Catholic Images in Orthodox Churches?

[InnerPhyre]

As I was leaving the Orthodox church I've been attending, I noticed that there is an image of Our Lady of Guadalupe in the back of the church. This is a well-known Catholic image said to be made without hands of the Theotokos from the 15th or 16th century. I love the image, but I found it odd that it would be displayed in an Orthodox church. Does anyone know if this image and miracle are accepted by the Orthodox Church?

http://www.inaoep.mx/~sole/turismo/virgen-guadalupe.jpg

[MariaRegina]

Some priest accept Our Lady of Guadalupe and others don't. It's been my experience that those priests who were formerly baptists converts don't usually accept Her. I venerate Her Holy Image.

[InnerPhyre]

Cool :) Thanks Aria

[Matrona]

There are two things to consider, the image itself, and the events surrounding the appearance of its prototype.

The event at Guadalupe is outside of our jurisdiction so there's no way for us to say as a church, one way or the other about whether it was a miracle.

But I don't think there would be anything wrong at all with Orthodox venerating the image itself as an icon, aside from its origin, or even themselves believing that a miracle happened at Guadalupe. For instance, John Q. Orthodox might venerate the image even if he believed it wasn't miraculous.

Just to be on the safe side, in case I am totally off my rocker, ask the priest because I am sure he would know best of anybody.

[33ad]

Just to be on the safe side, in case I am totally off my rocker, ask the priest because I am sure he would know best of anybody.

Ditto

[Michael the Iconographer]

I would not venerate it.

[Rilian]

I would be pretty sure it's not officially accepted as such because it is something that happened outside of the Orthodox Church. There's nothing to say you can't venerate the image though. I like it.

[Matrona]

The Virgin of Guadalupe wouldn't be used on an iconostasis or have a day of commemoration or anything like that, but most priests would probably say it is fine for non-liturgical veneration.

I don't know whether Guadalupe is a miraculous image or not. But since nothing about it detracts from the witness of the Orthodox Church, to me it is a beautiful image of the Theotokos, whether its origin is miraculous or not--and if I definitively believed that it was definitely not of miraculous origin, I would still not have a problem with venerating the Guadalupe in my private devotions.

[InnerPhyre]

The Virgin of Guadalupe wouldn't be used on an iconostasis or have a day of commemoration or anything like that, but most priests would probably say it is fine for non-liturgical veneration.

I don't know whether Guadalupe is a miraculous image or not. But since nothing about it detracts from the witness of the Orthodox Church, to me it is a beautiful image of the Theotokos, whether its origin is miraculous or not--and if I definitively believed that it was definitely not of miraculous origin, I would still not have a problem with venerating the Guadalupe in my private devotions.


:thumbsup:

[Eusebios]

Perhaps the temple was at one time A Latin parish? I agree with Matrona, the priest can likely explain it best! It is surely a most beautiful icon. I personally would not have any difficulty venerating it.
In Xp,
Eusebios.
:bow:

[Maximus]

It amazes me that a picture of the "Virgin of Guadalupe" can be found in an Orthodox Church.

I mean no offense to anyone, but that just sounds wrong to me.

Is there a shortage of truly holy icons in the Orthodox Church?

[countrymouse33ad]

Well, it strikes me as a little bit strange, too. I think it's certainly possible that the icon is holy, but how would we know?

If everything we do should be done in faith, and we cannot be sure about this icon, then wouldn't it be best not to venerate it?

[Matrona]

I believe the Virgin of Guadalupe is a holy and beautiful icon of the Theotokos.

The origin of the image of Her is a completely separate matter and it is anyone's choice to believe in that or not believe it is a miracle. But the image itself is an icon of the Mother of God and I believe it is worthy of veneration.

Mike lives in Florida... I'm sure that image is a treasured part of the cultural heritage of many people there.

[Maximus]

I believe the Virgin of Guadalupe is a holy and beautiful icon of the Theotokos.

The origin of the image of Her is a completely separate matter and it is anyone's choice to believe in that or not believe it is a miracle. But the image itself is an icon of the Mother of God and I believe it is worthy of veneration.

Mike lives in Florida... I'm sure that image is a treasured part of the cultural heritage of many people there.

I'm sorry to disagree with you, Matrona, but I do.

Most icons of the Mother of God depict her with Christ or in some other scene from her life.

The picture of the Virgin of Guadalupe does not depict such a scene but instead is supposed to be an image she imprinted on the tilma of Juan Diego. The woman depicted on that image supposedly instructed Juan Diego to tell the local Roman bishop to erect a Roman temple on Tepeyac hill, northwest of Mexico City.

One who accepts that story must believe that the Mother of God endorses the Roman Church. One who venerates the image of the Virgin of Guadalupe accepts it as a legitimate icon of the Mother of God. If it is legitimate, then its origin and the story that explains it must also be legitimate.

It's just my opinion, but I don't see how Orthodox Christians can accept the Virgin of Guadalupe story or the image.

The truth is the measure by which all supposed miracles must be assessed, not the other way around.

[Matrona]

I'm sorry to disagree with you, Matrona, but I do.

Most icons of the Mother of God depict her with Christ or in some other scene from her life.

An icon of the Theotokos alone, supplicating, is also allowed. The Guadalupe image reminds me of the Theotokos Softening of Evil Hearts which shows her praying with her hands clasped together and seven swords pointing at her heart. Icons of the Holy Protection also sometimes show her alone, although you usually see many people around her and Christ in the clouds above her.

The picture of the Virgin of Guadalupe does not depict such a scene but instead is supposed to be an image she imprinted on the tilma of Juan Diego. The woman depicted on that image supposedly instructed Juan Diego to tell the local Roman bishop to erect a Roman temple on Tepeyac hill, northwest of Mexico City.

Yes, I know the story of the apparition, but I'm not saying the apparition should be accepted or that the Theotokos actually appeared to Juan Diego, or that anyone is wrong for electing not to venerate that particular image. If I obtained a copy of the Guadalupe image for personal veneration, I wouldn't be venerating it as the apparition to Juan Diego, just as an image of the Theotokos without regard to its origin, because I don't think I know the truth about its origin. I'll try to ask my priest about this tomorrow, if that helps.

[Maximus]

Why would one want to venerate an image of dubious origin, especially when so many absolutely holy and beautiful Orthodox icons of the Mother of God are available?

I still think veneration of the image of the Virgin of Guadalupe is a tacit endorsement of the story of its origin and, as a consequence, of the Roman Church.

[Michael the Iconographer]

Why would one want to venerate an image of dubious origin, especially when so many absolutely holy and beautiful Orthodox icons of the Mother of God are available?

I still think veneration of the image of the Virgin of Guadalupe is a tacit endorsement of the story of its origin and, as a consequence, of the Roman Church.

You have a good point. I tend to stay away from anything which is RCC and thus not Orthodox.

[ProCommunioneFacior]

Most icons of the Mother of God depict her with Christ or in some other scene from her life.



She actually is with Christ, she is pregnant with him. Hence the reason why she is the patroness of many pro-life movements.

[ExOrienteLux]

Why would one want to venerate an image of dubious origin, especially when so many absolutely holy and beautiful Orthodox icons of the Mother of God are available?

