OrthodoxChristianity.net

Moderated Forums => Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion => Orthodox-Catholic Discussion => Topic started by: Deacon Lance on August 26, 2011, 05:14:17 PM

Title: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Deacon Lance on August 26, 2011, 05:14:17 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Deacon Lance on August 26, 2011, 05:18:59 PM
I still have this booklet, a little soiled after 31 years, but it is still a powerful catechism in my opinion.  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 as I know it.
Post by: Wyatt on August 26, 2011, 05:50:36 PM
Those are beautiful words.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Fr.Aidan on September 23, 2011, 08:21:29 PM
Love for the Lord is beautiful, but the creepy devotion to the Sacred Heart was invented by a poor raving mentally ill woman who was a heretic.

This devotion has never been encouraged by even a single Saint.

This devotion is highly controversial and no Orthodox should be caught dead engaging in this devotion.

There's just no need for it. It serves no purpose that is not already served by authentic and orthodox prayers and devotions. Thus, it adds nothing to our Christian walk and introduces much harm to that walk.

The devotion, at least amongst those who hold the true faith of Christ, should be allowed to die a peaceful death.

With Love in the Lord Who first loved us,

Hieromonk Aidan+
sinner
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on September 23, 2011, 08:33:44 PM
Love for the Lord is beautiful, but the creepy devotion to the Sacred Heart was invented by a poor raving mentally ill woman who was a heretic.

This devotion has never been encouraged by even a single Saint.

This devotion is highly controversial and no Orthodox should be caught dead engaging in this devotion.

There's just no need for it. It serves no purpose that is not already served by authentic and orthodox prayers and devotions. Thus, it adds nothing to our Christian walk and introduces much harm to that walk.

The devotion, at least amongst those who hold the true faith of Christ, should be allowed to die a peaceful death.

With Love in the Lord Who first loved us,

Hieromonk Aidan+
sinner

We saw your other creepy note on the subject and quite frankly your ignorance of your former Church is appalling...well...not really...It is heart warming actually!!   :laugh:
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: tuesdayschild on September 23, 2011, 08:40:16 PM
...invented by a poor raving mentally ill woman...

Strong words. What was her diagnosis, Father?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on September 23, 2011, 08:48:58 PM
...invented by a poor raving mentally ill woman...

Strong words. What was her diagnosis, Father?

He's been reading too many '70s and '80s Feminists...

What he won't look at is what they would say about eastern saints and miracles... :-X
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: orthonorm on September 23, 2011, 09:39:27 PM
Love for the Lord is beautiful, but the creepy devotion to the Sacred Heart was invented by a poor raving mentally ill woman who was a heretic.

This devotion has never been encouraged by even a single Saint.

This devotion is highly controversial and no Orthodox should be caught dead engaging in this devotion.

There's just no need for it. It serves no purpose that is not already served by authentic and orthodox prayers and devotions. Thus, it adds nothing to our Christian walk and introduces much harm to that walk.

The devotion, at least amongst those who hold the true faith of Christ, should be allowed to die a peaceful death.

With Love in the Lord Who first loved us,

Hieromonk Aidan+
sinner

lol! You just gave Wyatt a reason to live yet another day.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: orthonorm on September 23, 2011, 09:50:26 PM
Love for the Lord is beautiful, but the creepy devotion to the Sacred Heart was invented by a poor raving mentally ill woman who was a heretic.

This devotion has never been encouraged by even a single Saint.

This devotion is highly controversial and no Orthodox should be caught dead engaging in this devotion.

There's just no need for it. It serves no purpose that is not already served by authentic and orthodox prayers and devotions. Thus, it adds nothing to our Christian walk and introduces much harm to that walk.

The devotion, at least amongst those who hold the true faith of Christ, should be allowed to die a peaceful death.

With Love in the Lord Who first loved us,

Hieromonk Aidan+
sinner

We saw your other creepy note on the subject and quite frankly your ignorance of your former Church is appalling...well...not really...It is heart warming actually!!   :laugh:

Being subtle sure ain't style. Nutty way to put an opinion, but I got a laugh.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Coemgenus on September 24, 2011, 10:53:44 AM

This devotion has never been encouraged by even a single Saint.

This devotion is highly controversial and no Orthodox should be caught dead engaging in this devotion.


I believe St. Dimitri of Rostov might disagree with these remarks.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Fr.Aidan on September 24, 2011, 04:57:08 PM
I have not read any 70s and 80s feminists, but I have read a 19th century Russian Orthodox theologian, and pious priests' writings, on this and similar topics. Those are what inform my views. I am so overflowingly grateful for what they have done in teaching me. It's been a huge blessing in my life. I do not exactly feel as if I have to be a watchdog of Orthodoxy, as if things rise or fall, resting on the online posts I make. I honestly feel that Orthodoxy is Orthodoxy, and it is miraculous, and it will take shape as to its earthly expressions, and progress along, and exist, in accordance with a mixture of human good and bad, and Divine providence which will cause it never to fail from off the earth.

Let's take a quick look at the DSM-IV. Only a clinician can diagnose. I do not pretend to adhere to any clinical model when I remark on poor Sister Margaret-Mary's state. But, honestly, speaking in layman's terms, look at her. The sisters of her house were convinced she was crazy. She would spend entire nights in what she described as "romantic conversations" with Christ. She engaged in severe self-mutilating behaviours and instructed others to eat paper pellets on certain days, fasting. Roman Catholic authorities tried to destroy copies of her life, when it was published, because it was so shocking and vulgar. Could we say kindly that the best impulses of the Roman Catholics of those days, correspond to the sensibilities of Orthodox Christians in our day?

Did St. Dmitry of Rostov encourage devotion to the Sacred Heart? That's what's implied here. Bring forward what he ever taught on this. I challenge the idea (respectfully, as always).

Finally, what in the world does "ignorance of your former Church" mean? My former Church? Huh?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on September 24, 2011, 05:09:43 PM
I have not read any 70s and 80s feminists, but I have read a 19th century Russian Orthodox theologian, and pious priests' writings, on this and similar topics. Those are what inform my views. I am so overflowingly grateful for what they have done in teaching me.

That does not make your understanding of the Catholic Church [I am not speaking of Orthodoxy here] any better. 

Nor does it explain why kooky souls in the Catholic Church are clinically insane while kooky souls in Orthodoxy are holy or at worst, quaint.

Whether you've read feminist critiques of such kooky souls or not is irrelevant to the idea that what you write is clearly in line with their thinking...It just may not be clear to you.

PS: For some reason I have long thought that you left the Catholic Church for Orthodoxy.  I will revise that idea.

Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Scotty on September 25, 2011, 11:51:13 AM
Let us not forget that devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus existed hundreds of years prior to Sr. Margaret-Mary Alacoque, she (and her visions) just popularized it.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: tuesdayschild on September 25, 2011, 02:16:24 PM
Let's take a quick look at the DSM-IV. Only a clinician can diagnose.

Thank you.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Margaret S. on September 25, 2011, 02:51:39 PM
Let's take a quick look at the DSM-IV. Only a clinician can diagnose.

Thank you.

On the other hand, if it walks like a duck and quacks like one... I'm only a LPN but the last time a patient phoned me and said she was a goldfish and she was going to Egypt on her private health insurance I mentioned it to her psychiatrist.

:) Margaret
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: tuesdayschild on September 25, 2011, 03:20:14 PM
Let's take a quick look at the DSM-IV. Only a clinician can diagnose.

Thank you.

I'm only a LPN ...I mentioned it to her psychiatrist.

...because it fell outside of your competency. Thank you.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Wyatt on September 25, 2011, 06:51:43 PM
Love for the Lord is beautiful, but the creepy devotion to the Sacred Heart was invented by a poor raving mentally ill woman who was a heretic.

This devotion has never been encouraged by even a single Saint.

This devotion is highly controversial and no Orthodox should be caught dead engaging in this devotion.

There's just no need for it. It serves no purpose that is not already served by authentic and orthodox prayers and devotions. Thus, it adds nothing to our Christian walk and introduces much harm to that walk.

The devotion, at least amongst those who hold the true faith of Christ, should be allowed to die a peaceful death.

With Love in the Lord Who first loved us,

Hieromonk Aidan+
sinner

lol! You just gave Wyatt a reason to live yet another day.
Actually, Eastern Orthodox saying moronic things about Catholic devotions is not at the top of the list of things that I live for.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on September 25, 2011, 06:55:52 PM
Let's take a quick look at the DSM-IV. Only a clinician can diagnose.

Thank you.

On the other hand, if it walks like a duck and quacks like one... I'm only a LPN but the last time a patient phoned me and said she was a goldfish and she was going to Egypt on her private health insurance I mentioned it to her psychiatrist.

:) Margaret

I might buy the idea that Sr. Margaret Mary is a duck: but I will NEVER concede that she's a gold fish!!...I don't care what SHE says!!... :-X

M.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Fr.Aidan on September 25, 2011, 08:03:26 PM
The Sacred Heart devotion did not exist hundreds of years before our madwoman started self-cutting, making people eat paper pellets, writing shockingly romantic (trying to be polite here) prose, and believing that her heart was surgically removed from her chest and had then been sewn back in. (Yes, Goldfish Lady can't hold a candle to our poor French nun, God bless her heart.*)

You really can't trace the Sacred Heart devotion/delusion back even as early as the year 1400. As I said on the companion thread, there are a few prayers we see starting to be printed in Germany soon after the year 1500 which are the closest thing to a Beginning. But even that's rather vague.

There is one opinion I share in exactitude with Pope Benedict XIV (+1758), one of the most deeply-respected Popes of the last 700 years, still remembered for his level-headedness and erudition: That having a feast of the Sacred Heart is utterly preposterous. While I might disagree with Benedict XIV on the Filioque, at least the fact that he and I are of one mind on this point, goes far toward showing that my position is scarcely outré.

* This sentence may NOT be used by some historian of the 26th century, as proof that devotion to the Excised Holy Heart of Margaret-Mary Alacoque, sanctioned with a universal feast by Pope Benedict XXXVIII, has a clear and documented historical origin, having been traced back to Texas, to the year 2011 at the latest. Absit.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on September 25, 2011, 08:15:30 PM
You are as obsessed with this as Father Ambrose is about Toll Houses. 

I am curious as to the source of your antipathy toward western saints who are "strange"...?

And why you don't seem to mind the Loons from the East...visionaries and such.

Isn't that a tad western...To see insanity in anything that is not rational?

Oh!!  darn...that's right.  I keep forgetting that you are a Borrower!!

 :P

The Sacred Heart devotion did not exist hundreds of years before our madwoman started self-cutting, making people eat paper pellets, writing shockingly romantic (trying to be polite here) prose, and believing that her heart was surgically removed from her chest and had then been sewn back in. (Yes, Goldfish Lady can't hold a candle to our poor French nun, God bless her heart.*)

You really can't trace the Sacred Heart devotion/delusion back even as early as the year 1400. As I said on the companion thread, there are a few prayers we see starting to be printed in Germany soon after the year 1500 which are the closest thing to a Beginning. But even that's rather vague.

There is one opinion I share in exactitude with Pope Benedict XIV (+1758), one of the most deeply-respected Popes of the last 700 years, still remembered for his level-headedness and erudition: That having a feast of the Sacred Heart is utterly preposterous. While I might disagree with Benedict XIV on the Filioque, at least the fact that he and I are of one mind on this point, goes far toward showing that my position is scarcely outré.

* This sentence may NOT be used by some historian of the 26th century, as proof that devotion to the Excised Holy Heart of Margaret-Mary Alacoque, sanctioned with a universal feast by Pope Benedict XXXVIII, has a clear and documented historical origin, having been traced back to Texas, to the year 2011 at the latest. Absit.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Fr.Aidan on September 25, 2011, 08:31:05 PM
What? How did you know that? But I promise, I really do promise, that I will turn in those books on Monday, on my lunch hour.  ;)
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on September 25, 2011, 08:39:26 PM
What? How did you know that? But I promise, I really do promise, that I will turn in those books on Monday, on my lunch hour.  ;)

  :) :) :)
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on September 25, 2011, 09:38:26 PM
This list of saints is considerably different from ones I am used to seeing:

http://www.catholictradition.org/Two-Hearts/sh-tradition.htm

Devotion to the Sacred Heart was particularly strong during the middle ages. Many renowned for the learning and holiness developed and encouraged the devotion, among them St. Bernard (+1153), St. Bonaventure (+ 1274), the mystic St. Lutgarda (+1246), St Mathilda of Marburg (+ 1282), the sainted sisters Mathilda (+ 1299) and Gertrude (+ 1302) of the monastery of Helfta, and Ludolf of Saxony (+1380). These perceived in the Sacred Heart a "refuge" in which to recover, the seat of mercy, the encounter with Him Who is the source of the Lord's infinite love, the fount from which flows the Holy Spirit, the promised land, and true Paradise.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Coemgenus on September 25, 2011, 09:40:51 PM

Did St. Dmitry of Rostov encourage devotion to the Sacred Heart? That's what's implied here. Bring forward what he ever taught on this. I challenge the idea (respectfully, as always).

Your blessing father!

I found this - an excerpt from an article by Met. Hilarion:

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,[32] 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.[33] The influence of Catholic spirituality on St Tikhon of Zadonsk[34]can equally be sensed.

http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/11/1/2.aspx
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on September 25, 2011, 09:42:25 PM
This list of saints is considerably different from ones I am used to seeing:

http://www.catholictradition.org/Two-Hearts/sh-tradition.htm

Devotion to the Sacred Heart was particularly strong during the middle ages. Many renowned for the learning and holiness developed and encouraged the devotion, among them St. Bernard (+1153), St. Bonaventure (+ 1274), the mystic St. Lutgarda (+1246), St Mathilda of Marburg (+ 1282), the sainted sisters Mathilda (+ 1299) and Gertrude (+ 1302) of the monastery of Helfta, and Ludolf of Saxony (+1380). These perceived in the Sacred Heart a "refuge" in which to recover, the seat of mercy, the encounter with Him Who is the source of the Lord's infinite love, the fount from which flows the Holy Spirit, the promised land, and true Paradise.


http://sacredheartconfraternity.org/Sacred_Heart_Devotion.html

A general devotion to the Sacred Heart was popular in monasteries in the Middle Ages, especially in response to the devotion of St. Gertrude the Great (b. 1256).

(http://tinhthan.tripod.com/hanhthanh/saints3/StGertrude16-11a.jpg)


Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: primuspilus on September 26, 2011, 01:55:56 PM
Meh I still think the whole thing is creepy. No bashes to folks that like the Sacred Heart. I'll stick to this, thanks :)


(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/Vladimirskaya.jpg/250px-Vladimirskaya.jpg)

PP
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Papist on September 26, 2011, 06:34:47 PM
Love for the Lord is beautiful, but the creepy devotion to the Sacred Heart was invented by a poor raving mentally ill woman who was a heretic.

This devotion has never been encouraged by even a single Saint.

This devotion is highly controversial and no Orthodox should be caught dead engaging in this devotion.

There's just no need for it. It serves no purpose that is not already served by authentic and orthodox prayers and devotions. Thus, it adds nothing to our Christian walk and introduces much harm to that walk.

The devotion, at least amongst those who hold the true faith of Christ, should be allowed to die a peaceful death.

With Love in the Lord Who first loved us,

Hieromonk Aidan+
sinner
Thank you for such a resonable assessment.  ::)
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Papist on September 26, 2011, 06:34:47 PM
Sacred Heart of Jesus, I trust in you.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Papist on September 26, 2011, 06:34:49 PM
I can't even begin to relate to the people who find the devotion "creepy". It seems like forced anti-Latinism.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Sleeper on September 26, 2011, 09:58:21 PM
I agree, Papist.

I'm interested to see what Fr. Aidan thinks about St. Dimitri of Rostov's use, considering he said that not a single saint has recommended it.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Fr.Aidan on September 26, 2011, 10:14:06 PM
So, Papist, what do you think of your Pope, Benedict XIV? He certainly thought in the 18th century that if the Papacy permits a feast of the Sacred Heart, "there goes the neighbourhood." I can't say he used the word creepy, but he did find it preposterous. He marvelled, and I paraphrase but it's close to his original quote, "If we permit a feast of the Sacred Heart, what's next? A feast of the Sacred Eyes of Christ? A feast celebrating Heart of Mary?!"

Remember, that to most Catholics when the Sacred Heart junk first came out, it was shocking, vulgar, and creepy. It took almost 200 years for the Papacy to change its attitude from "it's shocking and awful" to "it's beautiful and wonderful."

We Orthodox are not known for our fast pace of change! Roman Catholicism is like sand, shifting and constantly changing and reinventing itself, and violating its former rules and doctrines by supplanting them with new rules and new doctrines. Orthodoxy is the opposite of all that "blowing in the wind," having steadfast and long-lasting rules and doctrines. Which is a beautiful and uplifting thing to ponder.

And, really, that explains most of this.

P.S. If I knew what St. Dmitri ever said about these topics, I could address it. I don't, so I can't. But I am aware of his closeness to much that is Western in spirit. I just don't think that all of the Western spirit is bad. So I can't criticise him too much for that. For example, I love the Latin Mass and the whole Western Orthodox Patrimony. I just don't like the deviations from that majestic Patrimony.

Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on September 27, 2011, 11:05:25 AM
And the popes who were in whole-hearted support?  There were FAR more of them.   And B14 was not the only level headed heretic to grace the papal office!!

Besides and to the point, IF the devotion was to a body part and NOT to what the heart symbolizes in the long history of the Catholic Church...you might have something worthwhile to say.

"Ick" is hardly to be considered as a reasoned response.  In fact it is something of a creepy way of thinking and presuming and accusing.

So, Papist, what do you think of your Pope, Benedict XIV? He certainly thought in the 18th century that if the Papacy permits a feast of the Sacred Heart, "there goes the neighbourhood." I can't say he used the word creepy, but he did find it preposterous. He marvelled, and I paraphrase but it's close to his original quote, "If we permit a feast of the Sacred Heart, what's next? A feast of the Sacred Eyes of Christ? A feast celebrating Heart of Mary?!"

Remember, that to most Catholics when the Sacred Heart junk first came out, it was shocking, vulgar, and creepy. It took almost 200 years for the Papacy to change its attitude from "it's shocking and awful" to "it's beautiful and wonderful."

We Orthodox are not known for our fast pace of change! Roman Catholicism is like sand, shifting and constantly changing and reinventing itself, and violating its former rules and doctrines by supplanting them with new rules and new doctrines. Orthodoxy is the opposite of all that "blowing in the wind," having steadfast and long-lasting rules and doctrines. Which is a beautiful and uplifting thing to ponder.

And, really, that explains most of this.

P.S. If I knew what St. Dmitri ever said about these topics, I could address it. I don't, so I can't. But I am aware of his closeness to much that is Western in spirit. I just don't think that all of the Western spirit is bad. So I can't criticise him too much for that. For example, I love the Latin Mass and the whole Western Orthodox Patrimony. I just don't like the deviations from that majestic Patrimony.


Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Papist on September 27, 2011, 11:41:02 AM
And the popes who were in whole-hearted support?  There were FAR more of them.   And B14 was not the only level headed heretic to grace the papal office!!

Besides and to the point, IF the devotion was to a body part and NOT to what the heart symbolizes in the long history of the Catholic Church...you might have something worthwhile to say.

"Ick" is hardly to be considered as a reasoned response.  In fact it is something of a creepy way of thinking and presuming and accusing.

So, Papist, what do you think of your Pope, Benedict XIV? He certainly thought in the 18th century that if the Papacy permits a feast of the Sacred Heart, "there goes the neighbourhood." I can't say he used the word creepy, but he did find it preposterous. He marvelled, and I paraphrase but it's close to his original quote, "If we permit a feast of the Sacred Heart, what's next? A feast of the Sacred Eyes of Christ? A feast celebrating Heart of Mary?!"

Remember, that to most Catholics when the Sacred Heart junk first came out, it was shocking, vulgar, and creepy. It took almost 200 years for the Papacy to change its attitude from "it's shocking and awful" to "it's beautiful and wonderful."

We Orthodox are not known for our fast pace of change! Roman Catholicism is like sand, shifting and constantly changing and reinventing itself, and violating its former rules and doctrines by supplanting them with new rules and new doctrines. Orthodoxy is the opposite of all that "blowing in the wind," having steadfast and long-lasting rules and doctrines. Which is a beautiful and uplifting thing to ponder.

And, really, that explains most of this.

P.S. If I knew what St. Dmitri ever said about these topics, I could address it. I don't, so I can't. But I am aware of his closeness to much that is Western in spirit. I just don't think that all of the Western spirit is bad. So I can't criticise him too much for that. For example, I love the Latin Mass and the whole Western Orthodox Patrimony. I just don't like the deviations from that majestic Patrimony.


Well stated Maria.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: primuspilus on September 27, 2011, 11:51:09 AM
I can't even begin to relate to the people who find the devotion "creepy". It seems like forced anti-Latinism.
I am not anti-latin in any sense. I just find no use for it and the thought of it I find not only odd, but pretty useless and yes, I look at it and I am creeped out completely.

That is for ME. I would not pontificate to anyone else about it. If you like, thats cool. I for one, don't.

PP
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on September 27, 2011, 12:03:34 PM
I can't even begin to relate to the people who find the devotion "creepy". It seems like forced anti-Latinism.
I am not anti-latin in any sense. I just find no use for it and the thought of it I find not only odd, but pretty useless and yes, I look at it and I am creeped out completely.

That is for ME. I would not pontificate to anyone else about it. If you like, thats cool. I for one, don't.

PP

I never said I liked the images.  I don't LOOK at the images.  I love however the devotion to the sacred hearts of Jesus and Mary.  Heart speaks unto heart...

There are Orthodox icons that give me the creeps.  I don't look at them either...nor do I rub anyone's nose in them.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: primuspilus on September 27, 2011, 12:06:10 PM
I can't even begin to relate to the people who find the devotion "creepy". It seems like forced anti-Latinism.
I am not anti-latin in any sense. I just find no use for it and the thought of it I find not only odd, but pretty useless and yes, I look at it and I am creeped out completely.

That is for ME. I would not pontificate to anyone else about it. If you like, thats cool. I for one, don't.

PP

I never said I liked the images.  I don't LOOK at the images.  I love however the devotion to the sacred hearts of Jesus and Mary.  Heart speaks unto heart...

There are Orthodox icons that give me the creeps.  I don't look at them either...nor do I rub anyone's nose in them.
Right. Like I said, Im not pontificating on some soap box expecting all to obey. I am simply explaining that as for ME, I have no use for it. Im sure there are some Orthodox icons that freak you out (I havn't seen any yet for me, but hey, thats the rule of individual perspective)


PP
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: William on September 28, 2011, 07:49:22 PM
It seems like forced anti-Latinism.
You gotta stop seeing "anti-Latinism" in everything. It's paranoid.

I don't think it's creepy (although I do think it's wrong), but I can definitely see how some people think that praying to and venerating a body part is weird.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Fabio Leite on September 28, 2011, 08:08:17 PM
From a formal point of view it is a devotion that appeared when the Roman see had already defected the Catholic Church. Besides, even if Rome were still Catholic it would be the case of being a local devotion of one see only, that is, even if Rome was still part of the Church it would not be a catholic tradition.

Said that, it doesn't bother me. Maybe because I grew in a Roman country, but I don't see why it couldn't, with minor tickerings to the doctrine around it, become a fully Orthodox devotion. Many things in Rome are fully Orthodox (of which some are shared with the Catholic Churchm and others are local traditions), many are partially Orthodox and, to my understanding only two are frankly heretic (papal ecclesiology and filioque in the context of the Creed).

The Heart is an important theological concept and we can work from there.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on September 28, 2011, 09:14:35 PM
It seems like forced anti-Latinism.
You gotta stop seeing "anti-Latinism" in everything. It's paranoid.

I don't think it's creepy (although I do think it's wrong), but I can definitely see how some people think that praying to and venerating a body part is weird.

NOBODY that I know who has a devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus prays to a body part, or even venerates a part without the whole being in mind. 

So this kind of estimation is...what?....wrong, at least.

Now some of us have said this over and over again in this thread.

Yet...and still...we get this reaction. 

So this kind of reaction is...what?...dense?...mean spirited?...anti-Latin?...maybe all three.

It is certainly not well informed or empathetic or positive.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: LBK on September 28, 2011, 09:54:27 PM
Quote
There are Orthodox icons that give me the creeps.


Any examples, EM?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Sleeper on September 28, 2011, 10:57:14 PM
Quote
There are Orthodox icons that give me the creeps.


Any examples, EM?

My guess is something like this?
(http://www.lessing-photo.com/p3/150304/15030437.jpg)
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Shiny on September 28, 2011, 11:06:48 PM
What does that represent?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Cephas on September 28, 2011, 11:25:13 PM
What does that represent?

The head of John the Baptist.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Shiny on September 28, 2011, 11:26:02 PM
What does that represent?

The head of John the Baptist.
Doh!
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on September 29, 2011, 10:10:51 AM
Quote
There are Orthodox icons that give me the creeps.


Any examples, EM?

No.  I keep those things private unless I am speaking with someone whom I trust to understand me and how I think and my spiritual life.  I don't discuss that kind of thing with people who find it hard to believe that a Catholic actually has any efficacious life in the spirit.  And I try hard not to do to Orthodoxy and the Orthodox what many of you seem to need to do to us.  I don't belittle you or your faith, but I am human and have likes and dislikes, as do all other human beings, Christian or not.  I try hard not to impose those preferences on my understanding of ecclesiastical operations and the faith.

I hate saying even this much because it is honest and real and all I can think of as I write it is what fun somebody is going to poke at it.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on September 29, 2011, 10:14:23 AM
Quote
There are Orthodox icons that give me the creeps.


Any examples, EM?

My guess is something like this?


No.  Not the head of John.  That is one of the personally favored feasts in the liturgical cycle, and I know that I am not venerating a disembodied head but the man who loved Jesus, and who announced him to the world at great personal cost.  I suppose I could be talked into venerating the sacred heart of John the Baptist as well   :)

M.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: ialmisry on September 29, 2011, 11:38:46 AM
Quote
There are Orthodox icons that give me the creeps.


Any examples, EM?

My guess is something like this?


No.  Not the head of John.  That is one of the personally favored feasts in the liturgical cycle, and I know that I am not venerating a disembodied head but the man who loved Jesus, and who announced him to the world at great personal cost.  I suppose I could be talked into venerating the sacred heart of John the Baptist as well   :)

M.
No doubt.  Btw, there are several places where you can venerate his disembodied head.  Not exactly the same, as you have an actual head (leaving aside which, if any, has his).  Christ had no open heart surgery.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: ialmisry on September 29, 2011, 11:38:47 AM
Love for the Lord is beautiful, but the creepy devotion to the Sacred Heart was invented by a poor raving mentally ill woman who was a heretic.

This devotion has never been encouraged by even a single Saint.

This devotion is highly controversial and no Orthodox should be caught dead engaging in this devotion.

There's just no need for it. It serves no purpose that is not already served by authentic and orthodox prayers and devotions. Thus, it adds nothing to our Christian walk and introduces much harm to that walk.

The devotion, at least amongst those who hold the true faith of Christ, should be allowed to die a peaceful death.

With Love in the Lord Who first loved us,

Hieromonk Aidan+
sinner
Thank you for such a resonable assessment.  ::)
Yes, reasoned from indisputable facts.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: ialmisry on September 29, 2011, 11:38:49 AM
I can't even begin to relate to the people who find the devotion "creepy". It seems like forced anti-Latinism.
LOL. Not forced at all. Straight from the gut, which is quite apropos.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: ialmisry on September 29, 2011, 11:38:49 AM
I can't even begin to relate to the people who find the devotion "creepy". It seems like forced anti-Latinism.
I am not anti-latin in any sense. I just find no use for it and the thought of it I find not only odd, but pretty useless and yes, I look at it and I am creeped out completely.

That is for ME. I would not pontificate to anyone else about it. If you like, thats cool. I for one, don't.

PP
Unfortunately, as Papist demonstrates for them, they aren't cool that you don't find any use for it and are creepted out.  You have to embrace it too.

Sort of like Eucharist adoration.  Not my cup of tea, although I've participated in a way, but unless you aren't into "doing a holy hour" something is said to be wrong with you.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: ialmisry on September 29, 2011, 11:38:50 AM
Quote
There are Orthodox icons that give me the creeps.


Any examples, EM?

My guess is something like this?
(http://www.lessing-photo.com/p3/150304/15030437.jpg)

Doesn't creep me out, but I am against it.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: LBK on September 29, 2011, 12:02:49 PM
The proper icon for the feast of the Beheading of St John the Baptist is the one showing him kneeling before the executioner, not the disembodied, decapitated head on a platter. The latter depiction seems to have appeared in Russia no more than three hundred years ago.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Cephas on September 29, 2011, 12:19:09 PM
The proper icon for the feast of the Beheading of St John the Baptist is the one showing him kneeling before the executioner, not the disembodied, decapitated head on a platter. The latter depiction seems to have appeared in Russia no more than three hundred years ago.

What are your thoughts on this icon which depicts St. John the Baptist standing before his own decapitated head?

(http://iconreader.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/stjohnicon2.jpg)
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: LBK on September 29, 2011, 12:23:46 PM
This icon is quite acceptable. The focus of the icon is the person of the Baptist. His disembodied head is an accessory, a detail, but not the main subject. And he is standing in supplication before Christ his God, not his decapitated head.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Cephas on September 29, 2011, 12:40:26 PM
I see. Thank you for your insight.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: LBK on September 29, 2011, 12:49:35 PM
I see. Thank you for your insight.

Happy to help.  :)
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on September 29, 2011, 01:40:35 PM
I see. Thank you for your insight.

Happy to help.  :)

Of course the same soothing explanation could not POSSIBLY be used for the Sacred Heart.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Papist on September 29, 2011, 01:41:52 PM
I can't even begin to relate to the people who find the devotion "creepy". It seems like forced anti-Latinism.
I am not anti-latin in any sense. I just find no use for it and the thought of it I find not only odd, but pretty useless and yes, I look at it and I am creeped out completely.

That is for ME. I would not pontificate to anyone else about it. If you like, thats cool. I for one, don't.

PP
Unfortunately, as Papist demonstrates for them, they aren't cool that you don't find any use for it and are creepted out.  You have to embrace it too.

Sort of like Eucharist adoration.  Not my cup of tea, although I've participated in a way, but unless you aren't into "doing a holy hour" something is said to be wrong with you.
Well, if you don't want to sit with our Lord who present body, blood, soul, and divinity, then yes, there is something not quite right with your relationship with Jesus.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Papist on September 29, 2011, 01:41:53 PM
I can't even begin to relate to the people who find the devotion "creepy". It seems like forced anti-Latinism.
LOL. Not forced at all. Straight from the gut, which is quite apropos.
If that is what is coming from your gut, you might want to try some fiber.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Papist on September 29, 2011, 01:41:53 PM
Quote
There are Orthodox icons that give me the creeps.


