Author Topic: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?  (Read 1507 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Lepanto

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 334
  • 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 »
una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro et Antistite nostro et omnibus orthodoxis atque catholicæ et apostolicæ fidei cultoribus

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • An Indecisive Sinner
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 639
  • Saint Gregory the Dialogist, Pray For Us!
  • Faith: An arrogant neophyte to Ortho!
  • Jurisdiction: Not a Catechumen, but OCA
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 »
"Our wickedness shall not overpower the unspeakable goodness and mercy of God; our dullness shall not overpower God's wisdom, nor our infirmity God's omnipotence."
-Saint John of Kronstadt

Keep shining, star!

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • An Indecisive Sinner
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 639
  • Saint Gregory the Dialogist, Pray For Us!
  • Faith: An arrogant neophyte to Ortho!
  • Jurisdiction: Not a Catechumen, but OCA
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 »
"Our wickedness shall not overpower the unspeakable goodness and mercy of God; our dullness shall not overpower God's wisdom, nor our infirmity God's omnipotence."
-Saint John of Kronstadt

Keep shining, star!

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • An Indecisive Sinner
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 639
  • Saint Gregory the Dialogist, Pray For Us!
  • Faith: An arrogant neophyte to Ortho!
  • Jurisdiction: Not a Catechumen, but OCA
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 »
"Our wickedness shall not overpower the unspeakable goodness and mercy of God; our dullness shall not overpower God's wisdom, nor our infirmity God's omnipotence."
-Saint John of Kronstadt

Keep shining, star!

Offline Lepanto

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 334
  • 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.
una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro et Antistite nostro et omnibus orthodoxis atque catholicæ et apostolicæ fidei cultoribus

Offline ErmyCath

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 249
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

  • An Indecisive Sinner
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 639
  • Saint Gregory the Dialogist, Pray For Us!
  • Faith: An arrogant neophyte to Ortho!
  • Jurisdiction: Not a Catechumen, but OCA
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 »
"Our wickedness shall not overpower the unspeakable goodness and mercy of God; our dullness shall not overpower God's wisdom, nor our infirmity God's omnipotence."
-Saint John of Kronstadt

Keep shining, star!

Offline Lepanto

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 334
  • 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.
una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro et Antistite nostro et omnibus orthodoxis atque catholicæ et apostolicæ fidei cultoribus

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • An Indecisive Sinner
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 639
  • Saint Gregory the Dialogist, Pray For Us!
  • Faith: An arrogant neophyte to Ortho!
  • Jurisdiction: Not a Catechumen, but OCA
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 »
"Our wickedness shall not overpower the unspeakable goodness and mercy of God; our dullness shall not overpower God's wisdom, nor our infirmity God's omnipotence."
-Saint John of Kronstadt

Keep shining, star!

Offline Lepanto

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 334
  • 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.
una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro et Antistite nostro et omnibus orthodoxis atque catholicæ et apostolicæ fidei cultoribus

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • An Indecisive Sinner
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 639
  • Saint Gregory the Dialogist, Pray For Us!
  • Faith: An arrogant neophyte to Ortho!
  • Jurisdiction: Not a Catechumen, but OCA
Re: Guadalupe: Valid / Canonical Icon?
« Reply #55 on: January 09, 2018, 04:55:00 PM »
Okay.
"Our wickedness shall not overpower the unspeakable goodness and mercy of God; our dullness shall not overpower God's wisdom, nor our infirmity God's omnipotence."
-Saint John of Kronstadt

Keep shining, star!

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

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,762
  • 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."

Check my blog "Em Espírito e em Verdade" (in Portuguese)

Offline Xavier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 192
  • 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."