I still think veneration of the image of the Virgin of Guadalupe is a tacit endorsement of the story of its origin and, as a consequence, of the Roman Church.

Wisdom. Let us attend.

(Hopefully I won't be smote for appropriating the words of the Liturgy.)

[Xpycoctomos]

Ditto what most people said in support of the icon. Personally, were I in Mexico City, I would venerate it. Primarily for what Matrona said. But also, I believe the story is true. That's me personally. I'm not criticizing anyone for not believing it is true, but I think at best, the only categorical statement we can make is that "we don't know."

I mean, should we believe that the Theotokos could NEVER appear to those outside the Church? Is not bringing non-Christians to Christ a fruit of the Spirit. La Virgen has been a source of inspiration of faith to Mexicans (and the Lation world for that matter) for centuries. Suerly non of us can truly dismiss it as mere figment of some native american's imagination?

I agree that it should not be used for liturgical functions, and even having it in an Orthodox Church I can see how that can be offensive to some (for it does make some kind of statement about the veracity of something that is outside the realms of what we as a Church have any right judging). But for personal use, I can not see why anyone should be concerned about this.

Just my thoughts,

John

[Maximus]

Does God honor heretical groups with miracles, including apparitions of and messages from the Mother of God?

Does the Mother of God endorse the building of heterodox churches to such an extent that she would appear to an individual with special instructions for the placement of one of them?

Is the Orthodox Church just one approved church among many?

If she proclaims certain teachings and certain groups heretical, are such decisions not binding, even in heaven (Matt. 16:19)?

How does one assess the veracity of alleged miracles?

What happens when the Antichrist appears, accompanied by fantastic signs, messages, and miracles?

If he claims a visit from the Theotokos, are we to believe him?

I'm not trying to offend anyone.

I just wonder how we can really believe what our Church teaches and yet accept everyone else's alleged miracles.

[Xpycoctomos]

When did the Church Categorically claim that his Spirit does not work outside of the Church? I guess I missed that part in Catechism.

[Maximus]

When did the Church Categorically claim that his Spirit does not work outside of the Church? I guess I missed that part in Catechism.

How does the Holy Spirit work outside of the Church?

Is it by convicting individuals of sin and urging them to accept the Gospel?

Or is it by ordering the erection of heterodox churches and encouraging the spread of false teachings?

The Holy Spirit works outside of the Church, yet He remains the Spirit of Truth.

[Xpycoctomos]

So... she should have gone to Mexico and ordered an Orthodox Church be errected... where no Orthodox had ever been? I mean.. I guess she could have... but I guess she didn't. Maybe she didn't appear at all.. but I would guess that it is more pleasing in God's eyes that Mexico is a country whose religion is Christ centered rather than heathen... but that's just me.

[Maximus]

So... she should have gone to Mexico and ordered an Orthodox Church be errected... where no Orthodox had ever been? I mean.. I guess she could have... but I guess she didn't. Maybe she didn't appear at all.. but I would guess that it is more pleasing in God's eyes that Mexico is a country whose religion is Christ centered rather than heathen... but that's just me.

Those are good questions.

I don't know the answers.

It seems to me the kind of argument they represent could be used to justify all sorts of things.

Are we to accept all such apparitions?

Is it possible to be truly Christ-centered outside of the Church?

[katherine2001]

And I have missed something in my cathechism? Are we now free to venerate whomever we feel is from God in our private worship without talking to our priest first? Have we become an individualistic Church now? In other words, are we free to decide how we're going to worship at home and whom we're going to venerate? Do most of us have the gift of discernment that we are able to discern who spirits come from?

Why couldn't Mary tell them to build an Orthodox Church? Someone sure did. There are quite a few there now.

[Maximus]

And I have missed something in my cathechism? Are we now free to venerate whomever we feel is from God in our private worship without talking to our priest first? Have we become an individualistic Church now? In other words, are we free to decide how we're going to worship at home and whom we're going to venerate? Do most of us have the gift of discernment that we are able to discern who spirits come from?

Why couldn't Mary tell them to build an Orthodox Church? Someone sure did. There are quite a few there now.

Excellent points.

When the Mother of God appears to an individual, shouldn't we expect her to tell the truth rather than to endorse falsehood?

[Xpycoctomos]

And I have missed something in my cathechism? Are we now free to venerate whomever we feel is from God in our private worship without talking to our priest first?

But we're talking about Mary. The Mother of God. Regardless of if the apparition really happened, the icon is of the Mother of God. It's not some post-schismatic saint.

Have we become an individualistic Church now? In other words, are we free to decide how we're going to worship at home and whom we're going to venerate?

I guess I assumed that the fact that this priest had it in the Church meant that he'd be pretty okay with his parishoners venerating such an icon. Not that this proves it's okay, but a lot of Orthodox in the States (and especially in Mexico) venerate this icon and my guess would be that this is pretty much respected by a lot of orthodox Churches in areas where there are large hispanic populations.

Do most of us have the gift of discernment that we are able to discern who spirits come from?

Well, I haven't taken a poll, but I don't.


Why couldn't Mary tell them to build an Orthodox Church? Someone sure did. There are quite a few there now.


I think here we need to be realistic. There were simply no orthodox nearby at this time. Yes, some one sure did build an Orthodox Church, but it was another Orthodox (perhaps at the request of the Theotokos... I don't know the story) but if we look at the expansion of the Church, it is never comes out of a vaccum but with connection to others from the Church (ie missionaries... or delegates sent out to look for a CHurch as St. Vladamir did). Is there any record of a cannonical Orthodox Church just miraculously popping up in the middle of countries where Orthodox had never been.

I agree that the Orthodox Churhc is the true Church and the the Roman Catholic Church is in schism with Her, but I think we lose sight of reality when we act almost as if the Catholic Church may as well be a heathen religion. I know youre not saying that I know you ahve respect for the Catholic Church, but it almost seems as if we were acting as if it were as mislead as the JWs. I think they deserve a little more credit than that.

Also
Is the RCC Christ centered? What would tell me differently? they look to Christ for salvation and to his death and ressurrection. They are centered around Christ, the God-Man who died and rose for us. They believe in the power of the Eucharist and it is the center of their mass (Novus Ordus or otherwise), regardless of what we as individuals opine as to their sacraments' "validity".

Not that it will convince you one way or the other, but I think that this is touching on the nature of the Church, God's presnesce and being outside of the Church. I would strongly suggest again that anyone read The Limits of the Church and the Catholicity of the Church by Fr. Florovsky. If you do read them I will just qualify my statements. I do not believe that the Holy Spirit ever works outside the Church, but I do beleive that He works outside the Canonical Boundaries of the CHurch. But this is probably another thread.

John

[Prawnik]

Question:

In the alleged Guadelupe apparition, did the Theotokos appear and ask specifically for that a Catholic church be built, or simply a "church"?

Of course, to amplify John's point, an Orthodox Church in Spanish Mexico wasn't going to happen, absent numerous accompanying miracles. Where would sixteenth century Mexico get an Orthodox Priest? They weren't exactly running loose through Spain, and Spain was not about to grant non-Catholic religious access to New Spain. Remember, what we call "freedom of religion" did not exist in that time and place, but the Inquisition set up shop in New Spain soon after Cortez' conquest. So there would be plenty of bloodshed to follow; if the miracle were genuine, and Theotokos did not specify an Orthodox Church, perhaps this is why.

