videos featuring chants in different languages)

Offline Lepanto

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 515
  • Faith: Roman Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Munich and Freising
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #136 on: July 25, 2018, 05:59:23 AM »
How is the West (whatever that is) a narrative? Can you expand on that?
How is the East (whatever that is) consecutively not a narrative?
It sometimes seems to me that the East suffers from an inferiority complex, as the West was (or at least appeared to be) politically and economically more successful,
especially in the last few decades. Naturally, this is not very reasonable, but understandable.
The East then tries to compensate that by claiming cultural (and ritual, which partly goes with it) superiority and generally accusing the West of colonialism, moral decline,
destruction of the core of civilization - the family - and what have you.
Obviously, all these are unreflected half-truths.

While the East of course would be very able intellectually to reflect on those half-truths and its´ motivation to spread those,
it willfully decides against it as it feels it is entitled to do so by the Western transgressions which happened before.

« Last Edit: July 25, 2018, 06:04:51 AM by Lepanto »
Sanctus Deus, Sanctus fortis, Sanctus immortalis, miserere nobis.

Offline Xavier

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 621
  • Immaculate Heart of Mary, Pray for US!
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #137 on: July 25, 2018, 01:00:30 PM »
Essence, substantance, and Nature are synonyms = Divinity

That's why West can't understand East and its dilemmas.

It really is a different religion.  Something other than Christianity.

Ok, West and East disagree over terminology. If precise theological terminology is bad, why did the 318 Fathers of Nicaea decide to use the highly technical and precise term ὁμοούσιον(homoouison - One In Being with/Consubstantial)?
"My daughter, look at My Heart surrounded with thorns with which ungrateful men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, try to console Me, and say that I promise to assist at the hour of death, with all the graces necessary for salvation, all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months go to confession and receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary and keep Me company for a quarter of an hour" - The Theotokos to Sr. Lucia.

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,054
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #138 on: July 25, 2018, 01:32:35 PM »
Essence, substantance, and Nature are synonyms = Divinity

That's why West can't understand East and its dilemmas.

Are you kidding?

You live in the West.

I am tired of hearing the West so derided on these boards.

The Roman Catholics may teach some things that are wrong. I don't understand what Wandile says half the time.

But never would I say that they "don't have Christianity."

Yes, they do.

I tell you, I'm half on the verge of becoming Episcopalian, because I'd rather deal with the problems they have than deal with all the "Eastern supremacy" nonsense.

If you really think that someone from the big, bad West "can't understand the East and its dilemmas," then stop accepting us as converts.

Crouched beneath a flickering streetlamp, Biro picked maggots from her forearm. "You live in the west," she hissed at a boy approaching on a tricycle, with rapid creaks of the rusty wheels. As he passed, Biro grinned widely, before tossing a hapless larva into the air and catching it in her mouth. The child pedaled faster, giving her as wide a berth as the sidewalk afforded. "I tell you," she cackled, "I'm half on the verge of becoming Episcopalian."  The tricyclist redoubled his exertion till he was safely down the block and rounded the corner, where a man in black oriental clerical attire paced back and forth, waving little bottles at passing cars and shouting, "Get yer cannabis poop oil! Straight from the holy land! Come get your cannabis poop oil!"
Quote
When a time revolts against eternity, the only thing to set against it is genuine eternity itself, and not some other time which has already roused, and not without reason, a violent reaction against itself.
- Berdyaev

If you would like a private forum for non-polemical topics, comment here.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,530
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #139 on: July 25, 2018, 01:38:53 PM »
Essence, substantance, and Nature are synonyms = Divinity

That's why West can't understand East and its dilemmas.

It really is a different religion.  Something other than Christianity.

Ok, West and East disagree over terminology. If precise theological terminology is bad, why did the 318 Fathers of Nicaea decide to use the highly technical and precise term ὁμοούσιον(homoouison - One In Being with/Consubstantial)?

I have no problem with technical and precise terms used technically and precisely.  I don’t think that is happening in this thread, however.

Offline Dominika

  • Troublesome Sheep
  • Global Moderator
  • Taxiarches
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,811
  • Serbian/Polish
    • My youtube channel
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian Patriarchate/POC
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #140 on: July 25, 2018, 01:40:00 PM »
Essence, substantance, and Nature are synonyms = Divinity

That's why West can't understand East and its dilemmas.

It really is a different religion.  Something other than Christianity.

Ok, West and East disagree over terminology. If precise theological terminology is bad, why did the 318 Fathers of Nicaea decide to use the highly technical and precise term ὁμοούσιον(homoouison - One In Being with/Consubstantial)?
So, my comment was about the fact that East tends to be precise in the theological terminology, while West not - at least according to Wandilewords. West is precies in canons, law - when both sides were respecting each other, they were indeed famous "two lungs" of the Christianity. But we know, what happened to West across the centuries, after it had rejected East i. e  Orthodoxy.
Pray for persecuted Christians, especially in Serbian Kosovo and Raška, Egypt and Syria

My Orthodox liturgical blog "For what eat, while you can fast" in Polish (videos featuring chants in different languages)

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,495
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #141 on: July 25, 2018, 02:15:59 PM »
Essence, substantance, and Nature are synonyms = Divinity

That's why West can't understand East and its dilemmas.

It really is a different religion.  Something other than Christianity.