Any examples, EM?

My guess is something like this?


No.  Not the head of John.  That is one of the personally favored feasts in the liturgical cycle, and I know that I am not venerating a disembodied head but the man who loved Jesus, and who announced him to the world at great personal cost.  I suppose I could be talked into venerating the sacred heart of John the Baptist as well   :)

M.
No doubt.  Btw, there are several places where you can venerate his disembodied head.  Not exactly the same, as you have an actual head (leaving aside which, if any, has his).  Christ had no open heart surgery.
Seriously? This is your objection to the Sacred Heart of Jesus Devotion? You know what, it's nonsense like this that, day by day, further confirms that the Catholic the Catholic Church (what Izzy likes to call "The Vatican", in a scottish Mike Meyers accent) is where Christ want's everyone.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: LBK on September 29, 2011, 01:44:48 PM
I see. Thank you for your insight.

Happy to help.  :)

Of course the same soothing explanation could not POSSIBLY be used for the Sacred Heart.

In the icon of St John, his head is in the corner of the icon, illustrating the manner of his martyrdom, and the saint's focus is on Christ. In paintings or statues of the Sacred Heart where Christ is shown bodily, He is pointing to His heart, making it the subject of the painting or statue. Quite a difference.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on September 29, 2011, 01:49:18 PM
I see. Thank you for your insight.

Happy to help.  :)

Of course the same soothing explanation could not POSSIBLY be used for the Sacred Heart.

In the icon of St John, his head is in the corner of the icon, illustrating the manner of his martyrdom, and the saint's focus is on Christ. In paintings or statues of the Sacred Heart where Christ is shown bodily, He is pointing to His heart, making it the subject of the painting or statue. Quite a difference.

That symbolism harkens directly back to the ancient idea that the heart is the incarnational center of the person where the creature meets the creator, where the human meets the divine.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: LBK on September 29, 2011, 01:59:03 PM
Quote
That symbolism harkens directly back to the ancient idea that the heart is the incarnational center of the person where the creature meets the creator, where the human meets the divine.

Iconography is concerned with proclaiming the incarnate, fully-revealed Christ, not abstract symbols such as His figurative heart. Canon 82 of the Quinisext Ecumenical Council puts paid to that. There is also no Orthodox liturgical feast or service dedicated to such abstractions.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: ialmisry on September 29, 2011, 04:08:04 PM
Quote
There are Orthodox icons that give me the creeps.


Any examples, EM?

My guess is something like this?


No.  Not the head of John.  That is one of the personally favored feasts in the liturgical cycle, and I know that I am not venerating a disembodied head but the man who loved Jesus, and who announced him to the world at great personal cost.  I suppose I could be talked into venerating the sacred heart of John the Baptist as well   :)

M.
No doubt.  Btw, there are several places where you can venerate his disembodied head.  Not exactly the same, as you have an actual head (leaving aside which, if any, has his).  Christ had no open heart surgery.
Seriously? This is your objection to the Sacred Heart of Jesus Devotion?
That it in its entirety runs counter to all the warnings the Fathers issue against visions and other gospels preached by angels of light and the passions, you bet.
You know what, it's nonsense like this that,
there you go again, winnowing the wheat to eat the chaff. Nonsense indeed.
day by day, further confirms that the Catholic
was that a mantra to make it true?
the Catholic Church  is where Christ want's everyone.
of course it is.  But you won't get there going down the broad road and wide gates of the Vatican.
(what Izzy

who?
likes to call "The Vatican", in a scottish Mike Meyers accent)
it is what it is, whether Mike Meyers (don't quite get the reference), Christ (qui conversus dixit Petro vade post me Satana scandalum es mihi quia non sapis ea quae Dei sunt sed ea quae hominum.  (Mat. 16:23)) or satan himself says it. 
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on September 29, 2011, 06:40:53 PM
Quote
That symbolism harkens directly back to the ancient idea that the heart is the incarnational center of the person where the creature meets the creator, where the human meets the divine.

Iconography is concerned with proclaiming the incarnate, fully-revealed Christ, not abstract symbols such as His figurative heart. Canon 82 of the Quinisext Ecumenical Council puts paid to that. There is also no Orthodox liturgical feast or service dedicated to such abstractions.

You'll have to discuss that with the holy fathers of the desert, with their theology of the heart.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Wyatt on September 30, 2011, 12:09:05 AM
Quote
There are Orthodox icons that give me the creeps.


Any examples, EM?

My guess is something like this?


No.  Not the head of John.  That is one of the personally favored feasts in the liturgical cycle, and I know that I am not venerating a disembodied head but the man who loved Jesus, and who announced him to the world at great personal cost.  I suppose I could be talked into venerating the sacred heart of John the Baptist as well   :)

M.
No doubt.  Btw, there are several places where you can venerate his disembodied head.  Not exactly the same, as you have an actual head (leaving aside which, if any, has his).  Christ had no open heart surgery.
Seriously? This is your objection to the Sacred Heart of Jesus Devotion? You know what, it's nonsense like this that, day by day, further confirms that the Catholic the Catholic Church (what Izzy likes to call "The Vatican", in a scottish Mike Meyers accent) is where Christ want's everyone.
I certainly believed that our Church was the true Church even back in 2007 when I was received into full communion at the Easter Vigil, but the petty and pathetic ways that Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox take jabs at us just reaffirms this belief. Satan's fiery darts is what it is.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Shiny on September 30, 2011, 12:35:00 AM
Quote
There are Orthodox icons that give me the creeps.


Any examples, EM?

My guess is something like this?


No.  Not the head of John.  That is one of the personally favored feasts in the liturgical cycle, and I know that I am not venerating a disembodied head but the man who loved Jesus, and who announced him to the world at great personal cost.  I suppose I could be talked into venerating the sacred heart of John the Baptist as well   :)

M.
No doubt.  Btw, there are several places where you can venerate his disembodied head.  Not exactly the same, as you have an actual head (leaving aside which, if any, has his).  Christ had no open heart surgery.
Seriously? This is your objection to the Sacred Heart of Jesus Devotion? You know what, it's nonsense like this that, day by day, further confirms that the Catholic the Catholic Church (what Izzy likes to call "The Vatican", in a scottish Mike Meyers accent) is where Christ want's everyone.
I certainly believed that our Church was the true Church even back in 2007 when I was received into full communion at the Easter Vigil, but the petty and pathetic ways that Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox take jabs at us just reaffirms this belief. Satan's fiery darts is what it is.
So you are kinda going against Fr. Anastasios' wishes for this section of the board then.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Wyatt on September 30, 2011, 01:58:04 AM
Quote
There are Orthodox icons that give me the creeps.


Any examples, EM?

My guess is something like this?


No.  Not the head of John.  That is one of the personally favored feasts in the liturgical cycle, and I know that I am not venerating a disembodied head but the man who loved Jesus, and who announced him to the world at great personal cost.  I suppose I could be talked into venerating the sacred heart of John the Baptist as well   :)

M.
No doubt.  Btw, there are several places where you can venerate his disembodied head.  Not exactly the same, as you have an actual head (leaving aside which, if any, has his).  Christ had no open heart surgery.
Seriously? This is your objection to the Sacred Heart of Jesus Devotion? You know what, it's nonsense like this that, day by day, further confirms that the Catholic the Catholic Church (what Izzy likes to call "The Vatican", in a scottish Mike Meyers accent) is where Christ want's everyone.
I certainly believed that our Church was the true Church even back in 2007 when I was received into full communion at the Easter Vigil, but the petty and pathetic ways that Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox take jabs at us just reaffirms this belief. Satan's fiery darts is what it is.
So you are kinda going against Fr. Anastasios' wishes for this section of the board then.
Lol...yeah, he would love it if every single one of us became Eastern Orthodox, but that ain't happening, at least not for this Catholic.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Papist on September 30, 2011, 12:19:16 PM
Quote
There are Orthodox icons that give me the creeps.


Any examples, EM?

My guess is something like this?


No.  Not the head of John.  That is one of the personally favored feasts in the liturgical cycle, and I know that I am not venerating a disembodied head but the man who loved Jesus, and who announced him to the world at great personal cost.  I suppose I could be talked into venerating the sacred heart of John the Baptist as well   :)

M.
No doubt.  Btw, there are several places where you can venerate his disembodied head.  Not exactly the same, as you have an actual head (leaving aside which, if any, has his).  Christ had no open heart surgery.
Seriously? This is your objection to the Sacred Heart of Jesus Devotion? You know what, it's nonsense like this that, day by day, further confirms that the Catholic the Catholic Church (what Izzy likes to call "The Vatican", in a scottish Mike Meyers accent) is where Christ want's everyone.
I certainly believed that our Church was the true Church even back in 2007 when I was received into full communion at the Easter Vigil, but the petty and pathetic ways that Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox take jabs at us just reaffirms this belief. Satan's fiery darts is what it is.
So you are kinda going against Fr. Anastasios' wishes for this section of the board then.
What on earth are you talking about?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Fabio Leite on September 30, 2011, 12:24:41 PM
So you are kinda going against Fr. Anastasios' wishes for this section of the board then.
Lol...yeah, he would love it if every single one of us became Eastern Orthodox, but that ain't happening, at least not for this Catholic.

I would love that too. The only healthy ecumenism that can exist is the one of repetence and humility. The Orthodox must repent of phyletism among us, and Romans must repent from Catapapism to return to Catholicism.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Wyatt on September 30, 2011, 04:00:06 PM
So you are kinda going against Fr. Anastasios' wishes for this section of the board then.
Lol...yeah, he would love it if every single one of us became Eastern Orthodox, but that ain't happening, at least not for this Catholic.

I would love that too. The only healthy ecumenism that can exist is the one of repetence and humility. The Orthodox must repent of phyletism among us, and Romans must repent from Catapapism to return to Catholicism.
You making up words now?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: primuspilus on September 30, 2011, 04:27:38 PM
So you are kinda going against Fr. Anastasios' wishes for this section of the board then.
Lol...yeah, he would love it if every single one of us became Eastern Orthodox, but that ain't happening, at least not for this Catholic.

I would love that too. The only healthy ecumenism that can exist is the one of repetence and humility. The Orthodox must repent of phyletism among us, and Romans must repent from Catapapism to return to Catholicism.
You making up words now?
Even if he is, that doesn't change the truth in what he said. We know what he meant.


PP
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Wyatt on September 30, 2011, 04:28:56 PM
So you are kinda going against Fr. Anastasios' wishes for this section of the board then.
Lol...yeah, he would love it if every single one of us became Eastern Orthodox, but that ain't happening, at least not for this Catholic.

I would love that too. The only healthy ecumenism that can exist is the one of repetence and humility. The Orthodox must repent of phyletism among us, and Romans must repent from Catapapism to return to Catholicism.
You making up words now?
Even if he is, that doesn't change the truth in what he said. We know what he meant.


PP
Good for you guys. Keep patting yourselves on the back.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Schultz on September 30, 2011, 04:35:22 PM
So you are kinda going against Fr. Anastasios' wishes for this section of the board then.
Lol...yeah, he would love it if every single one of us became Eastern Orthodox, but that ain't happening, at least not for this Catholic.

I would love that too. The only healthy ecumenism that can exist is the one of repetence and humility. The Orthodox must repent of phyletism among us, and Romans must repent from Catapapism to return to Catholicism.
You making up words now?
Even if he is, that doesn't change the truth in what he said. We know what he meant.


PP
Good for you guys. Keep patting yourselves on the back.

And you keep rubbing yourself on the front.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on September 30, 2011, 04:43:06 PM
So you are kinda going against Fr. Anastasios' wishes for this section of the board then.
Lol...yeah, he would love it if every single one of us became Eastern Orthodox, but that ain't happening, at least not for this Catholic.

I would love that too. The only healthy ecumenism that can exist is the one of repetence and humility. The Orthodox must repent of phyletism among us, and Romans must repent from Catapapism to return to Catholicism.
You making up words now?
Even if he is, that doesn't change the truth in what he said. We know what he meant.


PP
Good for you guys. Keep patting yourselves on the back.

And you keep rubbing yourself on the front.

Pounding your chest...

sounds better!!
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: J Michael on September 30, 2011, 04:58:21 PM
So you are kinda going against Fr. Anastasios' wishes for this section of the board then.
Lol...yeah, he would love it if every single one of us became Eastern Orthodox, but that ain't happening, at least not for this Catholic.

I would love that too. The only healthy ecumenism that can exist is the one of repetence and humility. The Orthodox must repent of phyletism among us, and Romans must repent from Catapapism to return to Catholicism.
You making up words now?
Even if he is, that doesn't change the truth in what he said. We know what he meant.


PP
Good for you guys. Keep patting yourselves on the back.

And you keep rubbing yourself on the front.

Pounding your chest...

sounds better!!

Oh, the joys of one-upmanship!!!  "We're better at it (the one-upmanship, that is) than you."  "Oh, no you're not--we're better at it than *you*.  And in addition, our religion is the ONLY TRUE one."  "Oh, no it's not, OUR'S is!!  HA!  So, there!"  Pound, pound, thump, thump, gloat, gloat, rub-a-dub-dub!  Pass the Alka-Seltzer, please!  ;D ;D

That's what I tell others who ask what "discussion" on this forum is like, after the initial 3 or 4 posts, that is.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: biro on September 30, 2011, 06:56:43 PM
I can't even begin to relate to the people who find the devotion "creepy". It seems like forced anti-Latinism.

That's because it is.

Quote from: Fr.Aidan
Love for the Lord is beautiful, but the creepy devotion to the Sacred Heart was invented by a poor raving mentally ill woman who was a heretic.

It's good that Christians can discuss things passionlessly and respectfully.  :-X
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on September 30, 2011, 07:29:20 PM
I can't even begin to relate to the people who find the devotion "creepy". It seems like forced anti-Latinism.

That's because it is.

Quote from: Fr.Aidan
Love for the Lord is beautiful, but the creepy devotion to the Sacred Heart was invented by a poor raving mentally ill woman who was a heretic.

It's good that Christians can discuss things passionlessly and respectfully.  :-X

Don't you know that if it is Orthodox, it is de facto, passionless... ;)

It would be good if we could genuinely stop thinking about one another as heretics.  That is God's own truth.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Wyatt on September 30, 2011, 08:03:39 PM
So you are kinda going against Fr. Anastasios' wishes for this section of the board then.
Lol...yeah, he would love it if every single one of us became Eastern Orthodox, but that ain't happening, at least not for this Catholic.

I would love that too. The only healthy ecumenism that can exist is the one of repetence and humility. The Orthodox must repent of phyletism among us, and Romans must repent from Catapapism to return to Catholicism.
You making up words now?
Even if he is, that doesn't change the truth in what he said. We know what he meant.


PP
Good for you guys. Keep patting yourselves on the back.

And you keep rubbing yourself on the front.
Perv
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Ortho_cat on September 30, 2011, 09:02:16 PM
What does that represent?

The head of John the Baptist.

What's wrong with this? This is a historical occurrence. This happened. It's not like we pray to his head. We know that neither Jesus nor Mary opened their chest and revealed their hearts to us and told us to pray to them.

Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Ortho_cat on September 30, 2011, 09:04:20 PM
So you are kinda going against Fr. Anastasios' wishes for this section of the board then.
Lol...yeah, he would love it if every single one of us became Eastern Orthodox, but that ain't happening, at least not for this Catholic.

I would love that too. The only healthy ecumenism that can exist is the one of repetence and humility. The Orthodox must repent of phyletism among us, and Romans must repent from Catapapism to return to Catholicism.
You making up words now?
Even if he is, that doesn't change the truth in what he said. We know what he meant.


PP
Good for you guys. Keep patting yourselves on the back.

And you keep rubbing yourself on the front.

Wow...really???  :o :facepalm:
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: ialmisry on October 01, 2011, 01:05:44 AM
Quote
That symbolism harkens directly back to the ancient idea that the heart is the incarnational center of the person where the creature meets the creator, where the human meets the divine.

Iconography is concerned with proclaiming the incarnate, fully-revealed Christ, not abstract symbols such as His figurative heart. Canon 82 of the Quinisext Ecumenical Council puts paid to that. There is also no Orthodox liturgical feast or service dedicated to such abstractions.

You'll have to discuss that with the holy fathers of the desert, with their theology of the heart.
I don't recall any of them wretching the heart out of the chest.  Nor any devotion to Christ's heart in the theology of the heart, which is not an abstraction, btw, but rather concrete.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: ialmisry on October 01, 2011, 01:05:45 AM
I can't even begin to relate to the people who find the devotion "creepy". It seems like forced anti-Latinism.

That's because it is.

Quote from: Fr.Aidan
Love for the Lord is beautiful, but the creepy devotion to the Sacred Heart was invented by a poor raving mentally ill woman who was a heretic.

It's good that Christians can discuss things passionlessly and respectfully.  :-X

Don't you know that if it is Orthodox, it is de facto, passionless... ;)

It would be good if we could genuinely stop thinking about one another as heretics.  That is God's own truth.
When you stay with God's own Truth and stop thinking in line with the Vatican's heretical thinking, we won't think of you as heretics.  Not until.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: ialmisry on October 01, 2011, 01:05:45 AM
I can't even begin to relate to the people who find the devotion "creepy". It seems like forced anti-Latinism.

That's because it is.
martyr complex strikes again.  Because creepy it is.

Quote from: Fr.Aidan
Love for the Lord is beautiful, but the creepy devotion to the Sacred Heart was invented by a poor raving mentally ill woman who was a heretic.

It's good that Christians can discuss things passionlessly and respectfully.  :-X
how do you think we should discuss Hindu or Shinto phallic worship?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: ialmisry on October 01, 2011, 01:05:45 AM
So you are kinda going against Fr. Anastasios' wishes for this section of the board then.
Lol...yeah, he would love it if every single one of us became Eastern Orthodox, but that ain't happening, at least not for this Catholic.

I would love that too. The only healthy ecumenism that can exist is the one of repetence and humility. The Orthodox must repent of phyletism among us, and Romans must repent from Catapapism to return to Catholicism.
You making up words now?
Even if he is, that doesn't change the truth in what he said. We know what he meant.


PP
Good for you guys. Keep patting yourselves on the back.

And you keep rubbing yourself on the front.
Perv
that's not a denial. :o
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Wyatt on October 01, 2011, 01:25:38 AM
So you are kinda going against Fr. Anastasios' wishes for this section of the board then.
Lol...yeah, he would love it if every single one of us became Eastern Orthodox, but that ain't happening, at least not for this Catholic.

I would love that too. The only healthy ecumenism that can exist is the one of repetence and humility. The Orthodox must repent of phyletism among us, and Romans must repent from Catapapism to return to Catholicism.
You making up words now?
Even if he is, that doesn't change the truth in what he said. We know what he meant.


PP
Good for you guys. Keep patting yourselves on the back.

And you keep rubbing yourself on the front.
Perv
that's not a denial. :o
Considering what you condone being done to the rear, you would do well not to worry about my front.
(http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/Themes/Pascha2010/images/warnpmod.gif)
In reference to the following post:
The Moderators have decided that the bickering between ElijahMaria, Ialmisry and Wyatt is no longer fit for any public forum. Furthermore, Ialmisry, Elijahmria and Wyatt are strongly cautioned to confine their bickering to the private forum. Serious consequences will ensue if their bickering infects any of the public fora, causing derailment of the topic.

A general warning for all: Hijacking of threads for the pursuit of pet causes is much more serious than veering off topic and will be dealt with increasingly severe moderation, to include muting and banning. Second Chance

You are now on 60 days Post Moderation for flaming ialmisry outside of the Private Forum thread to which you were instructed to confine your bickering, an act particularly egregious considering that Isa is currently restricted from defending himself here. Let this bickering overflow again into the Public Forum and you will be muted. If you deem this action unfair, feel free to appeal it via private message to Veniamin.

- PeterTheAleut
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Ortho_cat on October 01, 2011, 02:56:44 AM
So you are kinda going against Fr. Anastasios' wishes for this section of the board then.
Lol...yeah, he would love it if every single one of us became Eastern Orthodox, but that ain't happening, at least not for this Catholic.

I would love that too. The only healthy ecumenism that can exist is the one of repetence and humility. The Orthodox must repent of phyletism among us, and Romans must repent from Catapapism to return to Catholicism.
You making up words now?
Even if he is, that doesn't change the truth in what he said. We know what he meant.


PP
Good for you guys. Keep patting yourselves on the back.

And you keep rubbing yourself on the front.
Perv
that's not a denial. :o
Considering what you condone being done to the rear, you would do well not to worry about my front.

whoa guys, cmon now!  :o
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Seraphim Rose on October 01, 2011, 08:20:53 AM
I s'pose this thread has died an awful death, but I have a question for the Catholics.

Christ speaks about his own body, his blood, and the Cross.

And St. Paul writes in 1 Cor. 12,

Quote
12 For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--Jews or Greeks, slaves or free--and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. 14 Indeed, the body does not consist of one member but of many.
Quote
18 But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. 19 If all were a single member, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many members, yet one body. 21 The eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you," nor again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you."

But he's speaking about the Body of Christ, the Church.

Is there any Scriptural foundation for the devotion to the Sacred Heart? Or for the devotion to any part of the body of Jesus?

It would seem that the Son of God ought to be worshiped in His wholeness.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Seraphim Rose on October 01, 2011, 08:28:21 AM
I ought to add something.

In the months before I began seeking to enter Holy Orthodoxy, as a Catholic, I developed a devotion to the Sacred Heart.

I no longer practice that devotion. But I would imagine that if the sentimentality and imagery could be removed from it, it would perhaps be useful.

What would be left of it? What would it be? That is an honest question.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Sleeper on October 01, 2011, 10:04:43 AM
I ought to add something.

In the months before I began seeking to enter Holy Orthodoxy, as a Catholic, I developed a devotion to the Sacred Heart.

I no longer practice that devotion. But I would imagine that if the sentimentality and imagery could be removed from it, it would perhaps be useful.

What would be left of it? What would it be? That is an honest question.

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," but 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."
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on October 01, 2011, 11:15:12 AM
I ought to add something.

In the months before I began seeking to enter Holy Orthodoxy, as a Catholic, I developed a devotion to the Sacred Heart.

I no longer practice that devotion. But I would imagine that if the sentimentality and imagery could be removed from it, it would perhaps be useful.

What would be left of it? What would it be? That is an honest question.

I have said it before, and I'll say it again.  I have literally hundreds of Roman rite acquaintances over the years who have deep devotions to the Sacred Heart and NONE of them approach the devotion with any kind of rank sentimentality.  They anchor their devotion to Jesus on the Cross and the lance piercing his side and from that side flows love and mercy the likes of which this world cannot present ANYTHING to compare.

That is their devotion.  Some are more familiar with the desert Fathers and they take from that tradition.  Others have connections to the ancient religious orders and very often their devotions use prayers from those traditions with respect to meditations on and prayers in consideration of the Sacred Hearts of both Jesus and Mary.

But it is Caritas that they revere: Jesus' Caritas.

Not some body part.

I am not denying that there are those who seek signs and wonders and something that they would recognize as mystical and so they focus on that part of the devotion brought by Sr. Margaret Mary but they are in the minority in terms of sheer numbers of Catholics devoted to the Sacred Heart.

Your note makes me wonder if you were not among the latter in your time as a Catholic...?

M.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: ialmisry on October 01, 2011, 04:48:30 PM
I ought to add something.

In the months before I began seeking to enter Holy Orthodoxy, as a Catholic, I developed a devotion to the Sacred Heart.

I no longer practice that devotion. But I would imagine that if the sentimentality and imagery could be removed from it, it would perhaps be useful.

What would be left of it? What would it be? That is an honest question.

I have said it before, and I'll say it again.

Given your apparent devotion to mantras, demonstrated over and over again, I'm sure you will.

I have literally hundreds of Roman rite acquaintances over the years who have deep devotions to the Sacred Heart and NONE of them approach the devotion with any kind of rank sentimentality.  They anchor their devotion to Jesus on the Cross and the lance piercing his side and from that side flows love and mercy the likes of which this world cannot present ANYTHING to compare.

That is their devotion.  Some are more familiar with the desert Fathers and they take from that tradition.  Others have connections to the ancient religious orders and very often their devotions use prayers from those traditions with respect to meditations on and prayers in consideration of the Sacred Hearts of both Jesus and Mary.

But it is Caritas that they revere: Jesus' Caritas.

Not some body part.

I am not denying that there are those who seek signs and wonders and something that they would recognize as mystical and so they focus on that part of the devotion brought by Sr. Margaret Mary but they are in the minority in terms of sheer numbers of Catholics devoted to the Sacred Heart.

Your note makes me wonder if you were not among the latter in your time as a Catholic...?

M.
Is there some reason why you feel compelled to engage into ad hominem speculation, rather than face the issue SR brought up, particularly with your admission of the existence of "those who seek signs and wonders...so they focus on that part of the devotion brought by Sr. Margaret Mary" and the FACT that you couldn't produce any facts and figures for your assertion that "they are in the minority in terms of sheer numbers of Catholics devoted to the Sacred Heart" if your life depended on it (or does the Annuario Pontificio take a census and record such stats)?  Is it the weakness of your argument?  The void of facts in support of it?

The cult of the sacred heart enters history with Sr. Mary Margaret.  All these vague and hazy "histories" of the devotion before her do not change that.  All this desperation to link it to any and every reference to the heart in Scripture and the preaching of the Fathers reminds me of a cartoon I saw once where the queen bee had a crown and scepter resembling those of Queen Victoria in political cartoons of the previous century, and the bee spoke with a British accent often affected by those imitating what they perceived as QV's persona.  The cult of the sacred heart resembles the theology of the Desert Fathers as much as the queen bee cartoon resembled Queen Victoria: a mere identity of terms.  As the "Catholic Encyclopedia" puts it:
Quote
From the time of St. John and St. Paul there has always been in the Church something like devotion to the love of God, Who so loved the world as to give it His only-begotten Son, and to the love of Jesus, Who has so loved us as to deliver Himself up for us. But, accurately speaking, this is not the devotion to the Sacred Heart, as it pays no homage to the Heart of Jesus as the symbol of His love for us. From the earliest centuries, in accordance with the example of the Evangelist, Christ's open side and the mystery of blood and water were meditated upon, and the Church was beheld issuing from the side of Jesus, as Eve came forth from the side of Adam. 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...
i.e. when stigmata start to show up
Quote
....Nothing of a general movement had been inaugurated, unless one would so regard the propagation of the devotion to the Five Wounds, in which the Wound in the Heart figured most prominently, and for the furtherance of which the Franciscans seem to have laboured....The image of the Heart of Jesus was everywhere in evidence, which fact was largely due to the Franciscan devotion to the Five Wounds and to the habit formed by the Jesuits of placing the image on their title-page of their books and the walls of their churches....
Nihil Obstat. June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
Given the lack of any such devotion in the first millenium of the Church, one should quesiton its appearance in the second, as this doesn't explain nor vindicate it:
Quote
What deserves special mention is the vision of St. Gertrude on the feast of St. John the Evangelist, as it forms an epoch in the history of the devotion. Allowed to rest her head near the wound in the Saviour's she heard the beating of the Divine Heart and asked John if, on the night of the Last Supper, he too had felt these delightful pulsations, why he had never spoken of the fact. John replied that this revelation had been reserved for subsequent ages when the world, having grown cold, would have need of it to rekindle its love ("Legatus divinae pietatis", IV, 305; "Revelationes Gertrudianae", ed. Poitiers and Paris, 1877).

The idea of building devotions upon abstractions like "Jesus' love (I see no reason to speak Latin and say His "Caritas")" is a little strange in and of itself, but need not be dismissed for that reason.  The "Divine Mercy" devotion is just as abstract, but doesn't have the creepy aspects of the cult of the Sacred Heart (that is, if you leave out Sr. Faustina's visions of Hell, etc.).  But where there is smoke there is often fire, and one has to wonder about how such devotions get mixed up with "those who seek signs and wonders and something that they would recognize as mystical" if said devotions are completely Orthodox.

I can't speak for your "literally hundreds of Roman rite acquaintances," as AFAIK I don't know them (but since I don't know those nameless Orthodox you cite so often in support of your views, I don't have much confidence in your charecterization as to the pietism of your acquaintances), but we are all agreed, SR points out something that exists.  Deal with that.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Seraphim Rose on October 01, 2011, 10:22:17 PM
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.

I don't understand the fire. Is it the Holy Spirit? I would imagine that it's not simply His love, because wouldn't his Love simply be who he is? I find this prayer confusing. I just don't understand it.

If it is a good prayer, I really don't think I'm ready for it.

Maybe, though, you can tell me a little about it? I understand "that my will may be conformed," but I really can't understand the heart on fire part.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Seraphim Rose on October 01, 2011, 10:49:13 PM
Elijahmaria,

I don't think my devotion was very sentimental. It was rather Neoplatonist, with a touch of something sweet. There wasn't any imagery involved, except for a diffusion of light in darkness. I don't think it was good in itself -- I was seeking consolation, not the Creator -- but I do think it was a kind of preparation to be called to Orthodoxy.

But I wonder if you would respond directly to my question.

We worship the Body, and the Blood, when we prepare to eat them, and when we eat them, and after. Christ gave us these to eat. It is our life. It is our very being.

But what is the Sacred Heart?

What is that for us? Do you revere the Sacred Heart? Or do you worship it as your very salvation?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Ortho_cat on October 01, 2011, 10:57:11 PM
Elijahmaria,

I don't think my devotion was very sentimental. It was rather Neoplatonist, with a touch of something sweet. There wasn't any imagery involved, except for a diffusion of light in darkness. I don't think it was good in itself -- I was seeking consolation, not the Creator -- but I do think it was a kind of preparation to be called to Orthodoxy.

But I wonder if you would respond directly to my question.

We worship the Body, and the Blood, when we prepare to eat them, and when we eat them, and after. Christ gave us these to eat. It is our life. It is our very being.

But what is the Sacred Heart?

What is that for us? Do you revere the Sacred Heart? Or do you worship it as your very salvation?

Further, why do you pray to it?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Wyatt on October 02, 2011, 01:47:49 AM
You all do realize that devotions are just that...devotions, right? I mean, it's not mandatory to participate in the Sacred Heart devotion any more than it is mandatory to pray the Rosary. Catholic spirituality is quite broad and there is not (and need not be) a one-size-fits-all devotion.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on October 02, 2011, 10:25:10 AM
Elijahmaria,

I don't think my devotion was very sentimental. It was rather Neoplatonist, with a touch of something sweet. There wasn't any imagery involved, except for a diffusion of light in darkness. I don't think it was good in itself -- I was seeking consolation, not the Creator -- but I do think it was a kind of preparation to be called to Orthodoxy.

But I wonder if you would respond directly to my question.

We worship the Body, and the Blood, when we prepare to eat them, and when we eat them, and after. Christ gave us these to eat. It is our life. It is our very being.

But what is the Sacred Heart?