Then there are the logistical problems of setting up an Orthodox Church in Spanish Mexico. How would the Indians know what an Orthodox Church was, or what one looked like? Catholicism was the only Christianity they knew. Where would Nahuatl-speakers get translations from Greek, or a Typikon? Certainly, God could make a Priest and Deacons and service books and appropriate Orthodox icons and Byzantine architectural models appear in New Spain if He wished, and confound the Catholics at the same time, but He rarely chooses to go about His work in such an obvious way.

None of this makes the alleged apparition genuine or not, but for the apparition to be "Orthodox", in the sense that it made fully Orthodox requests, it would require God to act very differently than what we are used to seeing. You can take that as evidence "for" or "against", depending on how you wish to see things.

[Michael the Iconographer]

Not one of you have made a good point for why I should venerate a non-Orthodox image of the Theotokos! I think I will stick to Orthodox icons of her.

[Maximus]

I do not believe that the Holy Spirit ever works outside the Church, but I do beleive that He works outside the Canonical Boundaries of the CHurch. But this is probably another thread.

I could be wrong, but that sounds an awful lot like the idea that the Church is divided among all of the various sects in which true believers are found, and that no one visible organization can claim to be the Church.

That doesn't sound like Orthodox ecclesiology to me, but I'm no expert.

I think it is unwise to accept miracles and apparitions that occur outside of the Orthodox Church.

[Rilian]

There's an interesting article on the Theotokos (http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/mary.htm) on the Father Alexander site. Scroll down to the "Contemporary Apparitions of the Mother of God" section.

[countrymouse33ad]

If she [The Orthodox Church] proclaims certain teachings and certain groups heretical, are such decisions not binding, even in heaven (Matt. 16:19)?





Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.




I am aware that the Orthodox Church has officially rejected certain teachings of the RCC as unacceptable , but I am not aware that we have officially gone beyond the term "schismatic" when speaking of the RCC or the mainline Protestant churches. It could be logically argued that if a church teaches something as dogma that is heretical, then the church is in heresy, but I don't think that we are in the habit of characterizing other trinitarian, incarnational churches as complete heretics in such a wholesale fashion.

Never having come face to face with the icon in question, and having reservations about its source, my gut feeling is that I would not venerate it. But, to my knowledge, the Church has not forbidden us to do so, and everyone has to make up his or her own mind. Recall, also, that when K. Frederica Matthewes-Green encountered Christ she was in front of a statue, not an Orthodox icon. God works in many mysterious ways.

[Michael the Iconographer]

It is fine that God works in mysterious ways, but the Church has approved of icons only for the use in our churches. To suggest that we can use images and statues from other churches because we like them is to step beyond the boundaries of Orthodoxy and to suggest that somehow the Orthodox Church is incomplete.

[countrymouse33ad]

http://www3.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-top-left.gifQuote:http://www3.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-top-right.gifhttp://www3.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-top-right-10.gifI do not believe that the Holy Spirit ever works outside the Church, but I do beleive that He works outside the Canonical Boundaries of the CHurch. But this is probably another thread.http://www3.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-bot-left.gifhttp://www3.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-bot-right.gif



I could be wrong, but that sounds an awful lot like the idea that the Church is divided among all of the various sects in which true believers are found, and that no one visible organization can claim to be the Church.

That doesn't sound like Orthodox ecclesiology to me, but I'm no expert.



Fr. Georges Florovsky has said that the Church has two kinds of boundaries, canonical and mystical. While we know where the canonical boundaries are, we do not know where the mystical ones are, therefore Bishop Kallistos' statement that we do not know where the Church is not. That's the simple, nutshell version. It does not mean that canonical differences are unimportant or that all Christians should not desire to be within the canonical boundaries. It does recognize, I think, that the laity are largely inheritors of the mess others have made, and that God just might not be so tied up in red tape as to deny them the grace they need.

[katherine2001]

Not one of you have made a good point for why I should venerate a non-Orthodox image of the Theotokos! I think I will stick to Orthodox icons of her.

I am with you on this. If Satan can appear as an angel of light, why not as the Theotokos? I'm not saying that this is the case here or in other visions of Mary, but why risk it? The others have to do what they think is right after consulting their priests, but I don't think I'm risking it. Personally, I wouldn't venerate the Shroud of Turin either. If the Church hasn't ruled that it's from God (and I have a feeling they don't rule on things like this that happen outside the Church), I'm not venerating it.

[countrymouse33ad]

To suggest that we can use images and statues from other churches because we like them ...

I'm not suggesting that. I am only suggesting that it is not for me to make up anyone else's mind for them. God has granted freedom and I am not in my rights to take it away. There is nothing wrong with using gentle persuasion, though. :)

[Xpycoctomos]

I could be wrong, but that sounds an awful lot like the idea that the Church is divided among all of the various sects in which true believers are found, and that no one visible organization can claim to be the Church.

That doesn't sound like Orthodox ecclesiology to me, but I'm no expert.

I think it is unwise to accept miracles and apparitions that occur outside of the Orthodox Church.



Since I said that in light of referring readers to Florovsky's articles, my comment was meant to be understood in light of what he taught I'm not going to explain it because I could never do the holy father justice. So, google "Limits of the Church" by florovsky, then interpret what I meant by my comment.

John

[Xpycoctomos]

Fr. Georges Florovsky has said that the Church has two kinds of boundaries, canonical and mystical. While we know where the canonical boundaries are, we do not know where the mystical ones are, therefore Bishop Kallistos' statement that we do not know where the Church is not. That's the simple, nutshell version. It does not mean that canonical differences are unimportant or that all Christians should not desire to be within the canonical boundaries. It does recognize, I think, that the laity are largely inheritors of the mess others have made, and that God just might not be so tied up in red tape as to deny them the grace they need.


i hadn't read this post. Thank you CM. :)

[Xpycoctomos]

Most Orthodox priests I've spoken to find no problem with the shroud of Turin other than the fact that it is outside of the Church's control.

I am not trying to convince anyone they they should venerate the Icon of the Theotokos (or of Satan) in Mexico City. I have already said that I can understand why others would find it odd to see a Catholic icon in the back of a Church as if the Church were officially accepting the apparition as one of it's own. It doesn't have to be this. In the SW where there are hispanic converts to the Faith, I imagine it is a source of holy comfort for them to walk by and see the icon of their Mother that they grew up with (not to mention that it symbolizes an event that perrhaps took place among their people that played a Christian part in their Faith up to this day).

I am only saying that if I were there, I would venerate it for I fully believe it to be an icon of the Theotokos (unless my priest forbade me to. An example: now the bishop here has made more express concerns about intercommunion with the ROCOR so I am forbidden from communing there. It does not matter what my leanings or opinion are, and it does not matter what other people from other jurisdictions can or cannot do... I am to be obedient to my priest and bishop, period). Do I believe that the miracle happened? Yeah, I guess, I mean, I think so, but it's completely possible that it was an hallucination or whatever. All i know is that many people have found inspiration in their faith through this image. That in itself is enough for me... not that that should be enough for someone else, by any means.