Ok, West and East disagree over terminology. If precise theological terminology is bad, why did the 318 Fathers of Nicaea decide to use the highly technical and precise term ὁμοούσιον(homoouison - One In Being with/Consubstantial)?
So, my comment was about the fact that East tends to be precise in the theological terminology, while West not - at least according to Wandilewords. West is precies in canons, law - when both sides were respecting each other, they were indeed famous "two lungs" of the Christianity. But we know, what happened to West across the centuries, after it had rejected East i. e  Orthodoxy.

Essence is that which makes something what it is.
Substance is that out of which something is made.

A wooden chair is made of wood so the wood is its substance, but the wood isn't its essence. The design of the chair together with the wood is what makes it what it is, its essence.

But in God, essence and substance have to be one because he is simple and supremely one. He is pure act. That is, he is what he does. He loves and is love. He knows and is knowledge. Etc Etc.
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline RaphaCam

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,960
  • It is honourable to reveal the works of God
    • Em Espírito e em Verdade
  • Faith: Big-O Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Exarchate of Gotham City
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #142 on: July 26, 2018, 02:42:17 AM »
How is the West (whatever that is) a narrative? Can you expand on that?
How is the East (whatever that is) consecutively not a narrative?
Both of them are narratives, in the sense they're a way we try to wrap up with our minds a bunch of extremely diverse cultures, phenomena, states, histories, etc, as if they were simply two worlds complementarily opposed to each other. Some kind of retarded Daoism.

One can define Bavaria, Poland, Brazil, the United States, or even some more diverse spaces such as Latin America or Southern Asia, since each of these have some kind of unity, at least historically/culturally. Some reasonable axis. This reasoning doesn't work for the West, and it's even faultier for the East.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2018, 02:45:43 AM by RaphaCam »
"May the Lord our God remember in His kingdom all Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, which heralds the Word of Truth and fearlessly offers and distributes the Holy Oblation despite human deficiencies and persecutions moved by the powers of this world, in all time and unto the ages of ages."

May the Blessed Light shine Forth

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Done
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,607
  • Intercede for my wretched soul, Saint Alban.
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: Lost for now.
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #143 on: July 26, 2018, 06:53:22 AM »
Essence, substantance, and Nature are synonyms = Divinity

That's why West can't understand East and its dilemmas.

It really is a different religion.  Something other than Christianity.

Ok, West and East disagree over terminology. If precise theological terminology is bad, why did the 318 Fathers of Nicaea decide to use the highly technical and precise term ὁμοούσιον(homoouison - One In Being with/Consubstantial)?
So, my comment was about the fact that East tends to be precise in the theological terminology, while West not - at least according to Wandilewords. West is precies in canons, law - when both sides were respecting each other, they were indeed famous "two lungs" of the Christianity. But we know, what happened to West across the centuries, after it had rejected East i. e  Orthodoxy.

Essence is that which makes something what it is.
Substance is that out of which something is made.

A wooden chair is made of wood so the wood is its substance, but the wood isn't its essence. The design of the chair together with the wood is what makes it what it is, its essence.

But in God, essence and substance have to be one because he is simple and supremely one. He is pure act. That is, he is what he does. He loves and is love. He knows and is knowledge. Etc Etc.

....What?

How is this different? I thought both were the same - after all, looking through the Chalcedonian controversy as of recently, some during that time period said "Christ is consubstantial with humanity."
I'm done.

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,386
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Greek
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #144 on: July 27, 2018, 11:19:52 PM »
Essence, substantance, and Nature are synonyms = Divinity
That's why West can't understand East and its dilemmas.
It really is a different religion.  Something other than Christianity.
At the very least, receding from Chalcedonian Christianity.
Sanctus Deus
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ
Άγιος ο Θεός

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,495
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #145 on: July 28, 2018, 03:28:49 AM »
Essence, substantance, and Nature are synonyms = Divinity
That's why West can't understand East and its dilemmas.
It really is a different religion.  Something other than Christianity.
At the very least, receding from Chalcedonian Christianity.

On what account? These are baseless claims made by EO when they have no arguement left. Imagine the arrogance it needs to say something like this. As if Byzantine theology were supreme and the standard for all. Not surprising as this has been their manner even pre-schism which is why the Byzantine tradition was responsible for most of the major schisms in early church. Their arrogance and pride. It’s disgusting.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2018, 03:30:21 AM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,054
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #146 on: July 28, 2018, 06:38:48 AM »
Rome caused the two biggest, most lasting schisms- the breaking of the henotikon and then the “Great Schism”. Rome really is a vortex of chaos.
Quote
When a time revolts against eternity, the only thing to set against it is genuine eternity itself, and not some other time which has already roused, and not without reason, a violent reaction against itself.
- Berdyaev

If you would like a private forum for non-polemical topics, comment here.

Offline MalpanaGiwargis

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 541
  • Māran etraḥam 'lay!
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #147 on: July 28, 2018, 07:28:01 AM »
Essence, substantance, and Nature are synonyms = Divinity
That's why West can't understand East and its dilemmas.
It really is a different religion.  Something other than Christianity.
At the very least, receding from Chalcedonian Christianity.

On what account? These are baseless claims made by EO when they have no arguement left. Imagine the arrogance it needs to say something like this. As if Byzantine theology were supreme and the standard for all. Not surprising as this has been their manner even pre-schism which is why the Byzantine tradition was responsible for most of the major schisms in early church. Their arrogance and pride. It’s disgusting.

