Scientist confirms inexplicable nature of Our Lady of Guadalupe image

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
stashko said:
Looks to me like he's giving the Latins a  Orthodox Pope Benediction with that Questionable Image ........Hummmmmm
That saying a Picture taken says a thousand words or more .And He's wearing his mantija in that lower  picture....
Well, what is actually far more likely is that His All-Holiness was presented with a copy of the image as a gift and is holding it up for the cameras. Judging from the way it is being held by the Latin Bishop on the floor in the first photograph, the image is not actually being venerated. His All-Holiness received the gift and then held it up to be photographed.
Pictures only speak the thousand words we wish to make them say. They say nothing on their own.
 

Friul

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
4,492
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
33
Location
Earth, Solar System, Local Interstellar Cloud, Loc
Website
www.iheu.org
ozgeorge said:
Well, what is actually far more likely is that His All-Holiness was presented with a copy of the image as a gift and is holding it up for the cameras. Judging from the way it is being held by the Latin Bishop on the floor in the first photograph, the image is not actually being venerated. His All-Holiness received the gift and then held it up to be photographed.
Pictures only speak the thousand words we wish to make them say. They say nothing on their own.
Thankful for a well intentioned gift?  :eek: :eek:  Imagine that.
 

Elpidophoros

Elder
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
297
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Michał said:
LBK said:
In short, the Guadelupe image cannot be venerated as an icon by Orthodox believers.
I believe it can - in a form of a private devotion.

Elpidophoros said:
Michał said:
Elpidophoros said:
.....EP even offered candle to the heretic phantasma of Lourdes, I do not know if he really believe that this phantasma is"immaculada concepciou",and Theotokos.
By saying that She is "immaculada concepciou", this phantasma, as you call Her, didn't mean Her conception but Christ's. The date of the apparition proves that.
What???Are you kidding....??
No. What feast is there on March 25?
It's hard to imagine such kind of "a private devotion"exists in Orthodoxy,in which you can venerate some image neither proved nor venerated by the Church and in the Church.


Forgive me,I cannot follow your logic.All papists beleive that when the phantasma of Lourdes told Bernadette Soubirous "que soy era immaculada concepciou",she actually proved the latin doctrine of Immaculate Conception. Now you say all papist misunderstood the message,in fact the phantasma talked about the conception of Christ and the Mysterium of Euangelismos......if so,why she said"que soy era"? Do you think that phantasma try to say she/he/it is Christ himself?
 

Aristocles

Merarches
Joined
Apr 23, 2003
Messages
10,031
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Pittsburgh
ozgeorge said:
stashko said:
Looks to me like he's giving the Latins a  Orthodox Pope Benediction with that Questionable Image ........Hummmmmm
That saying a Picture taken says a thousand words or more .And He's wearing his mantija in that lower  picture....
Well, what is actually far more likely is that His All-Holiness was presented with a copy of the image as a gift and is holding it up for the cameras. Judging from the way it is being held by the Latin Bishop on the floor in the first photograph, the image is not actually being venerated. His All-Holiness received the gift and then held it up to be photographed.
Pictures only speak the thousand words we wish to make them say. They say nothing on their own.
We agree.

Heaven forbid a logical and most likely correct answer is posted...it's spoils all the EP bashers' fun.
 

Michał

High Elder
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
821
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
33
Location
Mazovia, Poland
Elpidophoros said:
It's hard to imagine such kind of "a private devotion"exists in Orthodoxy,in which you can venerate some image neither proved nor venerated by the Church and in the Church.
Do you, then, consider the Antiochian monastery of St. Anthony the Great in Mexico not being a part of the Church?

Elpidophoros said:
Forgive me,I cannot follow your logic.All papists beleive that when the phantasma of Lourdes told Bernadette Soubirous "que soy era immaculada concepciou",she actually proved the latin doctrine of Immaculate Conception. Now you say all papist misunderstood the message,in fact the phantasma talked about the conception of Christ and the Mysterium of Euangelismos......if so,why she said"que soy era"?
"Que soy era immaculada concepciou" doesn't mean "I am the one whose conception was was immaculate". It means "I am the immaculate conception". "Conception" means "formation of sb/sth", "making of sb/sth", or "begining of sb/sth". So the sentence can be changed into: "I am the immaculate begining". Beginning of who? Of Herself? No, of Christ-in-Flesh.
 