[countrymouse33ad]

but it's completely possible that it was an hallucination or whatever. All i know is that many people have found inspiration in their faith through this image. That in itself is enough for me... not that that should be enough for someone else, by any means.

I once heard it said that God can hit straight with a crooked stick. Now, if you think about it, ever since Adam sinned, all God has had to work with here have been crooked sticks, except for Christ (and perhaps the Theotokos). Fredericka Matthewes-Green undoubtedly does not go back to that church in England and venerate that statue - nevertheless, its memory is a marker in her spiritual journey. My own spiritual journey began long before I knew what the Orthodox Church really is, and I hold dear those markers that I can remember from before I became Orthodox. I still go back and read excerpts from C.S. Lewis, for instance, but I do not give him the same place I give the Church Fathers. The church where I grew up, the people that introduced me to the gospel, will always be very dear to me, and I will be very surprised if many of them are not in Paradise, should I manage to persevere and get there myself, God helping me.

[Matrona]

You have a good point. I tend to stay away from anything which is RCC and thus not Orthodox.

Hey Michael, how is Peter doing?

You know, the man you consider to be your mentor in iconography? Have you had a recent chance to invite him to Divine Liturgy?

[ExOrienteLux]

Personally, I wouldn't venerate the Shroud of Turin either. If the Church hasn't ruled that it's from God (and I have a feeling they don't rule on things like this that happen outside the Church), I'm not venerating it.

Just as a side note, the Shroud used to one of the great relics of Constantinople. I'll give you three guesses as to when the Latins got their hands on it, and the first two don't count.

+IC XC NIKA+
Phillip

[Xpycoctomos]

That would probably explain why my old priest had a copy of it in his office and talked about it a lot. he wasn't what you would call a lover of ecumenism so there had to be some explanation.

[Michael the Iconographer]

Hey Michael, how is Peter doing?

You know, the man you consider to be your mentor in iconography? Have you had a recent chance to invite him to Divine Liturgy?

Being that you asked and decided to call me out in public: Peter is my mentor in iconography. No, he is not Orthodox, yet. God can use people outside of the Orthodox Church to bring a person to Orthodoxy. In this case Peter and Fr. Athanasius (a bi-ritual Byzantine-Roman Monk at St. Vincent) are two of the main people who worked to teach me Orthodoxy. There is another iconographer who has done much less to teach me about Orthodoxy and refuses to teach me any iconography. So, who is doing the work of the Lord? The man who is outside of the church who brought me into the church through his love for me and endless hours teaching me, or the man who is in the church but refuses to teach me anything about iconography due to some personal issues he has with me? What does the Gospel have to say about this? I have invited Peter to Orthodoxy on many occasions. Last February I had Bishop Basil of the Antiochian Church personally go over to Peter to give him the kiss of peace and invite him to come home to Orthodoxy. I understand what stands between Peter and Orthodoxy and in some ways I agree with him. He will become Orthodox when we stop insisting that you must be Greek, Russian, Slavic or Middle Eastern to be Orthodox. He will be Orthodox when there is an American Orthodox Church free of the cultural constraints which exist on many of the Orthodox Churches in America. There are many who openly judge Peter and I was once one of them. I have since then learned my lesson. But this has little to do with the fact that I avoid Roman Catholic Images and refuse to venerate them.

Anyone who wants to question my credentials as an Iconographer is more than invited to do so. I am not ashamed of them and will openly defend the path which God has ordained for me. As you note in your profile Matrona, it was not I who chose to be an iconographer, it was God who chose me for iconography.

[Michael the Iconographer]

Just as a side note, the Shroud used to one of the great relics of Constantinople. I'll give you three guesses as to when the Latins got their hands on it, and the first two don't count.

+IC XC NIKA+
Phillip

My guesses are: the crusades, the crusades and hmmmm, could it be, the crusades!?

[Xpycoctomos]

Actually... that has a lot to do with it. I'm not criticizing anything about your situation. Makes sense to me. But you are saying that no one could ever have a compelling reason to continue to revere our Mother through the Holy image of the Lady of Guadalupe? Even if it played a major role in his or her coming to Orthodoxy (through his or her constant supplications to her in front of that icon that she pray for him or her). I mean.. there are countless situations that could exist (and do exist) that you and i just can't understand... I mean truly understand. Michael, I can analyuze the heclk out of your situation wiht your friend and make an argument (that I wouldn't agree with) that it is not wise of you to learn iconography form a person who does not recieve the graces of the True Church. But it gets silly to analyze things to the point that nothing makes sense any more. Sometimes our analytical minds and black-and-white mentalities just need to subside and look at the fruits of this or that situation.

John

PS: I really don't care about your situation with you supposed mentor (what I mean is that it is really none of my business to judge). it doesnt matter what I think about it or what anyone (other than you and spiritual guide of course) thinks and i am only using your situation as an example to demonstrate a point... nothing more.

[Wiffey]

Most Orthodox priests I've spoken to find no problem with the shroud of Turin other than the fact that it is outside of the Church's control.

I am not trying to convince anyone they they should venerate the Icon of the Theotokos (or of Satan) in Mexico City. I have already said that I can understand why others would find it odd to see a Catholic icon in the back of a Church as if the Church were officially accepting the apparition as one of it's own. It doesn't have to be this. In the SW where there are hispanic converts to the Faith, I imagine it is a source of holy comfort for them to walk by and see the icon of their Mother that they grew up with (not to mention that it symbolizes an event that perrhaps took place among their people that played a Christian part in their Faith up to this day).

I am only saying that if I were there, I would venerate it for I fully believe it to be an icon of the Theotokos (unless my priest forbade me to. An example: now the bishop here has made more express concerns about intercommunion with the ROCOR so I am forbidden from communing there. It does not matter what my leanings or opinion are, and it does not matter what other people from other jurisdictions can or cannot do... I am to be obedient to my priest and bishop, period). Do I believe that the miracle happened? Yeah, I guess, I mean, I think so, but it's completely possible that it was an hallucination or whatever. All i know is that many people have found inspiration in their faith through this image. That in itself is enough for me... not that that should be enough for someone else, by any means.

Very well put. As a Hispanic convert to Orthodoxy, I am in full agreement. Of course, I am guided in my spiritual practice by my priest. Mercifully, my priest understands that I am adult who grew up in a culture that I love, that by retaining some sentimental ties to my culture I am not rejecting Orthodoxy. I did not become Orthodox in an attempt to stop being Cuban and to morph into a Greek. I accept Orthodox theology and praxis. But to make me reject (for example) the apparition of the Theotokos that occurred in Cobre just because it occurred in a Roman Catholic country and was therefore understood in a RC context...

I tend to look at the fruit of these apparitions...which, BTW did not include the Theotokos holding up any signs indicating which church to follow. Did the apparitions cause vast numbers of people to be converted to Christianity? Inspire them to light candles in a church instead of perform animal sacrifices to other gods? Inspire devotion to Christ and His mother? If so, and no heterodox theology was taught, where is the harm if I don't burn the image that my departed grandmother venerated all her life?