What is that for us? Do you revere the Sacred Heart? Or do you worship it as your very salvation?

Further, why do you pray to it?

I don't pray to "it" any more than anyone I know prays to "it"...

As long as you all insist on defining things on your terms then there is nothing anyone can say to you.

Why did Jesus divide his body into flesh and blood?  Is not blood an integral part of living flesh?  Did he offer us dead things and tell us they bring life?...Why?  What is the symbolism in THAT?

That is the kind of sense you all are making here:  From Father Aidan on down the list of contributors.

 :-X
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Scotty on October 02, 2011, 10:45:50 AM
This discussion reminds me of evangelicals and Mary.  It can be said and shown 1000 times over where Mary's place in the Church is, yet they still insist that Catholics worship Mary and deem her a goddess. 

You've heard it time and time again, Catholics do not worship a body part of Christ.  If you do not understand, pray for wisdom.

Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on October 02, 2011, 12:11:47 PM
This discussion reminds me of evangelicals and Mary.  It can be said and shown 1000 times over where Mary's place in the Church is, yet they still insist that Catholics worship Mary and deem her a goddess. 

You've heard it time and time again, Catholics do not worship a body part of Christ.  If you do not understand, pray for wisdom.



It is pretty clear that these things are valiant attempts to keep the distance intact.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Wyatt on October 02, 2011, 01:27:13 PM
Elijahmaria,

I don't think my devotion was very sentimental. It was rather Neoplatonist, with a touch of something sweet. There wasn't any imagery involved, except for a diffusion of light in darkness. I don't think it was good in itself -- I was seeking consolation, not the Creator -- but I do think it was a kind of preparation to be called to Orthodoxy.

But I wonder if you would respond directly to my question.

We worship the Body, and the Blood, when we prepare to eat them, and when we eat them, and after. Christ gave us these to eat. It is our life. It is our very being.

But what is the Sacred Heart?

What is that for us? Do you revere the Sacred Heart? Or do you worship it as your very salvation?

Further, why do you pray to it?

I don't pray to "it" any more than anyone I know prays to "it"...

As long as you all insist on defining things on your terms then there is nothing anyone can say to you.

Why did Jesus divide his body into flesh and blood?  Is not blood an integral part of living flesh?  Did he offer us dead things and tell us they bring life?...Why?  What is the symbolism in THAT?

That is the kind of sense you all are making here:  From Father Aidan on down the list of contributors.

 :-X
I've given up on convincing them that we do not pray to Christ's literal heart since they are all hellbent on believing we do. My angle is that it shouldn't matter anyway since it is merely a devotion and thus not a doctrine or dogma. If a group of Catholics start venerating the Holy Left Pinky Toenail of Christ, that doesn't mean I have to like or agree with it, and certainly doesn't mean I am obligated to participate.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: biro on October 02, 2011, 02:06:29 PM
Some people will just keep on believing what they want to believe. It can't always be helped.  :-\
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: ialmisry on October 02, 2011, 02:54:03 PM
You all do realize that devotions are just that...devotions, right? I mean, it's not mandatory to participate in the Sacred Heart devotion any more than it is mandatory to pray the Rosary. Catholic spirituality is quite broad and there is not (and need not be) a one-size-fits-all devotion.
Do tell that to the legions of your coreligionists who find something wrong with you if you don't want to join in.  Latinization has proven that the Vatican is one-size-fits-all to the core.

And you don't have to be Orthodox (just Orthodox at heart maybe) to find the Sacred Heart devotions creepy, despite Papist's protestations to the contrary.  I've known many of your Latin correligionists who take issue with it.

Less creepy, but no less mandatory despite disclaimers to the contrary, the cult of the Divine Mercy.  With the insertion of Divine Mercy Sunday into the General Roman Calendar, how "volunatry" is it?  I know plenty of its enthusiasts.  Tell them its "not mandatory."  Same with Eucharistic Adoration and the Holy Hour-you would think that Christ insituted at the Last Supper the way many of your coreligionists carry on about it.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Fr.Aidan on October 03, 2011, 11:23:48 AM
The statement was made that Catholics do not reverence the Sacred Heart itself. As for this day and age, I don't know. But historically, in Catholic Church documents, it is quite clear that the object of the Sacred Heart devotion was the body part itself. The Roman Catholic bishops who were promoting the devotion made it clear that the physical heart was the proper object of the devotion, with its palpitations and its bodily warmth. I am not painting all the adherents of the Roman Catholic denomination with a single brush, but it is not going to fly to say that Catholics do not and have not used the Sacred Heart devotion with the original intent. Many have and some today doubtless still do.

Now statements are made that Sacred Heart devotions are optional because they are devotions. That is untrue, since the Roman Catholic Denomination made this into a universal feast of high rank. It is placed on the calendar for the devotion of ALL Roman Catholics, on that Friday after Corpus Christi. Thus it has (due to an error, of course) become universal and prescribed, and is no longer merely a private devotion resting on an individual choice.

For Orthodox, the Sacred Heart devotion is really quite indefensible. It is of repulsive origin, represents serious spiritual errors, those devotions in the St. Ambrose prayer book have been approved by no Orthodox authority, and I stand by my original estimation of it as plain ol' creepy. When I was first converting to the Orthodox faith, I bought a Sacred Heart statue and thought it was great. But when I received formation in Holy Orthodoxy (which many Orthodox, especially in the Western rites, lack) I realised this is not something that should be engaged in.

The Lord Jesus Christ can institute whatever He wishes to, and it doesn't have to make a lick of sense to our benighted intellects. Because He is the Creator of the Universe. But a poor, raving, mentally-ill heretic woman, pitied and avoided by all the other sisters in her community, a madwoman engaging in severe self-mutilation, in a state of utter prelest, making people eat paper pellets for their salvation... let's just say she doesn't get the same credence from us as the Lord Jesus Christ does. (This is in reference to the statement about Body and Blood and whether those make sense either.)

Please, Orthodox brothers and sisters, trust the Orthodox theologians and saints, and just rely on them. There may be heretic-crafted devotions with which nothing wrong can be found. Even then, it would not recommend them to the use of pious Orthodox Christian people. Because instead of that heretic-devised devotion, you could be praying five or six good, solid Orthodox devotions. You could just as well utilise any of those, and avoid all the risk, scandal, and mess. We can validly ask not only, "Is such-and-such permissible," but, "Is such-and-such expedient, reliable, conducive?"
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on October 03, 2011, 11:30:29 AM
The statement was made that Catholics do not reverence the Sacred Heart itself. As for this day and age, I don't know. But historically, in Catholic Church documents, it is quite clear that the object of the Sacred Heart devotion was the body part itself. The Roman Catholic bishops who were promoting the devotion made it clear that the physical heart was the proper object of the devotion, with its palpitations and its bodily warmth. I am not painting all the adherents of the Roman Catholic denomination with a single brush, but it is not going to fly to say that Catholics do not and have not used the Sacred Heart devotion with the original intent. Many have and some today doubtless still do.

Now statements are made that Sacred Heart devotions are optional because they are devotions. That is untrue, since the Roman Catholic Denomination made this into a universal feast of high rank. It is placed on the calendar for the devotion of ALL Roman Catholics, on that Friday after Corpus Christi. Thus it has (due to an error, of course) become universal and prescribed, and is no longer merely a private devotion resting on an individual choice.

For Orthodox, the Sacred Heart devotion is really quite indefensible. It is of repulsive origin, represents serious spiritual errors, those devotions in the St. Ambrose prayer book have been approved by no Orthodox authority, and I stand by my original estimation of it as plain ol' creepy. When I was first converting to the Orthodox faith, I bought a Sacred Heart statue and thought it was great. But when I received formation in Holy Orthodoxy (which many Orthodox, especially in the Western rites, lack) I realised this is not something that should be engaged in.

The Lord Jesus Christ can institute whatever He wishes to, and it doesn't have to make a lick of sense to our benighted intellects. Because He is the Creator of the Universe. But a poor, raving, mentally-ill heretic woman, pitied and avoided by all the other sisters in her community, a madwoman engaging in severe self-mutilation, in a state of utter prelest, making people eat paper pellets for their salvation... let's just say she doesn't get the same credence from us as the Lord Jesus Christ does. (This is in reference to the statement about Body and Blood and whether those make sense either.)

Please, Orthodox brothers and sisters, trust the Orthodox theologians and saints, and just rely on them. There may be heretic-crafted devotions with which nothing wrong can be found. Even then, it would not recommend them to the use of pious Orthodox Christian people. Because instead of that heretic-devised devotion, you could be praying five or six good, solid Orthodox devotions. You could just as well utilise any of those, and avoid all the risk, scandal, and mess. We can validly ask not only, "Is such-and-such permissible," but, "Is such-and-such expedient, reliable, conducive?"

All this from "pope" Aidan of Texas.... :laugh:

Half truths-whole lies-and more than a little speculation.

This rant has NOTHING to do with Catholic teaching concerning the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: PeterTheAleut on October 03, 2011, 12:20:36 PM
The statement was made that Catholics do not reverence the Sacred Heart itself. As for this day and age, I don't know. But historically, in Catholic Church documents, it is quite clear that the object of the Sacred Heart devotion was the body part itself. The Roman Catholic bishops who were promoting the devotion made it clear that the physical heart was the proper object of the devotion, with its palpitations and its bodily warmth. I am not painting all the adherents of the Roman Catholic denomination with a single brush, but it is not going to fly to say that Catholics do not and have not used the Sacred Heart devotion with the original intent. Many have and some today doubtless still do.

Now statements are made that Sacred Heart devotions are optional because they are devotions. That is untrue, since the Roman Catholic Denomination made this into a universal feast of high rank. It is placed on the calendar for the devotion of ALL Roman Catholics, on that Friday after Corpus Christi. Thus it has (due to an error, of course) become universal and prescribed, and is no longer merely a private devotion resting on an individual choice.

For Orthodox, the Sacred Heart devotion is really quite indefensible. It is of repulsive origin, represents serious spiritual errors, those devotions in the St. Ambrose prayer book have been approved by no Orthodox authority, and I stand by my original estimation of it as plain ol' creepy. When I was first converting to the Orthodox faith, I bought a Sacred Heart statue and thought it was great. But when I received formation in Holy Orthodoxy (which many Orthodox, especially in the Western rites, lack) I realised this is not something that should be engaged in.

The Lord Jesus Christ can institute whatever He wishes to, and it doesn't have to make a lick of sense to our benighted intellects. Because He is the Creator of the Universe. But a poor, raving, mentally-ill heretic woman, pitied and avoided by all the other sisters in her community, a madwoman engaging in severe self-mutilation, in a state of utter prelest, making people eat paper pellets for their salvation... let's just say she doesn't get the same credence from us as the Lord Jesus Christ does. (This is in reference to the statement about Body and Blood and whether those make sense either.)

Please, Orthodox brothers and sisters, trust the Orthodox theologians and saints, and just rely on them. There may be heretic-crafted devotions with which nothing wrong can be found. Even then, it would not recommend them to the use of pious Orthodox Christian people. Because instead of that heretic-devised devotion, you could be praying five or six good, solid Orthodox devotions. You could just as well utilise any of those, and avoid all the risk, scandal, and mess. We can validly ask not only, "Is such-and-such permissible," but, "Is such-and-such expedient, reliable, conducive?"

All this from "pope" Aidan of Texas.... :laugh:

Half truths-whole lies-and more than a little speculation.

This rant has NOTHING to do with Catholic teaching concerning the Sacred Heart of Jesus.
Would you actually care to correct him rather than just laugh him off?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on October 03, 2011, 12:24:08 PM


All this from "pope" Aidan of Texas.... :laugh:

Half truths-whole lies-and more than a little speculation.

This rant has NOTHING to do with Catholic teaching concerning the Sacred Heart of Jesus.
Would you actually care to correct him rather than just laugh him off?
[/quote]

I have.  We all have here.  I apologize for the frustration that occurs when we are all called stupid and liars: without using the words of course.

And of course it is all right here on this venue to mock and accuse Catholic saints of insanity.

PS: I have posted the primary encyclical for the liturgical celebration of the Sacred Heart MULTIPLE times here on this venue.  Nobody ever even comments.  Another waste of time.  Faster to point and say BUNKO...at least after the 50th or 60th time of explaining and documenting what is real.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Fabio Leite on October 03, 2011, 01:07:46 PM
From the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia ( http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07163a.htm ):
Quote
(b) The question lies between the material, the metaphorical, and the symbolic sense of the word heart; whether the object of the devotion is the Heart of flesh, as such, or the love of Jesus Christ metaphorically signified by the word heart; or the Heart of flesh, but as symbol of the emotional and moral life of Jesus, and especially His love for us. We reply that worship is rightly paid to the Heart of flesh, inasmuch as the latter symbolizes and recalls the love of Jesus, and His emotional and moral life.

The whole explanation can be summed up in Catholic terms that the heart of flesh of Jesus is an icon of the love of Jesus and of His emotional and moral life.

Quote
But there is nothing to indicate that, during the first ten centuries, any worship was rendered the wounded Heart.
(2) It is in the eleventh and twelfth centuries that we find the first unmistakable indications of devotion to the Sacred Heart.
(same source)

Also, the source states that the devotion as such only started, at earliest, in the 11th century, therefore after Rome left the Catholic Church.

Quote
It was in the fervent atmosphere of the Benedictine or Cistercian monasteries, in the world of Anselmian or Bernardine thought, that the devotion arose, although it is impossible to say positively what were its first texts or were its first votaries.

Finally, it affirms it was created exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Roman see.

Therefore we can say without any mistake:

1) Even if Rome were still in the Church this would not be a Catholic devotion, but a local one;
2) It is not something traditional in Christian asceticism and mysticism, but a medieval inovation;
3) Many Catholic mystics, Athonite elders and saints warn against over-emotional devotions and the kind of vision that originated this one;
4) The theological basis that the heart of Jesus is an icon of the love of Jesus has no basis on traditional iconography not in patristic writings where "heart" is the core of the being and not the center of its emotions, a symbology that is Western and medieval.

For all this, I think it is sure to say that the devotion, as it exists today, is not Catholic at all.

It could be if;

1) the heart acquired its traditional patristic sense of being the center of the being; emotions are together with rational thoughts in the concept of 'mind';
2) the human heart of Jesus was not mixed with this philosophical concept of heart;Not even when we have icons of abstract concepts (Hagia Sophia) we dissociate it from the whole being of Christ. Christ is Wisdom, God - the whole God - is love, not just His heart.
3) the heart of Jesus, the center and essence of His being would rightfully be represented by the icons of His life, Passion and Resurrection; at most expressed in His Uncreated Light, as a radiance of his Heart.

Finally, there is an issue that I haven't seen being brought up yet, but there is room for future heresies and schisms there. If Jesus has two natures, two wills, does He have one or two Hearts in the patristic sense of the word? Is there a center of His divine being and a center of his human being, or like these are united under one Person, it is this Person that has One Heart? And therefore, these two natures and wills are united over one Heart?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: ialmisry on October 03, 2011, 01:56:43 PM


All this from "pope" Aidan of Texas.... :laugh:

Half truths-whole lies-and more than a little speculation.

This rant has NOTHING to do with Catholic teaching concerning the Sacred Heart of Jesus.
Would you actually care to correct him rather than just laugh him off?

I have.  We all have here.  I apologize for the frustration that occurs when we are all called stupid and liars: without using the words of course.

And of course it is all right here on this venue to mock and accuse Catholic saints of insanity.

PS: I have posted the primary encyclical for the liturgical celebration of the Sacred Heart MULTIPLE times here on this venue.  Nobody ever even comments.[/quote]
If this is what you are refering to
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,33546.msg529775.html#msg529775
not true. That you don't like the comments is another matter entirely.

Fr. Aidan is spot on: the very citation of the "Catholic Encyclopedia" of one of your "visionaries" speaking about the pulsations of the Sacred Heart that she alleged to have felt by laying her head on the Lord's breast quite explicitely make clear that they were talking about the physical organ.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: ialmisry on October 03, 2011, 01:56:43 PM
This discussion reminds me of evangelicals and Mary.  It can be said and shown 1000 times over where Mary's place in the Church is, yet they still insist that Catholics worship Mary and deem her a goddess. 

You've heard it time and time again, Catholics do not worship a body part of Christ.  If you do not understand, pray for wisdom.



It is pretty clear that these things are valiant attempts to keep the distance intact.
That is how you contain a plague.

We will pray for you all to receive discernment.

When someone is talking about feeling "pulsations" in a chest, and speaking of "the Heart of Flesh," yes, they are talking about a body part.  If you do not understand, consult a dictionary.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Scotty on October 03, 2011, 01:57:42 PM
The 11th century does not necessarily mean Rome had "left".  What if it were in the first half of the 11th century?  Perhaps I'm being exceedingly attentive to detail and my own justification.

Regarding the Sacred Heart and the two natures of Jesus, does Jesus have separate senses of love in each of His natures, or does He possess only one sense of love?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Fabio Leite on October 03, 2011, 02:13:27 PM
The 11th century does not necessarily mean Rome had "left".  What if it were in the first half of the 11th century?  Perhaps I'm being exceedingly attentive to detail and my own justification.

Regarding the Sacred Heart and the two natures of Jesus, does Jesus have separate senses of love in each of His natures, or does He possess only one sense of love?

I don't know. Maybe there are patristic texts about it, but I haven't read them yet. The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia *does* question if the love represented  by the Sacred Heart would symbolize the love He had for us as human being or as God, concluding it is the one He felt as God. I think this line of thought rather spikey and without references from Fathers of the Church and saints I don't feel qualified to go deeper into that. My *opinion* is that love and heart are something from His person, so we would have just one of each. But this is a rational approach, not a theological vision.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Fabio Leite on October 03, 2011, 02:19:31 PM
The 11th century does not necessarily mean Rome had "left".  What if it were in the first half of the 11th century?  Perhaps I'm being exceedingly attentive to detail and my own justification.

Regarding the Sacred Heart and the two natures of Jesus, does Jesus have separate senses of love in each of His natures, or does He possess only one sense of love?

I don't know. Maybe there are patristic texts about it, but I haven't read them yet. The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia *does* question if the love represented  by the Sacred Heart would symbolize the love He had for us as human being or as God, concluding it is the one He felt as God. I think this line of thought rather spikey and without references from Fathers of the Church and saints I don't feel qualified to go deeper into that. My *opinion* is that love and heart are something from His person, so we would have just one of each. But this is a rational approach, not a theological vision.

Correction:

Quote
Finally, the question arises as to whether the love which we honour in this devotion is that with which Jesus loves us as Man or that with which He loves us as God; whether it is created or uncreated, His human or His Divine Love. Undoubtedly it is the love of God made Man, the love of the Incarnate Word. However, it does not seem that devout persons think of separating these two loves any more than they separate the two natures in Jesus. Besides, even though we might wish to settle this part of the question at any cost, we would find that the opinions of authors are at variance. Some, considering that the Heart of Flesh is connected with human love only, conclude that it does not symbolize Divine love which, moreover, is not proper to the Person of Jesus, and that, therefore, Divine love is not the direct object of the devotion. Others, while admitting that Divine love apart from the Incarnate Word is not the object of the devotion, believe it to be such when considered as the love of the Incarnate Word, and they do not see why this love also could not be symbolized by the Heart of flesh nor why, in this event, the devotion should be limited to created love only.

The Encyclopedia does not say it is the love of Jesus as God, but points out that most people wouldn't separate either and shows divergent opinions.  Still, it does enter into a potentially polemical subtlety of the same level of the questions of the natures and wills of Jesus.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on October 03, 2011, 07:51:53 PM
The 11th century does not necessarily mean Rome had "left".  What if it were in the first half of the 11th century?  Perhaps I'm being exceedingly attentive to detail and my own justification.

Regarding the Sacred Heart and the two natures of Jesus, does Jesus have separate senses of love in each of His natures, or does He possess only one sense of love?

I don't know. Maybe there are patristic texts about it, but I haven't read them yet. The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia *does* question if the love represented  by the Sacred Heart would symbolize the love He had for us as human being or as God, concluding it is the one He felt as God. I think this line of thought rather spikey and without references from Fathers of the Church and saints I don't feel qualified to go deeper into that. My *opinion* is that love and heart are something from His person, so we would have just one of each. But this is a rational approach, not a theological vision.

Correction:

Quote
Finally, the question arises as to whether the love which we honour in this devotion is that with which Jesus loves us as Man or that with which He loves us as God; whether it is created or uncreated, His human or His Divine Love. Undoubtedly it is the love of God made Man, the love of the Incarnate Word. However, it does not seem that devout persons think of separating these two loves any more than they separate the two natures in Jesus. Besides, even though we might wish to settle this part of the question at any cost, we would find that the opinions of authors are at variance. Some, considering that the Heart of Flesh is connected with human love only, conclude that it does not symbolize Divine love which, moreover, is not proper to the Person of Jesus, and that, therefore, Divine love is not the direct object of the devotion. Others, while admitting that Divine love apart from the Incarnate Word is not the object of the devotion, believe it to be such when considered as the love of the Incarnate Word, and they do not see why this love also could not be symbolized by the Heart of flesh nor why, in this event, the devotion should be limited to created love only.

The Encyclopedia does not say it is the love of Jesus as God, but points out that most people wouldn't separate either and shows divergent opinions.  Still, it does enter into a potentially polemical subtlety of the same level of the questions of the natures and wills of Jesus.

Once again an encyclopedia is not a good place to go to find the Church's formal teaching on a subject. 

It may be good for discussion purposes and in some cases it is excellent for looking at historical definitions by the LAITY but beyond that it is not something that I lean on for catechesis.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on October 03, 2011, 08:24:03 PM
http://www.cin.org/sstmargm.html

Quote
II

Had it been left to her, we should have known nothing about her, nothing whatsoever. Her superiors commanded her to speak and with death in her soul, she obeyed. It was necessary that she speak, to establish the new devotion, and still more to justify it; for it was an offence alike to Protestant and Jansenist and Rationalist, to all the varieties of human error which set a limit to God's right of loving men or his power of loving men or the means He may use to win men's love. It was necessary that she speak-as every day brings proof-to prevent the new devotion from degenerating into fetichism and mere superstition, to save it from the pretty-pretty insipidity to which the pious can reduce all devotions whatsoever not sparing even that, the keenestedged, which glorifies the Sacred Fire of Love which the Son of God came to cast upon the earth that it might be enkindled.

What is that Heart we are called upon to worship? What is the worship we are called upon to pay it? St. Margaret Mary tells us. Yet she is not the first to tell us. From St. John onwards Christians have venerated the Sacred Heart. St. John in a vision brought St. Gertrude within its presence. Laid open on the cross, it sent forth a ray to wound the heart of the Little Poor Man of Assisi. St. Catherine of Siena, receiving it in exchange for her own, felt it beating in her breast. And there are more. Nor should we forget that almost contemporary with our saint is Marie des Vallees, a penitent of St. John Eudes, who saw the Sacred Heart, knew it for what it was, and loved it. But clearly it was God's plan to reserve to the humble Visitandine nun of Paray-le-Monial the decisive role in the propagation of that mysterious flame. From earliest childhood, she lived in the intimacy of the Heart of Jesus. No saint has ever known or loved it better; and we learn the price she had to pay as we read the notebook which she meant for her superiors only, which on her death-bed she implored them to destroy.

To pay homage to the Heart of Jesus means quite simply to accept the Cross, to seek out the Cross, to die to the world upon the Cross. And all this one can do only through love-and through love of Love Itself. In her day Love was no longer loved. It was a dry hard faith that they preached. So God showed men His Heart. They were deaf to the lesson of St. John at the Last Supper, to the lesson of St. Gertrude and the singer of Assisi and the tertiary of Siena, to the plain lesson of the Gospel itself. Very well then. If the blind crowd needed a sign that even the blind could not miss: a blazing, bleeding, buming sign of the uncomprehended Love which bleeds and bums for all: a poor girl who had surrendered herself wholly should receive the clue to the secret, the sign, and should deliver it to men in her own immolation.
[/color]
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on October 03, 2011, 08:24:54 PM
http://www.cin.org/sstmargm.html

Quote
II

Had it been left to her, we should have known nothing about her, nothing whatsoever. Her superiors commanded her to speak and with death in her soul, she obeyed. It was necessary that she speak, to establish the new devotion, and still more to justify it; for it was an offence alike to Protestant and Jansenist and Rationalist, to all the varieties of human error which set a limit to God's right of loving men or his power of loving men or the means He may use to win men's love. It was necessary that she speak-as every day brings proof-to prevent the new devotion from degenerating into fetichism and mere superstition, to save it from the pretty-pretty insipidity to which the pious can reduce all devotions whatsoever not sparing even that, the keenestedged, which glorifies the Sacred Fire of Love which the Son of God came to cast upon the earth that it might be enkindled.

What is that Heart we are called upon to worship? What is the worship we are called upon to pay it? St. Margaret Mary tells us. Yet she is not the first to tell us. From St. John onwards Christians have venerated the Sacred Heart. St. John in a vision brought St. Gertrude within its presence. Laid open on the cross, it sent forth a ray to wound the heart of the Little Poor Man of Assisi. St. Catherine of Siena, receiving it in exchange for her own, felt it beating in her breast. And there are more. Nor should we forget that almost contemporary with our saint is Marie des Vallees, a penitent of St. John Eudes, who saw the Sacred Heart, knew it for what it was, and loved it. But clearly it was God's plan to reserve to the humble Visitandine nun of Paray-le-Monial the decisive role in the propagation of that mysterious flame. From earliest childhood, she lived in the intimacy of the Heart of Jesus. No saint has ever known or loved it better; and we learn the price she had to pay as we read the notebook which she meant for her superiors only, which on her death-bed she implored them to destroy.

To pay homage to the Heart of Jesus means quite simply to accept the Cross, to seek out the Cross, to die to the world upon the Cross. And all this one can do only through love-and through love of Love Itself. In her day Love was no longer loved. It was a dry hard faith that they preached. So God showed men His Heart. They were deaf to the lesson of St. John at the Last Supper, to the lesson of St. Gertrude and the singer of Assisi and the tertiary of Siena, to the plain lesson of the Gospel itself. Very well then. If the blind crowd needed a sign that even the blind could not miss: a blazing, bleeding, buming sign of the uncomprehended Love which bleeds and bums for all: a poor girl who had surrendered herself wholly should receive the clue to the secret, the sign, and should deliver it to men in her own immolation.
[/color]
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Scotty on October 03, 2011, 08:45:26 PM
The 11th century does not necessarily mean Rome had "left".  What if it were in the first half of the 11th century?  Perhaps I'm being exceedingly attentive to detail and my own justification.

Regarding the Sacred Heart and the two natures of Jesus, does Jesus have separate senses of love in each of His natures, or does He possess only one sense of love?

I don't know. Maybe there are patristic texts about it, but I haven't read them yet. The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia *does* question if the love represented  by the Sacred Heart would symbolize the love He had for us as human being or as God, concluding it is the one He felt as God. I think this line of thought rather spikey and without references from Fathers of the Church and saints I don't feel qualified to go deeper into that. My *opinion* is that love and heart are something from His person, so we would have just one of each. But this is a rational approach, not a theological vision.

I was being rhetorical anyway.  It would seem exceedingly scholastic to go this far as to fully define from which nature and to what extent His love proceeds.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: biro on October 03, 2011, 08:57:04 PM
Quote from: 1 John 4:8

King James Version (KJV)

 8  He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

(emphasis mine)

That is all.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Ortho_cat on October 03, 2011, 09:21:44 PM
What of this "Alliance of the Hearts of Jesus and Mary"... Is this a fringe devotion?

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/Sacred_Heart.jpg)

I've never heard much of it, but wiki says this:

Devotions to the two hearts are key elements of Catholic teachings, and terms such as Holy Heart, Agonizing Heart and Compassionate Heart have also been used in devotions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_of_the_Hearts_of_Jesus_and_Mary
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Papist on October 03, 2011, 10:06:10 PM
The 11th century does not necessarily mean Rome had "left".  What if it were in the first half of the 11th century?  Perhaps I'm being exceedingly attentive to detail and my own justification.

Regarding the Sacred Heart and the two natures of Jesus, does Jesus have separate senses of love in each of His natures, or does He possess only one sense of love?

I don't know. Maybe there are patristic texts about it, but I haven't read them yet. The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia *does* question if the love represented  by the Sacred Heart would symbolize the love He had for us as human being or as God, concluding it is the one He felt as God. I think this line of thought rather spikey and without references from Fathers of the Church and saints I don't feel qualified to go deeper into that. My *opinion* is that love and heart are something from His person, so we would have just one of each. But this is a rational approach, not a theological vision.
It seems that if to love is to will the Good, and Christ has two wills, then he must have both a human and a divine love.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: ialmisry on October 03, 2011, 10:06:12 PM
The 11th century does not necessarily mean Rome had "left".  What if it were in the first half of the 11th century?  Perhaps I'm being exceedingly attentive to detail and my own justification.

Regarding the Sacred Heart and the two natures of Jesus, does Jesus have separate senses of love in each of His natures, or does He possess only one sense of love?

I don't know. Maybe there are patristic texts about it, but I haven't read them yet. The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia *does* question if the love represented  by the Sacred Heart would symbolize the love He had for us as human being or as God, concluding it is the one He felt as God. I think this line of thought rather spikey and without references from Fathers of the Church and saints I don't feel qualified to go deeper into that. My *opinion* is that love and heart are something from His person, so we would have just one of each. But this is a rational approach, not a theological vision.

Correction:

Quote
Finally, the question arises as to whether the love which we honour in this devotion is that with which Jesus loves us as Man or that with which He loves us as God; whether it is created or uncreated, His human or His Divine Love. Undoubtedly it is the love of God made Man, the love of the Incarnate Word. However, it does not seem that devout persons think of separating these two loves any more than they separate the two natures in Jesus. Besides, even though we might wish to settle this part of the question at any cost, we would find that the opinions of authors are at variance. Some, considering that the Heart of Flesh is connected with human love only, conclude that it does not symbolize Divine love which, moreover, is not proper to the Person of Jesus, and that, therefore, Divine love is not the direct object of the devotion. Others, while admitting that Divine love apart from the Incarnate Word is not the object of the devotion, believe it to be such when considered as the love of the Incarnate Word, and they do not see why this love also could not be symbolized by the Heart of flesh nor why, in this event, the devotion should be limited to created love only.

The Encyclopedia does not say it is the love of Jesus as God, but points out that most people wouldn't separate either and shows divergent opinions.  Still, it does enter into a potentially polemical subtlety of the same level of the questions of the natures and wills of Jesus.

Once again an encyclopedia is not a good place to go to find the Church's formal teaching on a subject. 

It may be good for discussion purposes and in some cases it is excellent for looking at historical definitions by the LAITY but beyond that it is not something that I lean on for catechesis.
That is fine, because we have no interest in being catechized into Sacred Heart devotion.  We need to see only enough to know not to go there. The "Catholic Encyclopedia," with your "magisterium's" "imprimaturs" and "nihil obstat" more than suffices.