Arrogance as in saying something like the EO model makes "the Holy Spirit non-existent and the Holy Trinity a Bi-nity"? Despite the fact that it is traditional Roman spirituality that virtually eliminated the Holy Spirit. And as far as "Byzantine theology were supreme and the standard for all," good Lord, man – have you no self-awareness? You are arguing for the Filioque, which has never been a part of the Creed in any Church except that of Rome – not the EO, not the OO, not the Assyrians. The Orthodox have simply kept the unaltered Nicene-Constantinopolitan symbol, yet they're the ones in error for not adopting Roman innovations? And that's just one in a long list of innovations over which Eastern Christians are held to be deficient by the RC because they won't buckle and accept Roman theology.

None of the churches have a spotless record with respect to schism. But note that whereas most of the schisms were eventually healed, those in which Rome has played a major part never have been. And why is that? The dastardly dissident East? Or could it rather be Rome's unfathomable pride and arrogance that prevents it from ever admitting fault and changing course, instead always doubling down on its ever-more-maximalist interpretation of its own authority?
Woe is me, that I have read the commandments,
   and have become learned in the Scriptures,
and have been instructed in Your glories,
   and yet I have become occupied in shameful things!

(Giwargis Warda, On Compunction of Soul)

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,495
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #148 on: July 28, 2018, 07:42:06 AM »
Rome caused the two biggest, most lasting schisms- the breaking of the henotikon and then the “Great Schism”. Rome really is a vortex of chaos.

Rome’s caused which?

Protestantism is not a schism but heresy blaming it on the Catholic Church is like blaming airianism in the early church. Nonsensical.

The east west schism was double sided and not one sided. Most of the east were dragged in to a schism most of them didn’t even want to have a part in however the influence and political power of Constantinople dragged the other weakened sees with them. At the time it was simply and rightly seen as a spat between Rome and Constantinople.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2018, 07:43:46 AM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,054
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #149 on: July 28, 2018, 08:26:49 AM »
I didn’t say anything about Protestantism but now that you mention it, Rome did that too. So that’s three major ecclesial poopstorms Rome fomented.
Quote
When a time revolts against eternity, the only thing to set against it is genuine eternity itself, and not some other time which has already roused, and not without reason, a violent reaction against itself.
- Berdyaev

If you would like a private forum for non-polemical topics, comment here.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,495
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #150 on: July 28, 2018, 09:54:45 AM »
I didn’t say anything about Protestantism but now that you mention it, Rome did that too. So that’s three major ecclesial poopstorms Rome fomented.

LOL like how the early church caused Arianism?

This logical is so flawed.
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,495
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #151 on: July 28, 2018, 10:02:50 AM »
Essence, substantance, and Nature are synonyms = Divinity
That's why West can't understand East and its dilemmas.
It really is a different religion.  Something other than Christianity.
At the very least, receding from Chalcedonian Christianity.

On what account? These are baseless claims made by EO when they have no arguement left. Imagine the arrogance it needs to say something like this. As if Byzantine theology were supreme and the standard for all. Not surprising as this has been their manner even pre-schism which is why the Byzantine tradition was responsible for most of the major schisms in early church. Their arrogance and pride. It’s disgusting.

Arrogance as in saying something like the EO model makes "the Holy Spirit non-existent and the Holy Trinity a Bi-nity"? Despite the fact that it is traditional Roman spirituality that virtually eliminated the Holy Spirit. And as far as "Byzantine theology were supreme and the standard for all," good Lord, man – have you no self-awareness? You are arguing for the Filioque, which has never been a part of the Creed in any Church except that of Rome – not the EO, not the OO, not the Assyrians.
The latin tradition is not forcing anyone to amend their creeds. Only telling the Byzantines to leave us alone because our additions are legitimate clarifications of truths contained there in which within our traditional context needed to be made clear.

Quote
The Orthodox have simply kept the unaltered Nicene-Constantinopolitan symbol, yet they're the ones in error for not adopting Roman innovations? And that's just one in a long list of innovations over which Eastern Christians are held to be deficient by the RC because they won't buckle and accept Roman theology.
No they are are not forced to alter their creed. They are in error for opposing the Filioque theologically which has backing of the fathers both eastern and western.

Quote
None of the churches have a spotless record with respect to schism. But note that whereas most of the schisms were eventually healed, those in which Rome has played a major part never have been. And why is that? The dastardly dissident East? Or could it rather be Rome's unfathomable pride and arrogance that prevents it from ever admitting fault and changing course, instead always doubling down on its ever-more-maximalist interpretation of its own authority?

Most? The major ones still haven’t

One with Rome and one the miaphysyites. The Photian schism was healed by Rome not Constantinople.

The Byzantine arrogance I speak of is evident in the council of Trullo and most importantly in the fact that all churches in their tradition practice according to the Byzantine rite and theology. Even at Florence the Latins needed to amend their approach to focus principally on the eastern fathers because the Byzantines did not give the same credibility to the Latin tradition and its fathers.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2018, 10:06:19 AM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,386
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Greek
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #152 on: July 28, 2018, 10:18:33 AM »
At the very least, receding from Chalcedonian Christianity.
On what account? These are baseless claims made by EO when they have no arguement left. Imagine the arrogance it needs to say something like this. As if Byzantine theology were supreme and the standard for all. Not surprising as this has been their manner even pre-schism which is why the Byzantine tradition was responsible for most of the major schisms in early church. Their arrogance and pride. It’s disgusting.
On account of the Filioque and of Original Sin and its consequence, the Immaculate Conception.