You know what else? If my elderly relations, on their death beds, ask me to say a rosary for them to ease their passing...I'll do it. And my Orthodox confessor has told me that is fine as long as my daily praxis is Orthodox. He also understands that there is a RC Saint (San Martin de Porres) that once interceded for me and caused a lump in my breast to completely disappear when I reported to the hospital for an ultrasound and biopsy on his feast day. So if I wish to remember his kindness during my personal devotions at home, that has also been duly approved.

The kindness that my priest has shown me has made my transition into Orthodoxy far less culturally alienating. And I very much feel that my coming to Orthodoxy was coming into the fullness of my former faith rather than a rejection of all that came before. And I am not suggesting that Orthodox churches should contain non-historically-Orthodox images. Just have a little pity on people who come in from cultures who also have a rich ethnic tradition but no long historic ties to Orthodoxy. In many of our cases it was these very "heterodox" traditions that fueled our love and search for a fullness in our Christian lives that brought us to Orthodoxy in the first place.

:angel:

[Xpycoctomos]

thank you Wiffey.

[Paisley]

I didn't think at first the icons would have been such a complicated thing....yet I can understand why. ;)

[Maximus]

I am aware that the Orthodox Church has officially rejected certain teachings of the RCC as unacceptable , but I am not aware that we have officially gone beyond the term "schismatic" when speaking of the RCC or the mainline Protestant churches. It could be logically argued that if a church teaches something as dogma that is heretical, then the church is in heresy, but I don't think that we are in the habit of characterizing other trinitarian, incarnational churches as complete heretics in such a wholesale fashion.

If the teachings of a sect are heretical, then the sect itself is an heretical sect. The Orthodox Church has said on more than one occasion that the Latin Church is heretical. I'm at work, so I can't dig up the references for you right now.

I also believe the Church has spoken on the Protestant question, as well, at the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672 (if I recall correctly). Once again, if a movement is heretical, the sects that comprise that movement are heretical.

I'm not sure what you mean by "complete heretics," unless by that you mean they get everything wrong.

I'm not sure there are any "complete heretics," if that is the case.

[Xpycoctomos]

I think perhaps she is getting at (at least impart) to a mentality that suggests that "Hey, if it isn't Orthodox then it's all the same" and while that might work well on a piec of graph paper (it's either in or out), it's illogical to apply such a black and white mentality to reality. I would refer to Wiffey's post.

[katherine2001]

If the Shroud of Turin really used to be in Orthodox hands, then why won't any of the Orthodox churches issue an official statement on it's authenticity? Why has not one official statement been issued saying that it is really the burial shroud of Christ if it used to be in Orthodox hands? For that matter, I specifically wrote Fr. John Matusiak who answers the questions in the Q & A section on the OCA site and he mentioned nothing about that in his response to me.

If I've offended anyone by any of my statements, please forgive me. I am full of pride and always think I'm right. I have to admit that what bothers me about many of these visions of Mary is that she always seemed to ask that a shrine be built to her. That is not compatible with what I know of her. I once read a book that discussed 50 shrines built to her along with discussion of the visions that caused these shrines to be built and in the great majority of cases, she told them to build her a shrine. That doesn't seem compatible with the Theotokos of Orthodoxy that always points to her SON, not herself.

Again, what others do is between them, God, and their priest. As long as it's being done with their priests blessing, it's their concern.

[Xpycoctomos]

If the Shroud of Turin really used to be in Orthodox hands, then why won't any of the Orthodox churches issue an official statement on it's authenticity? Why has not one official statement been issued saying that it is really the burial shroud of Christ if it used to be in Orthodox hands?

Official Statement? What is that? SInce when does the OC put out Official Statements? lol

But seriously, I don't think the OC puts out Official Statements of authenticity. Even the way of recognizing saints is a very local action in the OC. For us, it is not about the relic. The OC will condemn a supposed relic, if people are flocking to it and it is producing bad fruit. If not, it usually leaves well enough alone lets the people do what they will do. The Official Statement POV is very Western (although not wrong... just, not very Eastern). Also, the OC doesn't usually do this with relics but rather only with dogma's of the faith, decreeing affirming truths or anathematizing falsehoods through the councils.

[Matrona]

If the Shroud of Turin really used to be in Orthodox hands, then why won't any of the Orthodox churches issue an official statement on it's authenticity?

Because the people who have it now, won't let us have it back so we can have a look at it.

If I've offended anyone by any of my statements, please forgive me. I am full of pride and always think I'm right. I have to admit that what bothers me about many of these visions of Mary is that she always seemed to ask that a shrine be built to her. That is not compatible with what I know of her. I once read a book that discussed 50 shrines built to her along with discussion of the visions that caused these shrines to be built and in the great majority of cases, she told them to build her a shrine. That doesn't seem compatible with the Theotokos of Orthodoxy that always points to her SON, not herself.

Again, what others do is between them, God, and their priest. As long as it's being done with their priests blessing, it's their concern.

I know exactly where you're coming from, Katherine, and I agree with you. I don't believe Guadalupe, Fatima, or Medjugorje are authentic apparitions, and a good chunk of the others too.

I just like the pious depictions that resulted. And I also believe that God can use anything for His good purposes, even things that were meant to accomplish evil.

[Xpycoctomos]

yeah... What Matrona said. :)

[Maximus]

I think perhaps she is getting at (at least impart) to a mentality that suggests that "Hey, if it isn't Orthodox then it's all the same" and while that might work well on a piec of graph paper (it's either in or out), it's illogical to apply such a black and white mentality to reality. I would refer to Wiffey's post.

I understand what you're saying, and while I agree that God does work with people who are not yet - and perhaps never will be - Orthodox, I think that fact is often abused.

There may be persons outside of the visible, known bounds of the Church who, because of their faith, are actually in the Church in a way known only to God.

It is one thing to admit that. It is quite another to use it to promote the acceptance of whole heretical groups and their supposed miracles and apparitions.

If the Mother of God had appeared to Juan Diego and said, "Your prayers have been heard, Juan Diego. Your poor, sick daughter will get well" - and his poor, sick daughter got well - that might be fairly easy to believe.

But that is not what supposedly happened.

She appeared to Juan Diego and instructed him to tell the Latin bishop to erect a Latin church in her honor on top of Tepeyac hill.

Doesn't sound right to me.

What troubles me even more is the use ecumenists make of the idea of the Church's "mystical boundaries" to make "brethren" out of everybody and to engage in a syncretistic borrowing of unlikely "miraculous" images and apparitions.

Believing in the Guadalupe legend and venerating its image are tacit endorsements of the Roman Church.

[Xpycoctomos]

What troubles me even more is the use ecumenists make of the idea of the Church's "mystical boundaries" to make "brethren" out of everybody and to engage in a syncretistic borrowing of unlikely "miraculous" images and apparitions.

If you read the florovsky article it will be obvious that this is not another ecumenist-happy theologian by any means.