Beyond the truth known through Existentialism, that the Other always remains objective, never becoming subjective; what you seem to demand we engage in to find out the "truth of the Sacred Heart as I know it" begs the question of when it would end:trantric exercises, Budhdhist meditation, Hindu yoga, Muslim prayer, Jewish Halaka, etc. etc. etc. -where would it end?  Why should we privilege your devotion over all others, to set aside our Orthodoxy to try to experience something which we feel alien to Orthodoxy, particularly when your authorities, like the "Catholic Encyclopedia," only confirm our cause for concern?

Perhaps you may demand it, because we criticize the devotion in question.  Well, for one thing, putting it on an Orthodox forum in "Orthodox-Other Chrisitian Discussion" is going to get some discussion, and we're going to have to tell it like we see it.  I've often criticized Sacred Heart and Immaculate Heart images in Orthodox contexts (my old Church had banners from before the return to Orthodoxy: you could see that the robes had been painted in to cover the hearts), but doing that in a Vatican institution would be out of place.  Except if the topic of discussion is differences between Orthodoxy and the Vatican, or if it is being claimed "we're all the same."

I've been in many churches with sacred heart statues. I've never been in a Hindu temple, because they require you take your shoes off in honor of the idols inside.  If I had to venerate the sacred heart, I might have to avoid such churches. As it is, I just focus elsewhere.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Deacon Lance on October 03, 2011, 10:18:22 PM
What of this "Alliance of the Hearts of Jesus and Mary"... Is this a fringe devotion?

Fringe? No, but like any other devotion (besides the Rosary and Stations of the Cross) since Vatican II just not emphasized.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: stanley123 on October 04, 2011, 04:50:22 AM
According to an article appearing on Yahoo, the Sacred Heart of Jesus has miraculously appeared on a Communion wafer. Two medical  doctors have determined that it is human heart tissue.   
http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20111002/ap_on_re_eu/eu_poland_miracle_wafer
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Shiny on October 04, 2011, 05:19:51 AM
According to an article appearing on Yahoo, the Sacred Heart of Jesus has miraculously appeared on a Communion wafer. Two medical  doctors have determined that it is human heart tissue.   
http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20111002/ap_on_re_eu/eu_poland_miracle_wafer
Awesome story.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: JR on October 04, 2011, 07:06:38 AM
According to an article appearing on Yahoo, the Sacred Heart of Jesus has miraculously appeared on a Communion wafer. Two medical  doctors have determined that it is human heart tissue.   
http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20111002/ap_on_re_eu/eu_poland_miracle_wafer

Interesting !
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Fabio Leite on October 04, 2011, 08:57:36 AM
http://www.cin.org/sstmargm.html

Quote
II

Had it been left to her, we should have known nothing about her, nothing whatsoever. Her superiors commanded her to speak and with death in her soul, she obeyed. It was necessary that she speak, to establish the new devotion, and still more to justify it; for it was an offence alike to Protestant and Jansenist and Rationalist, to all the varieties of human error which set a limit to God's right of loving men or his power of loving men or the means He may use to win men's love. It was necessary that she speak-as every day brings proof-to prevent the new devotion from degenerating into fetichism and mere superstition, to save it from the pretty-pretty insipidity to which the pious can reduce all devotions whatsoever not sparing even that, the keenestedged, which glorifies the Sacred Fire of Love which the Son of God came to cast upon the earth that it might be enkindled.

What is that Heart we are called upon to worship? What is the worship we are called upon to pay it? St. Margaret Mary tells us. Yet she is not the first to tell us. From St. John onwards Christians have venerated the Sacred Heart. St. John in a vision brought St. Gertrude within its presence. Laid open on the cross, it sent forth a ray to wound the heart of the Little Poor Man of Assisi. St. Catherine of Siena, receiving it in exchange for her own, felt it beating in her breast. And there are more. Nor should we forget that almost contemporary with our saint is Marie des Vallees, a penitent of St. John Eudes, who saw the Sacred Heart, knew it for what it was, and loved it. But clearly it was God's plan to reserve to the humble Visitandine nun of Paray-le-Monial the decisive role in the propagation of that mysterious flame. From earliest childhood, she lived in the intimacy of the Heart of Jesus. No saint has ever known or loved it better; and we learn the price she had to pay as we read the notebook which she meant for her superiors only, which on her death-bed she implored them to destroy.

To pay homage to the Heart of Jesus means quite simply to accept the Cross, to seek out the Cross, to die to the world upon the Cross. And all this one can do only through love-and through love of Love Itself. In her day Love was no longer loved. It was a dry hard faith that they preached. So God showed men His Heart. They were deaf to the lesson of St. John at the Last Supper, to the lesson of St. Gertrude and the singer of Assisi and the tertiary of Siena, to the plain lesson of the Gospel itself. Very well then. If the blind crowd needed a sign that even the blind could not miss: a blazing, bleeding, buming sign of the uncomprehended Love which bleeds and bums for all: a poor girl who had surrendered herself wholly should receive the clue to the secret, the sign, and should deliver it to men in her own immolation.
[/color]

Elijmariah, this is a good source but the Catholic encyclopedia information is not contradictory but complementary. The explanation given in this site is, honestly, too broad and can be said of almost any devotion. Which Christian devotion is not about accepting the Cross etc etc?

The people who did the encyclopedia are not lay people or ignorant. They are theologians and researchers. The site, for example, equates John's lying his head on Christ's chest as an adoration of the Sacred Heart. That is twisting  text too much and one would not even have to be a language specialist to see that.

What the encyclopedia describes is far more sound. There are references to the love of Christ (obviously) and to the concept of heart during the first millenia but which have no direct link to a devotion that was created in the 11th-12th century in Rome. Any association of the devotion with texts about "heart" and "love" are just projections of meaning onto the past, not unlikely people who say Jesus was the first Marxist.

Also, the references are very clear that the devotion is both to the spiritual heart and to the physical heart, the latter being like an "icon" of the former.

The devotion itself only gained popularity after a vision that for all standards, including those of Rome in the 1st millenium, would be considered a demonic illusion. The nun herself was more loyal to tradition by willing to keep it a secret and not trust it too much, but her superiors - according to the text you brought - wanted to affront "protetestants and rationalists" something that would bring them offense. *That* if it were an influencing criteria, is not a spiritual reason to accept a vision.

From an Orthodox Catholic point of view, I see positive and negative potentials there.

From the positive side, it is contemplation of the concept of heart, of the infinite love of Christ.

From the negative side, it does take from the forefront the Gospel revelation that God - the whole God and not just a part - is love. That being true - and we know it is - then the visible symbol of God's love is not the heart of Jesus, part of the incarnated God Who is love, but Jesus Himself, in all His life and body, passion and resurrection.

As it exists today, the devotion looks a lot like the condemned heresy of name worshippers, who out of a misguided love for the name of God, and similar projections onto past references, actually associated to the *name* that which was proper to the *whole* God.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Ortho_cat on October 04, 2011, 09:00:28 AM
According to an article appearing on Yahoo, the Sacred Heart of Jesus has miraculously appeared on a Communion wafer. Two medical  doctors have determined that it is human heart tissue.  
http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20111002/ap_on_re_eu/eu_poland_miracle_wafer

It will be interesting to see what the Vatican has to say about this.

Being as though it was in 2008, I doubt they will have more to say on it.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: primuspilus on October 04, 2011, 11:11:08 AM
im sorry to bring this up Maria, but you cant use the catholic encyclopedia as a reference than discard it when the definition they provide is inconvenient.

PP
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on October 04, 2011, 11:58:07 AM
http://www.cin.org/sstmargm.html

Quote
II

Had it been left to her, we should have known nothing about her, nothing whatsoever. Her superiors commanded her to speak and with death in her soul, she obeyed. It was necessary that she speak, to establish the new devotion, and still more to justify it; for it was an offence alike to Protestant and Jansenist and Rationalist, to all the varieties of human error which set a limit to God's right of loving men or his power of loving men or the means He may use to win men's love. It was necessary that she speak-as every day brings proof-to prevent the new devotion from degenerating into fetichism and mere superstition, to save it from the pretty-pretty insipidity to which the pious can reduce all devotions whatsoever not sparing even that, the keenestedged, which glorifies the Sacred Fire of Love which the Son of God came to cast upon the earth that it might be enkindled.

What is that Heart we are called upon to worship? What is the worship we are called upon to pay it? St. Margaret Mary tells us. Yet she is not the first to tell us. From St. John onwards Christians have venerated the Sacred Heart. St. John in a vision brought St. Gertrude within its presence. Laid open on the cross, it sent forth a ray to wound the heart of the Little Poor Man of Assisi. St. Catherine of Siena, receiving it in exchange for her own, felt it beating in her breast. And there are more. Nor should we forget that almost contemporary with our saint is Marie des Vallees, a penitent of St. John Eudes, who saw the Sacred Heart, knew it for what it was, and loved it. But clearly it was God's plan to reserve to the humble Visitandine nun of Paray-le-Monial the decisive role in the propagation of that mysterious flame. From earliest childhood, she lived in the intimacy of the Heart of Jesus. No saint has ever known or loved it better; and we learn the price she had to pay as we read the notebook which she meant for her superiors only, which on her death-bed she implored them to destroy.

To pay homage to the Heart of Jesus means quite simply to accept the Cross, to seek out the Cross, to die to the world upon the Cross. And all this one can do only through love-and through love of Love Itself. In her day Love was no longer loved. It was a dry hard faith that they preached. So God showed men His Heart. They were deaf to the lesson of St. John at the Last Supper, to the lesson of St. Gertrude and the singer of Assisi and the tertiary of Siena, to the plain lesson of the Gospel itself. Very well then. If the blind crowd needed a sign that even the blind could not miss: a blazing, bleeding, buming sign of the uncomprehended Love which bleeds and bums for all: a poor girl who had surrendered herself wholly should receive the clue to the secret, the sign, and should deliver it to men in her own immolation.
[/color]

Elijmariah, this is a good source but the Catholic encyclopedia information is not contradictory but complementary. The explanation given in this site is, honestly, too broad and can be said of almost any devotion. Which Christian devotion is not about accepting the Cross etc etc?

The people who did the encyclopedia are not lay people or ignorant. They are theologians and researchers. The site, for example, equates John's lying his head on Christ's chest as an adoration of the Sacred Heart. That is twisting  text too much and one would not even have to be a language specialist to see that.


What you write in this "assessment" of yours is nonsense and does not comport with any of the formal teachings of the Church when they made the Sacred Heart the subject of a liturgical text.

When you finally deal with those texts: perhaps you we will have something to talk about.  Till then you may join the laity who write encyclopedia articles and speculate to your heart's content.

Pardon me for referring to your heart.  That reference does not indicate that I  worship or venerate a body part.

M.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Papist on October 04, 2011, 12:31:44 PM
http://www.cin.org/sstmargm.html

Quote
II

Had it been left to her, we should have known nothing about her, nothing whatsoever. Her superiors commanded her to speak and with death in her soul, she obeyed. It was necessary that she speak, to establish the new devotion, and still more to justify it; for it was an offence alike to Protestant and Jansenist and Rationalist, to all the varieties of human error which set a limit to God's right of loving men or his power of loving men or the means He may use to win men's love. It was necessary that she speak-as every day brings proof-to prevent the new devotion from degenerating into fetichism and mere superstition, to save it from the pretty-pretty insipidity to which the pious can reduce all devotions whatsoever not sparing even that, the keenestedged, which glorifies the Sacred Fire of Love which the Son of God came to cast upon the earth that it might be enkindled.

What is that Heart we are called upon to worship? What is the worship we are called upon to pay it? St. Margaret Mary tells us. Yet she is not the first to tell us. From St. John onwards Christians have venerated the Sacred Heart. St. John in a vision brought St. Gertrude within its presence. Laid open on the cross, it sent forth a ray to wound the heart of the Little Poor Man of Assisi. St. Catherine of Siena, receiving it in exchange for her own, felt it beating in her breast. And there are more. Nor should we forget that almost contemporary with our saint is Marie des Vallees, a penitent of St. John Eudes, who saw the Sacred Heart, knew it for what it was, and loved it. But clearly it was God's plan to reserve to the humble Visitandine nun of Paray-le-Monial the decisive role in the propagation of that mysterious flame. From earliest childhood, she lived in the intimacy of the Heart of Jesus. No saint has ever known or loved it better; and we learn the price she had to pay as we read the notebook which she meant for her superiors only, which on her death-bed she implored them to destroy.

To pay homage to the Heart of Jesus means quite simply to accept the Cross, to seek out the Cross, to die to the world upon the Cross. And all this one can do only through love-and through love of Love Itself. In her day Love was no longer loved. It was a dry hard faith that they preached. So God showed men His Heart. They were deaf to the lesson of St. John at the Last Supper, to the lesson of St. Gertrude and the singer of Assisi and the tertiary of Siena, to the plain lesson of the Gospel itself. Very well then. If the blind crowd needed a sign that even the blind could not miss: a blazing, bleeding, buming sign of the uncomprehended Love which bleeds and bums for all: a poor girl who had surrendered herself wholly should receive the clue to the secret, the sign, and should deliver it to men in her own immolation.
[/color]

Elijmariah, this is a good source but the Catholic encyclopedia information is not contradictory but complementary. The explanation given in this site is, honestly, too broad and can be said of almost any devotion. Which Christian devotion is not about accepting the Cross etc etc?

The people who did the encyclopedia are not lay people or ignorant. They are theologians and researchers. The site, for example, equates John's lying his head on Christ's chest as an adoration of the Sacred Heart. That is twisting  text too much and one would not even have to be a language specialist to see that.

What the encyclopedia describes is far more sound. There are references to the love of Christ (obviously) and to the concept of heart during the first millenia but which have no direct link to a devotion that was created in the 11th-12th century in Rome. Any association of the devotion with texts about "heart" and "love" are just projections of meaning onto the past, not unlikely people who say Jesus was the first Marxist.

Also, the references are very clear that the devotion is both to the spiritual heart and to the physical heart, the latter being like an "icon" of the former.

The devotion itself only gained popularity after a vision that for all standards, including those of Rome in the 1st millenium, would be considered a demonic illusion. The nun herself was more loyal to tradition by willing to keep it a secret and not trust it too much, but her superiors - according to the text you brought - wanted to affront "protetestants and rationalists" something that would bring them offense. *That* if it were an influencing criteria, is not a spiritual reason to accept a vision.

From an Orthodox Catholic point of view, I see positive and negative potentials there.

From the positive side, it is contemplation of the concept of heart, of the infinite love of Christ.

From the negative side, it does take from the forefront the Gospel revelation that God - the whole God and not just a part - is love. That being true - and we know it is - then the visible symbol of God's love is not the heart of Jesus, part of the incarnated God Who is love, but Jesus Himself, in all His life and body, passion and resurrection.

As it exists today, the devotion looks a lot like the condemned heresy of name worshippers, who out of a misguided love for the name of God, and similar projections onto past references, actually associated to the *name* that which was proper to the *whole* God.
The difference here is that God is love. There is no distance between God and his love.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Fabio Leite on October 04, 2011, 01:26:43 PM

What you write in this "assessment" of yours is nonsense and does not comport with any of the formal teachings of the Church when they made the Sacred Heart the subject of a liturgical text.

When you finally deal with those texts: perhaps you we will have something to talk about.  Till then you may join the laity who write encyclopedia articles and speculate to your heart's content.

Pardon me for referring to your heart.  That reference does not indicate that I  worship or venerate a body part.

M.

Honestly, Maria, even when people try to approach you with a little more respect that's the best you can give?

So well. Here is what the infallible one teaches, affirms and proclaims:

1. That all may understand more exactly the teachings which the selected texts of the Old and New Testament furnish concerning this devotion, they must clearly understand the reasons why the Church gives the highest form of worship to the Heart of the divine Redeemer. As you well know, venerable brethren, the reasons are two in number. The first, which applies also to the other sacred members of the Body of Jesus Christ, rests on that principle whereby we recognize that His Heart, the noblest part of human nature, is hypostatically united to the Person of the divine Word. Consequently, there must be paid to it that worship of adoration with which the Church honors the Person of the Incarnate Son of God Himself. We are dealing here with an article of faith, for it has been solemnly defined in the general Council of Ephesus and the second Council of Constantinople.(15)

So, obey your infallible teacher who is the substitute of Christ on Earth and *worship* and adore all the sacred members of the Body of Jesus, for the reason that applies for the heart apply for the other members as well. You may want to start with the Sacred Toenail or maybe the Holy Galbladder. And don't forget to make images out of them and blame all who find it grotesque of being insensitive and liars.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Fabio Leite on October 04, 2011, 02:04:35 PM
1. That all may understand more exactly the teachings which the selected texts of the Old and New Testament furnish concerning this devotion, they must clearly understand the reasons why the Church gives the highest form of worship to the Heart of the divine Redeemer. As you well know, venerable brethren, the reasons are two in number. The first, which applies also to the other sacred members of the Body of Jesus Christ, rests on that principle whereby we recognize that His Heart, the noblest part of human nature, is hypostatically united to the Person of the divine Word. Consequently, there must be paid to it that worship of adoration with which the Church honors the Person of the Incarnate Son of God Himself. We are dealing here with an article of faith, for it has been solemnly defined in the general Council of Ephesus and the second Council of Constantinople.(15)

I forgoto to post the source. Here it is: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_15051956_haurietis-aquas_en.html
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Schultz on October 04, 2011, 02:25:30 PM

When you finally deal with those texts: perhaps you we will have something to talk about.  Till then you may join the laity who write encyclopedia articles and speculate to your heart's content.


What's the point of the Nihil Obstat, then?  A lay person may have written an article, but a bishop said, "NOTHING IN HERE IS CONTRARY TO THE FAITH!" I'll take the word of that particular bishop over a lay person, namely, you.

As primsipulus pointed out, you can't have your cake and eat it, too.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Ortho_cat on October 04, 2011, 02:36:08 PM
There is much of historical precedent for people isolating body parts and worshipping them.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Fabio Leite on October 04, 2011, 02:38:50 PM

When you finally deal with those texts: perhaps you we will have something to talk about.  Till then you may join the laity who write encyclopedia articles and speculate to your heart's content.


What's the point of the Nihil Obstat, then?  A lay person may have written an article, but a bishop said, "NOTHING IN HERE IS CONTRARY TO THE FAITH!" I'll take the word of that particular bishop over a lay person, namely, you.

As primsipulus pointed out, you can't have your cake and eat it, too.

Not only that. The infallible Pope himself declares it is worship to a body part of Christ and although he does not recommend, he says it is proper to render the same worship to other body parts as well such as the Divine Ankle, the Sacred Elbow or the Holy Right Kidney.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Wyatt on October 04, 2011, 03:26:22 PM

What you write in this "assessment" of yours is nonsense and does not comport with any of the formal teachings of the Church when they made the Sacred Heart the subject of a liturgical text.

When you finally deal with those texts: perhaps you we will have something to talk about.  Till then you may join the laity who write encyclopedia articles and speculate to your heart's content.

Pardon me for referring to your heart.  That reference does not indicate that I  worship or venerate a body part.

M.

Honestly, Maria, even when people try to approach you with a little more respect that's the best you can give?

So well. Here is what the infallible one teaches, affirms and proclaims:

1. That all may understand more exactly the teachings which the selected texts of the Old and New Testament furnish concerning this devotion, they must clearly understand the reasons why the Church gives the highest form of worship to the Heart of the divine Redeemer. As you well know, venerable brethren, the reasons are two in number. The first, which applies also to the other sacred members of the Body of Jesus Christ, rests on that principle whereby we recognize that His Heart, the noblest part of human nature, is hypostatically united to the Person of the divine Word. Consequently, there must be paid to it that worship of adoration with which the Church honors the Person of the Incarnate Son of God Himself. We are dealing here with an article of faith, for it has been solemnly defined in the general Council of Ephesus and the second Council of Constantinople.(15)

So, obey your infallible teacher who is the substitute of Christ on Earth and *worship* and adore all the sacred members of the Body of Jesus, for the reason that applies for the heart apply for the other members as well. You may want to start with the Sacred Toenail or maybe the Holy Galbladder. And don't forget to make images out of them and blame all who find it grotesque of being insensitive and liars.
We'll stop worshiping the epicenter of Christ's cardiovascular system when you all stop worshiping Icons, and don't you dare say that I'm lying about your worship of Icons because it is completely obvious that you're Icon worshipers. As an outsider, I am just as informed and knowledgeable about Eastern Orthodoxy as someone who is actually Eastern Orthodox.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: LizaSymonenko on October 04, 2011, 03:37:48 PM

We'll stop worshiping the epicenter of Christ's cardiovascular system when you all stop worshiping Icons, and don't you dare say that I'm lying about your worship of Icons because it is completely obvious that you're Icon worshipers. As an outsider, I am just as informed and knowledgeable about Eastern Orthodoxy as someone who is actually Eastern Orthodox.

Apparently, you aren't as "knowledgeable" as you seem to think you are.  We do not "worship" icons.  We venerate them, just as we venerate the saints.  

We worship only God, for He is our Creator, and He alone can forgive us and save us.

Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: PeterTheAleut on October 04, 2011, 03:42:34 PM

What you write in this "assessment" of yours is nonsense and does not comport with any of the formal teachings of the Church when they made the Sacred Heart the subject of a liturgical text.

When you finally deal with those texts: perhaps you we will have something to talk about.  Till then you may join the laity who write encyclopedia articles and speculate to your heart's content.

Pardon me for referring to your heart.  That reference does not indicate that I  worship or venerate a body part.

M.

Honestly, Maria, even when people try to approach you with a little more respect that's the best you can give?

So well. Here is what the infallible one teaches, affirms and proclaims:

1. That all may understand more exactly the teachings which the selected texts of the Old and New Testament furnish concerning this devotion, they must clearly understand the reasons why the Church gives the highest form of worship to the Heart of the divine Redeemer. As you well know, venerable brethren, the reasons are two in number. The first, which applies also to the other sacred members of the Body of Jesus Christ, rests on that principle whereby we recognize that His Heart, the noblest part of human nature, is hypostatically united to the Person of the divine Word. Consequently, there must be paid to it that worship of adoration with which the Church honors the Person of the Incarnate Son of God Himself. We are dealing here with an article of faith, for it has been solemnly defined in the general Council of Ephesus and the second Council of Constantinople.(15)

So, obey your infallible teacher who is the substitute of Christ on Earth and *worship* and adore all the sacred members of the Body of Jesus, for the reason that applies for the heart apply for the other members as well. You may want to start with the Sacred Toenail or maybe the Holy Galbladder. And don't forget to make images out of them and blame all who find it grotesque of being insensitive and liars.
We'll stop worshiping the epicenter of Christ's cardiovascular system when you all stop worshiping Icons, and don't you dare say that I'm lying about your worship of Icons because it is completely obvious that you're Icon worshipers. As an outsider, I am just as informed and knowledgeable about Eastern Orthodoxy as someone who is actually Eastern Orthodox.
You must be speaking sarcastically, or else you would realize just how ridiculous the above paragraph sounds. If you are speaking sarcastically, does that mean you don't want us to take you seriously?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Schultz on October 04, 2011, 03:43:42 PM

We'll stop worshiping the epicenter of Christ's cardiovascular system when you all stop worshiping Icons, and don't you dare say that I'm lying about your worship of Icons because it is completely obvious that you're Icon worshipers. As an outsider, I am just as informed and knowledgeable about Eastern Orthodoxy as someone who is actually Eastern Orthodox.

Apparently, you aren't as "knowledgeable" as you seem to think you are.  We do not "worship" icons.  We venerate them, just as we venerate the saints.  

We worship only God, for He is our Creator, and He alone can forgive us and save us.



He "knows" that, Liza.  Wyatt is just trying to be sarcastic and funny and, as usual, failing. 

Or perhaps he's succeeding, as it just feeds his martyr complex.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Wyatt on October 04, 2011, 03:55:49 PM

We'll stop worshiping the epicenter of Christ's cardiovascular system when you all stop worshiping Icons, and don't you dare say that I'm lying about your worship of Icons because it is completely obvious that you're Icon worshipers. As an outsider, I am just as informed and knowledgeable about Eastern Orthodoxy as someone who is actually Eastern Orthodox.

Apparently, you aren't as "knowledgeable" as you seem to think you are.  We do not "worship" icons.  We venerate them, just as we venerate the saints.  

We worship only God, for He is our Creator, and He alone can forgive us and save us.



He "knows" that, Liza.  Wyatt is just trying to be sarcastic and funny and, as usual, failing. 

Or perhaps he's succeeding, as it just feeds his martyr complex.
Sarcastic...yes. Funny...not at all.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Wyatt on October 04, 2011, 03:57:07 PM

What you write in this "assessment" of yours is nonsense and does not comport with any of the formal teachings of the Church when they made the Sacred Heart the subject of a liturgical text.

When you finally deal with those texts: perhaps you we will have something to talk about.  Till then you may join the laity who write encyclopedia articles and speculate to your heart's content.

Pardon me for referring to your heart.  That reference does not indicate that I  worship or venerate a body part.

M.

Honestly, Maria, even when people try to approach you with a little more respect that's the best you can give?

So well. Here is what the infallible one teaches, affirms and proclaims:

1. That all may understand more exactly the teachings which the selected texts of the Old and New Testament furnish concerning this devotion, they must clearly understand the reasons why the Church gives the highest form of worship to the Heart of the divine Redeemer. As you well know, venerable brethren, the reasons are two in number. The first, which applies also to the other sacred members of the Body of Jesus Christ, rests on that principle whereby we recognize that His Heart, the noblest part of human nature, is hypostatically united to the Person of the divine Word. Consequently, there must be paid to it that worship of adoration with which the Church honors the Person of the Incarnate Son of God Himself. We are dealing here with an article of faith, for it has been solemnly defined in the general Council of Ephesus and the second Council of Constantinople.(15)

So, obey your infallible teacher who is the substitute of Christ on Earth and *worship* and adore all the sacred members of the Body of Jesus, for the reason that applies for the heart apply for the other members as well. You may want to start with the Sacred Toenail or maybe the Holy Galbladder. And don't forget to make images out of them and blame all who find it grotesque of being insensitive and liars.
We'll stop worshiping the epicenter of Christ's cardiovascular system when you all stop worshiping Icons, and don't you dare say that I'm lying about your worship of Icons because it is completely obvious that you're Icon worshipers. As an outsider, I am just as informed and knowledgeable about Eastern Orthodoxy as someone who is actually Eastern Orthodox.
You must be speaking sarcastically, or else you would realize just how ridiculous the above paragraph sounds. If you are speaking sarcastically, does that mean you don't want us to take you seriously?
You're making it too difficult...it's really quite simple. Take my statements in their proper context. When they're serious take them seriously. When they're sarcastic take them sarcastically.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Fabio Leite on October 04, 2011, 04:01:51 PM

We'll stop worshiping the epicenter of Christ's cardiovascular system when you all stop worshiping Icons, and don't you dare say that I'm lying about your worship of Icons because it is completely obvious that you're Icon worshipers. As an outsider, I am just as informed and knowledgeable about Eastern Orthodoxy as someone who is actually Eastern Orthodox.

Apparently, you aren't as "knowledgeable" as you seem to think you are.  We do not "worship" icons.  We venerate them, just as we venerate the saints.  

We worship only God, for He is our Creator, and He alone can forgive us and save us.



He "knows" that, Liza.  Wyatt is just trying to be sarcastic and funny and, as usual, failing.  

Or perhaps he's succeeding, as it just feeds his martyr complex.

Well Wyatt, we have an encyclical of a Pope actually saying that worship is due to Christ's body parts as to Christ Himself because, well, they are parts of him and that would not make any difference. Besides that proclamation of a Pope we have shown the understanding of knowledgeable Romans who produced a much consulted encyclopedia and who faithfuly repeat that worship is due to the fleshly heart. So a Pope says it, knowledgeable Romans understand it that way and we are to believe you and Maria just because here these statements are questioned and you can't come with any better answer and that quoted authoritative texts of first sources should be put in second place for random internet websites that are more agreeable? Please.

Icons, on the other hand, were institutionalized with a very clear distinction between worship and veneration. The Sacred Heart "veneration" in official documents and explanations, on the other hand, is defined as due worship.

I'm sorry, but I started this topic with my general knowledge of Roman devotions from around my Roman environment and in closer inspection of Roman official documents I can't any longer consider it just a slightly misworded but worthy veneration. It is a dowright heresy, on par with the old worship of the Name of God, having the same reasonings and modus pensandi, just different objects.

A true *veneration* of the Love of God could still emerge in a Orthodox Catholic context, not reinterpreting the patristic concept of heart but just applying it theologically to God. It's iconography would not be any body part but the Theophany icons where God, who is love, expresses Himself in the divine Uncreated Light that is the radiance of His heart.

God is wholy love. The Father is love. The Son is Love. The Holy Spirit is love. The love of God for mankind's emanates equally from God as whole, his "heart" being his ever invisible essence. The visible manifestation of God is also the visible manifestation of God Himself: Jesus Christ in the fullness of His life, His body, His death and His resurrection. Worship of His heart, like worship of His name, is a demonic temptation that tries to blur and finally cause a spiritual shortsightness that will eventually blind us to love manifest in Jesus.

Honestly this realization scandalizes me more than filioque or papal supremacy. It is the kind of petty mistake that I would expect from fringe cult groups, not from a respectable institution as the Roman church. It is even a bit disappointing.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: primuspilus on October 04, 2011, 04:40:03 PM
I knew you were kidding Wyatt, but really why just the heart? Why not his tongue for what was said, or the hands for the healing they brough, etc.?

Still dont get it.

PP
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Wyatt on October 04, 2011, 05:29:29 PM

We'll stop worshiping the epicenter of Christ's cardiovascular system when you all stop worshiping Icons, and don't you dare say that I'm lying about your worship of Icons because it is completely obvious that you're Icon worshipers. As an outsider, I am just as informed and knowledgeable about Eastern Orthodoxy as someone who is actually Eastern Orthodox.

Apparently, you aren't as "knowledgeable" as you seem to think you are.  We do not "worship" icons.  We venerate them, just as we venerate the saints.  

We worship only God, for He is our Creator, and He alone can forgive us and save us.



He "knows" that, Liza.  Wyatt is just trying to be sarcastic and funny and, as usual, failing.  

Or perhaps he's succeeding, as it just feeds his martyr complex.

Well Wyatt, we have an encyclical of a Pope actually saying that worship is due to Christ's body parts as to Christ Himself because, well, they are parts of him and that would not make any difference. Besides that proclamation of a Pope we have shown the understanding of knowledgeable Romans who produced a much consulted encyclopedia and who faithfuly repeat that worship is due to the fleshly heart. So a Pope says it, knowledgeable Romans understand it that way and we are to believe you and Maria just because here these statements are questioned and you can't come with any better answer and that quoted authoritative texts of first sources should be put in second place for random internet websites that are more agreeable? Please.

Icons, on the other hand, were institutionalized with a very clear distinction between worship and veneration. The Sacred Heart "veneration" in official documents and explanations, on the other hand, is defined as due worship.

I'm sorry, but I started this topic with my general knowledge of Roman devotions from around my Roman environment and in closer inspection of Roman official documents I can't any longer consider it just a slightly misworded but worthy veneration. It is a dowright heresy, on par with the old worship of the Name of God, having the same reasonings and modus pensandi, just different objects.

A true *veneration* of the Love of God could still emerge in a Orthodox Catholic context, not reinterpreting the patristic concept of heart but just applying it theologically to God. It's iconography would not be any body part but the Theophany icons where God, who is love, expresses Himself in the divine Uncreated Light that is the radiance of His heart.

God is wholy love. The Father is love. The Son is Love. The Holy Spirit is love. The love of God for mankind's emanates equally from God as whole, his "heart" being his ever invisible essence. The visible manifestation of God is also the visible manifestation of God Himself: Jesus Christ in the fullness of His life, His body, His death and His resurrection. Worship of His heart, like worship of His name, is a demonic temptation that tries to blur and finally cause a spiritual shortsightness that will eventually blind us to love manifest in Jesus.

Honestly this realization scandalizes me more than filioque or papal supremacy. It is the kind of petty mistake that I would expect from fringe cult groups, not from a respectable institution as the Roman church. It is even a bit disappointing.
You never found the Roman Church respectable, so cut out the nonsense. We have all stated, time and again, that devotions are devotions are devotions. They are not dogma. They are not doctrine. The fact that a devotion is commemorated in the liturgical calendar of our Church does not require participation in that devotion. At most, we just get to hear it mentioned or talked about in the sermon at that particular Mass. Hopefully, the meaning behind the devotion is pointed out in the sermon and the Priest explains to us the significance of the devotion and how one can utilize it in such a way as to allow it to deepen and enrich their relationship with Jesus Christ. If that particular devotion is not beneficial to one's spiritual life they are under no obligation to practice it.

Oh wait...no. On second thought...none of the above makes any sense at all. Worshiping the Sacred Heart of Jesus is a supreme dogma of the Church and everyone must worship just His heart to the exclusion of everything else, because that's obviously what that Pope meant.  ::)
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: J Michael on October 04, 2011, 05:30:44 PM
I knew you were kidding Wyatt, but really why just the heart? Why not his tongue for what was said, or the hands for the healing they brough, etc.?

Still dont get it.

PP

Try reading **all** of this: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_15051956_haurietis-aquas_en.html  Can't promise, but it may help.  (Warning: it is rather long.)  
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Ortho_cat on October 04, 2011, 05:37:46 PM

What you write in this "assessment" of yours is nonsense and does not comport with any of the formal teachings of the Church when they made the Sacred Heart the subject of a liturgical text.

When you finally deal with those texts: perhaps you we will have something to talk about.  Till then you may join the laity who write encyclopedia articles and speculate to your heart's content.

Pardon me for referring to your heart.  That reference does not indicate that I  worship or venerate a body part.

M.

Honestly, Maria, even when people try to approach you with a little more respect that's the best you can give?

So well. Here is what the infallible one teaches, affirms and proclaims:

1. That all may understand more exactly the teachings which the selected texts of the Old and New Testament furnish concerning this devotion, they must clearly understand the reasons why the Church gives the highest form of worship to the Heart of the divine Redeemer. As you well know, venerable brethren, the reasons are two in number. The first, which applies also to the other sacred members of the Body of Jesus Christ, rests on that principle whereby we recognize that His Heart, the noblest part of human nature, is hypostatically united to the Person of the divine Word. Consequently, there must be paid to it that worship of adoration with which the Church honors the Person of the Incarnate Son of God Himself. We are dealing here with an article of faith, for it has been solemnly defined in the general Council of Ephesus and the second Council of Constantinople.(15)

So, obey your infallible teacher who is the substitute of Christ on Earth and *worship* and adore all the sacred members of the Body of Jesus, for the reason that applies for the heart apply for the other members as well. You may want to start with the Sacred Toenail or maybe the Holy Galbladder. And don't forget to make images out of them and blame all who find it grotesque of being insensitive and liars.
We'll stop worshiping the epicenter of Christ's cardiovascular system when you all stop worshiping Icons, and don't you dare say that I'm lying about your worship of Icons because it is completely obvious that you're Icon worshipers. As an outsider, I am just as informed and knowledgeable about Eastern Orthodoxy as someone who is actually Eastern Orthodox.

well you guys worship statues!!! nya nya nya.... ::)

(http://www.remnantofgod.org/POPEPRAYERTOMARY.jpg)
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on October 04, 2011, 07:25:44 PM

When you finally deal with those texts: perhaps you we will have something to talk about.  Till then you may join the laity who write encyclopedia articles and speculate to your heart's content.


What's the point of the Nihil Obstat, then?  A lay person may have written an article, but a bishop said, "NOTHING IN HERE IS CONTRARY TO THE FAITH!" I'll take the word of that particular bishop over a lay person, namely, you.

As primsipulus pointed out, you can't have your cake and eat it, too.

What IS the point of a Nihil Obstat then?  Is it some sort of Episcopal Good Teacher's Seal of Infallibility?

It is not.  It says that there is nothing there that will do damage to the faith. 

It does not say that EVERY JOT AND TITTLE HEREIN IS THE INFALLIBLE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH...

That ain't it.

So you can't have it the way that you think...or would like to have it...or whatevah...

Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on October 04, 2011, 07:26:37 PM
I knew you were kidding Wyatt, but really why just the heart? Why not his tongue for what was said, or the hands for the healing they brough, etc.?

Still dont get it.

PP

Try reading **all** of this: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_15051956_haurietis-aquas_en.html  Can't promise, but it may help.  (Warning: it is rather long.)  

I think I've posted this four times, and no takers...doh!!   :angel:
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Asteriktos on October 04, 2011, 08:04:02 PM
I think I've posted this four times, and no takers...doh!!   :angel:

Well, at over 15,500 words (without footnotes) it is fairly long, as J Michael warned  :police: :angel:
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: stanley123 on October 04, 2011, 08:23:24 PM

We'll stop worshiping the epicenter of Christ's cardiovascular system when you all stop worshiping Icons, and don't you dare say that I'm lying about your worship of Icons because it is completely obvious that you're Icon worshipers. As an outsider, I am just as informed and knowledgeable about Eastern Orthodoxy as someone who is actually Eastern Orthodox.

Apparently, you aren't as "knowledgeable" as you seem to think you are.  We do not "worship" icons.  We venerate them, just as we venerate the saints.  

We worship only God, for He is our Creator, and He alone can forgive us and save us.



He "knows" that, Liza.  Wyatt is just trying to be sarcastic and funny and, as usual, failing.  

Or perhaps he's succeeding, as it just feeds his martyr complex.

Well Wyatt, we have an encyclical of a Pope actually saying that worship is due to Christ's body parts as to Christ Himself because, well, they are parts of him and that would not make any difference. Besides that proclamation of a Pope we have shown the understanding of knowledgeable Romans who produced a much consulted encyclopedia and who faithfuly repeat that worship is due to the fleshly heart. So a Pope says it, knowledgeable Romans understand it that way and we are to believe you and Maria just because here these statements are questioned and you can't come with any better answer and that quoted authoritative texts of first sources should be put in second place for random internet websites that are more agreeable? Please.

Icons, on the other hand, were institutionalized with a very clear distinction between worship and veneration. The Sacred Heart "veneration" in official documents and explanations, on the other hand, is defined as due worship.

I'm sorry, but I started this topic with my general knowledge of Roman devotions from around my Roman environment and in closer inspection of Roman official documents I can't any longer consider it just a slightly misworded but worthy veneration. It is a dowright heresy, on par with the old worship of the Name of God, having the same reasonings and modus pensandi, just different objects.

A true *veneration* of the Love of God could still emerge in a Orthodox Catholic context, not reinterpreting the patristic concept of heart but just applying it theologically to God. It's iconography would not be any body part but the Theophany icons where God, who is love, expresses Himself in the divine Uncreated Light that is the radiance of His heart.

God is wholy love. The Father is love. The Son is Love. The Holy Spirit is love. The love of God for mankind's emanates equally from God as whole, his "heart" being his ever invisible essence. The visible manifestation of God is also the visible manifestation of God Himself: Jesus Christ in the fullness of His life, His body, His death and His resurrection. Worship of His heart, like worship of His name, is a demonic temptation that tries to blur and finally cause a spiritual shortsightness that will eventually blind us to love manifest in Jesus.

Honestly this realization scandalizes me more than filioque or papal supremacy. It is the kind of petty mistake that I would expect from fringe cult groups, not from a respectable institution as the Roman church. It is even a bit disappointing.
It is difficult to understand in a sense, but I don't think that Catholics have to follow or agree with everything a Pope says, even if it is in an encyclical. For example, there was a letter  of Pope Innocent IV that approved  the use of torture to extract confessions. There was another proclamation of a Pope from the Council of Florence that said that all Jews and schismatics would go to hell.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on October 04, 2011, 08:32:32 PM
I think I've posted this four times, and no takers...doh!!   :angel:

Well, at over 15,500 words (without footnotes) it is fairly long, as J Michael warned  :police: :angel:

Picky-picky!!!... :D
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: stanley123 on October 04, 2011, 08:33:09 PM
I knew you were kidding Wyatt, but really why just the heart? Why not his tongue for what was said, or the hands for the healing they brough, etc.?

Still dont get it.

PP
Many people send cards on St. Valentine's Day to someone special in their lives. And many times, there is a heart on the card. And there are even heart shaped chocolates which are given and shared. Generally, I have not heard of too many St. Valentine's Day cards which picture a tongue.
Also, I have seen T-Shirts and bumper stickers with phrases such as: I ("heart") NY. What does that mean? Generally, it means that a person has a great affection for the city of NY. He likes the city of NY. I have not seen any T-Shirts with I ("tongue") NY? Have you?
Why do you suppose that it is that way?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: primuspilus on October 04, 2011, 10:35:04 PM
I knew you were kidding Wyatt, but really why just the heart? Why not his tongue for what was said, or the hands for the healing they brough, etc.?

Still dont get it.

PP
Many people send cards on St. Valentine's Day to someone special in their lives. And many times, there is a heart on the card. And there are even heart shaped chocolates which are given and shared. Generally, I have not heard of too many St. Valentine's Day cards which picture a tongue.
Also, I have seen T-Shirts and bumper stickers with phrases such as: I ("heart") NY. What does that mean? Generally, it means that a person has a great affection for the city of NY. He likes the city of NY. I have not seen any T-Shirts with I ("tongue") NY? Have you?
Why do you suppose that it is that way?

Simply put, the celebration isn't for St. Valentine's heart. Whether people corelate the heart with love is vastly different than having devotions to a physical body member of Christ.

PP
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: stanley123 on October 04, 2011, 10:46:33 PM
I knew you were kidding Wyatt, but really why just the heart? Why not his tongue for what was said, or the hands for the healing they brough, etc.?

Still dont get it.

PP
Many people send cards on St. Valentine's Day to someone special in their lives. And many times, there is a heart on the card. And there are even heart shaped chocolates which are given and shared. Generally, I have not heard of too many St. Valentine's Day cards which picture a tongue.
Also, I have seen T-Shirts and bumper stickers with phrases such as: I ("heart") NY. What does that mean? Generally, it means that a person has a great affection for the city of NY. He likes the city of NY. I have not seen any T-Shirts with I ("tongue") NY? Have you?
Why do you suppose that it is that way?

Simply put, the celebration isn't for St. Valentine's heart. Whether people corelate the heart with love is vastly different than having devotions to a physical body member of Christ.

PP
When someone speaks about correlating the heart with love, then he is on the road to understanding the Sacred Heart devotion which is all about the love of Christ for mankind.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: primuspilus on October 04, 2011, 10:52:57 PM
I knew you were kidding Wyatt, but really why just the heart? Why not his tongue for what was said, or the hands for the healing they brough, etc.?

Still dont get it.

PP
Many people send cards on St. Valentine's Day to someone special in their lives. And many times, there is a heart on the card. And there are even heart shaped chocolates which are given and shared. Generally, I have not heard of too many St. Valentine's Day cards which picture a tongue.
Also, I have seen T-Shirts and bumper stickers with phrases such as: I ("heart") NY. What does that mean? Generally, it means that a person has a great affection for the city of NY. He likes the city of NY. I have not seen any T-Shirts with I ("tongue") NY? Have you?
Why do you suppose that it is that way?

Simply put, the celebration isn't for St. Valentine's heart. Whether people corelate the heart with love is vastly different than having devotions to a physical body member of Christ.

PP
When someone speaks about correlating the heart with love, then he is on the road to understanding the Sacred Heart devotion which is all about the love of Christ for mankind.
Sorry, I dont see the similarity. It is figurative, the corelation between heart and love. The devotion is for the physical heart. It is not the same thing. Nowhere close. When I give someone a chocolate heart, it is not the yummy representation of an actual heart. This is like comparing apples to apple scented wallpaper.

PP
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Wyatt on October 04, 2011, 10:53:18 PM
I knew you were kidding Wyatt, but really why just the heart? Why not his tongue for what was said, or the hands for the healing they brough, etc.?

Still dont get it.

PP
Many people send cards on St. Valentine's Day to someone special in their lives. And many times, there is a heart on the card. And there are even heart shaped chocolates which are given and shared. Generally, I have not heard of too many St. Valentine's Day cards which picture a tongue.
Also, I have seen T-Shirts and bumper stickers with phrases such as: I ("heart") NY. What does that mean? Generally, it means that a person has a great affection for the city of NY. He likes the city of NY. I have not seen any T-Shirts with I ("tongue") NY? Have you?
Why do you suppose that it is that way?
The point you are driving home in this post is far too logical for this forum.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Fabio Leite on October 04, 2011, 11:42:34 PM
You never found the Roman Church respectable, so cut out the nonsense.

Behave. You don't know anything about me. I have been under much more serious social problems for defending the Roman Church than you can imagine. From losing friendships to being labeled negatively in professional situations where I could have taken advantage of just repeating what the chorus sing. I - occasionally - collaborate with a media-watch newspaper with Catholic explicit catholic leanings and now and then I have to put up with the same prejudices they do. I have defended the role of the Roman church in the West and in Brazilian culture in face of secularists and atheists many times. Some of my best friends and my family are Romans, and the Roman Elderly Ladies Prayer Group used to go to my house frequently and we had wonderful conversations. So wash your mouth - or fingers - before trying to guess what I feel for anything.

What I don't respect Wyatt, is you and Elijamariah, only. Don't hide behind the Roman church. For all your histerical pseudo-apologetic you two pass as just mediocre trolls in a forum that has no rules for banning trolls and that is the only reason you thrive. I have debated these issues in person with Roman friends who are far more knowledgeable than you  and never, *never* any of then showed the kind of idiotic insecurity you two show here.  So you won't have the excuse of no-reference. I have plenty of references in my personal life of intelligent *pious* Romans who know how to discuss differences without ridiculously resorting to offenses or acusations.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Fabio Leite on October 05, 2011, 12:01:57 AM
It is difficult to understand in a sense, but I don't think that Catholics have to follow or agree with everything a Pope says, even if it is in an encyclical. For example, there was a letter  of Pope Innocent IV that approved  the use of torture to extract confessions. There was another proclamation of a Pope from the Council of Florence that said that all Jews and schismatics would go to hell.

I know and I can understand that. What I find odd is this systematic arguments Romans have developed since the filioque to go round explicitly stated doctrine. "You know, we don't have to take that reaaally that literally" or "Yeah, it says that, but that's not what we mean".

I see a very disturbing chasm between what Roman Catholics believe and what the hierarchy of Rome states officially.

In a certain perspective, some Roman Catholics still believe and live Orthodoxily. They respect the Roman bishop as their hierarch but don't really believe in supremacy or infallibility, they don't get the point of having or not having the filioque and they have this generic understanding of the devotion being just a devotion to a symbol of the love of God - despite what the Roman hierarchy and theologians say.

If the devotion were just a symbol - that was my first understanding - of the love of God, I would stand by what I said in the first posts: it would need minor tinkerings to become fully Orthodox. But after one reads what the hierarchy and theologians officially teach, I think it is wishful thinking to explain their statements away as just oddly worded but meaning, really, "it's just a devotion to the love of God through the symbol of His Heart". It is what many Catholics do, it is what the hierarchy allows to happen, but it is not what they teach and believe. It's like schools which still teach the orbit model for electrons. They know it's not like that, but the model serves introducing kids to chemistry. Roman officials let Romans treat as just a devotion although they "know" the issue is more complex, that is, that it is really due worship to a part because it is the part of a whole that is due to worship. This is what becomes very clear when you contrast official sources and witnesses like yours from common faithful.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: JR on October 05, 2011, 07:06:53 AM
It is difficult to understand in a sense, but I don't think that Catholics have to follow or agree with everything a Pope says, even if it is in an encyclical. For example, there was a letter  of Pope Innocent IV that approved  the use of torture to extract confessions. There was another proclamation of a Pope from the Council of Florence that said that all Jews and schismatics would go to hell.

I know and I can understand that. What I find odd is this systematic arguments Romans have developed since the filioque to go round explicitly stated doctrine. "You know, we don't have to take that reaaally that literally" or "Yeah, it says that, but that's not what we mean".

I see a very disturbing chasm between what Roman Catholics believe and what the hierarchy of Rome states officially.

In a certain perspective, some Roman Catholics still believe and live Orthodoxily. They respect the Roman bishop as their hierarch but don't really believe in supremacy or infallibility, they don't get the point of having or not having the filioque and they have this generic understanding of the devotion being just a devotion to a symbol of the love of God - despite what the Roman hierarchy and theologians say.


If the devotion were just a symbol - that was my first understanding - of the love of God, I would stand by what I said in the first posts: it would need minor tinkerings to become fully Orthodox. But after one reads what the hierarchy and theologians officially teach, I think it is wishful thinking to explain their statements away as just oddly worded but meaning, really, "it's just a devotion to the love of God through the symbol of His Heart". It is what many Catholics do, it is what the hierarchy allows to happen, but it is not what they teach and believe. It's like schools which still teach the orbit model for electrons. They know it's not like that, but the model serves introducing kids to chemistry. Roman officials let Romans treat as just a devotion although they "know" the issue is more complex, that is, that it is really due worship to a part because it is the part of a whole that is due to worship. This is what becomes very clear when you contrast official sources and witnesses like yours from common faithful.

What I have hi-lighted I would say is very true !

Did you used to be a RC at one time? Just wondering.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Schultz on October 05, 2011, 09:46:55 AM

When you finally deal with those texts: perhaps you we will have something to talk about.  Till then you may join the laity who write encyclopedia articles and speculate to your heart's content.


What's the point of the Nihil Obstat, then?  A lay person may have written an article, but a bishop said, "NOTHING IN HERE IS CONTRARY TO THE FAITH!" I'll take the word of that particular bishop over a lay person, namely, you.

As primsipulus pointed out, you can't have your cake and eat it, too.

What IS the point of a Nihil Obstat then?  Is it some sort of Episcopal Good Teacher's Seal of Infallibility?

It is not.  It says that there is nothing there that will do damage to the faith.  

It does not say that EVERY JOT AND TITTLE HEREIN IS THE INFALLIBLE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH...

That ain't it.

So you can't have it the way that you think...or would like to have it...or whatevah...



But if something acquires a "nihil obstat," it is therefore a valid opinion and one you, as a lay person (to use your words), cannot simply discount because you don't like what it has to say.  You can't say, "The Church doesn't teach that at all!" when someone uses a source that the very church you're claiming to speak for says isn't contrary (or even damaging) to its teaching.

You do this all the time around here and it is incredibly frustrating.  

And please don't bother with trying to point to some Orthodox poster who practically does the same.  That's not the point.

The adage goes, "Be the change you want to see" , not, "Be the other jackass in the room."
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: J Michael on October 05, 2011, 10:18:30 AM
I knew you were kidding Wyatt, but really why just the heart? Why not his tongue for what was said, or the hands for the healing they brough, etc.?

Still dont get it.

PP
Many people send cards on St. Valentine's Day to someone special in their lives. And many times, there is a heart on the card. And there are even heart shaped chocolates which are given and shared. Generally, I have not heard of too many St. Valentine's Day cards which picture a tongue.
Also, I have seen T-Shirts and bumper stickers with phrases such as: I ("heart") NY. What does that mean? Generally, it means that a person has a great affection for the city of NY. He likes the city of NY. I have not seen any T-Shirts with I ("tongue") NY? Have you?
Why do you suppose that it is that way?

Simply put, the celebration isn't for St. Valentine's heart. Whether people corelate the heart with love is vastly different than having devotions to a physical body member of Christ.

PP
When someone speaks about correlating the heart with love, then he is on the road to understanding the Sacred Heart devotion which is all about the love of Christ for mankind.
Sorry, I dont see the similarity. It is figurative, the corelation between heart and love. The devotion is for the physical heart. It is not the same thing. Nowhere close. When I give someone a chocolate heart, it is not the yummy representation of an actual heart. This is like comparing apples to apple scented wallpaper.

PP

Again, I would suggest you read the entire encyclical.  So, it's long.  So what?  Read it in sections.  Pretend you're reading some of the posts here that include voluminous copy/pastes from other sources and pretty maps  ;D.  If you choose not to read the encyclical, one could hardly blame you.  But if you do so choose, then don't tell us you don't get it.  If you don't *want* to get it, well, that's okay, too, because you certainly do not have to.  But don't criticize or debunk what you choose to not understand  ;).  Now, if you *do* read it and still don't understand, then that's the time to ask questions and seek clarification--if you really do want to understand.

And remember, too, that an encyclical is mainly just a letter sent from one **fallible** bishop to other fallible bishops, which does not carry the weight of an ex-cathedra infallible statement.





Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on October 05, 2011, 11:46:11 AM
You never found the Roman Church respectable, so cut out the nonsense.

Behave. You don't know anything about me. I have been under much more serious social problems for defending the Roman Church than you can imagine. From losing friendships to being labeled negatively in professional situations where I could have taken advantage of just repeating what the chorus sing. I - occasionally - collaborate with a media-watch newspaper with Catholic explicit catholic leanings and now and then I have to put up with the same prejudices they do. I have defended the role of the Roman church in the West and in Brazilian culture in face of secularists and atheists many times. Some of my best friends and my family are Romans, and the Roman Elderly Ladies Prayer Group used to go to my house frequently and we had wonderful conversations. So wash your mouth - or fingers - before trying to guess what I feel for anything.

What I don't respect Wyatt, is you and Elijamariah, only. Don't hide behind the Roman church. For all your histerical pseudo-apologetic you two pass as just mediocre trolls in a forum that has no rules for banning trolls and that is the only reason you thrive. I have debated these issues in person with Roman friends who are far more knowledgeable than you  and never, *never* any of then showed the kind of idiotic insecurity you two show here.  So you won't have the excuse of no-reference. I have plenty of references in my personal life of intelligent *pious* Romans who know how to discuss differences without ridiculously resorting to offenses or acusations.

I guess you think that your anecdotal rants are valid and mine are not. 

I think my good teachers are every bit as good as your good Catholic co-whatevers...

 :D :D :D

Now who is whining?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on October 05, 2011, 11:50:09 AM

When you finally deal with those texts: perhaps you we will have something to talk about.  Till then you may join the laity who write encyclopedia articles and speculate to your heart's content.


What's the point of the Nihil Obstat, then?  A lay person may have written an article, but a bishop said, "NOTHING IN HERE IS CONTRARY TO THE FAITH!" I'll take the word of that particular bishop over a lay person, namely, you.

As primsipulus pointed out, you can't have your cake and eat it, too.

What IS the point of a Nihil Obstat then?  Is it some sort of Episcopal Good Teacher's Seal of Infallibility?

It is not.  It says that there is nothing there that will do damage to the faith.  

It does not say that EVERY JOT AND TITTLE HEREIN IS THE INFALLIBLE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH...

That ain't it.

So you can't have it the way that you think...or would like to have it...or whatevah...



But if something acquires a "nihil obstat," it is therefore a valid opinion and one you, as a lay person (to use your words), cannot simply discount because you don't like what it has to say.  You can't say, "The Church doesn't teach that at all!" when someone uses a source that the very church you're claiming to speak for says isn't contrary (or even damaging) to its teaching.

You do this all the time around here and it is incredibly frustrating.  

And please don't bother with trying to point to some Orthodox poster who practically does the same.  That's not the point.

The adage goes, "Be the change you want to see" , not, "Be the other jackass in the room."

When you can provide documentation from the CDF or the CCC or some systematics textbook used in a conservative seminary, that tells me as a laywoman that I need to accept every word in a lay publication simply because two bishops say that it is not, IN GENERAL, harmful to the faith...THEN you can rightly call me a jackass and I will pick up my saddle and leave.

Till then, I will understand these things the way I have been taught to understand them.

M.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on October 05, 2011, 11:52:29 AM
I knew you were kidding Wyatt, but really why just the heart? Why not his tongue for what was said, or the hands for the healing they brough, etc.?

Still dont get it.

PP
Many people send cards on St. Valentine's Day to someone special in their lives. And many times, there is a heart on the card. And there are even heart shaped chocolates which are given and shared. Generally, I have not heard of too many St. Valentine's Day cards which picture a tongue.
Also, I have seen T-Shirts and bumper stickers with phrases such as: I ("heart") NY. What does that mean? Generally, it means that a person has a great affection for the city of NY. He likes the city of NY. I have not seen any T-Shirts with I ("tongue") NY? Have you?
Why do you suppose that it is that way?

Simply put, the celebration isn't for St. Valentine's heart. Whether people corelate the heart with love is vastly different than having devotions to a physical body member of Christ.

PP
When someone speaks about correlating the heart with love, then he is on the road to understanding the Sacred Heart devotion which is all about the love of Christ for mankind.
Sorry, I dont see the similarity. It is figurative, the corelation between heart and love. The devotion is for the physical heart. It is not the same thing. Nowhere close. When I give someone a chocolate heart, it is not the yummy representation of an actual heart. This is like comparing apples to apple scented wallpaper.

PP

Again, I would suggest you read the entire encyclical.  So, it's long.  So what?  Read it in sections.  Pretend you're reading some of the posts here that include voluminous copy/pastes from other sources and pretty maps  ;D.  If you choose not to read the encyclical, one could hardly blame you.  But if you do so choose, then don't tell us you don't get it.  If you don't *want* to get it, well, that's okay, too, because you certainly do not have to.  But don't criticize or debunk what you choose to not understand  ;).  Now, if you *do* read it and still don't understand, then that's the time to ask questions and seek clarification--if you really do want to understand.

And remember, too, that an encyclical is mainly just a letter sent from one **fallible** bishop to other fallible bishops, which does not carry the weight of an ex-cathedra infallible statement.







However it does carry greater teaching weight than a lay publication with the stamp of approval from two bishops.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: J Michael on October 05, 2011, 12:11:51 PM
I knew you were kidding Wyatt, but really why just the heart? Why not his tongue for what was said, or the hands for the healing they brough, etc.?

Still dont get it.

PP
Many people send cards on St. Valentine's Day to someone special in their lives. And many times, there is a heart on the card. And there are even heart shaped chocolates which are given and shared. Generally, I have not heard of too many St. Valentine's Day cards which picture a tongue.
Also, I have seen T-Shirts and bumper stickers with phrases such as: I ("heart") NY. What does that mean? Generally, it means that a person has a great affection for the city of NY. He likes the city of NY. I have not seen any T-Shirts with I ("tongue") NY? Have you?
Why do you suppose that it is that way?

Simply put, the celebration isn't for St. Valentine's heart. Whether people corelate the heart with love is vastly different than having devotions to a physical body member of Christ.

PP
When someone speaks about correlating the heart with love, then he is on the road to understanding the Sacred Heart devotion which is all about the love of Christ for mankind.
Sorry, I dont see the similarity. It is figurative, the corelation between heart and love. The devotion is for the physical heart. It is not the same thing. Nowhere close. When I give someone a chocolate heart, it is not the yummy representation of an actual heart. This is like comparing apples to apple scented wallpaper.

PP

Again, I would suggest you read the entire encyclical.  So, it's long.  So what?  Read it in sections.  Pretend you're reading some of the posts here that include voluminous copy/pastes from other sources and pretty maps  ;D.  If you choose not to read the encyclical, one could hardly blame you.  But if you do so choose, then don't tell us you don't get it.  If you don't *want* to get it, well, that's okay, too, because you certainly do not have to.  But don't criticize or debunk what you choose to not understand  ;).  Now, if you *do* read it and still don't understand, then that's the time to ask questions and seek clarification--if you really do want to understand.

And remember, too, that an encyclical is mainly just a letter sent from one **fallible** bishop to other fallible bishops, which does not carry the weight of an ex-cathedra infallible statement.







However it does carry greater teaching weight than a lay publication with the stamp of approval from two bishops.

Yes, of course.  I didn't mean to diminish the import of a papal encyclical.  At the same time I didn't want certain Orthodox posters to either intentionally or unintentionally get the impression that an encyclical from a pope was either a) a teaching letter from an infallible person, or b) an infallible teaching from a fallible person, or c) an infallible teaching from an infallible person.

Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on October 05, 2011, 12:21:41 PM


Yes, of course.  I didn't mean to diminish the import of a papal encyclical.  At the same time I didn't want certain Orthodox posters to either intentionally or unintentionally get the impression that an encyclical from a pope was either a) a teaching letter from an infallible person, or b) an infallible teaching from a fallible person, or c) an infallible teaching from an infallible person.



I am with you.  My additional comment was not meant for you actually... :)
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: J Michael on October 05, 2011, 12:23:53 PM


Yes, of course.  I didn't mean to diminish the import of a papal encyclical.  At the same time I didn't want certain Orthodox posters to either intentionally or unintentionally get the impression that an encyclical from a pope was either a) a teaching letter from an infallible person, or b) an infallible teaching from a fallible person, or c) an infallible teaching from an infallible person.



I am with you.  My additional comment was not meant for you actually... :)

 :) :)
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Papist on October 05, 2011, 12:58:05 PM
It is difficult to understand in a sense, but I don't think that Catholics have to follow or agree with everything a Pope says, even if it is in an encyclical. For example, there was a letter  of Pope Innocent IV that approved  the use of torture to extract confessions. There was another proclamation of a Pope from the Council of Florence that said that all Jews and schismatics would go to hell.

I know and I can understand that. What I find odd is this systematic arguments Romans have developed since the filioque to go round explicitly stated doctrine. "You know, we don't have to take that reaaally that literally" or "Yeah, it says that, but that's not what we mean".

I see a very disturbing chasm between what Roman Catholics believe and what the hierarchy of Rome states officially.

In a certain perspective, some Roman Catholics still believe and live Orthodoxily. They respect the Roman bishop as their hierarch but don't really believe in supremacy or infallibility, they don't get the point of having or not having the filioque and they have this generic understanding of the devotion being just a devotion to a symbol of the love of God - despite what the Roman hierarchy and theologians say.