Byzantine theology is supreme, because it's resisted all heresies that belittled it through the centuries, including the Roman medieval heresies , keeping the Faith intact for nigh a couple of millennia.  Unlike Latin theology, which led the Roman Church to the turmoil of the Reformation and then to commit seppuku at VII for the sake of acceptance by the world and its prince.

... always doubling down on its ever-more-maximalist interpretation of its own authority?
Yet, always minimizing the liturgical and ascetic life of the faithful.

Protestantism is not a schism but heresy blaming it on the Catholic Church is like blaming airianism in the early church. Nonsensical.
The Reformation is the child of the Roman Church and in Rome could it had happened.   To ignore this is to be in denial.

At the end of the day, tomorrow I'll attend the liturgy of the Father and the Saints, no matter which parish I go to, not something that a Latin Catholic can say, sadly.
Sanctus Deus
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ
Άγιος ο Θεός

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,495
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #153 on: July 28, 2018, 10:54:55 AM »
At the very least, receding from Chalcedonian Christianity.
On what account? These are baseless claims made by EO when they have no arguement left. Imagine the arrogance it needs to say something like this. As if Byzantine theology were supreme and the standard for all. Not surprising as this has been their manner even pre-schism which is why the Byzantine tradition was responsible for most of the major schisms in early church. Their arrogance and pride. It’s disgusting.
On account of the Filioque and of Original Sin and its consequence, the Immaculate Conception.
Stuff the EO once believed at one point. Especially the first two explicitly.

Quote
Byzantine theology is supreme, because it's resisted all heresies that belittled it through the centuries, including the Roman medieval heresies , keeping the Faith intact for nigh a couple of millennia.  Unlike Latin theology, which led the Roman Church to the turmoil of the Reformation and then to commit seppuku at VII for the sake of acceptance by the world and its prince.
I’m sorry but this actually made me laugh. Has there been anything more blatantly ahistorical. They have one of the worst if not the worst track record when it comes to heresy. Their patriarchs were sometimes inverntors of heresy themselves.
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,495
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #154 on: July 28, 2018, 11:07:22 AM »
NOTE: when I say Byzantine I specifically mean the EO Byzantines.
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Online Justin Kolodziej

  • Goths and rivetheads are entering the Kingdom of God before me
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,133
  • Screwing up the Church since 2017
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Metropolis of Atlanta
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #155 on: July 28, 2018, 02:35:04 PM »

I’ll ask the age old question... in the EO model, how is the Spirit not just a second son? Secondly why is the holy trinity 3 and only?
Because God said so. No other answer is needed.
Too many theologists, not enough theologians.

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,386
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Greek
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #156 on: July 28, 2018, 10:41:24 PM »
On account of the Filioque and of Original Sin and its consequence, the Immaculate Conception.
Stuff the EO once believed at one point. Especially the first two explicitly.
Explicitly...  Sigh...

I’m sorry but this actually made me laugh. Has there been anything more blatantly ahistorical. They have one of the worst if not the worst track record when it comes to heresy. Their patriarchs were sometimes inverntors of heresy themselves.
Yet, here we are and not a trace of those heresies.  Rome's heresies, because it allegedly cannot err, became dogmas and deprive it of Grace, as it can be verified in 99% of its parishes and clergy on any given Sunday.
Sanctus Deus
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ
Άγιος ο Θεός

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,495
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #157 on: July 29, 2018, 04:24:34 AM »
On account of the Filioque and of Original Sin and its consequence, the Immaculate Conception.
Stuff the EO once believed at one point. Especially the first two explicitly.
Explicitly...  Sigh...
I urge you to read the eastern fathers themselves.

Quote
I’m sorry but this actually made me laugh. Has there been anything more blatantly ahistorical. They have one of the worst if not the worst track record when it comes to heresy. Their patriarchs were sometimes inverntors of heresy themselves.

Yet, here we are and not a trace of those heresies.  Rome's heresies, because it allegedly cannot err, became dogmas and deprive it of Grace, as it can be verified in 99% of its parishes and clergy on any given Sunday.

No trace because of the emperor and imperial force.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2018, 04:25:49 AM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,495
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #158 on: July 29, 2018, 04:26:43 AM »

I’ll ask the age old question... in the EO model, how is the Spirit not just a second son? Secondly why is the holy trinity 3 and only?
Because God said so. No other answer is needed.
You do realize that that question was viewed as legitimate and deserving of a proper answer by the fathers.
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,386
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Greek
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #159 on: July 29, 2018, 06:18:14 PM »
On account of the Filioque and of Original Sin and its consequence, the Immaculate Conception.
Stuff the EO once believed at one point. Especially the first two explicitly.
Explicitly...  Sigh...
I urge you to read the eastern fathers themselves.
You have a hermeneutic blindness. 
Sanctus Deus
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ
Άγιος ο Θεός

Offline Dominika

  • Troublesome Sheep
  • Global Moderator
  • Taxiarches
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,811
  • Serbian/Polish
    • My youtube channel
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian Patriarchate/POC
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #160 on: October 07, 2018, 03:26:12 PM »
This Sunday, Antiochian Patriarchate

Pray for persecuted Christians, especially in Serbian Kosovo and Raška, Egypt and Syria

My Orthodox liturgical blog "For what eat, while you can fast" in Polish (videos featuring chants in different languages)

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,054
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #161 on: October 07, 2018, 04:27:25 PM »
Was this in Syria?
Quote
When a time revolts against eternity, the only thing to set against it is genuine eternity itself, and not some other time which has already roused, and not without reason, a violent reaction against itself.
- Berdyaev

If you would like a private forum for non-polemical topics, comment here.

