OrthodoxChristianity.net

Moderated Forums => Liturgy => Western Rite Discussion => Topic started by: Andrew21091 on August 19, 2011, 07:48:09 PM

Title: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Andrew21091 on August 19, 2011, 07:48:09 PM
Out of curiosity, do any Western Rite Orthodox Churches (either in the ROCOR or Antiochian) practice devotions to the Sacred Heart of Jesus?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: LBK on August 19, 2011, 08:00:01 PM
I'd be horrified if they do.  :o >:(
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Sleeper on August 20, 2011, 02:14:34 AM
Yes, many do. Even non-Western Orthodox, such as Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon, do.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Orest on August 20, 2011, 03:49:58 PM
Yes, many do. Even non-Western Orthodox, such as Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon, do.
I am surprised to read this. I doubt "many" Orthodox have anything to do with the Sacred heart.   Have you read the correspondence between Metr. Anthony Khrapovitsky and the Eastern Catholic metr. Andrii Sheptytsky about this?  Circa 1900?  The Orthodox metr. Anthony Khrapovitsky asks why Sheptytsky does not also introduce the "Sacred Liver" also.
Sorry I don't know who Fr. Patrick Reardon is supposed to be in this discussion.  is he a prominent RC priest?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: J.M.C on August 20, 2011, 03:57:33 PM

From "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology" by Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky:

The one worship of Christ.

To the Lord Jesus Christ as to one person, as the God-man it is fitting to give a single inseparable

worship, both according to Divinity and according to Humanity, precisely because both

natures are inseparably united in Him. The decree of the Fathers of the Fifth Ecumenical Council

(the Ninth Canon against Heretics) reads: “If anyone shall take the expression, Christ ought to be

worshipped in His two natures, in the sense that he wishes to introduce thus two adorations, the

one in special relation to God the Word and the other as pertaining to the Man… and does not

venerate, by one adoration, God the Word made man, together with His flesh, as the Holy Church

has taught from the beginning: let him be anathema” Eerdmans, Seven Ecumenical Councils, p.

314).


On the Latin cult of the “Heart of Jesus.”

In connection with this decree of the Council it may be seen how out of harmony with the

spirit and practice of the Church is the cult of the “sacred heart of Jesus” which has been introduced

into the Roman Catholic Church. Although the above-cited decree of the Fifth Ecumenical

Council touches only on the separate worship of the Divinity and the Humanity of the Saviour, it

still indirectly tells us that in general the veneration and worship of Christ should be directed to

Him as a whole and not to parts of His Being; it must be one. Even if by “heart” we should understand

the Saviour’s love itself, still neither in the Old Testament nor in the New was there

ever a custom to worship separately the love of God, or His wisdom, His creative or providential

power, or His sanctity. All the more must one say this concerning the parts of His bodily nature.

There is something unnatural in the separation of the heart from the general bodily nature of the

Lord for the purpose of prayer, contrition and worship before Him. Even in the ordinary relationships

of life, no matter how much a man might be attached to another — for example, a mother

to a child — he would never refer his attachment to the heart of the beloved person, but will refer

it to the given person as a whole.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: ialmisry on August 20, 2011, 03:58:37 PM
Yes, many do. Even non-Western Orthodox, such as Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon, do.
I am surprised to read this. I doubt "many" Orthodox have anything to do with the Sacred heart.   Have you read the correspondence between Metr. Anthony Khrapovitsky and the Eastern Catholic metr. Andrii Sheptytsky about this?  Circa 1900?  The Orthodox metr. Anthony Khrapovitsky asks why Sheptytsky does not also introduce the "Sacred Liver" also.
Sorry I don't know who Fr. Patrick Reardon is supposed to be in this discussion.  is he a prominent RC priest?
No, he's a prominent American EO priest.  I'll have to ask him about this, as I've never seen or heard of his devotion to the "Sacred Heart."
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: scamandrius on August 20, 2011, 05:02:20 PM
^Funny thing that Fr. Reardon should be brought up. In his discussion (brief as it was)on the Western Rite that he gave at the Antiochian Convention back in July, this is exactly one of the things that he thought should be excised from the Western Rite. He says that the Western Rite has too many festivals like the Sacred Heart, Trinity, Christ the King, Corpus Christi, Seven Dolours of Mary, etc. which celebrate not events in the course of salvation through Christ's work here on Earth, but ideas.  He says that needs to go.  And he's right.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Orest on August 20, 2011, 06:19:56 PM
Here is the quote I was looking for in the letters of Metr. Anthony Khrapovitsky:

"Several times at the outset of his activity in the See of Volyn", Vladika
Anthony exchanged correspondence with the …Metropolitam of Lvov (Lviv), Count Andrei Sheptytsky. In one of his letters, the …Metropolitan wrote that he was then
occupied with the introduction of veneration to the "Sacred Heart of Jesus"
among the Galicians…When Vladika took exception to this Catholic devotion, the
…metropolitan asked: "Really, how can one possibly object to the veneration of
the Sacred Heart, when our Lord Jesus Christ suffered for us with His heart ,
and when His heart suffered most of all, throbbing with pain?" To this Vladika
replied that during Christ's sufferings, as is well know, He experienced much
pain, not only in his heart, but in other internal organs of His body, as for
example, the liver, the kidneys, etc. It would then follow that one could
venerate these other internal organs as well …To this remark there was no
response."

 Orthodox Life, No. 4, 1979. P. 26.


Orthodox usually claim that the veneration of the Sacred Heart borders on cyrpto-Nestorianism. Please note that the 5thEcumenical Council conveys  that in our veneration of Christ we should not separate worship of the Divinity and the Humanity as a whole and not to parts of His Being.
Nestorianism it is believed  overemphasizes the humanity of Christ.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Sleeper on August 20, 2011, 06:23:21 PM
Ialmisry, he mentioned this during the Q&A after his recent talk at the Antiochian Convention. I should clarify that perhaps it wasn't the full devotion, but he said he "invokes" the Sacred Heart between decades of the Rosary (which he said he prays daily).

Scamandrius, at this same talk, he brought up the feasts you mentioned, but it's an overall problem he has with feasts that celebrate non-events/concepts, which he is quick to point out the Eastern Rite has as well. It's not a Western peculiarity, though there seem to be more of them.

I for one hope they all stay in place. They are beautiful and life-giving.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: ialmisry on August 20, 2011, 06:29:22 PM
Ialmisry, he mentioned this during the Q&A after his recent talk at the Antiochian Convention. I should clarify that perhaps it wasn't the full devotion, but he said he "invokes" the Sacred Heart between decades of the Rosary (which he said he prays daily).
I'll ask him to clarify.

Scamandrius, at this same talk, he brought up the feasts you mentioned, but it's an overall problem he has with feasts that celebrate non-events/concepts, which he is quick to point out the Eastern Rite has as well. It's not a Western peculiarity, though there seem to be more of them.
Off hand, I can't think of an example in the Eastern rite.

I for one hope they all stay in place. They are beautiful and life-giving.
bleah.  Almost makes the criticism of the WRO true.

Izzy, yes you are a sicko to be taking such pleasure in those murderous images. At this point i'm convinced that you are not a Christian but, rather, a wolf in sheep's clothing.
You didn't answer the question, papist.
Tell us, can you image yourself kneeling next to those Spaniards?
I'm just watching our flock, watching out for western wolves, in their own skins or eastern ones.

Forget for the moment a comparison with the Orthodox of the East. Compare these cults to the Church in the West when it confessed the Orthodox Faith.  Do we see this obsession with "visionaries," this fascination with body parts and gore, this mutliplication of cults, this dogmatization of the Theotokos on her own before the 11th century in the West?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Sleeper on August 20, 2011, 06:39:51 PM
I believe one example might be the Sunday of the Prodigal Son? This was a parable, not a real event "in the course of salvation history" as Scamandrius put it.

Almost makes the criticism of the WRO true.

I should clarify, I'm mainly thinking of feasts like Trinity Sunday, which actually goes back very far in the Western experience. I've not actually ever seen a Western Rite parish celebrate the Sacred Heart feast, I don't know anyone that personally practices the devotion, and I've not seen or heard of any WRO parishes that celebrate Seven Dolours of Mary.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: dzheremi on August 20, 2011, 06:40:07 PM
Quote
St. Athanasius of Alexandria pointed out the wrongness of worshipping Christ's body in a separate way, in these words: "We do not worship a created thing, but the Master of created things, the Word of God made flesh. Although the flesh itself, considered separately, is a part of created things, yet it has become the body of God. We do not worship this body after having separated it from the Word. Likewise, we do not separate the Word from the body when we wish to worship Him. But knowing that "the Word was made flesh," we recognise the Word existing in the flesh as God." (Ep. ad Adelph., par. 3)

(Source) (http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/Liturgy/SacredHeart.html)
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Sleeper on August 20, 2011, 06:43:08 PM
Isa, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on Fr. Edward Hughes's thoughtful analysis of the Sacred Heart devotion, if you're able to track it down somewhere. I wonder, is there a limit to private message length? If not, I could copy it to you, if you're interested. He makes a very good case for it, outside of any macabre or gory caricatures that are associated with it.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Sleeper on August 20, 2011, 06:48:21 PM
To be fair to everyone, if we're specifically talking about Orthodox use of the Sacred Heart, we mustn't jump to the conclusion that however Roman Catholics might understand and use the devotion, it is identical to how Orthodox use and understand it.

Do your homework, track down the texts that are actually used, the understanding of its role and purpose, etc.

Guilt by association need not apply!
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: ialmisry on August 20, 2011, 06:50:06 PM
I believe one example might be the Sunday of the Prodigal Son? This was a parable, not a real event "in the course of salvation history" as Scamandrius put it.
But Our Lord telling the parable, which is the Gospel of that day, was a real event.


Almost makes the criticism of the WRO true.

I should clarify, I'm mainly thinking of feasts like Trinity Sunday, which actually goes back very far in the Western experience. I've not actually ever seen a Western Rite parish celebrate the Sacred Heart feast, I don't know anyone that personally practices the devotion, and I've not seen or heard of any WRO parishes that celebrate Seven Dolours of Mary.
yes, neither have I.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: ialmisry on August 20, 2011, 06:51:38 PM
Isa, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on Fr. Edward Hughes's thoughtful analysis of the Sacred Heart devotion, if you're able to track it down somewhere. I wonder, is there a limit to private message length? If not, I could copy it to you, if you're interested. He makes a very good case for it, outside of any macabre or gory caricatures that are associated with it.
yes, send it.  I just ask that you allow me to post it publicly.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Sleeper on August 20, 2011, 06:53:54 PM
Isa, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on Fr. Edward Hughes's thoughtful analysis of the Sacred Heart devotion, if you're able to track it down somewhere. I wonder, is there a limit to private message length? If not, I could copy it to you, if you're interested. He makes a very good case for it, outside of any macabre or gory caricatures that are associated with it.
yes, send it.  I just ask that you allow me to post it publicly.

Will do, and I have no problem with you posting portions. I'd post the whole thing if I could, but I believe there are restrictions against that...
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Sleeper on August 20, 2011, 07:11:55 PM
I believe one example might be the Sunday of the Prodigal Son? This was a parable, not a real event "in the course of salvation history" as Scamandrius put it.
But Our Lord telling the parable, which is the Gospel of that day, was a real event.

Could it not also be said, then, that Christ instituted the Eucharist (Corpus Christi) and His heart was really pierced on the cross (Sacred Heart), so these feasts also commemorate real events?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Andrew21091 on August 21, 2011, 12:39:32 AM
I've heard many arguments against the devotion to the Sacred Heart. I was just wondering if the devotion has found its way into Orthodox Western Rite devotion. I would love to hear Western Rite Orthodox arguments in favor of the devotion if there are any.

Sleeper, I'm going to assume you are in the Western Rite. If not then forgive me but if so, do you make it a practice to say the devotion to the Sacred Heart?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: ialmisry on August 21, 2011, 12:48:01 AM
I believe one example might be the Sunday of the Prodigal Son? This was a parable, not a real event "in the course of salvation history" as Scamandrius put it.
But Our Lord telling the parable, which is the Gospel of that day, was a real event.

Could it not also be said, then, that Christ instituted the Eucharist (Corpus Christi) and His heart was really pierced on the cross (Sacred Heart), so these feasts also commemorate real events?
No.  Christ instituted the Eucharist on Maudy Thursday and His heart was pierced on Great and Holy Friday.  Corpus Christi (btw, I have heard of WRO celebrating, and I don't really have a problem with it) has little to do with the institution of the Eucharist, nor does the Sacred Heart have much to do with the Crucifixion.  Corpus Christi has more to do with combating denial of the Real Presence in the West (a perennial problem), and the Sacred Heart with, of course, the visions of a nun, Margaret Mary Alacoque.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Sleeper on August 21, 2011, 02:23:29 AM
I've heard many arguments against the devotion to the Sacred Heart. I was just wondering if the devotion has found its way into Orthodox Western Rite devotion. I would love to hear Western Rite Orthodox arguments in favor of the devotion if there are any.

Sleeper, I'm going to assume you are in the Western Rite. If not then forgive me but if so, do you make it a practice to say the devotion to the Sacred Heart?

The arguments you hear, quite honestly, are mostly good ones, but they are against something that I don't think you'll find amongst WRO. Primarily the emotionalism and hyper-sentimentalism of what became the Margaret Mary-influenced popular piety-style devotion.

The lengthy article by Fr. Edward Hughes is adamantly opposed to this style of devotion, which he aptly calls "abominable mush" and with his characteristic balance goes one to say, "As conceived by the Roman Church, this devotion is commendable. It encourages fervor and love of God, true repentance, and the desire to serve. As popularly conceived, however, it only perpetuates false doctrine and spirituality and destroys true, free, love of God. As a devotion, it is in need of purification and renewal if it should be allowed to exist in an Orthodox environment."

Prior to Margaret Mary's popularization, devotion to the heart of Christ had a long, patristic history in the West, and drew from rich liturgical texts. Things changed with her though.

I am Western Orthodox, yes, but I do not utilize this devotion, though I'm not opposed to it. I think it can be a beautiful part of one's prayer life, I just haven't found the need for it in my own I suppose.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 21, 2011, 02:29:06 AM
"Having just returned from the Antiochian Archdiocese convention, permit me to add this reply to Fr [...]:

"Men of goodwill will certainly disagree about the place of feasts that became universal after 1054; just as men of goodwill will also certainly disagree about the celebration of feasts which commemorate doctrines rather than events. In both instances, thoughtful arguments can be made. I think, however, it does a disservice to the main theme in Fr Patrick Henry Reardon's presentation to focus chiefly on his addendum concerning feasts which commemorate doctrines--whether these feasts are in the Western or Eastern Rites, and whether these feasts arise before or after 1054.

"The key to Fr Reardon's presentation was the liturgical implications of the post-Chalcedonian, Western emphasis on Christ as consubstantially human (as well as consubstantially divine) and its attendant emphasis on Christ as mediator. Frankly, that is not only the meat of his presentation but also a more astounding and breath-taking assertion.

"As for the addendum, Fr Reardon has consistently maintained that he not only has no problem with the devotions to the Sacred Heart, but himself maintains this devotion; and that his only objection to Corpus Christi, Christ the King, Sacred Heart and Trinity Sunday (all of which he sees as a piece in this critique) is not textual nor even rooted in the fact that they arise after a date admittedly contrived (for the sake of convenience) by historians, but that these feasts simply do not commemorate events. In a question concerning this issue, Fr Reardon admitted no problem with the Feast of the Maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary (promulgated in 1931) since he understands that it commemorates an event--the 3rd Ecumenical Council.

"Hoping this helps and asking your prayers, the unworthy priest,


Fr John W Fenton
Assistant to the Vicar General of the Western Rite Vicariate
Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America"


Source :: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Occidentalis/message/20338

[Full disclosure - I hope the Sacred Heart devotion does not enter Orthodoxy]
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Sleeper on August 21, 2011, 02:31:50 AM
I believe one example might be the Sunday of the Prodigal Son? This was a parable, not a real event "in the course of salvation history" as Scamandrius put it.
But Our Lord telling the parable, which is the Gospel of that day, was a real event.

Could it not also be said, then, that Christ instituted the Eucharist (Corpus Christi) and His heart was really pierced on the cross (Sacred Heart), so these feasts also commemorate real events?
No.  Christ instituted the Eucharist on Maudy Thursday and His heart was pierced on Great and Holy Friday.  Corpus Christi (btw, I have heard of WRO celebrating, and I don't really have a problem with it) has little to do with the institution of the Eucharist, nor does the Sacred Heart have much to do with the Crucifixion.  Corpus Christi has more to do with combating denial of the Real Presence in the West (a perennial problem), and the Sacred Heart with, of course, the visions of a nun, Margaret Mary Alacoque.

I think you'll find, with the Sacred Heart, that it's not as simple as that, once you read through Fr. Hughes's article. Perhaps you'll still disagree, but I think you'll see why some defend it as a legitimate part of our Western patrimony.

My main point, though, was that the Feast of the Prodigal Son is no more about Christ's telling of the parable (the real event) than these are about the events they are related to. The Kontakion for this feast says, "When I disobeyed in ignorance Thy fatherly glory, I wasted in iniquities the riches that Thou gavest me. Wherefore, I cry to Thee with the voice of the prodigal son, saying, I have sinned before Thee, O compassionate Father, receive me repentant, and make me as one of Thy hired servants."

Compare that with the Collect from Corpus Christ, "O God, who in a wonderful Sacrament hast left unto us the memorial of Thy Passion; grant, we beseech Thee, that we may so venerate the sacred mysteries of Thy Body and Blood as to experience continually within ourselves the fruit of Thy Redemption. Who livest and reignest with God the Father, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end."

Both feasts are loosely related to real events, though are not in and of themselves celebrations of those events.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: J.M.C on August 21, 2011, 06:04:10 AM
I believe that to contemplate the love of God is a good thing; but if we do this then the best image to focus on for our devotions is the Cross. Or more especially the Christ "Extreme Humility" Icon. Or Christ the Bridegroom Icon.

(http://mattstone.blogs.com/photos/celtic_icons/crucifixion-of-jesus-1.jpg)

(http://iconreader.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/christ-extreme-humility.jpg)

(http://iconreader.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/jesus.jpg?w=250)


The Sacred Heart just seems a bit derivative in comparison.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Sleeper on August 21, 2011, 09:10:43 AM
That is what the Sacred Heart is about. It's a contemplation of the entire mystery of the Passion, culminating in the piercing of Christ's heart by the lance, from which issued water and blood, the "birth of the Church" as many, many Fathers put it.

Fr. Hughes:  "The devotion to the Sacred Heart is rooted in intuitions of the early Church and even in the Old Testament. Fundamentally, it is a recollection of the sacrificial love of Christ as witnessed in His Incarnation, passion, and death. It includes also, the fullness of Divine love for mankind which is evidenced throughout the history of our race and is fulfilled in Christ's act for the salvation of man. The Biblical focus of all of this is the piercing of Jesus' side with a lance at the Crucifixion. Many Church Fathers see this as the symbolic origin of the Church as the New Eve from the side of the New Adam. Symbolic interpretation is also given in that as Christ suffered spiritually in His passion, this is symbolized by the physical wounding of his heart. Therefore, the act of piercing Christ's side represents all that he endured for his love of man, both physical and spiritual. "Truly, the wounds of the flesh showed forth the wounds of the spirit" (from the Office for the Feast of the Sacred Heart).

Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: ialmisry on August 21, 2011, 09:12:57 AM
I believe one example might be the Sunday of the Prodigal Son? This was a parable, not a real event "in the course of salvation history" as Scamandrius put it.
But Our Lord telling the parable, which is the Gospel of that day, was a real event.

Could it not also be said, then, that Christ instituted the Eucharist (Corpus Christi) and His heart was really pierced on the cross (Sacred Heart), so these feasts also commemorate real events?
No.  Christ instituted the Eucharist on Maudy Thursday and His heart was pierced on Great and Holy Friday.  Corpus Christi (btw, I have heard of WRO celebrating, and I don't really have a problem with it) has little to do with the institution of the Eucharist, nor does the Sacred Heart have much to do with the Crucifixion.  Corpus Christi has more to do with combating denial of the Real Presence in the West (a perennial problem), and the Sacred Heart with, of course, the visions of a nun, Margaret Mary Alacoque.

I think you'll find, with the Sacred Heart, that it's not as simple as that, once you read through Fr. Hughes's article. Perhaps you'll still disagree, but I think you'll see why some defend it as a legitimate part of our Western patrimony.

My main point, though, was that the Feast of the Prodigal Son is no more about Christ's telling of the parable (the real event) than these are about the events they are related to. The Kontakion for this feast says, "When I disobeyed in ignorance Thy fatherly glory, I wasted in iniquities the riches that Thou gavest me. Wherefore, I cry to Thee with the voice of the prodigal son, saying, I have sinned before Thee, O compassionate Father, receive me repentant, and make me as one of Thy hired servants."

Compare that with the Collect from Corpus Christ, "O God, who in a wonderful Sacrament hast left unto us the memorial of Thy Passion; grant, we beseech Thee, that we may so venerate the sacred mysteries of Thy Body and Blood as to experience continually within ourselves the fruit of Thy Redemption. Who livest and reignest with God the Father, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end."

Both feasts are loosely related to real events, though are not in and of themselves celebrations of those events.
I haven't read the article yet (I got it, but I also have the flu). Once I do I'll respond, Lord willing.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Sleeper on August 21, 2011, 09:17:00 AM
Lord have mercy :) Feel better!
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: J.M.C on August 21, 2011, 09:27:52 AM
That is what the Sacred Heart is about.

That's what I thought, and why I presented other images which elicit from us a similar contemplation. It is also why I said that the image of the Sacred Heart, in comparison with an image of the Crucifixion (containing, as it does, the wound in the side of Christ), is just a little derivative. Everything is complete and whole in the image of Christ on the Cross: "the entire mystery of the Passion, culminating in the piercing of Christ's [side] by the lance, from which issued water and blood" plus the mourning of the Apostle John and the Mother of God, the confession of St Longinus, and the fulfilling of prophecy (c.a. the solar eclipse and blood-red moon).

On reading of the Sacred Heart, I read about the uniting of the "Sacred Heart [of Jesus]" with the "Immaculate Heart [of Mary]", the latter representing the Mother of God's sorrows. It made me smile because these two "concepts" are already united in the Icon of the Crucifixion: right next to Christ's suffering on the Cross is the mourning of the Mother of God. This is why I can't help thinking the Sacred Heart is derivative.

This is an altar piece from the 9th century A.D:

(http://iconreader.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/9to10c.jpeg)

Really, what "extra" is taught by the Sacred Heart that is not already seen in this simple image of the crucifixion? Even the teaching of Christ's wound being "the birth of the Church" is shown by the blood and water being caught in the chalice.

We can contemplate the "whole picture" of the Crucifixion and wonder at the mystery of it. The Sacred Heart is a conceptualization of what is in the Crucifixion. As St Gregory of Nyssa said: "Concepts create idols; only wonder grasps anything."
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Sleeper on August 21, 2011, 09:29:17 AM
I don't really see it as an either/or scenario, I suppose. Why could one not pray a purified Orthodox Sacred Heart devotion before this beautiful icon?

Thanks for sharing these, btw, they are wonderful!
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: J.M.C on August 21, 2011, 09:34:07 AM
I don't really see it as an either/or scenario, I suppose. Why could one not pray a purified Orthodox Sacred Heart devotion before this beautiful icon?

Well, I'm not sure what a "purified" version might involve, but there is already an Akathist to the Passion of Christ:

http://www.monachos.net/content/liturgics/liturgical-texts/236-akathist-to-the-divine-passion-of-christ

It's good that a discussion like this can bring forward lots of edifying prayers and beautiful icons, and I'm happy you appreciated the icons above.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Sleeper on August 21, 2011, 10:55:16 AM
I don't really see it as an either/or scenario, I suppose. Why could one not pray a purified Orthodox Sacred Heart devotion before this beautiful icon?

Well, I'm not sure what a "purified" version might involve

It might look something like this:

O Sacred Heart of Jesus! Living and life-giving fountain of eternal life, infinite treasure of the Divinity, glowing furnace of love. Thou art my refuge and my sanctuary. O my adorable and loving Saviour, consume my heart with that fire wherewith Thine is ever inflamed; pour from Thy love, and let my heart be so united with Thine that my will may be conformed to Thine in all things. Amen.

O Most loving Lord Jesus, who dost invite me to give Thee my heart, and hast commanded me to love Thee with my whole soul; I most earnestly desire to do Thy will. For whom have I in heaven but Thee? and there is none upon earth that I desire in comparison of Thee. For Thee my heart and flesh faileth, Thou art the God of my strength and my portion for ever. Thou art the fount of all love; and Thy banner over me is love. Thou hast thought of me from all eternity; Thou hast created me, and redeemed me, and dost guard and keep me day by day. O most loving Lord, can it be that such wonderful love should not move me to such poor return as I can make Thee? Yes, Lord, I will love Thee, because Thou didst first love me. I will try to love Thee as Thou hast commanded, with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul, and with all my strength. I would that henceforth neither tribulation, nor distress, nor persecution, nor life, nor death, nor any created thing should separate me from Thee. Quench then by Thy Holy Spirit all love of the world and myself, enable me to bear Thy sweet yoke, that I may learn of Thee to be meek and lowly of heart. Make me to realize my own nothingness, that I may learn to esteem others better than myself. O meek and humble Heart of my Jesus! O Heart of love, teach me to love Thee now and through all eternity. Amen.

This was taken from the popular St. Ambrose Western Orthodox prayer book. The introduction to this devotion says, "The Western Orthodox use of this devotion is directed to the compassion of Jesus Christ, represented by His Sacred Heart. The devotion does parallel the Eastern Rite devotion found in The Akathist to the Sweetest Lord Jesus, which has been popular among Eastern Christians for centuries. It is not a devotion to a specific physical organ and body part, anymore than when we say of ourselves, "My heart within me is troubled," by to Our Lord's compassionate love for us. The heart has long been taken to be the symbolic seat of love and the Heart of Jesus reveals the fundamental fact of Christianity that God loves us. Devotion to the Sacred Heart bestows a deeper insight into the Divine love and a surer confidence in it. As we see something of God's love, we shall want to make a return in terms of love and this devotion enables us to express the love of our own hearts."

Quote
, but there is already an Akathist to the Passion of Christ.

Right. There's "already" lots of things Orthodox Christians can use for their devotions. But the whole point of a Western expression is utilizing those elements that have come about in our Western experience that is consonant with the faith of the Fathers.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: IreneOlinyk on August 21, 2011, 02:39:45 PM
People have alread quoted two well-known Orthodox thelogians:
Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky:"Orthodox Dogmatic Theology"

& Metr. Anthony Krapovitsky who both explained by the Orthodox Church can never accept the RC devotion to the Sacred Heart.  Both say there are problems of Cry-Nestorianism 

You cannot change Orthodoxy to suit your whims or your past pre-covert days.

Secondly there is no "icon of the Sacred heart", there is only a RC religious pisture which does not adhere to the canons of Orthodox iconography and symbolism
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Sleeper on August 21, 2011, 03:18:32 PM
People have alread quoted two well-known Orthodox thelogians:
Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky:"Orthodox Dogmatic Theology"

& Metr. Anthony Krapovitsky who both explained by the Orthodox Church can never accept the RC devotion to the Sacred Heart.  Both say there are problems of Cry-Nestorianism 

You cannot change Orthodoxy to suit your whims or your past pre-covert days.

Secondly there is no "icon of the Sacred heart", there is only a RC religious pisture which does not adhere to the canons of Orthodox iconography and symbolism

Well, I guess that settles it then. Thanks for chiming in.  ::)
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Shiny on August 21, 2011, 03:50:54 PM
God bless you Sleeper for your posts on the Sacred Heart. I'm glad to see it embraced in the WRO.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Robb on August 21, 2011, 04:44:21 PM

From "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology" by Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky:

The one worship of Christ.

To the Lord Jesus Christ as to one person, as the God-man it is fitting to give a single inseparable

worship, both according to Divinity and according to Humanity, precisely because both

natures are inseparably united in Him. The decree of the Fathers of the Fifth Ecumenical Council

(the Ninth Canon against Heretics) reads: “If anyone shall take the expression, Christ ought to be

worshipped in His two natures, in the sense that he wishes to introduce thus two adorations, the

one in special relation to God the Word and the other as pertaining to the Man… and does not

venerate, by one adoration, God the Word made man, together with His flesh, as the Holy Church

has taught from the beginning: let him be anathema” Eerdmans, Seven Ecumenical Councils, p.

314).


On the Latin cult of the “Heart of Jesus.”

In connection with this decree of the Council it may be seen how out of harmony with the

spirit and practice of the Church is the cult of the “sacred heart of Jesus” which has been introduced

into the Roman Catholic Church. Although the above-cited decree of the Fifth Ecumenical

Council touches only on the separate worship of the Divinity and the Humanity of the Saviour, it

still indirectly tells us that in general the veneration and worship of Christ should be directed to

Him as a whole and not to parts of His Being; it must be one. Even if by “heart” we should understand

the Saviour’s love itself, still neither in the Old Testament nor in the New was there

ever a custom to worship separately the love of God, or His wisdom, His creative or providential

power, or His sanctity. All the more must one say this concerning the parts of His bodily nature.

There is something unnatural in the separation of the heart from the general bodily nature of the

Lord for the purpose of prayer, contrition and worship before Him. Even in the ordinary relationships

of life, no matter how much a man might be attached to another — for example, a mother

to a child — he would never refer his attachment to the heart of the beloved person, but will refer

it to the given person as a whole.

It's my understanding that this book is considered somewhat of a fundamentalist nature by many EO's and it's teachings would not be taken by them as dogmatic by any means.  I can still understand why the Sacred Heart devotion would be considered controversial at best by many Orthodox (It was considered so by many Catholics until the 19Th century).
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Michał on August 21, 2011, 05:16:21 PM
Out of curiosity, do any Western Rite Orthodox Churches (either in the ROCOR or Antiochian) practice devotions to the Sacred Heart of Jesus?

Two photos from an Antiochian WRO parish:
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2075/2294309975_8029ced8a8_b.jpg)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2238/2295097938_04a1be233b_b.jpg)
Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/occidentalis/sets/72157603991844778
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: LBK on August 21, 2011, 05:54:11 PM
Out of curiosity, do any Western Rite Orthodox Churches (either in the ROCOR or Antiochian) practice devotions to the Sacred Heart of Jesus?

Two photos from an Antiochian WRO parish:
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2075/2294309975_8029ced8a8_b.jpg)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2238/2295097938_04a1be233b_b.jpg)
Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/occidentalis/sets/72157603991844778

Just because such images are present in a church does not mean they conform with Orthodox doctrine and theology. Many churches contain uncanonical images (such as God the Father as an old man, Christ Holy Wisdom as an androgynous winged angel, etc). This does not make them canonical.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: IreneOlinyk on August 21, 2011, 07:01:56 PM
Quote
Just because such images are present in a church does not mean they conform with Orthodox doctrine and theology. Many churches contain uncanonical images (such as God the Father as an old man, Christ Holy Wisdom as an androgynous winged angel, etc). This does not make them canonical.
That is a very wise point.

For your information, Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky was the first hierarch of the ROCOR and I doubt very much that the ROCOR allows any priest in the WR under their jurisdiction to promote such crypto-Nestorian devotions such as the RC Sacred Heart.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: IreneOlinyk on August 21, 2011, 07:49:50 PM
In addition to the words of Metr. Anthony Khrapovitsky another article expaling why the Orthodox DO NOT accept the RC Sacred Heart can be found online here:
http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/Liturgy/SacredHeart.html

The author cites St. Athanasius:
St. Athanasius of Alexandria pointed out the wrongness of worshipping Christ's body in a separate way, in these words: "We do not worship a created thing, but the Master of created things, the Word of God made flesh. Although the flesh itself, considered separately, is a part of created things, yet it has become the body of God. We do not worship this body after having separated it from the Word. Likewise, we do not separate the Word from the body when we wish to worship Him. But knowing that "the Word was made flesh," we recognise the Word existing in the flesh as God." (Ep. ad Adelph., par.

His concluding remarks are:
"Many in America are converts to the Orthodox Faith and may keep Sacred Heart images in their homes, as literal baggage from their pre-Orthodox days. Also, well-meaning friends may give Sacred Heart prayers or images as gifts. The faithful should replace all such images with genuine Orthodox icons. They should not place Sacred Heart images, or any other non-Orthodox images, in their icon corners."
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: augustin717 on August 21, 2011, 08:39:11 PM
In addition to the words of Metr. Anthony Khrapovitsky another article expaling why the Orthodox DO NOT accept the RC Sacred Heart can be found online here:
http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/Liturgy/SacredHeart.html

The author cites St. Athanasius:
St. Athanasius of Alexandria pointed out the wrongness of worshipping Christ's body in a separate way, in these words: "We do not worship a created thing, but the Master of created things, the Word of God made flesh. Although the flesh itself, considered separately, is a part of created things, yet it has become the body of God. We do not worship this body after having separated it from the Word. Likewise, we do not separate the Word from the body when we wish to worship Him. But knowing that "the Word was made flesh," we recognise the Word existing in the flesh as God." (Ep. ad Adelph., par.

His concluding remarks are:
"Many in America are converts to the Orthodox Faith and may keep Sacred Heart images in their homes, as literal baggage from their pre-Orthodox days. Also, well-meaning friends may give Sacred Heart prayers or images as gifts. The faithful should replace all such images with genuine Orthodox icons. They should not place Sacred Heart images, or any other non-Orthodox images, in their icon corners."
Please, we had some images of that in our church, back home, and that's not because there were former Catholics there. It's just that for most people, that's still an image of Christ so they do not see what the big deal is.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Volnutt on August 21, 2011, 09:26:51 PM
It's just that for most people, that's still an image of Christ so they do not see what the big deal is.
What about this image of Christ? http://walhydra.blogspot.com/2008/06/lord-of-dance.html (warning: partial nudity)

Or this one? http://www.franciscan-anglican.com/Sophia.htm
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: akimori makoto on August 21, 2011, 09:31:14 PM
It's just that for most people, that's still an image of Christ so they do not see what the big deal is.
What about this image of Christ? http://walhydra.blogspot.com/2008/06/lord-of-dance.html (warning: partial nudity)

Or this one? http://www.franciscan-anglican.com/Sophia.htm

Thank you for the first link. I needed a good laugh.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Volnutt on August 21, 2011, 09:43:36 PM
It's just that for most people, that's still an image of Christ so they do not see what the big deal is.
What about this image of Christ? http://walhydra.blogspot.com/2008/06/lord-of-dance.html (warning: partial nudity)

Or this one? http://www.franciscan-anglican.com/Sophia.htm

Thank you for the first link. I needed a good laugh.
You ok? I'm here if you need to talk.


ETA: Just took a second look. My word that's a lulzy blog  :laugh:!
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Sleeper on August 21, 2011, 09:49:51 PM
In addition to the words of Metr. Anthony Khrapovitsky another article expaling why the Orthodox DO NOT accept the RC Sacred Heart can be found online here:
http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/Liturgy/SacredHeart.html

The author cites St. Athanasius:
St. Athanasius of Alexandria pointed out the wrongness of worshipping Christ's body in a separate way, in these words: "We do not worship a created thing, but the Master of created things, the Word of God made flesh. Although the flesh itself, considered separately, is a part of created things, yet it has become the body of God. We do not worship this body after having separated it from the Word. Likewise, we do not separate the Word from the body when we wish to worship Him. But knowing that "the Word was made flesh," we recognise the Word existing in the flesh as God." (Ep. ad Adelph., par.

His concluding remarks are:
"Many in America are converts to the Orthodox Faith and may keep Sacred Heart images in their homes, as literal baggage from their pre-Orthodox days. Also, well-meaning friends may give Sacred Heart prayers or images as gifts. The faithful should replace all such images with genuine Orthodox icons. They should not place Sacred Heart images, or any other non-Orthodox images, in their icon corners."

Fortunately, no one is worshipping any body parts of any one in the Sacred Heart devotion.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Volnutt on August 21, 2011, 10:05:53 PM
Sounds like Sheptitsky did, and I mean "relative worship."

Quote
"Really, how can one possibly object to the veneration of
the Sacred Heart, when our Lord Jesus Christ suffered for us with His heart ,
and when His heart suffered most of all, throbbing with pain?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Robb on August 21, 2011, 10:23:50 PM
I highly doubt that Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky is the best source to cite when trying to refute a heresy from an EO perspective.  After all, was he not accused of a stavroclastic heresy  concerning the Crucifixion of Christ (One of which, to my knowledge he never bothered to renounce and even went so far as to publish a catechism for emigre Russians espousing this view).  I have nothing personally against Metropolitan Anthony, he was I'm sure a good man, but the issue of his teaching on atonement is still controversial, at best within Orthodoxy.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Sleeper on August 21, 2011, 10:25:12 PM
I should clarify that no Orthodox are worshipping a body part in this devotion :)

Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: stanley123 on August 21, 2011, 10:25:56 PM
In addition to the words of Metr. Anthony Khrapovitsky another article expaling why the Orthodox DO NOT accept the RC Sacred Heart can be found online here:
http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/Liturgy/SacredHeart.html

The author cites St. Athanasius:
St. Athanasius of Alexandria pointed out the wrongness of worshipping Christ's body in a separate way, in these words: "We do not worship a created thing, but the Master of created things, the Word of God made flesh. Although the flesh itself, considered separately, is a part of created things, yet it has become the body of God. We do not worship this body after having separated it from the Word. Likewise, we do not separate the Word from the body when we wish to worship Him. But knowing that "the Word was made flesh," we recognise the Word existing in the flesh as God." (Ep. ad Adelph., par.

His concluding remarks are:
"Many in America are converts to the Orthodox Faith and may keep Sacred Heart images in their homes, as literal baggage from their pre-Orthodox days. Also, well-meaning friends may give Sacred Heart prayers or images as gifts. The faithful should replace all such images with genuine Orthodox icons. They should not place Sacred Heart images, or any other non-Orthodox images, in their icon corners."
So Orthodox don't agree among themselves on this. We have seen  WRO who have the Sacred Heart image on their Churches. How can you be ONE Church if you have two different teachings on the Sacred Heart?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 21, 2011, 10:26:45 PM
It's just that for most people, that's still an image of Christ so they do not see what the big deal is.
What about this image of Christ? http://walhydra.blogspot.com/2008/06/lord-of-dance.html (warning: partial nudity)

Or this one? http://www.franciscan-anglican.com/Sophia.htm

This is the work of Robert Lentz, a gay Catholic Franciscan.  No Orthodox priest would bless any of his icons and they are excluded from sale in Orthodox stores.

His Franciscan Order asked him to stop selling the more offensive ones years ago and I think he has complied.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Volnutt on August 21, 2011, 10:28:46 PM
I highly doubt that Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky is the best source to cite when trying to refute a heresy from an EO perspective.  After all, was he not accused of a stavroclastic heresy  concerning the Crucifixion of Christ (One of which, to my knowledge he never bothered to renounce and even went so far as to publish a catechism for emigre Russians espousing this view).  I have nothing personally against Metropolitan Anthony, he was I'm sure a good man, but the issue of his teaching on atonement is still controversial, at best within Orthodoxy.
I'm not citing Met. Anthony, I'm not citing that account of the correspondence.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Sleeper on August 21, 2011, 10:29:52 PM
The pre-eternal, eschatological, mystical Church is one by its very nature, and cannot be undone. Schism aside, issues of communion or 100% identical teaching between different bishoprics do not have the power to affect the ontological nature of the One Holy Catholic Church.

So, technically, you are correct; the Orthodox Church is more properly understood as the Orthodox Communion of Catholic Churches, rather than some monolithic entity.

There are many other things the Orthodox Catholic Churches don't agree upon, but that is irrelevant.

In addition to the words of Metr. Anthony Khrapovitsky another article expaling why the Orthodox DO NOT accept the RC Sacred Heart can be found online here:
http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/Liturgy/SacredHeart.html

The author cites St. Athanasius:
St. Athanasius of Alexandria pointed out the wrongness of worshipping Christ's body in a separate way, in these words: "We do not worship a created thing, but the Master of created things, the Word of God made flesh. Although the flesh itself, considered separately, is a part of created things, yet it has become the body of God. We do not worship this body after having separated it from the Word. Likewise, we do not separate the Word from the body when we wish to worship Him. But knowing that "the Word was made flesh," we recognise the Word existing in the flesh as God." (Ep. ad Adelph., par.

His concluding remarks are:
"Many in America are converts to the Orthodox Faith and may keep Sacred Heart images in their homes, as literal baggage from their pre-Orthodox days. Also, well-meaning friends may give Sacred Heart prayers or images as gifts. The faithful should replace all such images with genuine Orthodox icons. They should not place Sacred Heart images, or any other non-Orthodox images, in their icon corners."
So Orthodox don't agree among themselves on this. We have seen  WRO who have the Sacred Heart image on their Churches. How can you be ONE Church if you have two different teachings on the Sacred Heart?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Volnutt on August 21, 2011, 10:31:38 PM
It's just that for most people, that's still an image of Christ so they do not see what the big deal is.
What about this image of Christ? http://walhydra.blogspot.com/2008/06/lord-of-dance.html (warning: partial nudity)

Or this one? http://www.franciscan-anglican.com/Sophia.htm

This is the work of Robert Lentz, a gay Catholic Franciscan.  No Orthodox priest would bless any of his icons and they are excluded from sale in Orthodox stores.

His Franciscan Order asked him to stop selling the more offensive ones years ago and I think he has complied.
I know. I'm just saying that if someone doesn't care about whether a Sacred Heart image is Orthodox or not just because it happens to depict Jesus, then they can't object to even more serious errors of depiction.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Volnutt on August 21, 2011, 10:33:55 PM
I should clarify that no Orthodox are worshipping a body part in this devotion :)

I dunno. Sheptitsky had a lot of Orthodox admirers then and now...
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Sleeper on August 21, 2011, 10:42:50 PM
I should clarify that no Orthodox are worshipping a body part in this devotion :)

I dunno. Sheptitsky had a lot of Orthodox admirers then and now...

Haha, okay, further clarification: it is not necessary to think of the physical organ as being of importance any more than the early Fathers did. It is not the worship of a body part. Such a thing may be common in the RCC, but it is not an inherent part of the feast or devotion.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Volnutt on August 21, 2011, 10:59:31 PM
Fair enough. I hope all WROs share your attitude.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Andrew21091 on August 22, 2011, 01:35:30 AM
In addition to the words of Metr. Anthony Khrapovitsky another article expaling why the Orthodox DO NOT accept the RC Sacred Heart can be found online here:
http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/Liturgy/SacredHeart.html

The author cites St. Athanasius:
St. Athanasius of Alexandria pointed out the wrongness of worshipping Christ's body in a separate way, in these words: "We do not worship a created thing, but the Master of created things, the Word of God made flesh. Although the flesh itself, considered separately, is a part of created things, yet it has become the body of God. We do not worship this body after having separated it from the Word. Likewise, we do not separate the Word from the body when we wish to worship Him. But knowing that "the Word was made flesh," we recognise the Word existing in the flesh as God." (Ep. ad Adelph., par.

His concluding remarks are:
"Many in America are converts to the Orthodox Faith and may keep Sacred Heart images in their homes, as literal baggage from their pre-Orthodox days. Also, well-meaning friends may give Sacred Heart prayers or images as gifts. The faithful should replace all such images with genuine Orthodox icons. They should not place Sacred Heart images, or any other non-Orthodox images, in their icon corners."
So Orthodox don't agree among themselves on this. We have seen  WRO who have the Sacred Heart image on their Churches. How can you be ONE Church if you have two different teachings on the Sacred Heart?

Well, the Church does not have any official teaching on the Sacred Heart. There are only opinions.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Andrew21091 on August 22, 2011, 01:38:40 AM
This was taken from the popular St. Ambrose Western Orthodox prayer book. The introduction to this devotion says, "The Western Orthodox use of this devotion is directed to the compassion of Jesus Christ, represented by His Sacred Heart. The devotion does parallel the Eastern Rite devotion found in The Akathist to the Sweetest Lord Jesus, which has been popular among Eastern Christians for centuries. It is not a devotion to a specific physical organ and body part, anymore than when we say of ourselves, "My heart within me is troubled," by to Our Lord's compassionate love for us. The heart has long been taken to be the symbolic seat of love and the Heart of Jesus reveals the fundamental fact of Christianity that God loves us. Devotion to the Sacred Heart bestows a deeper insight into the Divine love and a surer confidence in it. As we see something of God's love, we shall want to make a return in terms of love and this devotion enables us to express the love of our own hearts."

I like this interpretation. Makes sense.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 22, 2011, 06:00:47 AM
In addition to the words of Metr. Anthony Khrapovitsky another article expaling why the Orthodox DO NOT accept the RC Sacred Heart can be found online here:
http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/Liturgy/SacredHeart.html

The author cites St. Athanasius:
St. Athanasius of Alexandria pointed out the wrongness of worshipping Christ's body in a separate way, in these words: "We do not worship a created thing, but the Master of created things, the Word of God made flesh. Although the flesh itself, considered separately, is a part of created things, yet it has become the body of God. We do not worship this body after having separated it from the Word. Likewise, we do not separate the Word from the body when we wish to worship Him. But knowing that "the Word was made flesh," we recognise the Word existing in the flesh as God." (Ep. ad Adelph., par.

His concluding remarks are:
"Many in America are converts to the Orthodox Faith and may keep Sacred Heart images in their homes, as literal baggage from their pre-Orthodox days. Also, well-meaning friends may give Sacred Heart prayers or images as gifts. The faithful should replace all such images with genuine Orthodox icons. They should not place Sacred Heart images, or any other non-Orthodox images, in their icon corners."
So Orthodox don't agree among themselves on this. We have seen  WRO who have the Sacred Heart image on their Churches. How can you be ONE Church if you have two different teachings on the Sacred Heart?

Well, the Church does not have any official teaching on the Sacred Heart. There are only opinions.

The most attractive thing about the devotion to the Sacred Heart is certainly the last of the twelve promises of the Sacred Heart.

"The all-powerful love of My Heart will grant to all those who shall receive Communion on the First Friday of nine consecutive months the grace of final repentance; they shall not die under My displeasure, nor without receiving the Sacraments; My Heart shall be their assured refuge at the last hour."

For Orthodox in the West where Friday Liturgy is not common, it may be best to remain in the Roman Catholic Church until they have completed these nine consecutive Fridays of Communion.  :laugh:
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 22, 2011, 06:12:05 AM
You know, one problem wit the devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus is that God did not give it to His children in the Orthodox Church.  He gave it to the Roman Catholics through the visions of a Catholic nun some of which are frankly kind of psychosexual and orgasmic.  Not a few revelations through nuns have this sexual component.

I think that if God had wanted us to have it He would have given it to us and we would not be begging and borrowing it from the Catholics 400 years after they discovered it.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Alpo on August 22, 2011, 07:24:13 AM
You know, one problem wit the devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus is that God did not give it to His children in the Orthodox Church.

Does this logic apply to many other traditions that we have acquired from heterodox sources?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 22, 2011, 07:28:40 AM
You know, one problem wit the devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus is that God did not give it to His children in the Orthodox Church.

Does this logic apply to many other traditions that we have acquired from heterodox sources?

Cudgelling my brains but not sure what you have in mind?   The adoption of the Buddhist mala as a prayer rope?  The Julian calendar?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Alpo on August 22, 2011, 07:36:35 AM
You know, one problem wit the devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus is that God did not give it to His children in the Orthodox Church.

Does this logic apply to many other traditions that we have acquired from heterodox sources?

Cudgelling my brains but not sure what you have in mind?   The adoption of the Buddhist mala as a prayer rope?

 ;D

Not anything that dramatic. I was think something like realistic icons or family patrons. I've understood that latter was modeled after a Serbian Pagan tradition.

Just playing a devil's advocate. I don't feel comfortable with devotion to Sacred Heart either but I think our argumentation should be consistent.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Sleeper on August 22, 2011, 08:35:43 AM
You know, one problem wit the devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus is that God did not give it to His children in the Orthodox Church.  He gave it to the Roman Catholics through the visions of a Catholic nun some of which are frankly kind of psychosexual and orgasmic.  Not a few revelations through nuns have this sexual component.

I think that if God had wanted us to have it He would have given it to us and we would not be begging and borrowing it from the Catholics 400 years after they discovered it.

God did indeed give this to His Church. The fact is that there is a long patristic tradition in the West of devotion to the heart of Christ that was pierced on the cross, which gradually grew into the Heart being a symbolic representation of the entire mystery of the Passion. Perhaps Mary Margaret's "visions" were the occasion that made it more popular, but that was neither the genesis of this tradition nor its rightful expression.

As for elements that have been absorbed into Orthodox tradition, a few stunning examples if a similar nature would be St. Nicodemus of Mount Athos' translation and dispersion of late Roman Catholic works such as Lorenzo Scupoli's "Unseen Warfare" or Ignatius of Loyola's "Spiritual Exercises." Why would he do such a thing if the monks of the Holy Mount, that beacon of Orthodox spirituality for centuries, didn't have a use for it?

I do not buy this narrative that just because something didn't arise within Eastern Christianity by whatever arbitrary date we conjure up, it is not from God. That's pure myth, pure romanticism.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 22, 2011, 09:02:48 AM
As for elements that have been absorbed into Orthodox tradition, a few stunning examples if a similar nature would be St. Nicodemus of Mount Athos' translation and dispersion of late Roman Catholic works such as Lorenzo Scupoli's "Unseen Warfare" or Ignatius of Loyola's "Spiritual Exercises."

I had no idea that Loyola's "Spiritual Exercises" had entered Orthodoxy.  Do you know who did this and is there a name for the book in the Church?

Quote
I do not buy this narrative that just because something didn't arise within Eastern Christianity by whatever arbitrary date we conjure up, it is not from God. That's pure myth, pure romanticism.

I see it as sound common sense to protect our piety and way of life from from heterodox influences.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 22, 2011, 09:13:53 AM
In addition to the words of Metr. Anthony Khrapovitsky another article expaling why the Orthodox DO NOT accept the RC Sacred Heart can be found online here:
http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/Liturgy/SacredHeart.html

The author cites St. Athanasius:
St. Athanasius of Alexandria pointed out the wrongness of worshipping Christ's body in a separate way, in these words: "We do not worship a created thing, but the Master of created things, the Word of God made flesh. Although the flesh itself, considered separately, is a part of created things, yet it has become the body of God. We do not worship this body after having separated it from the Word. Likewise, we do not separate the Word from the body when we wish to worship Him. But knowing that "the Word was made flesh," we recognise the Word existing in the flesh as God." (Ep. ad Adelph., par.

His concluding remarks are:
"Many in America are converts to the Orthodox Faith and may keep Sacred Heart images in their homes, as literal baggage from their pre-Orthodox days. Also, well-meaning friends may give Sacred Heart prayers or images as gifts. The faithful should replace all such images with genuine Orthodox icons. They should not place Sacred Heart images, or any other non-Orthodox images, in their icon corners."
So Orthodox don't agree among themselves on this. We have seen  WRO who have the Sacred Heart image on their Churches. How can you be ONE Church if you have two different teachings on the Sacred Heart?

This images has come into a few of the Western Rite churches of the Antiochian Church in the States.  It is firmly excluded from the Russian WR parishes.

In the Antiochian parishes it came in less than 10 years ago.  The Western Rite is still a great novelty in Orthodox life.  It may or may not survive the test of time.  But it is so young and untested that we have to expect aberrations such as one or two priests of Roman Catholic origin (Fr Miguel Lobos in the case of these pictures) bringing in a few unexpected things.  Hopefully the bishops will get around to addressing it and making decisions.

There is strong opposition to the introduction of Western Rite from many bishops and priests.  The introduction of such things as the Sacred Heart holy picture works in their favour as an argument that WR is contaminating Orthodoxy and should be stopped.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Melodist on August 22, 2011, 09:37:21 AM
This images has come into a few of the Western Rite churches of the Antiochian Church in the States.  It is firmly excluded from the Russian WR parishes.

In the Antiochian parishes it came in less than 10 years ago.  The Western Rite is still a great novelty in Orthodox life.  It may or may not survive the test of time.  But it is so young and untested that we have to expect aberrations such as one or two priests of Roman Catholic origin (Fr Miguel Lobos in the case of these pictures) bringing in a few unexpected things.

I once saw a keychain with an image of the Sacred Heart on it for sale at a festival held by an ethnic parish. They have no images of it up for veneration anywhere, but it was still there on a keychain.

One question relating to the discussion - If Orthodoxy can import and baptize traditions of pagan religions to make Christian alternatives out of them, why is it so impossible to do so with certain traditions that come from a historically Christian (not Orthodox but still Christian and much closer than to us than paganism) background?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Orest on August 22, 2011, 10:20:56 AM
[quote author=Melodist link=topic=38979.msg626270#msg626270 One question relating to the discussion - If Orthodoxy can import and baptize traditions of pagan religions to make Christian alternatives out of them, why is it so impossible to do so with certain traditions that come from a historically Christian (not Orthodox but still Christian and much closer than to us than paganism) background?
[/quote]

I'd advis eyou to go through this thread again and read the theological reasons why the Orthodox DO NOT accept veneration/ devotions to the religious picture of the Sacred Heart.
The quote from St. Athanasius is good because he had to deal with Nestorianism.  We are not talking about pagan cultural customs but about significant theological differences. 
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Melodist on August 22, 2011, 10:39:32 AM
The quote from St. Athanasius is good because he had to deal with Nestorianism.

It would be even better if we were dealing with the same problem (Nestorianism) that St Athansius is addressing in the quote.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on August 22, 2011, 11:28:25 AM
The quote from St. Athanasius is good because he had to deal with Nestorianism.

It would be even better if we were dealing with the same problem (Nestorianism) that St Athansius is addressing in the quote.

 :)
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on August 22, 2011, 11:34:32 AM
You know, one problem wit the devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus is that God did not give it to His children in the Orthodox Church.  He gave it to the Roman Catholics through the visions of a Catholic nun some of which are frankly kind of psychosexual and orgasmic.  Not a few revelations through nuns have this sexual component.

I think that if God had wanted us to have it He would have given it to us and we would not be begging and borrowing it from the Catholics 400 years after they discovered it.

Since Western Rite ROCOR does not believe in the promotion of so-called sexually hysterical women or the Sacred Heart:  I surely hope they keep that sexually hysterical Nestorian Bernard of Clairvaux off their calendar because his prayers have inspired generations of 'sexually hysterical Nestorian' western saints:

Rhythmical Prayer to the Sacred Members
of Jesus Hanging on the Cross

        Ascribed to St. Bernard
        PART I
        TO THE FEET

        I  O Saviour of the world, I cry to Thee; O Saviour, suffering God, I worship Thee; O wounded beauteous Love, I kneel to Thee; Thou knowest, Lord, how I would follow Thee, If of Thyself Thou give Thyself to Me.

        II Thy Presence I Believe; O come to me! Behold me prostrate, Jesus; look on me! How beautiful Thou art! O turn to me! O in Thy tender mercy turn to me, And let Thy untold pity pardon me!

        III  With trembling love and feat I worship Thee; I kiss the grievous nails which entered Thee, And think on those dire wounds which tortured Thee, And, grieving, lift my weeping eyes to Thee, Transfixed and dying all for love of me!

        IV  O wondrous grace! O gracious charity! O love of sinners in such agony! Sweet Father of the poor! O who can be Unmoved to witness this great mystery,-- The Healer smitten, hanging on a tree?

        IV  O wondrous grace! O gracious charity! O love of sinners in such agony! Sweet Father of the poor! O who can be Unmoved to witness this great mystery,-- The Healer smitten, hanging on a tree?

        V  O gentle Jesus, turn Thee unto me; What i have broken do Thou bind in me, And what is crooked make Thou straight in me; What I have lost restore Thou unto me, And what is weak and sickly heal in me.

        VI  O Love! with all my strength I seek for Thee; Upon and in thy Cross I look for Thee; With sorrow and with hope I turn to Thee,-- That through Thy Blood new health may come to me, That washed therein Thy love may pardon me.

        VII   O take my heart, Thou Loved One; let it be Transfixed with those dear wounds for love of Thee, O wound it, Jesus, with pure love of Thee; And let it so be crucified with Thee, that it may be forever joined to Thee.

        VIII  Sweet Jesus, loving God, I cry to Thee; Thou guilty, yet I come for love of Thee; O show Thyself, dear Saviour, kind to me! Unworthy as I am, O turn to me, Nor at thy sacred Feet abandon me!

        IX   Dear Jesus, bathed in tears, I kneel to Thee; In shame and grief I lift my eyes to Thee; Prostrate before Thy Cross I bow to Thee, And thy dear Feet embrace; O look on me, Yea, from Thy Cross, O look, and pardon me.

        X  O my Beloved, stretched against that Thee, Whose arms divine are now enfolding me, whose gracious Heart is now upholding me,-- O my Beloved, let me wholly be Transformed, forgiven, one alone with Thee!

        PART II
        TO THE KNEES

        I   O Jesus, King of Saints, I worship Thee; O hope of sinners, hail! I rest on Thee; True God, true man, Thou hangest on the Tree Transfixed, with quivering flesh and shaking knees, A criminal esteemed,--I worship Thee.

        II  Alas, how poor, how naked, wilt Thou be! How hast Thou stript Thyself for love of me, How made Thyself a gazing-stock to be! Not forced, but, O my God! How willingly In all Thy limbs Thou sufferest on that Tree!

        III   Thy Precious Blood wells forth abundantly From all Thy open wounds incessantly; All bathed therein, O God, in agony Thou standest on the Cross of infamy, Awaiting the appointed hour to die.

        IV  O infinite, O wondrous majesty! O terrible, unheard-of poverty! Ah, who, returning so great charity, I willing, Jesus, thus to give for Thee His blood for Thine, in faithful love for Thee?

        V  O Jesus, how shall I, then, answer Thee, Who am so vile, and have not followed Thee? Or how repay the love that loveth me With such sublime, such awful charity Transfixed, from double death to set me free?

        VI  O Jesus, what Thy love hath been for me! O Jesus, death could never conquer Thee! Ah, with what loving care Thou keepest me Enfolded in Thine arms, lest I should be, By death of sin, a moment torn from Thee!

        VII  Behold, O Jesus, how for love of Thee, With all my soul I trembling cling to Thee, And Thy dear Knees embrace. O pity me! Thou knowest why--in pity bear with me, And overlook the shame that covers me!

        VIII  O let the Blood I worship flow on me, That what I do may never anger Thee; The Blood which flows at every pore from Thee Each imperfection may it wash from me, That I may undefiled and perfect be.

        IX   O force me, best Beloved, to draw to Thee, Transfixed and bleeding on the shameful Tree, Despised and stretched in dying agony! All my desire, O Lord, is fixed on Thee; O call me, then, and I will follow Thee.