Elpidophoros

Elder
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
297
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Michał said:
Elpidophoros said:
It's hard to imagine such kind of "a private devotion"exists in Orthodoxy,in which you can venerate some image neither proved nor venerated by the Church and in the Church.
Do you, then, consider the Antiochian monastery of St. Anthony the Great in Mexico not being a part of the Church?

Elpidophoros said:
Forgive me,I cannot follow your logic.All papists beleive that when the phantasma of Lourdes told Bernadette Soubirous "que soy era immaculada concepciou",she actually proved the latin doctrine of Immaculate Conception. Now you say all papist misunderstood the message,in fact the phantasma talked about the conception of Christ and the Mysterium of Euangelismos......if so,why she said"que soy era"?
"Que soy era immaculada concepciou" doesn't mean "I am the one whose conception was was immaculate". It means "I am the immaculate conception". "Conception" means "formation of sb/sth", "making of sb/sth", or "begining of sb/sth". So the sentence can be changed into: "I am the immaculate begining". Beginning of who? Of Herself? No, of Christ-in-Flesh.
A monastery can be a part of the Church but never "the Church"itsself. One abbot or his whole synodia can be wrong,but never"the Church".

Such definition of "Immaculate conception"is yours,not of papists'.You can give whatever interpretation on the latin doctrine"Immaculate conception"as you want,but don't tell us you know better than all papists and the whole world what papists do believe.
 

LizaSymonenko

Hoplitarches
Staff member
Global Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
16,232
Reaction score
20
Points
38
Location
Detroit
Website
protectress.org
Michał said:
Elpidophoros said:
It's hard to imagine such kind of "a private devotion"exists in Orthodoxy,in which you can venerate some image neither proved nor venerated by the Church and in the Church.
Do you, then, consider the Antiochian monastery of St. Anthony the Great in Mexico not being a part of the Church?
I would assume that the Church did not authorize said painting.  Many churches are built, painted and decorated by local parishioners...and while they may be well meaning, they are not always canonically correct in their efforts.

 

Michał

High Elder
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
821
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
33
Location
Mazovia, Poland
Elpidophoros said:
Such definition of "Immaculate conception"is yours,not of papists'.
I have never said it's of papists.

Elpidophoros said:
You can give whatever interpretation on the latin doctrine"Immaculate conception"as you want. . .
I was not inerpreting the latin doctrine of the "Immaculate conception". I was interpreting the Lourdes apparition.

Elpidophoros said:
. . .but don't tell us you know better than all papists and the whole world what papists do believe.
Please, show me a single word I said about papists' belives.

LizaSymonenko said:
I would assume that the Church did not authorize said painting.  Many churches are built, painted and decorated by local parishioners...and while they may be well meaning, they are not always canonically correct in their efforts.
The painting of the Theotokos of Guadalupe in the Antiochian monastery of St. Anthony in Mexico may be considered canonical or non-canonical. But it proves one thing - that the Guadalupe image is venerated in the Church. Not on a large scale, maybe only in that monastery, but it is.
 

stashko

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
4,994
Reaction score
0
Points
0
They Must be Latin converts To Orthodoxy at that Monastery, and bringing there Demi Goddess worship of Guadalupe into Orthodoxy ,Hopefully Orthodoxy comes up with a swift cure For that infection before it spreads like a disease.......
 

Elpidophoros

Elder
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
297
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Michał said:
Elpidophoros said:
Such definition of "Immaculate conception"is yours,not of papists'.
I have never said it's of papists.

Elpidophoros said:
You can give whatever interpretation on the latin doctrine"Immaculate conception"as you want. . .
I was not inerpreting the latin doctrine of the "Immaculate conception". I was interpreting the Lourdes apparition.

