ST. LUKE paintings?


as i read on the it says,

Another Christian tradition states that he was the first iconographer, and painted pictures of the Virgin Mary (The Black Madonna of Częstochowa) and of Peter and Paul. Thus late medieval guilds of St Luke in the cities of Flanders, or the Accademia di San Luca (“Academy of St Luke”) in Rome, imitated in many other European cities during the 16th century, gathered together and protected painters. There is no scientific evidence to support the tradition that Luke painted icons of Mary and Jesus, though it was widely believed in earlier centuries, particularly in Eastern Orthodoxy. The tradition also has support from the Saint Thomas Christians of India who claim to still have one of the Theotokos icons that St Luke painted and Thomas brought to India.


Your POPE ALSO doesn’t have much faith that THOMAS going to SOUTH INDIA.

how come many catholics approve those paintings which are even so doubtful to be said that St. Luke painted those such?:shrug:


Do you Know he did not paint any of them?
What would you say if you destroyed them all - and then discovered that he did paint the ones you destroyed?..:ouch: :banghead:


there is a source already that negates those paintings to be painted by Luke…why are you cahtolics still give the so-called veneration which in fact there is no scientific proofs that he did those paintings?..even your pope is in doubt with the transfer of the painting to India…:confused:


Paintings are not venerated because of the person who painted them but rather because of the persons or truths depicted in them.


And you shall make two cherubim of gold of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end; of one piece of the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be" (Ex. 25:18–20).

Perhaps a good protestant could explain why the Lord wants images and statues in his temple.


you still did not answer my question…do you have any proof/s that St. Luke painted those such???


It Does Not Matter. Tradition Says He Painted The Black Madonna On Her Kitchen Table Which He [Christ] Made, (being a carpenter). But It Does Not Matter.
Why Do You Ask?


the truth there is that the tradition is not supported by science…

read here…

and your pope is also in doubt with that tradition…

please read :…,prtpage-1.cms


The reserrection isn’t supported by science, do you really want to argue this?

the second link doesn’t work.


I wasn’t aware that science had to prove it to be true.

Does Science dis-prove it, or is there no scientific evidence? There is a huge difference between those two questions.

Also, I hate to burst your bible, but if you are Christian, then he is your Pope, too! :thumbsup:


here’s the second link…,prtpage-1.cms


because it is not supported by facts…kindly read my links please…:smiley:


Some one stating in wikipedia that there is no scientific evidence for something does not mean that this is fact. It only means that there is no scientific evidence available to us at this time and place.

Fortunately our faith is not based on scientifically proven 21st century fact but on the word of eyewitnesses pass on through time.

As for the Holy Father stating the Thomas may not have traveled as far as southern India, remember that countries were defined differently in the past and that even the Holy Father can not know this for certain. He is not stating this infallibly but as an opinion based on what he knows at the time.


AAC08, is it “not supported by facts” or is it “disputed by facts”?

Do you believe in the Crucifixion even thought there is no scientific proof?


So which is the stronger, more learned opinion that we need to take, yours or his?

If his, then you have just defeated yourself, if yours, then why are you still a CATHOLIC?



Because we are allowed to disagree with the Pope as long he is not speaking ex-cathedra. Remember, the Pope is not infalliable, the Church is. Since there is no dogma on wether or not St. Thomas went to India, we Catholics are free to belive whatever we wish on the matter, despite what the Pope may think.


Because the Pope is infallible when teaching only on faith and morals. For instance if he said the Kansas City Royals were going to win the World Series, it wouldn’t make him any less a Pope.

The Pope could say that there is no way possible that Thomas was ever in southern India and tomorrow, the government of India could produce the very bones of Thomas. And you know what? It wouldn’t make a hill of beans to the authority and infallibility of the Papacy.


Do you have any objective scientific proof that St Luke wrote the Gospel of Luke?

Yours in Christ


There is no scientific evidence to support the tradition that Luke painted icons of Mary and Jesus


Emm… so? I don’t mind if St. Luke painted or not.
Maybe you will find scientific evidence that he did paint Mary. Wiki did’nt say that somebody tested it or not, maybe only that they did’nt know of the existance of science to support the tradition.


I’m not talking about INFALLIBILITY my friend, I am simply talking about two human opinions.

Which is more believable. You, with all your internet research and Catholic education, OR Cardinal Ratzinger with all his researchers, Catholic Education, plus the VATICAN LIBRARY.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit