www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Icon of Fr. Mychal Judge

It is an INFALLIABLE teaching of the church.

Homosexuality can NEVER be accepted as moral or the Papacy for 2,000 years will fall.

Since, God said the "Gates of Hell shall not prevail" agains the church, and the Holy See has said Homosexuality is a sin then it is a sin and no further discussion is need on the topic!

God Bless!

Does anyone know where I can find a GOOD Iconographer that is orthodox?

God Bless!

GLORY TO JESUS CHRIST!
GLORY TO HIM FOREVER!

Mike wrote:"...A blue eyed Christ is heretical. It was a ploy used by the enemies of the Church to prove Christ wasn't divine. They said Mary was raped by a Roman soldier..."

Actually, many of the founders of this parish had blonde hair and blue eyes. They decided to depict Christ as one of their own. They had no idea about this "Mary was raped" concept....

mark

Ethnic Churches depict Christ and the Theotokos to reflect themselves. This is in NO way heresy. I love Our Lady of Ethiopia, Our Lady of Japan, Our Lady of Poland, Our Lady of Mexico, Our Lady of Russia, Our Lady of France. Each unique Icons/Statues/Paintings etc... Each giving great depictions of Theotokos.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by aChristian@Work:
[QB]It is an INFALLIABLE teaching of the church.


HMMMMMM When was this proclamation made "ex cathedra"???

I think you need to go back and read the documents of Vatican I and II and the history since 1870.
I don't see any such solemn definition. Maybe you might want it to be an "Infallible" teaching but it is not.

I think according to Roman Catholic teaching anything that is a part of the ordinary "magisterium" of the Roman Catholic Church is binding on the conscience of Roman Catholics and requires their full intellectual and moral assent. Some have called this "creeping" infallibility, because in effect the individual believer must accept the teaching regardless of what category it falls into. Certainly the teaching of the RCC relating to homosexuality (ie the homosexual act) is a part of the ordinary magisterium of the RCC, thereby requiring the full assent of all RCs. I don't have a sense at all that the teaching of the Orthodox Church on this point differs significantly from that of the RCC.

Hi all:

I'd like to point out that the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe depicts the Mother of God as a meztizo woman.

Our belief is that this icon was not painted by human hands. If we accept this, then, if the Mother of God revealed herself to Juan Diego as "one of our own", I don't see why this cannot happen in other cultures.

Many, many images present Christ and His Mother as white people, which they were not. If we accept these images, then I don't see why we shouldn't accept those that show them as Blacks, Asians, Native Americans, etc.

Shalom,
Memo.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Brendan:
[QB]I think according to Roman Catholic teaching anything that is a part of the ordinary "magisterium" of the Roman Catholic Church is binding on the conscience of Roman Catholics and requires their full intellectual and moral assent. Some have called this "creeping" infallibility, because in effect the individual believer must accept the teaching regardless of what category it falls into. Certainly the teaching of the RCC relating


Indeed! That is why this concept or dogma of "Infallibility" is so problematic for Eastern Orthodox Christians and for many Eastern Catholic Christians. Going beyond the issue of homosexuality, this concerns the concept of the Church and how one individual Bishop can claim a "charism" over all the bishops of the Church East and West even outside of a Council which Orthodoxy sees as a grave distortion in the life of the Church.

Please let�s not turn this into yet another discussion on homosexuality. That topic has been covered numerous times and at very great length on this Forum and the discussions are available for everyone to read.

Just to recap, the Church clearly teaches that choosing certain courses of action (including all sexual activity outside marriage) is always wrong. This most definitely includes all homosexual sexual activity. The Church also clearly teaches that while it is always wrong to make certain choices, the sinfulness of such choices is based upon the chosen action (object), the intention of that choice (what was hoped to be accomplished by this choice) and the circumstances why this choice was made. The classical Western approach in determining sinfulness is by examining if there is serious matter, sufficient reflection and full consent of the will. The classical Eastern approach speaks to sins committed "deliberately or through human frailty, voluntary and involuntary�. If you wish to discuss this further please begin another thread. While the East and West may have different doctrinal expressions there is no difference in the teaching. All sex outside of marriage is always wrong (no exceptions) and the sinfulness of such action is determined by the principals I outlined above. No one should attempt to tie this teaching to the issues of the papal role dividing East and West. Such an attempt has no credibility whatsoever.

Hi again:

About the questionable subjects of some of the icons, I have to agree that I do have issues with some of them.

Those depicting Christ as a woman, or the Holy Trinity as women, I think are just out.

I also think it is incorrect to use haloes for people who were not believers, but I don't mind too much.

I don't know what is holy about Merlin's life, that he has an icon.