        X   I have no other love, dear Lord, but Thee; Thou art my first and last; I cling to Thee. It is no labor, Lord; love sets me free; Then heal me, cleanse me, let me rest on Thee, For love is life, and life is love--in Thee.

        PART III
        TO THE HANDS

        I   Hail, holy Shepherd! Lord, I worship Thee, Fatigued with combat, steeped in misery; Whose sacred Hands, outstretched in agony, All pierced and dislocated on the Tree, Are fastened to the wood of infamy.

        II   Dear holy Hands, I humbly worship ye, With roses filled, fresh blossoms of that Tree; The cruel iron enters into ye, While open gashes yield unceasingly The Precious stream down-dropping from the Tree.

        III   Behold, Thy Blood, O Jesus, flows on me-- The price of my salvation falls on me; O ruddy as the rose, it drops on me. Sweet Precious Blood, it wells abundantly From both Thy sacred Hands to set me free.

        IV   My heart leaps up, O Jesus, unto Thee; Drawn by those nail-pierced Hands it flies to Thee; Drawn by those Blood-stained Hands stretched out for me, My soul breaks out with sighing unto Thee, And longs to slake its thirst, O Love, in Thee.

        V   My God, what great stupendous charity-- Both good and bad are welcomed here by Thee! The slothful heart Thou drawest graciously, The loving one Thou callest tenderly, And unto all a pardon grantest free.

        VI   Behold, I now present myself to Thee, Who dost present thy bleeding Hands to me; The sick Thou healest when they come to Thee; Thou canst not, therefore, turn away from me, Whose love Thou knowest, Lord, is all for Thee.

        VII   O my Beloved, fastened to the Tree, Draw, by Thy love, my senses unto Thee; My will, my intellect, my memory, And all I am, make subject unto Thee, In whose dear arms alone is liberty.

        VIII   O draw me for Thy Cross' sake to Thee; O draw me for Thy so wide charity; Sweet Jesus, draw my heart in truth to Thee, O put an end to all my misery, And crown me with Thy Cross and victory!

        IX   O Jesus, place Thy sacred Hands on me, With transport let me kiss them tenderly, With groans and tears embrace them fervently; And, O for these deep wounds I worship Thee; And for hte blessed drops that fall on me!

        X   O dearest Jesus, I commend to Thee Myself, and all I am, most perfectly; Bathed in Thy Blood, behold, I live for Thee; O, may Thy blessed Hands encompass me, And in extremity deliver me!

        PART IV
        TO THE SIDE

        I   O Jesus, highest Good, I yearn for Thee; O Jesus, merciful, I hope in Thee, Whose sacred Body hands upon the Tree, Whose limbs, all dislocated painfully, Are stretched in torture, all for love of me!

        II   Hail, sacred Side of Jesus! Verily The hidden spring of mercy lies in Thee, The source of honeyed sweetness dwells in Thee, The fountain of redemption flows from Thee, The secret well of love that cleanses me.

        III   Behold, O King of Love, I draw to Thee; If I am wrong, O Jesus, pardon me; Thy love, Beloved, calls me lovingly, As I with blushing cheek gaze willingly Upon the living wound that bleeds for me.

        IV   O gentle opening, I worship Thee; O open door and deep, I look in Thee; O most pure stream, I gaze and gaze on Thee: More ruddy than the rose, I draw to Thee; More healing than all health, I fly to Thee.

        V   More sweet than wine Thine odor is for me; The poisoned breath of sin it drives from me; Thou art the draught of life poured out for me. O ye who thirst, come, drink thereof with me; And Thou, sweet wound, O open unto me.

        VI   O red wound open, let me draw to Thee, And let my throbbing heart be filled from Thee! Ah, see! My heart, Beloved, faints for Thee. O my Beloved, open unto me, That I may pass and lose myself in Thee.

        VII   Lord, with my mouth I touch and worship Thee, With all the strength I have I cling to Thee, With all my love I plunge my heart in Thee, My very life-blood would I drawn from Thee,-- O Jesus, Jesus! Draw me into Thee!

        VIII   How Sweet Thy savor is! Who tastes of Thee, O Jesus Christ, can relish naught but Thee; Who tastes Thy living sweetness lives by Thee; All else is void--the soul must die for Thee; So faints my heart,--so would I die for thee.

        IX   I languish, Lord! O let me hide in Thee! In Thy sweet Side, my Love, O bury me! And may the fire divine consuming Thee Burn in my heart where it lies hid in Thee, Without a fear reposing peacefully!

        X   When in the hour of death Thou callest me, O Love of loves, may my soul enter Thee; May my last breath, O Jesus fly to Thee; So no fierce beast may drive my heart from Thee, But in Thy Side may it remain with Thee!

        PART V
        TO THE BREAST

        I   O God of my salvation, hail to Thee! O Jesus, sweetest Love, all hail to Thee! O venerable Breast, I worship Thee; O dwelling-place of love, I fly to Thee, With trembling touch adore and worship Thee.

        II   Hail, throne of the Most Holy Trinity! Hail, ark immense of tender charity! Thou stay of weakness and infirmity, Sweet rest of weary souls who rest on Thee, Dear couch of loving ones who lean on Thee!

        III   With reverence, O Love, I kneel to Thee, O worthy to be ever sought by me; Behold me, Jesus, looking unto Thee. O, set my heart on fire, dear Love, from Thee, And burn it in the flame that burns in Thee.

        IV   O make my breast a precious home for thee, A furnace of sweet love and purity, A well of holy grief and piety; Deny my will, conform it unto Thee, That grace abundant may be mine in Thee.

        V   Sweet Jesus, loving Shepherd, come to me; Dear Son of God and Mary, come to me; Kind Father come, let Thy Heart pity me, And cleanse the fountain of my misery In that great fountain of Thy clemency.

        VI   Hail, fruitful splendor of the Deity! Hail, fruitful figure of Divinity! From the full treasure of Thy charity, O pour some gift in Thy benignity Upon the desolate who cry to Thee!

        VII   Dear Breast of most sweet Jesus, mine would be All Thine in its entire conformity; Absolve it from all sin, and set it free, That it may burn with ardent charity, And never, never cease to think on Thee.

        VIII   Abyss of wisdom from eternity, The harmonies of angels worship Thee; Entrancing sweetness flows, O Breast, from thee; John tasted it as he lay rapt on Thee; O grant me thus that I may dwell in Thee!

        IX   Hail, fountain deep of God's benignity! The fullness of the immense Divinity Hath found at last a creature home in Thee. Ah, may the counsel that I learn from Thee All imperfection purify in me!

        X   True temple of the Godhead, hail to Thee! O draw me in Thy gracious charity, Thou ark of goodness, full of grace for me. Great God of all, have mercy upon me, And on Thy right hand keep a place for me.

        PART VI
        TO THE FACE

        I   Hail, bleeding Head of Jesus, hail to Thee! Thou thorn-crowned Head, I humbly worship Thee! O wounded Head, I lift my hands to Thee; O lovely Face besmeared, I gaze on Thee; O bruised and livid Face, look down on me!

        II   Hail, beauteous Face of Jesus, bent on me, Whom angel choirs adore exultantly! Hail, sweetest Face of Jesus, bruised for me-- Hail, Holy One, whose glorious Face for me Is shorn of beauty on that fatal Tree!

        III   All strength, all freshness, is gone forth from Thee: What wonder! Hath not God afflicted Thee, And is not death himself approaching Thee? O Love! But death hath laid his touch on Thee, And faint and broken features turn to me.

        IV   O have they thus maltreated Thee, my own? O have they Thy sweet Face despised, my own? And all for my unworthy sake, my own! O in Thy beauty turn to me, my own; O turn one look of love on me, my own!

        V   In this Thy Passion, Lord, remember me; In this Thy pain, O Love, acknowledge me; The honey of whose lips was shed on me, The milk of whose delights hath strengthened me Whose sweetness is beyond delight for me!

        VI   Despise me not, O Love; I long for Thee; Contemn me not, unworthy though I be; But now that death is fast approaching Thee, Incline Thy Head, my Love, my Love, to me, To these poor arms, and let it rest on me!

        VII   The holy Passion I would share with Thee, And in Thy dying love rejoice with Thee; Content if by this Cross I die with Thee; Content, Thou knowest, Lord, how willingly Where I have lived to die for love of Thee.

        VIII   For this Thy bitter death all thanks to Thee, Dear Jesus, and Thy wondrous love for me! O gracious God, so merciful to me, Do as Thy guilty one entreateth Thee, And at the end let me be found with Thee!

        IX   When from this life, O Love, Thou callest me, Then, Jesus, be not wanting unto me, But in the dreadful hour of agony, O hasten, Lord, and be Thou nigh to me, Defend, protect, and O deliver me.

        X   When Thou, O God, shalt bid my soul be free, Then, dearest Jesus, show Thyself to me! O condescend to show Thyself to me,-- Upon Thy saving Cross, dear Lord, to me,-- And let me die, my Lord, embracing Thee!

        PART VII
        TO THE SACRED HEART

        I   Hail, sacred Heart of God's great Majesty! Hail, sweetest Heart, my heart saluteth Thee! With great desire, O Heart, I seek for Thee, And faint for joy, O Heart, embracing Thee; Then give me leave, O Love, to speak to Thee.

        II   With what sweet love Thou languishedst for me! What pain and torment was that love to Thee! How didst Thou all Thyself exhaust for me! How hast Thou wholly given Thyself to me, That death no longer might have hold of me!

        III   O bitter death and cruel! Can it be Thou darest so to enter greedily Into that cell divine? O can it be The Life of life, that lives there gloriously, Should feel thy bite, O death, and yield to thee?

        IV   For Thy death's sake which Thou didst bear for me, When Thou, O sweetest Heart, didst faint for me, O Heart most precious in its agony, See how I yearn, and longing turn to Thee! Yield to my love, and draw me unto Thee!

        V   O sacred Heart, beloved most tenderly, Cleanse Thou my own; more worthy let it be, All hardened as it is with vanity; O make it tender, loving, fearing Thee, And all its icy coldness drive from me.

        VI   O sinner as I am, I come to Thee; My very vitals throb and call for Thee; O Love, sweet love, draw hither unto me! O Heart of Love, my heart would ravished be, And sicken with the wound of love for Thee!

        VII   ilate and open, Heart of love, for me, And like a rose of wondrous fragrance be, Sweet Heart of love, united unto me; Anoint and pierce my heart, O Love, with Thee, How can he suffer, Lord, who loveth Thee?

        VIII   O Heart of Love, who vanquished is by Thee Knows nothing, but beside himself must be; No bounds are set to that sweet liberty, No moderation,--he must fly to Thee, Or die he must of many deaths for Thee.

        IX   My living heart, O Love, cries out for Thee; With all its strength, O Love, my soul loves Thee; O Heart of Love, incline Thou unto me, That I with burning love may turn to Thee, And with devoted breast recline on Thee!

        X   In that sweet furnace let me live for Thee, Nor let the sleep of sloth encumber me; O let me sing to Thee and weep to Thee, Adore, and magnify, and honor Thee, And always take my full delight in Thee.

        XI   Thou Rose of wondrous fragrance, open wide, And bring my heart into Thy wounded Side, O sweet heart, open! Draw Thy loving bride, All panting with desires intensified, And satisfy her love unsatisfied.

        XII   Unite my heart, O Jesus, unto Thine, And let Thy wounded love be found in mine. Ah, if my heart, dear love, be made like Thine O will it not be pierced with darts divine, the sweet reproach of love that thrills through Thine?

        XIII   O Jesus, draw my heart within Thy Breast, That it may be by Thee alone possessed. O Love, in that sweet pain it would find rest, In that entrancing sorrow would be blest, And love itself in joy upon Thy Breast.

        XIV   Behold, O Jesus, how it draws to Thee! O call it, that it may remain in Thee! See with what large desire it thirsts for Thee! Reprove it not, O Love; it loves but Thee: Then bid it live--by one sweet taste of Thee!


        ____________

        Reproduced from "Rhythmical Prayer to the Sacred Members of Jesus Hanging Upon the Cross," ascribed to St. Bernard, translated by Emily Mary Shapcote, found in "The Life of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" by St. Bonaventure, P.J. Kenedy and Sons (New York: 1881).
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Orest on August 22, 2011, 12:29:44 PM
It's just that for most people, that's still an image of Christ so they do not see what the big deal is.
What about this image of Christ? http://walhydra.blogspot.com/2008/06/lord-of-dance.html (warning: partial nudity)

Or this one? http://www.franciscan-anglican.com/Sophia.htm

This is the work of Robert Lentz, a gay Catholic Franciscan.  No Orthodox priest would bless any of his icons and they are excluded from sale in Orthodox stores.

His Franciscan Order asked him to stop selling the more offensive ones years ago and I think he has complied.

is he still a Franciscan?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Orest on August 22, 2011, 12:31:35 PM
The quote from St. Athanasius is good because he had to deal with Nestorianism.

It would be even better if we were dealing with the same problem (Nestorianism) that St Athansius is addressing in the quote.
According to Orthodox sources we ARE dealing with the same problem or call it crypto-Nestorianism if you want: we do not venerate PARTS of Our Lord's body.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: witega on August 22, 2011, 02:28:32 PM
Since Western Rite ROCOR does not believe in the promotion of so-called sexually hysterical women or the Sacred Heart:  I surely hope they keep that sexually hysterical Nestorian Bernard of Clairvaux off their calendar because his prayers have inspired generations of 'sexually hysterical Nestorian' western saints:

Given that Bernard (who I would agree was the source of quite a lot of what is questionable or downright spiritually dangerous in the Latin tradition) was post-schism, I would not only hope but expect that he would be excluded from any Orthodox calendar, whatever the rite.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on August 22, 2011, 02:36:17 PM
Since Western Rite ROCOR does not believe in the promotion of so-called sexually hysterical women or the Sacred Heart:  I surely hope they keep that sexually hysterical Nestorian Bernard of Clairvaux off their calendar because his prayers have inspired generations of 'sexually hysterical Nestorian' western saints:

Given that Bernard (who I would agree was the source of quite a lot of what is questionable or downright spiritually dangerous in the Latin tradition) was post-schism, I would not only hope but expect that he would be excluded from any Orthodox calendar, whatever the rite.


Well you'll have to keep a real weather eye out because there are EO's who foolishly seem to revere him as well.

May I suggest a negative add campaign to speed the expulsion process along!!

At least St. Bernard puts paid to the silly idea that Sr. Margaret-Mary is responsible for the devotion to the Sacred Heart in the west.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Michał on August 22, 2011, 03:05:25 PM
Since Western Rite ROCOR does not believe in the promotion of so-called sexually hysterical women or the Sacred Heart:  I surely hope they keep that sexually hysterical Nestorian Bernard of Clairvaux off their calendar because his prayers have inspired generations of 'sexually hysterical Nestorian' western saints . . .

I'm not quite sure I understand. Are you saying that he actually is on some ROCOR-WR calendar?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Shanghaiski on August 22, 2011, 03:33:11 PM
You know, one problem wit the devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus is that God did not give it to His children in the Orthodox Church.  He gave it to the Roman Catholics through the visions of a Catholic nun some of which are frankly kind of psychosexual and orgasmic.  Not a few revelations through nuns have this sexual component.

I think that if God had wanted us to have it He would have given it to us and we would not be begging and borrowing it from the Catholics 400 years after they discovered it.

Indeed. One might as well use "Christotokos" with an Orthodox explanation.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Shanghaiski on August 22, 2011, 03:35:39 PM
You know, one problem wit the devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus is that God did not give it to His children in the Orthodox Church.  He gave it to the Roman Catholics through the visions of a Catholic nun some of which are frankly kind of psychosexual and orgasmic.  Not a few revelations through nuns have this sexual component.

I think that if God had wanted us to have it He would have given it to us and we would not be begging and borrowing it from the Catholics 400 years after they discovered it.

God did indeed give this to His Church. The fact is that there is a long patristic tradition in the West of devotion to the heart of Christ that was pierced on the cross, which gradually grew into the Heart being a symbolic representation of the entire mystery of the Passion. Perhaps Mary Margaret's "visions" were the occasion that made it more popular, but that was neither the genesis of this tradition nor its rightful expression.

As for elements that have been absorbed into Orthodox tradition, a few stunning examples if a similar nature would be St. Nicodemus of Mount Athos' translation and dispersion of late Roman Catholic works such as Lorenzo Scupoli's "Unseen Warfare" or Ignatius of Loyola's "Spiritual Exercises." Why would he do such a thing if the monks of the Holy Mount, that beacon of Orthodox spirituality for centuries, didn't have a use for it?

I do not buy this narrative that just because something didn't arise within Eastern Christianity by whatever arbitrary date we conjure up, it is not from God. That's pure myth, pure romanticism.

Why must they look at the most minute of possible traditions to justify keeping something that grew to what it is after the schism? Why strain out the gnat so you can swallow the camel?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Volnutt on August 22, 2011, 03:57:30 PM
The quote from St. Athanasius is good because he had to deal with Nestorianism.

It would be even better if we were dealing with the same problem (Nestorianism) that St Athansius is addressing in the quote.
According to Orthodox sources we ARE dealing with the same problem or call it crypto-Nestorianism if you want: we do not venerate PARTS of Our Lord's body.
But you do venerate parts of the bodies of His Saints. If these can work as metonymies of the whole human vessel of God's glory and ultimately pass on the honor to God Himself, how is that any different from the Sacred Heart?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: augustin717 on August 22, 2011, 04:57:19 PM
Nit-picking. I would have no problem kissing such an image.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: ialmisry on August 22, 2011, 05:02:14 PM
You know, one problem wit the devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus is that God did not give it to His children in the Orthodox Church.  He gave it to the Roman Catholics through the visions of a Catholic nun some of which are frankly kind of psychosexual and orgasmic.  Not a few revelations through nuns have this sexual component.

I think that if God had wanted us to have it He would have given it to us and we would not be begging and borrowing it from the Catholics 400 years after they discovered it.

God did indeed give this to His Church. The fact is that there is a long patristic tradition in the West of devotion to the heart of Christ that was pierced on the cross, which gradually grew into the Heart being a symbolic representation of the entire mystery of the Passion. Perhaps Mary Margaret's "visions" were the occasion that made it more popular, but that was neither the genesis of this tradition nor its rightful expression.

As for elements that have been absorbed into Orthodox tradition, a few stunning examples if a similar nature would be St. Nicodemus of Mount Athos' translation and dispersion of late Roman Catholic works such as Lorenzo Scupoli's "Unseen Warfare" or Ignatius of Loyola's "Spiritual Exercises." Why would he do such a thing if the monks of the Holy Mount, that beacon of Orthodox spirituality for centuries, didn't have a use for it?

I do not buy this narrative that just because something didn't arise within Eastern Christianity by whatever arbitrary date we conjure up, it is not from God. That's pure myth, pure romanticism.

Why must they look at the most minute of possible traditions to justify keeping something that grew to what it is after the schism? Why strain out the gnat so you can swallow the camel?
beyond that, why is it that these cults of body parts and "visionaries" come about, with increasing importance, after the patriarchate of the West fell out of Orthodox communion?  You don't see them in the Church in the West of the first millenium, why embrace those of the second millenium?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: ialmisry on August 22, 2011, 05:10:46 PM
The quote from St. Athanasius is good because he had to deal with Nestorianism.

It would be even better if we were dealing with the same problem (Nestorianism) that St Athansius is addressing in the quote.
According to Orthodox sources we ARE dealing with the same problem or call it crypto-Nestorianism if you want: we do not venerate PARTS of Our Lord's body.
But you do venerate parts of the bodies of His Saints. If these can work as metonymies of the whole human vessel of God's glory and ultimately pass on the honor to God Himself, how is that any different from the Sacred Heart?
They are not metonymies.

Take for instance the incorrupt relics of St. John Maximovich.  His whole body is there.  I just venerated the hand, there is no reason to kiss every square inch of him, as his hand is conected to the rest of him.  I once venerated the arm of St. George, which is still conected with the rest of him, in particular his soul/spirit in heaven.  The icon of him with the relic showed all of him, not just his arm.

If Christ wanted this, he would have gone to Mexico like the Mormons say and be sacrificed with His heart cut out rather than being crucified.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 22, 2011, 05:16:27 PM
Since Western Rite ROCOR does not believe in the promotion of so-called sexually hysterical women or the Sacred Heart:  I surely hope they keep that sexually hysterical Nestorian Bernard of Clairvaux off their calendar because his prayers have inspired generations of 'sexually hysterical Nestorian' western saints:

Given that Bernard (who I would agree was the source of quite a lot of what is questionable or downright spiritually dangerous in the Latin tradition) was post-schism, I would not only hope but expect that he would be excluded from any Orthodox calendar, whatever the rite.


Well you'll have to keep a real weather eye out because there are EO's who foolishly seem to revere him as well.

May I suggest a negative add campaign to speed the expulsion process along!!

At least St. Bernard puts paid to the silly idea that Sr. Margaret-Mary is responsible for the devotion to the Sacred Heart in the west.

So why is there no devotion to the Sacred Knees?  In Saint Bernard's prayer they seem just as adorable as the Sacred Heart.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 22, 2011, 05:22:34 PM
The quote from St. Athanasius is good because he had to deal with Nestorianism.

It would be even better if we were dealing with the same problem (Nestorianism) that St Athansius is addressing in the quote.
According to Orthodox sources we ARE dealing with the same problem or call it crypto-Nestorianism if you want: we do not venerate PARTS of Our Lord's body.
But you do venerate parts of the bodies of His Saints. If these can work as metonymies of the whole human vessel of God's glory and ultimately pass on the honor to God Himself, how is that any different from the Sacred Heart?

What I want to know is when the Catholics are going to make serious efforts to retrieve the Sacred Prepuce which was stolen in 1983.

The fact that they are sitting on their hands and doing nothing to locate this sacred relic is a vast insult to the Orthodox who gifted it to the West before the Schism.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: ialmisry on August 22, 2011, 05:33:13 PM
The quote from St. Athanasius is good because he had to deal with Nestorianism.

It would be even better if we were dealing with the same problem (Nestorianism) that St Athansius is addressing in the quote.
According to Orthodox sources we ARE dealing with the same problem or call it crypto-Nestorianism if you want: we do not venerate PARTS of Our Lord's body.
But you do venerate parts of the bodies of His Saints. If these can work as metonymies of the whole human vessel of God's glory and ultimately pass on the honor to God Himself, how is that any different from the Sacred Heart?

What I want to know is when the Catholics are going to make serious efforts to retrieve the Sacred Prepuce which was stolen in 1983.

The fact that they are sitting on their hands and doing nothing to locate this sacred relic is a vast insult to the Orthodox who gifted it to the West before the Schism.
Quote
Foreskin relics began appearing in Europe during the Middle Ages. The earliest recorded sighting came on December 25, 800, when Charlemagne gave it to Pope Leo III when the latter crowned the former Emperor. Charlemagne claimed that it had been brought to him by an angel while he prayed at the Holy Sepulchre, although a more prosaic report says it was a wedding gift from the Byzantine Empress Irene. The Pope placed it into the Sanctum sanctorum in the Lateran basilica in Rome with other relics. Its authenticity was later considered to be confirmed by a vision of Saint Bridget of Sweden.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Prepuce
I'm afraid to ask what she saw in the vision.
Quote
The Holy Prepuce of Calcata is worthy of special mention, as the reliquary containing the Holy Foreskin was paraded through the streets of this Italian village as recently as 1983 on the Feast of the Circumcision, which was formerly marked by the Roman Catholic Church around the world on January 1 each year. The practice ended, however, when thieves stole the jewel-encrusted case, contents and all. Following this theft, it is unclear whether any of the purported Holy Prepuces still exist. In a 1997 television documentary for Channel 4, British journalist Miles Kington travelled to Italy in search of the Holy Foreskin, but was unable to find any remaining example.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 22, 2011, 05:40:32 PM
Since Western Rite ROCOR does not believe in the promotion of so-called sexually hysterical women or the Sacred Heart:  I surely hope they keep that sexually hysterical Nestorian Bernard of Clairvaux off their calendar because his prayers have inspired generations of 'sexually hysterical Nestorian' western saints:

Given that Bernard (who I would agree was the source of quite a lot of what is questionable or downright spiritually dangerous in the Latin tradition) was post-schism, I would not only hope but expect that he would be excluded from any Orthodox calendar, whatever the rite.


Well you'll have to keep a real weather eye out because there are EO's who foolishly seem to revere him as well.

May I suggest a negative add campaign to speed the expulsion process along!!

At least St. Bernard puts paid to the silly idea that Sr. Margaret-Mary is responsible for the devotion to the Sacred Heart in the west.


At least St. Bernard puts paid to the silly idea that Sr. Margaret-Mary is responsible for the devotion to the Sacred Heart in the west.

The heart was always there, along with the knees and the hands and the head but it was Margaret Mary Alacoque who took the Heart and marketed it as an essential picture for every Catholic home.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: ialmisry on August 22, 2011, 05:53:03 PM
Since Western Rite ROCOR does not believe in the promotion of so-called sexually hysterical women or the Sacred Heart:  I surely hope they keep that sexually hysterical Nestorian Bernard of Clairvaux off their calendar because his prayers have inspired generations of 'sexually hysterical Nestorian' western saints:

Given that Bernard (who I would agree was the source of quite a lot of what is questionable or downright spiritually dangerous in the Latin tradition) was post-schism, I would not only hope but expect that he would be excluded from any Orthodox calendar, whatever the rite.


Well you'll have to keep a real weather eye out because there are EO's who foolishly seem to revere him as well.

May I suggest a negative add campaign to speed the expulsion process along!!

At least St. Bernard puts paid to the silly idea that Sr. Margaret-Mary is responsible for the devotion to the Sacred Heart in the west.


At least St. Bernard puts paid to the silly idea that Sr. Margaret-Mary is responsible for the devotion to the Sacred Heart in the west.

The heart was always there, along with the knees and the hands and the head but it was Margaret Mary Alacoque who took the Heart and marketed it as an essential picture for every Catholic home.
sort of the Clarence Walton Lillehei of Vatican devotions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._Walton_Lillehei
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Sleeper on August 22, 2011, 07:20:05 PM
For millionth time, though, no Western Orthodox are venerating a body part. Please, read the entire thread.

Do not mistake the visionary reveries of Mary Margaret as being the same thing as the ancient Western patristic tradition of venerating the mystery of the Passion as symbolically represented in the piercing of Our Lord's heart.

Read the Fathers, read the history of this devotion, and observe how it's actually being carried out in an Orthodox context. There are so many genetic fallacies, non sequiturs, and red herrings being thrown about in this thread it's hard to keep track of.

Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: LBK on August 22, 2011, 07:41:57 PM
It's just that for most people, that's still an image of Christ so they do not see what the big deal is.
What about this image of Christ? http://walhydra.blogspot.com/2008/06/lord-of-dance.html (warning: partial nudity)

Or this one? http://www.franciscan-anglican.com/Sophia.htm

This is the work of Robert Lentz, a gay Catholic Franciscan.  No Orthodox priest would bless any of his icons and they are excluded from sale in Orthodox stores.

His Franciscan Order asked him to stop selling the more offensive ones years ago and I think he has complied.

Unfortunately, Father, this is not the case. Robert Lentz's heretical and blasphemous images have continued to be freely available for sale, in disobedience to the directive from Abp Michael Sheehan of Santa Fe to the distributor of these images to withdraw them for sale. The archbishop issued this directive in 2005. The distributor has evidently done nothing to curb their sale.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 22, 2011, 07:49:25 PM
For millionth time, though, no Western Orthodox are venerating a body part. Please, read the entire thread.

Do not mistake the visionary reveries of Mary Margaret as being the same thing as the ancient Western patristic tradition of venerating the mystery of the Passion as symbolically represented in the piercing of Our Lord's heart.

Read the Fathers, read the history of this devotion, and observe how it's actually being carried out in an Orthodox context. There are so many genetic fallacies, non sequiturs, and red herrings being thrown about in this thread it's hard to keep track of.



One thing that is factual is that it is Margaret Mary Alacoque's vision of the Sacred Heart which is being displayed by the Antiochian Orthodox.  With that particular picture there comes a whole package of unorthodox things such as the Twelve Promises.   


(http://cache2.allpostersimages.com/p/LRG/20/2041/24X4D00Z/posters/sacred-heart-of-jesus.jpg)
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Sleeper on August 22, 2011, 08:17:35 PM
One thing that is factual? What on earth are you talking about? What does a picture have to do with anything at all? What do Antiochians have to do with it?I'm seriously beginning to think you're just trolling now. Or your brain is turned off. Please stop. The OP asked a genuine question about whether or not Orthodox Christians use a devotion toward the Sacred Heart, which has absolutely nothing to do with Margaret Mary, visions, psychosexual orgasmic what-have-you's or any other irrelevant things you're dragging into this conversation. It's almost as if you're incapable of any thinking beyond gut-level reactions, or with any sort of historical nuance whatsoever. Seriously, stop.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: LBK on August 22, 2011, 08:25:12 PM
One thing that is factual? What on earth are you talking about? What does a picture have to do with anything at all? What do Antiochians have to do with it?I'm seriously beginning to think you're just trolling now. Or your brain is turned off. Please stop. The OP asked a genuine question about whether or not Orthodox Christians use a devotion toward the Sacred Heart, which has absolutely nothing to do with Margaret Mary, visions, psychosexual orgasmic what-have-you's or any other irrelevant things you're dragging into this conversation. It's almost as if you're incapable of any thinking beyond gut-level reactions, or with any sort of historical nuance whatsoever. Seriously, stop.

Oh my, Sleeper. Various Orthodox folks have provided good and informative posts which all show the devotion to the sacred heart of Jesus is foreign to Orthodoxy, from the historical, liturgical and doctrinal point of view. It seems that this has upset you in some way.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: stanley123 on August 22, 2011, 08:29:04 PM
The quote from St. Athanasius is good because he had to deal with Nestorianism.

It would be even better if we were dealing with the same problem (Nestorianism) that St Athansius is addressing in the quote.
According to Orthodox sources we ARE dealing with the same problem or call it crypto-Nestorianism if you want: we do not venerate PARTS of Our Lord's body.
But you do venerate parts of the bodies of His Saints. If these can work as metonymies of the whole human vessel of God's glory and ultimately pass on the honor to God Himself, how is that any different from the Sacred Heart?

What I want to know is when the Catholics are going to make serious efforts to retrieve the Sacred Prepuce which was stolen in 1983.

The fact that they are sitting on their hands and doing nothing to locate this sacred relic is a vast insult to the Orthodox who gifted it to the West before the Schism.
So this was a relic which was venerated by the Orthodox faithful? If so, then it seems to me that it would be perfectly in order for Catholics to venerate the Sacred Heart of Jesus, which speaks to  the unmitigated love, compassion, and long-suffering of the Sacred Heart of Our Divine Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ towards humanity.
V. Lord, have mercy on us.
 R. Christ, have mercy on us.
 V. Lord, have mercy on us. Christ, hear us.
 R. Christ, graciously hear us.
 V. God the Father of Heaven, have mercy on us.
 God the Son, Redeemer of the world, have mercy on us.
 God the Holy Ghost, have mercy on us.
 Holy Trinity, one God, have mercy on us.
 Heart of Jesus, Son of the Eternal Father, have mercy on us.
 Heart of Jesus, formed in the womb of the Virgin Mother by the Holy Ghost, have mercy on us.
 Heart of Jesus, united substantially to the Word of God.
 Heart of Jesus, of infinite majesty.
 Heart of Jesus, holy temple of God.
 Heart of Jesus, tabernacle of the Most High.
 Heart of Jesus, house of God and gate of heaven.
 Heart of Jesus, glowing furnace of charity.
 Heart of Jesus, vessel of justice and love.
 Heart of Jesus, full of goodness and love.
 Heart of Jesus, abyss of all virtues.
 Heart of Jesus, most worthy of all praise.
 Heart of Jesus, King and center of all hearts.
 Heart of Jesus, in whom art all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
 Heart of Jesus, in whom dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead.
 Heart of Jesus, in whom the Father was well pleased.
 Heart of Jesus, of whose fullness we have all received.
 Heart of Jesus, desire of the everlasting hills.
 Heart of Jesus, patient and rich in mercy.
 Heart of Jesus, rich to all who call upon Thee.
 Heart of Jesus, fount of life and holiness.
 Heart of Jesus, propitiation for our offenses.
 Heart of Jesus, overwhelmed with reproaches.
 Heart of Jesus, bruised for our iniquities.
 Heart of Jesus, obedient even unto death.
 Heart of Jesus, pierced with a lance.
 Heart of Jesus, source of all consolation.
 Heart of Jesus, our life and resurrection.
 Heart of Jesus, our peace and reconciliation.
 Heart of Jesus, victim for our sins.
 Heart of Jesus, salvation of those who hope in Thee.
 Heart of Jesus, hope of those who die in Thee.
 Heart of Jesus, delight of all saints.
 
V. Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world,
 R. spare us, O Lord.
 V. Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world,
 R. graciously hear us, O Lord.
 V. Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world,
 R. have mercy on us.
 
V. Jesus, meek and humble of Heart,
 R. Make our hearts like unto Thine.
 
Let us pray.
 
Almighty and everlasting God, look upon the Heart of Thy well-beloved Son and upon the acts of praise and satisfaction which He renders unto Thee in the name of sinners; and do Thou, in Thy great goodness, grant pardon to them who seek Thy mercy, in the name of the same Thy Son, Jesus Christ, who liveth and reigneth with Thee, world without end.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Sleeper on August 22, 2011, 08:36:05 PM
One thing that is factual? What on earth are you talking about? What does a picture have to do with anything at all? What do Antiochians have to do with it?I'm seriously beginning to think you're just trolling now. Or your brain is turned off. Please stop. The OP asked a genuine question about whether or not Orthodox Christians use a devotion toward the Sacred Heart, which has absolutely nothing to do with Margaret Mary, visions, psychosexual orgasmic what-have-you's or any other irrelevant things you're dragging into this conversation. It's almost as if you're incapable of any thinking beyond gut-level reactions, or with any sort of historical nuance whatsoever. Seriously, stop.

Oh my, Sleeper. Various Orthodox folks have provided good and informative posts which all show the devotion to the sacred heart of Jesus is foreign to Orthodoxy, from the historical, liturgical and doctrinal point of view. It seems that this has upset you in some way.

No, what they've shown are good and informative posts which show the devotion to the sacred heart of Jesus as carried out in popular piety by many Roman Catholics based upon the visions of Margaret Mary is foreign to Orthodoxy, which has nothing to do with the OP.

It's the intensely lazy thinking that has me flustered. I have no dog in this fight, I'm not a practitioner of the devotion, my parish does not celebrate the feast, it just irks me when misinformation is spread in attempts to undermine something else entirely.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 22, 2011, 08:38:09 PM

One thing that is factual? What on earth are you talking about? What does a picture have to do with anything at all? What do Antiochians have to do with it?I'm seriously beginning to think you're just trolling now. Or your brain is turned off. Please stop. The OP asked a genuine question about whether or not Orthodox Christians use a devotion toward the Sacred Heart, which has absolutely nothing to do with Margaret Mary, visions, psychosexual orgasmic what-have-you's or any other irrelevant things you're dragging into this conversation. It's almost as if you're incapable of any thinking beyond gut-level reactions, or with any sort of historical nuance whatsoever. Seriously, stop.


In that case, prove your point...

You said:

1.  Read the Fathers,

What Fathers?  Which chapters of what books?

2. read the history of this devotion,

Where?  What books?

3.  observe how it's actually being carried out in an Orthodox context

Tell me how

Put aside the empty protestations and prove to us that this is firmly rooted in the tradition of the Church and not just a rather mindless importation of the (now somewhat passe) Sacred Heart devotion of the Roman Catholics.  Aren't you just feeding off the Margaret Mary Alocoque revelations and imagery.

So far you haven't helped us with anything factual at all.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 22, 2011, 08:43:30 PM
The quote from St. Athanasius is good because he had to deal with Nestorianism.

It would be even better if we were dealing with the same problem (Nestorianism) that St Athansius is addressing in the quote.
According to Orthodox sources we ARE dealing with the same problem or call it crypto-Nestorianism if you want: we do not venerate PARTS of Our Lord's body.
But you do venerate parts of the bodies of His Saints. If these can work as metonymies of the whole human vessel of God's glory and ultimately pass on the honor to God Himself, how is that any different from the Sacred Heart?

What I want to know is when the Catholics are going to make serious efforts to retrieve the Sacred Prepuce which was stolen in 1983.

The fact that they are sitting on their hands and doing nothing to locate this sacred relic is a vast insult to the Orthodox who gifted it to the West before the Schism.

So this was a relic which was venerated by the Orthodox faithful? If so, then it seems to me that it would be perfectly in order for Catholics to venerate the Sacred Heart of Jesus,

The Sacred Prepuce is a physical object.  It exists and can be seen and touched.  If you have the Sacred Heart somewhere in one of your churches, just tell us and you'll find queues of Orthodox 10 miles long waiting to venerate it.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: stanley123 on August 22, 2011, 08:49:17 PM
The quote from St. Athanasius is good because he had to deal with Nestorianism.

It would be even better if we were dealing with the same problem (Nestorianism) that St Athansius is addressing in the quote.
According to Orthodox sources we ARE dealing with the same problem or call it crypto-Nestorianism if you want: we do not venerate PARTS of Our Lord's body.
But you do venerate parts of the bodies of His Saints. If these can work as metonymies of the whole human vessel of God's glory and ultimately pass on the honor to God Himself, how is that any different from the Sacred Heart?

What I want to know is when the Catholics are going to make serious efforts to retrieve the Sacred Prepuce which was stolen in 1983.

The fact that they are sitting on their hands and doing nothing to locate this sacred relic is a vast insult to the Orthodox who gifted it to the West before the Schism.

So this was a relic which was venerated by the Orthodox faithful? If so, then it seems to me that it would be perfectly in order for Catholics to venerate the Sacred Heart of Jesus,

The Sacred Prepuce is a physical object.  It exists and can be seen and touched. 
Has it been in order for  Orthodox to venerate this or not?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 22, 2011, 08:53:34 PM
The quote from St. Athanasius is good because he had to deal with Nestorianism.

It would be even better if we were dealing with the same problem (Nestorianism) that St Athansius is addressing in the quote.
According to Orthodox sources we ARE dealing with the same problem or call it crypto-Nestorianism if you want: we do not venerate PARTS of Our Lord's body.
But you do venerate parts of the bodies of His Saints. If these can work as metonymies of the whole human vessel of God's glory and ultimately pass on the honor to God Himself, how is that any different from the Sacred Heart?

What I want to know is when the Catholics are going to make serious efforts to retrieve the Sacred Prepuce which was stolen in 1983.

The fact that they are sitting on their hands and doing nothing to locate this sacred relic is a vast insult to the Orthodox who gifted it to the West before the Schism.

So this was a relic which was venerated by the Orthodox faithful? If so, then it seems to me that it would be perfectly in order for Catholics to venerate the Sacred Heart of Jesus,

The Sacred Prepuce is a physical object.  It exists and can be seen and touched. 
Has it been in order for  Orthodox to venerate this or not?


If you tell us where you keep the Sacred Heart we'll come and venerate it too.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: ialmisry on August 22, 2011, 08:54:22 PM
The quote from St. Athanasius is good because he had to deal with Nestorianism.

It would be even better if we were dealing with the same problem (Nestorianism) that St Athansius is addressing in the quote.
According to Orthodox sources we ARE dealing with the same problem or call it crypto-Nestorianism if you want: we do not venerate PARTS of Our Lord's body.
But you do venerate parts of the bodies of His Saints. If these can work as metonymies of the whole human vessel of God's glory and ultimately pass on the honor to God Himself, how is that any different from the Sacred Heart?

What I want to know is when the Catholics are going to make serious efforts to retrieve the Sacred Prepuce which was stolen in 1983.

The fact that they are sitting on their hands and doing nothing to locate this sacred relic is a vast insult to the Orthodox who gifted it to the West before the Schism.

So this was a relic which was venerated by the Orthodox faithful? If so, then it seems to me that it would be perfectly in order for Catholics to venerate the Sacred Heart of Jesus,

The Sacred Prepuce is a physical object.  It exists and can be seen and touched.  If you have the Sacred Heart somewhere in one of your churches, just tell us and you'll find queues of Orthodox 10 miles long waiting to venerate it.
Actually, worship it.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: stanley123 on August 22, 2011, 08:55:31 PM
The quote from St. Athanasius is good because he had to deal with Nestorianism.

It would be even better if we were dealing with the same problem (Nestorianism) that St Athansius is addressing in the quote.
According to Orthodox sources we ARE dealing with the same problem or call it crypto-Nestorianism if you want: we do not venerate PARTS of Our Lord's body.
But you do venerate parts of the bodies of His Saints. If these can work as metonymies of the whole human vessel of God's glory and ultimately pass on the honor to God Himself, how is that any different from the Sacred Heart?

What I want to know is when the Catholics are going to make serious efforts to retrieve the Sacred Prepuce which was stolen in 1983.

The fact that they are sitting on their hands and doing nothing to locate this sacred relic is a vast insult to the Orthodox who gifted it to the West before the Schism.

So this was a relic which was venerated by the Orthodox faithful? If so, then it seems to me that it would be perfectly in order for Catholics to venerate the Sacred Heart of Jesus,

The Sacred Prepuce is a physical object.  It exists and can be seen and touched.  If you have the Sacred Heart somewhere in one of your churches, just tell us and you'll find queues of Orthodox 10 miles long waiting to venerate it.
Actually, worship it.
So it is in order to worship a body part of Christ.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: ialmisry on August 22, 2011, 08:56:50 PM
The quote from St. Athanasius is good because he had to deal with Nestorianism.

It would be even better if we were dealing with the same problem (Nestorianism) that St Athansius is addressing in the quote.
According to Orthodox sources we ARE dealing with the same problem or call it crypto-Nestorianism if you want: we do not venerate PARTS of Our Lord's body.
But you do venerate parts of the bodies of His Saints. If these can work as metonymies of the whole human vessel of God's glory and ultimately pass on the honor to God Himself, how is that any different from the Sacred Heart?

What I want to know is when the Catholics are going to make serious efforts to retrieve the Sacred Prepuce which was stolen in 1983.

The fact that they are sitting on their hands and doing nothing to locate this sacred relic is a vast insult to the Orthodox who gifted it to the West before the Schism.

So this was a relic which was venerated by the Orthodox faithful? If so, then it seems to me that it would be perfectly in order for Catholics to venerate the Sacred Heart of Jesus,

The Sacred Prepuce is a physical object.  It exists and can be seen and touched.  If you have the Sacred Heart somewhere in one of your churches, just tell us and you'll find queues of Orthodox 10 miles long waiting to venerate it.
Actually, worship it.
So it is in order to worship a body part of Christ.
only if it is still attatched.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: LBK on August 22, 2011, 09:01:47 PM
There is not a single feast of the Orthodox Church which is dedicated to an allegory or concept. Devotions to the sacred heart, divine mercy, holy name, etc, fall into the "concept" category, and have no place (and never had any place) on Orthodox worship or devotion.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Sleeper on August 22, 2011, 09:04:17 PM

One thing that is factual? What on earth are you talking about? What does a picture have to do with anything at all? What do Antiochians have to do with it?I'm seriously beginning to think you're just trolling now. Or your brain is turned off. Please stop. The OP asked a genuine question about whether or not Orthodox Christians use a devotion toward the Sacred Heart, which has absolutely nothing to do with Margaret Mary, visions, psychosexual orgasmic what-have-you's or any other irrelevant things you're dragging into this conversation. It's almost as if you're incapable of any thinking beyond gut-level reactions, or with any sort of historical nuance whatsoever. Seriously, stop.


In that case, prove your point...

You said:

1.  Read the Fathers,

What Fathers?  Which chapters of what books?

2. read the history of this devotion,

Where?  What books?

3.  observe how it's actually being carried out in an Orthodox context

Tell me how

Put aside the empty protestations and prove to us that this is firmly rooted in the tradition of the Church and not just a rather mindless importation of the (now somewhat passe) Sacred Heart devotion of the Roman Catholics.  Aren't you just feeding off the Margaret Mary Alocoque revelations and imagery.

So far you haven't helped us with anything factual at all.

Fine.

The devotion to the Sacred Heart is rooted in intuitions of the early Church and even in the Old Testament. Fundamentally, it is a recollection of the sacrificial love of Christ as witnessed in His Incarnation, passion, and death. It includes also, the fullness of Divine love for mankind which is evidenced throughout the history of our race and is fulfilled in Christ's act for the salvation of man.

The Biblical focus of all of this is the piercing of Jesus' side with a lance at the Crucifixion. Many Church Fathers see this as the symbolic origin of the Church as the New Eve from the side of the New Adam. Symbolic interpretation is also given in that as Christ suffered spiritually in His passion, this is symbolized by the physical wounding of his heart. Therefore, the act of piercing Christ's side represents all that he endured for his love of man, both physical and spiritual

Devotion to the Sacred Heart is peculiar in that most popular piety is centered around Margaret Mary's apparitions rather than the liturgical texts of the Mass and the Office. As a result, it has become one of the most sentimental and emotional and least theological of all dissident western devotions.

As laid out in the liturgical texts, the Sacred Heart is a focusing on the sacrificial love of God in Christ. The Introit of the feast sets this tone right at the start:

The thoughts of His Heart are from generation to generation: that he may deliver their souls from death, and feed them in famine.
Ps. 32: 11, 195

The Epistle is Eph. 3: 8-12, 14-19 ending with:

... That you and all the saints may understand and know the breadth and length and height and depth of the love of Christ, which surpasses human understanding; and that you may be filled with the fullness of God's being.

The Gradual verse following is Matt. 11: 29:

Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, because I am gentle and humble of heart, and you will find rest for your souls.

The Gospel is St. John's account of the piercing of Christ's side and the Offertory is Ps. 68: 21:

My heart is broken with insults and sadness, and I looked for one who would share my grief, and there was no one: for one who would comfort me, and I found no one?

From these texts we can see that the theme and interpretation is clearly set out. Christ has done and suffered all things out of His love for mankind. The Offertory hints at another theme which is also woven throughut the texts, that of our ingratitude to Christ for all that He has done out of His great love.
Both of these themes are found in the Office as well. The hymn of first vespers deals with our sins which were responsible for Christ's suffering, a recurring theme in Western spirituality:

Look how the proud cruel multitude of our sins has wounded the sinless Heart of God, undeserving of such treatment.
It was this that put direction and vigor into the soldier's hesitation; it was man's sin that sharpened the spear's point.
The Church, bride of Christ, is born of His pierced Heart; this is the gate in the side of the ark, put there for man's salvation.
Seven streams of never-failing grace flow from this Heart that we may wash our soiled robes in the blood of the Lamb.
How shameful it would be to return to sins which would this sacred Heart; how much better to try to reproduce in the burning love of our hearts the flames that are signs of the love of His Heart.

Glory be to You, Jesus; from Your Heart You pour out grace; and glory be to the Father and the loving Spirit, for ever and ever. Amen. 8
The Hymn of Matins centers on Christ's love as His motivation for all that He did for our salvation:
 
Blessed Creator of the world and Redeemer of all mankind, light from the Father's light and true God from God.
Love compelled You, Christ, to take a human body that as the second Adam You could restore what the first had taken from us.
That love of Yours which was the bountiful creator of earth, sea and the skies, took pity on our first parents' fall and broke the chains that bound us.
May that abundant stream of glorious love never cease to flow from Your Heart; may the nations always draw from this well of love the grace of Pardon.
It was for this that Your Heart was struck with the lance and for this was it wounded, namely to wash us from our sins in the water and blood that flowed from it.

Glory be to You, Jesus; from your Heart You pour out grace; and glory be to the Father and the loving Spirit, for ever and ever. Amen.

The Old Testament lessons trace some of God's dealings with His people Israel. Here again, the theme of God's love and man's ingratitude are manifest. This is a familiar pattern in the Old Testament.

Thus, we see the liturgical devotion is intended to produce a response on our part to Christ's love. As Christ himself said, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments." Jn. 14: 15. "If a man loves me, he will keep my word and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him." Jn. 14: 23. This is the message of the feast of the Most Sacred Heart.
 
Popular devotion is, however, little based on this. Unlike the Blessed Sacrament devotions which take their texts from the feast of Corpus Christi, Sacred Heart devotions seldom make use of its excellent hymnography. Rather they begin with Margaret Mary's revelations and piously reflect on these. Emotionalism and sentimentality are given full reign and abominable mush is published to touch the hearts of the faithful. As popularly conceived it only perpetuates false doctrine and spirituality and destroys true, free, love of God.

In discussing devotion to the Sacred Heart, it is necessary to study the foundations of this devotion in Scripture and in the writings of the Fathers of the Church.

The text of John 19:34 narrates the piercing of the side of Christ and the consequent flow of blood and water; it has an important position in the whole context of the Gospel. This importance is emphasized by the Evangelist himself, for it is precisely at this place that he interposes his own witness for the first time, and confirms it by citing two prophecies from the Old Testament.

When we turn to the Fathers, we find in them also a similar recognition of the unique importance of this event, and of the divine mystery concealed in the darkness of Calvary. By attending to their words of wonder, we learn the proper disposition of mind in which to pursue this investigation, for "the beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord."

Thus, St. John Chrysostom exclaims in his Homily to the Newly Baptized Christians:
The soldier opened His side, broke through the wall of the holy Temple; and I have found a wondrous treasure, I delight in its gleaming riches. . .From the side came forth blood and water. I would not have you easily pass by the secrets of such a mystery; for I have deep and mystical words to utter.

A similar cry of wonder escapes the lips of St. Avitus of Vienne in his Sermon on the Passion a century later:
When the side of Christ was opened, there came forth, copious streams of water and blood. What deed more wonderful than this? What proof more clear? What mystery more charged with meaning?

In the spirit of these Fathers, then, we may proceed with our study of the text itself, as it has been expounded in the long tradition of the Church. From the beginning, it is of no small significance that the first commentator is none other than the Evangelist himself. At the end of his First Epistle there is a clear allusion to this text of his Gospel--an allusion, which is explicitly recognized by several of the Fathers. St. John declares:

This is He Who has come by water and blood; not by water alone, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit Who testifies that Christ is the Truth.

According to a common interpretation of this passage, St. John is here contrasting two kinds of baptism. The first is that of St. John the Baptist, in water alone, which Christ received in the Jordan at the beginning of His public life. The second is that proper to Christ Himself, in water and blood, which he poured forth over the world in the hour of His death on Calvary. And on both occasions the Holy Spirit appears, giving witness that Christ is indeed the Truth, the source of eternal life for men.

This interpretation of St. John is followed by many early Fathers, who see in the sacrament of blood and water flowing from the pierced side of Christ a representation of the two kinds of baptism, in water and in blood. Between the two there is an intimate connection.

There is a hint of this idea in Origen's Commentary on the Book of Judges:
Our probation extends not only to lashes, but even to the shedding of our blood; for Christ also, Whom we follow, shed His blood for our redemption, that we might go forth washed in our own blood. It is baptism of blood alone, which makes us purer than we were made by baptism of water.

Its clear expression, however, occurs in the classic treatise of Tertullian on Baptism:
We have also a second washing, that of blood, about which the Lord said: "I have a baptism to be baptized," after He had already been baptized. For He came by water and blood, as John has written, that by water He might be baptized, and by blood glorified. Then, to make us called by water and chosen by blood, He sent forth those two baptisms from the wound of His pierced side, that those who believe in His blood might first be washed by water and later by their own blood. This baptism realizes the baptism of water before its reception, and restores it when lost by sin.

Other witnesses to this interpretation among the Fathers are St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Jerome, and Rufinus of Aquileia. It also finds beautiful expression in the sermon of St. Avitus of Vienne, from which we have already quoted:
Let us receive the water from the Lord's side, while the martyrs receive His blood; and while they are clothed with the precious purple of His blood, let us be sprinkled with the snowy water of baptism.

A more common line of interpretation, which was destined to supersede that of the two kinds of baptism in mediaeval and Renaissance commentaries, is that the blood represents the price of our redemption, which in turn gives efficacy to the baptismal water of regeneration. It seems to have arisen naturally after the age of persecutions and martyrs, and may have been influenced by the presentation of baptism in connection with the blood of Christ which we find in I Peter, 1:1.

This idea appears in the Sermon on the Cross of the Lord, which is ascribed to St. Athanasius:
He was pierced in no other part but His side, whence flowed blood and water; that just as deception had come through the woman formed from the side of Adam, so from the side of the second Adam might come the redemption and cleansing of the first--redemption by blood, and cleansing by water.

But what gave it such widespread currency in the Middle Ages and later was the combined authority of the two great Doctors of the West, St. Ambrose and St. Augustine. There are two relevant passages in St. Ambrose, one from his Commentary on St. Luke, the other from his Treatise on the Sacraments, both of them well-known texts in the Middle Ages:
From that body, incorrupt but dead, flowed forth the life of all men; water and blood came forth, the one to wash, the other to redeem. Let us therefore drink our price, that by drinking we may be redeemed. From His side there flowed water and blood. Why water? Why blood? Water to cleanse, blood to redeem.

This is not unlike the interpretation given by St. Augustine in his Commentary on St. John:
The blood is shed for the remission of sins. The water tempers the cup of salvation; it affords washing and drink.

In the above passages from St. Ambrose and St. Augustine, there are also elements of a further interpretation, closely connected with but distinct from the former, and which becomes very common among the later Fathers. This is that the blood signifies not only the price of our redemption which gives efficacy to the water of baptism, but also the Eucharistic food with which the neophyte is nourished as the completion of the baptismal ceremony,
St. Ambrose himself, in fact, gives this interpretation in another passage of his Commentary on St. Luke--which proves that the two interpretations are not to be regarded as exclusive, but rather complementary to each other:
I also ask why we do not find Him wounded before His death, but only after His death; save that His departure was to be shown as voluntary rather than necessary, and that we might learn the mystical order --not the sacrament of the altar before baptism, but first baptism, and then the cup.

Similarly, St. Augustine, in his controversy with Faustus the Manichee, interprets the blood flowing from the side of Christ in terms of the Eucharist:
. . . non adhuc in sacramento spei, quo in hoc tempore consociatur Ecclesia, quamdiu bibitur quod de Christi latere manavit.


But without any doubt, the great exponent of this interpretation among the Fathers is St. John Chrysostom--to whom it is suggested by a variant reading of the text, which inverts the order of "sanguis et aqua" to make it conform with the order found in St. John's Epistle. Two passages, in particular, may serve to manifest his thought, one from the Homily to the Newly Baptized, already quoted, the other from his 85th Homily on St. John's Gospel:
From His side flowed water and blood: the one a symbol of baptism, the other, of the sacred mystery. Therefore, he does not say: There came forth blood and water, but: There came forth water first and then blood, since we are first washed by baptism, and afterwards consecrated by the mystery.
This the initiated know who are regenerated by water, and nourished by His flesh and blood. Here the mysteries have their beginning; so that when you approach the awesome cup, you should come as though to drink from His side.

This interpretation is also to be found in St. Cyril of Alexandria's Commentary on the Gospel of St. John:
With the lance they pierced His side, from which blood mixed with water gushed out, as an image and first-fruits of the mystical "eulogia" and holy baptism.

In the West, it appears not long after in Pope St. Leo's Letter to Flavian, Bishop of Constantinople, on the subject of the Eutychian heresy--though further on in the same letter we also find indications of the previous interpretation:
Let him see which nature was pierced with nails and hung on the wood of the cross, and as he beholds the side of the Crucified opened by the soldier's lance, let him understand whence flowed blood and water, that the Church of God might be irrigated by baptism and the chalice.
The spirit of sanctification, the blood of redemption, and the water of baptism; these three are one, yet remain distinct, and none of them may be severed from their connection.

Finally, we can see how fully this interpretation passed into the tradition of the West from a passage in one of St. Bede's homilies, which may be taken as representative of the sacramental teaching of the Middle Ages:
One of the soldiers opened His side with a lance, and at once there came forth blood and water. These are the sacraments by which the Church is born and nourished in Christ, namely the water of baptism by which she is washed from sins, and the blood of the Lord's chalice by which she is confirmed in gifts.

Further reflection on the varied significance of the sacrament of blood and water flowing from the side of Christ led many of the Fathers to draw a more general conclusion of considerable interest. This, apparently, was suggested to their minds less by St. John than by St. Paul, who speaks of Adam as the prototype of Christ in Romans, 5:14. It was a comparison of this passage with that concerning Christ and His Church in Ephesians 5:22-32 which indicated the parallel, that just as Eve was formed by God from the side of the sleeping Adam, so from the side of Christ sleeping in His Passion came forth the Church in the sacrament of blood and water.

An early instance of this interpretation is to be found in Tertullian's De Anima:
If Adam was a figure of Christ, the sleep of Adam was the death of Christ Who was to fall asleep in death; that in the injury of His side might be figured the Church, the true mother of the living.

In the same province of Africa, we find this thought echoed in a work entitled, De Montibus Sina et Sion, which has been ascribed to St. Cyprian:
Pierced in the midst of His side, from that side blood mixed with water flowed abundantly, wherewith He built up His holy Church.

About the same time in Rome, the idea again occurs in a certain Homily on the Pasch, whose authorship has recently been attributed to St. Hippolytus. The expressions used are highly poetic, but it is the more sober language of the African writers which was destined to endure in the tradition of the West:
Wishing to destroy the work of the woman and to raise an obstacle to her, who had previously issued from the side of Adam as bearer of death, behold, He opened His own sacred side from which there flowed blood and water, plenary signs of spiritual nuptials, of adoption and mystical regeneration.

I could keep going, but seriously don't have the time nor energy. But this is all essentially taken up by St. Bernard, and then by St. Bonaventure who stands out as the great exponent of this devotion; and in its light he makes a synthesis of the three principal stages outlined above: namely, the sacraments of blood and water, the Church formed from the pierced side of Christ, and the secret of His Heart hidden within.

In the first place, he presents the doctrinal synthesis in his treatise on the Lignum Vitae:
In order that the Church might be formed from the side of Christ sleeping on the cross, and that the Scripture might be fulfilled which says: "They shall look upon Him Whom they have pierced," it was ordained by divine providence that one of the soldiers should pierce with his lance and open that sacred side; so that in the blood flowing out with the water, the price of our salvation might be poured forth --thereby from the very source (namely the secret of the Heart) imparting abundant power to the sacraments of the Church for conferring the life of grace, and for bestowing on those who already live in Christ a cup of living water springing up into eternal life. Behold the lance has now made a hole in the rock and a hollow in the wall, as it were a dwelling for doves. Arise, then, beloved of Christ, be like a dove nestling in the opening of the hole; there cease not to watch like the sparrow who has found her home, there like the turtle-dove hide the offspring of your chaste love, there place your mouth to drink water from the sources of the Saviour.