Offline Dominika

  • Troublesome Sheep
  • Global Moderator
  • Taxiarches
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,811
  • Serbian/Polish
    • My youtube channel
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian Patriarchate/POC
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #162 on: October 07, 2018, 04:31:52 PM »
Was this in Syria?
No, Lebanon, in patriarchal monastery Balamand.
Pray for persecuted Christians, especially in Serbian Kosovo and Raška, Egypt and Syria

My Orthodox liturgical blog "For what eat, while you can fast" in Polish (videos featuring chants in different languages)

Offline biro

  • Site Supporter
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,383
  • Excelsior
    • Archive of Our Own works
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #163 on: October 07, 2018, 05:13:43 PM »
Was this in Syria?
No, Lebanon, in patriarchal monastery Balamand.

Very beautiful.
https://archiveofourown.org/users/Parakeetist


Warning: stories have mature content.

Offline Agabus

  • The user formerly known as Agabus.
  • Section Moderator
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,488
  • Faith: without works is dead.
  • Jurisdiction: Foolishness to the Greeks
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #164 on: October 07, 2018, 06:32:00 PM »
Was this in Syria?
No, Lebanon, in patriarchal monastery Balamand.

I already burn a Guadalupe candle at my writing desk. Now I know I'm not alone in our patriarchate.
Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH

Take a breath, read Ecclesiastes 1:9.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #165 on: October 07, 2018, 06:50:27 PM »
NVM
« Last Edit: October 07, 2018, 06:50:58 PM by Volnutt »
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline CarolS

  • Lurker Extraordinaire
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #166 on: October 07, 2018, 06:53:30 PM »
This Sunday, Antiochian Patriarchate



If they considered this image in the photo a Holy Icon, why is it sitting on the floor? I would think the men in black would know better.

If one wants to venerate the Guadalupe image I don’t see real harm as long as it leads you to Christ and not Maryolatry. The real point of the apparition was to lead people to Christ - not to specifically make them Roman Catholic.
Have you ever imagined a world with no hypothetical situations?

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #167 on: October 08, 2018, 01:09:12 AM »
I'm always confused as to what "Maryolatry" in an Orthodox context would really look like and how to avoid it. It seems like Orthodoxy has more long prayers, titles, and icons of her than even the RCC does.

Then again, I'm coming from outside of either and I could be wrong.
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline biro

  • Site Supporter
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,383
  • Excelsior
    • Archive of Our Own works
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #168 on: October 08, 2018, 02:09:39 AM »
I'm always confused as to what "Maryolatry" in an Orthodox context would really look like and how to avoid it. It seems like Orthodoxy has more long prayers, titles, and icons of her than even the RCC does.


Good point. People who come from some Protestant backgrounds don't like any hint of the Virgin Mary at all. They tend to turn down even legitimate honor of her, despite the fact that the Gospel says, "Every generation shall call me blessed."
https://archiveofourown.org/users/Parakeetist


Warning: stories have mature content.

Offline Lepanto

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 515
  • Faith: Roman Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Munich and Freising
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #169 on: October 08, 2018, 03:17:13 AM »
Can you please stop annexing our apparitions of the Dei Genetrix?
Don´t you have apparitions of your own?
Outrageous!
Sanctus Deus, Sanctus fortis, Sanctus immortalis, miserere nobis.

Offline Gebre Menfes Kidus

  • "SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,409
  • Trolling Babylon 24/7, without apology!
    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?ref=profile&id=1456515775
  • Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #170 on: October 08, 2018, 04:18:39 AM »
It's used in the iconostasis of the Orthodox cathedral in Mexico:



Personally - I have no problems with it, since:
1. It's an event that has brought lots of people to Christ (and the hadn't any possiblity to know and embrace Orthodoxy then);
2. It shows that Orthodoxy can be compatible with Mexican history and heritage.

I agree. And let's not forget that Orthodox tradition didn't magically happen over night. No reason why this icon could not in time become part of Orthodox tradition. As you say, the profound spiritual impact it has had on the Mexican people is nothing to easily dismiss.

Selam
"Whether it’s the guillotine, the hangman’s noose, or reciprocal endeavors of militaristic horror, radical evil will never be recompensed with radical punishment. The only answer, the only remedy, and the only truly effective response to radical evil is radical love."
+ Gebre Menfes Kidus +
http://bookstore.authorhouse.com/Products/SKU-000984270/Rebel-Song.aspx

Offline hecma925

  • Non-clairvoyant, but you can call me Elder
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,907
  • Unbreakable! He's alive, dammit! It's a MIRACLE!
  • Faith: Truthful Chalcedonian Truther
  • Jurisdiction: In Hell I'll be in good company
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #171 on: October 08, 2018, 08:37:22 AM »
I'm always confused as to what "Maryolatry" in an Orthodox context would really look like and how to avoid it. It seems like Orthodoxy has more long prayers, titles, and icons of her than even the RCC does.


Good point. People who come from some Protestant backgrounds don't like any hint of the Virgin Mary at all. They tend to turn down even legitimate honor of her, despite the fact that the Gospel says, "Every generation shall call me blessed."

Stereotype much?

Roman Catholics worship Mary. 
Happy shall he be, that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. Alleluia.

Once Christ has filled the Cross, it can never be empty again.

"But God doesn't need your cookies!  Arrive on time!"