Elpidophoros said:
. . .but don't tell us you know better than all papists and the whole world what papists do believe.
Please, show me a single word I said about papists' belives.

LizaSymonenko said:
I would assume that the Church did not authorize said painting.  Many churches are built, painted and decorated by local parishioners...and while they may be well meaning, they are not always canonically correct in their efforts.
The painting of the Theotokos of Guadalupe in the Antiochian monastery of St. Anthony in Mexico may be considered canonical or non-canonical. But it proves one thing - that the Guadalupe image is venerated in the Church. Not on a large scale, maybe only in that monastery, but it is.
I'm sorry....you did not say that you know better than all papists about the "immaculate conception"doctrine;you actually say that you know better than all papists about the Lourdes apparition——all papists misunderstood the message of the "Lady",but you got the ture meaning of it.
Oh,too bad for the poor "Lady",she should't choose Bernadette but you as the receiver of such an important message ....
 

LizaSymonenko

Hoplitarches
Staff member
Global Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
16,232
Reaction score
20
Points
38
Location
Detroit
Website
protectress.org
Michał said:
But it proves one thing - that the Guadalupe image is venerated in the Church. Not on a large scale, maybe only in that monastery, but it is.
What it means is that the image is venerated in a church (lower c), not in the Church.


 

Michał

High Elder
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
821
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
33
Location
Mazovia, Poland
Elpidophoros said:
I'm sorry....you did not say that you know better than all papists about the "immaculate conception"doctrine;you actually say that you know better than all papists about the Lourdes apparition——all papists misunderstood the message of the "Lady",but you got the ture meaning of it.
Oh,too bad for the poor "Lady",she should't choose Bernadette but you as the receiver of such an important message ....
And maybe you should choose another place to spread irony and contempt.

LizaSymonenko said:
What it means is that the image is venerated in a church (lower c), not in the Church.
A church of the Chruch.
 

Alveus Lacuna

Taxiarches
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
7,416
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Missouri, USA
stashko said:
They must be Latin converts to Orthodoxy at that monastery, bringing their demigoddess worship of Guadalupe into Orthodoxy.  Hopefully Orthodoxy comes up with a swift cure for that infection before it spreads like a disease...
I think everything is going to be OK.
 

Douglas

High Elder
Joined
Mar 3, 2009
Messages
608
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
nowhere
It seems to me that the iconographer simply "got it wrong". The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe is certainly not an Orthodox icon nor should it be venerated as such. What "should" happen is that it be removed and an Orthodox icon of the Theotokos take its place. This does not translate into the monastery not being a part of the Church anymore than one of us erring in our daily lives suddenly ceases to be Orthodox.
 

Michał

High Elder
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
821
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
33
Location
Mazovia, Poland
Douglas said:
The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe is certainly not an Orthodox icon nor should it be venerated as such.
What makes this image un-Orthodox apart from the fact that it wasn't painted by Orthodox? As far as the visual part of it is concerned, there is quite a similar Orthodox icon, Our Lady of the Gate of Dawn (http://tiny.cc/02LW1), venerated by the Polish Orthodox Church on December 26/January 8.

Douglas said:
What "should" happen is that it be removed and an Orthodox icon of the Theotokos take its place.
Orthodox churches around the world have a lot of stuff to be removed - all these Da Vinci's Last Suppers, van Balen's Holy Trinities, Rubens' Virgin Marys, etc, etc. But we should remeber what was taught by St Seraphim of Sarov (if I remeber correctly) - that even poor iconography or not iconography at all shouldn't be ridiculled or treated with lack of repect, because a prayer said in front of a 19th century painting, but with a true faith, humility and love, is far more pleasing to God than an insincere prayer said in front of a perfectly canonical icon. And moreover, God does work mirracles through images which canonicity is questionable, vide: the myrh-streaming icon (painting?) of St George in Ramla, Israel (http://tiny.cc/5rDkA ).
 

Douglas

High Elder
Joined
Mar 3, 2009
Messages
608
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
nowhere
Let's agree to disagree then. I don't wish to argue the point.