In his other treatise on the Vitis Mystica, the Seraphic Doctor proceeds from the doctrine to the devotion of the Sacred Heart, in words whose fervor of love is hardly to be paralleled elsewhere in mediaeval literature. Indeed, the whole treatise may be termed a hymn of praise and love of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, from the beginning where he speaks of the "circumfossio vitis" until the concluding exhortation to contemplate the Passion of Christ:
For this also was your side pierced, that an entrance might be opened to us; for this was your Heart wounded, that we might be able to dwell in that vine, freed from all external troubles; and for this also was it wounded, that through the visible wound we might behold the invisible wound of love. Finally, let us approach that most humble Heart of Jesus most high, that is to say, through the door in His side pierced with the lance; there without doubt lies hidden an ineffable treasure of most desirable love; there will we find devotion, thence draw the grace of tears, there learn meekness and patience in adversity, and compassion for the afflicted, and there, above all, obtain a contrite and humbled heart.

Here, then, more than four centuries before the revelations made to St. Margaret Mary, we discover in the Franciscan school of piety as witnessed chiefly in the writings of St. Bonaventure a full expression of the devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus; and here, too, we see the outlet, as it were, of those divergent streams of Patristic meditation which we have followed from their principal source in the side of the Saviour--according to the witness of St. John.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: stanley123 on August 22, 2011, 09:05:12 PM
The quote from St. Athanasius is good because he had to deal with Nestorianism.

It would be even better if we were dealing with the same problem (Nestorianism) that St Athansius is addressing in the quote.
According to Orthodox sources we ARE dealing with the same problem or call it crypto-Nestorianism if you want: we do not venerate PARTS of Our Lord's body.
But you do venerate parts of the bodies of His Saints. If these can work as metonymies of the whole human vessel of God's glory and ultimately pass on the honor to God Himself, how is that any different from the Sacred Heart?

What I want to know is when the Catholics are going to make serious efforts to retrieve the Sacred Prepuce which was stolen in 1983.

The fact that they are sitting on their hands and doing nothing to locate this sacred relic is a vast insult to the Orthodox who gifted it to the West before the Schism.

So this was a relic which was venerated by the Orthodox faithful? If so, then it seems to me that it would be perfectly in order for Catholics to venerate the Sacred Heart of Jesus,

The Sacred Prepuce is a physical object.  It exists and can be seen and touched.  If you have the Sacred Heart somewhere in one of your churches, just tell us and you'll find queues of Orthodox 10 miles long waiting to venerate it.
Actually, worship it.
So it is in order to worship a body part of Christ.
only if it is still attatched.
Given that Orthodox believe that it is in order to venerate the Sacred Prepuce, I find the  objection of the Orthodox  to Catholic devotion to the Sacred Heart to be faulty.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Sleeper on August 22, 2011, 09:05:31 PM
There is not a single feast of the Orthodox Church which is dedicated to an allegory or concept. Devotions to the sacred heart, divine mercy, holy name, etc, fall into the "concept" category, and have no place (and never had any place) on Orthodox worship or devotion.

Sunday of the Prodigal Son; a parable, or "allegory" if you will.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: ialmisry on August 22, 2011, 09:11:33 PM
Fine.

The devotion to the Sacred Heart is rooted in intuitions of the early Church and even in the Old Testament. Fundamentally, it is a recollection of the sacrificial love of Christ as witnessed in His Incarnation, passion, and death. It includes also, the fullness of Divine love for mankind which is evidenced throughout the history of our race and is fulfilled in Christ's act for the salvation of man.
if that were true, we would have seen it before the 17th century.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Sleeper on August 22, 2011, 09:11:43 PM
Lest anyone think otherwise (and if you couldn't tell already) that lengthy post was not my own work, but was via Fr. Edward Hughes' interpolation of a popular work by Fr. Peter Milford.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Sleeper on August 22, 2011, 09:12:07 PM
Fine.

The devotion to the Sacred Heart is rooted in intuitions of the early Church and even in the Old Testament. Fundamentally, it is a recollection of the sacrificial love of Christ as witnessed in His Incarnation, passion, and death. It includes also, the fullness of Divine love for mankind which is evidenced throughout the history of our race and is fulfilled in Christ's act for the salvation of man.
if that were true, we would have seen it before the 17th century.


And, indeed, we do.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: ialmisry on August 22, 2011, 09:12:19 PM
There is not a single feast of the Orthodox Church which is dedicated to an allegory or concept. Devotions to the sacred heart, divine mercy, holy name, etc, fall into the "concept" category, and have no place (and never had any place) on Orthodox worship or devotion.

Sunday of the Prodigal Son; a parable, or "allegory" if you will.
the text of the Gospel for that Sunday.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: ialmisry on August 22, 2011, 09:13:52 PM
Fine.

The devotion to the Sacred Heart is rooted in intuitions of the early Church and even in the Old Testament. Fundamentally, it is a recollection of the sacrificial love of Christ as witnessed in His Incarnation, passion, and death. It includes also, the fullness of Divine love for mankind which is evidenced throughout the history of our race and is fulfilled in Christ's act for the salvation of man.
if that were true, we would have seen it before the 17th century.


And, indeed, we do.
don't recall seeing anything like this before even the Reformation.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Batoni_sacred_heart.jpg)
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Sleeper on August 22, 2011, 09:16:05 PM
Fine.

The devotion to the Sacred Heart is rooted in intuitions of the early Church and even in the Old Testament. Fundamentally, it is a recollection of the sacrificial love of Christ as witnessed in His Incarnation, passion, and death. It includes also, the fullness of Divine love for mankind which is evidenced throughout the history of our race and is fulfilled in Christ's act for the salvation of man.
if that were true, we would have seen it before the 17th century.


And, indeed, we do.
don't recall seeing anything like this before even the Reformation.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Batoni_sacred_heart.jpg)

For good reason, for that picture has nothing to do with what I've been talking about. Please, read the above.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Sleeper on August 22, 2011, 09:28:07 PM
There is not a single feast of the Orthodox Church which is dedicated to an allegory or concept. Devotions to the sacred heart, divine mercy, holy name, etc, fall into the "concept" category, and have no place (and never had any place) on Orthodox worship or devotion.

Sunday of the Prodigal Son; a parable, or "allegory" if you will.
the text of the Gospel for that Sunday.

Of course, but the feast is not about Christ's telling of the parable (the actual event) it is about "repentance" as displayed in that parable, which is a "concept" presented in an "allegory."
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Sleeper on August 22, 2011, 09:34:37 PM
On a related note: It is interesting to me, Irish Hermit, the extent to which you oppose the Toll House theory and the depth of thought you're willing to expend in defending your position, and yet you won't extend the same courtesy here. All you see is "Sacred Heart" and all you think is "psychosexual orgasmic dreams of an insane woman" and go no further.

I'm not asking your or anyone else to "be okay" with devotion to Christ's Compassion, I'm only asking that you stop railing against it based on something entirely different, and at least try to see where some Western Orthodox are coming from. Is that so difficult?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on August 22, 2011, 09:40:57 PM
The quote from St. Athanasius is good because he had to deal with Nestorianism.

It would be even better if we were dealing with the same problem (Nestorianism) that St Athansius is addressing in the quote.
According to Orthodox sources we ARE dealing with the same problem or call it crypto-Nestorianism if you want: we do not venerate PARTS of Our Lord's body.
But you do venerate parts of the bodies of His Saints. If these can work as metonymies of the whole human vessel of God's glory and ultimately pass on the honor to God Himself, how is that any different from the Sacred Heart?

What I want to know is when the Catholics are going to make serious efforts to retrieve the Sacred Prepuce which was stolen in 1983.

The fact that they are sitting on their hands and doing nothing to locate this sacred relic is a vast insult to the Orthodox who gifted it to the West before the Schism.

Equine Apples!!
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: LBK on August 22, 2011, 09:42:35 PM
Quote
On a related note: It is interesting to me, Irish Hermit, the extent to which you oppose the Toll House theory and the depth of thought you're willing to expend in defending your position, and yet you won't extend the same courtesy here. All you see is "Sacred Heart" and all you think is "psychosexual orgasmic dreams of an insane woman" and go no further.

The notion of toll houses is, at best, a theologoumenon, a pious opinion held by some, and in no way espoused by the Church as a whole. I'm not sure devotion to the sacred heart could even be called a theologoumenon. And there has never been a feast of the Church based on a theologoumenon.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Sleeper on August 22, 2011, 09:46:34 PM
Quote
On a related note: It is interesting to me, Irish Hermit, the extent to which you oppose the Toll House theory and the depth of thought you're willing to expend in defending your position, and yet you won't extend the same courtesy here. All you see is "Sacred Heart" and all you think is "psychosexual orgasmic dreams of an insane woman" and go no further.

The notion of toll houses is, at best, a theologoumenon, a pious opinion held by some, and in no way espoused by the Church as a whole. I'm not sure devotion to the sacred heart could even be called a theologoumenon. And there has never been a feast of the Church based on a theologoumenon.

I'm not comparing the two, LBK. I'm talking about Irish Hermit's selective use of brain power.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: ialmisry on August 22, 2011, 09:48:42 PM
Fine.

The devotion to the Sacred Heart is rooted in intuitions of the early Church and even in the Old Testament. Fundamentally, it is a recollection of the sacrificial love of Christ as witnessed in His Incarnation, passion, and death. It includes also, the fullness of Divine love for mankind which is evidenced throughout the history of our race and is fulfilled in Christ's act for the salvation of man.
if that were true, we would have seen it before the 17th century.


And, indeed, we do.
don't recall seeing anything like this before even the Reformation.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Batoni_sacred_heart.jpg)

For good reason, for that picture has nothing to do with what I've been talking about. Please, read the above.
A picture is worth a thousand words, and that is where the cult of a sacred heart ended up, a step in the progression being detaching Christ's heart to be its own object of wroship.  The above might rationalize that, and even provide the basis of an Orthodox devotion, but it's not the same as if the cult was nurtured by Orthodoxy.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on August 22, 2011, 09:55:49 PM
Fine.

The devotion to the Sacred Heart is rooted in intuitions of the early Church and even in the Old Testament. Fundamentally, it is a recollection of the sacrificial love of Christ as witnessed in His Incarnation, passion, and death. It includes also, the fullness of Divine love for mankind which is evidenced throughout the history of our race and is fulfilled in Christ's act for the salvation of man.
if that were true, we would have seen it before the 17th century.


And, indeed, we do.
don't recall seeing anything like this before even the Reformation.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Batoni_sacred_heart.jpg)

For good reason, for that picture has nothing to do with what I've been talking about. Please, read the above.
A picture is worth a thousand words, and that is where the cult of a sacred heart ended up, a step in the progression being detaching Christ's heart to be its own object of wroship.  The above might rationalize that, and even provide the basis of an Orthodox devotion, but it's not the same as if the cult was nurtured by Orthodoxy.

The period where this kind of pious image has had currency has been exceptionally brief when compared to the entire span of time in the west when people expressed devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.  It never was and is not now simply a devotion to a "body part."
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: ialmisry on August 22, 2011, 09:56:22 PM
There is not a single feast of the Orthodox Church which is dedicated to an allegory or concept. Devotions to the sacred heart, divine mercy, holy name, etc, fall into the "concept" category, and have no place (and never had any place) on Orthodox worship or devotion.

Sunday of the Prodigal Son; a parable, or "allegory" if you will.
the text of the Gospel for that Sunday.

Of course, but the feast is not about Christ's telling of the parable (the actual event) it is about "repentance" as displayed in that parable, which is a "concept" presented in an "allegory."
which was the point of Christ telling the parable.

So St. Mary of Egypt Sunday is about "repentance at the last moment,"  the Triumph of Orthodoxy, well, the Triumph of Orthodoxy, etc. blah, blah, blah.


You are still not going to come up with any Gospel of Christ dwelling on His Heart as some sort of alter ego.  Or any Orthodox devoitions so devoted.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Sleeper on August 22, 2011, 09:59:59 PM
Fine.

The devotion to the Sacred Heart is rooted in intuitions of the early Church and even in the Old Testament. Fundamentally, it is a recollection of the sacrificial love of Christ as witnessed in His Incarnation, passion, and death. It includes also, the fullness of Divine love for mankind which is evidenced throughout the history of our race and is fulfilled in Christ's act for the salvation of man.
if that were true, we would have seen it before the 17th century.


And, indeed, we do.
don't recall seeing anything like this before even the Reformation.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Batoni_sacred_heart.jpg)

For good reason, for that picture has nothing to do with what I've been talking about. Please, read the above.
A picture is worth a thousand words, and that is where the cult of a sacred heart ended up, a step in the progression being detaching Christ's heart to be its own object of wroship.  The above might rationalize that, and even provide the basis of an Orthodox devotion, but it's not the same as if the cult was nurtured by Orthodoxy.

I agree, Isa. I'm as repulsed by what became of popular devotion as you are, believe me. But that's why I'm defending it's genuine roots, I suppose, because I think it's worth it. I know others won't agree, and I guess I don't expect them too, but I'd at least like to them to disagree on legitimate grounds instead of oversimplifications and guilt by association.

The purpose of the Western Rite, as put forth by Antioch, is this:  “Western Orthodoxy is the rediscovery of the Orthodoxy which withered in the west, and its revitalization, not through the transferral of eastern Patristic thought and devotional attitudes, but by the patient searching out, assembly and coordination of the supratemporal factors which created and characterized pre-schismatic occidental Christianity in its essence, and the careful selection of valid survivals in contemporary western thought and culture. These supratemporal factors entail not just a rediscovery of liturgical practices but an appreciation of western Patristic thought, incipient devotional attitudes, practices and spirituality as they have evolved over the course of centuries.”

That was said by Fr Paul Schneirla, the first Vicar General of the AWRV. And I believe devotion to the Sacred Heart falls in that category, as a valid survival of something that is rooted in the ancient West, despite what it may've become on the popular level.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Volnutt on August 22, 2011, 10:00:25 PM
The quote from St. Athanasius is good because he had to deal with Nestorianism.

It would be even better if we were dealing with the same problem (Nestorianism) that St Athansius is addressing in the quote.
According to Orthodox sources we ARE dealing with the same problem or call it crypto-Nestorianism if you want: we do not venerate PARTS of Our Lord's body.
But you do venerate parts of the bodies of His Saints. If these can work as metonymies of the whole human vessel of God's glory and ultimately pass on the honor to God Himself, how is that any different from the Sacred Heart?
They are not metonymies.

Take for instance the incorrupt relics of St. John Maximovich.  His whole body is there.  I just venerated the hand, there is no reason to kiss every square inch of him, as his hand is conected to the rest of him.  I once venerated the arm of St. George, which is still conected with the rest of him, in particular his soul/spirit in heaven.  The icon of him with the relic showed all of him, not just his arm.
But that's just my point. Just like St. John and his hand, Jesus' heart is still connected with the rest of Him. Why can't one venerate His heart and not just have to venerate "every square inch of Him?" The woman with the issue of blood said just touching Jesus' garment would be enough to heal her. I don't recall His clothes being fused to His body.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Volnutt on August 22, 2011, 10:01:22 PM
The quote from St. Athanasius is good because he had to deal with Nestorianism.

It would be even better if we were dealing with the same problem (Nestorianism) that St Athansius is addressing in the quote.
According to Orthodox sources we ARE dealing with the same problem or call it crypto-Nestorianism if you want: we do not venerate PARTS of Our Lord's body.
But you do venerate parts of the bodies of His Saints. If these can work as metonymies of the whole human vessel of God's glory and ultimately pass on the honor to God Himself, how is that any different from the Sacred Heart?

What I want to know is when the Catholics are going to make serious efforts to retrieve the Sacred Prepuce which was stolen in 1983.

The fact that they are sitting on their hands and doing nothing to locate this sacred relic is a vast insult to the Orthodox who gifted it to the West before the Schism.

So this was a relic which was venerated by the Orthodox faithful? If so, then it seems to me that it would be perfectly in order for Catholics to venerate the Sacred Heart of Jesus,

The Sacred Prepuce is a physical object.  It exists and can be seen and touched. 
Has it been in order for  Orthodox to venerate this or not?


If you tell us where you keep the Sacred Heart we'll come and venerate it too.
In Heaven, inside Jesus.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Sleeper on August 22, 2011, 10:03:25 PM
There is not a single feast of the Orthodox Church which is dedicated to an allegory or concept. Devotions to the sacred heart, divine mercy, holy name, etc, fall into the "concept" category, and have no place (and never had any place) on Orthodox worship or devotion.

Sunday of the Prodigal Son; a parable, or "allegory" if you will.
the text of the Gospel for that Sunday.

Of course, but the feast is not about Christ's telling of the parable (the actual event) it is about "repentance" as displayed in that parable, which is a "concept" presented in an "allegory."
which was the point of Christ telling the parable.

So St. Mary of Egypt Sunday is about "repentance at the last moment,"  the Triumph of Orthodoxy, well, the Triumph of Orthodoxy, etc. blah, blah, blah.


You are still not going to come up with any Gospel of Christ dwelling on His Heart as some sort of alter ego.  Or any Orthodox devoitions so devoted.

Come on now, I know you're capable of deeper thinking than that. I've seen it and admire it. What more can be said to have things not be reduced to one-liners?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: ialmisry on August 22, 2011, 10:04:15 PM
The quote from St. Athanasius is good because he had to deal with Nestorianism.

It would be even better if we were dealing with the same problem (Nestorianism) that St Athansius is addressing in the quote.
According to Orthodox sources we ARE dealing with the same problem or call it crypto-Nestorianism if you want: we do not venerate PARTS of Our Lord's body.
But you do venerate parts of the bodies of His Saints. If these can work as metonymies of the whole human vessel of God's glory and ultimately pass on the honor to God Himself, how is that any different from the Sacred Heart?
They are not metonymies.

Take for instance the incorrupt relics of St. John Maximovich.  His whole body is there.  I just venerated the hand, there is no reason to kiss every square inch of him, as his hand is conected to the rest of him.  I once venerated the arm of St. George, which is still conected with the rest of him, in particular his soul/spirit in heaven.  The icon of him with the relic showed all of him, not just his arm.
But that's just my point. Just like St. John and his hand, Jesus' heart is still connected with the rest of Him. Why can't one venerate His heart and not just have to venerate "every square inch of Him?" The woman with the issue of blood said just touching Jesus' garment would be enough to heal her. I don't recall His clothes being fused to His body.
I don't recall a devotion of the sacred fringe either.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: ialmisry on August 22, 2011, 10:04:51 PM
Fine.

The devotion to the Sacred Heart is rooted in intuitions of the early Church and even in the Old Testament. Fundamentally, it is a recollection of the sacrificial love of Christ as witnessed in His Incarnation, passion, and death. It includes also, the fullness of Divine love for mankind which is evidenced throughout the history of our race and is fulfilled in Christ's act for the salvation of man.
if that were true, we would have seen it before the 17th century.


And, indeed, we do.
don't recall seeing anything like this before even the Reformation.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Batoni_sacred_heart.jpg)

For good reason, for that picture has nothing to do with what I've been talking about. Please, read the above.
A picture is worth a thousand words, and that is where the cult of a sacred heart ended up, a step in the progression being detaching Christ's heart to be its own object of wroship.  The above might rationalize that, and even provide the basis of an Orthodox devotion, but it's not the same as if the cult was nurtured by Orthodoxy.

The period where this kind of pious image has had currency has been exceptionally brief when compared to the entire span of time in the west when people expressed devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.  It never was and is not now simply a devotion to a "body part."

(http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/aztecs/aztecs40.gif)
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Volnutt on August 22, 2011, 10:07:30 PM
The quote from St. Athanasius is good because he had to deal with Nestorianism.

It would be even better if we were dealing with the same problem (Nestorianism) that St Athansius is addressing in the quote.
According to Orthodox sources we ARE dealing with the same problem or call it crypto-Nestorianism if you want: we do not venerate PARTS of Our Lord's body.
But you do venerate parts of the bodies of His Saints. If these can work as metonymies of the whole human vessel of God's glory and ultimately pass on the honor to God Himself, how is that any different from the Sacred Heart?
They are not metonymies.

Take for instance the incorrupt relics of St. John Maximovich.  His whole body is there.  I just venerated the hand, there is no reason to kiss every square inch of him, as his hand is conected to the rest of him.  I once venerated the arm of St. George, which is still conected with the rest of him, in particular his soul/spirit in heaven.  The icon of him with the relic showed all of him, not just his arm.
But that's just my point. Just like St. John and his hand, Jesus' heart is still connected with the rest of Him. Why can't one venerate His heart and not just have to venerate "every square inch of Him?" The woman with the issue of blood said just touching Jesus' garment would be enough to heal her. I don't recall His clothes being fused to His body.
I don't recall a devotion of the sacred fringe either.
There's no relics of Jesus' clothing? I'm surprised.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: stanley123 on August 22, 2011, 10:09:34 PM
Fine.

The devotion to the Sacred Heart is rooted in intuitions of the early Church and even in the Old Testament. Fundamentally, it is a recollection of the sacrificial love of Christ as witnessed in His Incarnation, passion, and death. It includes also, the fullness of Divine love for mankind which is evidenced throughout the history of our race and is fulfilled in Christ's act for the salvation of man.
if that were true, we would have seen it before the 17th century.


And, indeed, we do.
don't recall seeing anything like this before even the Reformation.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Batoni_sacred_heart.jpg)

For good reason, for that picture has nothing to do with what I've been talking about. Please, read the above.
A picture is worth a thousand words, and that is where the cult of a sacred heart ended up, a step in the progression being detaching Christ's heart to be its own object of wroship.  The above might rationalize that, and even provide the basis of an Orthodox devotion, but it's not the same as if the cult was nurtured by Orthodoxy.

The period where this kind of pious image has had currency has been exceptionally brief when compared to the entire span of time in the west when people expressed devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.  It never was and is not now simply a devotion to a "body part."

(http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/aztecs/aztecs40.gif)
Inasmuch as you venerate another body part of Christ, your arguments are unconvincing and close to absurd.  
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: ialmisry on August 22, 2011, 10:13:14 PM
There is not a single feast of the Orthodox Church which is dedicated to an allegory or concept. Devotions to the sacred heart, divine mercy, holy name, etc, fall into the "concept" category, and have no place (and never had any place) on Orthodox worship or devotion.

Sunday of the Prodigal Son; a parable, or "allegory" if you will.
the text of the Gospel for that Sunday.

Of course, but the feast is not about Christ's telling of the parable (the actual event) it is about "repentance" as displayed in that parable, which is a "concept" presented in an "allegory."
which was the point of Christ telling the parable.

So St. Mary of Egypt Sunday is about "repentance at the last moment,"  the Triumph of Orthodoxy, well, the Triumph of Orthodoxy, etc. blah, blah, blah.


You are still not going to come up with any Gospel of Christ dwelling on His Heart as some sort of alter ego.  Or any Orthodox devoitions so devoted.

Come on now, I know you're capable of deeper thinking than that. I've seen it and admire it. What more can be said to have things not be reduced to one-liners?
The problem is the Sacred Heart is not alone: besides the "Immaculate Heart," we have "Sacred Blood" (I used to pass by that parish in Chicago all the time), the Five Wounds, the Pierced Hearts of Jesus and Mary, the Pierced Heart of the Virgin, etc. and when we are through disecting the divine, Divine Mercy (that one doesn't bother me so much, though I'm not so much a fan of Sister Faustina as her cult presents her), Corpus Christi, etc.  Once one ceases to hold on to the concrete that the Apostles left us, he is left without moorings and cast adrift into all the directions "visions" will take him.  That is the biggest problem with all of this, the role that "visions" played in all these cults.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 22, 2011, 10:14:41 PM
The quote from St. Athanasius is good because he had to deal with Nestorianism.

It would be even better if we were dealing with the same problem (Nestorianism) that St Athansius is addressing in the quote.
According to Orthodox sources we ARE dealing with the same problem or call it crypto-Nestorianism if you want: we do not venerate PARTS of Our Lord's body.
But you do venerate parts of the bodies of His Saints. If these can work as metonymies of the whole human vessel of God's glory and ultimately pass on the honor to God Himself, how is that any different from the Sacred Heart?

What I want to know is when the Catholics are going to make serious efforts to retrieve the Sacred Prepuce which was stolen in 1983.

The fact that they are sitting on their hands and doing nothing to locate this sacred relic is a vast insult to the Orthodox who gifted it to the West before the Schism.

So this was a relic which was venerated by the Orthodox faithful? If so, then it seems to me that it would be perfectly in order for Catholics to venerate the Sacred Heart of Jesus,

The Sacred Prepuce is a physical object.  It exists and can be seen and touched.  If you have the Sacred Heart somewhere in one of your churches, just tell us and you'll find queues of Orthodox 10 miles long waiting to venerate it.
Actually, worship it.
So it is in order to worship a body part of Christ.
only if it is still attatched.
Given that Orthodox believe that it is in order to venerate the Sacred Prepuce, I find the  objection of the Orthodox  to Catholic devotion to the Sacred Heart to be faulty.

Are you claiming that you have the heart somewhere on earth where it may be worshipped.  Is it beating or is it dead?

Likewise with the heart of Mary.  We shall come in great numbers if you tell us what church to come to.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Volnutt on August 22, 2011, 10:19:11 PM
There is not a single feast of the Orthodox Church which is dedicated to an allegory or concept. Devotions to the sacred heart, divine mercy, holy name, etc, fall into the "concept" category, and have no place (and never had any place) on Orthodox worship or devotion.

Sunday of the Prodigal Son; a parable, or "allegory" if you will.
the text of the Gospel for that Sunday.

Of course, but the feast is not about Christ's telling of the parable (the actual event) it is about "repentance" as displayed in that parable, which is a "concept" presented in an "allegory."
which was the point of Christ telling the parable.

So St. Mary of Egypt Sunday is about "repentance at the last moment,"  the Triumph of Orthodoxy, well, the Triumph of Orthodoxy, etc. blah, blah, blah.


You are still not going to come up with any Gospel of Christ dwelling on His Heart as some sort of alter ego.  Or any Orthodox devoitions so devoted.

Come on now, I know you're capable of deeper thinking than that. I've seen it and admire it. What more can be said to have things not be reduced to one-liners?
The problem is the Sacred Heart is not alone: besides the "Immaculate Heart," we have "Sacred Blood" (I used to pass by that parish in Chicago all the time), the Five Wounds, the Pierced Hearts of Jesus and Mary, the Pierced Heart of the Virgin, etc. and when we are through disecting the divine, Divine Mercy (that one doesn't bother me so much, though I'm not so much a fan of Sister Faustina as her cult presents her), Corpus Christi, etc.  Once one ceases to hold on to the concrete that the Apostles left us, he is left without moorings and cast adrift into all the directions "visions" will take him.  That is the biggest problem with all of this, the role that "visions" played in all these cults.
I'd like to see somebody actually interact with post 101 before talking like this...
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 22, 2011, 10:19:37 PM
Fine.

The devotion to the Sacred Heart is rooted in intuitions of the early Church and even in the Old Testament. Fundamentally, it is a recollection of the sacrificial love of Christ as witnessed in His Incarnation, passion, and death. It includes also, the fullness of Divine love for mankind which is evidenced throughout the history of our race and is fulfilled in Christ's act for the salvation of man.
if that were true, we would have seen it before the 17th century.


And, indeed, we do.
don't recall seeing anything like this before even the Reformation.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Batoni_sacred_heart.jpg)

For good reason, for that picture has nothing to do with what I've been talking about. Please, read the above.

I read all the above and it seems to have nothing to do with the Sacred Heart but with the Sacred Lateral.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Sleeper on August 22, 2011, 10:20:00 PM
There is not a single feast of the Orthodox Church which is dedicated to an allegory or concept. Devotions to the sacred heart, divine mercy, holy name, etc, fall into the "concept" category, and have no place (and never had any place) on Orthodox worship or devotion.

Sunday of the Prodigal Son; a parable, or "allegory" if you will.
the text of the Gospel for that Sunday.

Of course, but the feast is not about Christ's telling of the parable (the actual event) it is about "repentance" as displayed in that parable, which is a "concept" presented in an "allegory."
which was the point of Christ telling the parable.

So St. Mary of Egypt Sunday is about "repentance at the last moment,"  the Triumph of Orthodoxy, well, the Triumph of Orthodoxy, etc. blah, blah, blah.


You are still not going to come up with any Gospel of Christ dwelling on His Heart as some sort of alter ego.  Or any Orthodox devoitions so devoted.

Come on now, I know you're capable of deeper thinking than that. I've seen it and admire it. What more can be said to have things not be reduced to one-liners?
The problem is the Sacred Heart is not alone: besides the "Immaculate Heart," we have "Sacred Blood" (I used to pass by that parish in Chicago all the time), the Five Wounds, the Pierced Hearts of Jesus and Mary, the Pierced Heart of the Virgin, etc. and when we are through disecting the divine, Divine Mercy (that one doesn't bother me so much, though I'm not so much a fan of Sister Faustina as her cult presents her), Corpus Christi, etc.  Once one ceases to hold on to the concrete that the Apostles left us, he is left without moorings and cast adrift into all the directions "visions" will take him.  That is the biggest problem with all of this, the role that "visions" played in all these cults.

And I quite honestly believe that all Western Orthodox would agree with you. I certainly do. That is why the patristic roots of anything that crystallized post-Schism must be defending and brought to light.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: ialmisry on August 22, 2011, 10:21:32 PM
The quote from St. Athanasius is good because he had to deal with Nestorianism.

It would be even better if we were dealing with the same problem (Nestorianism) that St Athansius is addressing in the quote.
According to Orthodox sources we ARE dealing with the same problem or call it crypto-Nestorianism if you want: we do not venerate PARTS of Our Lord's body.
But you do venerate parts of the bodies of His Saints. If these can work as metonymies of the whole human vessel of God's glory and ultimately pass on the honor to God Himself, how is that any different from the Sacred Heart?
They are not metonymies.

Take for instance the incorrupt relics of St. John Maximovich.  His whole body is there.  I just venerated the hand, there is no reason to kiss every square inch of him, as his hand is conected to the rest of him.  I once venerated the arm of St. George, which is still conected with the rest of him, in particular his soul/spirit in heaven.  The icon of him with the relic showed all of him, not just his arm.
But that's just my point. Just like St. John and his hand, Jesus' heart is still connected with the rest of Him. Why can't one venerate His heart and not just have to venerate "every square inch of Him?" The woman with the issue of blood said just touching Jesus' garment would be enough to heal her. I don't recall His clothes being fused to His body.
I don't recall a devotion of the sacred fringe either.
There's no relics of Jesus' clothing? I'm surprised.
There are, just no cults devoted to them.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Sleeper on August 22, 2011, 10:23:50 PM
Fine.

The devotion to the Sacred Heart is rooted in intuitions of the early Church and even in the Old Testament. Fundamentally, it is a recollection of the sacrificial love of Christ as witnessed in His Incarnation, passion, and death. It includes also, the fullness of Divine love for mankind which is evidenced throughout the history of our race and is fulfilled in Christ's act for the salvation of man.
if that were true, we would have seen it before the 17th century.


And, indeed, we do.
don't recall seeing anything like this before even the Reformation.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Batoni_sacred_heart.jpg)

For good reason, for that picture has nothing to do with what I've been talking about. Please, read the above.

I read all the above and it seems to have nothing to do with the Sacred Heart but with the Sacred Lateral.

Perhaps that's because you insist on the Sacred Heart being about a organ and not about Christ's Passion?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 22, 2011, 10:24:18 PM
On a related note: It is interesting to me, Irish Hermit, the extent to which you oppose the Toll House theory and the depth of thought you're willing to expend in defending your position, and yet you won't extend the same courtesy here. All you see is "Sacred Heart" and all you think is "psychosexual orgasmic dreams of an insane woman" and go no further.

I'm not asking your or anyone else to "be okay" with devotion to Christ's Compassion, I'm only asking that you stop railing against it based on something entirely different, and at least try to see where some Western Orthodox are coming from. Is that so difficult?

How many WR Orthodox are you talking about?  How many WR churches display this picture apart from Fr Miguel Lobos'?  Why do so many WR priests reject it, including all in the Russisn Church?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Volnutt on August 22, 2011, 10:24:33 PM
Fine.

The devotion to the Sacred Heart is rooted in intuitions of the early Church and even in the Old Testament. Fundamentally, it is a recollection of the sacrificial love of Christ as witnessed in His Incarnation, passion, and death. It includes also, the fullness of Divine love for mankind which is evidenced throughout the history of our race and is fulfilled in Christ's act for the salvation of man.
if that were true, we would have seen it before the 17th century.


And, indeed, we do.
don't recall seeing anything like this before even the Reformation.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Batoni_sacred_heart.jpg)

For good reason, for that picture has nothing to do with what I've been talking about. Please, read the above.

I read all the above and it seems to have nothing to do with the Sacred Heart but with the Sacred Lateral.
Blood and water flowed from His side because His heart was pierced, the article quoted also ties the devotion to frequent Biblical references to the heart of God.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Volnutt on August 22, 2011, 10:26:03 PM
The quote from St. Athanasius is good because he had to deal with Nestorianism.

It would be even better if we were dealing with the same problem (Nestorianism) that St Athansius is addressing in the quote.
According to Orthodox sources we ARE dealing with the same problem or call it crypto-Nestorianism if you want: we do not venerate PARTS of Our Lord's body.
But you do venerate parts of the bodies of His Saints. If these can work as metonymies of the whole human vessel of God's glory and ultimately pass on the honor to God Himself, how is that any different from the Sacred Heart?
They are not metonymies.

Take for instance the incorrupt relics of St. John Maximovich.  His whole body is there.  I just venerated the hand, there is no reason to kiss every square inch of him, as his hand is conected to the rest of him.  I once venerated the arm of St. George, which is still conected with the rest of him, in particular his soul/spirit in heaven.  The icon of him with the relic showed all of him, not just his arm.
But that's just my point. Just like St. John and his hand, Jesus' heart is still connected with the rest of Him. Why can't one venerate His heart and not just have to venerate "every square inch of Him?" The woman with the issue of blood said just touching Jesus' garment would be enough to heal her. I don't recall His clothes being fused to His body.
I don't recall a devotion of the sacred fringe either.
There's no relics of Jesus' clothing? I'm surprised.
There are, just no cults devoted to them.
What is your definition of a cult? Isn't all veneration a cult?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: LBK on August 22, 2011, 10:29:43 PM
Quote
What is your definition of a cult? Isn't all veneration a cult?

Not every cult of veneration becomes part of Holy Tradition.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 22, 2011, 10:31:32 PM
Quote
On a related note: It is interesting to me, Irish Hermit, the extent to which you oppose the Toll House theory and the depth of thought you're willing to expend in defending your position, and yet you won't extend the same courtesy here. All you see is "Sacred Heart" and all you think is "psychosexual orgasmic dreams of an insane woman" and go no further.

The notion of toll houses is, at best, a theologoumenon, a pious opinion held by some, and in no way espoused by the Church as a whole. I'm not sure devotion to the sacred heart could even be called a theologoumenon. And there has never been a feast of the Church based on a theologoumenon.

I'm not comparing the two, LBK. I'm talking about Irish Hermit's selective use of brain power.

No selective use of brain power.  I have not encountered the Sacred Heart in the Church until the last few weeks when it was raised on Occidentalis.

The last time it came up for me was when a Lebanese family donated a large and expensive  image, in the early 1980s.  The WR Antiochian priest was in a quandary.  He refused to display it in the church but he put it out of sight in the altar area from where it eventually disappeared.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Volnutt on August 22, 2011, 10:31:58 PM
Quote
What is your definition of a cult? Isn't all veneration a cult?

Not evert cult of veneration becomes part of Holy Tradition.
True. But some do, and that puts paid the, "You're cutting Jesus up" argument.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 22, 2011, 10:41:34 PM
On a related note: It is interesting to me, Irish Hermit, the extent to which you oppose the Toll House theory and the depth of thought you're willing to expend in defending your position, and yet you won't extend the same courtesy here. All you see is "Sacred Heart" and all you think is "psychosexual orgasmic dreams of an insane woman" and go no further.

I'm not asking your or anyone else to "be okay" with devotion to Christ's Compassion, I'm only asking that you stop railing against it based on something entirely different, and at least try to see where some Western Orthodox are coming from. Is that so difficult?

How many WR Orthodox are you talking about?  How many WR churches display this picture apart from Fr Miguel Lobos'?  Why do so many WR priests reject it, including all in the Russisn Church?

I still want to know.  If the cult of the Sacred Heart is so solidly established in the patristic writings and the authentic tradition of the Church, why do so many of the WR clergy reject it?    Are they stupid?  Don't they find the writings of people such as Sleeper convincing?  Sleeper's first work is to convince his or her own people.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Sleeper on August 22, 2011, 10:43:09 PM
On a related note: It is interesting to me, Irish Hermit, the extent to which you oppose the Toll House theory and the depth of thought you're willing to expend in defending your position, and yet you won't extend the same courtesy here. All you see is "Sacred Heart" and all you think is "psychosexual orgasmic dreams of an insane woman" and go no further.

I'm not asking your or anyone else to "be okay" with devotion to Christ's Compassion, I'm only asking that you stop railing against it based on something entirely different, and at least try to see where some Western Orthodox are coming from. Is that so difficult?

How many WR Orthodox are you talking about?

I don't know. And I'm not one of them.

Quote
How many WR churches display this picture apart from Fr Miguel Lobos'?

Your obsession with the picture continues to puzzle me. Please, explain what it has to do with anything I've said.

Quote
Why do so many WR priests reject it, including all in the Russisn Church?

Because the Russian brand of WRO tends to be built upon a reconstructionist model that says, "Because Rome is so far gone, and everything she’s done since the schism is seriously suspect, we have to reconstruct a “Latin Orthodoxy” from some golden age and place." It is a movement built on idealism, so it sets the clock back to before (the arbitrarily dated "schism") 1054 AD, "resurrects" liturgies based upon what historical evidence we have before us and blesses individual priests to bring this new vision of a Western Orthodoxy to the masses.

The Antiochian approach, on the other hand, is one of genuine ecumenism and reunion. It was decided that any Western expression of the Faith was to be based upon the living liturgy/patrimony of the West and only whole parishes could enter, there would be no blessing of individuals to the Western Rite. It was not premised on a sectarian narrative opposed to post-Schismatic Rome, but took whole parishes, with their whole communal life of expression and devotion, regardless of date or alleged origins, and so long as things were harmonized with sound theology, blessed for use.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Sleeper on August 22, 2011, 10:48:15 PM
On a related note: It is interesting to me, Irish Hermit, the extent to which you oppose the Toll House theory and the depth of thought you're willing to expend in defending your position, and yet you won't extend the same courtesy here. All you see is "Sacred Heart" and all you think is "psychosexual orgasmic dreams of an insane woman" and go no further.

I'm not asking your or anyone else to "be okay" with devotion to Christ's Compassion, I'm only asking that you stop railing against it based on something entirely different, and at least try to see where some Western Orthodox are coming from. Is that so difficult?

How many WR Orthodox are you talking about?  How many WR churches display this picture apart from Fr Miguel Lobos'?  Why do so many WR priests reject it, including all in the Russisn Church?

I still want to know.  If the cult of the Sacred Heart is so solidly established in the patristic writings and the authentic tradition of the Church, why do so many of the WR clergy reject it?    Are they stupid?  Don't they find the writings of people such as Sleeper convincing?  Sleeper's first work is to convince his or her own people.

So many reject it because so many refuse to see it as anything other than what Margaret Mary put forth. I know the group of which you speak, Occidentalis, and I see them always throwing around terms like "macabre" despite repeated explanations that the devotion has nothing to do with physical organs. Even hear, it's as if you have turned your eyes off and only see what you want to see.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 22, 2011, 11:03:04 PM

Because the Russian brand of WRO tends to be built upon a reconstructionist model that says, "Because Rome is so far gone, and everything she’s done since the schism is seriously suspect, we have to reconstruct a “Latin Orthodoxy” from some golden age and place." It is a movement built on idealism, so it sets the clock back to before (the arbitrarily dated "schism") 1054 AD, "resurrects" liturgies based upon what historical evidence we have before us and blesses individual priests to bring this new vision of a Western Orthodoxy to the masses.



Sleeper, this just isn't so.

1.  Fr. Augustine Whitfield always kept his "Use of Mt. Royal" based on the Carthusians;

2.  Fr. James Deschene [Canadian monastery] follows, from what I understand, the "Black Benedictine" books, with a more or less Tridentine form of the Mass;

3.  Fr. Michael in Tasmania has his own liturgical preferences [based on the BCP]

4.  Fr [ex-Archbishop] Anthony Bondi who recently entered the Ruissian Church Abroad with about 15 of his priests follows a quite modern liturgical style.  I am not really acquainted with it. 

Here is their Liturgy  http://www.theorthodoxchurch.org/docs/FraternityOfSaintGregoryOfficialLiturgy.pdf 

It would be the dominant Liturgy today in the Russian Church Abroad.

Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Sleeper on August 22, 2011, 11:14:11 PM
Liturgies aside, from what I've read of actual ROCOR WR objections to Sacred Heart, Corpus Christi, Rosary, etc., has less to do with actual theological objections and almost everything to do with their supposed origin and their date. I've engaged in this first hand and there is an adamant refusal to object to how things are actually carried out in an Orthodox context, retreating instead to irrelevant diatribes about "Roman Catholics" and what it means to them.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 22, 2011, 11:18:09 PM
Liturgies aside, from what I've read of actual ROCOR WR objections to Sacred Heart, Corpus Christi, Rosary, etc., has less to do with actual theological objections and almost everything to do with their supposed origin and their date. I've engaged in this first hand and there is an adamant refusal to object to how things are actually carried out in an Orthodox context, retreating instead to irrelevant diatribes about "Roman Catholics" and what it means to them.

ROCA aside, why is the Sacred Heart rejected by the majority of your Antiochian priests?    Are they simply ignorant men who have no idea of its patristic base?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Sleeper on August 22, 2011, 11:28:24 PM
Liturgies aside, from what I've read of actual ROCOR WR objections to Sacred Heart, Corpus Christi, Rosary, etc., has less to do with actual theological objections and almost everything to do with their supposed origin and their date. I've engaged in this first hand and there is an adamant refusal to object to how things are actually carried out in an Orthodox context, retreating instead to irrelevant diatribes about "Roman Catholics" and what it means to them.

ROCA aside, why is the Sacred Heart rejected by the majority of your Antiochian priests?    Are they simply ignorant men who have no idea of its patristic base?

Is it rejected? I'd like to see something in writing, if you have it. I've corresponded with many Antiochian priests, and read most of the literature that has been made available (and some that hasn't) in regards to devotional/liturgical practices and I can't say that I've encountered any "rejections" as much as just...indifference.

Believe it or not, I fall into the latter category. I don't much care for the feast or the devotion, I'm just not opposed to it and recognize that it can be meaningful to many people if understood in its proper context. I'll defend it if for the simple fact that no one else around here will and lurking readers might find it beneficial to be exposed to the historical precedent for the devotion aside from "psychosexual" visions.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: LBK on August 22, 2011, 11:34:47 PM
Quote
Believe it or not, I fall into the latter category. I don't much care for the feast or the devotion, I'm just not opposed to it and recognize that it can be meaningful to many people if understood in its proper context.

Is it your call as to what becomes part of the devotional tradition of the Church? As for the "justifications" for a "form" of devotion to the heart of Jesus, is not established Orthodox hymnography (including prayers in any Orthodox prayerbook) replete with references to the love, mercy, compassion and sacrifice of Christ? Why the need to single out one of these attributes for special veneration?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Sleeper on August 22, 2011, 11:36:47 PM
Quote
Believe it or not, I fall into the latter category. I don't much care for the feast or the devotion, I'm just not opposed to it and recognize that it can be meaningful to many people if understood in its proper context.

Is it your call as to what becomes part of the devotional tradition of the Church?

I'm not sure what you mean?

Quote
As for the "justifications" for a "form" of devotion to the heart of Jesus, is not established Orthodox hymnography (including prayers in any Orthodox prayerbook) replete with references to the love, mercy, compassion and sacrifice of Christ? Why the need to single out one of these attributes for special veneration?

Which attribute would that be?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: LBK on August 22, 2011, 11:48:29 PM
Quote
I'm not sure what you mean?

Here are your words again, Sleeper: I'm just not opposed to it and recognize that it can be meaningful to many people if understood in its proper context.

I ask again: Is it your call as to what becomes part of the devotional tradition of the Church?

Quote
Which attribute would that be?


Have you not posted great slabs of writings supporting the notion of the Passion of Christ being the justification of some sort of neo-Orthodox devotion to the sacred heart? Aren't the services for Lazarus' Saturday and Holy Week adequate?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Sleeper on August 22, 2011, 11:53:18 PM
Quote
I'm not sure what you mean?

Here are your words again, Sleeper: I'm just not opposed to it and recognize that it can be meaningful to many people if understood in its proper context.

I ask again: Is it your call as to what becomes part of the devotional tradition of the Church?

Um...no? I don't know what point you're trying to make. Did I imply that I was? Irish Hermit said many WR are opposed to, and I said that I was not and support its use, though I don't use it personally. What's so confusing about that?

Quote
Have you not posted great slabs of writings supporting the notion of the Passion of Christ being the justification of some sort of neo-Orthodox devotion to the sacred heart? Aren't the services for Lazarus' Saturday and Holy Week adequate?

Do you understand what Western Orthodoxy is?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: LBK on August 22, 2011, 11:57:31 PM
Quote
Do you understand what Western Orthodoxy is?

Anything (teachings, iconography, hymnography, prayers, devotions) that does not conform with established Orthodox theology and doctrine is not Orthodox. Its hemisphere of origin is irrelevant.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Sleeper on August 23, 2011, 12:04:39 AM
Quote
Do you understand what Western Orthodoxy is?

Anything (teachings, iconography, hymnography, prayers, devotions) that does not conform with established Orthodox theology and doctrine is not Orthodox. Its hemisphere of origin is irrelevant.

Agreed. And anything that does conform with established Orthodox theology and doctrine (teachings, art, hymns, prayers, devotions) is Orthodox. Its hemisphere or date of origin is irrelevant.

Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: LBK on August 23, 2011, 12:09:34 AM
Quote
Do you understand what Western Orthodoxy is?

Anything (teachings, iconography, hymnography, prayers, devotions) that does not conform with established Orthodox theology and doctrine is not Orthodox. Its hemisphere of origin is irrelevant.

Agreed. And anything that does conform with established Orthodox theology and doctrine (teachings, art, hymns, prayers, devotions) is Orthodox. Its hemisphere or date of origin is irrelevant.



Yet where is there established Orthodox devotion to the sacred heart? It's completely absent in the east, and practically absent in the WR, as Irish Hermit keeps saying. And you are neither bishop, nor hymnographer, to insist that such a devotion become part of Orthodoxy.

Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Sleeper on August 23, 2011, 12:31:38 AM
Quote
Do you understand what Western Orthodoxy is?

Anything (teachings, iconography, hymnography, prayers, devotions) that does not conform with established Orthodox theology and doctrine is not Orthodox. Its hemisphere of origin is irrelevant.

Agreed. And anything that does conform with established Orthodox theology and doctrine (teachings, art, hymns, prayers, devotions) is Orthodox. Its hemisphere or date of origin is irrelevant.



Yet where is there established Orthodox devotion to the sacred heart? It's completely absent in the east, and practically absent in the WR, as Irish Hermit keeps saying. And you are neither bishop, nor hymnographer, to insist that such a devotion become part of Orthodoxy.

I encourage only what my Metropolitan himself has encouraged (and in some sense, insisted upon). As stated in point 2 of the Western Rite Commission: "2.   Parishes and larger units received into the Archdiocese retain the use of all Western rites, devotions, and customs which are not contrary to the Orthodox Faith and are logically derived from a Western usage antedating the Schism of 1054."

The debate, then, is on whether or not such things as Sacred Heart are "contrary" to the Faith, and I have posted a quite lengthy entry detailing how it can be understood as consonant with the Truth of the Mystery of the Passion, and logically derived from the Western patristic synthesis.

I don't know why you keep thinking I'm placing myself above my hierarchs as some sort of arbiter of devotional practices. Perhaps you were unaware that we have been given the fullest of blessings to carry out these devotions.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: witega on August 23, 2011, 12:43:37 AM
which are not contrary to the Orthodox Faith and are logically derived from a Western usage antedating the Schism of 1054."

But it doesn't 'derive from a Western usage antedating the Schism of 1054'. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia, a decidedly friendly source says "But there is nothing to indicate that, during the first ten centuries, any worship was rendered the wounded Heart. It is in the eleventh and twelfth centuries that we find the first unmistakable indications of devotion to the Sacred Heart." Not a single individual among those it goes on to name as involved in the origin and growth of the devotion was even born at the time of the Schism of 1054.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Robb on August 23, 2011, 01:03:10 AM
On a related note: It is interesting to me, Irish Hermit, the extent to which you oppose the Toll House theory and the depth of thought you're willing to expend in defending your position, and yet you won't extend the same courtesy here. All you see is "Sacred Heart" and all you think is "psychosexual orgasmic dreams of an insane woman" and go no further.

I'm not asking your or anyone else to "be okay" with devotion to Christ's Compassion, I'm only asking that you stop railing against it based on something entirely different, and at least try to see where some Western Orthodox are coming from. Is that so difficult?

How many WR Orthodox are you talking about?  How many WR churches display this picture apart from Fr Miguel Lobos'?  Why do so many WR priests reject it, including all in the Russisn Church?

I still want to know.  If the cult of the Sacred Heart is so solidly established in the patristic writings and the authentic tradition of the Church, why do so many of the WR clergy reject it?    Are they stupid?  Don't they find the writings of people such as Sleeper convincing?  Sleeper's first work is to convince his or her own people.

Its looks like many WR clergy are afraid to approve of the devotion due to unfairly being labeled as "Romanist" by many Eastern rite Orthodox.  The whole WR appears to be held in deep suspicion by many EO's (Much like the Tridentine mass movement is with many RC's).  You have both clergy and laity who want to be seen and respected as fully Orthodox while practicing Western Rites, yet they may feel that com primsing their legitimate western traditions and devotions is the only way to secure that respect and acceptance.  This is also very similar to the process of Latinization that many EC's once underwent in order to appear as fully Catholic to their Latin rite brothers.  Its a shame, but pineing for acceptance always comes with a price.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Robb on August 23, 2011, 01:18:13 AM
Liturgies aside, from what I've read of actual ROCOR WR objections to Sacred Heart, Corpus Christi, Rosary, etc., has less to do with actual theological objections and almost everything to do with their supposed origin and their date. I've engaged in this first hand and there is an adamant refusal to object to how things are actually carried out in an Orthodox context, retreating instead to irrelevant diatribes about "Roman Catholics" and what it means to them.

If WR Orthodox have to reject everything Western that came about after the schism, then their going to have precious little of a rite to worship in.  If you look at Western Church history, the Latin rite (although existing in Rome) Really didn't start to develop much of its unique character and spirituality until the Medevil period. Most of Western Europe (British Isles excluded) Wasn't even evangelized until the last half of the first Millennium.  The pagan Germanic tribes took several centuries before they could become civilized and begin to embrace bot the outward devotion and inward piety needed to organically develop a liturgical rite. 

The true growth, both externally and internally of the Western rite didn't get moving until around the time of the Schism in the 11Th century when Western Christiandom began to develop a separate identity and spirituality from the East.  If EO WR is ever able to truly be seen and respected as fully Orthodox then they must start asserting their legitimate right to their historic patrimony of faith and devotion, even if that means pushing back the dreaded bar some centuries past !)%$ AD.  If this doesn't occur then the WR will never be anything more then a museum piece within EO society. 

If only the WR could produce some strong defenders and not just clergy cow tailing for acceptance by much larger Byzantine branch of Orthodoxy then maybe they would start to take off.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 23, 2011, 04:54:33 AM
Liturgies aside, from what I've read of actual ROCOR WR objections to Sacred Heart, Corpus Christi, Rosary, etc., has less to do with actual theological objections and almost everything to do with their supposed origin and their date. I've engaged in this first hand and there is an adamant refusal to object to how things are actually carried out in an Orthodox context, retreating instead to irrelevant diatribes about "Roman Catholics" and what it means to them.

If WR Orthodox have to reject everything Western that came about after the schism, then their going to have precious little of a rite to worship in.


Within the Western Rite practices in the Russian Church Abroad there are four Rites (or more) being used,  all of them POST schism.

We can say there are five if we add in one solitary parish in the States where the priest uses the Gallican Rite developed in France under Saint John Maximovitch which is a pastiche of Western and Byzantine.

The Rites used by Antioch are also very much POST schism,  and as I understand it their cut-off point is only 50 years ago, 1956, just 10 years before the changes which came after Vatican II.

So all our Western Rite litirgics are POST schism.

The possible exception is Fr Aidan Keller's Sarum Rite which straddles the cusp of the schism.  But Fr Aidan is now in an Eastern Rite parish.

Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Michał on August 23, 2011, 05:44:08 AM
The possible exception is Fr Aidan Keller's Sarum Rite which straddles the cusp of the schism.  But Fr Aidan is now in an Eastern Rite parish.

What about the Sarum Rite of Archbishop John (Lobue), used (along with the so-called Rite of Mount Royal) by Fr. Abbot David (Pierce)?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 23, 2011, 05:58:27 AM
I do not count "Metropolitan" LoBue as a hierarch of the Orthodox Church and find it impossible to admit his claims to be an Orthodox Metropolitan.  I understand that the official position of the Forum does not count them as an Orthodox Church. Since he became independent from European Milan a few months ago he and his people have been labelling us as satanic.  See here  http://tinyurl.com/3aq5k4u

Oddly enough the more they attack us the more their own clergy desert them in the search for authentic Orthdoxy.  Ten of their priests have now joined the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad and there are 2 more in process.

This group is very critical of both ROCA and Antioch for the use of post schism rites, claiming that they alone are an authentic pre-schism ritual Church.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 23, 2011, 06:09:25 AM
The possible exception is Fr Aidan Keller's Sarum Rite which straddles the cusp of the schism.  But Fr Aidan is now in an Eastern Rite parish.

What about the Sarum Rite of Archbishop John (Lobue), used (along with the so-called Rite of Mount Royal) by Fr. Abbot David (Pierce)?

Since there has been a bit of interest in which Rite we use, it goes like this:

I have a blessing to use the Sarum (Abp John) or St. Petroc. I was also given
an obedience to care for Fr. Augustine (Whitfield) who reposed in July. During
that time I celebrated Sarum on Feasts and some Sundays, but "Mt.Royal" when
Father was able to serve. When he got too sick to chant Liturgy, he had his
"people" (a small group of non-monastic Orthodox Christians) start attending
here. Sarum was very confusing since they had been bred on "Mt. Royal". The
solution, at least in the short term was to continue the Mt Royal Liturgy
(appropriate as I am now Abbot of Mt. Royal), but try to bring it more "in line"
with other traditional Western Uses (Sarum). Fr. AUgustine always used Sarum
propers in his rite but felt that full-blown Sarum was too distracting for one
priest in a hermit chapel. I might also add, that I also, on occasion serve the
Eastern Rite as well.
Abbot David Cuthbert Pierce
http://tinyurl.com/3c8pmnw
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 23, 2011, 06:27:07 AM
Has anybody read through this thread from 2006?

Orthodox objections to the Sacred Heart Devotion  

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,9055.0.html
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Michał on August 23, 2011, 06:36:25 AM
Since there has been a bit of interest in which Rite we use, it goes like this:

I have a blessing to use the Sarum (Abp John) or St. Petroc. I was also given
an obedience to care for Fr. Augustine (Whitfield) who reposed in July. During
that time I celebrated Sarum on Feasts and some Sundays, but "Mt.Royal" when
Father was able to serve. When he got too sick to chant Liturgy, he had his
"people" (a small group of non-monastic Orthodox Christians) start attending
here. Sarum was very confusing since they had been bred on "Mt. Royal". The
solution, at least in the short term was to continue the Mt Royal Liturgy
(appropriate as I am now Abbot of Mt. Royal), but try to bring it more "in line"
with other traditional Western Uses (Sarum). Fr. AUgustine always used Sarum
propers in his rite but felt that full-blown Sarum was too distracting for one
priest in a hermit chapel. I might also add, that I also, on occasion serve the
Eastern Rite as well.
Abbot David Cuthbert Pierce
http://tinyurl.com/3c8pmnw

I see.

I wonder what kind of Liturgies are in use among the more recent ex-Milan/Autonomous Metropolia priests...
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Volnutt on August 23, 2011, 06:42:23 AM
Has anybody read through this thread from 2006?

Orthodox objections to the Sacred Heart Devotion  

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,9055.0.html
A while ago. I'll check it again.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 23, 2011, 06:45:07 AM
I'm not asking your or anyone else to "be okay" with devotion to Christ's Compassion, I'm only asking that you stop railing against it based on something entirely different, and at least try to see where some Western Orthodox are coming from. Is that so difficult?


Are not the bowels seen as the seat of compassion?  A devotion to the Sacred Bowels could be developed from a scriptural basis.

Here is just a fraction of the Bible's references to bowels...


1 John 3:17 But whoever has this world's good, and sees his brother have need, and shuts up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwells the love of God in him?


Luke 1:78 on account of the bowels of mercy of our God; wherein the dayspring from on high has visited

Philippians 1:8 For God is my record, how greatly I long after you all in the bowels of Jesus Christ
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 23, 2011, 06:48:24 AM
Since there has been a bit of interest in which Rite we use, it goes like this:

I have a blessing to use the Sarum (Abp John) or St. Petroc. I was also given
an obedience to care for Fr. Augustine (Whitfield) who reposed in July. During
that time I celebrated Sarum on Feasts and some Sundays, but "Mt.Royal" when
Father was able to serve. When he got too sick to chant Liturgy, he had his
"people" (a small group of non-monastic Orthodox Christians) start attending
here. Sarum was very confusing since they had been bred on "Mt. Royal". The
solution, at least in the short term was to continue the Mt Royal Liturgy
(appropriate as I am now Abbot of Mt. Royal), but try to bring it more "in line"
with other traditional Western Uses (Sarum). Fr. AUgustine always used Sarum
propers in his rite but felt that full-blown Sarum was too distracting for one
priest in a hermit chapel. I might also add, that I also, on occasion serve the
Eastern Rite as well.
Abbot David Cuthbert Pierce
http://tinyurl.com/3c8pmnw

I see.

I wonder what kind of Liturgies are in use among the more recent ex-Milan/Autonomous Metropolia priests...

Let me put the question to Father Anthony Bondi since they are now (most of them) members of his Fraternity of Saint Gregory.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Volnutt on August 23, 2011, 06:50:44 AM
I'm not asking your or anyone else to "be okay" with devotion to Christ's Compassion, I'm only asking that you stop railing against it based on something entirely different, and at least try to see where some Western Orthodox are coming from. Is that so difficult?