I don't have an issue with icons of people who were homosexuals. God can forgive any sin, and even if their love was erotic in nature (which remains to be proven), it doesn't mean that they didn't convert and fought back the temptation.

I think that the Church needs to show persons who, after being active homosexuals, converted to Christ and managed to live a holy life in spite of their homosexuality. I'm sure there are quite a few out there.

This way we would have a tangible precedent and roadmap to answer, in an orthodox way, the real pastoral needs of the real homosexual persons that really need to get to Christ, now.

I have some trouble understanding some of the Native American icons, but I wouldn't go as far as condemning them just because I don't understand them.

Personally, I don't like the "Lord of the Dance" icon, but I don't think there is anything doctrinally wrong. Christ was crucified naked, and OF COURSE I don't think He indulged in the vanity of shaving His pubic hair.

I do love the icons for St. Juan Diego and also for Oscar Romero and Cesar Chavez. But then again, you'd expect that they would appeal to me.

I might not agree with all of Fr. Mychal's ideas, but he gave his life for his friends. I think we need to respect this, as all the orthodoxy in the world would be worthless without Love. Love like Fr. Mychal showed us last year.

Shalom,
Memo.

This reminded me of another point:

What is an icon?

Icons are not strict historical depictions. They are not portraits.

Icons are "theology in color."

What is the theology behind a naked Jesus with antlers and a drum? The nudity issue aside (since you can point to SOME icons of the Baptism in which Christ is not clothed), the concept and rationale for the "Lord of the Dance" is doctrinally flawed and wrong. Period. Adding insult to injury, the use of the "Divine Nimbus" with O WN and the inscription IC XC makes it a blasphemous parody of a Byzantine icon.

Regarding my previous comment about blonde haired, blue eyed Jesus: most of these images are Western paintings coming from a particular period of history. I do think we need to respect them for what they are and Who they represent. I do not advocate whitewashing them or burning them or anything like that. However, with that in mind, we must be careful not to repeat the mistakes of the past.

We also must be careful lest we turn the theologically rich iconography of Christ into an artistic free-for-all. There is a certain amount of freedom and artistic license that comes with iconography. Yet it is freedom within boundaries. I have a sympathy for the desire to merge the portrayal of Christ with cultural features and customs, yet in the end, I fear, you probably won't have an icon, just a pretty picture. If we can show Christ, Who came to this planet in time and history, as a Native American or Asian or African male (or female, as some artists have done), why can't we make Saint Nicholas black, or Saint Moses the Ethiopian white?

Some may say my comments are contradictory. "Are icons portraying someone from time and history, or a theological concept about someone?" The simple answer: YES.

Icons do "build bridges" between earth and heaven, showing the person as they appeared on earth, but transfigured by being in the presence of God.

On a side note, did anyone else notice that the majority (but not all) of the "Most Popular Images" on the Bridge Building site are relatively traditional subjects?

-Dave

[ 08-16-2002: Message edited by: Chtec ]

I said nothing about Our Lady of Guadalupe. I have many images of the Theotokas, and Jesus as Chinese, Japanese, Indian,(Eastern)etc. I said that the depiction of Christ as blonde and blue eyed is heretical. Pay attention. It is because those who paint him as that are heretical because it denies the Incarnation.

Christ and May were Jews. Don't think they were black

There is other material by Lentz there as well, some other interesting subject along with statements that, in my opinion, are rather far-fetched.

Mike C. wrote:"...I have many images of the Theotokas, and Jesus as Chinese, Japanese, Indian,(Eastern)etc. I said that the depiction of Christ as blonde and blue eyed is heretical. Pay attention. It is because those who paint him as that are heretical because it denies the Incarnation.
Christ and May were Jews..."

If you can't portray Christ with blonde hair and blue eyes, then how can you portray His Mother as Japanese or Chinese or Indian and use these images for worship???

You can't have it both ways!

mark

Memo,

Our Lady of Guadalupe may indeed be portrayed as a Mestizo - but she looks awfully Jewish to me.

Funny thing - I am as fishbelly white as they come, but my late Mama had black hair and olive skin. We used to joke about her being "generically ethnic." She was constantly being mistaken for being: Greek, Italian, Spanish, Mexican, Egyptian, Native American - the list went on, and it was rather hilarious - she was of 100% Eastern European Jewish stock.

I never really thought about Our Lady of Guadalupe being Mestizo, because she looks like folks I grew up with. Far more beautiful of course, but "generically ethnic" just like my Mama.


Just my untheological observation.

Best,

Sharon


Sharon Mech, SFO
Cantor & sinner
sharon@cmhc.com