Your conclusion that "since one venerates this or that, he or she MUST be making an endorsement of that entire faith" just doesn't speak to me at all. It simply is not necessary that that should be. I don't even know how to dispute what you said because it is such a doomsday approach. It is possible to say, God works out side of the canonical Church, He and his saints possibly appear to others and, that does not mean they are the True Cannonical Church. It is possible, it is logical and I know because many see this and it makes perfect sense to them. And nothing of this goes against the Church's teachings. Plain and simple.

[ExOrienteLux]

YMSSRABGIT Maximus again.

[Maximus]

If you read the florovsky article it will be obvious that this is not another ecumenist-happy theologian by any means.

I understand what Florovsky had to say. I also understand his eventual disillusionment with the ecumenical movement.

I wasn't accusing Fr. Georges Florovsky of anything.

I said ecumenists abuse the idea of the Church's mystical boundaries to make "brethren" out of everybody and to engage in what amounts to syncretism.

Your conclusion that "since one venerates this or that, he or she MUST be making an endorsement of that entire faith" just doesn't speak to me at all. It simply is not necessary that that should be. I don't even know how to dispute what you said because it is such a doomsday approach. It is possible to say, God works out side of the canonical Church, He and his saints possibly appear to others and, that does not mean they are the True Cannonical Church. It is possible, it is logical and I know because many see this and it makes perfect sense to them. And nothing of this goes against the Church's teachings. Plain and simple.

As I said, I know God does help people outside of the known, visible boundaries of the Church. He helps people.

But the Guadalupe legend involves a message to a Roman bishop to erect a Roman church.

That makes it highly suspect. In fact, I think it makes it pretty obviously false.

That makes Guadalupe kind of like the supposed apparition of the Virgin in which she is alleged to have said, "I am the Immaculate Conception" (Fatima? or Lourdes? I can't recall).

Venerating images that have their origin in such false apparitions is like eating fruit from a poisonous tree: tree bad, fruit bad.

Orthodox Christians are engaged in pretty serious spiritual warfare with the devil and his minions.

We have no business messing with such things.

[Xpycoctomos]

blah

[Matrona]

blah

How profound.

[Matrona]

[/size][/font]

I understand what Florovsky had to say. I also understand his eventual disillusionment with the ecumenical movement.

I wasn't accusing Fr. Georges Florovsky of anything.

I said ecumenists abuse the idea of the Church's mystical boundaries to make "brethren" out of everybody and to engage in what amounts to syncretism.



As I said, I know God does help people outside of the known, visible boundaries of the Church. He helps people.

But the Guadalupe legend involves a message to a Roman bishop to erect a Roman church.

That makes it highly suspect. In fact, I think it makes it pretty obviously false.

That makes Guadalupe kind of like the supposed apparition of the Virgin in which she is alleged to have said, "I am the Immaculate Conception" (Fatima? or Lourdes? I can't recall).

Venerating images that have their origin in such false apparitions is like eating fruit from a poisonous tree: tree bad, fruit bad.

Orthodox Christians are engaged in pretty serious spiritual warfare with the devil and his minions.

We have no business messing with such things.

I agree with you Maximus, I just like the pictures.

Lourdes is the one where the apparition said that she is the "Immaculate Conception".

I don't base my faith on apparitions and shiny images; my faith is in the ruler of the universe.

[Xpycoctomos]

How profound.

lol.. yes, it was.

sorry.. Maximus and I were going back and forth rehashing the same ideas in new wording. It wasn't an argument.. nothing heated.. no hard feelings... I just felt like blah was as worthy as anything else I had to say (not because of anything maximus said, he wasn't at all condescending or disrespectful).

Do you ever get into those conversations where it just stops mattering. The length of the conversation supercedes the topics importance. The one guy sees it this way, you see it that way, you both go over it over and over until you just get tired... not annoyed, not angry, and certainly not offended. Just.... a feeling of... blah. :)

But, it seemed disrespectful what I wrote... I can see that. So, sorry about that. That probably was not the best way to end the conversation. lol Forgive me brother Maximus, you are definitely more qualified in what you say than I actively give you credit... even if I disagree with you ;)

God bless,

John

[Maximus]

lol.. yes, it was.

sorry.. Maximus and I were going back and forth rehashing the same ideas in new wording. It wasn't an argument.. nothing heated.. no hard feelings... I just felt like blah was as worthy as anything else I had to say (not because of anything maximus said, he wasn't at all condescending or disrespectful).

Do you ever get into those conversations where it just stops mattering. The length of the conversation supercedes the topics importance. The one guy sees it this way, you see it that way, you both go over it over and over until you just get tired... not annoyed, not angry, and certainly not offended. Just.... a feeling of... blah. :)

But, it seemed disrespectful what I wrote... I can see that. So, sorry about that. That probably was not the best way to end the conversation. lol Forgive me brother Maximus, you are definitely more qualified in what you say than I actively give you credit... even if I disagree with you ;)

God bless,

John

No problem. No offense taken. Nothing to forgive.

I have said what I had to say. Time to give it a rest.

[countrymouse33ad]

If the teachings of a sect are heretical, then the sect itself is an heretical sect.



Forgive me for dredging this up from a page ago, but I just read something in another thread that brought a question to my mind. Maximus posted the above comment in answer to something in one of my posts:


It could be logically argued that if a church teaches something as dogma that is heretical, then the church is in heresy.

So, we are not talking about churches' teachings being fully heretical, but we are talking about churches who teach some things that are considered heretical.

It occurred to me that some of the Church Fathers (not all of whom were canonized as saints, but who are still called Fathers and whose orthodox teachings we greatly value) taught ideas that were rejected as heresy by the Church. But we do not call them heretics.

The RCC and the various mainline Protestant churches have some teachings that we reject as heretical or heterodox (no essential difference) but I know of no pan-Orthodox Council that has condemned them or pronounced that their sacraments are graceless. We have not proclaimed that they have no right to the name "Christian." Many jurisdictions have (as Fr. Georges Florovsky pointed out) received members from them by chrismation, without rebaptism.

This does not mean that any of us are espousing the "branch theory." But if a Church Father is not a heretic by reason of having held a few heretical beliefs, then the label "heretical sect" is not necessarily appropriate for schismatic churches who are Trinitarian and incarnational, whose Christology is Chalcedonian, but who hold some beliefs that are heretical/heterodox. (Schism, by the way, has been existant, a reality, in the Church ever since Corinth.)

[Wiffey]

Believing in the Guadalupe legend and venerating its image are tacit endorsements of the Roman Church.


No. I do not think this is necessarily so. Perhaps the individual loves Guadalupe because it represents a visit by the Virgin to the Mexican people. Because the only priests around at the time were RC, the event was understood/interpreted in a Catholic context. Just like the apparitions at Zeitoun are interpreted in a Coptic context, even though the Theotokos did not hold up a billboard to endorse any particular church...

The Theotokos loves humanity and seeks to draw all of us to her Son, our Savior Jesus Christ. She is not limited by geography, and there are reports of her appearing around the globe. I will not definitively say whether all of these apparitions are valid. But I think it is ridiculous to imagine that NONE of these appearances are valid. To do that is to imply that the Theotokos does not care about or bother with any persons not living in historically Orthodox lands. Here's a shocking idea: God loves Hispanics as much as He loves Greeks. He loves the people of Botswana as much as He loves Russians. There are no second class humans. God and the Theotokos are not going to pout and ignore most of the globe just because they don't know about Orthodoxy yet.