Are not the bowels seen as the seat of compassion?  A devotion to the Sacred Bowels could be developed from a scriptural basis.

Here is just a fraction of the Bible's references to bowels...


1 John 3:17 But whoever has this world's good, and sees his brother have need, and shuts up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwells the love of God in him?


Luke 1:78 on account of the bowels of mercy of our God; wherein the dayspring from on high has visited

Philippians 1:8 For God is my record, how greatly I long after you all in the bowels of Jesus Christ
Well, if you're going to venerate a foreskin, might as well allow this too...


I've also heard Orthodox say they'd eat dog crap if Jesus had pointed to it and said, "This is my Body."
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 23, 2011, 06:53:01 AM
I'm not asking your or anyone else to "be okay" with devotion to Christ's Compassion, I'm only asking that you stop railing against it based on something entirely different, and at least try to see where some Western Orthodox are coming from. Is that so difficult?


Are not the bowels seen as the seat of compassion?  A devotion to the Sacred Bowels could be developed from a scriptural basis.

Here is just a fraction of the Bible's references to bowels...


1 John 3:17 But whoever has this world's good, and sees his brother have need, and shuts up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwells the love of God in him?


Luke 1:78 on account of the bowels of mercy of our God; wherein the dayspring from on high has visited

Philippians 1:8 For God is my record, how greatly I long after you all in the bowels of Jesus Christ
Well, if you're going to venerate a foreskin, might as well allow this too...


I've also heard Orthodox say they'd eat dog crap if Jesus had pointed to it and said, "This is my Body."

Ughhh!  Pleased to say I have never heard that.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Volnutt on August 23, 2011, 06:57:37 AM
Yeah, struck me as odd too, though I guess change in substance is change is substance  :-\

But what makes venerating a foreskin any worse than venerating bowels?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 23, 2011, 07:04:17 AM
Yeah, struck me as odd too, though I guess change in substance is change is substance  :-\

But what makes venerating a foreskin any worse than venerating bowels?

The bowels are seen as the seat of compassion.  I din't know what a foreskin is seen as the centre of?

If the Sacred Foreskin is ever recovered (oh, those careless Catholics!) it will no doubt be worshipped again.



Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Volnutt on August 23, 2011, 07:16:17 AM
Yeah, struck me as odd too, though I guess change in substance is change is substance  :-\

But what makes venerating a foreskin any worse than venerating bowels?

The bowels are seen as the seat of compassion.  I din't know what a foreskin is seen as the centre of?

If the Sacred Foreskin is ever recovered (oh, those careless Catholics!) it will no doubt be worshipped again.




So you don't mind venerating wiener skin but a symbolic devotion to poop tubes is too weird for you?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 23, 2011, 07:57:59 AM
Yeah, struck me as odd too, though I guess change in substance is change is substance  :-\

But what makes venerating a foreskin any worse than venerating bowels?

The bowels are seen as the seat of compassion.  I din't know what a foreskin is seen as the centre of?

If the Sacred Foreskin is ever recovered (oh, those careless Catholics!) it will no doubt be worshipped again.




So you don't mind venerating wiener skin but a symbolic devotion to poop tubes is too weird for you?

Have you actually seen a human heart?   It's no more lovable and beautiful than the liver or the kidneys or the bowels.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Volnutt on August 23, 2011, 08:12:15 AM
Yeah, struck me as odd too, though I guess change in substance is change is substance  :-\

But what makes venerating a foreskin any worse than venerating bowels?

The bowels are seen as the seat of compassion.  I din't know what a foreskin is seen as the centre of?

If the Sacred Foreskin is ever recovered (oh, those careless Catholics!) it will no doubt be worshipped again.




So you don't mind venerating wiener skin but a symbolic devotion to poop tubes is too weird for you?

Have you actually seen a human heart?   It's no more lovable and beautiful than the liver or the kidneys or the bowels.
Tell that to an anatomist. But again, the real point of the Sacred Heart (as I thought was the case of all veneration anyway, but I guess I was wrong) is more Jesus' heart's spiritual/metaphoric significance as an instrument of God's glory and compassion.


Besides, "Have you actually seen a human foreskin?..."
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 23, 2011, 08:24:49 AM

Tell that to an anatomist. But again, the real point of the Sacred Heart (as I thought was the case of all veneration anyway, but I guess I was wrong) is more Jesus' heart's spiritual/metaphoric significance as an instrument of God's glory and compassion.

This is a cute one.  Wonder if the parishioners would accept it in church?

(http://sunnybuick.typepad.com/.a/6a0115723bccfd970b013488555162970c-500wi)
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Volnutt on August 23, 2011, 08:34:05 AM
As cute as those Orthodox pictures of Jesus squeezing a grape vine protruding from his own side.


Or, you know... a severed foreskin...
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 23, 2011, 08:39:34 AM

As cute as those Orthodox pictures of Jesus squeezing a grape vine protruding from his own side.


Never seen one of those.  Could you show us one of these pictures.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Shanghaiski on August 23, 2011, 08:40:22 AM
The quote from St. Athanasius is good because he had to deal with Nestorianism.

It would be even better if we were dealing with the same problem (Nestorianism) that St Athansius is addressing in the quote.
According to Orthodox sources we ARE dealing with the same problem or call it crypto-Nestorianism if you want: we do not venerate PARTS of Our Lord's body.
But you do venerate parts of the bodies of His Saints. If these can work as metonymies of the whole human vessel of God's glory and ultimately pass on the honor to God Himself, how is that any different from the Sacred Heart?
They are not metonymies.

Take for instance the incorrupt relics of St. John Maximovich.  His whole body is there.  I just venerated the hand, there is no reason to kiss every square inch of him, as his hand is conected to the rest of him.  I once venerated the arm of St. George, which is still conected with the rest of him, in particular his soul/spirit in heaven.  The icon of him with the relic showed all of him, not just his arm.
But that's just my point. Just like St. John and his hand, Jesus' heart is still connected with the rest of Him. Why can't one venerate His heart and not just have to venerate "every square inch of Him?" The woman with the issue of blood said just touching Jesus' garment would be enough to heal her. I don't recall His clothes being fused to His body.
I don't recall a devotion of the sacred fringe either.
There's no relics of Jesus' clothing? I'm surprised.

The robe of the Lord is under a pillar in the Mtshketa cathedral in Georgia. People venerate the pillar, but I don't recall a feast of the Robe itself. There may be a feast of its translation. I seem to remember it supposedly being brought to Moscow, though I doubt it since those who touch it tend to die.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Volnutt on August 23, 2011, 08:44:47 AM

As cute as those Orthodox pictures of Jesus squeezing a grape vine protruding from his own side.


Never seen one of those.  Could you show us one of these pictures.
I can't find it. My Google fu is weak... Isa knows what I'm talking about.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 23, 2011, 08:54:26 AM
Since there has been a bit of interest in which Rite we use, it goes like this:

I have a blessing to use the Sarum (Abp John) or St. Petroc. I was also given
an obedience to care for Fr. Augustine (Whitfield) who reposed in July. During
that time I celebrated Sarum on Feasts and some Sundays, but "Mt.Royal" when
Father was able to serve. When he got too sick to chant Liturgy, he had his
"people" (a small group of non-monastic Orthodox Christians) start attending
here. Sarum was very confusing since they had been bred on "Mt. Royal". The
solution, at least in the short term was to continue the Mt Royal Liturgy
(appropriate as I am now Abbot of Mt. Royal), but try to bring it more "in line"
with other traditional Western Uses (Sarum). Fr. AUgustine always used Sarum
propers in his rite but felt that full-blown Sarum was too distracting for one
priest in a hermit chapel. I might also add, that I also, on occasion serve the
Eastern Rite as well.
Abbot David Cuthbert Pierce
http://tinyurl.com/3c8pmnw

I see.

I wonder what kind of Liturgies are in use among the more recent ex-Milan/Autonomous Metropolia priests...

Let me put the question to Father Anthony Bondi since they are now (most of them) members of his Fraternity of Saint Gregory.

Here is the answer.  Fr Anthony is the Pastoral Vicar for Western Rite in ROCA and Head of the Fraternity of Saint Gregory

As most never used the Sarum even when they were with Abp John, most now are using the Gregorian Liturgy
 

Abbot David: Sarum

Fathers:

Aidan: John Chrysostom

Julio: John Chrysostom

Anthony: Fraternity Gregorian Liturgy

Wolfgang: Fraternity Gregorian Liturgy

Robert: Fraternity Gregorian Liturgy

George: Fraternity Gregorian Liturgy

Michael Dunstan: St Tikhon

Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on August 23, 2011, 10:01:29 AM
Liturgies aside, from what I've read of actual ROCOR WR objections to Sacred Heart, Corpus Christi, Rosary, etc., has less to do with actual theological objections and almost everything to do with their supposed origin and their date. I've engaged in this first hand and there is an adamant refusal to object to how things are actually carried out in an Orthodox context, retreating instead to irrelevant diatribes about "Roman Catholics" and what it means to them.

ROCA aside, why is the Sacred Heart rejected by the majority of your Antiochian priests?    Are they simply ignorant men who have no idea of its patristic base?

Is it rejected? I'd like to see something in writing, if you have it. I've corresponded with many Antiochian priests, and read most of the literature that has been made available (and some that hasn't) in regards to devotional/liturgical practices and I can't say that I've encountered any "rejections" as much as just...indifference.

Believe it or not, I fall into the latter category. I don't much care for the feast or the devotion, I'm just not opposed to it and recognize that it can be meaningful to many people if understood in its proper context. I'll defend it if for the simple fact that no one else around here will and lurking readers might find it beneficial to be exposed to the historical precedent for the devotion aside from "psychosexual" visions.

The attack on western women saints and mystics as psycho-sexual hysterics is a topic that I was introduced to by Women's Studies courses back when I was an arm-chair marxist, and the analysis was designed to destroy all that is good and holy about female monastic life in the west.   It is a post-modern idea and it is a sin and a shame that it is promoted on this Forum. 

However I am a regular reader of another group that is promoting the acceptance of active homosexuals and same sex marriage in Orthodoxy, so I don't worry too much that y'all will come out unscathed.

Soon those who advocate for a strict heterosexual definition of marriage will be labeled the mentally ill, and you will have to fight to prove you are not.  Good luck with that.

 :)
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 23, 2011, 10:14:13 AM

However I am a regular reader of another group that is promoting the acceptance of active homosexuals and same sex marriage in Orthodoxy, so I don't worry too much that y'all will come out unscathed.


Oh rubbish, Elihahmaria, you old Catholic polemicist and troublemaker.  Honestly I sometimes wonder if they don't pay you to troll the Orthodox lists to try and destabilise us!  There is an ROCA priest on orthodox-forum expounding what others see as a harsh and unpastoral attitude to gays.    WHO there is advocating homosexual activity?  They are only asking for compassion...... EXACTLY what His Holiness the Russian Patriarch was asking for recently when he spoke on homosexuals.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on August 23, 2011, 10:23:05 AM

However I am a regular reader of another group that is promoting the acceptance of active homosexuals and same sex marriage in Orthodoxy, so I don't worry too much that y'all will come out unscathed.


Oh rubbish, Elihahmaria, you old Catholic polemicist and troublemaker.  Honestly I sometimes wonder if they don't pay you to troll the Orthodox lists to try and destabilise us!  There is an ROCA priest on orthodox-forum expounding what others see as a harsh and unpastoral attitude to gays.    WHO there is advocating homosexual activity?  They are only asking for compassion...... EXACTLY what His Holiness the Russian Patriarch was asking for recently when he spoke on homosexuals.

You are missing a few things here you old post-modern feminist... :)...but in point of fact it ain't no skin off my nose but you are somewhat removed from the climate in this country and so I am happy to wait and see how far off I am when I say that the lunatics are in charge of the asylum.

M.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on August 23, 2011, 10:28:28 AM
Liturgies aside, from what I've read of actual ROCOR WR objections to Sacred Heart, Corpus Christi, Rosary, etc., has less to do with actual theological objections and almost everything to do with their supposed origin and their date. I've engaged in this first hand and there is an adamant refusal to object to how things are actually carried out in an Orthodox context, retreating instead to irrelevant diatribes about "Roman Catholics" and what it means to them.

ROCA aside, why is the Sacred Heart rejected by the majority of your Antiochian priests?    Are they simply ignorant men who have no idea of its patristic base?

Is it rejected? I'd like to see something in writing, if you have it. I've corresponded with many Antiochian priests, and read most of the literature that has been made available (and some that hasn't) in regards to devotional/liturgical practices and I can't say that I've encountered any "rejections" as much as just...indifference.

Believe it or not, I fall into the latter category. I don't much care for the feast or the devotion, I'm just not opposed to it and recognize that it can be meaningful to many people if understood in its proper context. I'll defend it if for the simple fact that no one else around here will and lurking readers might find it beneficial to be exposed to the historical precedent for the devotion aside from "psychosexual" visions.

The attack on western women saints and mystics as psycho-sexual hysterics is a topic that I was introduced to by Women's Studies courses back when I was an arm-chair marxist, and the analysis was designed to destroy all that is good and holy about female monastic life in the west.   It is a post-modern idea and it is a sin and a shame that it is promoted on this Forum. 

However I am a regular reader of another group that is promoting the acceptance of active homosexuals and same sex marriage in Orthodoxy, so I don't worry too much that y'all will come out unscathed.

Soon those who advocate for a strict heterosexual definition of marriage will be labeled the mentally ill, and you will have to fight to prove you are not.  Good luck with that.

 :)


I think it is important to repeat that it is feminists and modernists who labeled western women religious as repressed female dementos.

I think it is exceptionally important for contemporary Orthodoxy in the United States to consider whether or not it is prudent to pick up that hammer and use it.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Melodist on August 23, 2011, 10:39:01 AM
As cute as those Orthodox pictures of Jesus squeezing a grape vine protruding from his own side.
Never seen one of those.  Could you show us one of these pictures.
I can't find it. My Google fu is weak... Isa knows what I'm talking about.

I don't know if this is what you're talking about but I have one of these that was given to me by someone I once knew who brought it back as a gift from St Katherine's when she visited the holy land.

(http://iconreader.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/30.jpg)
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on August 23, 2011, 11:48:11 AM
As cute as those Orthodox pictures of Jesus squeezing a grape vine protruding from his own side.
Never seen one of those.  Could you show us one of these pictures.
I can't find it. My Google fu is weak... Isa knows what I'm talking about.

I don't know if this is what you're talking about but I have one of these that was given to me by someone I once knew who brought it back as a gift from St Katherine's when she visited the holy land.

No.  This is not the image.  I have seen it as well and there is at least one form of it somewhere on the Internet but a search [brief] this morning has failed to reveal it to me.  I hope someone finds it.

M.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 23, 2011, 05:34:39 PM
As cute as those Orthodox pictures of Jesus squeezing a grape vine protruding from his own side.
Never seen one of those.  Could you show us one of these pictures.
I can't find it. My Google fu is weak... Isa knows what I'm talking about.

I don't know if this is what you're talking about but I have one of these that was given to me by someone I once knew who brought it back as a gift from St Katherine's when she visited the holy land.

No.  This is not the image.  I have seen it as well and there is at least one form of it somewhere on the Internet but a search [brief] this morning has failed to reveal it to me.  I hope someone finds it.

M.

I have been Orthodox for nearly 50 years and I cannot think of what you have in mind.  If you or Volnutt find it I would be very interested.  LBK may know?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: NicholasMyra on August 23, 2011, 05:52:35 PM
The Sacred Prepuce is a physical object.
Oh, come now.

It was back around 4 BC. Now it's either not on earth or long decomposed.

Unless you trust the Syriac Infancy Gospel. But I'd rather not.

Things like this scandalize Christianity as a whole. And not in the "scandal of the cross" way.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: stanley123 on August 23, 2011, 05:57:29 PM
The Sacred Prepuce is a physical object.
Oh, come now.

It was back around 4 BC. Now it's either not on earth or long decomposed.

Unless you trust the Syriac Infancy Gospel. But I'd rather not.

Things like this scandalize Christianity as a whole. And not in the "scandal of the cross" way.
It is truly absurd for (some) Orthodox to say that they will venerate the Sacred Prepuce, but at the same time they severely criticise the Catholic devotion to the Sacred Heart.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: NicholasMyra on August 23, 2011, 06:00:54 PM
The Sacred Prepuce is a physical object.
Oh, come now.

It was back around 4 BC. Now it's either not on earth or long decomposed.

Unless you trust the Syriac Infancy Gospel. But I'd rather not.

Things like this scandalize Christianity as a whole. And not in the "scandal of the cross" way.
It is truly absurd for (some) Orthodox to say that they will venerate the Sacred Prepuce, but at the same time they severely criticise the Catholic devotion to the Sacred Heart.
The difference between venerating a divided relic on earth vs. venerating a mystical body part concept/part of Christ's glorified humanity apart from the rest has been discussed in this thread already. That said, if you believe we have a Sacred Prepuce, I seriously wonder where you get your history and belief.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 23, 2011, 06:09:02 PM
The Sacred Prepuce is a physical object.
Oh, come now.

It was back around 4 BC. Now it's either not on earth or long decomposed.

Unless you trust the Syriac Infancy Gospel. But I'd rather not.

Things like this scandalize Christianity as a whole. And not in the "scandal of the cross" way.
It is truly absurd for (some) Orthodox to say that they will venerate the Sacred Prepuce, but at the same time they severely criticise the Catholic devotion to the Sacred Heart.

The Orthodox gave the Prepuce to the Catholics 1,200 years ago.  How many Orthodox have ever heard of it? 

But right throughout this thread the Catholics have been confusing the Prepuce which is a physical relic with the Sacred Heart which is nothing of the sort.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: LBK on August 23, 2011, 06:13:32 PM
As cute as those Orthodox pictures of Jesus squeezing a grape vine protruding from his own side.
Never seen one of those.  Could you show us one of these pictures.
I can't find it. My Google fu is weak... Isa knows what I'm talking about.

I don't know if this is what you're talking about but I have one of these that was given to me by someone I once knew who brought it back as a gift from St Katherine's when she visited the holy land.

No.  This is not the image.  I have seen it as well and there is at least one form of it somewhere on the Internet but a search [brief] this morning has failed to reveal it to me.  I hope someone finds it.

M.

I have been Orthodox for nearly 50 years and I cannot think of what you have in mind.  If you or Volnutt find it I would be very interested.  LBK may know?

LBK has never seen such an image, and is very interested in seeing one, if, indeed, it exists  ;). The closest I've seen is an angel holding a chalice to Christ's bleeding side at the Crucifixion, imagery which came to Orthodox iconography via the Venetians from Roman Catholic religious art.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Cephas on August 23, 2011, 06:20:06 PM
As cute as those Orthodox pictures of Jesus squeezing a grape vine protruding from his own side.
Never seen one of those.  Could you show us one of these pictures.
I can't find it. My Google fu is weak... Isa knows what I'm talking about.

I don't know if this is what you're talking about but I have one of these that was given to me by someone I once knew who brought it back as a gift from St Katherine's when she visited the holy land.

No.  This is not the image.  I have seen it as well and there is at least one form of it somewhere on the Internet but a search [brief] this morning has failed to reveal it to me.  I hope someone finds it.

M.

I have been Orthodox for nearly 50 years and I cannot think of what you have in mind.  If you or Volnutt find it I would be very interested.  LBK may know?

LBK has never seen such an image, and is very interested in seeing one, if, indeed, it exists  ;). The closest I've seen is an angel holding a chalice to Christ's bleeding side at the Crucifixion, imagery which came to Orthodox iconography via the Venetians from Roman Catholic religious art.

Here are two I found:

(http://philzicons.webs.com/Class%20Photos%202009/Mobile%202009/Image45_s.jpg)

and

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_5bo3n_N5QSQ/S5QWuRsCnyI/AAAAAAAAGIc/qHHpQojt7eA/s200/christ-vine-04.jpg)
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Cephas on August 23, 2011, 06:21:41 PM
Here's another slightly blurry but larger one:

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-38CXnwPGhUI/ThmlYt9c69I/AAAAAAAAAFo/Xp1JBcra858/s1600/I+am+the+Vine.JPG)
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: stanley123 on August 23, 2011, 06:23:01 PM
The Sacred Prepuce is a physical object.
Oh, come now.

It was back around 4 BC. Now it's either not on earth or long decomposed.

Unless you trust the Syriac Infancy Gospel. But I'd rather not.

Things like this scandalize Christianity as a whole. And not in the "scandal of the cross" way.
It is truly absurd for (some) Orthodox to say that they will venerate the Sacred Prepuce, but at the same time they severely criticise the Catholic devotion to the Sacred Heart.
The difference between venerating a divided relic on earth vs. venerating a mystical body part concept/part of Christ's glorified humanity apart from the rest has been discussed in this thread already. That said, if you believe we have a Sacred Prepuce, I seriously wonder where you get your history and belief.
I was not the one who brought up the idea of the veneration of the Sacred Prepuce. It was an Orthodox poster. If you are going to venerate the Sacred Prepuce,  how do you know for sure that for sure,  that what you are venerating is what it is claimed to be? With an icon, this question does not come up.  You do venerate the icons of the Mother of God, even though she is not physically present, don't you?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: LBK on August 23, 2011, 06:31:14 PM
LBK has never seen such an image, and is very interested in seeing one, if, indeed, it exists  ;). The closest I've seen is an angel holding a chalice to Christ's bleeding side at the Crucifixion, imagery which came to Orthodox iconography via the Venetians from Roman Catholic religious art.

Here are two I found:

(http://philzicons.webs.com/Class%20Photos%202009/Mobile%202009/Image45_s.jpg)

and

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_5bo3n_N5QSQ/S5QWuRsCnyI/AAAAAAAAGIc/qHHpQojt7eA/s200/christ-vine-04.jpg)
[/quote]


I have only ever seen such imagery in non-Orthodox art. The small picture at the bottom is based on a medieval illumination, the other two are recently-painted works based on the same imagery, but painted in an "iconographic" style. Remember, there are many folks these days who are not Orthodox who paint religious imagery in an "iconographic" style, hence the confusion.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 23, 2011, 06:39:02 PM
As cute as those Orthodox pictures of Jesus squeezing a grape vine protruding from his own side.
Never seen one of those.  Could you show us one of these pictures.
I can't find it. My Google fu is weak... Isa knows what I'm talking about.

I don't know if this is what you're talking about but I have one of these that was given to me by someone I once knew who brought it back as a gift from St Katherine's when she visited the holy land.

No.  This is not the image.  I have seen it as well and there is at least one form of it somewhere on the Internet but a search [brief] this morning has failed to reveal it to me.  I hope someone finds it.

M.

I have been Orthodox for nearly 50 years and I cannot think of what you have in mind.  If you or Volnutt find it I would be very interested.  LBK may know?

LBK has never seen such an image, and is very interested in seeing one, if, indeed, it exists  ;). The closest I've seen is an angel holding a chalice to Christ's bleeding side at the Crucifixion, imagery which came to Orthodox iconography via the Venetians from Roman Catholic religious art.

Here are two I found:

(http://philzicons.webs.com/Class%20Photos%202009/Mobile%202009/Image45_s.jpg)

and

[

These painters are NOT Orthodox.  They are Roman Catholics.

Follow the link back from your .jpg
http://philzicons.webs.com/apps/photos/album?albumid=3157870

Here is the prototype of that image which was painted for the Franciscan Spirituality Center in LaCrosse, WI -- July 6-12, 2008

So the image itself never existed before 2008!   And it comes from a Roman Catholic milieu.


(http://philzicons.webs.com/photos/Icons/truevine.jpg)
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 23, 2011, 06:44:40 PM


I was not the one who brought up the idea of the veneration of the Sacred Prepuce. It was an Orthodox poster. If you are going to venerate the Sacred Prepuce,  how do you know for sure that for sure,  that what you are venerating is what it is claimed to be?

Well, the Roman Catholics were worshipping it and parading it through the streets until 1983 when it was stolen.  How did they know for sure what it was? 
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: stanley123 on August 23, 2011, 08:27:52 PM


I was not the one who brought up the idea of the veneration of the Sacred Prepuce. It was an Orthodox poster. If you are going to venerate the Sacred Prepuce,  how do you know for sure that for sure,  that what you are venerating is what it is claimed to be?

Well, the Roman Catholics were worshipping it and parading it through the streets until 1983 when it was stolen.  How did they know for sure what it was? 
Obviously because in good faith,  they believed what the Eastern Orthodox faithful had told them about it.  But are you saying that Catholics should not trust what Eastern Orthodox tell them?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 23, 2011, 08:43:11 PM


I was not the one who brought up the idea of the veneration of the Sacred Prepuce. It was an Orthodox poster. If you are going to venerate the Sacred Prepuce,  how do you know for sure that for sure,  that what you are venerating is what it is claimed to be?

Well, the Roman Catholics were worshipping it and parading it through the streets until 1983 when it was stolen.  How did they know for sure what it was? 
Obviously because in good faith,  they believed what the Eastern Orthodox faithful had told them about it.  But are you saying that Catholics should not trust what Eastern Orthodox tell them?

Are you saying that the Byzantine imperial house would have presented the Western emperor with a fake relic?   That would be risking military retaliation in those days.  The War of the Sacred Prepuce.  I doubt if they would have risked that.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: stanley123 on August 23, 2011, 08:51:42 PM


I was not the one who brought up the idea of the veneration of the Sacred Prepuce. It was an Orthodox poster. If you are going to venerate the Sacred Prepuce,  how do you know for sure that for sure,  that what you are venerating is what it is claimed to be?

Well, the Roman Catholics were worshipping it and parading it through the streets until 1983 when it was stolen.  How did they know for sure what it was? 
Obviously because in good faith,  they believed what the Eastern Orthodox faithful had told them about it.  But are you saying that Catholics should not trust what Eastern Orthodox tell them?

Are you saying that the Byzantine imperial house would have presented the Western emperor with a fake relic?   That would be risking military retaliation in those days.  The War of the Sacred Prepuce.  I doubt if they would have risked that.

No.
What I am saying is that it is not wrong to venerate an icon of Our Divine Lord which, through the Sacred Heart imagery,  emphasizes His Divine Love and Compassion for the world. Just as you Orthodox venerate the Sacred Prepuce, so Catholics have a devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 23, 2011, 08:57:40 PM


I was not the one who brought up the idea of the veneration of the Sacred Prepuce. It was an Orthodox poster. If you are going to venerate the Sacred Prepuce,  how do you know for sure that for sure,  that what you are venerating is what it is claimed to be?

Well, the Roman Catholics were worshipping it and parading it through the streets until 1983 when it was stolen.  How did they know for sure what it was? 
Obviously because in good faith,  they believed what the Eastern Orthodox faithful had told them about it.  But are you saying that Catholics should not trust what Eastern Orthodox tell them?

Are you saying that the Byzantine imperial house would have presented the Western emperor with a fake relic?   That would be risking military retaliation in those days.  The War of the Sacred Prepuce.  I doubt if they would have risked that.

No.
What I am saying is that it is not wrong to venerate an icon of Our Divine Lord which, through the Sacred Heart imagery,  emphasizes His Divine Love and Compassion for the world. Just as you Orthodox venerate the Sacred Prepuce, so Catholics have a devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

The Orthodox have not worshipped the Prepuce for 1,200 years (if they ever did.)

It's you Catholics who have been worshipping it for the last 1,200 years and parading it through the streets until you carelessly allowed it to be nicked in 1983.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: stanley123 on August 23, 2011, 08:59:54 PM


I was not the one who brought up the idea of the veneration of the Sacred Prepuce. It was an Orthodox poster. If you are going to venerate the Sacred Prepuce,  how do you know for sure that for sure,  that what you are venerating is what it is claimed to be?

Well, the Roman Catholics were worshipping it and parading it through the streets until 1983 when it was stolen.  How did they know for sure what it was? 
Obviously because in good faith,  they believed what the Eastern Orthodox faithful had told them about it.  But are you saying that Catholics should not trust what Eastern Orthodox tell them?

Are you saying that the Byzantine imperial house would have presented the Western emperor with a fake relic?   That would be risking military retaliation in those days.  The War of the Sacred Prepuce.  I doubt if they would have risked that.

No.
What I am saying is that it is not wrong to venerate an icon of Our Divine Lord which, through the Sacred Heart imagery,  emphasizes His Divine Love and Compassion for the world. Just as you Orthodox venerate the Sacred Prepuce, so Catholics have a devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

The Orthodox have not worshipped the Prepuce for 1,200 years (if they ever did.)

It's you Catholics who have been worshipping it for the last 1,200 years and parading it through the streets until you carelessly allowed it to be nicked in 1983.
It's rather odd then that you brought up the question of the Orthodox veneration of the Sacred Prepuce?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: biro on August 23, 2011, 09:01:29 PM
I wasn't aware that people "allow" things to be stolen. If they "allow" it, then it's not theft. Unless you hate Roman Catholics so much, you think it's okay if somebody robs them.  :-X
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 23, 2011, 09:02:17 PM
(http://philzicons.webs.com/photos/Icons/truevine.jpg)

It's quite a charming picture in a way although definitely not an icon.  It has a puckish faun-like quality.  In an autumn setting.  And although it descends, almost, into a Lentzian nudity it has none of Lentz's in your face aggressive sexuality.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Volnutt on August 23, 2011, 09:03:25 PM
LBK has never seen such an image, and is very interested in seeing one, if, indeed, it exists  ;). The closest I've seen is an angel holding a chalice to Christ's bleeding side at the Crucifixion, imagery which came to Orthodox iconography via the Venetians from Roman Catholic religious art.

Here are two I found:

(http://philzicons.webs.com/Class%20Photos%202009/Mobile%202009/Image45_s.jpg)

and

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_5bo3n_N5QSQ/S5QWuRsCnyI/AAAAAAAAGIc/qHHpQojt7eA/s200/christ-vine-04.jpg)


I have only ever seen such imagery in non-Orthodox art. The small picture at the bottom is based on a medieval illumination, the other two are recently-painted works based on the same imagery, but painted in an "iconographic" style. Remember, there are many folks these days who are not Orthodox who paint religious imagery in an "iconographic" style, hence the confusion.
[/quote]Ok. Thanks for clearing that up. I didn't think they were icons, but I thought they were some kind of mainstream Orthodox thing still.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Volnutt on August 23, 2011, 09:07:06 PM
(http://philzicons.webs.com/photos/Icons/truevine.jpg)

It's quite a charming picture in a way although definitely not an icon.  It has a puckish faun-like quality.  In an autumn setting.  And although it descends, almost, into a Lentzian nudity it has none of Lentz's in your face aggressive sexuality.
Don't coin that term, you'll give Lentz a big head  :laugh:.


Honestly, I had a feeling you'd like this picture. One more piece of evidence your finding the Sacred Heart disgusting is just inconsistency.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Volnutt on August 23, 2011, 09:08:48 PM
I wasn't aware that people "allow" things to be stolen. If they "allow" it, then it's not theft. Unless you hate Roman Catholics so much, you think it's okay if somebody robs them.  :-X
By "allow" he means they were negligent, like leaving the keys in the ignition.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: LBK on August 23, 2011, 09:09:27 PM
Quote
Ok. Thanks for clearing that up. I didn't think they were icons, but I thought they were some kind of mainstream Orthodox thing still.

No problem, Volnutt. It's easy enough to be taken in by images painted in that distinctive "iconographic" style and think they're Orthodox. It takes many years, and much effort, to be able to sort out the sheep from the goats.  :)
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 23, 2011, 09:09:43 PM
I wasn't aware that people "allow" things to be stolen. If they "allow" it, then it's not theft. Unless you hate Roman Catholics so much, you think it's okay if somebody robs them.  :-X

I hate the heresies of the Catholic Church just as the Fathers hated all heresy.  But outside the heresies, what is there to hate?   Many of you are quite lovable. :laugh:

"We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were
in the eighth century... Oh that you could only consent to be again what
you were once, when we were both united in faith and communion."

~Alexis Khomiakov
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Volnutt on August 23, 2011, 09:10:21 PM
Quote
Ok. Thanks for clearing that up. I didn't think they were icons, but I thought they were some kind of mainstream Orthodox thing still.

No problem, Volnutt. It's easy enough to be taken in by images painted in that distinctive "iconographic" style and think they're Orthodox. It takes many years, and much effort, to be able to sort out the sheep from the goats.  :)
Thanks.  :)
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: biro on August 23, 2011, 09:11:30 PM
You dodged the point. Then again, I should know better by now, with you. I shudder to think whether your bishop knows and approves of the kind of priest who says things like you do.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: LBK on August 23, 2011, 09:13:16 PM
Quote
Honestly, I had a feeling you'd like this picture. One more piece of evidence your finding the Sacred Heart disgusting is just inconsistency.

Not quite sure what you're getting at here, Volnutt. It's a nice picture (certainly a far cry from the gross abuses of Lentz and his proteges), but it is still not an icon.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 23, 2011, 09:15:53 PM
(http://philzicons.webs.com/photos/Icons/truevine.jpg)

It's quite a charming picture in a way although definitely not an icon.  It has a puckish faun-like quality.  In an autumn setting.  And although it descends, almost, into a Lentzian nudity it has none of Lentz's in your face aggressive sexuality.
Don't coin that term, you'll give Lentz a big head  :laugh:.


Honestly, I had a feeling you'd like this picture. One more piece of evidence your finding the Sacred Heart disgusting is just inconsistency.

I like it as a piece of art.  Christ the Eternal Faun.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 23, 2011, 09:16:23 PM
But this does nothing for me...

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-r3ZNn4peyWI/Tg3J8_ySHPI/AAAAAAAAT0g/5hhfQYM12xA/s1600/vintage.sacred.heart.jpg)
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: biro on August 23, 2011, 09:19:24 PM
It's a prayer card, with an artist's concept of the love and suffering Jesus went through for us.

You don't like prayer?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 23, 2011, 09:21:50 PM
You dodged the point. Then again, I should know better by now, with you. I shudder to think whether your bishop knows and approves of the kind of priest who says things like you do.

Your point (msg 202)seemed to be an underhand insinuation that I hate the Catholic Church.  You're way off base.  I thought my answer to that silliness was clear enough (msg 208.)
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: biro on August 23, 2011, 09:23:04 PM
There was nothing underhanded about it. I said it right in the open.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 23, 2011, 09:30:25 PM
It's a prayer card, with an artist's concept of the love and suffering Jesus went through for us.

You don't like prayer?

Prayer plays a significant part of every day.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: LBK on August 23, 2011, 09:31:07 PM
It's a prayer card, with an artist's concept of the love and suffering Jesus went through for us.

Which is precisely why such an image cannot be an icon, and therefore cannot be part of Orthodox doctrine and theology. Artists' conceptions, however talented, are the antithesis of the true iconographer, who submits his artistic talents to the service of the Church, and who paints in faithful proclamation of what the Church teaches and espouses.

Iconography expresses at its core, the Incarnation of Christ. Christ is not divided into His parts.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: biro on August 23, 2011, 09:32:28 PM
If you use the image of the heart as a metaphor for love, as many artists and writers have, why not? Nothing could be stronger or better than Jesus' love for us.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Volnutt on August 23, 2011, 09:35:11 PM
Quote
Honestly, I had a feeling you'd like this picture. One more piece of evidence your finding the Sacred Heart disgusting is just inconsistency.

Not quite sure what you're getting at here, Volnutt. It's a nice picture (certainly a far cry from the gross abuses of Lentz and his proteges), but it is still not an icon.
I'm just saying, both the EO and the RCC popular piety have the for all practical purposes the same gory fixations and I find it sad that Father Ambrose keeps bending over backwards to pretend there is a significant aesthetic difference.

Admittedly, I probably shouldn't be picking at this though since it really has nothing to do with the Traditional-ness of the Sacred Heart. Like biro, I'm just sick of all the chest beating is all.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: LBK on August 23, 2011, 09:36:57 PM
If you use the image of the heart as a metaphor for love, as many artists and writers have, why not? Nothing could be stronger or better than Jesus' love for us.

It is no accident or coincidence that the image of the heart of Christ has never been used as an Orthodox icon. This alone should make one pause.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on August 23, 2011, 09:40:25 PM
BTW:  None of those 'vine and branches' images are like the one to which I was referring.

Also:  Since there are no heresies in the Church of my baptism, the Catholic Church, there's nothing at all to hate...unless of course you have a particular need.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 23, 2011, 09:40:53 PM
There was nothing underhanded about it. I said it right in the open.

I don't know which Church you belong to but in ours we pray for Roman Catholics every morning.  From the Patriarch down to the streetsweeper we pray every day for the salvation of Catholics and their return to Orthodoxy.  This prayer is a great act of love.  

http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/prayerbook/main.htm

Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: LBK on August 23, 2011, 09:45:31 PM
Quote
I'm just saying, both the EO and the RCC popular piety have the for all practical purposes the same gory fixations

This is not at all true. Never has there been any Orthodox veneration of the heart of Jesus. Never have lurid statues or paintings of the passion of Christ ever been part of Orthodox devotion. Icons of the crucifixion, at least those predating the 17th century, are distinguished by their dispassion, lack of gore, and their expression of the Divine Man, Theanthropos, willingly giving Himself up and enduring crucifixion for the salvation of the human race. Less has always been more, and is the hallmark of good iconography. The Isenheim Altarpiece is an impressive and evocative work of art, but it is not an icon.

Similarly, Orthodox hymnography maintains the balance between the human Jesus and the divine Christ. His suffering is not absent, but it is not overemphasised at the expense of His divinity. And it is beyond question that Orthodoxy has always placed the Resurrection in its rightful place.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: biro on August 23, 2011, 09:50:27 PM
If you use the image of the heart as a metaphor for love, as many artists and writers have, why not? Nothing could be stronger or better than Jesus' love for us.

It is no accident or coincidence that the image of the heart of Christ has never been used as an Orthodox icon. This alone should make one pause.

There is a practice, in Sicily, and I read that this predates the Schism. People would leave mementos at a shrine in honor of a saint, as a thanksgiving, if you had been cured after that saint's intercessions. Often these would take the form of a model of your feet, for instance, if a foot injury were cured, or your hand if it was that, etc.

Oh, and if there's no veneration of 'body parts' in the Orthodox Church, why did I go to church on the Feast of the Finding of the Head of St. John the Forerunner? Why is he shown in icons as carrying his head on that platter? Why is St. Lucia shown carrying her eyes on a plate?

 :)

Forgot those, didn't you?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 23, 2011, 09:53:01 PM
I'm just saying, both the EO and the RCC popular piety have the for all practical purposes the same gory fixations and I find it sad that Father Ambrose keeps bending over backwards to pretend there is a significant aesthetic difference.

There IS indeed a significant aesthetic difference.   I don't have to bend over backwards at all.  I hope that LBK will chime in here and show you that Orthodoxy and our iconographers deliberately keep the gore out of our art. 

Quote
Admittedly, I probably shouldn't be picking at this though since it really has nothing to do with the Traditional-ness of the Sacred Heart. Like biro, I'm just sick of all the chest beating is all.

It's not chest beating to speak truly.   Here is something from Metropolitan Kallistos Ware in "The Orthodox Church":

The west, so it seems to them, tends to think of the Crucifixion in
isolation, separating it too sharply from the Resurrection. As a result the vision of Christ as a suffering
God is in practice replaced by the picture of Christ’s suffering humanity: the western worshipper,
when he meditates upon the Cross, is encouraged all too often to feel a morbid sympathy
with the Man of Sorrows, rather than to adore the victorious and triumphant king.

Orthodox feel
thoroughly at home in the language of the great Latin hymn by Venantius Fortunatus (530-609),
Pange lingua, which hails the Cross as an emblem of victory:

Sing, my tongue, the glorious battle,
Sing the ending of the fray;
Now above the Cross, our trophy,
Sound the loud triumphal lay:
Tell how Christ, the world’s redeemer,
As a victim won the day.

They feel equally at home in that other hymn by Fortunatus, Vexilla regis:

Fulfilled is all that David told
In true prophetic song of old:
Among the nations God, said he,
Hath reigned and triumphed from the Tree.

But Orthodox feel less happy about compositions of the later Middle Ages such as Stabat Mater:

For his people’s sins, in anguish,
There she saw the victim languish,
Bleed in torments, bleed and die:
Saw the Lord’s anointed taken;
Saw her Child in death forsaken;
Heard his last expiring cry.

It is significant that Stabat Mater, in the course of its sixty lines, makes not a single reference to
the Resurrection.

Where Orthodoxy sees chiefly Christ the Victor, the late medieval and post-medieval west
sees chiefly Christ the Victim. While Orthodoxy interprets the Crucifixion primarily as an act of
triumphant victory over the powers of evil, the west particularly since the time of Anselm of
Canterbury (?1033-1109) — has tended rather to think of the Cross in penal and juridical terms,
as an act of satisfaction or substitution designed to propitiate the wrath of an angry Father.

Yet these contrasts must not be pressed too far. Eastern writers, as well as western, have applied
juridical and penal language to the Crucifixion; western writers, as well as eastern, have
never ceased to think of Good Friday as a moment of victory. In the west during recent years
there has been a revival of the Patristic idea of Christus Victor, alike in theology, in spirituality,
and in art; and Orthodox are naturally very happy that this should be so.

http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0804/_P14.HTM#116
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: biro on August 23, 2011, 09:54:50 PM
Why is the Stabat Mater a problem? On Great Friday, don't we all mourn the Crucifixion?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: LBK on August 23, 2011, 09:57:36 PM
Quote
Oh, and if there's no veneration of 'body parts' in the Orthodox Church, why did I go to church on the Feast of the Finding of the Head of St. John the Forerunner? Why is he shown in icons as carrying his head on that platter? Why is St. Lucia shown carrying her eyes on a plate?

There are many feasts of saints dedicated to the finding of their holy relics, or their translation from one place to another. Where is the relic of the heart of Jesus?

The votive plaques are just that: tokens of supplication, or prayers answered. These plaques are not venerated in ther own right. Try again, biro.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on August 23, 2011, 10:00:17 PM
Why is the Stabat Mater a problem? On Great Friday, don't we all mourn the Crucifixion?

Last time I experience Great and Holy Friday, nobody chanted "Christ is Risen..."

Maybe it was vagante Orthodoxy...dunno...
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 23, 2011, 10:03:46 PM
Why is the Stabat Mater a problem? On Great Friday, don't we all mourn the Crucifixion?

Yes, we do.

A repeated refrain in the Holy Friday Services:

We worship Thy passion, O Christ, reveal to us also Thy holy Resurrection.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: biro on August 23, 2011, 10:07:21 PM
So venerating a representation of a human carrying his head or her eyes is okay, but even though Jesus was fully human and fully divine, we can't venerate a picture of His heart... interesting.  ??? If you say so. I did a lot of praying in front of a picture of the Holy Napkin when I was a kid, and it'd be a shame if that time was wasted.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: LBK on August 23, 2011, 10:07:49 PM
Quote
I hope that LBK will chime in here and show you that Orthodoxy and our iconographers deliberately keep the gore out of our art.

I have already touched on this, Father, though I can elaborate further if need be. I might also add that the phenomenon of stigmata is recorded numerous times within the tradition of the RCC, but absent in Orthodox tradition. Again, food for thought.  

Quote
Why is the Stabat Mater a problem? On Great Friday, don't we all mourn the Crucifixion?

Indeed we do, biro. Yet, even during the Matins of Holy Saturday, sung on Great Friday evening, which commemorates the burial of Christ, the "lowest" point of the Passion, there are, even then, glimpses of the hope, anticipation and unimaginable joy of the coming Resurrection. This verse is particularly evocative and illustrative:

O my Son and my God, though I am wounded to the core and torn to the heart as I see You dead, yet confident in Your Resurrection, I magnify You.
Like I said previously: it's a matter of balance.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on August 23, 2011, 10:11:01 PM
Why is the Stabat Mater a problem? On Great Friday, don't we all mourn the Crucifixion?

Yes, we do.

A repeated refrain in the Holy Friday Services:

We worship Thy passion, O Christ, reveal to us also Thy holy Resurrection.

Are you suggesting that the Roman rite does not anticipate the Resurrection on the Third Day?...because if you are then you are either ignorant or malicious...

You make far too much out of this putative "difference"...
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 23, 2011, 10:17:53 PM
Why is the Stabat Mater a problem? On Great Friday, don't we all mourn the Crucifixion?

Yes, we do.

A repeated refrain in the Holy Friday Services:

We worship Thy passion, O Christ, reveal to us also Thy holy Resurrection.

Are you suggesting that the Roman rite does not anticipate the Resurrection on the Third Day?...because if you are then you are either ignorant or malicious...

Is it crazy hour in America?  Here I have Biro accusing me of unspeakable hatred for Catholics and now you're chiming in with unfounded suggestions of malice.

Quote
You make far too much out of this putative "difference"...

I am sure you know that there are one or two monographs in learned publications addressing this difference.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on August 23, 2011, 10:29:03 PM
Why is the Stabat Mater a problem? On Great Friday, don't we all mourn the Crucifixion?

Yes, we do.

A repeated refrain in the Holy Friday Services:

We worship Thy passion, O Christ, reveal to us also Thy holy Resurrection.

Are you suggesting that the Roman rite does not anticipate the Resurrection on the Third Day?...because if you are then you are either ignorant or malicious...

Is it crazy hour in America?  Here I have Biro accusing me of unspeakable hatred for Catholics and now you're chiming in with unfounded suggestions of malice.

Quote
You make far too much out of this putative "difference"...

I am sure you know that there are one or two monographs in learned publications addressing this difference.

Soon there will be some dozen or so articles and monographs in learned journals and publications that advocate the healthy aspects of 'child-love'...which will then turn the Catholic sex scandals into healthy expressions of natural inclinations in all of us, whether we know it or not.  People who have collected millions from the Church may well be asked to give it back...particularly since many of those cases that have been settled were consensual...save for the age of the young person in question.

I guess I should tell you what I think of many learned venues: but I don't want to be moderated...again.

M.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Volnutt on August 23, 2011, 10:32:27 PM
Quote
I'm just saying, both the EO and the RCC popular piety have the for all practical purposes the same gory fixations

This is not at all true. Never has there been any Orthodox veneration of the heart of Jesus. Never have lurid statues or paintings of the passion of Christ ever been part of Orthodox devotion. Icons of the crucifixion, at least those predating the 17th century, are distinguished by their dispassion, lack of gore, and their expression of the Divine Man, Theanthropos, willingly giving Himself up and enduring crucifixion for the salvation of the human race. Less has always been more, and is the hallmark of good iconography. The Isenheim Altarpiece is an impressive and evocative work of art, but it is not an icon.

Similarly, Orthodox hymnography maintains the balance between the human Jesus and the divine Christ. His suffering is not absent, but it is not overemphasised at the expense of His divinity. And it is beyond question that Orthodoxy has always placed the Resurrection in its rightful place.
*sigh* Maybe you're right.

I'm just wasting time here, either way, I think. I'm bugging out of this thread.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on August 23, 2011, 10:33:21 PM
Why is the Stabat Mater a problem? On Great Friday, don't we all mourn the Crucifixion?

Yes, we do.

A repeated refrain in the Holy Friday Services:

We worship Thy passion, O Christ, reveal to us also Thy holy Resurrection.

Are you suggesting that the Roman rite does not anticipate the Resurrection on the Third Day?...because if you are then you are either ignorant or malicious...

Is it crazy hour in America?  Here I have Biro accusing me of unspeakable hatred for Catholics and now you're chiming in with unfounded suggestions of malice.

Quote
You make far too much out of this putative "difference"...

I am sure you know that there are one or two monographs in learned publications addressing this difference.

Just so you cannot plead ignorance next time.  From the Catholic Good Friday liturgy: Note the Collect at the bottom of the Litany:

Quote
A LITANY FOR GOOD FRIDAY

Is it nothing to you, all you that pass by?
Look and see if there is any sorrow like my sorrow. [Lamentations l:12]

The Lord says:
My people, what have I done to you?
How have I offended you? Answer me!
I led you from slavery to freedom,
but you led your Saviour to the cross.
I brought you out of Egypt,
but you handed me over to the high priests.
Holy God,
holy and mighty, holy and immortal One,
have mercy on us.
My people, what have I done to you?
How have I offended you? Answer me!
I led you on your way in a pillar of cloud,
but you led me to Pilate's court.
I bore you up with manna in the desert,
but you struck me down and scourged me.
Holy God,
holy and mighty, holy and immortal One,
have mercy on us.
My people, what have I done to you?
How have I offended you? Answer me!
I gave you a royal scepter,
but you gave me a crown of thorns.
I raised you to the height of majesty,
but you have raised me high on a cross.
Holy God,
holy and mighty, holy and immortal One,
have mercy on us.
My people, what have I done to you?
How have I offended you? Answer me!
I gave you saving water from the rock,
but you gave me gall and vinegar to drink.
For you I struck down the kings of Canaan,
but you pierced your Saviour with a lance.
Holy God,
holy and mighty, holy and immortal One,
have mercy on us.
We adore you, O Christ, and we bless you.
By your holy cross you have redeemed the world.
If we have died with him, we shall also live with him.
If we endure, we shall also reign with him.
We adore you, O Christ, and we bless you.
By your holy cross you have redeemed the world.
[`A Litany for Good Friday' from Uniting in Worship, adapted from the Reproaches for Good Friday, Missal of the Roman Catholic Church.]

COLLECT FOR THE DAY
Almighty God, look graciously, we pray, on this your family, for whom our Lord Jesus Christ was willing to be betrayed and given into the hands of sinners. Grant that, through faith in him who suffered death on the cross for our salvation, we may know the power of his resurrection; who now lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 23, 2011, 10:40:37 PM
Why is the Stabat Mater a problem? On Great Friday, don't we all mourn the Crucifixion?

Yes, we do.

A repeated refrain in the Holy Friday Services:

We worship Thy passion, O Christ, reveal to us also Thy holy Resurrection.

Are you suggesting that the Roman rite does not anticipate the Resurrection on the Third Day?...because if you are then you are either ignorant or malicious...

Is it crazy hour in America?  Here I have Biro accusing me of unspeakable hatred for Catholics and now you're chiming in with unfounded suggestions of malice.

Quote
You make far too much out of this putative "difference"...

I am sure you know that there are one or two monographs in learned publications addressing this difference.

Soon there will be some dozen or so articles and monographs in learned journals and publications that advocate the healthy aspects of 'child-love'...which will then turn the Catholic sex scandals into healthy expressions of natural inclinations in all of us, whether we know it or not.  People who have collected millions from the Church may well be asked to give it back...particularly since many of those cases that have been settled were consensual...save for the age of the young person in question.

I guess I should tell you what I think of many learned venues: but I don't want to be moderated...again.

M.

So because Roman Catholics are going through a period of sex scandals. all of a sudden learned journals are suspect?!!.  Didn't I assist you in finding a learned article in a learned journal by Archbishop Basil Krivoshein on Gregory Palamas?  Pshaw, Maria!  Some moderation please.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Melodist on August 24, 2011, 08:50:14 AM
But this does nothing for me...

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-r3ZNn4peyWI/Tg3J8_ySHPI/AAAAAAAAT0g/5hhfQYM12xA/s1600/vintage.sacred.heart.jpg)

I can see how that particular image would be out of line. Also I'm not advocating following after visions, promises, or indulgences. There are more traditional ways of showing Christ's Heart as the source of His love and compassion for us that do not seperate it from His person as a whole.

(http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s299/ITBuddha/Avatars/SacredHeartofJesus.jpg)

(http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa23/holymusic55/Jesus/Sacred%20Heart%20of%20Jesus/Sacred_Hearticon.jpg)
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: LBK on August 24, 2011, 08:55:37 AM
The last two images are not icons.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Melodist on August 24, 2011, 08:59:01 AM
The last two images are not icons.

I never said they were.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: LBK on August 24, 2011, 09:01:01 AM
The last two images are not icons.

I never said they were.

Just making sure.  ;) ;D
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 24, 2011, 09:07:19 AM
(http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa23/holymusic55/Jesus/Sacred%20Heart%20of%20Jesus/Sacred_Hearticon.jpg)

Dear Melodist,

This picture comes Monastery Icons.   Very few, if any, priests will bless icons from this source and they recommend that they be burnt.

See this article "A Word About 'Monastery Icons'"
by Fr. Anthony Nelson
http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/monasteryicons.aspx
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on August 24, 2011, 10:09:43 AM
Just in case you missed this Father Ambrose:  It is a little moderation in light of the darkness that you and LBK continue to try to shine on Catholic Liturgical prayer.  Again:  Note the Collect at the end of the Litany:

A LITANY FOR GOOD FRIDAY

Is it nothing to you, all you that pass by?
Look and see if there is any sorrow like my sorrow. [Lamentations l:12]

The Lord says:
My people, what have I done to you?
How have I offended you? Answer me!
I led you from slavery to freedom,
but you led your Saviour to the cross.
I brought you out of Egypt,
but you handed me over to the high priests.
Holy God,
holy and mighty, holy and immortal One,
have mercy on us.
My people, what have I done to you?
How have I offended you? Answer me!
I led you on your way in a pillar of cloud,
but you led me to Pilate's court.
I bore you up with manna in the desert,
but you struck me down and scourged me.
Holy God,
holy and mighty, holy and immortal One,
have mercy on us.
My people, what have I done to you?
How have I offended you? Answer me!
I gave you a royal scepter,
but you gave me a crown of thorns.
I raised you to the height of majesty,
but you have raised me high on a cross.
Holy God,
holy and mighty, holy and immortal One,
have mercy on us.
My people, what have I done to you?
How have I offended you? Answer me!
I gave you saving water from the rock,
but you gave me gall and vinegar to drink.
For you I struck down the kings of Canaan,
but you pierced your Saviour with a lance.
Holy God,
holy and mighty, holy and immortal One,
have mercy on us.
We adore you, O Christ, and we bless you.
By your holy cross you have redeemed the world.
If we have died with him, we shall also live with him.
If we endure, we shall also reign with him.
We adore you, O Christ, and we bless you.
By your holy cross you have redeemed the world.
[`A Litany for Good Friday' from Uniting in Worship, adapted from the Reproaches for Good Friday, Missal of the Roman Catholic Church.]

COLLECT FOR THE DAY
Almighty God, look graciously, we pray, on this your family, for whom our Lord Jesus Christ was willing to be betrayed and given into the hands of sinners. Grant that, through faith in him who suffered death on the cross for our salvation, we may know the power of his resurrection; who now lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.

Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 24, 2011, 11:07:37 AM
Just in case you missed this Father Ambrose:  It is a little moderation in light of the darkness that you and LBK continue to try to shine on Catholic Liturgical prayer.  Again:  Note the Collect at the end of the Litany:
COLLECT FOR THE DAY
Almighty God, look graciously, we pray, on this your family, for whom our Lord Jesus Christ was willing to be betrayed and given into the hands of sinners. Grant that, through faith in him who suffered death on the cross for our salvation, we may know the power of his resurrection; who now lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.

Dear Maria, I rejoiced to see this phrase on the Resurrection

"Yet these contrasts must not be pressed too far. Eastern writers, as well as western, have applied
juridical and penal language to the Crucifixion; western writers, as well as eastern, have
never ceased to think of Good Friday as a moment of victory. In the west during recent years
there has been a revival of the Patristic idea of Christus Victor, alike in theology, in spirituality,
and in art; and Orthodox are naturally very happy that this should be so."


http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0804/_P14.HTM#116
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on August 24, 2011, 11:16:52 AM
Just in case you missed this Father Ambrose:  It is a little moderation in light of the darkness that you and LBK continue to try to shine on Catholic Liturgical prayer.  Again:  Note the Collect at the end of the Litany:
COLLECT FOR THE DAY
Almighty God, look graciously, we pray, on this your family, for whom our Lord Jesus Christ was willing to be betrayed and given into the hands of sinners. Grant that, through faith in him who suffered death on the cross for our salvation, we may know the power of his resurrection; who now lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.

Dear Maria, I rejoiced to see this phrase on the Resurrection

"Yet these contrasts must not be pressed too far. Eastern writers, as well as western, have applied
juridical and penal language to the Crucifixion; western writers, as well as eastern, have
never ceased to think of Good Friday as a moment of victory. In the west during recent years
there has been a revival of the Patristic idea of Christus Victor, alike in theology, in spirituality,
and in art; and Orthodox are naturally very happy that this should be so."


http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0804/_P14.HTM#116

This Collect: thank you very much: comes out of my childhood missal, given to me by my Irish Catholic grandmother, that dates to before the turn of the last century...as its LATEST publication reprint date.

Perhaps your "scholars" didn't have an Irish Catholic gran to give them their lessons in Catholic liturgy!!
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 24, 2011, 11:22:18 AM
Just in case you missed this Father Ambrose:  It is a little moderation in light of the darkness that you and LBK continue to try to shine on Catholic Liturgical prayer.  Again:  Note the Collect at the end of the Litany:
COLLECT FOR THE DAY
Almighty God, look graciously, we pray, on this your family, for whom our Lord Jesus Christ was willing to be betrayed and given into the hands of sinners. Grant that, through faith in him who suffered death on the cross for our salvation, we may know the power of his resurrection; who now lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.

Dear Maria, I rejoiced to see this phrase on the Resurrection

"Yet these contrasts must not be pressed too far. Eastern writers, as well as western, have applied
juridical and penal language to the Crucifixion; western writers, as well as eastern, have
never ceased to think of Good Friday as a moment of victory. In the west during recent years
there has been a revival of the Patristic idea of Christus Victor, alike in theology, in spirituality,
and in art; and Orthodox are naturally very happy that this should be so."


http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0804/_P14.HTM#116

This Collect: thank you very much: comes out of my childhood missal, given to me by my Irish Catholic grandmother, that dates to before the turn of the last century...as its LATEST publication reprint date.

Thank you.  I wondered about its age and how widely it is used.  I have a few Missals which go up to the 1960s and I'll look for it (although the Passion Week services underwent revision in the 1950s.)

I am a little surprised to see no thee's and thou's and no "liveth and reigneth" in your childhood missal?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: LBK on August 24, 2011, 11:22:57 AM
The presence of the mention of the Resurrection in the collect is good to see, yet many RC churches are replete with graphic images and statues of the Passion which are in stark contrast to Orthodox iconography which expresses the Passion in very different terms.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on August 24, 2011, 11:28:23 AM
Just in case you missed this Father Ambrose:  It is a little moderation in light of the darkness that you and LBK continue to try to shine on Catholic Liturgical prayer.  Again:  Note the Collect at the end of the Litany:
COLLECT FOR THE DAY
Almighty God, look graciously, we pray, on this your family, for whom our Lord Jesus Christ was willing to be betrayed and given into the hands of sinners. Grant that, through faith in him who suffered death on the cross for our salvation, we may know the power of his resurrection; who now lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.