Offline Dominika

  • Troublesome Sheep
  • Global Moderator
  • Taxiarches
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,811
  • Serbian/Polish
    • My youtube channel
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian Patriarchate/POC
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #172 on: October 08, 2018, 09:17:26 AM »
If they considered this image in the photo a Holy Icon, why is it sitting on the floor? I would think the men in black would know better.

If that's a moment of giving icon as a gifit or the icon "waits" to be gifted, it's not a problem; I've seen such situations in Poland. And then people/parish gifted by such icon look for the proper place for it and put it with high veneration.
Pray for persecuted Christians, especially in Serbian Kosovo and Raška, Egypt and Syria

My Orthodox liturgical blog "For what eat, while you can fast" in Polish (videos featuring chants in different languages)

Offline Briven

  • Pray for me, please! Baseball loving Old Believer.
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 358
  • Господи Ісусе Христе Сыне Божїй помилѹй мѧ!
  • Faith: Old Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #173 on: October 08, 2018, 09:30:59 AM »
I'm not sure if anyone mentioned this, but the mandorla is troubling considering it is intended to represent divinity. This doesn't disqualify the Guadalupe image but it isn't a canonical feature, I believe.
“God,”
The words rumbled:
“There is much suffering,
But the church is alive. "

 “How long, Archpriest, are we to suffer thus?” I answered: “Until our very death, Markovna!” And she replied, with a sigh: “So be it, Petrovich, let us plod on.” - Life of Avvakum by Himself

Nastasya, Nastasya, be
patient and do not cry:
Not every happiness
Comes in the clothing of fortune.

St. Avvakum, pray for us!

St. Ambrose, pray for us!

I change my picture daily to reflect feast days. Ask me!

Offline Agabus

  • The user formerly known as Agabus.
  • Section Moderator
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,488
  • Faith: without works is dead.
  • Jurisdiction: Foolishness to the Greeks
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #174 on: October 08, 2018, 11:57:12 AM »
I'm not sure if anyone mentioned this, but the mandorla is troubling considering it is intended to represent divinity. This doesn't disqualify the Guadalupe image but it isn't a canonical feature, I believe.

If it is truly an icon not made with hands it doesn't have to follow Byzantine rules for painting.
Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH

Take a breath, read Ecclesiastes 1:9.

Offline Alpha60

  • Pray without ceasing!
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,553
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #175 on: October 08, 2018, 03:52:38 PM »
It's used in the iconostasis of the Orthodox cathedral in Mexico:



Personally - I have no problems with it, since:
1. It's an event that has brought lots of people to Christ (and the hadn't any possiblity to know and embrace Orthodoxy then);
2. It shows that Orthodoxy can be compatible with Mexican history and heritage.

I agree. And let's not forget that Orthodox tradition didn't magically happen over night. No reason why this icon could not in time become part of Orthodox tradition. As you say, the profound spiritual impact it has had on the Mexican people is nothing to easily dismiss.

Selam

Indeed so.  One should also consider the extreme brutality of the pagan religions, particularly the Aztec religion, which this icon led to the demise of; the pagan religions of Mexico and Central America practiced human sacrifice on a scale unmatched elsewhere.
"It is logical that the actions of the human race over time will lead to its destruction.  I, Alpha 60, am merely the agent of this destruction."

- The computer Alpha 60, from Alphaville (1964) by Jean Luc Godard, the obvious inspiration for HAL-9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey. 

This signature is not intended to offend any user, nor the relatives of Discovery 1 deputy commander Dr. Frank Poole,  and crew members Dr. Victor Kaminsky, Dr. Jack Kimball, and Dr. Charles Hunter.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #176 on: October 08, 2018, 04:09:16 PM »
I'm not sure if anyone mentioned this, but the mandorla is troubling considering it is intended to represent divinity. This doesn't disqualify the Guadalupe image but it isn't a canonical feature, I believe.

Yeah, but with the Theotokos it's kind of ambiguous since she did have God Himself in her womb, isn't it? She's the true Burning Bush, the true Ark of the Covenant, wider than the heavens, etc.

So, couldn't one say that in this case the mandorla is an indication, not of her divinity, but of the Divinity that she birthed and nurtured?
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline biro

  • Site Supporter
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,383
  • Excelsior
    • Archive of Our Own works
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #177 on: October 08, 2018, 06:30:27 PM »
Can you please stop annexing our apparitions of the Dei Genetrix?
Don´t you have apparitions of your own?
Outrageous!

The Orthodox don't seem to have many apparitions of their own.
https://archiveofourown.org/users/Parakeetist


Warning: stories have mature content.

Offline Briven

  • Pray for me, please! Baseball loving Old Believer.
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 358
  • Господи Ісусе Христе Сыне Божїй помилѹй мѧ!
  • Faith: Old Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #178 on: October 08, 2018, 06:34:36 PM »
Can you please stop annexing our apparitions of the Dei Genetrix?
Don´t you have apparitions of your own?
Outrageous!

The Orthodox don't seem to have many apparitions of their own.

Eh. There's quite a few, they are just mostly icons through which God did His work. That's an apparition, in a way.
“God,”
The words rumbled:
“There is much suffering,
But the church is alive. "

 “How long, Archpriest, are we to suffer thus?” I answered: “Until our very death, Markovna!” And she replied, with a sigh: “So be it, Petrovich, let us plod on.” - Life of Avvakum by Himself

Nastasya, Nastasya, be
patient and do not cry:
Not every happiness
Comes in the clothing of fortune.