If the devotion were just a symbol - that was my first understanding - of the love of God, I would stand by what I said in the first posts: it would need minor tinkerings to become fully Orthodox. But after one reads what the hierarchy and theologians officially teach, I think it is wishful thinking to explain their statements away as just oddly worded but meaning, really, "it's just a devotion to the love of God through the symbol of His Heart". It is what many Catholics do, it is what the hierarchy allows to happen, but it is not what they teach and believe. It's like schools which still teach the orbit model for electrons. They know it's not like that, but the model serves introducing kids to chemistry. Roman officials let Romans treat as just a devotion although they "know" the issue is more complex, that is, that it is really due worship to a part because it is the part of a whole that is due to worship. This is what becomes very clear when you contrast official sources and witnesses like yours from common faithful.

What I have hi-lighted I would say is very true !

Did you used to be a RC at one time? Just wondering.
Those Catholics who I know that are very devout and pius Christians are nothing like what you have high-lighted. What you have high-lighted tends to characterize those "Catholics" who demand women's ordination, abortion on demand, etc.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Wyatt on October 05, 2011, 12:58:05 PM
You never found the Roman Church respectable, so cut out the nonsense.

Behave. You don't know anything about me. I have been under much more serious social problems for defending the Roman Church than you can imagine. From losing friendships to being labeled negatively in professional situations where I could have taken advantage of just repeating what the chorus sing. I - occasionally - collaborate with a media-watch newspaper with Catholic explicit catholic leanings and now and then I have to put up with the same prejudices they do. I have defended the role of the Roman church in the West and in Brazilian culture in face of secularists and atheists many times. Some of my best friends and my family are Romans, and the Roman Elderly Ladies Prayer Group used to go to my house frequently and we had wonderful conversations. So wash your mouth - or fingers - before trying to guess what I feel for anything.

What I don't respect Wyatt, is you and Elijamariah, only. Don't hide behind the Roman church. For all your histerical pseudo-apologetic you two pass as just mediocre trolls in a forum that has no rules for banning trolls and that is the only reason you thrive. I have debated these issues in person with Roman friends who are far more knowledgeable than you  and never, *never* any of then showed the kind of idiotic insecurity you two show here.  So you won't have the excuse of no-reference. I have plenty of references in my personal life of intelligent *pious* Romans who know how to discuss differences without ridiculously resorting to offenses or acusations.
Okay...I'll bite.

When you debated these issues (which I assume means the Sacred Heart devotion) with your oh-so-much-more-knowledgeable Roman friends, what was their take on it?

Also, don't mistake my unwillingness to pull out all the stops in my discussions with you as my being a "mediocre troll" or an unknowledgeable Catholic. When a position reaches a certain level of absurdity, it just feels like a waste of time. However, you have spunk and, believe it or not, I like you...so I'm going to throw a few things your way to think about. You can respond if you feel so inclined.

The quote by the Pope referencing the Sacred Heart devotion speaks of "worship." Nowadays, worship refers primarily to one thing and one thing only, and that is adoration which belongs to God alone. However, that was not always the case. In historical documents from the past, there are three things that the word worship can be referencing: dulia, hyperdulia, and latria. Only latria refers to the the type of worship that belongs only to God. Now...in terms of the Sacred Heart we have a unique situation since we are talking about God Incarnate's heart. Is the heart of God holy and sacred or isn't it (and thus worthy of some form of worship)? Keep in mind, I am operating under the premise that the Sacred Heart devotion is actually referring to the worship of Christ's literal heart to the exclusion of everything else, which seems to be the common Eastern Orthodox understanding of that particular Catholic devotion. I don't believe that that has been proven to be the intent of the devotion, however.

Also, I have a somewhat different yet related question for you. When someone uses the expression "well bless his/her heart," what are they saying?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Wyatt on October 05, 2011, 12:58:06 PM
You never found the Roman Church respectable, so cut out the nonsense.

Behave. You don't know anything about me. I have been under much more serious social problems for defending the Roman Church than you can imagine. From losing friendships to being labeled negatively in professional situations where I could have taken advantage of just repeating what the chorus sing. I - occasionally - collaborate with a media-watch newspaper with Catholic explicit catholic leanings and now and then I have to put up with the same prejudices they do. I have defended the role of the Roman church in the West and in Brazilian culture in face of secularists and atheists many times. Some of my best friends and my family are Romans, and the Roman Elderly Ladies Prayer Group used to go to my house frequently and we had wonderful conversations. So wash your mouth - or fingers - before trying to guess what I feel for anything.

What I don't respect Wyatt, is you and Elijamariah, only. Don't hide behind the Roman church. For all your histerical pseudo-apologetic you two pass as just mediocre trolls in a forum that has no rules for banning trolls and that is the only reason you thrive. I have debated these issues in person with Roman friends who are far more knowledgeable than you  and never, *never* any of then showed the kind of idiotic insecurity you two show here.  So you won't have the excuse of no-reference. I have plenty of references in my personal life of intelligent *pious* Romans who know how to discuss differences without ridiculously resorting to offenses or acusations.

I guess you think that your anecdotal rants are valid and mine are not. 

I think my good teachers are every bit as good as your good Catholic co-whatevers...

 :D :D :D

Now who is whining?
I guess he knows our faith more than we do since he hangs out with these alleged knowledgeable Catholic friends all the time.  ::)
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on October 05, 2011, 01:16:46 PM
For those with a devotional interest in the Sacred Heart:

http://www.unitypublishing.com/Apparitions/DoorTwoHeartsAreOne.html
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: J Michael on October 05, 2011, 01:28:14 PM
For those with a devotional interest in the Sacred Heart:

http://www.unitypublishing.com/Apparitions/DoorTwoHeartsAreOne.html

Ohhh.....but it's sooooooooo lonnnnnng.  Soooooooo many worrrrrrrrrrrrds........whatever shall I do?  :'(::) :laugh: ::) :'( :laugh: ::) :'( :laugh:



Now, on a more serious note---Thanks  :)!
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on October 05, 2011, 01:35:28 PM
For those with a devotional interest in the Sacred Heart:

http://www.unitypublishing.com/Apparitions/DoorTwoHeartsAreOne.html

Ohhh.....but it's sooooooooo lonnnnnng.  Soooooooo many worrrrrrrrrrrrds........whatever shall I do?  :'(::) :laugh: ::) :'( :laugh: ::) :'( :laugh:



Now, on a more serious note---Thanks  :)!

Right-o!!  :D  ;)
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Mickey on October 05, 2011, 03:50:25 PM
For those with a devotional interest in the Sacred Heart:http://www.unitypublishing.com/Apparitions/DoorTwoHeartsAreOne.html


From the website:
But why is this reparation and consecration needed. Our Lord told St. Margaret Mary why reparation was needed for His Sacred Heart. As we have seen Pope St. Pius X in 1912, granted a plenary indulgence for those making reparation. Our Lady is the object of certain blasphemies and offenses aimed directly at herself.

1. Blasphemy against her Immaculate Conception.

How is it possible to blaspheme an innovation (IC)?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on October 05, 2011, 03:53:15 PM
For those with a devotional interest in the Sacred Heart:http://www.unitypublishing.com/Apparitions/DoorTwoHeartsAreOne.html


From the website:
But why is this reparation and consecration needed. Our Lord told St. Margaret Mary why reparation was needed for His Sacred Heart. As we have seen Pope St. Pius X in 1912, granted a plenary indulgence for those making reparation. Our Lady is the object of certain blasphemies and offenses aimed directly at herself.

1. Blasphemy against her Immaculate Conception.

How is it possible to blasphemy an innovation?

What innovation?

The Immaculate Conception is not blasphemed:  The God who loves her is however when the demonstration of his love for her is denied so vehemently.  Would be far better to simply ignore.

I am so glad you took time to read parts of the article.

M.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Mickey on October 05, 2011, 03:54:42 PM
[quote author
The Immaculate Conception is not blasphemed: 

That is the point.  It cannot be blashpemed....because it is an innovation. :-\
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Fabio Leite on October 05, 2011, 04:18:18 PM

What I have hi-lighted I would say is very true !

Did you used to be a RC at one time? Just wondering.

Not really. I was baptized, went to cathecism, but I was just doing what my parents told me. Nevertheless, I talk to many people and I ask them about these issues when and if convenient.

Most Romans don't care about papal claims. Some don't even believe that there is such a thing as supremacy or infallibility, even when I explain the constraints on the concepts. Most are exactly like elijamariah, "protestant Romans". They pick and choose words from the hierarchy and the pope to build their own private faith. They interpret them in the most theologically diluted sense and actually adhere to a kind of "pragmatic" faith that is "be loving to others, try not to sin, love God, go to Mass, confess, take Comunion" and that's it.

In a sense, this is what "saves" (not using the theological sense here) the Roman Church as an institution. It's so big and the hierarchy so distant in social terms, most faithful don't take its most outrageous claims seriously.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Fabio Leite on October 05, 2011, 04:31:32 PM

I guess you think that your anecdotal rants are valid and mine are not. 

I don't use mine as arguments. The lowest forms of expression go to those who are in affinity with them.

Plus, that's not a rant about Catholicism or the Vatican. It is a limit. Both you and Wyatt systematically call people here idiots, ignorant, ill-intended and now you two are implying liar as well. That while altogether being unable to put two arguments together, respect your own sources or use the few mentioned in any coherent way. If trolling is allowed, bashing the trolls now and then can't be that bad either. You and Wyatt *will* be treated as the childish imature brats you show us to be in your posts.

Quote
I think my good teachers are every bit as good as your good Catholic co-whatevers...

Considering the respect your teachers have passed to you for primary sources, I doubt that.

Quote
Now who is whining?

You in the very act of asking for trying some compesation for not before and not now being able to hide whatever issues you have behind pseudo-apologetics.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Wyatt on October 05, 2011, 04:41:18 PM
[quote author
The Immaculate Conception is not blasphemed: 

That is the point.  It cannot be blashpemed....because it is an innovation. :-\
Attacking the Blessed Virgin Mary, conceived immaculate, full of Grace, and set apart by God Himself to be the unblemished vessel to house the Messiah, is blasphemy towards God.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Cavaradossi on October 05, 2011, 05:59:32 PM
[quote author
The Immaculate Conception is not blasphemed: 

That is the point.  It cannot be blashpemed....because it is an innovation. :-\
Attacking the Blessed Virgin Mary, conceived immaculate, full of Grace, and set apart by God Himself to be the unblemished vessel to house the Messiah, is blasphemy towards God.
Attacking God, by saying that he would rob the Theotokos of her free will by setting her apart to be an unblemished vessel, is blasphemy.  ::)
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Aindriú on October 05, 2011, 06:06:29 PM
[quote author
The Immaculate Conception is not blasphemed: 

That is the point.  It cannot be blashpemed....because it is an innovation. :-\
Attacking the Blessed Virgin Mary, conceived immaculate, full of Grace, and set apart by God Himself to be the unblemished vessel to house the Messiah, is blasphemy towards God.
Attacking God, by saying that he would rob the Theotokos of her free will by setting her apart to be an unblemished vessel, is blasphemy.  ::)

...?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Wyatt on October 05, 2011, 06:08:32 PM

I guess you think that your anecdotal rants are valid and mine are not. 

I don't use mine as arguments. The lowest forms of expression go to those who are in affinity with them.

Plus, that's not a rant about Catholicism or the Vatican. It is a limit. Both you and Wyatt systematically call people here idiots, ignorant, ill-intended and now you two are implying liar as well. That while altogether being unable to put two arguments together, respect your own sources or use the few mentioned in any coherent way. If trolling is allowed, bashing the trolls now and then can't be that bad either. You and Wyatt *will* be treated as the childish imature brats you show us to be in your posts.

Quote
I think my good teachers are every bit as good as your good Catholic co-whatevers...

Considering the respect your teachers have passed to you for primary sources, I doubt that.

Quote
Now who is whining?

You in the very act of asking for trying some compesation for not before and not now being able to hide whatever issues you have behind pseudo-apologetics.
Trying to say that the entire Roman Church condones worshiping the literal heart of Jesus Christ by taking snippets of quotes (and, I highly suspect, out of context [see other post above]) is quite bratty, childish, and dishonest.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Papist on October 05, 2011, 06:54:48 PM
[quote author
The Immaculate Conception is not blasphemed:  

That is the point.  It cannot be blashpemed....because it is an innovation. :-\
Attacking the Blessed Virgin Mary, conceived immaculate, full of Grace, and set apart by God Himself to be the unblemished vessel to house the Messiah, is blasphemy towards God.
Attacking God, by saying that he would rob the Theotokos of her free will by setting her apart to be an unblemished vessel, is blasphemy.  ::)
Saying that Mary was conceived in the same state as Adam and Eve is in no way taking away her free will.



Fixed quote tags  -PtA
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on October 05, 2011, 07:17:20 PM
[quote author
The Immaculate Conception is not blasphemed: 

That is the point.  It cannot be blashpemed....because it is an innovation. :-\
Attacking the Blessed Virgin Mary, conceived immaculate, full of Grace, and set apart by God Himself to be the unblemished vessel to house the Messiah, is blasphemy towards God.
Attacking God, by saying that he would rob the Theotokos of her free will by setting her apart to be an unblemished vessel, is blasphemy.  ::)

Then it is a good thing that is NOT what the teaching of the Immaculate Conception does...except in your imaginary world of Catholic teaching...
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Wyatt on October 05, 2011, 09:56:50 PM
[quote author
The Immaculate Conception is not blasphemed: 

That is the point.  It cannot be blashpemed....because it is an innovation. :-\
Attacking the Blessed Virgin Mary, conceived immaculate, full of Grace, and set apart by God Himself to be the unblemished vessel to house the Messiah, is blasphemy towards God.
Attacking God, by saying that he would rob the Theotokos of her free will by setting her apart to be an unblemished vessel, is blasphemy.  ::)
No free will? Who's saying that? Adam and Eve were created without original sin, yet they still had free will and chose to fall into sin and out of communion with God. The wonderful thing about the Theotokos is that she was conceived without original sin and remained sinless her entire life. Adam and Eve were prideful and rebellious, whereas the Theotokos was humble and obedient.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Cavaradossi on October 05, 2011, 10:09:49 PM
[quote author
The Immaculate Conception is not blasphemed: 

That is the point.  It cannot be blashpemed....because it is an innovation. :-\
Attacking the Blessed Virgin Mary, conceived immaculate, full of Grace, and set apart by God Himself to be the unblemished vessel to house the Messiah, is blasphemy towards God.
Attacking God, by saying that he would rob the Theotokos of her free will by setting her apart to be an unblemished vessel, is blasphemy.  ::)

Then it is a good thing that is NOT what the teaching of the Immaculate Conception does...except in your imaginary world of Catholic teaching...

You misunderstand why I pulled out one of those old tropes against the IC. You mustn't read what I wrote at face value, but in the context of the silly post to which I'm responding. It was nothing more than a sarcastically vacuous response to an equally vacuous assertion.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: PeterTheAleut on October 06, 2011, 12:43:06 AM
Don't we already have enough threads about the Immaculate Conception? Why rehash the argument here where it's off topic?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on October 06, 2011, 12:51:09 AM
[quote author
The Immaculate Conception is not blasphemed: 

That is the point.  It cannot be blashpemed....because it is an innovation. :-\
Attacking the Blessed Virgin Mary, conceived immaculate, full of Grace, and set apart by God Himself to be the unblemished vessel to house the Messiah, is blasphemy towards God.
Attacking God, by saying that he would rob the Theotokos of her free will by setting her apart to be an unblemished vessel, is blasphemy.  ::)

Then it is a good thing that is NOT what the teaching of the Immaculate Conception does...except in your imaginary world of Catholic teaching...

You misunderstand why I pulled out one of those old tropes against the IC. You mustn't read what I wrote at face value, but in the context of the silly post to which I'm responding. It was nothing more than a sarcastically vacuous response to an equally vacuous assertion.

Argh...Missed it clean.  I wondered what you were doing actually but then I thought...well...maybe...

Dumb
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: ialmisry on October 07, 2011, 10:13:06 PM
[quote author
The Immaculate Conception is not blasphemed:  

That is the point.  It cannot be blashpemed....because it is an innovation. :-\
Attacking the Blessed Virgin Mary, conceived immaculate, full of Grace, and set apart by God Himself to be the unblemished vessel to house the Messiah, is blasphemy towards God.
Attacking God, by saying that he would rob the Theotokos of her free will by setting her apart to be an unblemished vessel, is blasphemy.  ::)
Saying that Mary was conceived in the same state as Adam and Eve is in no way taking away her free will.
Since she was conceived after the Fall, yes, it is. Otherwise, there is no reason why God could not and should not have had us all conceived as Father Adam and Mother Eve were created before the Fall.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Wyatt on October 08, 2011, 01:33:12 PM
[quote author
The Immaculate Conception is not blasphemed:  

That is the point.  It cannot be blashpemed....because it is an innovation. :-\
Attacking the Blessed Virgin Mary, conceived immaculate, full of Grace, and set apart by God Himself to be the unblemished vessel to house the Messiah, is blasphemy towards God.
Attacking God, by saying that he would rob the Theotokos of her free will by setting her apart to be an unblemished vessel, is blasphemy.  ::)
Saying that Mary was conceived in the same state as Adam and Eve is in no way taking away her free will.
Since she was conceived after the Fall, yes, it is. Otherwise, there is no reason why God could not and should not have had us all conceived as Father Adam and Mother Eve were created before the Fall.
There is a very good reason. None of us were chosen to be vessels to house the Messiah. Do you think that the Theotokos, who is considered both the New Eve and the New Ark of the Covenant, would be bogged down and dirtied by sin? Do you think that God the Son Incarnate would enter this world through a vessel tarnished and covered in filth? To suggest such a thing is blasphemous.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on October 08, 2011, 06:33:37 PM
For those who are interested:

http://fatherdavidbirdosb.blogspot.com/2011/06/hearts-of-jesus-and-mary-by-cardinal.html

THE HEARTS OF JESUS AND MARY by Cardinal von Schoenborn OP

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_aNNwA4eTfJY/SzLyTRC-blI/AAAAAAAADmc/lGsmFl9yZGY/S1600-R/Fatimskaia.jpg)


The teaching  of Cardinal von Schoenborn OP on the hearts of Jesus and Mary is different from that of the Christian East on prayer of the heart; but, like so many of our differences, it complements it. It is as though a common insight that "out of a believer's heart shall flow rivers of running water" has gone off in two different directions.    They only need to be united and, if only we would allow this to happen, each teaching would illuminate the other.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: LBK on October 08, 2011, 11:04:54 PM

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_aNNwA4eTfJY/SzLyTRC-blI/AAAAAAAADmc/lGsmFl9yZGY/S1600-R/Fatimskaia.jpg)


A cautionary note: This image cannot be considered a proper icon of the Mother of God from the Orthodox POV, as it is deficient in many ways. It is simply a well-executed religious painting reflecting certain non-Orthodox beliefs.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: J Michael on October 09, 2011, 12:28:23 PM

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_aNNwA4eTfJY/SzLyTRC-blI/AAAAAAAADmc/lGsmFl9yZGY/S1600-R/Fatimskaia.jpg)


A cautionary note: This image cannot be considered a proper icon of the Mother of God from the Orthodox POV, as it is deficient in many ways. It is simply a well-executed religious painting reflecting certain non-Orthodox beliefs.

At the possible risk of derailing this thread, for those who may not know, would you mind elaborating, please?  Specifically, how the icon is deficient, what makes an icon "Orthodox" and therefore "proper", which non-Orthodox beliefs this one reflects, and what it is that makes any icon worthy or unworthy of veneration.  (By the way, I'm not looking for a fight, snide or triumphalistic comments, or any kind of holier-than-thou attitudes--just a straight-forward answer of explanation.  If the mods see fit to move this, I certainly have no problem with that.)  Thanks!
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Ortho_cat on October 09, 2011, 12:41:50 PM
I've never seen an Orthodox icon of the MoG wearing those color clothes, she is usually always holding Christ, she is never depicted holding a rosary or cupping her "heart".
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: J Michael on October 09, 2011, 12:57:19 PM
I've never seen an Orthodox icon of the MoG wearing those color clothes, she is usually always holding Christ, she is never depicted holding a rosary or cupping her "heart".

Neither have I, but that doesn't address my questions.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: J Michael on October 09, 2011, 01:41:18 PM
I still have this booklet, a little soiled after 31 years, but it is still a powerful catechism in my opinion.  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.

I cannot help but wonder, if an eight year old boy can have this understanding, why does it appear to be so difficult for grown men and women, even if they are Orthodox?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Wyatt on October 09, 2011, 02:34:53 PM

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_aNNwA4eTfJY/SzLyTRC-blI/AAAAAAAADmc/lGsmFl9yZGY/S1600-R/Fatimskaia.jpg)


A cautionary note: This image cannot be considered a proper icon of the Mother of God from the Orthodox POV, as it is deficient in many ways. It is simply a well-executed religious painting reflecting certain non-Orthodox beliefs.
In what ways is it deficient?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Sleeper on October 09, 2011, 02:45:35 PM
A "proper icon" is an image that is in conformity with the 7th Ecumenical Council, not necessarily with the more crystallized tradition of the Christian East, with its own "canons" and such. The council was not the affirmation of the Byzantine-style of Christian art, but was an extension of the doctrine of the Incarnation and our beliefs about matter and veneration of the saints.

Their conclusion: "As the sacred and life-giving cross is everywhere set up as a symbol, so also should the images of Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, the holy angels, as well as those of the saints and other pious and holy men be embodied in the manufacture of sacred vessels, tapestries, vestments, etc., and exhibited on the walls of churches, in the homes, and in all conspicuous places, by the roadside and everywhere, to be revered by all who might see them. For the more they are contemplated, the more they move to fervent memory of their prototypes. Therefore, it is proper to accord to them a fervent and reverent adoration, not, however, the veritable worship which, according to our faith, belongs to the Divine Being alone — for the honor accorded to the image passes over to its prototype, and whoever adores the image adores in it the reality of what is there represented."

This included carvings, statues, etchings, etc., anything the depicted the saints and events of sacred history. It is not the more pronounced style and tradition of the East that is binding upon the Church. Any "holy image" is what's acceptable to Orthodox Catholics, no matter what form it takes.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Aindriú on October 09, 2011, 03:23:50 PM
A "proper icon" is an image that is in conformity with the 7th Ecumenical Council, not necessarily with the more crystallized tradition of the Christian East, with its own "canons" and such. The council was not the affirmation of the Byzantine-style of Christian art, but was an extension of the doctrine of the Incarnation and our beliefs about matter and veneration of the saints.

Their conclusion: "As the sacred and life-giving cross is everywhere set up as a symbol, so also should the images of Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, the holy angels, as well as those of the saints and other pious and holy men be embodied in the manufacture of sacred vessels, tapestries, vestments, etc., and exhibited on the walls of churches, in the homes, and in all conspicuous places, by the roadside and everywhere, to be revered by all who might see them. For the more they are contemplated, the more they move to fervent memory of their prototypes. Therefore, it is proper to accord to them a fervent and reverent adoration, not, however, the veritable worship which, according to our faith, belongs to the Divine Being alone — for the honor accorded to the image passes over to its prototype, and whoever adores the image adores in it the reality of what is there represented."

This included carvings, statues, etchings, etc., anything the depicted the saints and events of sacred history. It is not the more pronounced style and tradition of the East that is binding upon the Church. Any "holy image" is what's acceptable to Orthodox Catholics, no matter what form it takes.

+1
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: LBK on October 09, 2011, 05:58:35 PM
I've never seen an Orthodox icon of the MoG wearing those color clothes, she is usually always holding Christ, she is never depicted holding a rosary or cupping her "heart".

To which I would add that this image does not bear the essential feature of the three stars of perpetual virginity on her maphorion, a detail of dogmatic importance. The Mother of God always points to her Son and God in proper icons, never to her heart, be that heart figurative or material.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Ortho_cat on October 09, 2011, 10:10:28 PM
I've never seen an Orthodox icon of the MoG wearing those color clothes, she is usually always holding Christ, she is never depicted holding a rosary or cupping her "heart".

Neither have I, but that doesn't address my questions.

All these things I mentioned that she is lacking have dogmatic meaning. If they are not there, they are not representing  these truths that are otherwise expressed in Orthodox icons of the Theotokos.

If she is holding the rosary and cupping her heart, she is expressing RC theology, not Orthodox.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Aindriú on October 09, 2011, 10:11:04 PM
I've never seen an Orthodox icon of the MoG wearing those color clothes, she is usually always holding Christ, she is never depicted holding a rosary or cupping her "heart".

Neither have I, but that doesn't address my questions.

All these things I mentioned that she is lacking have dogmatic meaning. If they are not there, they are not representing  these truths that are otherwise expressed in Orthodox icons of the Theotokos.

If she is holding the rosary and cupping her heart, she is expressing RC theology, not Orthodox.

A contrary theology?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Ortho_cat on October 09, 2011, 10:15:27 PM
I still have this booklet, a little soiled after 31 years, but it is still a powerful catechism in my opinion.  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.

I cannot help but wonder, if an eight year old boy can have this understanding, why does it appear to be so difficult for grown men and women, even if they are Orthodox?

When I see icons of Christ, especially ones such as the extreme humility icon below, I see his divine love for us. I don't need to see his heart to realize this.

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

Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Aindriú on October 09, 2011, 10:16:34 PM
I still have this booklet, a little soiled after 31 years, but it is still a powerful catechism in my opinion.  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.

I cannot help but wonder, if an eight year old boy can have this understanding, why does it appear to be so difficult for grown men and women, even if they are Orthodox?

When I see icons of Christ, especially ones such as the extreme humility icon below, I see his divine love for us. I don't need to see his heart to realize this.

In that respect, do you need to see that icon to realize this?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Ortho_cat on October 09, 2011, 10:20:42 PM
I've never seen an Orthodox icon of the MoG wearing those color clothes, she is usually always holding Christ, she is never depicted holding a rosary or cupping her "heart".

Neither have I, but that doesn't address my questions.

All these things I mentioned that she is lacking have dogmatic meaning. If they are not there, they are not representing  these truths that are otherwise expressed in Orthodox icons of the Theotokos.

If she is holding the rosary and cupping her heart, she is expressing RC theology, not Orthodox.

A contrary theology?

Yes I think so. She is emphasizing the Rosary and Sacred Heart Devotion. The fact that she is not pointing to Christ (as she is in EO icons) but to her heart is problematic imo, as others have mentioned.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Ortho_cat on October 09, 2011, 10:21:13 PM
I still have this booklet, a little soiled after 31 years, but it is still a powerful catechism in my opinion.  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.

I cannot help but wonder, if an eight year old boy can have this understanding, why does it appear to be so difficult for grown men and women, even if they are Orthodox?

When I see icons of Christ, especially ones such as the extreme humility icon below, I see his divine love for us. I don't need to see his heart to realize this.

In that respect, do you need to see that icon to realize this?

Any icon of Christ will do.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Wyatt on October 10, 2011, 12:41:57 AM
I still have this booklet, a little soiled after 31 years, but it is still a powerful catechism in my opinion.  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.

I cannot help but wonder, if an eight year old boy can have this understanding, why does it appear to be so difficult for grown men and women, even if they are Orthodox?

When I see icons of Christ, especially ones such as the extreme humility icon below, I see his divine love for us. I don't need to see his heart to realize this.

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


Take that argument to its logical conclusion and you have the iconoclasm heresy (i.e. you don't have to see an icon at all to realize theological truths).
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Cavaradossi on October 10, 2011, 04:02:49 AM
I still have this booklet, a little soiled after 31 years, but it is still a powerful catechism in my opinion.  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.

I cannot help but wonder, if an eight year old boy can have this understanding, why does it appear to be so difficult for grown men and women, even if they are Orthodox?

When I see icons of Christ, especially ones such as the extreme humility icon below, I see his divine love for us. I don't need to see his heart to realize this.

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


Take that argument to its logical conclusion and you have the iconoclasm heresy (i.e. you don't have to see an icon at all to realize theological truths).

There are specific theological reasons why one must venerate icons, and I don't think that being able to understand Christ's love for us is one of them. So even taken to its logical conclusion, that statement is still not the same as iconoclasm.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Ortho_cat on October 10, 2011, 04:06:20 AM
I still have this booklet, a little soiled after 31 years, but it is still a powerful catechism in my opinion.  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.

I cannot help but wonder, if an eight year old boy can have this understanding, why does it appear to be so difficult for grown men and women, even if they are Orthodox?

When I see icons of Christ, especially ones such as the extreme humility icon below, I see his divine love for us. I don't need to see his heart to realize this.

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


Take that argument to its logical conclusion and you have the iconoclasm heresy (i.e. you don't have to see an icon at all to realize theological truths).

sigh, I wasn't implying that. My statement was in the context of discussion about icons and showing Jesus or Mary's heart to imply love.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: J Michael on October 10, 2011, 12:34:57 PM
I've never seen an Orthodox icon of the MoG wearing those color clothes, she is usually always holding Christ, she is never depicted holding a rosary or cupping her "heart".

Neither have I, but that doesn't address my questions.

All these things I mentioned that she is lacking have dogmatic meaning. If they are not there, they are not representing  these truths that are otherwise expressed in Orthodox icons of the Theotokos.

If she is holding the rosary and cupping her heart, she is expressing RC theology, not Orthodox.

Most, but certainly not *all* of the icons of the Theotokos I have seen have her clothed in red or burgundy.  Most, but certainly not *all* of the icons of her that I've seen have also an image of Christ, i.e. this one which I found *very* quickly: http://skete.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=product.display&Product_ID=176&Category_ID=27.

The rosary is nothing but prayer beads, ala the Russian prayer rope.  In fact, there are some who say that the use of the rosary began in Orthodox Russia and not, as most believe, with St. Dominic.  There is nothing un-Orthodox about using a rosary.  Use of a rosary in no way contradicts Orthodox dogma or doctrine.

As for cupping her heart as being a symbol of the Sacred Heart Devotion....hmmm.....It *could* be, but perhaps you're reading that into it when it may actually not be there.

So, is there something else about this particular icon that makes it unworthy of veneration by Orthodox Christians?

Sleeper wrote yesterday, "A "proper icon" is an image that is in conformity with the 7th Ecumenical Council, not necessarily with the more crystallized tradition of the Christian East, with its own "canons" and such. The council was not the affirmation of the Byzantine-style of Christian art, but was an extension of the doctrine of the Incarnation and our beliefs about matter and veneration of the saints.