As a Cuban, I am pleased as punch about the apparitions of the Theotokos at Cobre and Regla. I view them as a loving visit from a concerned mother, not as a denominational endorsement. I do not see a conflict with Orthodoxy. I am not aware of the Church canon that states that the Theotokos is under some sort of spiritual house arrest where her ankle alarm will go off if she visits a non-Orthodox country out of love for the people who live there...

[Xpycoctomos]

:amen:


....

[countrymouse33ad]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Wiffey again.

[Dust and Ashes]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Wiffey again.



Covered. :thumbsup:

[Irish Melkite]

:(

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Wiffey again.

[Maximus]

No. I do not think this is necessarily so. Perhaps the individual loves Guadalupe because it represents a visit by the Virgin to the Mexican people. Because the only priests around at the time were RC, the event was understood/interpreted in a Catholic context.

The Guadalupe apparition was not "a visit by the Virgin to the Mexican people."

She supposedly appeared to one man in order to tell him to tell the Roman bishop to erect a Roman church on Tepeyac hill.

No need for "interpretation" to place that "in a Catholic context."

From start to finish the whole legend is Roman.

Just like the apparitions at Zeitoun are interpreted in a Coptic context, even though the Theotokos did not hold up a billboard to endorse any particular church...

I don't buy the Zeitoun legend either.

I know that God helps individuals in need who cry out to Him.

I'm not so sure about supposed apparitions of the Theotokos to Muslims outside of buildings belonging to heterodox sects.

I think miracles and apparitions should be judged (in part, at least) by their service to the truth and by whether or not they make some sort of sense.

The Theotokos loves humanity and seeks to draw all of us to her Son, our Savior Jesus Christ. She is not limited by geography, and there are reports of her appearing around the globe.

Who has said otherwise?

OTOH, the devil and his spiritual counterfeiting operation are not limited by geography either.

There are reports of their machinations all around the globe.

I will not definitively say whether all of these apparitions are valid. But I think it is ridiculous to imagine that NONE of these appearances are valid.

Why is it ridiculous to imagine that none of them are valid?

Are we to believe every miraculous claim?


To do that is to imply that the Theotokos does not care about or bother with any persons not living in historically Orthodox lands. Here's a shocking idea: God loves Hispanics as much as He loves Greeks. He loves the people of Botswana as much as He loves Russians. There are no second class humans. God and the Theotokos are not going to pout and ignore most of the globe just because they don't know about Orthodoxy yet.

Here's a shocking idea: God loves everyone so much that He will not deceive them by making them think the Blessed Virgin endorses doctrines that could ruin their souls.

Here's another one: He founded one Church, not a multitude of them.

How does the Scripture say that faith comes?

Through special appearances by the Theotokos?

Or through the preaching and hearing of the Gospel?

As a Cuban, I am pleased as punch about the apparitions of the Theotokos at Cobre and Regla. I view them as a loving visit from a concerned mother, not as a denominational endorsement. I do not see a conflict with Orthodoxy. I am not aware of the Church canon that states that the Theotokos is under some sort of spiritual house arrest where her ankle alarm will go off if she visits a non-Orthodox country out of love for the people who live there...

No one has said the Theotokos is shackled to a particular region or people.

God does help all kinds of people, where they are, as they are.

But apparitions that involve the obvious endorsement of heterodox churches and/or organizations should not be believed.

Images that arise from such legends should not be venerated by Orthodox Christians.

If we develop the habit of uncritically accepting every supposed apparition of the Blessed Virgin, of uncritically accepting every supposed miracle, how then will we know to reject the Antichrist when he comes?

Truth is the standard.

Not sentiment.

Not national pride.

[Matrona]

The Guadalupe apparition was not "a visit by the Virgin to the Mexican people."

She supposedly appeared to one man in order to tell him to tell the Roman bishop to erect a Roman church on Tepeyac hill.

I don't buy the Zeitoun legend either.

I know that God helps individuals in need who cry out to Him.

I'm not so sure about supposed apparitions of the Theotokos to Muslims outside of buildings belonging to heterodox sects.

OTOH, the devil and his spiritual counterfeiting operation are not limited by geography either.

Here's a shocking idea: God loves everyone so much that He will not deceive them by making them think the Blessed Virgin endorses doctrines that could ruin their souls.

No one has said the Theotokos is shackled to a particular region or people.

God does help all kinds of people, where they are, as they are.

But apparitions that involve the obvious endorsement of heterodox churches and/or organizations should not be believed.

If we develop the habit of uncritically accepting every supposed apparition of the Blessed Virgin, of uncritically accepting every supposed miracle, how then will we know to reject the Antichrist when he comes?

Truth is the standard.

Not sentiment.

Not national pride.

You got a point there, bro... :eek:

[Xpycoctomos]

Here's a shocking idea: God loves everyone so much that He will not deceive them by making them think the Blessed Virgin endorses doctrines that could ruin their souls.




So...it was better for their souls thta they remain pagan?

As Orthodox we should not be so quick to put miracles on a pedastal that normal everyday graces of God are not on. On the one hand we all believe that God can work outside of the canonical boundaries... but on the other hand apparitions are somehow "off limits" to Him just because the miracle is more obvious to dumb souls like us?

Why is it ridiculous to imagine that none of them are valid?

Are we to believe every miraculous claim?
Wiffey stated that it was ridiculous to claim that NONE were valid... not that we should trust ALL of them.



Here's a shocking idea: God loves everyone so much that He will not deceive them by making them think the Blessed Virgin endorses doctrines that could ruin their souls.




I jsut still can't get over that one. The Catholic Church was the "ruin to people's souls" in Latin America... Better that they remained in ignorance to Christ and worshipped the Sun than (gasp) be Catholic. I'm sorry... that either needs to be further explained or called absolutely ridiculous.

But apparitions that involve the obvious endorsement of heterodox churches and/or organizations should not be believed.


I and others here do not see this as an endorsement of Catholicism over the Church. We may see it as endorsement of Christ (WE weren't doing anything to save the souls of Latin Americans at that time... or am I mistaken... were those missionaries Orthodox?).

What does seem obvious here is that at times people feel that since they were something (ie Catholic) it gives them a carte blanche to treat where they came from however harsh (and unfair) as they want.

Fine, you don't venerate those icons... and you shouldn't because this is how you see things. But this is certainly not THE Orthodox point of view. There are many ways to see this issue and yours is one of them.

No one here, I don't believe, is trying to convince anyone that they SHOULD venerate these images or that they SHOULD put any creedence into these apparations... merely that there is nothing wrong with a convert venerating something that for them has a lot of meaning. For you it means the Theotokos was saying that Catholic was better than Orthodoxy, for other Orthodox it represents the Theotokos opening the hearts of a people that were otherwise pagan to a life with Christ... and it did. Go to mexico... once you get past all of the superstition (which, let me tell you, is CERTAINLY present in... say... Romania... not all was a great example of good Orthodoxy there) you see that there are so many people (yes.. Catholics) that are dedicated to living for Christ. this is due, in part, to the supposed apparition of the lady of Guadalupe.