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,591
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
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
Don John pounding from the slaughter-painted poop
- GK Chesteron, "Lepanto"

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!
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 636
  • Faith: Catechumen
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
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!
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 636
  • Faith: Catechumen
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
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!
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,726
  • 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.
Quote
The breath of Thine Holy Spirit inspires artists, poets and scientists. The power of Thy supreme knowledge makes them prophets and interpreters of Thy laws, who reveal the depths of Thy creative wisdom. Their works speak unwittingly of Thee. How great art Thou in Thy creation! How great art Thou in man!
Akathist Hymn- Glory to God for All Things

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,591
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
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
Don John pounding from the slaughter-painted poop
- GK Chesteron, "Lepanto"

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • An Indecisive Sinner
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 639
  • Saint Gregory the Dialogist, Pray For Us!
  • Faith: An arrogant neophyte to Ortho!
  • Jurisdiction: Not a Catechumen, but OCA
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 »
"Our wickedness shall not overpower the unspeakable goodness and mercy of God; our dullness shall not overpower God's wisdom, nor our infirmity God's omnipotence."
-Saint John of Kronstadt

Keep shining, star!

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,591
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
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
Don John pounding from the slaughter-painted poop
- GK Chesteron, "Lepanto"

Offline Alpha60

  • Pray without ceasing!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,609
  • 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
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,726
  • 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.
Quote
The breath of Thine Holy Spirit inspires artists, poets and scientists. The power of Thy supreme knowledge makes them prophets and interpreters of Thy laws, who reveal the depths of Thy creative wisdom. Their works speak unwittingly of Thee. How great art Thou in Thy creation! How great art Thou in man!
Akathist Hymn- Glory to God for All Things

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • An Indecisive Sinner
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 639
  • Saint Gregory the Dialogist, Pray For Us!
  • Faith: An arrogant neophyte to Ortho!
  • Jurisdiction: Not a Catechumen, but OCA
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.
"Our wickedness shall not overpower the unspeakable goodness and mercy of God; our dullness shall not overpower God's wisdom, nor our infirmity God's omnipotence."
-Saint John of Kronstadt

Keep shining, star!

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,726
  • 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 »
Quote
The breath of Thine Holy Spirit inspires artists, poets and scientists. The power of Thy supreme knowledge makes them prophets and interpreters of Thy laws, who reveal the depths of Thy creative wisdom. Their works speak unwittingly of Thee. How great art Thou in Thy creation! How great art Thou in man!
Akathist Hymn- Glory to God for All Things

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • An Indecisive Sinner
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 639
  • Saint Gregory the Dialogist, Pray For Us!
  • Faith: An arrogant neophyte to Ortho!
  • Jurisdiction: Not a Catechumen, but OCA
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 »
"Our wickedness shall not overpower the unspeakable goodness and mercy of God; our dullness shall not overpower God's wisdom, nor our infirmity God's omnipotence."
-Saint John of Kronstadt

Keep shining, star!

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • An Indecisive Sinner
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 639
  • Saint Gregory the Dialogist, Pray For Us!
  • Faith: An arrogant neophyte to Ortho!
  • Jurisdiction: Not a Catechumen, but OCA
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 »
"Our wickedness shall not overpower the unspeakable goodness and mercy of God; our dullness shall not overpower God's wisdom, nor our infirmity God's omnipotence."
-Saint John of Kronstadt

Keep shining, star!

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,726
  • 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.
Quote
The breath of Thine Holy Spirit inspires artists, poets and scientists. The power of Thy supreme knowledge makes them prophets and interpreters of Thy laws, who reveal the depths of Thy creative wisdom. Their works speak unwittingly of Thee. How great art Thou in Thy creation! How great art Thou in man!
Akathist Hymn- Glory to God for All Things

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

  • An Indecisive Sinner
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 639
  • Saint Gregory the Dialogist, Pray For Us!
  • Faith: An arrogant neophyte to Ortho!
  • Jurisdiction: Not a Catechumen, but OCA
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 »
"Our wickedness shall not overpower the unspeakable goodness and mercy of God; our dullness shall not overpower God's wisdom, nor our infirmity God's omnipotence."
-Saint John of Kronstadt

Keep shining, star!

Offline MalpanaGiwargis

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 450
  • 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

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 334
  • 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.
una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro et Antistite nostro et omnibus orthodoxis atque catholicæ et apostolicæ fidei cultoribus

Offline ErmyCath

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 249
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: 1,655
  • 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: 13,510
  • 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?