Dear Maria, I rejoiced to see this phrase on the Resurrection

"Yet these contrasts must not be pressed too far. Eastern writers, as well as western, have applied
juridical and penal language to the Crucifixion; western writers, as well as eastern, have
never ceased to think of Good Friday as a moment of victory. In the west during recent years
there has been a revival of the Patristic idea of Christus Victor, alike in theology, in spirituality,
and in art; and Orthodox are naturally very happy that this should be so."


http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0804/_P14.HTM#116

This Collect: thank you very much: comes out of my childhood missal, given to me by my Irish Catholic grandmother, that dates to before the turn of the last century...as its LATEST publication reprint date.

Thank you.  I wondered about its age and how widely it is used.  I have a few Missals which go up to the 1960s and I'll look for it (although the Passion Week services underwent revision in the 1950s.)

References to the resurrection can also be found in my monastic diurnal [pre-mid-20th century] and that diurnal was one that was used in my family by those who prayed the daily hours.

Don't forget that many Catholics prayed the hours, particularly during Lent and Holy Week...pre-Vatican II.  The numbers of those who do today have risen commensurately with the rise in numbers of third order members of the various orders: Benedictine, Carmelite, Dominican, Franciscan.   So that in all the time that you are telling us about what the "scholars" say:: there are real lived experiences of the liturgy that allow me and others like me to smile at you and the learned LBK and say:: BUNK-O DIDDLY 'i O
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: ialmisry on August 24, 2011, 11:32:48 AM
If you use the image of the heart as a metaphor for love, as many artists and writers have, why not? Nothing could be stronger or better than Jesus' love for us.

It is no accident or coincidence that the image of the heart of Christ has never been used as an Orthodox icon. This alone should make one pause.

There is a practice, in Sicily, and I read that this predates the Schism. People would leave mementos at a shrine in honor of a saint, as a thanksgiving, if you had been cured after that saint's intercessions. Often these would take the form of a model of your feet, for instance, if a foot injury were cured, or your hand if it was that, etc.

Oh, and if there's no veneration of 'body parts' in the Orthodox Church, why did I go to church on the Feast of the Finding of the Head of St. John the Forerunner? Why is he shown in icons as carrying his head on that platter? Why is St. Lucia shown carrying her eyes on a plate?

 :)

Forgot those, didn't you?
No.  Unlike the sacred heart, the head of St. John is never in an icon itself, nor is there a feast day for his head: it is his feast day. Nor do I recall a hymnography to his head.

Nor did Christ ever pull open His chest to give the Apostles a look inside. Only to some 17th century nun off in France. (reminds me, btw, of the Muslim story of Gabriel opening up Muhammads chest and taking the organs out and washing them, one by one).
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: ialmisry on August 24, 2011, 11:38:02 AM
Just in case you missed this Father Ambrose:  It is a little moderation in light of the darkness that you and LBK continue to try to shine on Catholic Liturgical prayer.  Again:  Note the Collect at the end of the Litany:
COLLECT FOR THE DAY
Almighty God, look graciously, we pray, on this your family, for whom our Lord Jesus Christ was willing to be betrayed and given into the hands of sinners. Grant that, through faith in him who suffered death on the cross for our salvation, we may know the power of his resurrection; who now lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.

Dear Maria, I rejoiced to see this phrase on the Resurrection

"Yet these contrasts must not be pressed too far. Eastern writers, as well as western, have applied
juridical and penal language to the Crucifixion; western writers, as well as eastern, have
never ceased to think of Good Friday as a moment of victory. In the west during recent years
there has been a revival of the Patristic idea of Christus Victor, alike in theology, in spirituality,
and in art; and Orthodox are naturally very happy that this should be so."


http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0804/_P14.HTM#116

This Collect: thank you very much: comes out of my childhood missal, given to me by my Irish Catholic grandmother, that dates to before the turn of the last century...as its LATEST publication reprint date.

Thank you.  I wondered about its age and how widely it is used.  I have a few Missals which go up to the 1960s and I'll look for it (although the Passion Week services underwent revision in the 1950s.)

I am a little surprised to see no thee's and thou's and no "liveth and reigneth" in your childhood missal?
Yes, rather odd. ::) What was that publication info again?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 24, 2011, 11:45:21 AM

No.  Unlike the sacred heart, the head of St. John is never in an icon itself, nor is there a feast day for his head: it is his feast day. Nor do I recall a hymnography to his head.


We do have such icons in the Russian Church (attachment below)

We also have feast days for the head's first, second and third findings. 

From the service for the third finding of the head:

Troparion (Tone 4)
As a divine treasure hidden in the ground
Was your head revealed to us by Christ, O prophet and forerunner.
We have gathered in commemoration of this finding
With inspired hymns of praise to the Savior,
Who saves us from corruption through your prayers!

Kontakion (Tone 4)
By giving your venerable head to a sinful woman,
Herod broke the law of God.
But we behold it and cry out for joy,
And say to you, O forerunner:
Pray to the Lord that He may grant mercy to us all!

Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on August 24, 2011, 11:51:03 AM
Thank you Father.  I was just about to post, but it comes better from you.


No.  Unlike the sacred heart, the head of St. John is never in an icon itself, nor is there a feast day for his head: it is his feast day. Nor do I recall a hymnography to his head.


We do have such icons in the Russian Church (attachment below)

We also have feast days for the head's first, second and third findings. 

From the service for the third finding of the head:

Troparion (Tone 4)
As a divine treasure hidden in the ground
Was your head revealed to us by Christ, O prophet and forerunner.
We have gathered in commemoration of this finding
With inspired hymns of praise to the Savior,
Who saves us from corruption through your prayers!

Kontakion (Tone 4)
By giving your venerable head to a sinful woman,
Herod broke the law of God.
But we behold it and cry out for joy,
And say to you, O forerunner:
Pray to the Lord that He may grant mercy to us all!


Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on August 24, 2011, 12:10:26 PM
Just in case you missed this Father Ambrose:  It is a little moderation in light of the darkness that you and LBK continue to try to shine on Catholic Liturgical prayer.  Again:  Note the Collect at the end of the Litany:
COLLECT FOR THE DAY
Almighty God, look graciously, we pray, on this your family, for whom our Lord Jesus Christ was willing to be betrayed and given into the hands of sinners. Grant that, through faith in him who suffered death on the cross for our salvation, we may know the power of his resurrection; who now lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.

Dear Maria, I rejoiced to see this phrase on the Resurrection

"Yet these contrasts must not be pressed too far. Eastern writers, as well as western, have applied
juridical and penal language to the Crucifixion; western writers, as well as eastern, have
never ceased to think of Good Friday as a moment of victory. In the west during recent years
there has been a revival of the Patristic idea of Christus Victor, alike in theology, in spirituality,
and in art; and Orthodox are naturally very happy that this should be so."


http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0804/_P14.HTM#116

This Collect: thank you very much: comes out of my childhood missal, given to me by my Irish Catholic grandmother, that dates to before the turn of the last century...as its LATEST publication reprint date.

Thank you.  I wondered about its age and how widely it is used.  I have a few Missals which go up to the 1960s and I'll look for it (although the Passion Week services underwent revision in the 1950s.)

I am a little surprised to see no thee's and thou's and no "liveth and reigneth" in your childhood missal?
Yes, rather odd. ::) What was that publication info again?

You really are out of your depth here, Isa. 

This is an on-line project and the text below is taken from the pre-1955 Missale:

http://mysite.verizon.net/missale/goodfri.html

COLLECT
   S. Oremus.       Priest: Let us pray.    
   V. Flectamus genua.       Deacon: Let us kneel.    
   R. Levate.       Subdeacon: Arise.    

      Deus, a quo et Iudas reatus sui poenam, et confessionis suae latro praemium sumpsit, concede novis tuae propitiationis effectum: ut sicut in passione sua Iesus Christus Dominus noster diversa utrisque intulit stipendia meritorum; ita nobis, ablato vetustatis errore, resurrectionis suae gratiam largiatur: Qui tecum vivit et regnat in unitate Spiritu Sancti, Deus, per omnia saecula saeculorum.          

O God, from whom Judas received the punishment of his guilt, and the thief the reward of his confession: grant unto us the full fruit of Thy clemency; that even as in His Passion, our Lord Jesus Christ gave to each a retribution according to his merits, so having taken away our old sins, He may bestow upon us the grace of His Resurrection. Who with Thee liveth and reigneth in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: ialmisry on August 24, 2011, 12:12:52 PM

No.  Unlike the sacred heart, the head of St. John is never in an icon itself, nor is there a feast day for his head: it is his feast day. Nor do I recall a hymnography to his head.


We do have such icons in the Russian Church (attachment below)
I'm afraid I have to classify that with this
(http://xxc.ru/english/foto/inside/s01/xxs003.jpg)

We also have feast days for the head's first, second and third findings. 

Yes, I'm aware of that, like any feast of the invention or translation of relics.  My son has St. Theodore (Tadrus as his patron), and was born on the Feast of his translation.

From the service for the third finding of the head:

Troparion (Tone 4)
As a divine treasure hidden in the ground
Was your head revealed to us by Christ, O prophet and forerunner.
We have gathered in commemoration of this finding
With inspired hymns of praise to the Savior,
Who saves us from corruption through your prayers!

Kontakion (Tone 4)
By giving your venerable head to a sinful woman,
Herod broke the law of God.
But we behold it and cry out for joy,
And say to you, O forerunner:
Pray to the Lord that He may grant mercy to us all!
Notice that St. John, not his head, is addressed.  This is a little different:
Quote
"O Sacred Heart of Jesus,
I place my trust in Thee,"
Whatever may befall me, Lord,
Though dark the hour may be.
In all my joys, in all my woes,
Though naught but grief I see.
"O Sacred Heart of Jesus,
I place my trust in Thee."

When those I love have passed away
And I am sore distressed,
O Sacred Heart of Jesus,
I fly to Thee for rest.
In all my trials, great or small,
My confidence shall be,
Unshaken, as I cry, dear Lord,
"I place my trust in Thee."
This is my one sweet prayer, dear Lord!
My faith, my trust, my love,
But, most of all, in that last hour,
When death points up above,
Ah, then, sweet Savior, may Thy face
Smile on my soul set free.
Oh, may I cry with rapturous love,
"I've placed my trust in Thee."
http://www.catholictradition.org/Two-Hearts/sacred-heart13.htm
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: ialmisry on August 24, 2011, 12:26:25 PM
Just in case you missed this Father Ambrose:  It is a little moderation in light of the darkness that you and LBK continue to try to shine on Catholic Liturgical prayer.  Again:  Note the Collect at the end of the Litany:
COLLECT FOR THE DAY
Almighty God, look graciously, we pray, on this your family, for whom our Lord Jesus Christ was willing to be betrayed and given into the hands of sinners. Grant that, through faith in him who suffered death on the cross for our salvation, we may know the power of his resurrection; who now lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.

Dear Maria, I rejoiced to see this phrase on the Resurrection

"Yet these contrasts must not be pressed too far. Eastern writers, as well as western, have applied
juridical and penal language to the Crucifixion; western writers, as well as eastern, have
never ceased to think of Good Friday as a moment of victory. In the west during recent years
there has been a revival of the Patristic idea of Christus Victor, alike in theology, in spirituality,
and in art; and Orthodox are naturally very happy that this should be so."


http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0804/_P14.HTM#116

This Collect: thank you very much: comes out of my childhood missal, given to me by my Irish Catholic grandmother, that dates to before the turn of the last century...as its LATEST publication reprint date.

Thank you.  I wondered about its age and how widely it is used.  I have a few Missals which go up to the 1960s and I'll look for it (although the Passion Week services underwent revision in the 1950s.)

I am a little surprised to see no thee's and thou's and no "liveth and reigneth" in your childhood missal?
Yes, rather odd. ::) What was that publication info again?

You really are out of your depth here, Isa.

LOL. Hardly.  Your new source gives this:
Quote
Missale Romanum, Imprimatur by C. Eykens, Vical General of Antwerp, 24 Feb 1963.
Breviarium Romanum, Imprimatur by Caietanus Cardinal Cicognani, Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, 29 May 1961.
Liber Usualis, Imprimatur by J. Thomas, Vicar General of Tornai, Belgium, 26 Oct 1961.
http://mysite.verizon.net/missale/
This is an on-line project and the text below is taken from the pre-1955 Missale:

http://mysite.verizon.net/missale/goodfri.html

COLLECT
   S. Oremus.       Priest: Let us pray.    
   V. Flectamus genua.       Deacon: Let us kneel.    
   R. Levate.       Subdeacon: Arise.    

      Deus, a quo et Iudas reatus sui poenam, et confessionis suae latro praemium sumpsit, concede novis tuae propitiationis effectum: ut sicut in passione sua Iesus Christus Dominus noster diversa utrisque intulit stipendia meritorum; ita nobis, ablato vetustatis errore, resurrectionis suae gratiam largiatur: Qui tecum vivit et regnat in unitate Spiritu Sancti, Deus, per omnia saecula saeculorum.         

O God, from whom Judas received the punishment of his guilt, and the thief the reward of his confession: grant unto us the full fruit of Thy clemency; that even as in His Passion, our Lord Jesus Christ gave to each a retribution according to his merits, so having taken away our old sins, He may bestow upon us the grace of His Resurrection. Who with Thee liveth and reigneth in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end.
That doesn't seem to be the same collect that you quoted from your dear Irish gran's missal:
Just in case you missed this Father Ambrose:  It is a little moderation in light of the darkness that you and LBK continue to try to shine on Catholic Liturgical prayer.  Again:  Note the Collect at the end of the Litany:
COLLECT FOR THE DAY
Almighty God, look graciously, we pray, on this your family, for whom our Lord Jesus Christ was willing to be betrayed and given into the hands of sinners. Grant that, through faith in him who suffered death on the cross for our salvation, we may know the power of his resurrection; who now lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.


Btw, I don't why you don't bring up Pange lingua lauream in this context:IIRC, Bishop Kallistos, whom Fr. Ambrose quotes, did.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on August 24, 2011, 12:51:52 PM

LOL. Hardly.  Your new source gives this:
Quote
Missale Romanum, Imprimatur by C. Eykens, Vical General of Antwerp, 24 Feb 1963.
Breviarium Romanum, Imprimatur by Caietanus Cardinal Cicognani, Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, 29 May 1961.


If you look at the site's opening page he has the texts divided into pre-1955 and post-1955.  I selected the text from the pre-1955 texts for Good Friday.

I posted this because it seemed reasonable to demonstrate that these texts are actually available electronically for those who have to skills and desire to actually check their assertions.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: ialmisry on August 24, 2011, 01:59:51 PM

LOL. Hardly.  Your new source gives this:
Quote
Missale Romanum, Imprimatur by C. Eykens, Vical General of Antwerp, 24 Feb 1963.
Breviarium Romanum, Imprimatur by Caietanus Cardinal Cicognani, Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, 29 May 1961.

If you look at the site's opening page

you mean this page?
http://mysite.verizon.net/missale/

he has the texts divided into pre-1955 and post-1955.
 
Yes. He never tells us where he gets those pre-1955 texts from,
Quote
This, therefore, is the reason for this project: to provide the texts of the Proper of Seasons and Proper of the Saints to those faithful Catholics who wish a greater understanding of the beauty of the old Latin Mass. The sources for this page include the following:
judging by the imprimaturs (ah, the importance of sourcing, but then you knew that. ::)),just a hint in "Note on the Revised Ordo of Holy Week, promulgated Nov 1955" (is that pre or post 1955?) of which he provides this extract
Quote
in 1642 the Sacred Triduum was removed from the days of obligation, and the three days became officially what they had long been in practice: ordinary workdays. The beautiful solemn liturgy of Holy Week had by this time become unknown to and unappreciated by all save the clergy and a handful of the faithful. A partial remedy was sought by introducing extra-liturgical devotions each evening (Holy Hour, Three Hours, Mater Dolorosa sermon, Stations of the Cross); but these lack much of the great dignity and sacramental power and efficacy of liturgical celebrations....To bring an end to this serious loss liturgists, parish clergy, and Bishops in every part of the world have for long beseeched the Holy See to restore the liturgical actions of the Sacred Triduum...The Restored Ordo of Holy Week was published in November 1955...
http://mysite.verizon.net/missale/holyweek.html

I selected the text from the pre-1955 texts for Good Friday.
That's nice, but you still haven't given the authoritative source of where he got it. Something like this:
http://books.google.com/books?id=1yxFAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA212&dq=Deus,+a+quo+et+Iudas+reatus+sui+poenam,+et+confessionis+suae+latro+praemium+sumpsit,+concede+novis+tuae+propitiationis+effectum:+ut+sicut+in+passione+sua+Iesus+Christus+Dominus+noster+diversa+utrisque+intulit+stipendia+meritorum;+ita+nobis,+ablato+vetustatis+errore,+resurrectionis+suae+gratiam+largiatur:+Qui+tecum+vivit+et+regnat+in+unitate+Spiritu+Sancti,+Deus,+per+omnia+saecula+saeculorum.&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

or this
http://books.google.com/books?id=JHpCAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA26&dq=missal+resurrectionis+suae+gratiam+largiatur&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

I posted this because it seemed reasonable to demonstrate that these texts are actually available electronically for those who have to skills and desire to actually check their assertions.
Such as the collect you cited from your Irish grandmother's missal, which you seem to coveniently forgotten was the OP, and have substituted here?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on August 24, 2011, 02:34:12 PM
I have, as does Father Ambrose, several missals here.  They are all pre-1955.  The texts are the same or quite similar to the one I quoted here as are the texts from the monastic diurnal that is also pre-1955...and the Missale Romanum is also available on-line in pdf format and the text there is also similar and the same as others.

I don't owe you or anyone else here more than that. 

It is what it is.  You people are way out of line in your understanding of Catholic liturgy, teaching and piety.

You have to resort to this kind of nonsense to make "points"....

Have at it.


LOL. Hardly.  Your new source gives this:
Quote
Missale Romanum, Imprimatur by C. Eykens, Vical General of Antwerp, 24 Feb 1963.
Breviarium Romanum, Imprimatur by Caietanus Cardinal Cicognani, Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, 29 May 1961.

If you look at the site's opening page

you mean this page?
http://mysite.verizon.net/missale/

he has the texts divided into pre-1955 and post-1955.
 
Yes. He never tells us where he gets those pre-1955 texts from,
Quote
This, therefore, is the reason for this project: to provide the texts of the Proper of Seasons and Proper of the Saints to those faithful Catholics who wish a greater understanding of the beauty of the old Latin Mass. The sources for this page include the following:
judging by the imprimaturs (ah, the importance of sourcing, but then you knew that. ::)),just a hint in "Note on the Revised Ordo of Holy Week, promulgated Nov 1955" (is that pre or post 1955?) of which he provides this extract
Quote
in 1642 the Sacred Triduum was removed from the days of obligation, and the three days became officially what they had long been in practice: ordinary workdays. The beautiful solemn liturgy of Holy Week had by this time become unknown to and unappreciated by all save the clergy and a handful of the faithful. A partial remedy was sought by introducing extra-liturgical devotions each evening (Holy Hour, Three Hours, Mater Dolorosa sermon, Stations of the Cross); but these lack much of the great dignity and sacramental power and efficacy of liturgical celebrations....To bring an end to this serious loss liturgists, parish clergy, and Bishops in every part of the world have for long beseeched the Holy See to restore the liturgical actions of the Sacred Triduum...The Restored Ordo of Holy Week was published in November 1955...
http://mysite.verizon.net/missale/holyweek.html

I selected the text from the pre-1955 texts for Good Friday.
That's nice, but you still haven't given the authoritative source of where he got it. Something like this:
http://books.google.com/books?id=1yxFAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA212&dq=Deus,+a+quo+et+Iudas+reatus+sui+poenam,+et+confessionis+suae+latro+praemium+sumpsit,+concede+novis+tuae+propitiationis+effectum:+ut+sicut+in+passione+sua+Iesus+Christus+Dominus+noster+diversa+utrisque+intulit+stipendia+meritorum;+ita+nobis,+ablato+vetustatis+errore,+resurrectionis+suae+gratiam+largiatur:+Qui+tecum+vivit+et+regnat+in+unitate+Spiritu+Sancti,+Deus,+per+omnia+saecula+saeculorum.&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

or this
http://books.google.com/books?id=JHpCAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA26&dq=missal+resurrectionis+suae+gratiam+largiatur&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

I posted this because it seemed reasonable to demonstrate that these texts are actually available electronically for those who have to skills and desire to actually check their assertions.
Such as the collect you cited from your Irish grandmother's missal, which you seem to coveniently forgotten was the OP, and have substituted here?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Schultz on August 24, 2011, 03:03:24 PM
Isa, the simple fact remains is that the Latin in the Missal notes the Resurrection and beseeches the Lord to allow us to witness the power of it.

You're now quibbling over translations and interpretations when, at the outset, this was about the West "ignoring" the Resurrection in lieu of the Crucifixion. 

If you want to continue this little tete-a-tete with elijahmaria, do it on the thread set aside for such bickering.  Do it here and get warned.

Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 24, 2011, 04:58:08 PM

No.  Unlike the sacred heart, the head of St. John is never in an icon itself, nor is there a feast day for his head: it is his feast day. Nor do I recall a hymnography to his head.


We do have such icons in the Russian Church (attachment below)
I'm afraid I have to classify that with this
(http://xxc.ru/english/foto/inside/s01/xxs003.jpg)

Well, I suppose you may classify it any way you like but the fact is that the Russian Church has icons of the head of Saint John the Baptist.   We have one here in our parish church, 18th century.  Are they not known among the brethren of the Arab-Greek tradition?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: ialmisry on August 24, 2011, 05:25:15 PM
Isa, the simple fact remains is that the Latin in the Missal notes the Resurrection and beseeches the Lord to allow us to witness the power of it.

You're now quibbling over translations and interpretations when, at the outset, this was about the West "ignoring" the Resurrection in lieu of the Crucifixion. 

If you want to continue this little tete-a-tete with elijahmaria, do it on the thread set aside for such bickering.  Do it here and get warned.
done
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37983.msg627932/topicseen.html#msg627932
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Cavaradossi on August 24, 2011, 05:32:43 PM
Is it crazy hour in America?  Here I have Biro accusing me of unspeakable hatred for Catholics and now you're chiming in with unfounded suggestions of malice.

But Father Ambrose, I'm not so sure you understand. It's always crazy hour in America. ;)


No.  Unlike the sacred heart, the head of St. John is never in an icon itself, nor is there a feast day for his head: it is his feast day. Nor do I recall a hymnography to his head.


We do have such icons in the Russian Church (attachment below)
I'm afraid I have to classify that with this
(http://xxc.ru/english/foto/inside/s01/xxs003.jpg)

Well, I suppose you may classify it any way you like but the fact is that the Russian Church has icons of the head of Saint John the Baptist.   We have one here in our parish church, 18th century.  Are they not known among the brethren of the Arab-Greek tradition?


I don't think I've seen an icon of just the head of Saint John the Baptist. The closest I've ever seen were icons celebrating the finding of the head of Saint John the Baptist. There is a Greek iconographer at my parish who might be able to give me an answer, if I can manage to track him down.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: ialmisry on August 24, 2011, 05:40:04 PM

No.  Unlike the sacred heart, the head of St. John is never in an icon itself, nor is there a feast day for his head: it is his feast day. Nor do I recall a hymnography to his head.


We do have such icons in the Russian Church (attachment below)
I'm afraid I have to classify that with this
(http://xxc.ru/english/foto/inside/s01/xxs003.jpg)

Well, I suppose you may classify it any way you like but the fact is that the Russian Church has icons of the head of Saint John the Baptist.
And icons of God the Father, Baby Jesus with His Father rather than His mother, and the Grandfather-Man/Boy-Dove Trinity.  All pretty much equal AFAIK.

But whether something should exist is a different question as to whether it exists, so I have to concede your point, Father-in particular as the Russian Church is only a Church but a leading one-and offer my apology to biro.

We have one here in our parish church, 18th century.  Are they not known among the brethren of the Arab-Greek tradition?
Not really.  Now that you mention it, I think I recall seeing a couple in Greece, one I think in the Church of the Resurrection Treasury IIRC, and one perhaps in the St. Nicholas Cathedral in Cairo next to al-Azhar, but I wouldn't stake my life on it.  I would stake my life on it, that all of them dated from the period of the Western Cativity.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: LBK on August 24, 2011, 05:51:45 PM
Quote
this was about the West "ignoring" the Resurrection in lieu of the Crucifixion.

I did not say the west ignored the Resurrection, I said it underemphasised it relative to the Crucifixion. I also said that its religious art overemphasised the physical suffering of Christ, as evident by the religious art (statues and paintings) depicting scenes or stages of the Passion of Christ.

By contrast, the Orthodox approach, in both hymnography and in iconography, strikes a balance between the suffering humanity of Christ, and His divine power and omnipotence. We do not see a ravaged corpse on the Cross, but the God-Man willingly enduring death in His love for mankind. Even in the reading of the Twelve Passion Gospels, the reading of Luke's graphic account of Christ's prayer in the garden of Gethsemane is not one of them.

Food for thought.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: LBK on August 24, 2011, 06:03:41 PM
On icons of the head of St John the Baptist:

I have only encountered such of Russian provenance, not of Greek or others, and they do appear to date no earlier than about the 17th century.  Icons of the feast of the Beheading of St John the Baptist should show him kneeling, arms raised in supplication to God, with the executioner standing behind him, sword raised. Herod's daugher Salome might also be present, holding the platter which is to receive the head. There are also (more recent) icons (largely of Greek provenance) showing the Baptist holding his head on a platter, but he is still shown bodily, not simply as a disembodied head.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: biro on August 24, 2011, 06:26:43 PM
Okay then. Thank you.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Schultz on August 24, 2011, 06:58:36 PM
Quote
this was about the West "ignoring" the Resurrection in lieu of the Crucifixion.

I did not say the west ignored the Resurrection, I said it underemphasised it relative to the Crucifixion. I also said that its religious art overemphasised the physical suffering of Christ, as evident by the religious art (statues and paintings) depicting scenes or stages of the Passion of Christ.

By contrast, the Orthodox approach, in both hymnography and in iconography, strikes a balance between the suffering humanity of Christ, and His divine power and omnipotence. We do not see a ravaged corpse on the Cross, but the God-Man willingly enduring death in His love for mankind. Even in the reading of the Twelve Passion Gospels, the reading of Luke's graphic account of Christ's prayer in the garden of Gethsemane is not one of them.

Food for thought.

Fair enough, but my main point (and directive about the subsequent bickering) still stands. 

(FWIW, I agree with you, for the most part, about the lack of balance in the West) :)
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on August 24, 2011, 07:06:32 PM
Quote
this was about the West "ignoring" the Resurrection in lieu of the Crucifixion.

I did not say the west ignored the Resurrection, I said it underemphasised it relative to the Crucifixion. I also said that its religious art overemphasised the physical suffering of Christ, as evident by the religious art (statues and paintings) depicting scenes or stages of the Passion of Christ.

By contrast, the Orthodox approach, in both hymnography and in iconography, strikes a balance between the suffering humanity of Christ, and His divine power and omnipotence. We do not see a ravaged corpse on the Cross, but the God-Man willingly enduring death in His love for mankind. Even in the reading of the Twelve Passion Gospels, the reading of Luke's graphic account of Christ's prayer in the garden of Gethsemane is not one of them.

Food for thought.

Fair enough, but my main point (and directive about the subsequent bickering) still stands. 

(FWIW, I agree with you, for the most part, about the lack of balance in the West) :)

I don't see it in real parish life at all.  I see it in pockets of the universal Church in the world but in the main there is a clear balance in the liturgy that transcends local habits...or should...did...does in many places...might again in other places...etc.

Where I really see the imbalance is in Orthodoxy writing about Catholic piety and here on the Internet.  Most of the really bloody Sacred Heart images don't make it to the book stores... ;)

Also on a related note, it seems to me that many Orthodox both writing for a print to paper media audience and here on the internet can't seem to differentiate between Catholic piety and Catholic spirituality.  There is a HUGE difference.  Catholic spirituality is liturgical and scriptural at its core, and depends on the Tradition of the Holy Fathers, saints and doctors of the Church.  Catholic piety is more often para-liturgical and sentimental, by design.  I often wonder if such a differentiation can be made in Orthodoxy.   Father Ambrose keeps writing that little squib about Toll Houses as something the peasants might do, but I don't see any peasants in Orthodoxy...everybody seems to be much further advanced than that.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: LBK on August 24, 2011, 08:15:41 PM
Quote
but in the main there is a clear balance in the liturgy that transcends local habits...or should...did...does in many places...might again in other places...etc.

Does this mean that different places in the RC world use different hymnography in their services? i.e. some more evocative, some more spare? This can be concluded from your post.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on August 24, 2011, 08:20:11 PM
Quote
but in the main there is a clear balance in the liturgy that transcends local habits...or should...did...does in many places...might again in other places...etc.

Does this mean that different places in the RC world use different hymnography in their services? i.e. some more evocative, some more spare? This can be concluded from your post.

Certainly, with respect to the variable parts of the liturgy.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: LBK on August 24, 2011, 08:25:55 PM
Also on a related note, it seems to me that many Orthodox both writing for a print to paper media audience and here on the internet can't seem to differentiate between Catholic piety and Catholic spirituality.  There is a HUGE difference.  Catholic spirituality is liturgical and scriptural at its core, and depends on the Tradition of the Holy Fathers, saints and doctors of the Church.  Catholic piety is more often para-liturgical and sentimental, by design.  I often wonder if such a differentiation can be made in Orthodoxy.   Father Ambrose keeps writing that little squib about Toll Houses as something the peasants might do, but I don't see any peasants in Orthodoxy...everybody seems to be much further advanced than that.

Re the bolded part: In my five decades of direct Orthodox experience, spanning several jurisdictions and ethnicities, the "paraliturgical" and "sentimental" pious expressions in the Orthodox world are squarely rooted in post-schism western influence, particularly so that which dates from the 17th century onwards. If you know your history, EM, you'll know why this is the case.  ;)
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: LBK on August 24, 2011, 08:27:21 PM
Quote
but in the main there is a clear balance in the liturgy that transcends local habits...or should...did...does in many places...might again in other places...etc.

Does this mean that different places in the RC world use different hymnography in their services? i.e. some more evocative, some more spare? This can be concluded from your post.

Certainly, with respect to the variable parts of the liturgy.

I'm not talking about the daily variations specified in the Typikon (and its RCC equivalent), and you know it.  :P
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on August 24, 2011, 08:32:15 PM
Quote
but in the main there is a clear balance in the liturgy that transcends local habits...or should...did...does in many places...might again in other places...etc.

Does this mean that different places in the RC world use different hymnography in their services? i.e. some more evocative, some more spare? This can be concluded from your post.

Certainly, with respect to the variable parts of the liturgy.

I'm not talking about the daily variations specified in the Typikon (and its RCC equivalent), and you know it.  :P

Sorry.  I answered your question as accurately as possible.  Small changes in music, hymns and variable prayers, to many who are not sensitive to the structure of the liturgy and the invariant prayers, make a HUGE difference in what they "see" in essentially the same liturgy.

I thought it was something like that toward which you were driving the discussion.

I plead innocence FWIW.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on August 24, 2011, 08:36:19 PM
Also on a related note, it seems to me that many Orthodox both writing for a print to paper media audience and here on the internet can't seem to differentiate between Catholic piety and Catholic spirituality.  There is a HUGE difference.  Catholic spirituality is liturgical and scriptural at its core, and depends on the Tradition of the Holy Fathers, saints and doctors of the Church.  Catholic piety is more often para-liturgical and sentimental, by design.  I often wonder if such a differentiation can be made in Orthodoxy.   Father Ambrose keeps writing that little squib about Toll Houses as something the peasants might do, but I don't see any peasants in Orthodoxy...everybody seems to be much further advanced than that.

Re the bolded part: In my five decades of direct Orthodox experience, spanning several jurisdictions and ethnicities, the "paraliturgical" and "sentimental" pious expressions in the Orthodox world are squarely rooted in post-schism western influence, particularly so that which dates from the 17th century onwards. If you know your history, EM, you'll know why this is the case.  ;)

I consider the Paraklesis to the Theotokos and those to other saints to be paraliturgical prayer.  Also Moleben, and Akathist prayers are paraliturgical and form a kind of bridge between local devotional practices and full liturgical practice.

So I also consider certain paraliturgical services in the Catholic Church to also serve as a kind of formal bridge between the local grannies and their local practices and devotions.

Certainly not all of it has been cribbed from the west....really.

M.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: LBK on August 24, 2011, 08:57:00 PM
Services such as akathists and molebens/parakleses can be considered "paraliturgical" only in the sense that "readers' services", including the DL, can be considered "paraliturgical". In other words, there are defined rubrics to these services according to whether they are served in a church by a priest, or as part of private, laymen's devotions. The difference in content between priestly and "private" versions of these services is minuscule, and essentially limited to ekphoneses at the ends of litanies, and, of course, in a reader's DL, there is no consecration of the Eucharist. Otherwise, the theological and doctrinal content specific to these services is identical.

Try again, Mary.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on August 24, 2011, 09:13:34 PM
Services such as akathists and molebens/parakleses can be considered "paraliturgical" only in the sense that "readers' services", including the DL, can be considered "paraliturgical". In other words, there are defined rubrics to these services according to whether they are served in a church by a priest, or as part of private, laymen's devotions. The difference in content between priestly and "private" versions of these services is minuscule, and essentially limited to ekphoneses at the ends of litanies, and, of course, in a reader's DL, there is no consecration of the Eucharist. Otherwise, the theological and doctrinal content specific to these services is identical.

Try again, Mary.

What is wrong with you?  I am not trying anything.

I was trying to talk to you but apparently it is a contest and you are hiding the rule-book.

Play it out all on your own.

I'll tell you this much, you and I don't define liturgy the same way.

I've never heard an Orthodox priest say that Paraklesis, Akathist or Moleben are anything but paraliturgical...but that starts a whole other argument so...who cares...no skin off my Catholic nose.

Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 24, 2011, 09:15:09 PM

Where I really see the imbalance is in Orthodoxy writing about Catholic piety and here on the Internet.  Most of the really bloody Sacred Heart images don't make it to the book stores... ;)


We see the same in reverse on ByzantineCatholic.org and Catholic Answers Forum where Catholics, with  breathtaking assurance, can write a load of absolute tosh about Orthodoxy.

Here on OC.net things are complicated since many of us are converts from Roman Catholicism and reasonably well versed, but the older among us know virtually zilch about the Novus Ordo Church and remember the pre-Vatican II Church.   This is a recipe for miscommunication since contemporary Catholics of the younger generation do not know so much about the piety and ethos of the pre-Vatican II Church.  

We see an example in this thread where those of us who remember the days of heavy emphasis on the sufferings and the crucxifion (remember how that was drummed into all priests' subliminal consciousness every day, celebrating Mass with the page opposite the Canon and Words of Institution devoted to a full-sized graphic of Christ suffering on the Cross.)     But now it seems that things are moving towards a better balance of Cross and Resurrection.  Those of us who left the Roman Catholic Church before these changes started to occur do not really know about them.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on August 24, 2011, 09:23:35 PM

Where I really see the imbalance is in Orthodoxy writing about Catholic piety and here on the Internet.  Most of the really bloody Sacred Heart images don't make it to the book stores... ;)


We see the same in reverse on ByzantineCatholic.org and Catholic Answers Forum where Catholics, with  breathtaking assurance, can write a load of absolute tosh about Orthodoxy.

Here on OC.net things are complicated since many of us are converts from Roman Catholicism and reasonably well versed, but the older among us know virtually zilch about the Novus Ordo Church and remember the pre-Vatican II Church.   This is a recipe for miscommunication since contemporary Catholics of the younger generation do not know so much about the piety and ethos of the pre-Vatican II Church.  

We see an example in this thread where those of us who remember the days of heavy emphasis on the sufferings and the crucxifion (remember how that was drummed into all priests' subliminal consciousness every day, celebrating Mass with the page opposite the Canon and Words of Institution devoted to a full-sized graphic of Christ suffering on the Cross.)     But now it seems that things are moving towards a better balance of Cross and Resurrection.  Those of us who left the Roman Catholic Church before these changes started to occur do not really know about them.

You cannot play that with me.  I am your age...near enough.  Father Hal is older than you are by nearly 15 years and he says sometimes your "perspective" is pretty darn local.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: ialmisry on August 24, 2011, 09:25:50 PM
Services such as akathists and molebens/parakleses can be considered "paraliturgical" only in the sense that "readers' services", including the DL, can be considered "paraliturgical". In other words, there are defined rubrics to these services according to whether they are served in a church by a priest, or as part of private, laymen's devotions. The difference in content between priestly and "private" versions of these services is minuscule, and essentially limited to ekphoneses at the ends of litanies, and, of course, in a reader's DL, there is no consecration of the Eucharist. Otherwise, the theological and doctrinal content specific to these services is identical.
They are also different as the rubrics/service books call for the parakleses to be offered as a service, for instance, during the Dormition Fast, as the Akathist is offered during Great Lent, etc. They are also incorporated into the common office of compline etc.

There are parakleses and Akathists to other saints etc., but they only differ in the hymns as far as specific subject, not structure.

Try again, Mary.
Please don't.  Time is precious.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on August 24, 2011, 09:29:19 PM
Does Orthodoxy differentiate between a rite and a ritual?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: ialmisry on August 24, 2011, 09:34:40 PM
Does Orthodoxy differentiate between a rite and a ritual?
Yes. Constantinople has a rite which contains the rituals of the divine services. The WRO have different rituals for the divine service.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 24, 2011, 09:44:07 PM

Where I really see the imbalance is in Orthodoxy writing about Catholic piety and here on the Internet.  Most of the really bloody Sacred Heart images don't make it to the book stores... ;)


We see the same in reverse on ByzantineCatholic.org and Catholic Answers Forum where Catholics, with  breathtaking assurance, can write a load of absolute tosh about Orthodoxy.

Here on OC.net things are complicated since many of us are converts from Roman Catholicism and reasonably well versed, but the older among us know virtually zilch about the Novus Ordo Church and remember the pre-Vatican II Church.   This is a recipe for miscommunication since contemporary Catholics of the younger generation do not know so much about the piety and ethos of the pre-Vatican II Church.  

We see an example in this thread where those of us who remember the days of heavy emphasis on the sufferings and the crucxifion (remember how that was drummed into all priests' subliminal consciousness every day, celebrating Mass with the page opposite the Canon and Words of Institution devoted to a full-sized graphic of Christ suffering on the Cross.)     But now it seems that things are moving towards a better balance of Cross and Resurrection.  Those of us who left the Roman Catholic Church before these changes started to occur do not really know about them.

You cannot play that with me.  I am your age...near enough.  Father Hal is older than you are by nearly 15 years and he says sometimes your "perspective" is pretty darn local.

I watched my brother, very devout and in seminary after high school, try so hard to hold onto the old Church of the 1960s.  He kept it alive in his head and fought, successfully, to convince himself that the new Mass, as much as he detested it, still brought him a true Eucharist.  How he suffered as Peter, Paul and Mary took over the Mass and Protestant hymns became the norm, and the rosary was scoffed at by the priests and even Benediction too, and nuns who had been his friends took off their habits and went in search of themselves... while friends in the clergy were laicised and married the nuns.

But as the years and decades went by he could not keep the struggle up.  Memories of the old ways grew blurry.  All around him was the unrelenting reality and the dreary paucity of the Novus Ordo.  I would say he held it at bay for  over 15 years, until the 1980s, when he surrendered.

I know he was not alone in this sad process.....there were many fellow travellers.    I wonder if you and Father Hal went through anything similar?  Or did Fr Hal find his refuge in Byzantine Catholicism?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 24, 2011, 09:57:03 PM
Does Orthodoxy differentiate between a rite and a ritual?

Yes, if speaking in a scholarly way.  But even our service books do not bother to maintain any firm distinction  and so we have

The Rite of Crowning

The Rite of a Second Marriage

The Rite of Ordaining a Deaconess.

Probably Catholics would prefer to label these as rituals rather than rites?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: LBK on August 24, 2011, 11:44:21 PM
Try again, Mary.
Please don't.  Time is precious.

Point taken, my dear friend.  :-*  :laugh: :laugh:
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: jah777 on August 25, 2011, 12:29:40 AM
Does Orthodoxy differentiate between a rite and a ritual?

Perhaps my memory is not serving me at the moment, but I cannot recall seeing the word "ritual" used in an Orthodox context.  Is this word employed formally in Orthodoxy?  When I think of the word "ritual", I mostly think of negative appraisals of Orthodoxy by Protestants, as "ritualistic" or as being "all about ritual".  I cannot recall encountering the word "ritual" in an Orthodox service book or Orthodox context in generally.  If I am mistaken, perhaps someone could provide examples of its usage. 
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on August 25, 2011, 09:09:31 AM
Does Orthodoxy differentiate between a rite and a ritual?

Yes, if speaking in a scholarly way.  But even our service books do not bother to maintain any firm distinction  and so we have

The Rite of Crowning

The Rite of a Second Marriage

The Rite of Ordaining a Deaconess.

Probably Catholics would prefer to label these as rituals rather than rites?

All texts for the administration of the principle [seven] sacraments are rites.

There are no firm lines but it seems to me that one can begin to separate formal liturgy from ritual or para-liturgical services, by being able to distinguish rite from ritual.

In that light there are many more para-liturgical rituals in the eastern services than there are in the west.  Since there are fewer para-liturgical rituals in the western services then that gap tends to be filled in by public devotional prayers.

A paraliturgical ritual in the west for example would be Benediction, or the churching of women.

Public devotional prayer would be Novenas, or the Way of the Cross, for example, although I think a case could be made for the Way of the Cross being a paraliturgical ritual, which is why I say there are no hard and fast lines that I can see.

This has nothing to do with the truth-value or the theological worth of any of these public prayers.  It simply points out one of the things that I consider a real difference between east and west. 

The presences of Paraklesis, Akathist, and Moleben in the eastern services was one of the thing, perhaps the first primary thing, that attracted me to the east.  The one public ritual I miss is Benediction and Adoration, but it is not as though I could not go if I wanted to on the days when the local Roman rite parishes have Benediction after their morning liturgy.  But I tend not to be drawn to the more sentimental private devotions in the west [I don't consider the Way of the Cross to be sentimental and keep it as a private devotion] and I was seeking more community involvement in prayer back when I made the choice to transfer canonically to the east.

I suppose all of this is apropos of pretty much nothing and I reveal these things in the midst of hostility so I must be getting even more stupid in my old age.

M.

Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 25, 2011, 09:28:49 AM
Does Orthodoxy differentiate between a rite and a ritual?

Yes, if speaking in a scholarly way.  But even our service books do not bother to maintain any firm distinction  and so we have

The Rite of Crowning

The Rite of a Second Marriage

The Rite of Ordaining a Deaconess.

Probably Catholics would prefer to label these as rituals rather than rites?

All texts for the administration of the principle [seven] sacraments are rites.

There are no firm lines but it seems to me that one can begin to separate formal liturgy from ritual or para-liturgical services, by being able to distinguish rite from ritual.

In that light there are many more para-liturgical rituals in the eastern services than there are in the west.  Since there are fewer para-liturgical rituals in the western services then that gap tends to be filled in by public devotional prayers.

A paraliturgical ritual in the west for example would be Benediction, or the churching of women.

Public devotional prayer would be Novenas, or the Way of the Cross, for example, although I think a case could be made for the Way of the Cross being a paraliturgical ritual, which is why I say there are no hard and fast lines that I can see.

This has nothing to do with the truth-value or the theological worth of any of these public prayers.  It simply points out one of the things that I consider a real difference between east and west. 

The presences of Paraklesis, Akathist, and Moleben in the eastern services was one of the thing, perhaps the first primary thing, that attracted me to the east.  The one public ritual I miss is Benediction and Adoration, but it is not as though I could not go if I wanted to on the days when the local Roman rite parishes have Benediction after their morning liturgy.  But I tend not to be drawn to the more sentimental private devotions in the west [I don't consider the Way of the Cross to be sentimental and keep it as a private devotion] and I was seeking more community involvement in prayer back when I made the choice to transfer canonically to the east.

I suppose all of this is apropos of pretty much nothing and I reveal these things in the midst of hostility so I must be getting even more stupid in my old age.

M.



I have never heard the term "liturgy" used in Orthodoxy except to mean the Liturgy, the Eucharistic service, and "liturgical" refers only to that one unique service.

The wider use of "liturgy"  to include other services and to describe them as "liturgical" is part of the West's vocabulary.

Given Orthodoxy's restrictive use of "liturgical"  I don't think that "paraliturgical" has any meaning in the East.

I may be wrong?  But can anybody think when an Orthodox author has referred to Vespers as "liturgical" or to the Wedding service as a liturgical act, or to the serving of a moleben or Akathist as liturgical?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on August 25, 2011, 09:32:17 AM
Does Orthodoxy differentiate between a rite and a ritual?

Yes, if speaking in a scholarly way.  But even our service books do not bother to maintain any firm distinction  and so we have

The Rite of Crowning

The Rite of a Second Marriage

The Rite of Ordaining a Deaconess.

Probably Catholics would prefer to label these as rituals rather than rites?

All texts for the administration of the principle [seven] sacraments are rites.

There are no firm lines but it seems to me that one can begin to separate formal liturgy from ritual or para-liturgical services, by being able to distinguish rite from ritual.

In that light there are many more para-liturgical rituals in the eastern services than there are in the west.  Since there are fewer para-liturgical rituals in the western services then that gap tends to be filled in by public devotional prayers.

A paraliturgical ritual in the west for example would be Benediction, or the churching of women.

Public devotional prayer would be Novenas, or the Way of the Cross, for example, although I think a case could be made for the Way of the Cross being a paraliturgical ritual, which is why I say there are no hard and fast lines that I can see.

This has nothing to do with the truth-value or the theological worth of any of these public prayers.  It simply points out one of the things that I consider a real difference between east and west. 

The presences of Paraklesis, Akathist, and Moleben in the eastern services was one of the thing, perhaps the first primary thing, that attracted me to the east.  The one public ritual I miss is Benediction and Adoration, but it is not as though I could not go if I wanted to on the days when the local Roman rite parishes have Benediction after their morning liturgy.  But I tend not to be drawn to the more sentimental private devotions in the west [I don't consider the Way of the Cross to be sentimental and keep it as a private devotion] and I was seeking more community involvement in prayer back when I made the choice to transfer canonically to the east.

I suppose all of this is apropos of pretty much nothing and I reveal these things in the midst of hostility so I must be getting even more stupid in my old age.

M.



I have never heard the term "liturgy" used in Orthodoxy except to mean the Liturgy, the Eucharistic service, and "liturgical" refers only to that one unique service.

The wider use of "liturgy"  to include other services and to describe them as "liturgical" is part of the West's vocabulary.

Given Orthodoxy's restrictive use of "liturgical"  I don't think that "paraliturgical" has any meaning in the East.

I may be wrong?  But can anybody think when an Orthodox author has referred to Vespers as "liturgical" or to the Wedding service as a liturgical act, or to the serving of a moleben or Akathist as liturgical?

This is quite surprising.  I had always understood the Holy Hours to be foundational liturgical prayer...east and west.

I first learned the word para-liturgical on the ustav list, so I assumed it was not an uncommon use in Orthodoxy.

Mary

PS: I should note that I prefer rite and ritual to liturgical and paraliturgical because paraliturgics, in modern parlance, often means corrupted liturgies, though that is not a necessary meaning of the term at all, so I will use it if I think it will not be misunderstood in that way.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 25, 2011, 09:46:00 AM
This is quite surprising.  I had always understood the Holy Hours to be foundational liturgical prayer...east and west.

I first learned the word para-liturgical on the ustav list, so I assumed it was not an uncommon use in Orthodoxy.


Just sent off a query to that list.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: bogdan on August 25, 2011, 10:18:48 AM
I don't have much experience in these matters, but for what it's worth: the only time I've run across the term "paraliturgical" in Orthodoxy is for special hymns—not themselves liturgical texts, but often based on them—which can be sung during the people's communion. Examples I am familiar with include "Receive me today", "Jesus remember me", "I give you my peace", etc.

Richard Toensing's Nativity carols, all based on liturgical texts, are also labeled as paraliturgical (http://www.richardtoensing.com/orthodox.htm).
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on August 25, 2011, 10:34:44 AM
I don't have much experience in these matters, but for what it's worth: the only time I've run across the term "paraliturgical" in Orthodoxy is for special hymns—not themselves liturgical texts, but often based on them—which can be sung during the people's communion. Examples I am familiar with include "Receive me today", "Jesus remember me", "I give you my peace", etc.

Richard Toensing's Nativity carols, all based on liturgical texts, are also labeled as paraliturgical (http://www.richardtoensing.com/orthodox.htm).

Yes.  My understanding too.  And  hymns or prayers pulled from liturgy or reaching through liturgy back to the Scriptural root of the liturgical prayer...I ask?....It seems to extend to that as well but I am not sure if that would be formally acceptable.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on August 25, 2011, 10:35:39 AM
This is quite surprising.  I had always understood the Holy Hours to be foundational liturgical prayer...east and west.

I first learned the word para-liturgical on the ustav list, so I assumed it was not an uncommon use in Orthodoxy.


Just sent off a query to that list.

Yep...I saw that.  Looking forward to the responses.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Schultz on August 25, 2011, 11:25:50 AM
Quote
this was about the West "ignoring" the Resurrection in lieu of the Crucifixion.

I did not say the west ignored the Resurrection, I said it underemphasised it relative to the Crucifixion. I also said that its religious art overemphasised the physical suffering of Christ, as evident by the religious art (statues and paintings) depicting scenes or stages of the Passion of Christ.

By contrast, the Orthodox approach, in both hymnography and in iconography, strikes a balance between the suffering humanity of Christ, and His divine power and omnipotence. We do not see a ravaged corpse on the Cross, but the God-Man willingly enduring death in His love for mankind. Even in the reading of the Twelve Passion Gospels, the reading of Luke's graphic account of Christ's prayer in the garden of Gethsemane is not one of them.

Food for thought.

Fair enough, but my main point (and directive about the subsequent bickering) still stands. 

(FWIW, I agree with you, for the most part, about the lack of balance in the West) :)

I don't see it in real parish life at all.  I see it in pockets of the universal Church in the world but in the main there is a clear balance in the liturgy that transcends local habits...or should...did...does in many places...might again in other places...etc.

I can buy this.  I grew up in a parish where there was a balance, but it was also a decidedly Novus Ordo parish (reverently celebrated, for the most part).  However, when I started visiting other, more "traditional" parishes in my 20s, I certainly noticed an imbalance.

Just my experience, which I like to think is more broad than the average RC.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: ialmisry on August 25, 2011, 11:40:14 AM
Quote
this was about the West "ignoring" the Resurrection in lieu of the Crucifixion.

I did not say the west ignored the Resurrection, I said it underemphasised it relative to the Crucifixion. I also said that its religious art overemphasised the physical suffering of Christ, as evident by the religious art (statues and paintings) depicting scenes or stages of the Passion of Christ.

By contrast, the Orthodox approach, in both hymnography and in iconography, strikes a balance between the suffering humanity of Christ, and His divine power and omnipotence. We do not see a ravaged corpse on the Cross, but the God-Man willingly enduring death in His love for mankind. Even in the reading of the Twelve Passion Gospels, the reading of Luke's graphic account of Christ's prayer in the garden of Gethsemane is not one of them.

Food for thought.

Fair enough, but my main point (and directive about the subsequent bickering) still stands. 

(FWIW, I agree with you, for the most part, about the lack of balance in the West) :)

I don't see it in real parish life at all.  I see it in pockets of the universal Church in the world but in the main there is a clear balance in the liturgy that transcends local habits...or should...did...does in many places...might again in other places...etc.

I can buy this.  I grew up in a parish where there was a balance, but it was also a decidedly Novus Ordo parish (reverently celebrated, for the most part).  However, when I started visiting other, more "traditional" parishes in my 20s, I certainly noticed an imbalance.

Just my experience, which I like to think is more broad than the average RC.

I never went to a Tenebrae service according to the Vatican's old rubrics, but I went to many Lutheran ones, which I understand were not too different, decades after V II basically abolished the service. I've been to more joyous funerals.  In fact, nearly every funeral I've been to (with the notable exception of child's) was more joyous.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on August 25, 2011, 12:03:08 PM
Quote
this was about the West "ignoring" the Resurrection in lieu of the Crucifixion.

I did not say the west ignored the Resurrection, I said it underemphasised it relative to the Crucifixion. I also said that its religious art overemphasised the physical suffering of Christ, as evident by the religious art (statues and paintings) depicting scenes or stages of the Passion of Christ.

By contrast, the Orthodox approach, in both hymnography and in iconography, strikes a balance between the suffering humanity of Christ, and His divine power and omnipotence. We do not see a ravaged corpse on the Cross, but the God-Man willingly enduring death in His love for mankind. Even in the reading of the Twelve Passion Gospels, the reading of Luke's graphic account of Christ's prayer in the garden of Gethsemane is not one of them.

Food for thought.

Fair enough, but my main point (and directive about the subsequent bickering) still stands. 

(FWIW, I agree with you, for the most part, about the lack of balance in the West) :)

I don't see it in real parish life at all.  I see it in pockets of the universal Church in the world but in the main there is a clear balance in the liturgy that transcends local habits...or should...did...does in many places...might again in other places...etc.

I can buy this.  I grew up in a parish where there was a balance, but it was also a decidedly Novus Ordo parish (reverently celebrated, for the most part).  However, when I started visiting other, more "traditional" parishes in my 20s, I certainly noticed an imbalance.

Just my experience, which I like to think is more broad than the average RC.

I grew up in traditional parishes in two cities and a village, and there was no part of the Triduum that did not anticipate the Resurrection and Pentecost and the Ascension.  And I was close-cycled liturgically for almost 20 years, so most of it was the old missal and the later years were the interim and new missals.  There was no real change in emphasis for Holy Week in terms of an extra focus on the cross that then disappeared.  The focus on Good Friday was indeed the Cross but not at the expense of anticipation.

It is difficult to measure "imbalance" in any event.  So much of all of this is personal "reading" and personal preferences.  Hard to tell sometimes.

But I think I am comfortable with your impressions in the main.

Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Orest on August 25, 2011, 01:32:32 PM
Re the bolded part: In my five decades of direct Orthodox experience, spanning several jurisdictions and ethnicities, the "paraliturgical" and "sentimental" pious expressions in the Orthodox world are squarely rooted in post-schism western influence, particularly so that which dates from the 17th century onwards. If you know your history, EM, you'll know why this is the case.  ;)
Can you give us an example of the 17th century (= 1600 hundreds) onwards post-schism influence of "para liturgical" services please.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Robb on August 25, 2011, 06:51:35 PM
A see nothing wrong with para liturgical devotions.  They are part of our RC traditions.  I can't stand it when litnick loons try to downgrad or abolish them altogether in order to make things more "liturgically correct".  I think that way too much emphasis has been given in recnet decades to the liturgy and less to the more private, personal devotions which connect individuals to God.  The RC mas these days feels more like some sort of play (Or group therapy session) Which individualism is jettisoned at the expense of communalism.

I think that they could balance things out better without either viewpoint having to be ignored or rejected for the other.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: ialmisry on August 25, 2011, 07:28:23 PM
A see nothing wrong with para liturgical devotions.  They are part of our RC traditions.  I can't stand it when litnick loons try to downgrad or abolish them altogether in order to make things more "liturgically correct".  I think that way too much emphasis has been given in recnet decades to the liturgy and less to the more private, personal devotions which connect individuals to God.  The RC mas these days feels more like some sort of play (Or group therapy session) Which individualism is jettisoned at the expense of communalism.

I think that they could balance things out better without either viewpoint having to be ignored or rejected for the other.
part of the problem with the Vatican's para liturgical devotions is that the laity ended up doing them as they were not involved in the mass with the priests.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 25, 2011, 10:28:44 PM
On icons of the head of St John the Baptist:

I have only encountered such of Russian provenance, not of Greek or others, and they do appear to date no earlier than about the 17th century. 


The origin and timing of an icon's birth is fascinating.

For example, there were no icons of the Holy Trinity until the 10th century with the creation of the "Hospitality of Abraham."   Actually if we look at what Paul Azkoul says, he is not sure that the Hospitality of Abraham" even is an icon of the Holy Trinity and he points out that none of the patristic writings identify the event with the three angels and Abraham at the Oak of Mamre with the Holy Trinity (is he right about that?)

It is only in Russia in the 15th century that we can affirm that with the Trinity of Andrei Rublev we are looking at an icon which was intentionally created to represent the Trinity.

Btw, not "challenging" you but hoping that your vast knowledge of iconography will provide answers.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: LBK on August 25, 2011, 11:10:00 PM
Quote
For example, there were no icons of the Holy Trinity until the 10th century with the creation of the "Hospitality of Abraham."

There are exceedingly few surviving icons of any type dating to before the 10th century, due to the ravages of time, and, notably, iconoclasm.

Quote
Actually if we look at what Paul Azkoul says,


Paul Azkoul makes several errors in his essay on the impermissibility of depicting the Holy Trinity in any form. He confuses manifestation with incarnation. As we know, only the second person of the Holy Trinity became incarnate, but, at times, the other Persons became manifest in various ways. This is a repeated motif in the hymnography of the Trinitarian feasts of Theophany, the Transfiguration, and Pentecost. The Holy Spirit became manifest (not incarnate) as a dove at the Baptism of Christ, and manifest as tongues of fire at Pentecost. Yet, the Spirit remains Spirit, bodiless and uncircumscribable.  If God the Father became manifest in the form of a voice, and as a rushing wind, and if it is permissible to paint angels and seraphim (which are bodiless and heavenly beings) in icons, then how could it be seen as improper to paint the prefigured Holy Trinity as it was manifested at the oak of Mamre?

Azkoul also distorts the ruling of the Great Council of Moscow of 1666:

Furthermore, there were two great Synods called in more recent Church history regarding this issue, as a result of the abuses of some in Russia through western, Renaissance and non-Traditional influence. These were the Great Council of Moscow in AD 1666 and the Council of Constantinople in AD 1780. The Moscow Synod emphatically taught:

“We synodically declare that the so-called icon of the Holy Trinity, a recent invention, is alien and unacceptable to the Apostolic and Catholic Orthodox Church. It was transmitted to the Orthodox Church from the Latins.”

Notice that not only is this incorrect iconography called “recent,” but also unacceptable. Doesn’t sound like the Orthodox Faith to me.


The image denounced by the Council is the so-called New Testament Trinity, showing the Father as an old man, Christ seated next to him, and a white dove hovering above them, NOT the one painted by Andrei Rublyev. In fact, St Andrei's icon was commended at that council as being a "God-revealed image". For Azkoul, an iconographer, to distort history by claiming the Council denounced the "three angels" icon is disturbing, if not shameful.