St. Avvakum, pray for us!

St. Ambrose, pray for us!

I change my picture daily to reflect feast days. Ask me!

Offline biro

  • Site Supporter
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,383
  • Excelsior
    • Archive of Our Own works
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #179 on: October 08, 2018, 06:37:11 PM »
Can you please stop annexing our apparitions of the Dei Genetrix?
Don´t you have apparitions of your own?
Outrageous!

The Orthodox don't seem to have many apparitions of their own.

Eh. There's quite a few, they are just mostly icons through which God did His work. That's an apparition, in a way.

I don't think so.
https://archiveofourown.org/users/Parakeetist


Warning: stories have mature content.

Offline biro

  • Site Supporter
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,383
  • Excelsior
    • Archive of Our Own works
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #180 on: October 08, 2018, 06:38:48 PM »
I didn’t say anything about Protestantism but now that you mention it, Rome did that too. So that’s three major ecclesial poopstorms Rome fomented.

LOL like how the early church caused Arianism?

This logical is so flawed.

Yeah. Starting with Martin Luther, all the Protestants willingly broke off on their own.

Only in this other universe called OC.net do people think otherwise.
https://archiveofourown.org/users/Parakeetist


Warning: stories have mature content.

Offline Dominika

  • Troublesome Sheep
  • Global Moderator
  • Taxiarches
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,811
  • Serbian/Polish
    • My youtube channel
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian Patriarchate/POC
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #181 on: October 08, 2018, 06:40:33 PM »
I'm not sure if anyone mentioned this, but the mandorla is troubling considering it is intended to represent divinity. This doesn't disqualify the Guadalupe image but it isn't a canonical feature, I believe.

There are some icons of the Theotokos that were created in Eastern Orthodox tradition and have the mandorla.
Pray for persecuted Christians, especially in Serbian Kosovo and Raška, Egypt and Syria

My Orthodox liturgical blog "For what eat, while you can fast" in Polish (videos featuring chants in different languages)

Offline Briven

  • Pray for me, please! Baseball loving Old Believer.
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 358
  • Господи Ісусе Христе Сыне Божїй помилѹй мѧ!
  • Faith: Old Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #182 on: October 08, 2018, 06:42:35 PM »
I'm not sure if anyone mentioned this, but the mandorla is troubling considering it is intended to represent divinity. This doesn't disqualify the Guadalupe image but it isn't a canonical feature, I believe.

There are some icons of the Theotokos that were created in Eastern Orthodox tradition and have the mandorla.

Yes, I know. I actually use one fairly often (it's on the side of an icon of St. Nicholas). I think it's still not an ideal situation, though it doesn't invalidate anything.
“God,”
The words rumbled:
“There is much suffering,
But the church is alive. "

 “How long, Archpriest, are we to suffer thus?” I answered: “Until our very death, Markovna!” And she replied, with a sigh: “So be it, Petrovich, let us plod on.” - Life of Avvakum by Himself

Nastasya, Nastasya, be
patient and do not cry:
Not every happiness
Comes in the clothing of fortune.

St. Avvakum, pray for us!

St. Ambrose, pray for us!

I change my picture daily to reflect feast days. Ask me!

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,530
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #183 on: October 08, 2018, 08:00:39 PM »
I didn’t say anything about Protestantism but now that you mention it, Rome did that too. So that’s three major ecclesial poopstorms Rome fomented.

LOL like how the early church caused Arianism?

This logical is so flawed.

Yeah. Starting with Martin Luther, all the Protestants willingly broke off on their own.

Only in this other universe called OC.net do people think otherwise.

You regularly exhibit an inability and/or unwillingness to understand points made by others unless they line up with your own ignorance.  And I don’t intend “ignorance” as a pejorative: you really don’t know the things you think you know.  That’s not a fault unless you remain there willingly.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #184 on: October 08, 2018, 08:56:33 PM »
Can you please stop annexing our apparitions of the Dei Genetrix?
Don´t you have apparitions of your own?
Outrageous!

The Orthodox don't seem to have many apparitions of their own.

Eh. There's quite a few, they are just mostly icons through which God did His work. That's an apparition, in a way.

I don't think so.

Just off the top of my head- Blachernae, Zeitoun, the Kazan icon, Port Arthur, Sitka, at least two at Mount Athos, that one with the footprint in the stone (which was in Romania, I think), that one to the Greek WWII soldiers, the wonderworking Syriac icon, the Kursk Root, that Russian one with the black background, Częstochowa.


In response to Lepanto, I don't think this is stealing because it seems mostly like Mexican and Guatemalan Orthodox are doing it of their own volition. I thought the most important thing about Guadalupe is that it's a sign of God's love for those peoples, not that it's specifically RC.
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #185 on: October 08, 2018, 09:02:02 PM »
I didn’t say anything about Protestantism but now that you mention it, Rome did that too. So that’s three major ecclesial poopstorms Rome fomented.

LOL like how the early church caused Arianism?

This logical is so flawed.

Yeah. Starting with Martin Luther, all the Protestants willingly broke off on their own.

Only in this other universe called OC.net do people think otherwise.