Their conclusion: "As the sacred and life-giving cross is everywhere set up as a symbol, so also should the images of Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, the holy angels, as well as those of the saints and other pious and holy men be embodied in the manufacture of sacred vessels, tapestries, vestments, etc., and exhibited on the walls of churches, in the homes, and in all conspicuous places, by the roadside and everywhere, to be revered by all who might see them. For the more they are contemplated, the more they move to fervent memory of their prototypes. Therefore, it is proper to accord to them a fervent and reverent adoration, not, however, the veritable worship which, according to our faith, belongs to the Divine Being alone — for the honor accorded to the image passes over to its prototype, and whoever adores the image adores in it the reality of what is there represented."


Does the icon in question fail this "test", for lack of a better word?

So, it seems my original questions are still unanswered.

Given that all of our actions have consequences, I wonder what consequences would ensue were an Orthodox Christian to venerate the icon we're discussing?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Ortho_cat on October 10, 2011, 02:51:03 PM
no consequences, I just wouldn't do it because I don't recognize her.

Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: J Michael on October 10, 2011, 03:38:35 PM
no consequences, I just wouldn't do it because I don't recognize her.



1.  What about the other questions I asked?

2.  Would you any venerate icons of the Theotokos that do not have her clothed in red/burgundy and/or without an image of Christ?  I ask because I am able to find a number of those from well-respected Orthodox sources.

What I'm trying to get at (still) is what, precisely (if anything), makes the icon in question (or any other icon for that matter) unworthy of veneration or un-Orthodox or uncanonical, etc.? 
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Ortho_cat on October 10, 2011, 04:29:19 PM
no consequences, I just wouldn't do it because I don't recognize her.



1.  What about the other questions I asked?

2.  Would you any venerate icons of the Theotokos that do not have her clothed in red/burgundy and/or without an image of Christ?  I ask because I am able to find a number of those from well-respected Orthodox sources.

What I'm trying to get at (still) is what, precisely (if anything), makes the icon in question (or any other icon for that matter) unworthy of veneration or un-Orthodox or uncanonical, etc.?  

That icon does not bear any of the characteristic that an EO icon of the Theotokos does, other than the inscription.

Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: J Michael on October 10, 2011, 04:50:45 PM
no consequences, I just wouldn't do it because I don't recognize her.



1.  What about the other questions I asked?

2.  Would you any venerate icons of the Theotokos that do not have her clothed in red/burgundy and/or without an image of Christ?  I ask because I am able to find a number of those from well-respected Orthodox sources.

What I'm trying to get at (still) is what, precisely (if anything), makes the icon in question (or any other icon for that matter) unworthy of veneration or un-Orthodox or uncanonical, etc.?  

That icon does not bear any of the characteristic that an EO icon of the Theotokos does, other than the inscription.



What about #2 above, bolded?

What characteristics **must** (according to whom? I would also ask) an icon of the Theotokos have to make it "an EO icon of the Theotokos"?  And, again....how does the icon we're discussing fail in that regard?  And, if it indeed does fail, does that make it unworthy of  veneration by Orthodox Christians?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Ortho_cat on October 10, 2011, 05:00:36 PM
a proper icon of the theotokos should bear several of the following characteristics which we already mentioned. Perhaps not all at the same time (which most do) but at least several.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Wyatt on October 10, 2011, 05:05:20 PM
I still have this booklet, a little soiled after 31 years, but it is still a powerful catechism in my opinion.  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.

I cannot help but wonder, if an eight year old boy can have this understanding, why does it appear to be so difficult for grown men and women, even if they are Orthodox?

When I see icons of Christ, especially ones such as the extreme humility icon below, I see his divine love for us. I don't need to see his heart to realize this.

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


Take that argument to its logical conclusion and you have the iconoclasm heresy (i.e. you don't have to see an icon at all to realize theological truths).

sigh, I wasn't implying that. My statement was in the context of discussion about icons and showing Jesus or Mary's heart to imply love.
I guess I'm just having difficulty understanding your objection to such Icons. What is wrong or heretical about utilizing the heart in an Icon to portray love? Certainly there are other ways that love can be portrayed in Icons that are also effective, but what is wrong with the use of the heart?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: J Michael on October 10, 2011, 05:24:16 PM
a proper icon of the theotokos should bear several of the following characteristics which we already mentioned. Perhaps not all at the same time (which most do) but at least several.

I feel like I'm trying to get hold of a greased pig here  ;D!

*Which* characteristics?

*How*, precisely, is the icon in question deficient or improper?

Are you able (and willing) to answer Wyatt's questions about it?

Would you venerate any icons of the Theotokos that do not have her clothed in red/burgundy and/or without an image of Christ?  I ask because I am able to find a number of those from well-respected Orthodox sources.

If, for whatever reason, you do not know the answers, that's fine!  Just say so!  "I don't know", when it's true, is a perfectly acceptable and appropriate answer.  You've made a judgment about a particular icon and we are asking you to back it up with some specifics, but you seem more unwilling than unable.  But perhaps I'm wrong.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Ortho_cat on October 10, 2011, 05:31:43 PM
Here is a description of what a Theotokos icon should look like:

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Icons_of_the_Theotokos
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on October 10, 2011, 05:35:45 PM
The image is called Fatimskaia so it depicts Our Lady of Fatima and the image in her hands is Eucharist or Body of Christ which can be seen in context as a dual reference to Jesus and to the Church.  It is certainly not a traditional Eastern Orthodox icon.  I did not intend to present it as such.

For those who are interested:

http://fatherdavidbirdosb.blogspot.com/2011/06/hearts-of-jesus-and-mary-by-cardinal.html

THE HEARTS OF JESUS AND MARY by Cardinal von Schoenborn OP

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_aNNwA4eTfJY/SzLyTRC-blI/AAAAAAAADmc/lGsmFl9yZGY/S1600-R/Fatimskaia.jpg)


The teaching  of Cardinal von Schoenborn OP on the hearts of Jesus and Mary is different from that of the Christian East on prayer of the heart; but, like so many of our differences, it complements it. It is as though a common insight that "out of a believer's heart shall flow rivers of running water" has gone off in two different directions.    They only need to be united and, if only we would allow this to happen, each teaching would illuminate the other.

Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: LBK on October 10, 2011, 06:54:01 PM
Quote
As for cupping her heart as being a symbol of the Sacred Heart Devotion....hmmm.....It *could* be, but perhaps you're reading that into it when it may actually not be there.

Quote
The image is called Fatimskaia so it depicts Our Lady of Fatima and the image in her hands is Eucharist or Body of Christ which can be seen in context as a dual reference to Jesus and to the Church.

To J Michael and elijahmaria:

The Slavonic word in the round motif around which her hand is gesturing is сердце (serdtse), which means heart. The motif has nothing to do with the Eucharist or Body of Christ. Her gesture is saying "venerate my heart", a concept quite alien to Orthodox iconographic, hymnographic, and doctrinal tradition. This image is an attempt to portray the "immaculate heart" devotion in an "iconographic" form. The danger with such imagery is that it could find ground with unsuspecting Orthodox believers - at best, a misguided mistake, at worst, a deliberate attempt to confuse the Orthodox and risk leading them astray from the teachings of the Church. Not every painting in an abstracted, non-realistic style is an icon.

Proper iconography is the visual counterpart of Orthodox hymnography and Holy Tradition. "Sacred heart" and "immaculate heart" devotions are not part of Orthodox doctrine or devotion, therefore there is no place for this image in Orthodox iconographic tradition. Coupled with the other deficiencies others have mentioned (the colors of her clothing, the absence of the stars of perpetual virginity, and the absence of Christ), this image is completely unsuitable as an Orthodox icon.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Papist on October 10, 2011, 07:16:55 PM
Oh good... This conversation is still going on.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Deacon Lance on October 10, 2011, 07:32:15 PM
...and the image in her hands is Eucharist or Body of Christ which can be seen in context as a dual reference to Jesus and to the Church. 

Not it isn't.  It is a circle inscribed with the Slavonic word Serdce/Heart and surrounded with thorns.

http://amigosderusiasannicolas.blogspot.com/2009/05/icon-of-mother-of-god-of-fatima.html
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: LBK on October 10, 2011, 07:36:31 PM
...and the image in her hands is Eucharist or Body of Christ which can be seen in context as a dual reference to Jesus and to the Church. 

Not it isn't.  It is a circle inscribed with the Slavonic word Serdce/Heart and surrounded with thorns.

http://amigosderusiasannicolas.blogspot.com/2009/05/icon-of-mother-of-god-of-fatima.html

^ What I said.  :)
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: LBK on October 10, 2011, 07:45:05 PM
From the blog that Dcn Lance linked to:
Quote
In the icon, besides the traditional MR ZY that indicates Maria's Divine Maternity two inscriptions have been written. The superior indicates the title of the icon: image of the Holiest Virgin of Fátima. The lower left one, in bigger characters, says “Toboiu Edinstbo” that means in you the Unity.

The latter expression reminds us the ecumenical vocation of the Icon, which has been written uniting the efforts of a catholic priest and an orthodox iconographer, trying to create an image before which catholic and orthodox faithful could pray together. In her two types of important ecumenisms are expressed. The ecumenism of the Heart of Maria and the ecumenism of the martyrdom, both very related to Fátima's message.

My suspicions have been verified. Shame on the Orthodox iconographer who painted this work. He should have known better.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Aindriú on October 10, 2011, 07:48:32 PM
From the blog that Dcn Lance linked to:
Quote
In the icon, besides the traditional MR ZY that indicates Maria's Divine Maternity two inscriptions have been written. The superior indicates the title of the icon: image of the Holiest Virgin of Fátima. The lower left one, in bigger characters, says “Toboiu Edinstbo” that means in you the Unity.

The latter expression reminds us the ecumenical vocation of the Icon, which has been written uniting the efforts of a catholic priest and an orthodox iconographer, trying to create an image before which catholic and orthodox faithful could pray together. In her two types of important ecumenisms are expressed. The ecumenism of the Heart of Maria and the ecumenism of the martyrdom, both very related to Fátima's message.

My suspicions have been verified. Shame on the Orthodox iconographer who painted this work. He should have known better.

Known better?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Ortho_cat on October 10, 2011, 07:56:31 PM
So that is the immaculate heart that Russia is consecrated to...
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: LBK on October 10, 2011, 08:06:26 PM
From the blog that Dcn Lance linked to:
Quote
In the icon, besides the traditional MR ZY that indicates Maria's Divine Maternity two inscriptions have been written. The superior indicates the title of the icon: image of the Holiest Virgin of Fátima. The lower left one, in bigger characters, says “Toboiu Edinstbo” that means in you the Unity.

The latter expression reminds us the ecumenical vocation of the Icon, which has been written uniting the efforts of a catholic priest and an orthodox iconographer, trying to create an image before which catholic and orthodox faithful could pray together. In her two types of important ecumenisms are expressed. The ecumenism of the Heart of Maria and the ecumenism of the martyrdom, both very related to Fátima's message.

My suspicions have been verified. Shame on the Orthodox iconographer who painted this work. He should have known better.

Known better?

Yes, he should have known better. The responsibility of an Orthodox iconographer is to paint according to what the Orthodox Church teaches, not according to his own imagination, or to serve other causes, however noble or well-intentioned, such as "creating an image before which catholic and orthodox faithful could pray together". This iconographer has painted an image which has no place in Orthodox tradition or devotion. The painting of this image is no less a violation of iconographic principles than if a hymnographer wrote a troparion, kontakion and canon to the immaculate heart, expecting it to be sung in Orthodox churches.

Icons are painted with prayer and fasting. What was he doing when he was painting this image? Was he praying "Most-holy Mother of God of Fatima, save us"? Did he receive a blessing from his priest or bishop to paint such an image?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: LBK on October 10, 2011, 09:04:15 PM
J Michael wrote:

Quote
Most, but certainly not *all* of the icons of the Theotokos I have seen have her clothed in red or burgundy.  Most, but certainly not *all* of the icons of her that I've seen have also an image of Christ, i.e. this one which I found *very* quickly: http://skete.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=product.display&Product_ID=176&Category_ID=27.

The icon in the link is not intended to be a stand-alone icon, but is a panel in a series, known as Deesis/Supplication/Tchin. These series consist of a minimum of Christ at the centre, in frontal pose, with the Mother of God on the left and St John the Baptist on the right, in the deferential, supplicatory pose. Longer series would then include the archangels Michael and Gabriel, the apostles Peter and Paul, or an assortment of other saints.

As we can see, Christ is present in the Deesis series, of which the Mother of God is a part. The principle stands.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Ortho_cat on October 10, 2011, 10:03:13 PM
yes, she is always bowing to her left, as she is to the right hand of Christ.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Deacon Lance on October 10, 2011, 10:16:34 PM

The icon in the link is not intended to be a stand-alone icon, but is a panel in a series, known as Deesis/Supplication/Tchin. These series consist of a minimum of Christ at the centre, in frontal pose, with the Mother of God on the left and St John the Baptist on the right, in the deferential, supplicatory pose. Longer series would then include the archangels Michael and Gabriel, the apostles Peter and Paul, or an assortment of other saints.

As we can see, Christ is present in the Deesis series, of which the Mother of God is a part. The principle stands.

That the Mother of God with Christ is the most common icon is true, but there are certainly other icons with the Mother of God alone, some miracle working.  The Pokrova and the Joy of Joys come to mind foremost.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: LBK on October 11, 2011, 02:41:16 AM
Quote
The Pokrova and the Joy of Joys come to mind foremost.

On the Pokrov icons:

This icon depicts a historical event, where the Virgin appeared at the church at Blachernae. However, in the upper border of the icon, or directly above the figure of the Mother of God, there is a motif of Christ, surrounded by a radiance (mandorla) of Uncreated Light, with His right hand raised in blessing. The same goes for the icon Bogolyubskaya, which commemorates the appearance of the Virgin to Prince Andrei Bogolyubskiy. In these icons, Christ in glory is seen blessing His mother, and the other figures in the icon, in the upper corner facing the Virgin.

Here is but one example, I have many more on file:

(http://valentina-panina.ru/usr/fckeditor/Pokrov.jpg)

On the Joy of Joys, also known as Seraphim-Diveyevo:

The Virgin is shown alone, with her eyes downcast, and her arms crossed over her chest, or clasped in the western attitude of prayer. This, and other imagery, had its origins in the Roman Catholic world, which infiltrated regions further east through the proximity of geography.

The almost complete takeover of traditional iconography by naturalistic religious art, such as that of the European Renaissance, over several centuries, across all the Orthodox world, from as early as the sixteenth century, is not in doubt. Much of this was due to official patronage of this “new” religious art, be it by nobles, kings, or emperors of countries where Orthodoxy was the dominant faith. There was no separation of Church and State – indeed, the king/emperor/tsar was a kind of earthly representative of the Church. To this day, the affectionate titles for a Russian priest and his wife are Batiushka and Matushka (Little Father, Little Mother). The same titles were used for the Tsars and Tsarinas of imperial Russia. History shows that many rulers of Orthodox countries, for better and worse, adopted (willingly or otherwise) western customs and mores, and imposed them on their nations or empires. In Russia, this led to the founding of state-sponsored iconographic workshops, which promoted the highly naturalistic “Synodal” or “Academic” styles. The “iconography” of the Moscow Cathedral of Christ the Savior, commissioned in the 1820s, reflects the almost complete dominance of western imagery over traditional iconography.

Greece, the other center of Orthodoxy, was not immune from extraneous influences. The Venetians colonized large areas of the Greek mainland, and many of its islands, prior, or during, the Ottoman period. The Cretan School produced some of the most sublime and reverent iconography anywhere, but, unfortunately, eventually descended into an imitation of renaissance art, losing its liturgical and theological integrity.

Keeping this in mind, and that of traveled iconographers themselves incorporating elements of western art in their works, is it any wonder that western forms of religious art soon became the norm? We have the examples of Sts Seraphim of Sarov and Nektarios of Aegina and their veneration of images we know to be suspect. But, are we to condemn these holy men? Are we to say that their sanctity is in question? Of course not. The fact is, that they had little choice but to venerate such images, as these images were everywhere. The hallowed ground of Mt Athos was not immune from these influences – indeed, there is, to this day, a profusion of suspect and uncanonical images on the walls of many of its monasteries. These include Trinities showing God the Father as a bearded old man, eyes in triangles, and other imagery which is contrary to Orthodox doctrine and theology. The people of Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Romania, and other nations in eastern Europe on the border of Orthodox East and Roman Catholic West similarly were surrounded by heterodox images, in all innocence. Can we blame them for holding their beloved Ostrobramskaya, Akhtirskaya, and Diveyevo icons to their hearts?

So where does this leave us? God is entitled to choose to work His grace through imperfect vessels, be they human beings, or an imperfectly-mounted printed icon (the recent myrrh-streaming icon of St Nicholas, or the Hawaii-Iveron Mother of God), or an image that falls short of canonical guidelines. As He accepts and loves us, despite our multitude of sins and faults, so He has accepted these imperfect images. However, we are also expected to do what we can to “get right” with God. In terms of iconography, these days, we can no longer claim ignorance of canon, scripture or liturgical deposit. It is increasingly difficult to claim illiteracy, geographic and cultural isolation for the perpetuation of images deficient or contrary to Orthodox doctrine and theology. It grieves me that certain people who conduct well-patronised classes in icon painting continue to promote uncanonical and deficient images. I am not convinced that this is being done in honest ignorance.

On the other hand, I am heartened that some iconographers are painting “corrective” motifs on their copies of historic but deficient images, such as ensuring the Mother of God bears the three stars of perpetual virginity, that a motif of Christ or the OT Holy Trinity, instead of God the Father, is in the upper border of a Kursk-Root or Derzhavnaya icon of the Mother of God. I have also seen the removal of NT Trinities and eyes in triangles from prominent positions in some Orthodox churches in the city where I live. All these are welcome steps in the right direction.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: J Michael on October 11, 2011, 10:25:03 AM
Quote
The Pokrova and the Joy of Joys come to mind foremost.

On the Pokrov icons:

This icon depicts a historical event, where the Virgin appeared at the church at Blachernae. However, in the upper border of the icon, or directly above the figure of the Mother of God, there is a motif of Christ, surrounded by a radiance (mandorla) of Uncreated Light, with His right hand raised in blessing. The same goes for the icon Bogolyubskaya, which commemorates the appearance of the Virgin to Prince Andrei Bogolyubskiy. In these icons, Christ in glory is seen blessing His mother, and the other figures in the icon, in the upper corner facing the Virgin.

Here is but one example, I have many more on file:

(http://valentina-panina.ru/usr/fckeditor/Pokrov.jpg)

On the Joy of Joys, also known as Seraphim-Diveyevo:

The Virgin is shown alone, with her eyes downcast, and her arms crossed over her chest, or clasped in the western attitude of prayer. This, and other imagery, had its origins in the Roman Catholic world, which infiltrated regions further east through the proximity of geography.

The almost complete takeover of traditional iconography by naturalistic religious art, such as that of the European Renaissance, over several centuries, across all the Orthodox world, from as early as the sixteenth century, is not in doubt. Much of this was due to official patronage of this “new” religious art, be it by nobles, kings, or emperors of countries where Orthodoxy was the dominant faith. There was no separation of Church and State – indeed, the king/emperor/tsar was a kind of earthly representative of the Church. To this day, the affectionate titles for a Russian priest and his wife are Batiushka and Matushka (Little Father, Little Mother). The same titles were used for the Tsars and Tsarinas of imperial Russia. History shows that many rulers of Orthodox countries, for better and worse, adopted (willingly or otherwise) western customs and mores, and imposed them on their nations or empires. In Russia, this led to the founding of state-sponsored iconographic workshops, which promoted the highly naturalistic “Synodal” or “Academic” styles. The “iconography” of the Moscow Cathedral of Christ the Savior, commissioned in the 1820s, reflects the almost complete dominance of western imagery over traditional iconography.

Greece, the other center of Orthodoxy, was not immune from extraneous influences. The Venetians colonized large areas of the Greek mainland, and many of its islands, prior, or during, the Ottoman period. The Cretan School produced some of the most sublime and reverent iconography anywhere, but, unfortunately, eventually descended into an imitation of renaissance art, losing its liturgical and theological integrity.

Keeping this in mind, and that of traveled iconographers themselves incorporating elements of western art in their works, is it any wonder that western forms of religious art soon became the norm? We have the examples of Sts Seraphim of Sarov and Nektarios of Aegina and their veneration of images we know to be suspect. But, are we to condemn these holy men? Are we to say that their sanctity is in question? Of course not. The fact is, that they had little choice but to venerate such images, as these images were everywhere. The hallowed ground of Mt Athos was not immune from these influences – indeed, there is, to this day, a profusion of suspect and uncanonical images on the walls of many of its monasteries. These include Trinities showing God the Father as a bearded old man, eyes in triangles, and other imagery which is contrary to Orthodox doctrine and theology. The people of Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Romania, and other nations in eastern Europe on the border of Orthodox East and Roman Catholic West similarly were surrounded by heterodox images, in all innocence. Can we blame them for holding their beloved Ostrobramskaya, Akhtirskaya, and Diveyevo icons to their hearts?

So where does this leave us? God is entitled to choose to work His grace through imperfect vessels, be they human beings, or an imperfectly-mounted printed icon (the recent myrrh-streaming icon of St Nicholas, or the Hawaii-Iveron Mother of God), or an image that falls short of canonical guidelines. As He accepts and loves us, despite our multitude of sins and faults, so He has accepted these imperfect images. However, we are also expected to do what we can to “get right” with God. In terms of iconography, these days, we can no longer claim ignorance of canon, scripture or liturgical deposit. It is increasingly difficult to claim illiteracy, geographic and cultural isolation for the perpetuation of images deficient or contrary to Orthodox doctrine and theology. It grieves me that certain people who conduct well-patronised classes in icon painting continue to promote uncanonical and deficient images. I am not convinced that this is being done in honest ignorance.

On the other hand, I am heartened that some iconographers are painting “corrective” motifs on their copies of historic but deficient images, such as ensuring the Mother of God bears the three stars of perpetual virginity, that a motif of Christ or the OT Holy Trinity, instead of God the Father, is in the upper border of a Kursk-Root or Derzhavnaya icon of the Mother of God. I have also seen the removal of NT Trinities and eyes in triangles from prominent positions in some Orthodox churches in the city where I live. All these are welcome steps in the right direction.


Thanks for the information!   :)

I'm still curious to know what makes an icon "canonical" or not.  Also, if an icon is somehow "deficient" does that render it useless in terms of veneration, and if so, why?  Would an Orthodox Christian, for example, be guilty of some kind of error ("sin" is much too strong a word, I think) if he/she were to piously venerate the icon we've been discussing?  Would it somehow render their veneration null and void?

I ask about the "canonical-ness" of icons because I know that in Orthodoxy, the canons seem to have a relatively high level of, shall we say, flexibility.  That is, they are "enforced" or not and to varying degree depending upon who is doing the "enforcing" (for lack of a better word at the moment), what or who is being "enforced", and many other factors and nuances of any given situation.  So, with regard to icons, I'm interested in knowing how that may all play out.

By the way, I appreciate your willingness to discuss this and provide answers that are actually informative!
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: J Michael on October 11, 2011, 11:31:40 AM
From the blog that Dcn Lance linked to:
Quote
In the icon, besides the traditional MR ZY that indicates Maria's Divine Maternity two inscriptions have been written. The superior indicates the title of the icon: image of the Holiest Virgin of Fátima. The lower left one, in bigger characters, says “Toboiu Edinstbo” that means in you the Unity.

The latter expression reminds us the ecumenical vocation of the Icon, which has been written uniting the efforts of a catholic priest and an orthodox iconographer, trying to create an image before which catholic and orthodox faithful could pray together. In her two types of important ecumenisms are expressed. The ecumenism of the Heart of Maria and the ecumenism of the martyrdom, both very related to Fátima's message.

My suspicions have been verified. Shame on the Orthodox iconographer who painted this work. He should have known better.

Known better?

Yes, he should have known better. The responsibility of an Orthodox iconographer is to paint according to what the Orthodox Church teaches, not according to his own imagination, or to serve other causes, however noble or well-intentioned, such as "creating an image before which catholic and orthodox faithful could pray together". This iconographer has painted an image which has no place in Orthodox tradition or devotion. The painting of this image is no less a violation of iconographic principles than if a hymnographer wrote a troparion, kontakion and canon to the immaculate heart, expecting it to be sung in Orthodox churches.

Icons are painted with prayer and fasting. What was he doing when he was painting this image? Was he praying "Most-holy Mother of God of Fatima, save us"? Did he receive a blessing from his priest or bishop to paint such an image?

Perhaps he was praying, "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner."   ;)

Is he required to have a blessing from his priest or bishop to paint "such an image"?  And if so, and he did not have the blessing, does that make him a greater sinner or somehow invalidate the icon, which has already been said to be deficient, anyway?

Do *all* iconographers always have a priestly or episcopal blessing before painting/writing any icon?  And if not, what consequences might ensue?

Perhaps, and we may never know, this particular iconographer never expected this particular icon to be venerated in Orthodox churches or homes.  Is he not free to paint/write icons as he wishes, if there is no expectation of such Orthodox veneration or devotion?

I understand and appreciate your desire for purity in iconography, but would it not also be prudent to verify the iconographer's state and situation thoroughly, as well as the intent behind the creation of the icon before criticizing him and his work?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Papist on October 11, 2011, 11:56:58 AM
From the blog that Dcn Lance linked to:
Quote
In the icon, besides the traditional MR ZY that indicates Maria's Divine Maternity two inscriptions have been written. The superior indicates the title of the icon: image of the Holiest Virgin of Fátima. The lower left one, in bigger characters, says “Toboiu Edinstbo” that means in you the Unity.

The latter expression reminds us the ecumenical vocation of the Icon, which has been written uniting the efforts of a catholic priest and an orthodox iconographer, trying to create an image before which catholic and orthodox faithful could pray together. In her two types of important ecumenisms are expressed. The ecumenism of the Heart of Maria and the ecumenism of the martyrdom, both very related to Fátima's message.

My suspicions have been verified. Shame on the Orthodox iconographer who painted this work. He should have known better.

Known better?

Yes, he should have known better. The responsibility of an Orthodox iconographer is to paint according to what the Orthodox Church teaches, not according to his own imagination, or to serve other causes, however noble or well-intentioned, such as "creating an image before which catholic and orthodox faithful could pray together". This iconographer has painted an image which has no place in Orthodox tradition or devotion. The painting of this image is no less a violation of iconographic principles than if a hymnographer wrote a troparion, kontakion and canon to the immaculate heart, expecting it to be sung in Orthodox churches.

Icons are painted with prayer and fasting. What was he doing when he was painting this image? Was he praying "Most-holy Mother of God of Fatima, save us"? Did he receive a blessing from his priest or bishop to paint such an image?

Perhaps he was praying, "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner."   ;)

Is he required to have a blessing from his priest or bishop to paint "such an image"?  And if so, and he did not have the blessing, does that make him a greater sinner or somehow invalidate the icon, which has already been said to be deficient, anyway?

Do *all* iconographers always have a priestly or episcopal blessing before painting/writing any icon?  And if not, what consequences might ensue?

Perhaps, and we may never know, this particular iconographer never expected this particular icon to be venerated in Orthodox churches or homes.  Is he not free to paint/write icons as he wishes, if there is no expectation of such Orthodox veneration or devotion?

I understand and appreciate your desire for purity in iconography, but would it not also be prudent to verify the iconographer's state and situation thoroughly, as well as the intent behind the creation of the icon before criticizing him and his work?
Also, is an artist free to paint icon-like art work?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: mike on October 11, 2011, 11:57:59 AM
Also, is an artist free to paint icon-like art work?

Who would forbid him?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: J Michael on October 11, 2011, 12:04:08 PM
Also, is an artist free to paint icon-like art work?

Who would forbid him?

Netodox Icon Police  :police: ;D  :police:;D??  You know, the notorious, ruthless, ubiquitous N.I.P.  ;D ::)
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on October 11, 2011, 12:38:03 PM
...and the image in her hands is Eucharist or Body of Christ which can be seen in context as a dual reference to Jesus and to the Church. 

Not it isn't.  It is a circle inscribed with the Slavonic word Serdce/Heart and surrounded with thorns.

http://amigosderusiasannicolas.blogspot.com/2009/05/icon-of-mother-of-god-of-fatima.html


This is very very helpful and more coherent than what seemed apparent to my old eyes on this screen.

I am very happy it turns out to be an image conveying the message of the sacred hearts of Jesus and Mary [since you don't have one without the other] and I am thrilled beyond words to learn of her author!!

 ;)
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Papist on October 11, 2011, 12:40:55 PM
Also, is an artist free to paint icon-like art work?

Who would forbid him?
Ok, let me clarify. Is an Orthodox Christian who happens to be an artist permitted to paint icon-like art work? Would it be a sin for him to do so?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: mike on October 11, 2011, 12:41:30 PM
IDK but I know about some who do.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: J Michael on October 11, 2011, 12:46:51 PM
IDK but I know about some who do.

Quick!!! Better N.I.P. it in the bud!!!!  :police: ;D :police: ;D ::) ::) ::)

(I just really couldn't resist!  Sorry  ::))
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: primuspilus on October 11, 2011, 01:07:12 PM
Also, is an artist free to paint icon-like art work?

Who would forbid him?
Ok, let me clarify. Is an Orthodox Christian who happens to be an artist permitted to paint icon-like art work? Would it be a sin for him to do so?
I would think as long as they dont pawn it off as an icon they'd be fine. If they did than they're apparently guilty of more than 1 sin.

PP
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Wyatt on October 11, 2011, 01:16:23 PM
I would love it if Fabio Leite would respond to this post, especially since he accused me of being a troll and I actually put a bit of effort into responding to him for a change.

You never found the Roman Church respectable, so cut out the nonsense.

Behave. You don't know anything about me. I have been under much more serious social problems for defending the Roman Church than you can imagine. From losing friendships to being labeled negatively in professional situations where I could have taken advantage of just repeating what the chorus sing. I - occasionally - collaborate with a media-watch newspaper with Catholic explicit catholic leanings and now and then I have to put up with the same prejudices they do. I have defended the role of the Roman church in the West and in Brazilian culture in face of secularists and atheists many times. Some of my best friends and my family are Romans, and the Roman Elderly Ladies Prayer Group used to go to my house frequently and we had wonderful conversations. So wash your mouth - or fingers - before trying to guess what I feel for anything.

What I don't respect Wyatt, is you and Elijamariah, only. Don't hide behind the Roman church. For all your histerical pseudo-apologetic you two pass as just mediocre trolls in a forum that has no rules for banning trolls and that is the only reason you thrive. I have debated these issues in person with Roman friends who are far more knowledgeable than you  and never, *never* any of then showed the kind of idiotic insecurity you two show here.  So you won't have the excuse of no-reference. I have plenty of references in my personal life of intelligent *pious* Romans who know how to discuss differences without ridiculously resorting to offenses or acusations.
Okay...I'll bite.

When you debated these issues (which I assume means the Sacred Heart devotion) with your oh-so-much-more-knowledgeable Roman friends, what was their take on it?