EDIT: Link to Paul Azkoul's essay: http://www.traditionaliconography.com, click on the link to "On the Hospitality of Abraham".
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: LBK on August 25, 2011, 11:21:51 PM
Just a couple of examples of Orthodox hymnography confirming the Trinitarian nature of the visitation at the Oak of Mamre:

Of old thou didst clearly manifest Thyself unto Abraham in three Hypostases, one in the essence of divinity; and in images thou didst reveal the utter truth of theology. Thee do we hymn with faith, the three-Sunned God who alone hath dominion. (Octoechos, Tone 1, Midnight Office Canon, Ode 3.)

As a sojourner, Abraham was vouchsafed mystically to receive the one Lord in three Hypostases, made manifest in the forms of men. (Octoechos, Tone 3, Midnight Office Canon, Ode 6)

I'm sure they are not the only examples.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: ialmisry on August 25, 2011, 11:36:16 PM
Quote
neither here does it appear plainly whether it was any person of the Trinity that appeared to Abraham, or God Himself the Trinity, of which one God it is said, "Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve."4 But under the oak at Mamre he saw three men, whom he invited, and hospitably received, and ministered to them as they feasted. Yet Scripture at the beginning of that narrative does not say, three men appeared to him, but, " The Lord appeared to him." And then, setting forth in due order after what manner the Lord appeared to him, it has added the account of the three men, whom Abraham invites to his hospitality in the plural number, and afterwards speaks to them in the singular number as one; and as one He promises him a son by Sara, viz. the one whom the Scripture calls Lord, as in the beginning of the same narrative, "The Lord," it says," appeared to Abraham." He invites them then, and washes their feet, and leads them forth at their departure, as though they were men; but he speaks as with the Lord God, whether when a son is promised to him, or when the destruction is shown to him that was impending over Sodom. That place of Scripture demands neither a slight nor a passing consideration. For if one man had appeared, what else would those at once cry out, who say that the Son was visible also in His own substance before He was born of the Virgin, but that it was Himself? since it is said, they say, of the Father, "To the only invisible God." And yet, I could still go on to demand, in what manner "He was found in fashion as a man," before He had taken our flesh, seeing that his. feet were washed, and that He fed upon earthly food? How could that be, when He was still "in the form of God, and thought it not robbery to be equal with God "?' For, pray, had He already " emptied Himself, taking upon Him the form of a servant, and made in the likeness of men, and found in fashion as a man "? when we know when it was that He did this through His birth'of the Virgin. How, then, before He had done this, did He appear as one man to Abraham? or, was not that form a reality? I could put these questions, if it had been one man that appeared to Abraham, and if that one were believed to be the Son of God. But since three men appeared, and no one of them is said to be greater than the rest either in form, or age, or power, why should we not here understand, as visibly intimated by the visible creature, the equality of the Trinity, and one and the same substance in three persons? For, lest any one should think that one among the three is in this way intimated to have been the greater, and that this one is to be understood to have been the Lord, the Son of God, while the other two were His angels; because, whereas three appeared, Abraham there speaks to one as the Lord: Holy Scripture has not forgotten to anticipate, by a contradiction, such future cogitations and opinions, when a little while-after it says that two angels came to Lot, among whom that just man also, who deserved to be freed from the burning of Sodom, speaks to one as to the Lord. For so Scripture goes on to say, "And the Lord went His way, as soon as He left communing with Abraham; .and Abraham returned to his place."
St. Augustine, On the Trinity.
http://books.google.com/books?id=5uSws-OzZ-sC&pg=PA62&dq=But+under+the+oak+at+Mamre+he+saw+three+men,+whom+he+invited,+and+hospitably+received,+and&hl=en#v=onepage&q=But%20under%20the%20oak%20at%20Mamre%20he%20saw%20three%20men%2C%20whom%20he%20invited%2C%20and%20hospitably%20received%2C%20and&f=false

Justin Martyr has a rather confused argument with Trypho the Jew on this:
Quote
Justin: Moses, then, the blessed and faithful servant of God, declares that He who appeared to Abraham under the oak in Mamre is God, sent with the two angels in His company to judge Sodom by Another who remains ever in the supercelestial places, invisible to all men, holding personal intercourse with none, whom we believe to be Maker and Father of all things; for he speaks thus: 'God appeared to him under the oak in Mamre, as he sat at his tent-door at noontide. And lifting up his eyes, he saw, and behold, three men stood before him; and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the door of his tent; and he bowed himself toward the ground, and said . . .' 'Abraham went up early in the morning to the place where he stood before the Lord: and he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrha, and toward the adjacent country, and beheld, and, lo, a flame went up from the earth, like the smoke of a furnace.'

And when I had made an end of quoting these words, I asked them if they had understood them. And they said they had understood them, but that the passages adduced brought forward no proof that there is any other God or Lord, or that the Holy Spirit says so, besides the Maker of all things.

Justin: I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures, [of the truth] of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things—above whom there is no other God—wishes to announce to them.

I quoted once more the previous passage.

Justin: Do you think that God appeared to Abraham under the oak in Mamre, as the Scripture asserts?

Trypho: Assuredly.

Justin: Was He one of those three whom Abraham saw, and whom the Holy Spirit of prophecy describes as men?

Trypho: No; but God appeared to him, before the vision of the three. Then those three whom the Scripture calls men, were angels; two of them sent to destroy Sodom, and one to announce the joyful tidings to Sarah, that she would bear a son; for which cause he was sent, and having accomplished his errand, went away.

Justin: How then does the one of the three, who was in the tent, and who said, 'I shall return to you hereafter, and Sarah shall have a son,' appear to have returned when Sarah had begotten a son, and to be there declared, by the prophetic word, God? But that you may clearly discern what I say, listen to the words expressly employed by Moses; they are these: 'And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian bond-woman, whom she bore to Abraham, sporting with Isaac her son, and said to Abraham, Cast out this bond-woman and her son; for the son of this bond-woman shall not share the inheritance of my son Isaac. And the matter seemed very grievous in Abraham sight, because of his son. But God said to Abraham, Let it not be grievous in your sight because of the son, and because of the bond-woman. In all that Sarah has said unto you, hearken to her voice; for in Isaac shall your seed be called.' Have you perceived, then, that He who said under the oak that He would return, since He knew it would be necessary to advise Abraham to do what Sarah wished him, came back as it is written; and is God, as the words declare, when they so speak: 'God said to Abraham, Let it not be grievous in your sight because of the son, and because of the bond-woman?'

Trypho: Certainly; but you have not proved from this that there is another God besides Him who appeared to Abraham, and who also appeared to the other patriarchs and prophets. You have proved, however, that we were wrong in believing that the three who were in the tent with Abraham were all angels.

Justin: If I could not have proved to you from the Scriptures that one of those three is God, and is called Angel, because, as I already said, He brings messages to those to whom God the Maker of all things wishes [messages to be brought], then in regard to Him who appeared to Abraham on earth in human form in like manner as the two angels who came with Him, and who was God even before the creation of the world, it were reasonable for you to entertain the same belief as is entertained by the whole of your nation.

Trypho: Assuredly, for up to this moment this has been our belief.

Justin: Reverting to the Scriptures, I shall endeavour to persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things—numerically, I mean, not [distinct] in will. For I affirm that He has never at any time done anything which He who made the world—above whom there is no other God—has not wished Him both to do and to engage Himself with.

Trypho: Prove now that this is the case, that we also may agree with you. For we do not understand you to affirm that He has done or said anything contrary to the will of the Maker of all things.

Justin: The Scripture just quoted by me will make this plain to you. It is thus: 'The sun was risen on the earth, and Lot entered into Segor (Zoar); and the Lord rained on Sodom sulphur and fire from the Lord out of heaven, and overthrew these cities and all the neighbourhood.'

The fourth of those who had remained with Trypho: It must therefore necessarily be said that one of the two angels who went to Sodom, and is named by Moses in the Scripture Lord, is different from Him who also is God and appeared to Abraham.

Justin: It is not on this ground solely that it must be admitted absolutely that some other one is called Lord by the Holy Spirit besides Him who is considered Maker of all things; not solely [for what is said] by Moses, but also [for what is said] by David. For there is written by him: 'The Lord says to my Lord, Sit on My right hand, until I make Your enemies Your footstool,' as I have already quoted. And again, in other words: 'Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever. A sceptre of equity is the sceptre of Your kingdom: You have loved righteousness and hated iniquity: therefore God, even Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness above Your fellows.' If, therefore, you assert that the Holy Spirit calls some other one God and Lord, besides the Father of all things and His Christ, answer me; for I undertake to prove to you from Scriptures themselves, that He whom the Scripture calls Lord is not one of the two angels that went to Sodom, but He who was with them, and is called God, that appeared to Abraham.

Trypho: Prove this; for, as you see, the day advances, and we are not prepared for such perilous replies; since never yet have we heard any man investigating, or searching into, or proving these matters; nor would we have tolerated your conversation, had you not referred everything to the Scriptures: for you are very zealous in adducing proofs from them; and you are of opinion that there is no God above the Maker of all things.

Justin: You are aware, then, that the Scripture says, 'And the Lord said to Abraham, Why did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I truly conceive? For I am old. Is anything impossible with God? At the time appointed shall I return to you according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son.' And after a little interval: 'And the men rose up from thence, and looked towards Sodom and Gomorrha; and Abraham went with them, to bring them on the way. And the Lord said, I will not conceal from Abraham, my servant, what I do.' And again, after a little, it thus says: 'The Lord said, The cry of Sodom and Gomorrha is great, and their sins are very grievous. I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to their cry which has come unto me; and if not, that I may know. And the men turned away thence, and went to Sodom. But Abraham was standing before the Lord; and Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt You destroy the righteous with the wicked?'

And so on, for I do not think fit to write over again the same words, having written them all before, but shall of necessity give those by which I established the proof to Trypho and his companions. Then I proceeded to what follows, in which these words are recorded:

Justin: 'And the Lord went His way as soon as He had left communing with Abraham; and [Abraham] went to his place. And there came two angels to Sodom at even. And Lot sat in the gate of Sodom;' and what follows until, 'But the men put forth their hands, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door of the house;' and what follows…

Justin: … And now have you not perceived, my friends, that one of the three, who is both God and Lord, and ministers to Him who is in the heavens, is Lord of the two angels? For when [the angels] proceeded to Sodom, He remained behind, and communed with Abraham in the words recorded by Moses; and when He departed after the conversation, Abraham went back to his place. And when he came [to Sodom], the two angels no longer conversed with Lot, but Himself, as the Scripture makes evident; and He is the Lord who received commission from the Lord who [remains] in the heavens, i.e., the Maker of all things, to inflict upon Sodom and Gomorrha the [judgments] which the Scripture describes in these terms: 'The Lord rained down upon Sodom and Gomorrha sulphur and fire from the Lord out of heaven.' (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, Chapter 56. God who appeared to Moses is distinguished from God the Father; italic emphasis ours)
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.iv.lvi.html

Irenaeus:
Quote
Therefore neither would the Lord, nor the Holy Spirit, nor the apostles, have ever named as God, definitely and absolutely, him who was not God, unless he were truly God; nor would they have named any one in his own person Lord, except God the Father ruling over all, and His Son who has received dominion from His Father over all creation, as this passage has it: The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I make Your enemies Your footstool. Here the [Scripture] represents to us the Father addressing the Son; He who gave Him the inheritance of the heathen, and subjected to Him all His enemies. Since, therefore, the Father is truly Lord, and the Son truly Lord, the Holy Spirit has fitly designated them by the title of Lord. And again, referring to the destruction of the Sodomites, the Scripture says, Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrha fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven. For it here points out that the Son, who had also been talking with Abraham, had received power to judge the Sodomites for their wickedness. And this [text following] does declare the same truth: Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever; the sceptre of Your kingdom is a right sceptre. You have loved righteousness, and hated iniquity: therefore God, Your God, has anointed You. For the Spirit designates both [of them] by the name, of God— both Him who is anointed as Son, and Him who does anoint, that is, the Father. And again: God stood in the congregation of the gods, He judges among the gods. He [here] refers to the Father and the Son, and those who have received the adoption; but these are the Church. For she is the synagogue of God, which God— that is, the Son Himself— has gathered by Himself. Of whom He again speaks: The God of gods, the Lord has spoken, and has called the earth. Who is meant by God? He of whom He has said, God shall come openly, our God, and shall not keep silence; that is, the Son, who came manifested to men who said, I have openly appeared to those who seek Me not. But of what gods [does he speak]? [Of those] to whom He says, I have said, You are gods, and all sons of the Most High. To those, no doubt, who have received the grace of the adoption, by which we cry, Abba Father.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103306.htm

The first of the Latin Fathers, Tertullian:
Quote
Well then, you reply, if He was God who spoke, and He was also God who created, at this rate, one God spoke and another created; (and thus) two Gods are declared. If you are so venturesome and harsh, reflect a while; and that you may think the better and more deliberately, listen to the psalm in which Two are described as God: Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever; the sceptre of Your kingdom is a sceptre of righteousness. You have loved righteousness, and hated iniquity: therefore God, even Your God, has anointed You or made You His Christ. Now, since He here speaks to God, and affirms that God is anointed by God, He must have affirmed that Two are God, by reason of the sceptre's royal power. Accordingly, Isaiah also says to the Person of Christ: The Sabæans, men of stature, shall pass over to You; and they shall follow after You, bound in fetters; and they shall worship You, because God is in You: for You are our God, yet we knew it not; You are the God of Israel. For here too, by saying, God is in You, and You are God, he sets forth Two who were God: (in the former expression in You, he means) in Christ, and (in the other he means) the Holy Spirit. That is a still grander statement which you will find expressly made in the Gospel: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. There was One who was, and there was another with whom He was. But I find in Scripture the name Lord also applied to them Both: The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit on my right hand. And Isaiah says this: Lord, who has believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? Now he would most certainly have said Your Arm, if he had not wished us to understand that the Father is Lord, and the Son also is Lord. A much more ancient testimony we have also in Genesis: Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrha brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven. Now, either deny that this is Scripture; or else (let me ask) what sort of man you are, that you do not think words ought to be taken and understood in the sense in which they are written, especially when they are not expressed in allegories and parables, but in determinate and simple declarations? If, indeed, you follow those who did not at the time endure the Lord when showing Himself to be the Son of God, because they would not believe Him to be the Lord, then (I ask you) call to mind along with them the passage where it is written, I have said, You are gods, and you are children of the Most High; and again, God stands in the congregation of gods; in order that, if the Scripture has not been afraid to designate as gods human beings, who have become sons of God by faith, you may be sure that the same Scripture has with greater propriety conferred the name of the Lord on the true and one only Son of God. Very well! You say, I shall challenge you to preach from this day forth (and that, too, on the authority of these same Scriptures) two Gods and two Lords, consistently with your views. God forbid, (is my reply). For we, who by the grace of God possess an insight into both the times and the occasions of the Sacred Writings, especially we who are followers of the Paraclete, not of human teachers, do indeed definitively declare that Two Beings are God, the Father and the Son, and, with the addition of the Holy Spirit, even Three, according to the principle of the divine economy, which introduces number, in order that the Father may not, as you perversely infer, be Himself believed to have been born and to have suffered, which it is not lawful to believe, forasmuch as it has not been so handed down. That there are, however, two Gods or two Lords, is a statement which at no time proceeds out of our mouth: not as if it were untrue that the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and each is God; but because in earlier times Two were actually spoken of as God, and two as Lord, that when Christ should come He might be both acknowledged as God and designated as Lord, being the Son of Him who is both God and Lord. Now, if there were found in the Scriptures but one Personality of Him who is God and Lord, Christ would justly enough be inadmissible to the title of God and Lord: for (in the Scriptures) there was declared to be none other than One God and One Lord, and it must have followed that the Father should Himself seem to have come down (to earth), inasmuch as only One God and One Lord was ever read of (in the Scriptures), and His entire Economy would be involved in obscurity, which has been planned and arranged with so clear a foresight in His providential dispensation as matter for our faith. As soon, however, as Christ came, and was recognised by us as the very Being who had from the beginning caused plurality (in the Divine Economy), being the second from the Father, and with the Spirit the third, and Himself declaring and manifesting the Father more fully (than He had ever been before), the title of Him who is God and Lord was at once restored to the Unity (of the Divine Nature), even because the Gentiles would have to pass from the multitude of their idols to the One Only God, in order that a difference might be distinctly settled between the worshippers of One God and the votaries of polytheism. For it was only right that Christians should shine in the world as children of light, adoring and invoking Him who is the One God and Lord as the light of the world. Besides, if, from that perfect knowledge which assures us that the title of God and Lord is suitable both to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, we were to invoke a plurality of gods and lords, we should quench our torches, and we should become less courageous to endure the martyr’s sufferings, from which an easy escape would everywhere lie open to us, as soon as we swore by a plurality of gods and lords, as sundry heretics do, who hold more gods than One. I will therefore not speak of gods at all, nor of lords, but I shall follow the apostle; so that if the Father and the Son, are alike to be invoked, I shall call the Father God, and invoke Jesus Christ as Lord. But when Christ alone (is mentioned), I shall be able to call Him God, as the same apostle says: Of whom is Christ, who is over all, God blessed for ever. For I should give the name of sun even to a sunbeam, considered in itself; but if I were mentioning the sun from which the ray emanates, I certainly should at once withdraw the name of sun from the mere beam. For although I make not two suns, still I shall reckon both the sun and its ray to be as much two things and two forms of one undivided substance, as God and His Word, as the Father and the Son.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0317.htm

Novatian (a
Quote
Chapter 18. Moreover Also, from the Fact that He Who Was Seen of Abraham is Called God; Which Cannot Be Understood of the Father, Whom No Man Hath Seen at Any Time; But of the Son in the Likeness of an Angel.

Behold, the same Moses tells us in another place that God was seen of Abraham. And yet the same Moses hears from God, that no man can see God and live. If God cannot be seen, how was God seen? Or if He was seen, how is it that He cannot be seen? For John also says, No man has seen God at any time; and the Apostle Paul, Whom no man has seen, nor can see. But certainly the Scripture does not lie; therefore, truly, God was seen. Whence it may be understood that it was not the Father who was seen, seeing that He never was seen; but the Son, who has both been accustomed to descend, and to be seen because He has descended. For He is the image of the invisible God, as the imperfection and frailty of the human condition was accustomed sometimes even then to see God the Father in the image of God, that is, in the Son of God. For gradually and by progression human frailty was to be strengthened by the image to that glory of being able one day to see God the Father. For the things that are great are dangerous if they are sudden. For even the sudden light of the sun after darkness, with its too great splendour, will not make manifest the light of day to unaccustomed eyes, but will rather strike them with blindness.

And lest this should occur to the injury of human eyes, the darkness is broken up and scattered by degrees; and the rising of that luminary, mounting by small and unperceived increments, gently accustoms men's eyes to bear its full orb by the gentle increase of its rays. Thus, therefore, Christ also— that is, the image of God, and the Son of God— is looked upon by men, inasmuch as He could be seen. And thus the weakness and imperfection of the human destiny is nourished, led up, and educated by Him; so that, being accustomed to look upon the Son, it may one day be able to see God the Father Himself also as He is, that it may not be stricken by His sudden and intolerable brightness, and be hindered from being able to see God the Father, whom it has always desired. Wherefore it is the Son who is seen; but the Son of God is the Word of God: and the Word of God was made flesh, and dwelt among us; and this is Christ. What in the world is the reason that we should hesitate to call Him God, who in so many ways is acknowledged to be proved God? And if, moreover, the angel meets with Hagar, Sarah's maid, driven from her home as well as turned away, near the fountain of water in the way to Shur; asks and learns the reason of her flight, and after that offers her advice that she should humble herself; and, moreover, gives her the hope of the name of mother, and pledges and promises that from her womb there should be a numerous seed, and that she should have Ishmael to be born from her; and with other things unfolds the place of his habitation, and describes his mode of life; yet Scripture sets forth this angel as both Lord and God— for He would not have promised the blessing of seed unless the angel had also been God. Let them ask what the heretics can make of this present passage. Was that the Father that was seen by Hagar or not? For He is declared to be God. But far be it from us to call God the Father an angel, lest He should be subordinate to another whose angel He would be. But they will say that it was an angel. How then shall He be God if He was an angel? Since this name is nowhere conceded to angels, except that on either side the truth compels us into this opinion, that we ought to understand it to have been God the Son, who, because He is of God, is rightly called God, because He is the Son of God. But, because He is subjected to the Father, and the Announcer of the Father's will, He is declared to be the Angel of Great Counsel. Therefore, although this passage neither is suited to the person of the Father, lest He should be called an angel, nor to the person of an angel, lest he should be called God; yet it is suited to the person of Christ that He should be both God because He is the Son of God, and should be an angel because He is the Announcer of the Father's mind. And the heretics ought to understand that they are setting themselves against the Scriptures, in that, while they say that they believe Christ to have been also an angel, they are unwilling to declare Him to have been also God, when they read in the Old Testament that He often came to visit the human race. To this, moreover, Moses added the instance of God seen of Abraham at the oak of Mature, when he was sitting at the opening of his tent at noon-day. And nevertheless, although he had beheld three men, note that he called one of them Lord; and when he had washed their feet, he offers them bread baked on the ashes, with butter and abundance of milk itself, and urges them that, being detained as guests, they should eat. And after I this he hears also that he should be a father, and learns that Sarah his wife should bring forth a son by him; and acknowledges concerning the destruction of the people of Sodom, what they deserve to suffer; and learns that God had come down on account of the cry of Sodom. in which place, if they will have it that the Father was seen at that time to have been received with hospitality in company with two angels, the heretics have believed the Father to be visible. But if an angel, although of the three angels one is called Lord, why, although it is not usual, is an angel called God? Unless because, in order that His proper invisibility may be restored to the Father, and the proper inferiority be remitted to the angel, it was only God the Son, who also is God, who was seen by Abraham, and was believed to have been received with hospitality. For He anticipated sacramentally what He was hereafter to become. He was made a guest of Abraham, being about to be among the sons of Abraham. And his children's feet, by way of proving what He was, He washed; returning in the children the claim of hospitality which formerly the Father had put out to interest to Him. Whence also, that there might be no doubt but that it was He who was the guest of Abraham on the destruction of the people of Sodom, it is declared: Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrha fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven. For thus also said the prophet in the person of God: I have overthrown you, as the Lord overturned Sodom and Gomorrha. Therefore the Lord overturned Sodom, that is, God overturned Sodom; but in the overturning of Sodom, the Lord rained fire from the Lord. And this Lord was the God seen by Abraham; and this God was the guest of Abraham, certainly seen because He was also touched. But although the Father, being invisible, was assuredly not at that time seen, He who was accustomed to be touched and seen was seen and received to hospitality. But this the Son of God, The Lord rained from the Lord upon Sodom and Gomorrha brimstone and fire. And this is the Word of God. And the Word of God was made flesh, and dwelt among us; and this is Christ. It was not the Father, then, who was a guest with Abraham, but Christ. Nor was it the Father who was seen then, but the Son; and Christ was seen. Rightly, therefore, Christ is both Lord and God, who was not otherwise seen by Abraham, except that as God the Word He was begotten of God the Father before Abraham himself. Moreover, says the Scripture, the same Angel and God visits and consoles the same Hagar when driven with her son from the dwelling of Abraham. For when in the desert she had exposed the infant, because the water had fallen short from the pitcher; and when the lad had cried out, and she had lifted up her weeping and lamentation, God heard, says the Scripture, the voice of the lad from the place where he was. Having told that it was God who heard the voice of the infant, it adds: And the angel of the Lord called Hagar herself out of heaven, saying that that was an angel whom it had called God, and pronouncing Him to be Lord whom it had set forth as an angel; which Angel and God moreover promises to Hagar herself greater consolations, in saying, Fear not; for I have heard the voice of the lad from the place where he was. Arise, take up the lad, and hold him; for I will make of him a great nation. Why does this angel, if angel only, claim to himself this right of saying, I will make of him a great nation, since assuredly this kind of power belongs to God, and cannot belong to an angel? Whence also He is confirmed to be God, since He is able to do this; because, by way of proving this very point, it is immediately added by the Scripture: And God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of running water; and she went and filled the bottle from the well, and gave to the lad: and God was with the lad. If, then, this God was with the Lord, who opened the eyes of Hagar that she might see the well of running water, and might draw the water on account of the urgent need of the lad's thirst, and this God who calls her from heaven is called an angel when, in previously hearing the voice of the lad crying, He was rather God; is not understood to be other than angel, in like manner as He was God also. And since this cannot be applicable or fitting to the Father, who is God only, but may be applicable to Christ, who is declared to be not only God, but angel also, it manifestly appears that it was not the Father who thus spoke to Hagar, but rather Christ, since He is God; and to Him also is applied the name of angel, since He became the angel of great counsel. And He is the angel, in that He declares the bosom of the Father, as John sets forth. For if John himself says, that He Himself who sets forth the bosom of the Father, as the Word, became flesh in order to declare the bosom of the Father, assuredly Christ is not only man, but angel also; and not only angel, but He is shown by the Scriptures to be God also. And this is believed to be the case by us; so that, if we will not consent to apprehend that it was Christ who then spoke to Hagar, we must either make an angel God, or we must reckon God the Father Almighty among the angels…

Chapter 26. Moreover, Against the Sabellians He Proves that the Father is One, the Son Another.

But from this occasion of Christ being proved from the sacred authority of the divine writings not man only, but God also, other heretics, breaking forth, contrive to impair the religious position in Christ; by this very fact wishing to show that Christ is God the Father, in that He is asserted to be not man only, but also is declared to be God. For thus say they, If it is asserted that God is one, and Christ is God, then say they, If the Father and Christ be one God, Christ will be called the Father. Wherein they are proved to be in error, not knowing Christ, but following the sound of a name; for they are not willing that He should be the second person after the Father, but the Father Himself. And since these things are easily answered, few words shall be said. For who does not acknowledge that the person of the Son is second after the Father, when he reads that it was said by the Father, consequently to the Son, Let us make man in our image and our likeness; and that after this it was related, And God made man, in the image of God made He him? Or when he holds in his hands: The Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrha fire and brimstone from the Lord from heaven? Or when he reads (as having been said) to Christ: You are my Son, this day have I begotten You. Ask of me, and I will give You the heathens for Your inheritance, and the ends of the earth for Your possession? Or when also that beloved writer says: The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit on my right hand, until I shall make Your enemies the stool of Your feet? Or when, unfolding the prophecies of Isaiah, he finds it written thus: Thus says the Lord to Christ my Lord? Or when he reads: I came not down from heaven to do my own will, but the will of Him that sent me? Or when he finds it written: Because He who sent me is greater than I? Or when he considers the passage: I go to my Father, and your Father; to my God, and your God? Or when he finds it placed side by side with others: Moreover, in your law it is written that the witness of two is true. I bear witness of myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness of me? Or when the voice from heaven is: I have both glorified Him, and I will glorify Him again? Or when by Peter it is answered and said: You are the Son of the living God? Or when by the Lord Himself the sacrament of this revelation is approved, and He says: Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father which is in heaven? Or when by Christ Himself it is expressed: Father, glorify me with that glory with which I was with You before the world was made? Or when it was said by the same: Father, I knew that You hear me always; but on account of those who stand around I said it, that they may believe that You have sent me? Or when the definition of the rule is established by Christ Himself, and it is said: And this is life eternal, that they should know You, the only and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent. I have glorified You upon the earth, I have finished the work which You gave me? Or when, moreover, by the same it is asserted and said: All things are delivered to me by my Father? Or when the session at the right hand of the Father is proved both by apostles and prophets? And I should have enough to do were I to endeavour to gather together all the passages whatever on this side; since the divine Scripture, not so much of the Old as also of the New Testament, everywhere shows Him to be born of the Father, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made, who always has obeyed and obeys the Father; that He always has power over all things, but as delivered, as granted, as by the Father Himself permitted to Him. And what can be so evident proof that this is not the Father, but the Son; as that He is set forth as being obedient to God the Father, unless, if He be believed to be the Father, Christ may be said to be subjected to another God the Father?
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0511.htm
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 25, 2011, 11:38:52 PM
Just a couple of examples of Orthodox hymnography confirming the Trinitarian nature of the visitation at the Oak of Mamre:

Of old thou didst clearly manifest Thyself unto Abraham in three Hypostases, one in the essence of divinity; and in images thou didst reveal the utter truth of theology. Thee do we hymn with faith, the three-Sunned God who alone hath dominion. (Octoechos, Tone 1, Midnight Office Canon, Ode 3.)

As a sojourner, Abraham was vouchsafed mystically to receive the one Lord in three Hypostases, made manifest in the forms of men. (Octoechos, Tone 3, Midnight Office Canon, Ode 6)

I'm sure they are not the only examples.

Thanks.  Provenance?  Saint John of Damascus?  8th century?  Not Saint John but later?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 25, 2011, 11:45:56 PM
Just a couple of examples of Orthodox hymnography confirming the Trinitarian nature of the visitation at the Oak of Mamre:

Of old thou didst clearly manifest Thyself unto Abraham in three Hypostases, one in the essence of divinity; and in images thou didst reveal the utter truth of theology. Thee do we hymn with faith, the three-Sunned God who alone hath dominion. (Octoechos, Tone 1, Midnight Office Canon, Ode 3.)

As a sojourner, Abraham was vouchsafed mystically to receive the one Lord in three Hypostases, made manifest in the forms of men. (Octoechos, Tone 3, Midnight Office Canon, Ode 6)

I'm sure they are not the only examples.

In this case there can be no argument against portraying God the Father as an enfleshed angel in iconography.  Ditto for the Holy Spirit.  Ditto for the Second Person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ.  It is obviously, in the case of the Father and the Spirit, their preferred material manifestation.


About the Stoglav?  Is it true that it forbids portarying the Spirit as a dove?


Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 25, 2011, 11:48:16 PM
St. Augustine, On the Trinity.
http://books.google.com/books?id=5uSws-OzZ-sC&pg=PA62&dq=But+under+the+oak+at+Mamre+he+saw+three+men,+whom+he+invited,+and+hospitably+received,+and&hl=en#v=onepage&q=But%20under%20the%20oak%20at%20Mamre%20he%20saw%20three%20men%2C%20whom%20he%20invited%2C%20and%20hospitably%20received%2C%20and&f=false

Justin Martyr has a rather confused argument with Trypho the Jew on this:
 http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.iv.lvi.html

Thank you.

And many thanks for enlarging the font in the quote boxes!!
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: LBK on August 26, 2011, 12:02:41 AM
The Stoglav Council specified that the Holy Spirit is to be iconographically portrayed as a dove only in icons of the Baptism of Christ, and only as tongues of fire in icons of Pentecost, as it is in these respective forms at these respective events that the Spirit manifested itself. Therefore, it is not correct to show the Spirit as a dove in other icons, as is, for example, seen frequently but erroneously, in icons of the Annunciation.

The Holy Spirit is not a dove by nature, nor is it a tongue of fire by nature. But, at specific times and specific incidents, it has become manifest in these forms.

The Council of the Hundred Chapters (Stoglav), Moscow, 1551

Chapter 41, question 1:

On the icons of the Holy Trinity, some represent a cross in the nimbus of only the middle figure, others on all three. On ancient and on Greek icons, the words "Holy Trinity" are written on the top, but there is no cross in the nimbus of any of the three. At present, "IC XC" and "The Holy Trinity" are written next to the central figure. Consult the divine canons and tell us which practice one should follow.

The Reply: painters must paint icons according to the ancient models as the Greeks painted them, as Andrei Rublev and other renowned painters made them. The inscription should be "The Holy Trinity." Painters are in no way to use their imagination.

The Great Council of Moscow, 1666-1667

Chapter 43: On the Iconographer and the Lord Sabaoth:

We decree that a skilled painter, who is also a good man (from the ranks of the clergy) be named monitor of the iconographers, their leader and supervisor. Let the ignorant not mock the ugly and badly-painted holy icons of Christ, of His Mother, His saints. Let all vanity of pretended wisdom cease, which has allowed everyone habitually to paint the Lord Sabaoth in various representations according to his own fantasy, without an authentic reference ...

We decree that from now on the image of the Lord Sabaoth will no longer be painted according to senseless and unsuitable imaginings, for no one has ever seen the Lord Sabaoth (that is, God the Father) in the flesh. Only Christ was seen in the flesh, and in this way He is portrayed, that is, in the flesh and not according to His divinity. Likewise, the most holy Mother of God and other saints of God ...

To paint on icons the Lord Sabaoth (that is, the Father) with a white beard holding the only-begotten Son in His lap with a dove between them is altogether absurd and improper, for no one has ever seen the Father in His divinity. Indeed, the Father has no flesh, and it is not in the flesh that the Son was born of the Father before all ages. And if the Prophet David says, "from the womb, before the morning star, I have begotten you" [Ps 109/110: 31], such generation is certainly not corporeal, but unutterable and unimaginable. For Christ Himself says in the Holy Gospel, "No one knows the Father except the Son."

In chapter 40, Isaiah asks: "What likeness will you find for God or what form to resemble His?" Likewise, the holy Apostle Paul says in chapter 17 of Acts: "Since we are God's offspring, we ought not to believe that the Godhead is the same as gold, silver, or stone shaped by human art and thought." St. John of Damascus likewise says: "Who can make an imitation of God the invisible, the incorporeal, the indescribable, and unimaginable? To make an image of the Divinity is the height of folly and impiety" [On the Heavens, Book IV, "On the Image"]. St. Gregory Dialogos forbade it in a similar way. This is why the Lord Sabaoth, who is the Godhead, and the engendering before all ages of the only-begotten Son of the Father must only be perceived through our mind. By no means is it proper to paint such images: it is impossible.

And the Holy Spirit is not, in His nature, a dove: He is by nature God. And no one has ever seen God, as the holy evangelist points out. Nonetheless, the Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove at the holy baptism of Christ in the Jordan; and this is why it is proper to represent the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, in this context only. Anywhere else, those who have good sense do not represent the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, for on Mount Tabor He appeared in the form of a cloud, and in another way elsewhere. Besides, Sabaoth is not the name of the Father only, but of the Holy Trinity. According to Dionysius the Areopagite, Sabaoth is translated from the Hebrew as "Lord of Hosts." And the Lord of Hosts is the Trinity. And if the Prophet Daniel says that he has seen the Ancient of Days sitting on the throne of judgment, that is not taken to mean the Father, but the Son at His Second Coming, who will judge all the nations with His fearsome judgment.

Likewise, on icons of the Holy Annunciation, they paint the Lord Sabaoth breathing from His mouth, and that breath reaches the womb of the Most Holy Mother of God. But who has seen this, or which passage from Holy Scripture bears witness to it? Where is this taken from? Such a practice and others like it are clearly adopted and borrowed from people whose understanding is vain, or rather whose mind is deranged or absent. This is why we decree that henceforth such mistaken painting cease, for it comes from unsound knowledge.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 26, 2011, 12:19:28 AM
The Great Council of Moscow, 1666-1667

A remarkable Council because it settled once and for all the question of whether Roman Catholics should be baptized.

It prohibited baptism, a prohibition which is in force today since the canon has not been annulled.

The [Council] referred to the wise Mark of Ephesus who, in his epistle addressed to all Orthodox, offers the same teaching and decreed:

"Latins must not be re-baptized but only after their renunciation of their heresies and confession of sins, be anointed with Chrism and admit them to the Holy Mysteries and in this way bring them into communion with the holy, catholic Eastern Church, in accordance with the sacred canons" (Chapter 6)

Acts of the Moscow Councils 1666-1667, Moscow, 1893

http://www.holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/pogodin-reception/reception-ch2.html#foot64


Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: LBK on August 26, 2011, 12:30:19 AM
Just a couple of examples of Orthodox hymnography confirming the Trinitarian nature of the visitation at the Oak of Mamre:

Of old thou didst clearly manifest Thyself unto Abraham in three Hypostases, one in the essence of divinity; and in images thou didst reveal the utter truth of theology. Thee do we hymn with faith, the three-Sunned God who alone hath dominion. (Octoechos, Tone 1, Midnight Office Canon, Ode 3.)

As a sojourner, Abraham was vouchsafed mystically to receive the one Lord in three Hypostases, made manifest in the forms of men. (Octoechos, Tone 3, Midnight Office Canon, Ode 6)

I'm sure they are not the only examples.

Thanks.  Provenance?  Saint John of Damascus?  8th century?  Not Saint John but later?

The Midnight Office canons to the Trinity are attributed to St Metrophanes of Smyrna (+910).
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 26, 2011, 01:05:01 AM
The Stoglav Council specified that the Holy Spirit is to be iconographically portrayed as a dove only in icons of the Baptism of Christ, and only as tongues of fire in icons of Pentecost, as it is in these respective forms at these respective events that the Spirit manifested itself. Therefore, it is not correct to show the Spirit as a dove in other icons, as is, for example, seen frequently but erroneously, in icons of the Annunciation.

The Holy Spirit is not a dove by nature, nor is it a tongue of fire by nature. But, at specific times and specific incidents, it has become manifest in these forms.

The Council of the Hundred Chapters (Stoglav), Moscow, 1551

Chapter 41, question 1:

On the icons of the Holy Trinity, some represent a cross in the nimbus of only the middle figure, others on all three. On ancient and on Greek icons, the words "Holy Trinity" are written on the top, but there is no cross in the nimbus of any of the three. At present, "IC XC" and "The Holy Trinity" are written next to the central figure. Consult the divine canons and tell us which practice one should follow.

The Reply: painters must paint icons according to the ancient models as the Greeks painted them, as Andrei Rublev and other renowned painters made them. The inscription should be "The Holy Trinity." Painters are in no way to use their imagination.

The Great Council of Moscow, 1666-1667

Chapter 43: On the Iconographer and the Lord Sabaoth:

We decree that a skilled painter, who is also a good man (from the ranks of the clergy) be named monitor of the iconographers, their leader and supervisor. Let the ignorant not mock the ugly and badly-painted holy icons of Christ, of His Mother, His saints. Let all vanity of pretended wisdom cease, which has allowed everyone habitually to paint the Lord Sabaoth in various representations according to his own fantasy, without an authentic reference ...

We decree that from now on the image of the Lord Sabaoth will no longer be painted according to senseless and unsuitable imaginings, for no one has ever seen the Lord Sabaoth (that is, God the Father) in the flesh. Only Christ was seen in the flesh, and in this way He is portrayed, that is, in the flesh and not according to His divinity. Likewise, the most holy Mother of God and other saints of God ...

To paint on icons the Lord Sabaoth (that is, the Father) with a white beard holding the only-begotten Son in His lap with a dove between them is altogether absurd and improper, for no one has ever seen the Father in His divinity. Indeed, the Father has no flesh, and it is not in the flesh that the Son was born of the Father before all ages. And if the Prophet David says, "from the womb, before the morning star, I have begotten you" [Ps 109/110: 31], such generation is certainly not corporeal, but unutterable and unimaginable. For Christ Himself says in the Holy Gospel, "No one knows the Father except the Son."

In chapter 40, Isaiah asks: "What likeness will you find for God or what form to resemble His?" Likewise, the holy Apostle Paul says in chapter 17 of Acts: "Since we are God's offspring, we ought not to believe that the Godhead is the same as gold, silver, or stone shaped by human art and thought." St. John of Damascus likewise says: "Who can make an imitation of God the invisible, the incorporeal, the indescribable, and unimaginable? To make an image of the Divinity is the height of folly and impiety" [On the Heavens, Book IV, "On the Image"]. St. Gregory Dialogos forbade it in a similar way. This is why the Lord Sabaoth, who is the Godhead, and the engendering before all ages of the only-begotten Son of the Father must only be perceived through our mind. By no means is it proper to paint such images: it is impossible.

And the Holy Spirit is not, in His nature, a dove: He is by nature God. And no one has ever seen God, as the holy evangelist points out. Nonetheless, the Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove at the holy baptism of Christ in the Jordan; and this is why it is proper to represent the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, in this context only. Anywhere else, those who have good sense do not represent the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, for on Mount Tabor He appeared in the form of a cloud, and in another way elsewhere. Besides, Sabaoth is not the name of the Father only, but of the Holy Trinity. According to Dionysius the Areopagite, Sabaoth is translated from the Hebrew as "Lord of Hosts." And the Lord of Hosts is the Trinity. And if the Prophet Daniel says that he has seen the Ancient of Days sitting on the throne of judgment, that is not taken to mean the Father, but the Son at His Second Coming, who will judge all the nations with His fearsome judgment.

Likewise, on icons of the Holy Annunciation, they paint the Lord Sabaoth breathing from His mouth, and that breath reaches the womb of the Most Holy Mother of God. But who has seen this, or which passage from Holy Scripture bears witness to it? Where is this taken from? Such a practice and others like it are clearly adopted and borrowed from people whose understanding is vain, or rather whose mind is deranged or absent. This is why we decree that henceforth such mistaken painting cease, for it comes from unsound knowledge.


Aprops... this Council provides a wonderful example of the Orthodox process of ratification and reception of a Council and its teachings and decrees.

As the centuries have rolled by since 1666 it has become clear that the Holy Spirit breathing in the Church has not brought it to acquiesce in the Council's requirements on painting the Trinity.  The piety of the Church and her iconographers has allowed the 1666 decrees to fall into abeyance.

We see a primary example of this in the sacred monastery of the Holy Trinity at Jordanville where the Trinity icon (forbidden by the Council) is a major focus of veneration.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: LBK on August 26, 2011, 04:15:00 AM
Quote
As the centuries have rolled by since 1666 it has become clear that the Holy Spirit breathing in the Church has not brought it to acquiesce in the Council's requirements on painting the Trinity.  The piety of the Church and her iconographers has allowed the 1666 decrees to fall into abeyance.

We see a primary example of this in the sacred monastery of the Holy Trinity at Jordanville where the Trinity icon (forbidden by the Council) is a major focus of veneration.

Piety? Honest ignorance in centuries past, perhaps, with an avalanche of influence from outside the Orthodox world. These days, where literacy is the norm? More a case of wilfulness over obedience, in many cases.  :(

Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 26, 2011, 06:09:41 AM
Quote
As the centuries have rolled by since 1666 it has become clear that the Holy Spirit breathing in the Church has not brought it to acquiesce in the Council's requirements on painting the Trinity.  The piety of the Church and her iconographers has allowed the 1666 decrees to fall into abeyance.

We see a primary example of this in the sacred monastery of the Holy Trinity at Jordanville where the Trinity icon (forbidden by the Council) is a major focus of veneration.

Piety? Honest ignorance in centuries past, perhaps, with an avalanche of influence from outside the Orthodox world. These days, where literacy is the norm? More a case of wilfulness over obedience, in many cases.  :(



Oh, I wish you had not said that.  Now I am having bad thoughts about all the holy abbots of Jordanville as well as the holy Metropolitans who have censed it and kissed it, and all the holy Jordanville monks...
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: LBK on August 26, 2011, 07:24:37 AM
Oh, I wish you had not said that.  Now I am having bad thoughts about all the holy abbots of Jordanville as well as the holy Metropolitans who have censed it and kissed it, and all the holy Jordanville monks...

Do you feel the same way about the eyes in triangles at Athos and elsewhere?  ;)
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: orthonorm on August 26, 2011, 07:53:34 AM
Which individualism is jettisoned at the expense of communalism.

I can't remember, are you a Christian?

Individualism > Communing != Christianity
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 26, 2011, 08:14:55 AM
Oh, I wish you had not said that.  Now I am having bad thoughts about all the holy abbots of Jordanville as well as the holy Metropolitans who have censed it and kissed it, and all the holy Jordanville monks...

Do you feel the same way about the eyes in triangles at Athos and elsewhere?  ;)

It doesn't disturb me at all.  I was quite used to it in Serbia where it is painted high on the West wall (frescoes from the 12th to 20th centuries) so that as you leave the church you notice it and remember that wherever you are you are in the presence of God.   Another fresco seen on the back wall is the Hand of God holding souls - to remind us that we remain in His love and care after we leave the church.

I don't see why eitther the Eye or the Hand are really offensive, provided they are not too "in your face."

Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: ialmisry on August 26, 2011, 08:53:07 AM
Pope St. Cyril expounded on the Hospitality at the Oak of Mamre as a Theophany of the Holy Trinity
The theology of St. Cyril of Alexandria: a critical appreciation By Thomas Gerard Weinandy, Daniel A. Keating
http://books.google.com/books?id=YRxJAoKA5MIC&pg=PA95&dq=Cyril+Mamre+Trinity&hl=en#v=onepage&q=Cyril%20Mamre%20Trinity&f=false

The Antiochian School was more Christological, in Alexandria Philo may have laid the groundwork for the Trinitarian in interpretation
The exegetical encounter between Jews and Christians in late antiquity By Emmanouela Grypeou, Helen Spurling
http://books.google.com/books?id=eRX2ft6Q2D4C&pg=PA196&dq=Cyril+Mamre+Trinity&hl=en#v=onepage&q=Cyril%20Mamre%20Trinity&f=false

Pseudo-Gregory of Nyssa: testimonies against the Jews By Martin C. Albl
http://books.google.com/books?id=X4H36aEUM_0C&pg=PA89&dq=Cyril+Against+julian+mamre&hl=en#v=onepage&q=Cyril%20Against%20julian%20mamre&f=false

The Rublev Trinity: the icon of the Trinity by the monk-painter Andrei Rublev By Gabriel Bunge, Saint Andreĭ Rublev
http://books.google.com/books?id=uAC0E0TswtgC&pg=PA50&dq=Cyril+three+men+singular&hl=en#v=onepage&q=Cyril%20three%20men%20singular&f=false
has the history of the Patristic interpretation.

The meaning of icons By Léonide Ouspensky, Vladimir Lossky
http://books.google.com/books?id=iqncPadAx40C&dq=Theology+of+the+Icon&q=Cyril+Mamre#v=snippet&q=trinity&f=false
has some discussion.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: ialmisry on August 26, 2011, 08:57:13 AM
The Stoglav Council specified that the Holy Spirit is to be iconographically portrayed as a dove only in icons of the Baptism of Christ, and only as tongues of fire in icons of Pentecost, as it is in these respective forms at these respective events that the Spirit manifested itself. Therefore, it is not correct to show the Spirit as a dove in other icons, as is, for example, seen frequently but erroneously, in icons of the Annunciation.

The Holy Spirit is not a dove by nature, nor is it a tongue of fire by nature. But, at specific times and specific incidents, it has become manifest in these forms.

The Council of the Hundred Chapters (Stoglav), Moscow, 1551

Chapter 41, question 1:

On the icons of the Holy Trinity, some represent a cross in the nimbus of only the middle figure, others on all three. On ancient and on Greek icons, the words "Holy Trinity" are written on the top, but there is no cross in the nimbus of any of the three. At present, "IC XC" and "The Holy Trinity" are written next to the central figure. Consult the divine canons and tell us which practice one should follow.

The Reply: painters must paint icons according to the ancient models as the Greeks painted them, as Andrei Rublev and other renowned painters made them. The inscription should be "The Holy Trinity." Painters are in no way to use their imagination.

The Great Council of Moscow, 1666-1667

Chapter 43: On the Iconographer and the Lord Sabaoth:

We decree that a skilled painter, who is also a good man (from the ranks of the clergy) be named monitor of the iconographers, their leader and supervisor. Let the ignorant not mock the ugly and badly-painted holy icons of Christ, of His Mother, His saints. Let all vanity of pretended wisdom cease, which has allowed everyone habitually to paint the Lord Sabaoth in various representations according to his own fantasy, without an authentic reference ...

We decree that from now on the image of the Lord Sabaoth will no longer be painted according to senseless and unsuitable imaginings, for no one has ever seen the Lord Sabaoth (that is, God the Father) in the flesh. Only Christ was seen in the flesh, and in this way He is portrayed, that is, in the flesh and not according to His divinity. Likewise, the most holy Mother of God and other saints of God ...

To paint on icons the Lord Sabaoth (that is, the Father) with a white beard holding the only-begotten Son in His lap with a dove between them is altogether absurd and improper, for no one has ever seen the Father in His divinity. Indeed, the Father has no flesh, and it is not in the flesh that the Son was born of the Father before all ages. And if the Prophet David says, "from the womb, before the morning star, I have begotten you" [Ps 109/110: 31], such generation is certainly not corporeal, but unutterable and unimaginable. For Christ Himself says in the Holy Gospel, "No one knows the Father except the Son."

In chapter 40, Isaiah asks: "What likeness will you find for God or what form to resemble His?" Likewise, the holy Apostle Paul says in chapter 17 of Acts: "Since we are God's offspring, we ought not to believe that the Godhead is the same as gold, silver, or stone shaped by human art and thought." St. John of Damascus likewise says: "Who can make an imitation of God the invisible, the incorporeal, the indescribable, and unimaginable? To make an image of the Divinity is the height of folly and impiety" [On the Heavens, Book IV, "On the Image"]. St. Gregory Dialogos forbade it in a similar way. This is why the Lord Sabaoth, who is the Godhead, and the engendering before all ages of the only-begotten Son of the Father must only be perceived through our mind. By no means is it proper to paint such images: it is impossible.

And the Holy Spirit is not, in His nature, a dove: He is by nature God. And no one has ever seen God, as the holy evangelist points out. Nonetheless, the Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove at the holy baptism of Christ in the Jordan; and this is why it is proper to represent the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, in this context only. Anywhere else, those who have good sense do not represent the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, for on Mount Tabor He appeared in the form of a cloud, and in another way elsewhere. Besides, Sabaoth is not the name of the Father only, but of the Holy Trinity. According to Dionysius the Areopagite, Sabaoth is translated from the Hebrew as "Lord of Hosts." And the Lord of Hosts is the Trinity. And if the Prophet Daniel says that he has seen the Ancient of Days sitting on the throne of judgment, that is not taken to mean the Father, but the Son at His Second Coming, who will judge all the nations with His fearsome judgment.

Likewise, on icons of the Holy Annunciation, they paint the Lord Sabaoth breathing from His mouth, and that breath reaches the womb of the Most Holy Mother of God. But who has seen this, or which passage from Holy Scripture bears witness to it? Where is this taken from? Such a practice and others like it are clearly adopted and borrowed from people whose understanding is vain, or rather whose mind is deranged or absent. This is why we decree that henceforth such mistaken painting cease, for it comes from unsound knowledge.


Aprops... this Council provides a wonderful example of the Orthodox process of ratification and reception of a Council and its teachings and decrees.

As the centuries have rolled by since 1666 it has become clear that the Holy Spirit breathing in the Church has not brought it to acquiesce in the Council's requirements on painting the Trinity.  The piety of the Church and her iconographers has allowed the 1666 decrees to fall into abeyance.

We see a primary example of this in the sacred monastery of the Holy Trinity at Jordanville where the Trinity icon (forbidden by the Council) is a major focus of veneration.
That one is not so bad.  The one in Christ the Savior expresses what Ouspensky and Lossky warned about it being a representation of the filioque.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: ialmisry on August 26, 2011, 09:03:26 AM

As cute as those Orthodox pictures of Jesus squeezing a grape vine protruding from his own side.


Never seen one of those.  Could you show us one of these pictures.
I can't find it. My Google fu is weak... Isa knows what I'm talking about.
I missed this before
(http://philzicons.webs.com/Class%20Photos%202009/Mobile%202009/Image45_s.jpg)

(http://www.skete.com/images/products/icons/J53.JPG)
They seem to be a Romanian, specifically Transylvanian, specialty.

that said, I don't know what the flowers were for in the Sacred Heart one which, unlike the Romanian icons, does not show Christ and does not, in contrast to the Romanian icons, have specific warrant in Scripture and, unlike the Romanian icons, has no conection to the rest of the Faith (say, as in the instance of the Romanian icons, the nature of the Eucharist and its effect).
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: LBK on August 26, 2011, 09:08:35 AM
Quote
That one is not so bad.  The one in Christ the Savior expresses what Ouspensky and Lossky warned about it being a representation of the filioque.

Oh, don't get me started on the travesties in Christ the Savior!!  >:( But the Paternity/Otechestvo (as per the Jordanville iconostasis) is no less objectionable, it is simply a compositional variant of the NT Trinity. It being painted in a geometric, "iconographic" style instead of a naturalistic one does not confer canonicity upon it.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: ialmisry on August 26, 2011, 09:39:42 AM
Liturgies aside, from what I've read of actual ROCOR WR objections to Sacred Heart, Corpus Christi, Rosary, etc., has less to do with actual theological objections and almost everything to do with their supposed origin and their date. I've engaged in this first hand and there is an adamant refusal to object to how things are actually carried out in an Orthodox context, retreating instead to irrelevant diatribes about "Roman Catholics" and what it means to them.

ROCA aside, why is the Sacred Heart rejected by the majority of your Antiochian priests?    Are they simply ignorant men who have no idea of its patristic base?

Is it rejected? I'd like to see something in writing, if you have it. I've corresponded with many Antiochian priests, and read most of the literature that has been made available (and some that hasn't) in regards to devotional/liturgical practices and I can't say that I've encountered any "rejections" as much as just...indifference.

Believe it or not, I fall into the latter category. I don't much care for the feast or the devotion, I'm just not opposed to it and recognize that it can be meaningful to many people if understood in its proper context. I'll defend it if for the simple fact that no one else around here will and lurking readers might find it beneficial to be exposed to the historical precedent for the devotion aside from "psychosexual" visions.

The attack on western women saints and mystics as psycho-sexual hysterics is a topic that I was introduced to by Women's Studies courses back when I was an arm-chair marxist, and the analysis was designed to destroy all that is good and holy about female monastic life in the west.   It is a post-modern idea and it is a sin and a shame that it is promoted on this Forum.

no, it's at least a renaissance idea
(http://www.italiannotebook.com/new/wp-content/uploads/beata2.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Blessed_Ludovica_Albertoni.jpg)

However I am a regular reader of another group that is promoting the acceptance of active homosexuals and same sex marriage in Orthodoxy, so I don't worry too much that y'all will come out unscathed.
oh, so that is where you get your "Orthodox" "experts."  No wonder your views are screwed up (btw, you may have noticed we have sympathizers to that agenda here.  You didn't have to bring in your anonymous "Orthodox experts."

Soon those who advocate for a strict heterosexual definition of marriage will be labeled the mentally ill, and you will have to fight to prove you are not.  Good luck with that.
That has already happened.  Where have you been?
:)
:)
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: ialmisry on August 26, 2011, 09:42:38 AM
The Sacred Prepuce is a physical object.
Oh, come now.

It was back around 4 BC. Now it's either not on earth or long decomposed.

Unless you trust the Syriac Infancy Gospel. But I'd rather not.

Things like this scandalize Christianity as a whole. And not in the "scandal of the cross" way.
It is truly absurd for (some) Orthodox to say that they will venerate the Sacred Prepuce, but at the same time they severely criticise the Catholic devotion to the Sacred Heart.
Not at all. The Sacred Prepuce was cut off. Was the Sacred Heart cut out?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: ialmisry on August 26, 2011, 09:47:39 AM
Quote
Honestly, I had a feeling you'd like this picture. One more piece of evidence your finding the Sacred Heart disgusting is just inconsistency.

Not quite sure what you're getting at here, Volnutt. It's a nice picture (certainly a far cry from the gross abuses of Lentz and his proteges), but it is still not an icon.
I'm just saying, both the EO and the RCC popular piety have the for all practical purposes the same gory fixations and I find it sad that Father Ambrose keeps bending over backwards to pretend there is a significant aesthetic difference.

Admittedly, I probably shouldn't be picking at this though since it really has nothing to do with the Traditional-ness of the Sacred Heart. Like biro, I'm just sick of all the chest beating is all.
odd choice of words
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-OKEZOXXqHtA/TheU83kYe-I/AAAAAAAAAI4/t4kCeD3Z_Ak/s1600/mary+and+jesus.jpg)
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: ialmisry on August 26, 2011, 09:50:07 AM
The Litany of the Sacred Autopsy.  Interesting.
You know, one problem wit the devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus is that God did not give it to His children in the Orthodox Church.  He gave it to the Roman Catholics through the visions of a Catholic nun some of which are frankly kind of psychosexual and orgasmic.  Not a few revelations through nuns have this sexual component.

I think that if God had wanted us to have it He would have given it to us and we would not be begging and borrowing it from the Catholics 400 years after they discovered it.

Since Western Rite ROCOR does not believe in the promotion of so-called sexually hysterical women or the Sacred Heart:  I surely hope they keep that sexually hysterical Nestorian Bernard of Clairvaux off their calendar because his prayers have inspired generations of 'sexually hysterical Nestorian' western saints:

Rhythmical Prayer to the Sacred Members
of Jesus Hanging on the Cross

        Ascribed to St. Bernard
        PART I
        TO THE FEET

        I  O Saviour of the world, I cry to Thee; O Saviour, suffering God, I worship Thee; O wounded beauteous Love, I kneel to Thee; Thou knowest, Lord, how I would follow Thee, If of Thyself Thou give Thyself to Me.

        II Thy Presence I Believe; O come to me! Behold me prostrate, Jesus; look on me! How beautiful Thou art! O turn to me! O in Thy tender mercy turn to me, And let Thy untold pity pardon me!

        III  With trembling love and feat I worship Thee; I kiss the grievous nails which entered Thee, And think on those dire wounds which tortured Thee, And, grieving, lift my weeping eyes to Thee, Transfixed and dying all for love of me!

        IV  O wondrous grace! O gracious charity! O love of sinners in such agony! Sweet Father of the poor! O who can be Unmoved to witness this great mystery,-- The Healer smitten, hanging on a tree?

        IV  O wondrous grace! O gracious charity! O love of sinners in such agony! Sweet Father of the poor! O who can be Unmoved to witness this great mystery,-- The Healer smitten, hanging on a tree?

        V  O gentle Jesus, turn Thee unto me; What i have broken do Thou bind in me, And what is crooked make Thou straight in me; What I have lost restore Thou unto me, And what is weak and sickly heal in me.

        VI  O Love! with all my strength I seek for Thee; Upon and in thy Cross I look for Thee; With sorrow and with hope I turn to Thee,-- That through Thy Blood new health may come to me, That washed therein Thy love may pardon me.

        VII   O take my heart, Thou Loved One; let it be Transfixed with those dear wounds for love of Thee, O wound it, Jesus, with pure love of Thee; And let it so be crucified with Thee, that it may be forever joined to Thee.

        VIII  Sweet Jesus, loving God, I cry to Thee; Thou guilty, yet I come for love of Thee; O show Thyself, dear Saviour, kind to me! Unworthy as I am, O turn to me, Nor at thy sacred Feet abandon me!

        IX   Dear Jesus, bathed in tears, I kneel to Thee; In shame and grief I lift my eyes to Thee; Prostrate before Thy Cross I bow to Thee, And thy dear Feet embrace; O look on me, Yea, from Thy Cross, O look, and pardon me.

        X  O my Beloved, stretched against that Thee, Whose arms divine are now enfolding me, whose gracious Heart is now upholding me,-- O my Beloved, let me wholly be Transformed, forgiven, one alone with Thee!