But to be Protestant, even if merely born and indoctrinated into it, is to be in the lineage of thought and belief that Luther (and Wycliffe, the Hussites, the Waldensians, et al) started, which was specifically a reaction to Catholicism. I think that's Iconodule's point.
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,530
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #186 on: October 13, 2018, 11:39:09 AM »
This Sunday, Antiochian Patriarchate



If they considered this image in the photo a Holy Icon, why is it sitting on the floor? I would think the men in black would know better.

https://www.facebook.com/ByzantionAndOrthodoxFaith/photos/a.538943326198827/1879381238821689/?type=3

Holy Icons on the floor.

Offline hecma925

  • Non-clairvoyant, but you can call me Elder
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,907
  • Unbreakable! He's alive, dammit! It's a MIRACLE!
  • Faith: Truthful Chalcedonian Truther
  • Jurisdiction: In Hell I'll be in good company
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #187 on: October 13, 2018, 11:41:46 AM »
Where?
Happy shall he be, that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. Alleluia.

Once Christ has filled the Cross, it can never be empty again.

"But God doesn't need your cookies!  Arrive on time!"

Offline Briven

  • Pray for me, please! Baseball loving Old Believer.
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 358
  • Господи Ісусе Христе Сыне Божїй помилѹй мѧ!
  • Faith: Old Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #188 on: October 13, 2018, 11:45:32 AM »
Where?

In the Iconostasis, I believe.
“God,”
The words rumbled:
“There is much suffering,
But the church is alive. "

 “How long, Archpriest, are we to suffer thus?” I answered: “Until our very death, Markovna!” And she replied, with a sigh: “So be it, Petrovich, let us plod on.” - Life of Avvakum by Himself

Nastasya, Nastasya, be
patient and do not cry:
Not every happiness
Comes in the clothing of fortune.

St. Avvakum, pray for us!

St. Ambrose, pray for us!

I change my picture daily to reflect feast days. Ask me!

Offline hecma925

  • Non-clairvoyant, but you can call me Elder
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,907
  • Unbreakable! He's alive, dammit! It's a MIRACLE!
  • Faith: Truthful Chalcedonian Truther
  • Jurisdiction: In Hell I'll be in good company
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #189 on: October 13, 2018, 11:58:30 AM »
Where?

In the Iconostasis, I believe.

The one of St. John the Theologian is on a small rack, raised up from the floor.

Or is there one I'm not seeing?
Happy shall he be, that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. Alleluia.

Once Christ has filled the Cross, it can never be empty again.

"But God doesn't need your cookies!  Arrive on time!"

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,530
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #190 on: October 13, 2018, 12:04:16 PM »
The Guadalupe image is raised up from the floor by its frame.

Offline hecma925

  • Non-clairvoyant, but you can call me Elder
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,907
  • Unbreakable! He's alive, dammit! It's a MIRACLE!
  • Faith: Truthful Chalcedonian Truther
  • Jurisdiction: In Hell I'll be in good company
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #191 on: October 13, 2018, 12:28:10 PM »
The Guadalupe image is raised up from the floor by its frame.

True.  And it's not face down or doesn't have something stacked in it.  Antiochian Patriarchate gets an "A".
Happy shall he be, that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. Alleluia.

Once Christ has filled the Cross, it can never be empty again.

"But God doesn't need your cookies!  Arrive on time!"

Offline griego catolico

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 314
  • ...for the union of all, let us pray to the Lord.
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #192 on: October 16, 2018, 08:40:33 PM »
This Sunday, Antiochian Patriarchate



That particular photo is not included among the photos taken during the liturgy: https://www.antiochpatriarchate.org/en/gallery/1777/

Can you provide the link to that photo?

I'm curious to know the reason for these two copies of Our Lady of Guadalupe being there. Where they being presented to the Patriarch?

Offline Dominika

  • Troublesome Sheep
  • Global Moderator
  • Taxiarches
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,811
  • Serbian/Polish
    • My youtube channel
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian Patriarchate/POC
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #193 on: October 17, 2018, 02:16:49 AM »
Remember thath Arabs post much more pics and even info on FB ;) that's the gallery: https://www.facebook.com/pg/Antiochpatriarchate.org/photos/?tab=album&album_id=1396424677127908

Yeah, the Antiochian delegation from Latin America gave these icons to the patriarchal monastery in Balamand it's written in the album I've linked.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2018, 02:17:08 AM by Dominika »
Pray for persecuted Christians, especially in Serbian Kosovo and Raška, Egypt and Syria

My Orthodox liturgical blog "For what eat, while you can fast" in Polish (videos featuring chants in different languages)

Offline Alpha60

  • Pray without ceasing!
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,553
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #194 on: October 17, 2018, 08:55:07 PM »
The Guadalupe image is raised up from the floor by its frame.

In the link you provided of the cave, where is that?  Is it just a shrine or is the liturgy celebrated there?
"It is logical that the actions of the human race over time will lead to its destruction.  I, Alpha 60, am merely the agent of this destruction."

- The computer Alpha 60, from Alphaville (1964) by Jean Luc Godard, the obvious inspiration for HAL-9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey. 

This signature is not intended to offend any user, nor the relatives of Discovery 1 deputy commander Dr. Frank Poole,  and crew members Dr. Victor Kaminsky, Dr. Jack Kimball, and Dr. Charles Hunter.

Offline Ainnir

  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,524
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #195 on: October 17, 2018, 09:04:40 PM »
The Guadalupe image is raised up from the floor by its frame.

In the link you provided of the cave, where is that?  Is it just a shrine or is the liturgy celebrated there?

I think I see an iconostasis on the left in the FB link, but I'm not sure.
But here.
Is any of the above Orthodox?  I have no clue, so there's that.