But now we're just going in circles.

[countrymouse33ad]

I jsut still can't get over that one. The Catholic Church was the "ruin to people's souls" in Latin America... Better that they remained in ignorance to Christ and worshipped the Sun than (gasp) be Catholic. I'm sorry... that either needs to be further explained or called absolutely ridiculous.


Reps to you, John.

[Wiffey]

Truth is the standard.

Not sentiment.

Not national pride.

Oh, that's right...there is no nationalist sentiment to be found in Orthodoxy...:P

...which is why I've seen some Greek (take your pick here: Serbian, Romanian, Russian etc) folks drive by 4 or 5 perfectly canonical Orthodox churches on a Sunday so they can go to a Greek church. Nobody too attached to sentiment or national pride...

I'm not saying that sentiment or national pride should ever override Truth. But sentiment is part and parcel of the human condition. I come from a traditionally RC culture. I have walked away from a LOT of what was comfortable and familiar in my quest for Truth. I don't regret that. But I do get miffed at the idea that only people fortunate enough to come from traditionally Orthodox lands get to have any pride or feel good about where they come from, and that the rest of us are second class Christians who should utterly and completely abandon any sentiment and be grateful that "real" Orthodox Christians allow us to pollute their air and take up space in their national church. That if I am still sentimental about some small scrap of my upbringing & culture then it means I'm not Orthodox in my theology...

This attitude bugs me. It's like hearing from my cradle-Orthodox S-I-L (who almost never goes to church) that my child's Sunday school teacher (who is wonderful) shouldn't be allowed to teach because she is a convert. Or having someone tell me that I probably don't understand about things because I've only been a Christian for a little while (because in their opinion I was NOT a Christian as a Catholic).

I was VERY MUCH a Christian when I was Catholic. I may now have a fuller understanding (IMO) of theology and a better perspective, but do NOT tell me I did not love Christ. Cause that would be ridiculous.

Fortunately my priest is pretty understanding about these things. If I still have some sentiment and respect for my spiritual roots (that laid the foundation for my becoming Orthodox in the first place), and my PRIEST says that is just fine, I truly fail to see how that affects anybody else. It is, in fact, nobody else's business, since I am not advocating that anybody share in my sentiment.

[edit]

[Orthosdoxa]

Last night, my cat kept waking me up by licking my ear. It was so silly!

[Wiffey]

I'm gonna go make some Lentils now...:yum:

[Xpycoctomos]

.

[Dust and Ashes]

This attitude bugs me. It's like hearing from my cradle-Orthodox S-I-L (who almost never goes to church) that my child's Sunday school teacher (who is wonderful) shouldn't be allowed to teach because she is a convert. Or having someone tell me that I probably don't understand about things because I've only been a Christian for a little while (because in their opinion I was NOT a Christian as a Catholic).

You are handling it much better than I would. If I encountered a spiritual abscess like that, I'd rip the scab off and start squeezing/digging the infection out on the spot.

[Wiffey]

I think someone struck a nerve. lol

Yeah, that wasn't too Lenten of me...so I went back to edit. I get so frustrated sometimes because Orthodoxy is so beautiful, but I have dealt with more xenophobia and ethnic superiority and seen more outright racism by some individuals...(not here, at church).

Let's just say that my experiences have led me to (at times) wonder why I didn't just stay Catholic. But in a weird way I suppose these challenges have been good for me, because 5 years ago I would have gotten all confrontational with the individuals and then never returned to the scene. I have had to learn to develop more patience and tolerance in order to be Orthodox.

[InnerPhyre]

I think that context needs to be understood here. Obviously, I believe in the apparition, but take a look at the circumstances. You have a group of pagans worshipping false gods and idols, performing human sacrifices, etc. The only Christians around at the time were Catholics. The Europeans came for gold and used the excuse of conversion to enslave the locals. Friar Las Casas and his domincans did all they could to end the atrocities, but had little power (took a long time to get a letter back to the Vatican in those days to complain).

You now had bloody battles ensuing between the natives and the Europeans with thousands dying. The Theotokos appeared and asked a church to be built and provided a miraculous image. She didn't say "Go build a Roman church." She just said to build a church...obviously the only kind of church Catholics would have built would have been a Catholic church. What if she had said "Build an Orthodox church?" Can Catholics build an Orthodox church? Who would serve as priest in an Orthodox church full of Catholics? :) There weren't any Orthodox Christians there for her to appear to. The results of this are evident even today. The devotion to the Theotokos in that part of the world is off the charts. They love her so much.

I guess I just have a different perspective. I know that I have no problem believing that the Theotokos appears to Orthodox Christians. If I saw a Catholic saying otherwise, I would fight him on that point until I was blue in the face. Even if I believe in the truth of Catholicism, why wouldn't she? We both adore her profoundly and venerate her as the highest of the saints.

[PandaBear]

Just have a little pity on people who come in from cultures who also have a rich ethnic tradition but no long historic ties to Orthodoxy. In many of our cases it was these very "heterodox" traditions that fueled our love and search for a fullness in our Christian lives that brought us to Orthodoxy in the first place.


Wiffey, thank you so much for posting this. I had started to write something, then deleted it, then started again, then deleted it. Now I don't have to write anything, because this is a ton better than either of my drafts!

PB :)

[Xpycoctomos]

I guess I just have a different perspective. I know that I have no problem believing that the Theotokos appears to Orthodox Christians. If I saw a Catholic saying otherwise, I would fight him on that point until I was blue in the face. Even if I believe in the truth of Catholicism, why wouldn't she? We both adore her profoundly and venerate her as the highest of the saints.


consider my face blue :(

[Maximus]

So, everyone who doubts the Guadalupe apparition is a racist xenophobe with delusions of ethnic superiority?

How do you all feel about the miracles and apparitions claimed by Pentecostals and Charismatics?

Ready to fight for those until you're blue in the face?

How are they any less credible than those claimed by other heterodox groups?

By what standard do you judge these things?

If they involve claims about the Theotokos they're okay?

[Xpycoctomos]

Maximus... no...

The Difference.

Wiffy is not forcing YOU to accept it.

YOU are trying to force every Orthodox into feeling UNorthodox because they don't agree wiht you.

[Maximus]

Maximus... no...

The Difference.

Wiffy is not forcing YOU to accept it.

YOU are trying to force every Orthodox into feeling UNorthodox because they don't agree wiht you.

Forcing?

Who's doing the forcing?

I never implied that those who disagree with me are racist xenophobes.

I carefully explained why I think the Guadalupe apparition is not believable and should not be venerated by Orthodox Christians. Most of the Latin apparitions of the Blessed Virgin of which I have heard are highly suspect for one reason or another.

No one has to agree with me, but I do have the right to express my opinion.

The emotional, vituperative responses have not come from me.

None of you has answered my question about Pentecostal and Charismatic miracles and apparitions.

Those people are Christians.

Do you accept their claims, too?

[InnerPhyre]

I didn't mean to cause any problems here in TAW, especially during lent. I apologize. I'll ask that this thread be closed now. Thank you all for your responses.

Mike

[xenia]

Thread closed at OP's request.