        PART II
        TO THE KNEES

        I   O Jesus, King of Saints, I worship Thee; O hope of sinners, hail! I rest on Thee; True God, true man, Thou hangest on the Tree Transfixed, with quivering flesh and shaking knees, A criminal esteemed,--I worship Thee.

        II  Alas, how poor, how naked, wilt Thou be! How hast Thou stript Thyself for love of me, How made Thyself a gazing-stock to be! Not forced, but, O my God! How willingly In all Thy limbs Thou sufferest on that Tree!

        III   Thy Precious Blood wells forth abundantly From all Thy open wounds incessantly; All bathed therein, O God, in agony Thou standest on the Cross of infamy, Awaiting the appointed hour to die.

        IV  O infinite, O wondrous majesty! O terrible, unheard-of poverty! Ah, who, returning so great charity, I willing, Jesus, thus to give for Thee His blood for Thine, in faithful love for Thee?

        V  O Jesus, how shall I, then, answer Thee, Who am so vile, and have not followed Thee? Or how repay the love that loveth me With such sublime, such awful charity Transfixed, from double death to set me free?

        VI  O Jesus, what Thy love hath been for me! O Jesus, death could never conquer Thee! Ah, with what loving care Thou keepest me Enfolded in Thine arms, lest I should be, By death of sin, a moment torn from Thee!

        VII  Behold, O Jesus, how for love of Thee, With all my soul I trembling cling to Thee, And Thy dear Knees embrace. O pity me! Thou knowest why--in pity bear with me, And overlook the shame that covers me!

        VIII  O let the Blood I worship flow on me, That what I do may never anger Thee; The Blood which flows at every pore from Thee Each imperfection may it wash from me, That I may undefiled and perfect be.

        IX   O force me, best Beloved, to draw to Thee, Transfixed and bleeding on the shameful Tree, Despised and stretched in dying agony! All my desire, O Lord, is fixed on Thee; O call me, then, and I will follow Thee.

        X   I have no other love, dear Lord, but Thee; Thou art my first and last; I cling to Thee. It is no labor, Lord; love sets me free; Then heal me, cleanse me, let me rest on Thee, For love is life, and life is love--in Thee.

        PART III
        TO THE HANDS

        I   Hail, holy Shepherd! Lord, I worship Thee, Fatigued with combat, steeped in misery; Whose sacred Hands, outstretched in agony, All pierced and dislocated on the Tree, Are fastened to the wood of infamy.

        II   Dear holy Hands, I humbly worship ye, With roses filled, fresh blossoms of that Tree; The cruel iron enters into ye, While open gashes yield unceasingly The Precious stream down-dropping from the Tree.

        III   Behold, Thy Blood, O Jesus, flows on me-- The price of my salvation falls on me; O ruddy as the rose, it drops on me. Sweet Precious Blood, it wells abundantly From both Thy sacred Hands to set me free.

        IV   My heart leaps up, O Jesus, unto Thee; Drawn by those nail-pierced Hands it flies to Thee; Drawn by those Blood-stained Hands stretched out for me, My soul breaks out with sighing unto Thee, And longs to slake its thirst, O Love, in Thee.

        V   My God, what great stupendous charity-- Both good and bad are welcomed here by Thee! The slothful heart Thou drawest graciously, The loving one Thou callest tenderly, And unto all a pardon grantest free.

        VI   Behold, I now present myself to Thee, Who dost present thy bleeding Hands to me; The sick Thou healest when they come to Thee; Thou canst not, therefore, turn away from me, Whose love Thou knowest, Lord, is all for Thee.

        VII   O my Beloved, fastened to the Tree, Draw, by Thy love, my senses unto Thee; My will, my intellect, my memory, And all I am, make subject unto Thee, In whose dear arms alone is liberty.

        VIII   O draw me for Thy Cross' sake to Thee; O draw me for Thy so wide charity; Sweet Jesus, draw my heart in truth to Thee, O put an end to all my misery, And crown me with Thy Cross and victory!

        IX   O Jesus, place Thy sacred Hands on me, With transport let me kiss them tenderly, With groans and tears embrace them fervently; And, O for these deep wounds I worship Thee; And for hte blessed drops that fall on me!

        X   O dearest Jesus, I commend to Thee Myself, and all I am, most perfectly; Bathed in Thy Blood, behold, I live for Thee; O, may Thy blessed Hands encompass me, And in extremity deliver me!

        PART IV
        TO THE SIDE

        I   O Jesus, highest Good, I yearn for Thee; O Jesus, merciful, I hope in Thee, Whose sacred Body hands upon the Tree, Whose limbs, all dislocated painfully, Are stretched in torture, all for love of me!

        II   Hail, sacred Side of Jesus! Verily The hidden spring of mercy lies in Thee, The source of honeyed sweetness dwells in Thee, The fountain of redemption flows from Thee, The secret well of love that cleanses me.

        III   Behold, O King of Love, I draw to Thee; If I am wrong, O Jesus, pardon me; Thy love, Beloved, calls me lovingly, As I with blushing cheek gaze willingly Upon the living wound that bleeds for me.

        IV   O gentle opening, I worship Thee; O open door and deep, I look in Thee; O most pure stream, I gaze and gaze on Thee: More ruddy than the rose, I draw to Thee; More healing than all health, I fly to Thee.

        V   More sweet than wine Thine odor is for me; The poisoned breath of sin it drives from me; Thou art the draught of life poured out for me. O ye who thirst, come, drink thereof with me; And Thou, sweet wound, O open unto me.

        VI   O red wound open, let me draw to Thee, And let my throbbing heart be filled from Thee! Ah, see! My heart, Beloved, faints for Thee. O my Beloved, open unto me, That I may pass and lose myself in Thee.

        VII   Lord, with my mouth I touch and worship Thee, With all the strength I have I cling to Thee, With all my love I plunge my heart in Thee, My very life-blood would I drawn from Thee,-- O Jesus, Jesus! Draw me into Thee!

        VIII   How Sweet Thy savor is! Who tastes of Thee, O Jesus Christ, can relish naught but Thee; Who tastes Thy living sweetness lives by Thee; All else is void--the soul must die for Thee; So faints my heart,--so would I die for thee.

        IX   I languish, Lord! O let me hide in Thee! In Thy sweet Side, my Love, O bury me! And may the fire divine consuming Thee Burn in my heart where it lies hid in Thee, Without a fear reposing peacefully!

        X   When in the hour of death Thou callest me, O Love of loves, may my soul enter Thee; May my last breath, O Jesus fly to Thee; So no fierce beast may drive my heart from Thee, But in Thy Side may it remain with Thee!

        PART V
        TO THE BREAST

        I   O God of my salvation, hail to Thee! O Jesus, sweetest Love, all hail to Thee! O venerable Breast, I worship Thee; O dwelling-place of love, I fly to Thee, With trembling touch adore and worship Thee.

        II   Hail, throne of the Most Holy Trinity! Hail, ark immense of tender charity! Thou stay of weakness and infirmity, Sweet rest of weary souls who rest on Thee, Dear couch of loving ones who lean on Thee!

        III   With reverence, O Love, I kneel to Thee, O worthy to be ever sought by me; Behold me, Jesus, looking unto Thee. O, set my heart on fire, dear Love, from Thee, And burn it in the flame that burns in Thee.

        IV   O make my breast a precious home for thee, A furnace of sweet love and purity, A well of holy grief and piety; Deny my will, conform it unto Thee, That grace abundant may be mine in Thee.

        V   Sweet Jesus, loving Shepherd, come to me; Dear Son of God and Mary, come to me; Kind Father come, let Thy Heart pity me, And cleanse the fountain of my misery In that great fountain of Thy clemency.

        VI   Hail, fruitful splendor of the Deity! Hail, fruitful figure of Divinity! From the full treasure of Thy charity, O pour some gift in Thy benignity Upon the desolate who cry to Thee!

        VII   Dear Breast of most sweet Jesus, mine would be All Thine in its entire conformity; Absolve it from all sin, and set it free, That it may burn with ardent charity, And never, never cease to think on Thee.

        VIII   Abyss of wisdom from eternity, The harmonies of angels worship Thee; Entrancing sweetness flows, O Breast, from thee; John tasted it as he lay rapt on Thee; O grant me thus that I may dwell in Thee!

        IX   Hail, fountain deep of God's benignity! The fullness of the immense Divinity Hath found at last a creature home in Thee. Ah, may the counsel that I learn from Thee All imperfection purify in me!

        X   True temple of the Godhead, hail to Thee! O draw me in Thy gracious charity, Thou ark of goodness, full of grace for me. Great God of all, have mercy upon me, And on Thy right hand keep a place for me.

        PART VI
        TO THE FACE

        I   Hail, bleeding Head of Jesus, hail to Thee! Thou thorn-crowned Head, I humbly worship Thee! O wounded Head, I lift my hands to Thee; O lovely Face besmeared, I gaze on Thee; O bruised and livid Face, look down on me!

        II   Hail, beauteous Face of Jesus, bent on me, Whom angel choirs adore exultantly! Hail, sweetest Face of Jesus, bruised for me-- Hail, Holy One, whose glorious Face for me Is shorn of beauty on that fatal Tree!

        III   All strength, all freshness, is gone forth from Thee: What wonder! Hath not God afflicted Thee, And is not death himself approaching Thee? O Love! But death hath laid his touch on Thee, And faint and broken features turn to me.

        IV   O have they thus maltreated Thee, my own? O have they Thy sweet Face despised, my own? And all for my unworthy sake, my own! O in Thy beauty turn to me, my own; O turn one look of love on me, my own!

        V   In this Thy Passion, Lord, remember me; In this Thy pain, O Love, acknowledge me; The honey of whose lips was shed on me, The milk of whose delights hath strengthened me Whose sweetness is beyond delight for me!

        VI   Despise me not, O Love; I long for Thee; Contemn me not, unworthy though I be; But now that death is fast approaching Thee, Incline Thy Head, my Love, my Love, to me, To these poor arms, and let it rest on me!

        VII   The holy Passion I would share with Thee, And in Thy dying love rejoice with Thee; Content if by this Cross I die with Thee; Content, Thou knowest, Lord, how willingly Where I have lived to die for love of Thee.

        VIII   For this Thy bitter death all thanks to Thee, Dear Jesus, and Thy wondrous love for me! O gracious God, so merciful to me, Do as Thy guilty one entreateth Thee, And at the end let me be found with Thee!

        IX   When from this life, O Love, Thou callest me, Then, Jesus, be not wanting unto me, But in the dreadful hour of agony, O hasten, Lord, and be Thou nigh to me, Defend, protect, and O deliver me.

        X   When Thou, O God, shalt bid my soul be free, Then, dearest Jesus, show Thyself to me! O condescend to show Thyself to me,-- Upon Thy saving Cross, dear Lord, to me,-- And let me die, my Lord, embracing Thee!

        PART VII
        TO THE SACRED HEART

        I   Hail, sacred Heart of God's great Majesty! Hail, sweetest Heart, my heart saluteth Thee! With great desire, O Heart, I seek for Thee, And faint for joy, O Heart, embracing Thee; Then give me leave, O Love, to speak to Thee.

        II   With what sweet love Thou languishedst for me! What pain and torment was that love to Thee! How didst Thou all Thyself exhaust for me! How hast Thou wholly given Thyself to me, That death no longer might have hold of me!

        III   O bitter death and cruel! Can it be Thou darest so to enter greedily Into that cell divine? O can it be The Life of life, that lives there gloriously, Should feel thy bite, O death, and yield to thee?

        IV   For Thy death's sake which Thou didst bear for me, When Thou, O sweetest Heart, didst faint for me, O Heart most precious in its agony, See how I yearn, and longing turn to Thee! Yield to my love, and draw me unto Thee!

        V   O sacred Heart, beloved most tenderly, Cleanse Thou my own; more worthy let it be, All hardened as it is with vanity; O make it tender, loving, fearing Thee, And all its icy coldness drive from me.

        VI   O sinner as I am, I come to Thee; My very vitals throb and call for Thee; O Love, sweet love, draw hither unto me! O Heart of Love, my heart would ravished be, And sicken with the wound of love for Thee!

        VII   ilate and open, Heart of love, for me, And like a rose of wondrous fragrance be, Sweet Heart of love, united unto me; Anoint and pierce my heart, O Love, with Thee, How can he suffer, Lord, who loveth Thee?

        VIII   O Heart of Love, who vanquished is by Thee Knows nothing, but beside himself must be; No bounds are set to that sweet liberty, No moderation,--he must fly to Thee, Or die he must of many deaths for Thee.

        IX   My living heart, O Love, cries out for Thee; With all its strength, O Love, my soul loves Thee; O Heart of Love, incline Thou unto me, That I with burning love may turn to Thee, And with devoted breast recline on Thee!

        X   In that sweet furnace let me live for Thee, Nor let the sleep of sloth encumber me; O let me sing to Thee and weep to Thee, Adore, and magnify, and honor Thee, And always take my full delight in Thee.

        XI   Thou Rose of wondrous fragrance, open wide, And bring my heart into Thy wounded Side, O sweet heart, open! Draw Thy loving bride, All panting with desires intensified, And satisfy her love unsatisfied.

        XII   Unite my heart, O Jesus, unto Thine, And let Thy wounded love be found in mine. Ah, if my heart, dear love, be made like Thine O will it not be pierced with darts divine, the sweet reproach of love that thrills through Thine?

        XIII   O Jesus, draw my heart within Thy Breast, That it may be by Thee alone possessed. O Love, in that sweet pain it would find rest, In that entrancing sorrow would be blest, And love itself in joy upon Thy Breast.

        XIV   Behold, O Jesus, how it draws to Thee! O call it, that it may remain in Thee! See with what large desire it thirsts for Thee! Reprove it not, O Love; it loves but Thee: Then bid it live--by one sweet taste of Thee!


        ____________

        Reproduced from "Rhythmical Prayer to the Sacred Members of Jesus Hanging Upon the Cross," ascribed to St. Bernard, translated by Emily Mary Shapcote, found in "The Life of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" by St. Bonaventure, P.J. Kenedy and Sons (New York: 1881).

Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Iconodule on August 26, 2011, 09:53:38 AM
One ruling of the 1666 Council has been definitively overturned- the condemnation of the Old Rite.

I think this council did much more harm than good.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: LBK on August 26, 2011, 10:09:42 AM
no, it's at least a renaissance idea
(http://www.italiannotebook.com/new/wp-content/uploads/beata2.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Blessed_Ludovica_Albertoni.jpg)


Good grief! Is Blessed Ludovica dying, or having an orgasm?  :o :o Makes me all the more grateful for the dignity, stillness, gravitas and dispassion of good iconography.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: ialmisry on August 26, 2011, 10:17:45 AM
Good grief! Is Blessed Ludovica dying, or having an orgasm?  :o :o Makes me all the more grateful for the dignity, stillness, gravitas and dispassion of good iconography.
Well, the French do call it "the little death"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_petite_mort
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Deacon Lance on August 26, 2011, 05:57:13 PM
Good grief! Is Blessed Ludovica dying, or having an orgasm?  :o :o Makes me all the more grateful for the dignity, stillness, gravitas and dispassion of good iconography.

Bernini was trying to represent both death and spiritual ecstasy.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: primuspilus on August 26, 2011, 07:37:58 PM
Sacred Heart has always seemed creepy to me...I dunno.....

PP
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: recent convert on August 29, 2011, 10:13:41 AM
Sacred Heart has always seemed creepy to me...I dunno.....

PP
Yeah, while one can respect this practice among RCs as Christian sincerity it seems deeply problematic within Orthodoxy.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Andrew21091 on August 29, 2011, 11:52:20 AM
Sacred Heart has always seemed creepy to me...I dunno.....

PP
Yeah, while one can respect this practice among RCs as Christian sincerity it seems deeply problematic within Orthodoxy.

I'm skeptical. Yesterday after Liturgy I went to our parish bookstore which has a few copies of the St. Ambrose Prayer Book for sale (I go to an Eastern Rite Church by the way) and I reviewed the contents and the prayer book contains devotions to the Sacred Heart. It is an Orthodox Western Rite prayer book, edited by an Antiochian Orthodox priest in my city (from an Eastern Rite church). He has done this with the blessings of his bishops so if our hierarchs bless it, it must be ok.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: recent convert on August 29, 2011, 11:56:12 AM
Sacred Heart has always seemed creepy to me...I dunno.....

PP
Yeah, while one can respect this practice among RCs as Christian sincerity it seems deeply problematic within Orthodoxy.

I'm skeptical. Yesterday after Liturgy I went to our parish bookstore which has a few copies of the St. Ambrose Prayer Book for sale (I go to an Eastern Rite Church by the way) and I reviewed the contents and the prayer book contains devotions to the Sacred Heart. It is an Orthodox Western Rite prayer book, edited by an Antiochian Orthodox priest in my city (from an Eastern Rite church). He has done this with the blessings of his bishops so if our hierarchs bless it, it must be ok.
I think it is best  to avoid it. Again, I mean no denigration of  piety within the RCC.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: recent convert on August 29, 2011, 12:03:50 PM
Seeing this "sacred heart" idea  perhaps seeping into Orthodoxy, it makes me wonder if this is how things like depicting the Father & the Son interchangeably via the ancient of days within icons (which is "acceptable" as I learned on another thread & do not want to revive) come to be accepted tradtion. Examples like this seem that they should be easily rejected by any layerson who knows their faith basics but some high falutins feel otherwise & burdensome custom becomes inflicted on the laity.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Andrew21091 on August 30, 2011, 10:15:19 AM
Sacred Heart has always seemed creepy to me...I dunno.....

PP
Yeah, while one can respect this practice among RCs as Christian sincerity it seems deeply problematic within Orthodoxy.

I'm skeptical. Yesterday after Liturgy I went to our parish bookstore which has a few copies of the St. Ambrose Prayer Book for sale (I go to an Eastern Rite Church by the way) and I reviewed the contents and the prayer book contains devotions to the Sacred Heart. It is an Orthodox Western Rite prayer book, edited by an Antiochian Orthodox priest in my city (from an Eastern Rite church). He has done this with the blessings of his bishops so if our hierarchs bless it, it must be ok.
I think it is best  to avoid it. Again, I mean no denigration of  piety within the RCC.

You think its best. However, our Bishops don't seem to have a problem with it.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: primuspilus on August 30, 2011, 10:20:16 AM
Sacred Heart has always seemed creepy to me...I dunno.....

PP
Yeah, while one can respect this practice among RCs as Christian sincerity it seems deeply problematic within Orthodoxy.

I'm skeptical. Yesterday after Liturgy I went to our parish bookstore which has a few copies of the St. Ambrose Prayer Book for sale (I go to an Eastern Rite Church by the way) and I reviewed the contents and the prayer book contains devotions to the Sacred Heart. It is an Orthodox Western Rite prayer book, edited by an Antiochian Orthodox priest in my city (from an Eastern Rite church). He has done this with the blessings of his bishops so if our hierarchs bless it, it must be ok.
I think it is best  to avoid it. Again, I mean no denigration of  piety within the RCC.

You think its best. However, our Bishops don't seem to have a problem with it.

I understand that the bishops dont have a problem with it. I just find it very disturbing. Is that wrong?


PP
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on August 30, 2011, 10:23:53 AM
Sacred Heart has always seemed creepy to me...I dunno.....

PP
Yeah, while one can respect this practice among RCs as Christian sincerity it seems deeply problematic within Orthodoxy.

I'm skeptical. Yesterday after Liturgy I went to our parish bookstore which has a few copies of the St. Ambrose Prayer Book for sale (I go to an Eastern Rite Church by the way) and I reviewed the contents and the prayer book contains devotions to the Sacred Heart. It is an Orthodox Western Rite prayer book, edited by an Antiochian Orthodox priest in my city (from an Eastern Rite church). He has done this with the blessings of his bishops so if our hierarchs bless it, it must be ok.
I think it is best  to avoid it. Again, I mean no denigration of  piety within the RCC.

You think its best. However, our Bishops don't seem to have a problem with it.

I understand that the bishops dont have a problem with it. I just find it very disturbing. Is that wrong?


PP

What do you mean by "find it disturbing"...? 

I am just curious to see what you are "seeing" inside.

M.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: primuspilus on August 30, 2011, 10:30:40 AM
What do you mean by "find it disturbing"...? 

I am just curious to see what you are "seeing" inside.

M.


To me, who is just beginning to understand it all it just dosent look like other icons. I look at icons of Christ and the Virgin and it's the iconography of them as a whole. To venerate them in the fashion that the sacred heart shows it just...I dunno, looks and feels creepy.


PP
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on August 30, 2011, 10:38:17 AM


What do you mean by "find it disturbing"...?  

I am just curious to see what you are "seeing" inside.

M.

Quote
To me, who is just beginning to understand it all it just dosent look like other icons. I look at icons of Christ and the Virgin and it's the iconography of them as a whole. To venerate them in the fashion that the sacred heart shows it just...I dunno, looks and feels creepy.


PP

ahhh...that makes good sense to me.  I tend to be still very literal in my visual life of the mind so that I do not like those images that disturb you either.  I am more abstract with words but very literal with images.  

So I tend to ignore the images of the Sacred Heart and focus on the words of some of the prayers to the Sacred Heart...or no words at all, simply being mindful of the self-emptying of Jesus on the Cross and the literal piercing of his side/the lancing of his heart so that every drop poured out.  

That does not bother me if I don't think too hard on it, just know the reality and the gratitude that I owe to Him who came to save me.

A devotion to the Sacred Heart, to me, never means gazing upon images that disturb me.

But there are others who do not see that image literally and do not come to any distress over the contemplation of those images.  They also tend to be the kinds of people who can watch horror films and it doesn't bother them because there's a distance between them and the film that I can never manage to achieve.

M.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: primuspilus on August 30, 2011, 10:55:47 AM
Quote
That does not bother me if I don't think too hard on it, just know the reality and the gratitude that I owe to Him who came to save me

Good point

Quote
But there are others who do not see that image literally and do not come to any distress over the contemplation of those images.  They also tend to be the kinds of people who can watch horror films and it doesn't bother them because there's a distance between them and the film that I can never manage to achieve

Yep, thats me :)

I dunno. Maybe this is because of my inexperience but I dont understand the purpose of it....


PP
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Alpo on August 30, 2011, 10:58:37 AM
He has done this with the blessings of his bishops so if our hierarchs bless it, it must be ok.

Hierarchs are not infallible. For example the synod of Florence was accepted by quite a number of hierarchs.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: recent convert on August 30, 2011, 11:01:56 AM
Things can get confusing for us ordinary lay types. I remember reading an overview of Thomas A Kempis': Imitation of Christ on a Catholic site & his work struck me as probably one that could be beneficial for any Christian & although I have not read it, my understanding was to agree (& that is how I feel personally about it too). Then I read that St. Ignatius Brinchaninov says this work is an expression of prelest so I think, "ok, just leave it alone but feel no need to judge it" (& still feel that way).

The sacred heart concept never seemed to even occur in Orthodoxy from where I understand it developed from the vision of a late 17th c. Catholic Nun and personally to me it does not seem deluded or anything but it does not seem like something done within Orthopraxis. So again, I think "no need to criticise it, judge it, etc. just let it be since it is outside the church (right???)" well maybe not?

So I guess I can leave it alone, keep a sunny dispostion towards it, & add to my personal bewilderement file & not worry about it.   ;)
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on August 30, 2011, 11:12:34 AM
Quote
That does not bother me if I don't think too hard on it, just know the reality and the gratitude that I owe to Him who came to save me

Good point

Quote
But there are others who do not see that image literally and do not come to any distress over the contemplation of those images.  They also tend to be the kinds of people who can watch horror films and it doesn't bother them because there's a distance between them and the film that I can never manage to achieve

Yep, thats me :)

I dunno. Maybe this is because of my inexperience but I dont understand the purpose of it....


PP

Is this a need to grasp things rationally, I see?... :)

Just kiddin'...

M.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on August 30, 2011, 11:17:13 AM
Things can get confusing for us ordinary lay types. I remember reading an overview of Thomas A Kempis': Imitation of Christ on a Catholic site & his work struck me as probably one that could be beneficial for any Christian & although I have not read it, my understanding was to agree (& that is how I feel personally about it too). Then I read that St. Ignatius Brinchaninov says this work is an expression of prelest so I think, "ok, just leave it alone but feel no need to judge it" (& still feel that way).

The sacred heart concept never seemed to even occur in Orthodoxy from where I understand it developed from the vision of a late 17th c. Catholic Nun and personally to me it does not seem deluded or anything but it does not seem like something done within Orthopraxis. So again, I think "no need to criticise it, judge it, etc. just let it be since it is outside the church (right???)" well maybe not?

So I guess I can leave it alone, keep a sunny dispostion towards it, & add to my personal bewilderement file & not worry about it.   ;)

I think this is a wonderful attitude.

Though your history of the devotion is foreshortened by many hundreds of years.  That is a tactic used to make the devotion look like hysterical female dementia at work...and thus the devotion is a product of such dementia.  It is an old marxist feminist trick picked up by some Orthodox critics of the Roman Catholic Religious Organization...or Vaticanists...pick your choice.

Also Poor Old Tom a Kempis was most likely NOT filled with prelest.  I won't read st. I. Brianchianinov on account of his own tendencies toward spiritual bloat... :)  He should have taken your attitude to heart and stuck to his own knittin'

M.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Melodist on August 30, 2011, 11:25:21 AM
But there are others who do not see that image literally and do not come to any distress over the contemplation of those images.

I've developed a tendency not to take religious imagery "literally". The image is trying to "say something" visually. Especially iconography. If I took all iconography "literally", then I would have to believe that the saints walked around with literally glowing heads, that Christ went His entire life with a literal glowing cruciform around His head with the name of God literally appearing in them, that mandorlas are a literal reality, and that the Theotokos gave birth to twins at the nativity just to name a few examples of extreme "literalism". That doesn't mean that these things don't depict reality, just that they are not a literal depiction.

I am personally more comfortable with the image of the Sacred Heart as an image of Christ's love for mankind than I am with the prayers and devotions that have been written. I have no interest at all in visions, promises, or indulgences that may or may not be associated with it. The image is there, it is meant to express something, so when I see the image, I try to see it for what the image itself is trying to say without really contemplating everything else that it seems so many other people have a tendency to attach to it.

Just a few thoughts.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: recent convert on August 30, 2011, 11:32:38 AM
Things can get confusing for us ordinary lay types. I remember reading an overview of Thomas A Kempis': Imitation of Christ on a Catholic site & his work struck me as probably one that could be beneficial for any Christian & although I have not read it, my understanding was to agree (& that is how I feel personally about it too). Then I read that St. Ignatius Brinchaninov says this work is an expression of prelest so I think, "ok, just leave it alone but feel no need to judge it" (& still feel that way).

The sacred heart concept never seemed to even occur in Orthodoxy from where I understand it developed from the vision of a late 17th c. Catholic Nun and personally to me it does not seem deluded or anything but it does not seem like something done within Orthopraxis. So again, I think "no need to criticise it, judge it, etc. just let it be since it is outside the church (right???)" well maybe not?

So I guess I can leave it alone, keep a sunny dispostion towards it, & add to my personal bewilderement file & not worry about it.   ;)

I think this is a wonderful attitude.

Though your history of the devotion is foreshortened by many hundreds of years.  That is a tactic used to make the devotion look like hysterical female dementia at work...and thus the devotion is a product of such dementia.  It is an old marxist feminist trick picked up by some Orthodox critics of the Roman Catholic Religious Organization...or Vaticanists...pick your choice.

Also Poor Old Tom a Kempis was most likely NOT filled with prelest.  I won't read st. I. Brianchianinov on account of his own tendencies toward spiritual bloat... :)  He should have taken your attitude to heart and stuck to his own knittin'

M.
I just want to clarify that I was not linking St. Ignatius Brianchaninov to the account of  the 17th c. nun whose vision allegedly confirmed the sacred heart that was supposedly devoted to for generations previous (no disrepect intended I just cannot affirm or deny these) and was making a comparison between 2 different matters outside the OC. The account of St. Ignatius Brianchaninov reaction to Kempis & the current casual acceptance of the sacred heart. Again, I try to remain cautious, a little confused, but definitely not stressed in any way. God bless.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on August 30, 2011, 11:35:06 AM
But there are others who do not see that image literally and do not come to any distress over the contemplation of those images.

I've developed a tendency not to take religious imagery "literally". The image is trying to "say something" visually. Especially iconography. If I took all iconography "literally", then I would have to believe that the saints walked around with literally glowing heads, that Christ went His entire life with a literal glowing cruciform around His head with the name of God literally appearing in them, that mandorlas are a literal reality, and that the Theotokos gave birth to twins at the nativity just to name a few examples of extreme "literalism". That doesn't mean that these things don't depict reality, just that they are not a literal depiction.

I am personally more comfortable with the image of the Sacred Heart as an image of Christ's love for mankind than I am with the prayers and devotions that have been written. I have no interest at all in visions, promises, or indulgences that may or may not be associated with it. The image is there, it is meant to express something, so when I see the image, I try to see it for what the image itself is trying to say without really contemplating everything else that it seems so many other people have a tendency to attach to it.

Just a few thoughts.

That is another way of looking at it.  I prefer the words and prayers and thoughts of the Holy Fathers and saints passed down to the images, even though there is an "image" of the "heart" of Jesus in my mind.  There is no one way of approaching a devotion.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on August 30, 2011, 11:36:44 AM
Things can get confusing for us ordinary lay types. I remember reading an overview of Thomas A Kempis': Imitation of Christ on a Catholic site & his work struck me as probably one that could be beneficial for any Christian & although I have not read it, my understanding was to agree (& that is how I feel personally about it too). Then I read that St. Ignatius Brinchaninov says this work is an expression of prelest so I think, "ok, just leave it alone but feel no need to judge it" (& still feel that way).

The sacred heart concept never seemed to even occur in Orthodoxy from where I understand it developed from the vision of a late 17th c. Catholic Nun and personally to me it does not seem deluded or anything but it does not seem like something done within Orthopraxis. So again, I think "no need to criticise it, judge it, etc. just let it be since it is outside the church (right???)" well maybe not?

So I guess I can leave it alone, keep a sunny dispostion towards it, & add to my personal bewilderement file & not worry about it.   ;)

I think this is a wonderful attitude.

Though your history of the devotion is foreshortened by many hundreds of years.  That is a tactic used to make the devotion look like hysterical female dementia at work...and thus the devotion is a product of such dementia.  It is an old marxist feminist trick picked up by some Orthodox critics of the Roman Catholic Religious Organization...or Vaticanists...pick your choice.

Also Poor Old Tom a Kempis was most likely NOT filled with prelest.  I won't read st. I. Brianchianinov on account of his own tendencies toward spiritual bloat... :)  He should have taken your attitude to heart and stuck to his own knittin'

M.
I just want to clarify that I was not linking St. Ignatius Brianchaninov to the account of  the 17th c. nun whose vision allegedly confirmed the sacred heart that was supposedly devoted to for generations previous (no disrepect intended I just cannot affirm or deny these) and was making a comparison between 2 different matters outside the OC. The account of St. Ignatius Brianchaninov reaction to Kempis & the current casual acceptance of the sacred heart. Again, I try to remain cautious, a little confused, but definitely not stressed in any way. God bless.

My words are strongly delivered but I was not pushing back at you personally. 

I think you are wise.  There should be no "casual" acceptance of any part of revealed truth!!

M.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: primuspilus on August 30, 2011, 11:50:34 AM
Quote
That does not bother me if I don't think too hard on it, just know the reality and the gratitude that I owe to Him who came to save me

Good point

Quote
But there are others who do not see that image literally and do not come to any distress over the contemplation of those images.  They also tend to be the kinds of people who can watch horror films and it doesn't bother them because there's a distance between them and the film that I can never manage to achieve

Yep, thats me :)

I dunno. Maybe this is because of my inexperience but I dont understand the purpose of it....


PP

Is this a need to grasp things rationally, I see?... :)

Just kiddin'...

M.
,

 :D :D :D :D

Considering the other conversation we have going at the moment, your statement was classic :)


PP
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on August 30, 2011, 11:53:56 AM
Quote
That does not bother me if I don't think too hard on it, just know the reality and the gratitude that I owe to Him who came to save me

Good point

Quote
But there are others who do not see that image literally and do not come to any distress over the contemplation of those images.  They also tend to be the kinds of people who can watch horror films and it doesn't bother them because there's a distance between them and the film that I can never manage to achieve

Yep, thats me :)

I dunno. Maybe this is because of my inexperience but I dont understand the purpose of it....


PP

Is this a need to grasp things rationally, I see?... :)

Just kiddin'...

M.
,

 :D :D :D :D

Considering the other conversation we have going at the moment, your statement was classic :)


PP

 ;D  Which is why I said I was kiddin'...Good kiddin' generally cuts both ways!!
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: primuspilus on August 30, 2011, 11:56:34 AM
Quote
Which is why I said I was kiddin'...Good kiddin' generally cuts both ways!!

Which it did, thanks. I dont get too many good laughs here at work :)

PP
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: recent convert on August 30, 2011, 11:59:49 AM
My words are strongly delivered but I was not pushing back at you personally.. ...  (elmjr #346) ... ...I did not think they were, I was just worried that i had misrepresented St. Ignatius Brianchaninov .
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on August 30, 2011, 12:02:03 PM
My words are strongly delivered but I was not pushing back at you personally.. ...  (elmjr #346) ... ...I did not think they were, I was just worried that i had misrepresented St. Ignatius Brianchaninov .

OK
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: ialmisry on August 30, 2011, 01:20:42 PM
Things can get confusing for us ordinary lay types. I remember reading an overview of Thomas A Kempis': Imitation of Christ on a Catholic site & his work struck me as probably one that could be beneficial for any Christian & although I have not read it, my understanding was to agree (& that is how I feel personally about it too). Then I read that St. Ignatius Brinchaninov says this work is an expression of prelest so I think, "ok, just leave it alone but feel no need to judge it" (& still feel that way).

The sacred heart concept never seemed to even occur in Orthodoxy from where I understand it developed from the vision of a late 17th c. Catholic Nun and personally to me it does not seem deluded or anything but it does not seem like something done within Orthopraxis. So again, I think "no need to criticise it, judge it, etc. just let it be since it is outside the church (right???)" well maybe not?

So I guess I can leave it alone, keep a sunny dispostion towards it, & add to my personal bewilderement file & not worry about it.   ;)

I think this is a wonderful attitude.

Though your history of the devotion is foreshortened by many hundreds of years.  That is a tactic used to make the devotion look like hysterical female dementia at work...and thus the devotion is a product of such dementia.  It is an old marxist feminist trick picked up by some Orthodox critics of the Roman Catholic Religious Organization...or Vaticanists...pick your choice.

Also Poor Old Tom a Kempis was most likely NOT filled with prelest.  I won't read st. I. Brianchianinov on account of his own tendencies toward spiritual bloat... :)  He should have taken your attitude to heart and stuck to his own knittin'

M.
I just want to clarify that I was not linking St. Ignatius Brianchaninov to the account of  the 17th c. nun whose vision allegedly confirmed the sacred heart that was supposedly devoted to for generations previous (no disrepect intended I just cannot affirm or deny these) and was making a comparison between 2 different matters outside the OC. The account of St. Ignatius Brianchaninov reaction to Kempis & the current casual acceptance of the sacred heart. Again, I try to remain cautious, a little confused, but definitely not stressed in any way. God bless.

My words are strongly delivered but I was not pushing back at you personally. 

I think you are wise.  There should be no "casual" acceptance of any part of revealed truth!!
what about a casual acceptance of an unrevealed lie?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: ialmisry on August 30, 2011, 01:24:35 PM
Sacred Heart has always seemed creepy to me...I dunno.....

PP
Yeah, while one can respect this practice among RCs as Christian sincerity it seems deeply problematic within Orthodoxy.

I'm skeptical. Yesterday after Liturgy I went to our parish bookstore which has a few copies of the St. Ambrose Prayer Book for sale (I go to an Eastern Rite Church by the way) and I reviewed the contents and the prayer book contains devotions to the Sacred Heart. It is an Orthodox Western Rite prayer book, edited by an Antiochian Orthodox priest in my city (from an Eastern Rite church). He has done this with the blessings of his bishops so if our hierarchs bless it, it must be ok.
I think it is best  to avoid it. Again, I mean no denigration of  piety within the RCC.

You think its best. However, our Bishops don't seem to have a problem with it.

I understand that the bishops dont have a problem with it. I just find it very disturbing. Is that wrong?
That it is disturbing, yes. That you find it disturbing, no.  That an Orthodox bishop would find nothing disturbing about it, that's a disturbing problem.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: primuspilus on August 30, 2011, 01:28:49 PM
That it is disturbing, yes. That you find it disturbing, no.  That an Orthodox bishop would find nothing disturbing about it, that's a disturbing problem.
That is disturbing  ;)

PP
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on August 30, 2011, 04:23:53 PM
That it is disturbing, yes. That you find it disturbing, no.  That an Orthodox bishop would find nothing disturbing about it, that's a disturbing problem.
That is disturbing  ;)

PP

It is not at all disturbing to me.  I think it is a good idea for Orthodox bishops to correct the excesses of the laity, like Isa.  Once we have resumed communion there will be even more corrections on both sides.  I don't expect Isa to agree with any of it... :laugh:

M.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Deacon Lance on August 30, 2011, 04:56:51 PM
Sacred Heart has always seemed creepy to me...I dunno.....

PP

I'll try this again in case you missed it.

From a booklet I was given by Sister Julia my 3rd Grade religion teacher, (you have to imagine simple drawings accompanying the words):

"A Heart means Love.
Two hearts together mean friendship.
The best friend in all the world is Jesus.  He is better than any friend who ever was or ever will be.
He always listens.  He always understands.  He always cares.  
He is never too busy.  He never grows tired.  He never goes away.
The Heart of Jesus is all burning with love for people: for you, for me, for everybody.  
That is why it is surrounded by flames.
To save us from sin and to reopen Heaven for us, so that we might be happy, Jesus gladly suffered and died on the Cross.
That is wht there is a Cross on His Heart.
To show us that He was not keeping anything for Himself, not even one drop of blood, He let His Heart be pierced by a lance.
That is why there is a big wound in His Sacred Heart.
There never was and there never will be anyone who loves us as much as Jesus loves us.
But there are people who forget these things.
They turn their backs on Jesus.  They never talk to Jesus.  They never do things to please Jesus.
This is ingratitude.  It is a black, cruel crown of thorns all around the Heart of Jesus.
Behold the Heart that has loved people so much that it has exhausted itself to prove its love,
and in return most people give it only ingratitude.
Jesus!  Look!
I do not want to be ungratefull.  I love you.
I want to think of You and talk to You and do things to please you always,
so that my heart will be close to your Heart and we will be friends.
Always."

And even at eight years old I understood the Sacred Heart was a symbol for Christ and His divine love for us, not a seperated piece of him.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Deacon Lance on August 30, 2011, 05:06:26 PM
Good background and explanation:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07163a.htm
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: FatherGiryus on August 30, 2011, 05:22:49 PM
I had an equally troubled reaction to the 'news' from one of my cousins that said I was related to an RC saint canonized for founding the "Society of the Sacred Heart" in the mid-19th century.  You never know what your genealogist will dig up.  I was really hoping for a martyr, but my ancestors had a habit of surviving wars...  ;)

Sacred Heart has always seemed creepy to me...I dunno.....

PP
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on August 30, 2011, 06:02:31 PM
I had an equally troubled reaction to the 'news' from one of my cousins that said I was related to an RC saint canonized for founding the "Society of the Sacred Heart" in the mid-19th century.  You never know what your genealogist will dig up.  I was really hoping for a martyr, but my ancestors had a habit of surviving wars...  ;)

Sacred Heart has always seemed creepy to me...I dunno.....

PP

St. Madeleine Sophie Barat in 1800

I think it is: meet

 :)
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: FatherGiryus on August 30, 2011, 07:15:31 PM
If she knew what her nieces and nephews were up to in New Orleans, I don't think she'd agree, Mary.

I'd say she'd darn well disapprove.  There's a lot of swamp water in my veins...



I had an equally troubled reaction to the 'news' from one of my cousins that said I was related to an RC saint canonized for founding the "Society of the Sacred Heart" in the mid-19th century.  You never know what your genealogist will dig up.  I was really hoping for a martyr, but my ancestors had a habit of surviving wars...  ;)

Sacred Heart has always seemed creepy to me...I dunno.....

PP

St. Madeleine Sophie Barat in 1800

I think it is: meet

 :)
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on August 30, 2011, 08:00:16 PM
I dunno...She might surprise you!!


If she knew what her nieces and nephews were up to in New Orleans, I don't think she'd agree, Mary.

I'd say she'd darn well disapprove.  There's a lot of swamp water in my veins...



I had an equally troubled reaction to the 'news' from one of my cousins that said I was related to an RC saint canonized for founding the "Society of the Sacred Heart" in the mid-19th century.  You never know what your genealogist will dig up.  I was really hoping for a martyr, but my ancestors had a habit of surviving wars...  ;)

Sacred Heart has always seemed creepy to me...I dunno.....

PP

St. Madeleine Sophie Barat in 1800

I think it is: meet

 :)
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Andrew21091 on September 04, 2011, 02:29:08 AM
He has done this with the blessings of his bishops so if our hierarchs bless it, it must be ok.

Hierarchs are not infallible. For example the synod of Florence was accepted by quite a number of hierarchs.

By this logic then, are we to ever trust our hierarchs?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: akimori makoto on September 04, 2011, 02:47:53 AM
He has done this with the blessings of his bishops so if our hierarchs bless it, it must be ok.

Hierarchs are not infallible. For example the synod of Florence was accepted by quite a number of hierarchs.

By this logic then, are we to ever trust our hierarchs?

Yes, we are to trust them in everything except heresy.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Alpo on September 04, 2011, 07:31:01 AM
He has done this with the blessings of his bishops so if our hierarchs bless it, it must be ok.

Hierarchs are not infallible. For example the synod of Florence was accepted by quite a number of hierarchs.

By this logic then, are we to ever trust our hierarchs?

Yes, we are to trust them in everything except heresy.

That's more or less what I think. We should also obey them in those cases when we think that their orders are misguided but not an actual heresy.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Andrew21091 on September 04, 2011, 12:39:01 PM
He has done this with the blessings of his bishops so if our hierarchs bless it, it must be ok.

Hierarchs are not infallible. For example the synod of Florence was accepted by quite a number of hierarchs.

By this logic then, are we to ever trust our hierarchs?

Yes, we are to trust them in everything except heresy.

That's more or less what I think. We should also obey them in those cases when we think that their orders are misguided but not an actual heresy.

How are we as lay people to judge whether or not our bishops are in heresy?

The council of Florence is different because it wasn't declared by lay people as heretical but by a bishop. St. Mark called out his fellow bishops that union shouldn't happen and then he was able to draw the Orthodox bishops back and not enter into union with Rome. I can see how a bishop can call out other bishops of heresy but I don't think lay people have such authority, or discernment.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 04, 2011, 12:48:45 PM
He has done this with the blessings of his bishops so if our hierarchs bless it, it must be ok.

Hierarchs are not infallible. For example the synod of Florence was accepted by quite a number of hierarchs.

By this logic then, are we to ever trust our hierarchs?

Yes, we are to trust them in everything except heresy.

That's more or less what I think. We should also obey them in those cases when we think that their orders are misguided but not an actual heresy.

How are we as lay people to judge whether or not our bishops are in heresy?

The council of Florence is different because it wasn't declared by lay people as heretical but by a bishop. St. Mark called out his fellow bishops that union shouldn't happen and then he was able to draw the Orthodox bishops back and not enter into union with Rome. I can see how a bishop can call out other bishops of heresy but I don't think lay people have such authority, or discernment.

Given what I know of the unusual leadership style of your Primate in the States, I can understand why you would write that but it is not like that in other Churches.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: akimori makoto on September 04, 2011, 05:36:00 PM
He has done this with the blessings of his bishops so if our hierarchs bless it, it must be ok.

Hierarchs are not infallible. For example the synod of Florence was accepted by quite a number of hierarchs.

By this logic then, are we to ever trust our hierarchs?

Yes, we are to trust them in everything except heresy.

That's more or less what I think. We should also obey them in those cases when we think that their orders are misguided but not an actual heresy.

How are we as lay people to judge whether or not our bishops are in heresy?

The council of Florence is different because it wasn't declared by lay people as heretical but by a bishop. St. Mark called out his fellow bishops that union shouldn't happen and then he was able to draw the Orthodox bishops back and not enter into union with Rome. I can see how a bishop can call out other bishops of heresy but I don't think lay people have such authority, or discernment.

Fair call, but the laity still needed to exercise their discernment as to which bishop to trust/obey: they were certainly not all within St Mark's diocese.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: ialmisry on September 04, 2011, 06:14:06 PM
He has done this with the blessings of his bishops so if our hierarchs bless it, it must be ok.

Hierarchs are not infallible. For example the synod of Florence was accepted by quite a number of hierarchs.

By this logic then, are we to ever trust our hierarchs?

Yes, we are to trust them in everything except heresy.

That's more or less what I think. We should also obey them in those cases when we think that their orders are misguided but not an actual heresy.

How are we as lay people to judge whether or not our bishops are in heresy?

The council of Florence is different because it wasn't declared by lay people as heretical but by a bishop. St. Mark called out his fellow bishops that union shouldn't happen and then he was able to draw the Orthodox bishops back and not enter into union with Rome. I can see how a bishop can call out other bishops of heresy but I don't think lay people have such authority, or discernment.
Sure they do. The Moldavians, for instance, deposed their Metropolitan for even going to Florence, and the Czar/Grand Duke of Moscow deposed the Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus' for trying to impose it.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Alpo on September 04, 2011, 06:29:25 PM
How are we as lay people to judge whether or not our bishops are in heresy?  

In these days when just about every aspect of Orthodoxy is rather settled it's not that hard. We might argue about toll houses and canons but we have overall agreement about basic doctrines.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Fr.Aidan on September 19, 2011, 04:19:25 PM
To reply to Alpo, our trust of our hierarchs can and must be conditional on their adherence to the essentials of Orthodox belief, practice, and conduct. Otherwise, how are we different from Roman Catholics trusting unconditionally in their Pope?

This does not mean that we are constantly scrutinising our hierarchs to see if they ever made a bad decision, stated something wrongly, or did something dubious. But flagrant departures from Orthodoxy on a bishop's part, should be answered with a transfer in jurisdiction on the clergy's and people's part. For example, if your Patriarch and all his bishops were to go into communion with the Roman Catholic church or the Oriental "orthodox" church, it would be your duty before God to leave them and locate a real Orthodox Bishop, no? Apostasy is apostasy.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Prufrock on September 19, 2011, 05:00:56 PM
How are we as lay people to judge whether or not our bishops are in heresy?

The council of Florence is different because it wasn't declared by lay people as heretical but by a bishop. St. Mark called out his fellow bishops that union shouldn't happen and then he was able to draw the Orthodox bishops back and not enter into union with Rome. I can see how a bishop can call out other bishops of heresy but I don't think lay people have such authority, or discernment.

"Moreover, neither Patriarchs nor Councils could then have introduced novelties amongst us, because the protector of religion is the very body of the Church, even the people themselves, who desire their religious worship to be ever unchanged and of the same kind as that of their fathers"

From the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848: http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx (http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx)
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: TheodoraElizabeth3 on September 19, 2011, 07:12:26 PM

I'm skeptical. Yesterday after Liturgy I went to our parish bookstore which has a few copies of the St. Ambrose Prayer Book for sale (I go to an Eastern Rite Church by the way) and I reviewed the contents and the prayer book contains devotions to the Sacred Heart. It is an Orthodox Western Rite prayer book, edited by an Antiochian Orthodox priest in my city (from an Eastern Rite church). He has done this with the blessings of his bishops so if our hierarchs bless it, it must be ok.

I grew up Catholic and always thought the Sacred Heart statues were weird. I never really knew what it was about.

Anyway, I went poking around on the net yesterday as I've been doing some reading into the Western Rite as I wanted to learn more. I found this about the St. Ambrose Prayer Book:

http://www.andrewespress.com/ambrose_prayer.pdf (http://www.andrewespress.com/ambrose_prayer.pdf)

It has comments specifically on the Sacred Heart, at the bottom of the page on the first column, continuing into the second column.

I did end up ordering the Prayer Book, as I'm always interested in Liturgy - raised RC, spent time with the Episcopalians in Anglo-Catholic parishes, and now Orthodox. I saw a Western Rite Liturgy once (it was at a special event, as there are no WR parishes near me). It was rather interesting. Reminded me much of Mass when I was a child. Not sure about the music, though, as I rather love the Russian stuff. It will be interesting to sit down with the prayer book when it arrives.

Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Fr.Aidan on September 19, 2011, 09:51:59 PM
The St. Ambrose prayer book does not have an official endorsement from any Orthodox hierarchy. Therefore it may contain piety or impiety, Orthodoxy or heresy, truth or error.

There is an Orthodox prayer book which has been blessed for use by lawful Orthodox church authority, and its name is "Orthodox Prayers of Old England" (OPOE). Blessed for usage within the Russian Orthodox Church in September 2008, OPOE remains the most comprehensive Western rite prayer book ever published.

It does not contain the Sacred Heart error, nor the problematical "Stations of the Cross." There is an older devotion in it, called the "Salutations Before the Holy Cross." It is somewhat similar to the modern Roman-Catholic Stations of the Cross, in that it focuses on the cross and the passion of Christ, but it is less systematic, including psalms, versicles, with no very definite progression or program. I have heard from a number of people who really like the Salutations Before the Holy Cross.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Fr.Aidan on September 23, 2011, 08:16:25 PM
The whole point of the creepy devotion was clearly, from the beginning, to worship the actual, separate body part of the Heart of Jesus Christ. This is crystal clear when you read all of the original documents, devotional materials, and of course the creepy visions of the poor deranged heretic-woman who created the whole devotion.

(No, there was NO such devotion to the Heart of Jesus prior to the poor demented lady's ravings. That's just Roman Catholic propaganda, which is not binding, typically, upon the Orthodox.)

It's just creepy and no Orthodox person should be caught dead engaging in this devotion.

To repeat, the St. Ambrose prayer book is not an official publication of any Orthodox body, and therefore does not provide an indication for the consciences of the faithful on this weird topic.

You could recast the whole devotion into a new light, creating a sort of totally-altered, neo-Sacred Heart devotion, as many have done, but that leads to the question: Why not just drop it? Western Orthodoxy never had it. Eastern Orthodoxy never had it. Neither of them ever needed it. It's not necessary for sanctity, it's not recommended by a single Saint... why not just let it go? Why let such manifestations of mental illness cause division and perturbance among the faithful, to no good purpose?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Sleeper on September 23, 2011, 09:37:21 PM
The whole point of the creepy devotion was clearly, from the beginning, to worship the actual, separate body part of the Heart of Jesus Christ. This is crystal clear when you read all of the original documents, devotional materials, and of course the creepy visions of the poor deranged heretic-woman who created the whole devotion.

Genetic Fallacy: The genetic fallacy is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context. The fallacy therefore fails to assess the claim on its merit. The first criterion of a good argument is that the premises must have bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim in question. -Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments (Third Edition) by T. Edward Damer, chapter II, subsection "The Relevance Criterion" (pg. 12)

Quote
(No, there was NO such devotion to the Heart of Jesus prior to the poor demented lady's ravings.

Sure there was. History is not propaganda.

Quote
It's just creepy and no Orthodox person should be caught dead engaging in this devotion.

*Grabs beautiful St. Ambrose Prayer Book, prays devotion, remains in good standing with Orthodox Church, causes no division whatsoever*

Quote
To repeat, the St. Ambrose prayer book is not an official publication of any Orthodox body, and therefore does not provide an indication for the consciences of the faithful on this weird topic.

No, but this is:  Metropolitan Antony issued his Edict of August, 1958, in which he set forth the general and provisional basis for establishing Western rite parishes within his Archdiocese. The Edict’s stipulations were:

1. All converts to the Church must accept the full Orthodox doctrine of Faith.
2. Parishes and larger units received into the Archdiocese retain the use of all Western rites, devotions, and customs which are not contrary to the Orthodox Faith and are logically derived from a Western usage antedating the Schism of 1054.

Now, whether or not the Sacred Heart meets this criteria is up for debate (which is what this thread is about) of course, but it's important to understand why Western Rite parishes might continue to use the devotion and feast, which brings up larger issues of unity and reunion and ecumenism, etc.

And this seems to be a major difference between the approaches of Russia and Antioch. In Antioch, the Western Rite is an example of what a living Western expression might look like were reunion to ever happen with Eastern Orthodoxy. Only whole parishes could come into the Antiochian Archdiocese, and it was a movement of pure ecumenism, not idealism. They took living, breathing Western Christians and united them to the Orthodox Church whilst retaining as much of their communal, customary, liturgical life intact as possible. What would really happen with these types of devotions and feasts that are "post-Schism" if Rome and Orthodoxy reunited? Does anyone really think that 1.2 billion Roman Catholic Christians are going to throw the last 1,000 years of their history into the trash heap to try and "reclaim" some lost golden age of "Western Orthodoxy"? It will never, ever happen if that's what it would take. Thank God Antioch has vision and we can see what a reunited Western patrimony might look like in her Western Rite parishes.

Quote
You could recast the whole devotion into a new light, creating a sort of totally-altered, neo-Sacred Heart devotion, as many have done, but that leads to the question: Why not just drop it? Western Orthodoxy never had it. Eastern Orthodoxy never had it. Neither of them ever needed it. It's not necessary for sanctity, it's not recommended by a single Saint... why not just let it go? Why let such manifestations of mental illness cause division and perturbance among the faithful, to no good purpose?

Unfortunately, it will probably never make sense to you until you drop your sectarian narrative, which we both know is likely never going to happen.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: witega on September 24, 2011, 01:13:03 AM
*Grabs beautiful St. Ambrose Prayer Book, prays devotion, remains in good standing with Orthodox Church, causes no division whatsoever*

Actually, as this thread alone has repeatedly demonstrated, you have just scandalized a number of your fellow Orthodox. It's your business if you think it's worth doing anyway, but you can't honestly pretend that you don't realize you are causing a scandal among certain of your brethren.

Quote
2. Parishes and larger units received into the Archdiocese retain the use of all Western rites, devotions, and customs which are not contrary to the Orthodox Faith and are logically derived from a Western usage antedating the Schism of 1054.

Now, whether or not the Sacred Heart meets this criteria is up for debate (which is what this thread is about) of course,

As I pointed out earlier in the thread, the Roman Catholics themselves, when being serious and scholarly (like in the Catholic Encyclopedia) can't trace the devotion to anything or anyone predating the schism. If the above quote is the actual criterion, there's no actual debate.

Quote
Does anyone really think that 1.2 billion Roman Catholic Christians are going to throw the last 1,000 years of their history into the trash heap to try and "reclaim" some lost golden age of "Western Orthodoxy"? It will never, ever happen if that's what it would take. Thank God Antioch has vision and we can see what a reunited Western patrimony might look like in her Western Rite parishes.

No. The realistic among us don't think 1.2 billion Roman Catholics are as a corporate body ever going to reject their errors and humbly submit to the living Tradition of the Church. I can understand and even respect the optimists attempts' to make it happen anyway, but the evidence is that without the willingness to simply submit, true conversion remains a pipe-dream.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Fr.Aidan on September 24, 2011, 03:13:11 AM
I do not dare to find fault with the sincerity of any particular person praying this or any other devotion. I think love forbids that. But I will remark upon a few things.

First, to say that my opposition to the Sacred Heart devotion is an example of the genetic fallacy, is a position which leads to interesting places. That argument rests on the plank that the whole intent or gist of the modern Sacred Heart devotion is quite different from and opposed to the original, founding intent or gist. If that be so, then this devotion is most assuredly not going to fit in the category of things which logically developed from the Western Orthodox Patrimony. It implies that the Sacred Heart devotion was an aberration later transformed into acceptability through "damage control" which altered its character in a thoroughgoing manner. If bizarre sexual visions of a mentally ill heretic-woman, with their absurd content, involving horrific self-mutilation (the carving of large, deep, bloody letters into her bosoms with a knife) is "logical" development, I posit that illogical development cannot exist. It doesn't get any more illogical than that. Remember, this devotion was profoundly shocking, disturbing, and controversial to Roman Catholics themselves, including to one of their best Popes, and that's how things stood for a very long time.

Furthermore, Sleeper, would you not advocate exclusion from Orthodoxy of devotions from other religions, even if later retro-fitted for Orthodox minimum requirements? Surely you would not advocate the importation into Orthodoxy of entire Muslim services, or Buddhist meditations, or Wiccan devotions, even if by a gentlemen's agreement it were decided proactively to contextualize them in an Orthodox way (taking neo-Wiccan invocations of "Our Great Mother Gaia," for example, as referring to the Eternal Wisdom which is God the Son and is feminine in Scripture)? If you did not accept such things, even after the retrofits were agreed on, would your reticence be due only to a snobbish application of the genetic fallacy, or could it be attributable to an innate Christian sense?

In Orthodoxy, we think that the origination of things is highly important and cannot really be discarded from amongst our consideranda.

Second, no one here will be able to back up the claim, borrowed from Roman Catholic heretics, that the Sacred Heart devotion had a pre-history before Reformation times. No intellectual honesty will permit the few vague and scattered references to the "heart of God" in the Psalms, and whatnot, as constituting an Ur-Sacred Heart devotion. If you feel you must trust modern Roman Catholics' writings, then Trust But Verify.

Even you, Sleeper, wrote that whether the S.H. devotion meets the requirements of the 1958 Antiochian edict is "up for debate" (to quote you).

My principled opposition to the S.H. devotion comes not from my own whims, but from the objections of pious and learned Russian Orthodox theologians and the whole tenor of Russian elders and very devout priests and bishops I have known. Streams of pure Orthodoxy have flowed down to me from them and I will love and treasure them forever. This is true in monastic life as well as in theological life and spiritual life in general. Their canonical witness, smack in the heart of Worldwide Orthodoxy, is far from any "sectarian narrative."

In the W. Rite we must not allow ourselves to become ghettoised, tucked securely away in a defensive stance in one minority corner of the Orthodox world. I myself love the W. Rite deeply and have constantly defended her, but I am a priest in the Orthodox Local Church which is, by far, the largest in Orthodox Christendom. I dare not surround myself with what I find attractive to such an extent, that I grow deaf to how things strike my colleagues. clerical and lay, in the vast Whole of Orthodoxy. One can easily do this, hearing oneself talk until one cannot really see how one comes off to one's brethren in the wider whole. And, trust me on this, the S.H. devotion strikes a lot of Orthodox as very weird. Even if it were permissible, it's just asking for trouble. It's provocative. And even if it is allowed, is it demanded by authority? Is it required? "All things are lawful to me, yet not all are expedient," says St. Paul. You yourself, Sleeper, were just admitting that whether S.H. is lawful (by the edict of 1958, anyway) is something open to question. How much more might we apply the "not all are expedient" to this, then?