God bless.
 

stashko

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
4,994
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I just can't believe that the Blessed Theotokos would appear  as a Indian Pagan Goddess or resembles one just to convert the Indians to Christianity..For our Holy Mother to deceive the Indians just to convert them just doesn't seem right to me...
That's why i don't believe in that apparition or in that image build on deceit...seem to me like satan's handy work...

The people torture them selfs by walking on there knees to that shrine some times for miles ..

Christ himself empowered the apostles to go out and preach and convert the people in the world ....Im sure he would of mentioned that he would be sending  his Holy Mother in the future masquerading as a pagan goddess to convert by deception... Oh wait he did warn us about satans deceptions...
 

samkim

High Elder
Joined
Aug 5, 2007
Messages
735
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
31
Location
Austin, TX
stashko said:
It could be a creation of the devil though ...
Always the optimist.

Robb said:
What is the position of the Orthodox Church on the veneration of this image?

Is the Guadalupe image venerated as an Icon by Orthodox believers in Mexico?
Our Antiochian parish here in Austin, Texas has an icon of Our Lady of Guadalupe (it's called something else on the icon though). It is however not visible. It's behind the iconostasis next to the table of preparation. Our parish was founded by Lebanese immigrants, btw.

Elpidophoros said:
It's hard to imagine such kind of "a private devotion"exists in Orthodoxy,in which you can venerate some image neither proved nor venerated by the Church and in the Church.
Well, there are as many private devotions as there are Orthodox Christians. I don't think the Church has approved the private veneration of images of our teacher Confucius.

Alveus Lacuna said:
stashko said:
They must be Latin converts to Orthodoxy at that monastery, bringing their demigoddess worship of Guadalupe into Orthodoxy.  Hopefully Orthodoxy comes up with a swift cure for that infection before it spreads like a disease...
I think everything is going to be OK.
LOL.
 

samkim

High Elder
Joined
Aug 5, 2007
Messages
735
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
31
Location
Austin, TX
Michał said:
But we should remeber what was taught by St Seraphim of Sarov (if I remeber correctly) - that even poor iconography or not iconography at all shouldn't be ridiculled or treated with lack of repect, because a prayer said in front of a 19th century painting, but with a true faith, humility and love, is far more pleasing to God than an insincere prayer said in front of a perfectly canonical icon. And moreover, God does work mirracles through images which canonicity is questionable, vide: the myrh-streaming icon (painting?) of St George in Ramla, Israel (http://tiny.cc/5rDkA ).
  :':)angel:
 

John Larocque

High Elder
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
529
Reaction score
0
Points
0
If you read the link I posted earlier, the stories on the supernatural origins of the painting appeared many years after the introduction of the image. Looked at it from that point of view, it's a pious image that took on an "apparitional" meaning after the fact. The same can be said for the origins of the Dominican rosary. A pious custom that became blessed, I think decades, after the fact, with a story ascribed to St. Dominic. The online 1913 Catholic encyclopedia actually has very good (non-supernatural) descriptions of a great many Catholic customs, largely from Jesuit Herbert Thurston. Much of this phenomenon is an expression of "popular catholicism" that later (theologically modified) was made acceptable practice for believers. The brown scapular is another pious devotion - the church had to invent an entire theology that said it was not, in fact, a "ticket to heaven" notwithstanding the legendary promise associated with it. The St. Benedict is another popular sacramental with legendary promises associated with it.

Having an Italian on the seat of Peter helped give an official imprimatur to a lot of Marian devotions which were popular in places like Italy, Spain or Poland.

Anyway, to get back to the main topic, I personally do not believe there is anything supernatural in character to the Guadalupe image. There's nothing wrong with it, but I don't believe there's a Juan Diego, any more than I subscribe to the legends associated with the origins of the rosary. The problem is that if you have sympathetic people in the higher ups of the church, it tends to push the skeptics to the side, which is why (for me) Juan Diego's canonization is problematic, because it canonizes the entire legend associated with the image.
 
Top