A final reflection. It is not fair to contrast "conservative" and "liberal" Western Rite paradigms (we might say "Antiochian" and "Russian," although as categories these are more fluid and criss-crossing than you might imagine) by saying that one is a non-interventionist acceptance of all that the Roman Catholic church gave to modern man, while the other consists of meddlesome ideologues interfering with the natural processes of history. This is really a straw man view of things. The planting of Western herbage into Orthodox soil, in even the Antiochian conception, is something which changes the Western church-life experience rather dramatically in ways which may not be immediately apparent to those in the thick of it all. The whole icons thing. Use of some E. Rite hymns (okay, honestly, what WR parish does NOT do this?). Ordination of W. Rite clergy via the Byzantine rite ordination services, so that the W.R. is a not fully-existing observance. The outright importation into the W.R. of Byzantine prayers. Priests wearing visible pectoral crosses. "Liturgical archaeology" in the form of blessed bread (pain benit) at the end of Mass, something which had died out by and large in the modern West and was then consciously brought back by AWRV churchmen using a scholarly process. And when we look at the more orthopraxic Russian W.R., what do we see? Not puritanical exactness, no desire to recreate church services as if they were some re-enactment of the SCA (Society for Creative Anachronism, which stages mediaeval bouts and such like), no, but melodies from after 1054, even a few texts from after 1054. We see some allowance for post-1054 vestment styles, and post-1054 hats. We see some concessions to the Byz. rite (not as many Byzantinisations as Antioch has, but still, some). There is nothing theoretical or non-practical, non-down-to-earth, about those RWRV Sunday Masses.

To quote Bp. Jerome: "Since the West fell away from the rest of the Church so long ago, there is a good deal of debate as to what texts or service books
should be followed, so as to have a Liturgy that is both Western and Orthodox. It only makes sense to try and solve this by study of what the Western services were before the schism, and where they went since that time.  Those who go to church on Sunday morning are not called upon to be liturgicists or liturgical archeologists any more than the patient needs to be a medical scientist or go into the lab to be given medicine. The "finished product" is nevertheless today's worship; if they hear or join in texts that had been in an ancient manuscript, they need never suspect it, for all that is worth. These materials have been returned to use because they provide what was needed."

In the AWRV, plenty of re-working of Western materials was done, by editor clerics, in accordance with certain ideals, to produce the St. Tikhon Liturgy out of various available items. So, you see, there's plenty of adjusting this and that, on all sides, and this is normal and even desirable, according to Bp. Jerome.

And to go yet further, the older form of the Roman rite did survive, in pockets, in the West, all through the Reformation years, the Enlightenment years, and modern times. It's not some cockamamie resurrection of something dead, but a living continuation in its own right. The religious orders of the Papists preserved the older forms. There were Anglicans and Catholics undergoing Sarum rite baptisms and weddings in 19th century England. Even today, Roman Catholic priests will do a Sarum Mass, and so will Episcopalian priests. So it's not like the AWRV forms are just Plain Old Western, and the more orthopraxic RWRV forms (old Roman rite) are scary golems manufactured drily from shards of a vanished past. Far from it! "These materials have been returned to use because they provide what was needed."
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Sleeper on September 24, 2011, 10:02:03 AM
*Grabs beautiful St. Ambrose Prayer Book, prays devotion, remains in good standing with Orthodox Church, causes no division whatsoever*

Actually, as this thread alone has repeatedly demonstrated, you have just scandalized a number of your fellow Orthodox. It's your business if you think it's worth doing anyway, but you can't honestly pretend that you don't realize you are causing a scandal among certain of your brethren.

I was being facetious, as I've already pointed out numerous times in this thread that I don't use this devotion. But I fully support those who do.

But where does the "scandal" stop? Many are scandalized by a Western Rite in general, do we drop that endeavor entirely? Do we keep dropping things that cause any sort of "scandal" for anyone? How do we decide when causing "scandal" is worthwhile in the long run?

Quote
2. Parishes and larger units received into the Archdiocese retain the use of all Western rites, devotions, and customs which are not contrary to the Orthodox Faith and are logically derived from a Western usage antedating the Schism of 1054.

Now, whether or not the Sacred Heart meets this criteria is up for debate (which is what this thread is about) of course,

As I pointed out earlier in the thread, the Roman Catholics themselves, when being serious and scholarly (like in the Catholic Encyclopedia) can't trace the devotion to anything or anyone predating the schism. If the above quote is the actual criterion, there's no actual debate.


Does anyone really think that 1.2 billion Roman Catholic Christians are going to throw the last 1,000 years of their history into the trash heap to try and "reclaim" some lost golden age of "Western Orthodoxy"? It will never, ever happen if that's what it would take. Thank God Antioch has vision and we can see what a reunited Western patrimony might look like in her Western Rite parishes.

No. The realistic among us don't think 1.2 billion Roman Catholics are as a corporate body ever going to reject their errors and humbly submit to the living Tradition of the Church. I can understand and even respect the optimists attempts' to make it happen anyway, but the evidence is that without the willingness to simply submit, true conversion remains a pipe-dream.

That's fine, each his own, but some of us (thank God) are going to work towards it anyway...

I do not dare to find fault with the sincerity of any particular person praying this or any other devotion. I think love forbids that. But I will remark upon a few things.

First, to say that my opposition to the Sacred Heart devotion is an example of the genetic fallacy, is a position which leads to interesting places. That argument rests on the plank that the whole intent or gist of the modern Sacred Heart devotion is quite different from and opposed to the original, founding intent or gist.

There is a difference, though, between the devotion popularized by Margaret Mary, and the feast (which is just undeniably older than her, without question). Modern Western Orthodox use is derived from the feast, not the devotion (even though it's a devotion in and of itself). Some won't agree with that, but that's the logic.

Quote
If that be so, then this devotion is most assuredly not going to fit in the category of things which logically developed from the Western Orthodox Patrimony. It implies that the Sacred Heart devotion was an aberration later transformed into acceptability through "damage control" which altered its character in a thoroughgoing manner.

No, it implies that the concept as popularly conceived and carried out is an aberration in need of re-evaluation in light of the older conceptions.

Quote
If bizarre sexual visions of a mentally ill heretic-woman,

Your colorful language, whilst entertaining at times, is getting tiresome and reeks of propaganda. "Propaganda is often biased...or uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented."

You can't ever seem to argue your points without this type of language. You do the same thing with Corpus Christi.

Quote
with their absurd content, involving horrific self-mutilation (the carving of large, deep, bloody letters into her bosoms with a knife) is "logical" development, I posit that illogical development cannot exist. It doesn't get any more illogical than that. Remember, this devotion was profoundly shocking, disturbing, and controversial to Roman Catholics themselves, including to one of their best Popes, and that's how things stood for a very long time.

I don't doubt Margaret Mary's devotional popularization did (and probably did because they saw what it was doing to an already old devotion based on sound theology).

Quote
Furthermore, Sleeper, would you not advocate exclusion from Orthodoxy of devotions from other religions, even if later retro-fitted for Orthodox minimum requirements? Surely you would not advocate the importation into Orthodoxy of entire Muslim services, or Buddhist meditations, or Wiccan devotions, even if by a gentlemen's agreement it were decided proactively to contextualize them in an Orthodox way (taking neo-Wiccan invocations of "Our Great Mother Gaia," for example, as referring to the Eternal Wisdom which is God the Son and is feminine in Scripture)? If you did not accept such things, even after the retrofits were agreed on, would your reticence be due only to a snobbish application of the genetic fallacy, or could it be attributable to an innate Christian sense?

This is where you and I differ, Father. Though you might not admit it outright, you place Roman Catholics into the same category as Buddhists, Muslims and Wiccans. You constantly reference them (and their "post-Schism" devotions, customs, etc.) as things that "happened outside of the Church" and so you see no stray logic in asking this question. I do. I think it's wholly absurd and, forgive me for pointing it out, is yet another logical fallacy.

A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom. The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B. Modern usage avoids the fallacy by acknowledging the possibility of this middle ground.

To say that allowing a custom or devotion that happened within a distinctly Christian, historically Apostolic environment would then lead to the acceptance of Buddhist or Wiccan elements boggles the mind. Please, forgive me for being "snobbish" I'm honestly not trying to antagonize you, but this needs to be pointed out.

Quote
In Orthodoxy, we think that the origination of things is highly important and cannot really be discarded from amongst our consideranda.

And yet there are numerous examples of Orthodoxy absorbing things into her tradition that did not originate within it. The value of something is not in its origin, but in its truth. All truth belongs to God, and thus belongs to us.

Quote
Second, no one here will be able to back up the claim, borrowed from Roman Catholic heretics, that the Sacred Heart devotion had a pre-history before Reformation times. No intellectual honesty will permit the few vague and scattered references to the "heart of God" in the Psalms, and whatnot, as constituting an Ur-Sacred Heart devotion. If you feel you must trust modern Roman Catholics' writings, then Trust But Verify.

It has been backed up, whether it was written by a Roman Catholic or not. Yes, "Trust But Verify" that's a great idea.

Quote
My principled opposition to the S.H. devotion comes not from my own whims, but from the objections of pious and learned Russian Orthodox theologians and the whole tenor of Russian elders and very devout priests and bishops I have known. Streams of pure Orthodoxy have flowed down to me from them and I will love and treasure them forever. This is true in monastic life as well as in theological life and spiritual life in general. Their canonical witness, smack in the heart of Worldwide Orthodoxy, is far from any "sectarian narrative."

Your sectarian narrative is that the "Schism" ontologically altered the Roman Patriarchate from being "the Church" in 1053 and ceasing to be in 1054. It's a trajectory that then says everything "post-Schism" is in the same camp as Wiccan mantras. Your above post demonstrates how easily your mind allows you to go there.

Quote
In the W. Rite we must not allow ourselves to become ghettoised, tucked securely away in a defensive stance in one minority corner of the Orthodox world. I myself love the W. Rite deeply and have constantly defended her, but I am a priest in the Orthodox Local Church which is, by far, the largest in Orthodox Christendom. I dare not surround myself with what I find attractive to such an extent, that I grow deaf to how things strike my colleagues. clerical and lay, in the vast Whole of Orthodoxy. One can easily do this, hearing oneself talk until one cannot really see how one comes off to one's brethren in the wider whole. And, trust me on this, the S.H. devotion strikes a lot of Orthodox as very weird. Even if it were permissible, it's just asking for trouble. It's provocative. And even if it is allowed, is it demanded by authority? Is it required? "All things are lawful to me, yet not all are expedient," says St. Paul. You yourself, Sleeper, were just admitting that whether S.H. is lawful (by the edict of 1958, anyway) is something open to question. How much more might we apply the "not all are expedient" to this, then?

Believe it or not, in this we agree. But the answers to the questions you've posed I genuinely think will depend on what sort of trajectory our "Western Rite" narrative takes. That's why I brought up the differences between Russia and Antioch, because they seem to represent to competing (though not incompatible) ideas. But as you have pointed out below, perhaps that is not as stark as it might appear. I do think the increased dialog that is going to occur between Russian WR & Antiochian WR is going to be nothing but a good thing for both groups.

Thanks for your thoughts, Father.

Quote
A final reflection. It is not fair to contrast "conservative" and "liberal" Western Rite paradigms (we might say "Antiochian" and "Russian," although as categories these are more fluid and criss-crossing than you might imagine) by saying that one is a non-interventionist acceptance of all that the Roman Catholic church gave to modern man, while the other consists of meddlesome ideologues interfering with the natural processes of history. This is really a straw man view of things. The planting of Western herbage into Orthodox soil, in even the Antiochian conception, is something which changes the Western church-life experience rather dramatically in ways which may not be immediately apparent to those in the thick of it all. The whole icons thing. Use of some E. Rite hymns (okay, honestly, what WR parish does NOT do this?). Ordination of W. Rite clergy via the Byzantine rite ordination services, so that the W.R. is a not fully-existing observance. The outright importation into the W.R. of Byzantine prayers. Priests wearing visible pectoral crosses. "Liturgical archaeology" in the form of blessed bread (pain benit) at the end of Mass, something which had died out by and large in the modern West and was then consciously brought back by AWRV churchmen using a scholarly process. And when we look at the more orthopraxic Russian W.R., what do we see? Not puritanical exactness, no desire to recreate church services as if they were some re-enactment of the SCA (Society for Creative Anachronism, which stages mediaeval bouts and such like), no, but melodies from after 1054, even a few texts from after 1054. We see some allowance for post-1054 vestment styles, and post-1054 hats. We see some concessions to the Byz. rite (not as many Byzantinisations as Antioch has, but still, some). There is nothing theoretical or non-practical, non-down-to-earth, about those RWRV Sunday Masses.

To quote Bp. Jerome: "Since the West fell away from the rest of the Church so long ago, there is a good deal of debate as to what texts or service books
should be followed, so as to have a Liturgy that is both Western and Orthodox. It only makes sense to try and solve this by study of what the Western services were before the schism, and where they went since that time.  Those who go to church on Sunday morning are not called upon to be liturgicists or liturgical archeologists any more than the patient needs to be a medical scientist or go into the lab to be given medicine. The "finished product" is nevertheless today's worship; if they hear or join in texts that had been in an ancient manuscript, they need never suspect it, for all that is worth. These materials have been returned to use because they provide what was needed."

In the AWRV, plenty of re-working of Western materials was done, by editor clerics, in accordance with certain ideals, to produce the St. Tikhon Liturgy out of various available items. So, you see, there's plenty of adjusting this and that, on all sides, and this is normal and even desirable, according to Bp. Jerome.

And to go yet further, the older form of the Roman rite did survive, in pockets, in the West, all through the Reformation years, the Enlightenment years, and modern times. It's not some cockamamie resurrection of something dead, but a living continuation in its own right. The religious orders of the Papists preserved the older forms. There were Anglicans and Catholics undergoing Sarum rite baptisms and weddings in 19th century England. Even today, Roman Catholic priests will do a Sarum Mass, and so will Episcopalian priests. So it's not like the AWRV forms are just Plain Old Western, and the more orthopraxic RWRV forms (old Roman rite) are scary golems manufactured drily from shards of a vanished past. Far from it! "These materials have been returned to use because they provide what was needed."
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Fr.Aidan on September 24, 2011, 01:31:56 PM
Sleeper, I promise you that you are factually wrong when you state that the feast existed before the carving of the letters into the breasts with a bloody knife. It sounds like you have not examined the history of any of this. The feast was not approved for quite a long time after the bloody self-injuries; the swallowing little pellets of paper; etc. You state the feast came first "undeniably" and "without question" but I tell you now, you will not be able to bring forward even a shred of historical evidence for it.

I have not used any type of slippery slope fallacy. I never stated or implied that importing Sacred Heart devotion into Orthodoxy would result in importing Buddhist practices, Muslim devotions, etc. Nor do I equate those things with modern Roman Catholicism, though it and they are clearly outside the pale of Orthodoxy. I was making the point that even you will decide that certain things are acceptable or non-acceptable in Orthodoxy based on their origination, and not just their content.

All writing which tries to make a point, falls under the dictionary definition of propaganda. Generally, the criterion for something being "propaganda" is whether the person using the word "propaganda" disagrees with its content or import.

The logical fallacy would be the conclusion that if I say modern Roman Catholicism is outside Orthodoxy, I therefore don't make a distinction in the nature of Roman Catholicism, Buddhism, or Islam. The conclusion would be most incorrect.

Sleeper, you stated: "Your sectarian narrative is that the "Schism" ontologically altered the Roman Patriarchate from being "the Church" in 1053 and ceasing to be in 1054. It's a trajectory that then says everything "post-Schism" is in the same camp as Wiccan mantras. Your above post demonstrates how easily your mind allows you to go there."

But my mind doesn't go there at all. That's all in YOUR mind. I am not against all things post-1054 in the West, and even wrote above about this. There are some beautiful sequences, for example, which were penned after 1054 and before there was much change in the liturgical life of the West. I and Bp. Jerome don't see a great problem in using those. I have never striven for some pure 1054 cutoff date as to liturgics, but rather I oppose the introduction into the old Roman rite "base" of later, not-the-same-as-Orthodox, spiritualities and doctrines. Back when W.R. Orthodoxy was first being approved by Orthodox authorities, that's what the "game plan" was, after all, to see Western Rite in a narrower, liturgical-ritual sense, whose spirituality would be the same as Orthodox spirituality. I am faithful to the original course which was charted in 1868. It's a reasonable and conservative course which, I might add, stands the best chance of remaining within Orthodoxy without having to be censured so that the Western Rite baby won't have to be thrown out with the bizarre Papist bathwater, some day.

And, by the way, my concern in this is not limited to W.R. topics. I know of a canonical Orthodox priest who was blessing people to engage in Kundalini yoga. Of another who gives Holy Communion to non-Orthodox "because we have to be nice to everyone." Of a canonical parish where if you dare to call the gay parishioner's "husband" his "roommate," you're in deep trouble, because "you know he's more than that!" That is all wrongful. There is legitimate cause for concern, about bizarre heretical visions, creeping Hinduism, Roman-Catholic spiritualities, and the erosion of our moral teaching, unless we want to throw up our hands and decide to become universalists. Piety is worth its struggle.








Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on September 24, 2011, 01:53:19 PM
To those here with a passing interest in reality, you can see from the following that the first feast of the Sacred Heart was celebrated in 1670 which PRE-dated the visions of that "creepy" nun that Father Aidan and the feminists of the latter part of the 20th century are so het up about.

Also popular piety centered on the Sacred Heart of Jesus dates back at least to St. Bernard of Clairvaux and the 11th century.

I am using a readily available source on the Internet so it is a wiki-like source, it but if anyone needs me to find more, I will take the time to look.

http://catholicism.about.com/od/holydaysandholidays/p/Sacred_Heart.htm

History:
Devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus goes back at least to the 11th century, but through the 16th century, it remained a private devotion, often tied to devotion to the Five Wounds of Christ. The first feast of the Sacred Heart was celebrated on August 31, 1670, in Rennes, France, through the efforts of Fr. Jean Eudes (1602-1680). From Rennes, the devotion spread, but it took the visions of St. Margaret Mary Alacoque (1647-1690) for the devotion to become universal.

In all of these visions, in which Jesus appeared to St. Margaret Mary, the Sacred Heart of Jesus played a central role. The “great apparition,” which took place on June 16, 1675, during the octave of the Feast of Corpus Christi, is the source of the modern Feast of the Sacred Heart. In that vision, Christ asked St. Margaret Mary to request that the Feast of the Sacred Heart be celebrated on the Friday after the octave (or eighth day) of the Feast of Corpus Christi, in reparation for the ingratitude of men for the sacrifice that Christ had made for them. The Sacred Heart of Jesus represents not simply His physical heart but His love for all mankind.

The devotion became quite popular after St. Margaret Mary’s death in 1690, but, because the Church initially had doubts about the validity of St. Margaret Mary’s visions, it wasn’t until 1765 that the feast was celebrated officially in France. Almost 100 years later, in 1856, Pope Pius IX, at the request of the French bishops, extended the feast to the universal Church. It is celebrated on the day requested by our Lord—the Friday after the octave of Corpus Christi, or 19 days after Pentecost Sunday.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++

ALSO the following is the formal source and is worth reading: something which I believe Father Aidan never bothered to do, or shows no sign of ever having done.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_15051956_haurietis-aquas_en.html

103. Quite the contrary is the thought and teaching of Catholic theologians, among whom St. Thomas writes as follows: "Religious worship is not paid to images, considered in themselves, as things; but according as they are representations leading to God Incarnate. The approach which is made to the image as such does not stop there, but continues towards that which is represented. Hence, because a religious honor is paid to the images of Christ, it does not therefore mean that there are different degrees of supreme worship or of the virtue of religion."(106) It is, then, to the Person of the divine Word as to its final object that that devotion is directed which, in a relative sense, is observed towards the images whether those images are relics of the bitter sufferings which our Savior endured for our sake or that particular image which surpasses all the rest in efficacy and meaning, namely, the pierced Heart of the crucified Christ.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Fr.Aidan on September 24, 2011, 07:44:07 PM
The reference posted, is somewhat confusing. It says that a feast was held in Rennes in 1670, but that the first official feast in France occurred in 1765. We know that our poor madwoman was suffering various hallucinations in early 1671, and that they did involve the heart of Jesus. So what was this "unofficial" feast? A single priest somewhere, deciding to dedicate some Mass to the Heart of Jesus without approval from the necessary church authorities? Because that's sure what it sounds like. Even in France this was not approved until 1765, if I read correctly, and the Vatican did not institute any feast at all until 1856 (over the dead body of Pope Benedict XIV, who was powerfully opposed to the devotion).

So I don't see where the feast really preceded our madwoman's hallucinations, God bless her heart.

And, no, some researcher in the 27th century is NOT allowed to take my statement in the sentence preceding, as evidence to put in the Twenty-Seventh Century Catholic Encyclopaedia, that devotion to the Pious Heart of Margaret-Mary Alacoque is documentable to the year 2011 in Texas... ! Because that's exactly how shaky this claim is, that Sacred Heart devotion goes back to the 11th century, or even the 14th... it was just not present back then. There was the Five Wounds of Christ, from the early 1400s on, with a depiction of the heart among the other wounds, but it was a Wounds devotion, not a Heart devotion. I think the earliest documented devotions which could even possibly be stretched to make a "pre-history" for the Sacred Heart devotion, are in the early 1500s, where there were very creative Passion prayers printed up, which are addressed to the Side of Christ, the Feet of Christ, and so forth, and if I recall the Heart may be among those. I think they originated in Germany. Just going from my failing memory...
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on September 24, 2011, 08:01:16 PM
The reference posted, is somewhat confusing. It says that a feast was held in Rennes in 1670, but that the first official feast in France occurred in 1765.

The records go back prior to the 1600's in fact.  But that is really not the issue here.  The issue is a devotion to the Sacred Heart prior to Sr. Margaret Mary and there is evidence for that in archival documents that I cannot access for the Internet audience.

There is a similar localized record of feast days of the Immaculate Conception centuries prior to the universal inclusion in the liturgical cycle.

Also I am fascinated by western rite and ritual ripped out of context and grafted into Byzantine saints and spirituality and traditions.  I think there's a name for that...isn't there?  Seems to me it is with reference to Latinized eastern rites if I am not mistaken...

M.

Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Fr.Aidan on September 24, 2011, 08:13:52 PM
I challenge the existence of these supposed pre-1600s records.

You say there are "archival documents" you cannot access. Do you know what type of archival documents these are? Tell us. Are they prayers in a prayer book? Mass propers? Vague foreshadowings in certain art works? I am all ears.

Correction: Western rite and ritual restored to their rightful, original context, with Western saints and pre-heresy Western spirituality (which fits perfectly with Orthodox spirituality in the East), and Western traditions. Call it what you want, it's beautiful and full of the saving grace of God.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on September 24, 2011, 08:18:26 PM
I challenge the existence of these supposed pre-1600s records.

You say there are "archival documents" you cannot access. Do you know what type of archival documents these are? Tell us. Are they prayers in a prayer book? Mass propers? Vague foreshadowings in certain art works? I am all ears.

Correction: Western rite and ritual restored to their rightful, original context, with Western saints and pre-heresy Western spirituality (which fits perfectly with Orthodox spirituality in the East), and Western traditions. Call it what you want, it's beautiful and full of the saving grace of God.

Your comments on the Sacred Heart bear far less weight of proof than those of my Church.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: jewish voice on September 24, 2011, 09:15:52 PM
I challenge the existence of these supposed pre-1600s records.

You say there are "archival documents" you cannot access. Do you know what type of archival documents these are? Tell us. Are they prayers in a prayer book? Mass propers? Vague foreshadowings in certain art works? I am all ears.

Correction: Western rite and ritual restored to their rightful, original context, with Western saints and pre-heresy Western spirituality (which fits perfectly with Orthodox spirituality in the East), and Western traditions. Call it what you want, it's beautiful and full of the saving grace of God.

Your comments on the Sacred Heart bear far less weight of proof than those of my Church.
LOL you just got owned.  :D
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on September 24, 2011, 09:29:25 PM
I challenge the existence of these supposed pre-1600s records.

You say there are "archival documents" you cannot access. Do you know what type of archival documents these are? Tell us. Are they prayers in a prayer book? Mass propers? Vague foreshadowings in certain art works? I am all ears.

Correction: Western rite and ritual restored to their rightful, original context, with Western saints and pre-heresy Western spirituality (which fits perfectly with Orthodox spirituality in the East), and Western traditions. Call it what you want, it's beautiful and full of the saving grace of God.

Your comments on the Sacred Heart bear far less weight of proof than those of my Church.
LOL you just got owned.  :D

I don't think so.  The western rite advocates and aficionados may borrow bits and pieces of the holy traditions of my Church...but OWN them?....I don't think so.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on September 24, 2011, 09:50:15 PM
I challenge the existence of these supposed pre-1600s records.

You say there are "archival documents" you cannot access. Do you know what type of archival documents these are? Tell us. Are they prayers in a prayer book? Mass propers? Vague foreshadowings in certain art works? I am all ears.

Correction: Western rite and ritual restored to their rightful, original context, with Western saints and pre-heresy Western spirituality (which fits perfectly with Orthodox spirituality in the East), and Western traditions. Call it what you want, it's beautiful and full of the saving grace of God.

Your comments on the Sacred Heart bear far less weight of proof than those of my Church.
LOL you just got owned.  :D

I don't think so.  The western rite advocates and aficionados may borrow bits and pieces of the holy traditions of my Church...but OWN them?....I don't think so.

http://ia600201.us.archive.org/10/items/lifeofjohneudes00russuoft/lifeofjohneudes00russuoft.pdf

Page 88 begins the chapter on Blessed John Eudes' devotion to the sacred hearts of Jesus and Mary that clearly predated that of Sr. Margaret Mary, and there is one other interesting reference to the symbol of the Sacred Heart surrounded by flames which also pre-dated Sr. Margaret Mary: and those references alone indicate that the private devotion pre-dated the desire to invest it with liturgical significance.

As I said, one can borrow from the Catholic Church but it takes divine right to OWN it.

 :angel:
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Fr.Aidan on September 24, 2011, 10:51:33 PM
But you said that records go back prior to the 1600s, and all the things you adduced, did not demonstrate anything existing before the 1600s. The words attributed to Gertrude of Helfta (+ 14th c.) fall very far short of this aim.

So I challenged you to back up your words with something before the 1600s, and you gave me a bunch of 1600s stuff.

Unless we believe the author of that book, who says that the Sacred Heart veneration dates back to the 1st century A.D., which really is not worthy of credence.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on September 25, 2011, 11:37:50 AM
But you said that records go back prior to the 1600s, and all the things you adduced, did not demonstrate anything existing before the 1600s. The words attributed to Gertrude of Helfta (+ 14th c.) fall very far short of this aim.

So I challenged you to back up your words with something before the 1600s, and you gave me a bunch of 1600s stuff.

Unless we believe the author of that book, who says that the Sacred Heart veneration dates back to the 1st century A.D., which really is not worthy of credence.

It is worthy of my credence, Father.  And the reason for that is that there is never smoke where there is not fire [yes indeed, one of them failed metaphors], and some fires take longer than others to come to light.  The documents of the monastic orders will give up what you seek.  But you don't have access to them at the moment and neither do I.  But I trust they are there because others from those orders reference them.  At least from the 11th century on there is a shift in focus from the wounds to a singular focus on the heart.

Besides: Your claim that the devotion was nothing till Sr. Margaret Mary Looney: that at least is bunko.

You need to be more clever than 2000 years of the Catholic Church to make your jell-o stick on the wall...and more truthful:   ;)

M.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Fr.Aidan on September 25, 2011, 07:46:30 PM
Even the Roman Catholic books which strive, and strive, and strive with might and main, to convince us that the Sacred Heart devotion goes way, way back, are not able to offer any documentation for the claim.

Now you appeal to never-before-published, secret inaccessible documents (you know not which, or what they might contain) which you believe exist in some monastery somewhere? Because WHO said so, exactly?

On this one point, of the preposterousness of having a feast of the Sacred Heart, I am of one mind with Pope Benedict XIV--one of the most respected Popes of the last 700 years, whose overriding characteristics were level-headedness and erudition. Not that I agree with him on other things--the Filioque, for example. But it goes to show that my position is hardly outré.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on September 25, 2011, 07:58:38 PM
Even the Roman Catholic books which strive, and strive, and strive with might and main, to convince us that the Sacred Heart devotion goes way, way back, are not able to offer any documentation for the claim.

Now you appeal to never-before-published, secret inaccessible documents (you know not which, or what they might contain) which you believe exist in some monastery somewhere? Because WHO said so, exactly?

You're so slick.  The monasteries are FILLED with not-at-all secret inaccessible documents and histories and writings of individuals whose names the world has long forgotten.  The devotion to the Sacred Heart dates back at least to St. Bernard.

I remember one time saying, innocently, that the Cathari had the roots of their theology directly in the mire of the Bogomils and a slick scholar, much like yourself, mocked me publicly and made fun of me with high hilarity.

Now what do I find on Amazon?  Books tracing the Cathari of France, back through Italy, and directly to the Bogomils...how?...inaccessible documents finally brought to light...that's how.

So pthhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh to that other slickster....and to you...well...have a good evening... :angel:
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Fr.Aidan on September 25, 2011, 08:26:29 PM
But there is no evidence that the Sacred Heart devotion goes back to St. Bernard. I mean, St. Bernard? I raise my eyebrow, sir.

I'm not slick, I'm just adamant. People are making this stuff up out of whole cloth, and you just believe it. And I'm just as put off by it as Pope Benedict XIV (+1758), the Pope still greatly revered for his sober mind.

The origins of Cathars in Bogomilism is a more obscure point, and not one that relates to any Roman-Catholic teaching or proclamation. But the Sacred Heart--now that is something which R-Catholic clergy over the last few hundred years would surely be motivated to research and defend. And, to be sure, they have tried, and tried valiantly. And it's not odd that none of them has ever succeeded?

The secret documents no one can identify or locate, not even the best Roman Catholic scholars such as Von Hefele or Guettee, to cast a glance on the 19th century's best and brightest, must be not merely Secret but Top-Secret.

Now, I'm keeping an open mind. If anyone can point to any proof or some such, I'm not averse to backpedaling, and revising. That's all well and good. To me, it doesn't GREATLY matter at which exact point this error crept in. Just a few days ago, I'd always said that the first known use of the bishop's vestment called the rationale was in the 12th century, then someone showed me where it appears in an 11th century manuscript.

The Orthodox Christian Faith is forever true and the gates of hell will never prevail against the Orthodox Church. But history--well, it's always subject to some sober revision. St. Martin of Tours certainly thought so!
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on September 25, 2011, 08:32:32 PM
But there is no evidence that the Sacred Heart devotion goes back to St. Bernard. I mean, St. Bernard? I raise my eyebrow, sir.


Don't knock yourself over with that high-brow...

The devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and Mary is a beautiful devotion that has emerged over the centuries and feeds the spiritual lives of many Catholics.  There is an entire heart theology in the east and as we all know heart speaks unto heart.

Simply because it does not resonate with you...well...perhaps that says something about your heart.  Mind over matter...and all that...
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Fr.Aidan on October 03, 2011, 11:39:01 AM
Elijahmaria, you can disagree with my points, but it is not necessary or proper to resort to the ad-hominems of calling me "pope Aidan of Texas," and saying that I am full of arrogant pride, and saying there must be something wrong with my heart / spiritual life.

I have never, in the course of this discussion, cast an aspersion about any other forum members, not their qualities, not their spiritual lives (which I do not judge), not their motives.

Please, we need to maintain respect for one another, or how can we have a discussion?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on October 03, 2011, 12:10:23 PM
Elijahmaria, you can disagree with my points, but it is not necessary or proper to resort to the ad-hominems of calling me "pope Aidan of Texas," and saying that I am full of arrogant pride, and saying there must be something wrong with my heart / spiritual life.

I have never, in the course of this discussion, cast an aspersion about any other forum members, not their qualities, not their spiritual lives (which I do not judge), not their motives.

Please, we need to maintain respect for one another, or how can we have a discussion?

Read your latest attack on the devotion to the Sacred Heart.  You presume more than the popes of Rome presume about the devotion.  So it occurred to me that you are claiming a status for your own infallibility greater than the popes of the Vatican Organization and since the territory of Texas is so much greater than the territory of the Vatican, I expected that is part of what allows you to pontificate on all aspects of the Roman Catholic Religious Organization the way that you do.

I no more expect an honest "discussion" out of you than I would expect one out of Jack Chick.

M.

PS: I am conflating the two discussion so it is time that I stop talking to you before I get myself in a knot with the administrators of this Forum.  But my final word is this: You are deadly wrong in what you say about Catholic teaching concerning the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Fabio Leite on October 03, 2011, 12:28:26 PM
Moderators, has elihamaria got a licence to disrespect clergy?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: PeterTheAleut on October 03, 2011, 12:41:08 PM
Moderators, has elihamaria got a licence to disrespect clergy?
Rather than post that question on this thread, we would prefer you to use the "Report to Moderator" function to refer your concern to us privately. Thank you.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Deacon Lance on October 03, 2011, 09:48:17 PM
But there is no evidence that the Sacred Heart devotion goes back to St. Bernard. I mean, St. Bernard? I raise my eyebrow, sir.

I would agree that St. Bernard may be stretching it, but St. Bonaventure, St. Lutgardis, and St. Herman Jospeh are all ca. the 1200s.  Devotion to the Heart of Jesus begins with these.  St. John Eudes formalized this devotion with an Office and Mass of the Sacred Heart for his order the Congregation of Jesus and Mary.

From the Office of Matins for the Feast of the Sacred Heart (extraordianry form) the readings of the third nocturn:

A Homily by St. Bonaventure the Bishop

In order that the Church might be taken out of the side of Christ, in his deep sleep on the Cross, and that the Scripture might be fulfilled which saith : They shall look on him whom they pierced : it was divinely ordained that one of the soldiers should pierce his sacred side with a spear, and open it. Then forthwith there came flowing out blood and water, which was the price of our salvation, pouring forth from its mountain-source, in sooth, from the secret places of his Heart, to give power to the Sacraments of the Church, to bestow the life of grace, and to be as a saving drink of living waters, flowing up to life eternal for those who were already quickened in Christ. Arise, then, O soul beloved of Christ. Cease not thy vigilance, place there thy lips, and drink the waters from the fount of salvation.
Because we are now come to the sweet Heart of Jesus, and because it is good for us to be here, let us not too soon turn away therefrom. O how good and joyful a thing it is to dwell in this Heart. What a good treasure, what a precious pearl, is thy Heart, O most excellent Jesu, which we have found hidden in the pit which hath been dug in this field, namely, in thy body. Who would cast away such a pearl? Nay, rather, for this same I would give all my pearls. I will sell all my thoughts and affections, and buy the same for myself, turning all my thoughts to the Heart of the good Jesus, and without fail it will support me. Therefore, o most sweet Jesu, finding this Heart that is thine and mine, I will pray to thee, my God : admit my prayers into the shrine of hearkening : and draw me even more altogether into thy Heart.
For to this end was thy side pierced, that an entry might be open unto us. To this end was thy Heart wounded, that in it we might be able to dwell secure from alarms from without. And it was wounded none the less on this account that, because of the visible wound, we may perceive the wound of love which is invisible. How could this fire of love better shine forth than for him to permit that not only his body, but that even his Heart, should be wounded with the spear? Who would not love that Heart so wounded? Who would not, in return, love one who is so loving? Who would not embrace one so chaste? Wherefore let us who are in the flesh love in return, as much as we can, him who so loveth, embrace our wounded one, whose hands and feet, side and Heart, have been pierced by wicked husbandmen ; and let us pray that he may deign to bind our hearts, still hard and impenitent, with the chain of his love, and wound them with the dart thereof.

ttp://www.breviary.net/propseason/trinitytide/propseasonpent026.htm#First Vespers
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on October 04, 2011, 12:04:01 PM
But there is no evidence that the Sacred Heart devotion goes back to St. Bernard. I mean, St. Bernard? I raise my eyebrow, sir.

I would agree that St. Bernard

St. Bernard is hardly stretching it.  Are you aware of his famous prayer to many of Jesus' body parts?  That poem set the tone for ALL that came after.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Deacon Lance on October 04, 2011, 07:30:31 PM
St. Bernard is hardly stretching it.  Are you aware of his famous prayer to many of Jesus' body parts?  That poem set the tone for ALL that came after.

I am aware of the Prayer to the Sacred Members of Christ on the Cross and like the Memorare and Vitis Mystica which were/are incorrectly attributed to him I believe this to be the case with this prayer as well.  It is too well developed.  I think St. Bonaventure and the others I cited are surer ground to stand on and easily refute the claim that St. Margaret Mary invented the devotion.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on October 04, 2011, 07:40:08 PM
St. Bernard is hardly stretching it.  Are you aware of his famous prayer to many of Jesus' body parts?  That poem set the tone for ALL that came after.

I am aware of the Prayer to the Sacred Members of Christ on the Cross and like the Memorare and Vitis Mystica which were/are incorrectly attributed to him I believe this to be the case with this prayer as well.  It is too well developed.  I think St. Bonaventure and the others I cited are surer ground to stand on and easily refute the claim that St. Margaret Mary invented the devotion.

I am not so willing to pass it off as an error in attribution.  I don't have the texts with me but I've seen some pretty good historical and textual arguments in favor of it being St. Bernard's composition.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Schultz on October 05, 2011, 09:51:18 AM
St. Bernard is hardly stretching it.  Are you aware of his famous prayer to many of Jesus' body parts?  That poem set the tone for ALL that came after.

I am aware of the Prayer to the Sacred Members of Christ on the Cross and like the Memorare and Vitis Mystica which were/are incorrectly attributed to him I believe this to be the case with this prayer as well.  It is too well developed.  I think St. Bonaventure and the others I cited are surer ground to stand on and easily refute the claim that St. Margaret Mary invented the devotion.

I am not so willing to pass it off as an error in attribution.  I don't have the texts with me but I've seen some pretty good historical and textual arguments in favor of it being St. Bernard's composition.

Oh look.  More amorphous sources.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on October 05, 2011, 11:58:06 AM
St. Bernard is hardly stretching it.  Are you aware of his famous prayer to many of Jesus' body parts?  That poem set the tone for ALL that came after.

I am aware of the Prayer to the Sacred Members of Christ on the Cross and like the Memorare and Vitis Mystica which were/are incorrectly attributed to him I believe this to be the case with this prayer as well.  It is too well developed.  I think St. Bonaventure and the others I cited are surer ground to stand on and easily refute the claim that St. Margaret Mary invented the devotion.

I am not so willing to pass it off as an error in attribution.  I don't have the texts with me but I've seen some pretty good historical and textual arguments in favor of it being St. Bernard's composition.

Oh look.  More amorphous sources.

Well...no....the sources are sound.  I am the amorphous one who has to periodically return things to the library  8)

Besides...members of Bernard's religious order are perfectly happy to accept what textual evidence they have that he is the author of that particular prayer...so that's good'nuff fer me.  I don't need 20 lay historians to back that up fer me...

PS: follows an explanation of the Memorare and how it may sound like things that St. Bernard wrote but it is not his composition.  Odd that you won't find the same kind of detailed explanation for the rhythmical prayer.

http://www.preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/BVM/Memorare.html

NB THAT THE MEMORARE IS OLDER THAN St. BERNARD
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on October 05, 2011, 12:17:45 PM
St. Bernard is hardly stretching it.  Are you aware of his famous prayer to many of Jesus' body parts?  That poem set the tone for ALL that came after.

I am aware of the Prayer to the Sacred Members of Christ on the Cross and like the Memorare and Vitis Mystica which were/are incorrectly attributed to him I believe this to be the case with this prayer as well.  It is too well developed.  I think St. Bonaventure and the others I cited are surer ground to stand on and easily refute the claim that St. Margaret Mary invented the devotion.

Can you explain what you mean by "too well developed?"

Are you aware that the Memorare is OLDER than St. Bernard. 

Is the Memorare too well developed as well?

Here is a source on-line that references that editors who claim that the Vitis Mystica comes from St. Bonaventure rather than St. Bernard, HOWEVER, the entire scholarly monastic community is NOT in full agreement.

http://www.thesacredheart.com/shdhis.htm

I will continue to look for more amorphous sources but not not not...this instant. :)
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: PeterTheAleut on October 05, 2011, 12:32:12 PM
Besides...members of Bernard's religious order are perfectly happy to accept what textual evidence they have that he is the author of that particular prayer...so that's good'nuff fer me.  I don't need 20 lay historians to back that up fer me...
We don't care if it's good enough for YOU, Mary. If you're going to try to convince US that what you say is true, the evidence has to be good enough for US.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on October 05, 2011, 12:41:15 PM
Besides...members of Bernard's religious order are perfectly happy to accept what textual evidence they have that he is the author of that particular prayer...so that's good'nuff fer me.  I don't need 20 lay historians to back that up fer me...
We don't care if it's good enough for YOU, Mary. If you're going to try to convince US that what you say is true, the evidence has to be good enough for US.

A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.  I don't care that you don't care.  ;)
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: PeterTheAleut on October 05, 2011, 12:49:59 PM
Besides...members of Bernard's religious order are perfectly happy to accept what textual evidence they have that he is the author of that particular prayer...so that's good'nuff fer me.  I don't need 20 lay historians to back that up fer me...
We don't care if it's good enough for YOU, Mary. If you're going to try to convince US that what you say is true, the evidence has to be good enough for US.

A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.  I don't care that you don't care.  ;)
Then don't ever expect to convince us with your sic Maria dixits and your references to amorphous sources.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on October 05, 2011, 12:57:29 PM
While I have been looking for amorphous sources to indicate that the door is not closed on St. Bernard as author of Vitis Mystica, I ran across a good article on the Sacred Heart devotion:

http://www.unitypublishing.com/Apparitions/DoorTwoHeartsAreOne.html

But the Vitis Mystica and Memorare are not the same situation as the Rythmical Prayer so there's still more to discover...for those who are open...to discovery that is... :laugh:
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on October 05, 2011, 01:22:44 PM
For the Mockers, Rockers and Dockers, here is a reference to the fact that the jury is still out on whether or not St. Bernard or St. Bonaventure is really the author of Vitis Mystica:

http://tiny.cc/b1p98

Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Joseph Hazen on October 05, 2011, 02:05:54 PM
If I may jump in rather late,

Aren't we rather missing the point in trying to determine a date for this 'devotion'? Who cares if it was pre- or post-schism? Arius' teachings were all pre-schism, it doesn't make them instantly Orthodox.

The Roman Catholics' schism was not one sudden action that severed their ties with Holy Orthodoxy, it was a series of things culminating in the schism. We should not look at whether or not something existed pre- or post-schism, but whether it is Orthodox or not. It should go without saying that it is only Orthodox themselves who are qualified to make that judgement, and so it is curious that Roman Catholics are so prevalent on a board about Orthodoxy to defend their own actions. This thread on the sacred heart has nothing to do with you, if you want to go to First Friday Masses go do it and let us to determine amongst ourselves what belongs in the future of The Church. For a group who supposedly doesn't care what we do there is certainly a lot of (often vicious, and directed at Clergy no less) rhetoric devoted to it by your side on this thread.

Western Orthodoxy, IMO, should not be about setting the clock back and trying to act as though we're beginning a step in 1053 and ending it in 2011. It must acknowledge the gap and not accept something just because it is Western or pre-schism, but truly filter everything through the lens of Truth. The best of (and I believe in the majority from what I've seen) WRO do just this. Our brothers and sisters in the west began veering away from Orthodoxy long before the schism. Our Western brothers and sisters now should take care, and not fear to reform (while obviously still staying true to their Western patrimony) their current liturgies and practices so as to ensure the security of the Holy Orthodox faith, which is truly the responsibility of all Orthodox Christians.

Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on October 05, 2011, 02:09:13 PM
Besides...members of Bernard's religious order are perfectly happy to accept what textual evidence they have that he is the author of that particular prayer...so that's good'nuff fer me.  I don't need 20 lay historians to back that up fer me...
We don't care if it's good enough for YOU, Mary. If you're going to try to convince US that what you say is true, the evidence has to be good enough for US.

A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.  I don't care that you don't care.  ;)
Then don't ever expect to convince us with your sic Maria dixits and your references to amorphous sources.

Now I have been referenced as amorphous and a jackass today and you know I welcome this kind of critique because it reflects more on the giver than on the receiver, and for that I am grateful to God's goodness and mercy.

So the FACT is that one cannot say with any certitude whether or not Vitis Mystica was written by St. Bonaventure or St. Bernard, which is all that I indicated.  It can be said that the Memorare predated St. Bernard.  It cannot be said, for the moment with any references, that the Rhythmical Prayer was written by St. Bernard or not though there is little evidence against it.

But as Deacon Lance noted, it really makes little difference in terms of the dating of the devotion to the Sacred Heart whether or not it "began" it St. Bernard or St. Bonaventure.  Define "begin"...These two saints would have/could have picked up the devotion from other places and other times.  I posted a link to an article that indicated the ancient character of the devotion, in any event.

So thank you for your insults and your slings and arrows, you Peter and Schultz.  It keeps me alive and alert and happy to serve your spiritual needs.

Blessings,

Mary

 
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: PeterTheAleut on October 05, 2011, 02:14:34 PM
Besides...members of Bernard's religious order are perfectly happy to accept what textual evidence they have that he is the author of that particular prayer...so that's good'nuff fer me.  I don't need 20 lay historians to back that up fer me...
We don't care if it's good enough for YOU, Mary. If you're going to try to convince US that what you say is true, the evidence has to be good enough for US.

A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.  I don't care that you don't care.  ;)
Then don't ever expect to convince us with your sic Maria dixits and your references to amorphous sources.

Now I have been referenced as amorphous and a jackass today and you know I welcome this kind of critique because it reflects more on the giver than on the receiver, and for that I am grateful to God's goodness and mercy.

So the FACT is that one cannot say with any certitude whether or not Vitis Mystica was written by St. Bonaventure or St. Bernard, which is all that I indicated.  It can be said that the Memorare predated St. Bernard.  It cannot be said, for the moment with any references, that the Rhythmical Prayer was written by St. Bernard or not though there is little evidence against it.

But as Deacon Lance noted, it really makes little difference in terms of the dating of the devotion to the Sacred Heart whether or not it "began" it St. Bernard or St. Bonaventure.  Define "begin"...These two saints would have/could have picked up the devotion from other places and other times.  I posted a link to an article that indicated the ancient character of the devotion, in any event.

So thank you for your insults and your slings and arrows, you Peter and Schultz.  It keeps me alive and alert and happy to serve your spiritual needs.

Blessings,

Mary
Seeing things again? It wasn't you I called amorphous.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on October 05, 2011, 02:19:30 PM
Seeing things again? It wasn't you I called amorphous.

You were nasty in your own predictable right, like a shark smelling blood, so I will continue to include you in my prayers today. 

Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: PeterTheAleut on October 05, 2011, 02:43:16 PM
Seeing things again? It wasn't you I called amorphous.

You were nasty in your own predictable right, like a shark smelling blood,
Correction: You perceived me as nasty, which may be more a reflection of you than of me. Now, if you want to blame your perception on me, feel free to go right on ahead. I certainly can't stop you. Just don't blame me for refusing to wear that shoe.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on October 05, 2011, 02:51:00 PM
Seeing things again? It wasn't you I called amorphous.

You were nasty in your own predictable right, like a shark smelling blood,
Correction: You perceived me as nasty, which may be more a reflection of you than of me. Now, if you want to blame your perception on me, feel free to go right on ahead. I certainly can't stop you. Just don't blame me for refusing to wear that shoe.

As I said, I keep you in my prayers.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on October 05, 2011, 02:57:54 PM
As I said, I keep you in my prayers.

That's like telling someone you'll be sure to pray that they become less of a piece of ****. Not very moving.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on October 05, 2011, 03:08:39 PM
As I said, I keep you in my prayers.

That's like telling someone you'll be sure to pray that they become less of a piece of ****. Not very moving.

Now there is a damning presumption that does not hold.

I happen to be personally fond of both men, Schultz and PtA.  They are younger than I am and have much to learn about things I have already learned, as I have things to learn about things I have not yet learned.

My prayer is that they find in their hearts to have and to demonstrate the same respect for me that I have for them and that they learn much in life in terms of true illumination and joy in the Son of the Living God.

So, you may call me a liar, but you cannot change the prayer.

Blessings,

Mary
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Papist on October 05, 2011, 03:24:16 PM
Besides...members of Bernard's religious order are perfectly happy to accept what textual evidence they have that he is the author of that particular prayer...so that's good'nuff fer me.  I don't need 20 lay historians to back that up fer me...
We don't care if it's good enough for YOU, Mary. If you're going to try to convince US that what you say is true, the evidence has to be good enough for US.
What if she doesn't care that you don't care that she doesn't care that you don't care?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on October 05, 2011, 04:59:54 PM
They are younger than I am and have much to learn about things I have already learned, as I have things to learn about things I have not yet learned.

My prayer is that they find in their hearts to have and to demonstrate the same respect for me that I have for them and that they learn much in life in terms of true illumination and joy in the Son of the Living God.

You are a real piece of work!

Oh Lord, I thank thee that thou hast given me a deeper level of respect than the others. That only they might live as I live!

I'll be sure to pray for your shark-like qualities, as I am far older and more experienced in these things than you. You'll understand one day, when the wind of the Spirit carries you to my heights! Your youthful temper will cool, and the tranquil waters of humility will fix you upon such a perfect cross, to have to patiently endure such spurrings from the novices.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: PeterTheAleut on October 05, 2011, 05:13:36 PM
Besides...members of Bernard's religious order are perfectly happy to accept what textual evidence they have that he is the author of that particular prayer...so that's good'nuff fer me.  I don't need 20 lay historians to back that up fer me...
We don't care if it's good enough for YOU, Mary. If you're going to try to convince US that what you say is true, the evidence has to be good enough for US.
What if she doesn't care that you don't care that she doesn't care that you don't care?
Why don't you ask that question of someone who actually gives a ****. ;)
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Deacon Lance on October 05, 2011, 06:40:56 PM
Can you explain what you mean by "too well developed?"

Are you aware that the Memorare is OLDER than St. Bernard. 

Is the Memorare too well developed as well?

I mean that prayer is full blown Sacred Heart not the beginnings of that devotion in the Wounded Heart one might expect.  As for the Memorare it is not older than St. Bernard.  It was culled from a longer prayer from the 15th century.

http://www.preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/BVM/Memorare.html

I would also note that in HAURIETIS AQUAS in the list of saints given credit for starting this devotion St. Bonaventure is listed first, St. Bernard is not even listed.

"94. But for those who wish to touch on the more significant stages of this devotion through the centuries, if we consider outward practice, there immediately occur the names of certain individuals who have won particular renown in this matter as being the advance guard of a form of piety which, privately and very gradually, has gained more and more strength in religious congregations. To cite some examples in establishing this devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and continuously promoting it, great service was rendered by St. Bonaventure, St. Albert the Great, St. Gertrude, St. Catherine of Siena, Blessed Henry Suso, St. Peter Canisius, St. Francis de Sales. St. John Eudes was responsible for the first liturgical office celebrated in honor of the Sacred Heart of Jesus whose solemn feast, with the approval of many Bishops in France, was observed for the first time on October 20th, 1672.

95. But surely the most distinguished place among those who have fostered this most excellent type of devotion is held by St. Margaret Mary Alacoque who, under the spiritual direction of Blessed Claude de la Colombiere who assisted her work, was on fire with an unusual zeal to see to it that the real meaning of the devotion which had had such extensive developments to the great edification of the faithful should be established and be distinguished from other forms of Christian piety by the special qualities of love and reparation.(98)"

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_15051956_haurietis-aquas_en.html
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: biro on October 05, 2011, 06:45:30 PM
Besides...members of Bernard's religious order are perfectly happy to accept what textual evidence they have that he is the author of that particular prayer...so that's good'nuff fer me.  I don't need 20 lay historians to back that up fer me...
We don't care if it's good enough for YOU, Mary. If you're going to try to convince US that what you say is true, the evidence has to be good enough for US.
What if she doesn't care that you don't care that she doesn't care that you don't care?
Why don't you ask that question of someone who actually gives a ****. ;)

I don't find it all that funny for a moderator to talk that way.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on October 05, 2011, 07:29:21 PM
Can you explain what you mean by "too well developed?"

Are you aware that the Memorare is OLDER than St. Bernard. 

Is the Memorare too well developed as well?

I mean that prayer is full blown Sacred Heart not the beginnings of that devotion in the Wounded Heart one might expect.  As for the Memorare it is not older than St. Bernard.  It was culled from a longer prayer from the 15th century.

http://www.preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/BVM/Memorare.html

You're right.  I skimmed the same article and at one point I read "Saint" Bernard where I should have read "Father Bernard"...

Nevertheless there is NO consensus on whether or not St. Bernard or St. Bonaventure authored the treatise or prayer in question...There simply is not conclusive evidence save for a presumption in the face of textual evidence.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on October 05, 2011, 07:30:16 PM
They are younger than I am and have much to learn about things I have already learned, as I have things to learn about things I have not yet learned.

My prayer is that they find in their hearts to have and to demonstrate the same respect for me that I have for them and that they learn much in life in terms of true illumination and joy in the Son of the Living God.

You are a real piece of work!

Oh Lord, I thank thee that thou hast given me a deeper level of respect than the others. That only they might live as I live!

I'll be sure to pray for your shark-like qualities, as I am far older and more experienced in these things than you. You'll understand one day, when the wind of the Spirit carries you to my heights! Your youthful temper will cool, and the tranquil waters of humility will fix you upon such a perfect cross, to have to patiently endure such spurrings from the novices.

Vile presumption
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on October 05, 2011, 07:32:38 PM
Can you explain what you mean by "too well developed?"

Are you aware that the Memorare is OLDER than St. Bernard. 

Is the Memorare too well developed as well?

I mean that prayer is full blown Sacred Heart not the beginnings of that devotion in the Wounded Heart one might expect.  As for the Memorare it is not older than St. Bernard.  It was culled from a longer prayer from the 15th century.

http://www.preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/BVM/Memorare.html

I would also note that in HAURIETIS AQUAS in the list of saints given credit for starting this devotion St. Bonaventure is listed first, St. Bernard is not even listed.

"94. But for those who wish to touch on the more significant stages of this devotion through the centuries, if we consider outward practice, there immediately occur the names of certain individuals who have won particular renown in this matter as being the advance guard of a form of piety which, privately and very gradually, has gained more and more strength in religious congregations. To cite some examples in establishing this devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and continuously promoting it, great service was rendered by St. Bonaventure, St. Albert the Great, St. Gertrude, St. Catherine of Siena, Blessed Henry Suso, St. Peter Canisius, St. Francis de Sales. St. John Eudes was responsible for the first liturgical office celebrated in honor of the Sacred Heart of Jesus whose solemn feast, with the approval of many Bishops in France, was observed for the first time on October 20th, 1672.

95. But surely the most distinguished place among those who have fostered this most excellent type of devotion is held by St. Margaret Mary Alacoque who, under the spiritual direction of Blessed Claude de la Colombiere who assisted her work, was on fire with an unusual zeal to see to it that the real meaning of the devotion which had had such extensive developments to the great edification of the faithful should be established and be distinguished from other forms of Christian piety by the special qualities of love and reparation.(98)"

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_15051956_haurietis-aquas_en.html

Are you suggesting here that St. Bonaventure sets the initiating precedent for devotion to the Sacred Heart in the long history of the Church?...If you are that does not comport with other parts of the encyclical.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Deacon Lance on October 05, 2011, 08:19:06 PM
He is the initiator of a distinctive theology for the Sacred Heart devotion.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: elijahmaria on October 05, 2011, 09:18:14 PM
He is the initiator of a distinctive theology for the Sacred Heart devotion.

True enough on the face of it.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Andrew21091 on October 05, 2011, 09:57:53 PM
I apologize for not posting much in this thread even though I started it. My initial questions were answered but since then, things got out of hand.

One last thought. My brother once claimed that St. Dimitri of Rostov said prayers to the Sacred Heart. Has anyone else ever heard of this? I didn't ask where he got this from.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Sleeper on October 05, 2011, 11:15:09 PM
If I may jump in rather late,

Aren't we rather missing the point in trying to determine a date for this 'devotion'? Who cares if it was pre- or post-schism? Arius' teachings were all pre-schism, it doesn't make them instantly Orthodox.

The Roman Catholics' schism was not one sudden action that severed their ties with Holy Orthodoxy, it was a series of things culminating in the schism. We should not look at whether or not something existed pre- or post-schism, but whether it is Orthodox or not. It should go without saying that it is only Orthodox themselves who are qualified to make that judgement, and so it is curious that Roman Catholics are so prevalent on a board about Orthodoxy to defend their own actions. This thread on the sacred heart has nothing to do with you, if you want to go to First Friday Masses go do it and let us to determine amongst ourselves what belongs in the future of The Church. For a group who supposedly doesn't care what we do there is certainly a lot of (often vicious, and directed at Clergy no less) rhetoric devoted to it by your side on this thread.

Western Orthodoxy, IMO, should not be about setting the clock back and trying to act as though we're beginning a step in 1053 and ending it in 2011. It must acknowledge the gap and not accept something just because it is Western or pre-schism, but truly filter everything through the lens of Truth. The best of (and I believe in the majority from what I've seen) WRO do just this. Our brothers and sisters in the west began veering away from Orthodoxy long before the schism. Our Western brothers and sisters now should take care, and not fear to reform (while obviously still staying true to their Western patrimony) their current liturgies and practices so as to ensure the security of the Holy Orthodox faith, which is truly the responsibility of all Orthodox Christians.



Bravo!
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: Sleeper on October 05, 2011, 11:22:17 PM
I apologize for not posting much in this thread even though I started it. My initial questions were answered but since then, things got out of hand.

One last thought. My brother once claimed that St. Dimitri of Rostov said prayers to the Sacred Heart. Has anyone else ever heard of this? I didn't ask where he got this from.

It's true, and you can read a bit about it in this marvelous essay: http://en.hilarion.orthodoxia.org/6_4

Money quote: "Some Orthodox Fathers are known for the direct influence Catholic spirituality exercised upon them. St Dimitri of Rostov was under this influence for his entire life: his homilies as well as other works, including the Reading Compendium of Saint’s lives, based primarily on Latin sources, have a distinctly “Westernizing” character; St Dimitri’s library held books by Bonaventure, Thomas a Kempis, Peter Canisius and other Catholic authors, and in his spirituality such elements as the devotion of the passions of Christ, the five wounds of Christ and the heart of Christ may be traced."
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart
Post by: arimethea on October 06, 2011, 12:07:14 AM
Thread locked since everyone can not play nice.