Also, don't mistake my unwillingness to pull out all the stops in my discussions with you as my being a "mediocre troll" or an unknowledgeable Catholic. When a position reaches a certain level of absurdity, it just feels like a waste of time. However, you have spunk and, believe it or not, I like you...so I'm going to throw a few things your way to think about. You can respond if you feel so inclined.

The quote by the Pope referencing the Sacred Heart devotion speaks of "worship." Nowadays, worship refers primarily to one thing and one thing only, and that is adoration which belongs to God alone. However, that was not always the case. In historical documents from the past, there are three things that the word worship can be referencing: dulia, hyperdulia, and latria. Only latria refers to the the type of worship that belongs only to God. Now...in terms of the Sacred Heart we have a unique situation since we are talking about God Incarnate's heart. Is the heart of God holy and sacred or isn't it (and thus worthy of some form of worship)? Keep in mind, I am operating under the premise that the Sacred Heart devotion is actually referring to the worship of Christ's literal heart to the exclusion of everything else, which seems to be the common Eastern Orthodox understanding of that particular Catholic devotion. I don't believe that that has been proven to be the intent of the devotion, however.

Also, I have a somewhat different yet related question for you. When someone uses the expression "well bless his/her heart," what are they saying?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: J Michael on October 11, 2011, 01:28:10 PM
Also, is an artist free to paint icon-like art work?

Who would forbid him?
Ok, let me clarify. Is an Orthodox Christian who happens to be an artist permitted to paint icon-like art work? Would it be a sin for him to do so?
I would think as long as they dont pawn it off as an icon they'd be fine. If they did than they're apparently guilty of more than 1 sin.

PP

Which sins?  Who decides?

I guess it might be useful to define "icon", just so we're all talking about the same thing, and not just bitmapped images on a computer screen.

Can a Catholic paint/write an "icon" and it's still an "icon"?

Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: primuspilus on October 11, 2011, 01:43:58 PM
Also, is an artist free to paint icon-like art work?

Who would forbid him?
Ok, let me clarify. Is an Orthodox Christian who happens to be an artist permitted to paint icon-like art work? Would it be a sin for him to do so?
I would think as long as they dont pawn it off as an icon they'd be fine. If they did than they're apparently guilty of more than 1 sin.

PP

Which sins?  Who decides?

I guess it might be useful to define "icon", just so we're all talking about the same thing, and not just bitmapped images on a computer screen.

Can a Catholic paint/write an "icon" and it's still an "icon"?



Well, from my understanding iconsographers must go through extensive training and prayer to make icons. If someone does not do this and says that they are icons in the sense that people think of then they're apparently guilty of misleading believers.

PP
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: J Michael on October 11, 2011, 02:12:54 PM
Also, is an artist free to paint icon-like art work?

Who would forbid him?
Ok, let me clarify. Is an Orthodox Christian who happens to be an artist permitted to paint icon-like art work? Would it be a sin for him to do so?
I would think as long as they dont pawn it off as an icon they'd be fine. If they did than they're apparently guilty of more than 1 sin.

PP

Which sins?  Who decides?

I guess it might be useful to define "icon", just so we're all talking about the same thing, and not just bitmapped images on a computer screen.

Can a Catholic paint/write an "icon" and it's still an "icon"?



Well, from my understanding iconsographers must go through extensive training and prayer to make icons. If someone does not do this and says that they are icons in the sense that people think of then they're apparently guilty of misleading believers.

PP

What consists of "extensive training"?  I ask because if I as a Catholic (with great artistic ability--which I don't have, btw  ;))were to take a weekend workshop with, say Wayne Hajos (a somewhat local Orthodox iconographer, who does do workshops), and during the course of that workshop we painted, for example, Not Made With Hands, and we did so with deep prayer, would I then be able to call my work an "icon"? 

(Wow!  We've come a long way away from "The Sacred Heart As I Know It", haven't we  ;)?)
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: J Michael on October 11, 2011, 03:21:44 PM
I still have this booklet, a little soiled after 31 years, but it is still a powerful catechism in my opinion.  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.

I cannot help but wonder, if an eight year old boy can have this understanding, why does it appear to be so difficult for grown men and women, even if they are Orthodox?

When I see icons of Christ, especially ones such as the extreme humility icon below, I see his divine love for us. I don't need to see his heart to realize this.

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



That is one of my most favorite icons!!  But you miss the point.  As an icon is an image or symbol representing that which it depicts, so the Sacred Heart is a symbol representing that which it depicts or refers to, i.e. Christ and His Divine Love for us.  A young boy grasps this notion quite readily, it appears.  Grown men and women quibble and bicker over every jot and tittle of it, blind to the Love represented by the symbol of His Heart.

Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Deacon Lance on October 11, 2011, 04:31:29 PM
Quote
The Pokrova and the Joy of Joys come to mind foremost.

On the Pokrov icons:...

I am aware of all that but you are equally aware there are as many examples of the Pokrova without Christ and the rest.

http://www.pokrovchurch.com/
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: LBK on October 11, 2011, 07:48:33 PM
Quote
Is he required to have a blessing from his priest or bishop to paint "such an image"?  And if so, and he did not have the blessing, does that make him a greater sinner or somehow invalidate the icon, which has already been said to be deficient, anyway?

All Orthodox iconographers, once they have undergone artistic, practical and theological training, should be blessed by their bishop before they can call themselves iconographers. It is a vocation within the Church, as are the offices of reader, hymnographer, and chanter. The episcopal blessing gives them the authority to accept commissions.

Quote
Do *all* iconographers always have a priestly or episcopal blessing before painting/writing any icon?  And if not, what consequences might ensue?

An experienced iconographer might not necessarily require a blessing for every icon he paints, if the subject and manner of portrayal is beyond question, but he would certainly require one for a large or important commission, such as painting the interior of a church, or providing icons for an iconostasis. It is also a responsibility of an iconographer to assess whether an image he has been asked to paint falls within canonical guidelines, and, if in doubt, consult a more experienced iconographer or trusted authority, and, if need be, his priest and/or bishop. Where he is asked to paint an icon of a saint of whom there is no, or no reliable "prototype" icon to refer to, he must then examine the life of the saint, any hymnography written for that saint, and any other relevant information preserved in the tradition of the Church, such as the writings of the Fathers. A clerical blessing would be desirable, if not essential, in such a case. Then, with fasting, and much prayer to the saint throughout the painting of the icon, he paints the icon.

If the subject he has been asked to paint does not conform with Orthodox theology and doctrine, then he should reject the commission. To paint an "icon" which goes against Orthodox tradition is no less a travesty than if a hymnographer wrote hymns contrary to Orthodox doctrine and theology, or if a priest changed the words to the Trinitarian formula to "Creator, Liberator and Sustainer" from "Father, Son and Holy Spirit".

Quote
Perhaps, and we may never know, this particular iconographer never expected this particular icon to be venerated in Orthodox churches or homes.  Is he not free to paint/write icons as he wishes, if there is no expectation of such Orthodox veneration or devotion?

The motivation for the painting of this Fatima image has been stated clearly and unambiguously by those who commissioned it:

Quote
The latter expression reminds us of the ecumenical vocation of the Icon, which has been written uniting the efforts of a catholic priest and an orthodox iconographer, trying to create an image before which catholic and orthodox faithful could pray together. In her two types of important ecumenisms are expressed. The ecumenism of the Heart of Maria and the ecumenism of the martyrdom, both very related to Fátima's message.

Iconographers, like hymnographers, are not free agents to paint or compose as they please, nor are they obliged to paint or compose to their patron's wishes where this contradicts Orthodox tradition. They are servants and instruments of the Church. The works of their hands (or their pens) must properly and faithfully proclaim and espouse what the Church teaches.

It should also be remembered that Orthodox icons are not only used in private and personal devotions, but have an essential liturgical function. They are displayed in prominent positions in churches, they are venerated by the faithful, candles are lit around them as offerings, they are censed at specific times in the various liturgical services by clergy. So important are icons, that if a Divine Liturgy had to be held outside of a church building, the bare minimum requirements are an antimension, a censer, and two icons: one of Christ, one of the Mother of God.

Icons are also blessed on the altar of a church. As well as "completing" the sanctification and dedication of an icon for use as a holy object (as is done with altar accoutrements, and even non-liturgical objects such as wedding rings), it is also a means of guarding the integrity of iconography. A wise and knowledgeable priest will not allow the blessing of any suspect image.

Quote
I understand and appreciate your desire for purity in iconography, but would it not also be prudent to verify the iconographer's state and situation thoroughly, as well as the intent behind the creation of the icon before criticizing him and his work?

See my earlier comments. To summarize:

It requires the imprimatur of Orthodox theology and doctrine to allow the portrayal of any scene or imagery in an icon. In iconography, as is true in any other aspect of Orthodoxy, nothing is random. Nothing is without meaning. Everything is linked. Everything has a purpose.

It is imperative on the part of every iconographer for his or her icons to be subject to the highest level of theological and doctrinal rigor, particularly when he wishes to portray a saint where there is no (or no reliable) historical prototype. Enough damage has been caused over the centuries by the persistence of unmistakeably uncanonical images (such as the “New Testament Trinity”, “Angel of Holy Silence”, and other such images, often, it must be said, out of honest ignorance), and, in more recent years, by the adoption of an abstracted, “iconographic” artistic style by non-Orthodox painters depicting subjects consistent with their own denomination’s doctrines, but which are contrary to Orthodox teaching. Such images can create confusion and, in some cases, spiritual damage, to otherwise good, pious Orthodox believers. Sadly, there are also a number of Orthodox iconographers who have made canonical mistakes.

To a non-Orthodox person, it is iconography which is the single most visible and definitive element which distinguishes the Orthodox Church from all others. It is our responsibility to ensure this holy and priceless treasure of our Church is preserved and defended against the influx of elements foreign to Orthodox belief and doctrine. The iconodules who suffered and often paid with their lives during the iconoclastic upheavals of past centuries deserve nothing less in their honor.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Sleeper on October 11, 2011, 08:11:23 PM
Byzantine style iconography, perhaps. But the apostolic Churches of the West hold to the same decrees of the Ecumenical Council that those of the East do.

The rubrics of the Roman rite, for example, require the priest to kiss and cense images of the cross and saints, as well as holy relics.

The theology of the holy image is not unique to Eastern Orthodoxy, nor was it ever lost in the West, or any other ancient churches for that matter.

The canons that developed specifically within Eastern Orthodoxy are not an inherent part of the theology of holy images and are not what determines whether something is worthy of veneration or not. They are a means to honor Our Lord, Our Lady, the saints, sacred history, and the honor we pay them passes on to the prototype, no matter what color their dress or what side the Christ Child is seated on.

That doesn't mean you can put any ol' thing you with into an icon, it does indeed need to reflect correct theology. But even if that weren't the case, and there was something questionable in an icon, I'd still find it very difficult to not venerate the person depicted.

Canons and traditions that developed later in one particular stream of ancient Christianity do not mean that something not created according to them somehow blocks our prayers and venerations from passing through to the other side.

To a non-Orthodox person, it is iconography which is the single most visible and definitive element which distinguishes the Orthodox Church from all others. It is our responsibility to ensure this holy and priceless treasure of our Church is preserved and defended against the influx of elements foreign to Orthodox belief and doctrine. The iconodules who suffered and often paid with their lives during the iconoclastic upheavals of past centuries deserve nothing less in their honor.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: LBK on October 11, 2011, 08:45:30 PM
Quote
Byzantine style iconography, perhaps. But the apostolic Churches of the West hold to the same decrees of the Ecumenical Council that those of the East do.

The church of Rome did not accept the decrees of the Quinisext Council for centuries. By the time it did, the Renaissance and its naturalistic, sensual and dramatic art had taken over and informed western church art.


Quote
The theology of the holy image is not unique to Eastern Orthodoxy, nor was it ever lost in the West, or any other ancient churches for that matter.

Icon theology was indeed lost in the west, as we can see from the persistence of three-dimensional statues, abundant examples of Madonnas modelled on the wives and daughters of noblemen, paintings and statues of saints modelled on all sorts of people (like Michelangelo's self-portrait in his fresco of St Bartholomew in the Sistine Chapel Last Judgement) which destroy the mandatory connection between the subject of the image and the prototype it represents; and the profusion of representations of God the Father as an old man, which, sadly, re-entered the Orthodox world in later centuries.

All of these aberrations are violations of clearly-expressed iconographic principles and canons.

Quote
The canons that developed specifically within Eastern Orthodoxy are not an inherent part of the theology of holy images and are not what determines whether something is worthy of veneration or not. They are a means to honor Our Lord, Our Lady, the saints, sacred history, and the honor we pay them passes on to the prototype, no matter what color their dress or what side the Christ Child is seated on.

Could you please elaborate on the part in bold? Which canons are you referring to?

Quote
That doesn't mean you can put any ol' thing you with into an icon, it does indeed need to reflect correct theology.


Exactly. Which the Fatima image does not, from the Orthodox POV.

Quote
But even if that weren't the case, and there was something questionable in an icon, I'd still find it very difficult to not venerate the person depicted.


The Fatima image was not the product of honest ignorance, as was so often the case in centuries past, but of a deliberate act of syncretism and portrayal of a non-Orthodox doctrine in a form which resembles Orthodox iconography. What is worse is that an Orthodox iconographer actively and willingly participated in its production. I could not, in good conscience, venerate that image, as it does not proclaim what the Church teaches so clearly about the Mother of God. And no knowledgeable Orthodox priest worth his salt would allow such an image to be placed on the altar of his church, or on the festal analogion for his flock to venerate.

Quote
Canons and traditions that developed later in one particular stream of ancient Christianity do not mean that something not created according to them somehow blocks our prayers and venerations from passing through to the other side.

See my earlier request.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on October 11, 2011, 09:01:37 PM
To a non-Orthodox person, it is iconography which is the single most visible and definitive element which distinguishes the Orthodox Church from all others.

This is a very sad assertion to make about Christ's Church, even more so if it is in fact true.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on October 11, 2011, 09:04:24 PM

The Fatima image was not the product of honest ignorance, as was so often the case in centuries past, but of a deliberate act of syncretism and portrayal of a non-Orthodox doctrine in a form which resembles Orthodox iconography. What is worse is that an Orthodox iconographer actively and willingly participated in its production. I could not, in good conscience, venerate that image, as it does not proclaim what the Church teaches so clearly about the Mother of God. And no knowledgeable Orthodox priest worth his salt would allow such an image to be placed on the altar of his church, or on the festal analogion for his flock to venerate...


Yet... ;)
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: LBK on October 11, 2011, 09:07:23 PM

The Fatima image was not the product of honest ignorance, as was so often the case in centuries past, but of a deliberate act of syncretism and portrayal of a non-Orthodox doctrine in a form which resembles Orthodox iconography. What is worse is that an Orthodox iconographer actively and willingly participated in its production. I could not, in good conscience, venerate that image, as it does not proclaim what the Church teaches so clearly about the Mother of God. And no knowledgeable Orthodox priest worth his salt would allow such an image to be placed on the altar of his church, or on the festal analogion for his flock to venerate...


Yet... ;)

Yet, what? Please clarify.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on October 11, 2011, 09:10:46 PM

The Fatima image was not the product of honest ignorance, as was so often the case in centuries past, but of a deliberate act of syncretism and portrayal of a non-Orthodox doctrine in a form which resembles Orthodox iconography. What is worse is that an Orthodox iconographer actively and willingly participated in its production. I could not, in good conscience, venerate that image, as it does not proclaim what the Church teaches so clearly about the Mother of God. And no knowledgeable Orthodox priest worth his salt would allow such an image to be placed on the altar of his church, or on the festal analogion for his flock to venerate...


Yet... ;)

Yet, what? Please clarify.

If there is resumed communion, that icon would be venerable over night. 

It seems to me that while we are in serious bi-lateral dialogue, we ought to reserve harsh judgment for that time when it appears that we are destined to sustain the schism.  Till then, particularly with devotional aspects of the faith, I think we should be more willing to accept that holiness is not restricted...or grace is not restricted.

M.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: LBK on October 11, 2011, 09:17:13 PM
Quote
If there is resumed communion, that icon would be venerable over night. 

But, there is no resumed communion, nor is this likely for quite some time. And, even if communion between Rome and Orthodoxy is resumed, there is no guarantee that the devotions to the sacred/immaculate hearts will be declared acceptable by the Orthodox.

Until the Orthodox Church declares these devotions as proper and consistent with doctrine and theology, I, and every Orthodox Christian, should resist every attempt to introduce them into Orthodoxy by the back door. This is precisely what this Fatima image is.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on October 11, 2011, 09:22:20 PM
Quote
If there is resumed communion, that icon would be venerable over night. 

But, there is no resumed communion, nor is this likely for quite some time. And, even if communion between Rome and Orthodoxy is resumed, there is no guarantee that the devotions to the sacred/immaculate hearts will be declared acceptable by the Orthodox.

Until the Orthodox Church declares these devotions as proper and consistent with doctrine and theology, I, and every Orthodox Christian, should resist every attempt to introduce them into Orthodoxy by the back door. This is precisely what this Fatima image is.

And this brings us full circle back to Father Aidan's approach to the Western Rite in Orthodoxy, which drives him to say that not only is the Sacred Heart devotion not suitable for Byzantine spirituality but it is in truth, evil.

So he poses a western Rite grafted on to Byzantine spirituality.

Talk about syncretism...

My suggestion is to leave it at "the Sacred Heart devotion is not eastern..."...but I am not sure you can even really make that stand up because it is from the heart theology of the east that SS. Bernard and Bonaventure took their understanding of the Sacred Heart of Jesus...
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: akimori makoto on October 11, 2011, 09:30:31 PM
Quote
If there is resumed communion, that icon would be venerable over night. 

But, there is no resumed communion, nor is this likely for quite some time. And, even if communion between Rome and Orthodoxy is resumed, there is no guarantee that the devotions to the sacred/immaculate hearts will be declared acceptable by the Orthodox.

Until the Orthodox Church declares these devotions as proper and consistent with doctrine and theology, I, and every Orthodox Christian, should resist every attempt to introduce them into Orthodoxy by the back door. This is precisely what this Fatima image is.

And this brings us full circle back to Father Aidan's approach to the Western Rite in Orthodoxy, which drives him to say that not only is the Sacred Heart devotion not suitable for Byzantine spirituality but it is in truth, evil.

So he poses a western Rite grafted on to Byzantine spirituality.

Talk about syncretism...

My suggestion is to leave it at "the Sacred Heart devotion is not eastern..."...but I am not sure you can even really make that stand up because it is from the heart theology of the east that SS. Bernard and Bonaventure took their understanding of the Sacred Heart of Jesus...

Mary, I am not trying to have a go at you, but this way of thinking is truly maddening to me -- it seems any heresy can be brushed aside as a unique quirk of the West or East (depending on its point of origination).

I am not saying the devotion to the sacred heart is a heresy, but how many theologically questionable ideas and practices of the West are we meant to accept just because they are Western? I was just listening to a Melkite priest earlier today say that papal infallibility is "certainly foreign to Eastern spirituality". Either it is true or it isn't: it doesn't depend on which side of Greece you are on.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: LBK on October 11, 2011, 09:35:09 PM
EM, I cannot speak for Fr Aidan, nor for Sts Bernard and Bonaventure, but what is beyond question is that the heart devotions of the RCC are, quite simply, not part of established and accepted Orthodox tradition. I'm sorry if this fact may displease you.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on October 11, 2011, 09:38:10 PM
Quote
If there is resumed communion, that icon would be venerable over night. 

But, there is no resumed communion, nor is this likely for quite some time. And, even if communion between Rome and Orthodoxy is resumed, there is no guarantee that the devotions to the sacred/immaculate hearts will be declared acceptable by the Orthodox.

Until the Orthodox Church declares these devotions as proper and consistent with doctrine and theology, I, and every Orthodox Christian, should resist every attempt to introduce them into Orthodoxy by the back door. This is precisely what this Fatima image is.

And this brings us full circle back to Father Aidan's approach to the Western Rite in Orthodoxy, which drives him to say that not only is the Sacred Heart devotion not suitable for Byzantine spirituality but it is in truth, evil.

So he poses a western Rite grafted on to Byzantine spirituality.

Talk about syncretism...

My suggestion is to leave it at "the Sacred Heart devotion is not eastern..."...but I am not sure you can even really make that stand up because it is from the heart theology of the east that SS. Bernard and Bonaventure took their understanding of the Sacred Heart of Jesus...

Mary, I am not trying to have a go at you, but this way of thinking is truly maddening to me -- it seems any heresy can be brushed aside as a unique quirk of the West or East (depending on its point of origination).

I am not saying the devotion to the sacred heart is a heresy, but how many theologically questionable ideas and practices of the West are we meant to accept just because they are Western? I was just listening to a Melkite priest earlier today say that papal infallibility is "certainly foreign to Eastern spirituality". Either it is true or it isn't: it doesn't depend on which side of Greece you are on.

Is the question whether or not it is foreign?  Or is the question whether or not it is evil?...as in heretical and totally devoid of all grace...If it is not evil then perhaps it can be considered over time as something worth discussing with an eye to resolving differences.  After another several hundred years, it may not be quite so "foreign"...

Who is suggeting that differences be "passed over"?  I certainly do not think that way.

What is "maddening" to me is the willingness of Orthodox believers to speak and behave as though most, if not all, of our "differences" are evil, in fact...the differences on the part of the western Church that is.

I am suggesting that we stop doing that while we are discussing things in good faith and with an eye to "sooner" rather than "later" in terms of resumed communion, because that is the message that is quietly being sent.

I know you're not taking any kind of personal swipe here!!

M.

Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: akimori makoto on October 11, 2011, 09:46:21 PM
Quote
If there is resumed communion, that icon would be venerable over night. 

But, there is no resumed communion, nor is this likely for quite some time. And, even if communion between Rome and Orthodoxy is resumed, there is no guarantee that the devotions to the sacred/immaculate hearts will be declared acceptable by the Orthodox.

Until the Orthodox Church declares these devotions as proper and consistent with doctrine and theology, I, and every Orthodox Christian, should resist every attempt to introduce them into Orthodoxy by the back door. This is precisely what this Fatima image is.

And this brings us full circle back to Father Aidan's approach to the Western Rite in Orthodoxy, which drives him to say that not only is the Sacred Heart devotion not suitable for Byzantine spirituality but it is in truth, evil.

So he poses a western Rite grafted on to Byzantine spirituality.

Talk about syncretism...

My suggestion is to leave it at "the Sacred Heart devotion is not eastern..."...but I am not sure you can even really make that stand up because it is from the heart theology of the east that SS. Bernard and Bonaventure took their understanding of the Sacred Heart of Jesus...

Mary, I am not trying to have a go at you, but this way of thinking is truly maddening to me -- it seems any heresy can be brushed aside as a unique quirk of the West or East (depending on its point of origination).

I am not saying the devotion to the sacred heart is a heresy, but how many theologically questionable ideas and practices of the West are we meant to accept just because they are Western? I was just listening to a Melkite priest earlier today say that papal infallibility is "certainly foreign to Eastern spirituality". Either it is true or it isn't: it doesn't depend on which side of Greece you are on.

Is the question whether or not it is foreign?  Or is the question whether or not it is evil?...as in heretical and totally devoid of all grace...If it is not evil then perhaps it can be considered over time as something worth discussing with an eye to resolving differences.  After another several hundred years, it may not be quite so "foreign"...

Who is suggeting that differences be "passed over"?  I certainly do not think that way.

What is "maddening" to me is the willingness of Orthodox believers to speak and behave as though most, if not all, of our "differences" are evil, in fact...the differences on the part of the western Church that is.

I am suggesting that we stop doing that while we are discussing things in good faith and with an eye to "sooner" rather than "later" in terms of resumed communion, because that is the message that is quietly being sent.

I know you're not taking any kind of personal swipe here!!

M.

You do have a good point, and I think reasonable minds may disagree about what practices and theologies cross the line. I think the sacred heart devotion is one of those that may be okay -- things like papal infallibility and filioque do not fall into that category for me.

You are right that surely the test must be whether a practice or theology is heretical or wrong (I would hesitate to use the word evil) rather than simply unknown or different. On the one hand, as an Easterner, I should not despise the practices of the West simply because they are Western. On the other hand, I think "you just don't like it because it's Western/Eastern" can often be used to deflect legitimate criticisms.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Sleeper on October 12, 2011, 12:30:31 AM
Quote
Byzantine style iconography, perhaps. But the apostolic Churches of the West hold to the same decrees of the Ecumenical Council that those of the East do.

The church of Rome did not accept the decrees of the Quinisext Council for centuries.

Not really. From the Catholic Encyclopedia:  

"After the storm of the eighth and ninth centuries (Iconoclasm) the Church throughout the world settled down again in secure possession of her images. Since their triumphant return on the Feast of Orthodoxy in 842, their position has not again been questioned by any of the old Churches. Only now, the situation has become more clearly defined. The Seventh General Council (Nicaea II, 787) had laid down the principles, established the theological basis, and restrained the abuses of image-worship. That council was accepted by the great Church of the five patriarchates as equal to the other six. Without accepting its decrees no one could be a member of that church, no one can today be Catholic or Orthodox. Images and their cult had become an integral part of the Faith, Iconoclasm was now definitely a heresy condemned by the Church as much as Arianism or Nestorianism. The situation was not changed by the Great Schism of the ninth and eleventh centuries. Both sides still maintain the same principles in this matter; both equally revere as an oecumenical synod the last council in which they met in unison before the final calamity. The Orthodox agree to all that Catholics say as to the principle of venerating images. So do the old Eastern schismatical Churches. Although they broke away long before Iconoclasm and Nicaea II, they took with them then the principles we maintain — sufficient evidence that those principles were not new in 787. Nestorians, Armenians, Jacobites, Copts, and Abyssinians fill their churches with holy icons, bow to them, incense them, kiss them, just as do the Orthodox."

Quote
Icon theology was indeed lost in the west, as we can see from the persistence of three-dimensional statues

It should be noted that the Ecumenical Council used as a basis for its justification of the theology of images Exodus 25:17 “You shall make a mercy seat of pure gold; two and a half cubits shall be its length and a cubit and a half its width. 18 And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work you shall make them at the two ends of the mercy seat. 19 Make one cherub at one end, and the other cherub at the other end; you shall make the cherubim at the two ends of it of one piece with the mercy seat. 20 And the cherubim shall stretch out their wings above, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and they shall face one another; the faces of the cherubim shall be toward the mercy seat. 21 You shall put the mercy seat on top of the ark, and in the ark you shall put the Testimony that I will give you. 22 And there I will meet with you, and I will speak with you from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim which are on the ark of the Testimony, about everything which I will give you in commandment to the children of Israel."

If that doesn't describe a three-dimensional object, I don't know what does. Some exact replicas look like this:

(http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/masonicmuseum/images/the%20new%20ark.jpg)

Quote
All of these aberrations are violations of clearly-expressed iconographic principles and canons.

Quote
The canons that developed specifically within Eastern Orthodoxy are not an inherent part of the theology of holy images and are not what determines whether something is worthy of veneration or not. They are a means to honor Our Lord, Our Lady, the saints, sacred history, and the honor we pay them passes on to the prototype, no matter what color their dress or what side the Christ Child is seated on.

Could you please elaborate on the part in bold? Which canons are you referring to?

Probably the same ones you referred to a few lines above...
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: LBK on October 12, 2011, 01:20:32 AM
Act 7, of the Seventh Ecumenical Council:

“We define the rule with all accuracy and diligence, in a manner not unlike that befitting the shape of the precious and vivifying Cross, that the venerable and holy icons, painted or mosaic, or made of any other suitable material, be placed in the holy churches of God upon sacred vessels and vestments, walls and panels, houses and streets, both of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ, and of our spotless Lady the holy Mother of God, and also of the precious Angels, and of all Saints. For the more frequently and oftener they are continually seen in pictorial representation, the more those beholding are reminded and led to visualize anew the memory of the originals which they represent and for whom moreover they also beget a yearning in the soul of the persons beholding the icons. Accordingly, such persons are prompted not only to kiss these and to pay them honorary adoration, what is more important, they are imbued with the true faith which is reflected in our worship which is due to God alone and which befits only the divine nature. But this worship must be paid in the way suggested by the form of the precious and vivifying Cross, and the holy Gospels, and the rest of sacred institutions, and the offering of wafts of incense, and the display of beams of light, to be done for the purpose of honoring them, just as it used to be the custom to do among the ancients by way of manifesting piety. For any honor paid to the icon (or picture) redounds upon the original, and whoever bows down in adoration before the icon, is at the same time bowing down in adoration to the substance (or hypostasis) of the one therein painted. For thus the doctrine of our Holy Fathers, it was the tradition of the universal Church."

Interpretation (from The Rudder):

An idol is one thing, a statue is another thing, and an icon (or picture) is a different thing. For an idol differs from an icon in that the icon is a likeness of a true thing and its original, whereas the idol is an image of a false and inexistent thing, and is not the likeness of an original, according to Origen and Theodoret — just as were the idols of the false and inexistent gods of the Greeks. We call those images which embody the whole figure statues and carved or sculptured figures in general. As for this kind of images, namely, the statues, the catholic (Orthodox) Church not only does not adore them, but she does not even manufacture them, for many reasons:

1) because in its present definition this Council says for images to be produced with paints (or colors), with mosaic, or tessellated work, and with any other suitable material (which means with gold and silver and other metals, as Theodosius the bishop of Amorion says in Act 4 of the same Council) upon the sacred utensils, and robes, including sheets and cloths; upon walls and boards, and houses and streets. It did not mention a word about construction of a statue. Rather it may be said that this definition of this Council is antagonistic to statues;

2) because neither the letters written by patriarchs in their correspondence with one another, and to emperors, nor the letters of Pope Gregory to Germanus and of Pope Adrian to the present Council, nor the speeches and orations which the bishops and monks made in connection with all the eight Acts of the present Council said anything at all about statues or sculptured figures. But also the councils held by the iconomachs, and especially that held in Blachernae in the reign of Copronymus, in writing against the holy icons, mention oil paintings and portraits, but never statues or sculptured figures, which, if they existed, could not have been passed over in silence by the iconomachs, but, on the contrary, they would have been written against with a view to imputing greater blame to the Orthodox;

3) because although the woman with an issue of blood made a bronze statue of Christ in memory of and by way of giving thanks for the miracle and the benefaction which it had conferred upon her; and she set it up in the Panead, at the feet of which there sprang up a plant, or herb, which cured various ailments; and, as some say, that statue was smashed to pieces by the Emperor Maximinus, before Constantine the Great, and the bronze was seized by him; or else Julian the Apostate seized it, and put in its place the statue of Jupiter, as an anonymous writer says. Though, I say, the woman who had an issue of blood did make this statue (which the Christians took into the Church and honored; and people went to see it out of a yearning for the original of it, as Philostorgus the Arian historically records), yet, as a matter of fact, that work of the woman who had an issue of blood was a concession from God, who, for goodness’ sake accepted it, making allowances for the imperfect knowledge of the woman who set it up; and because that was an embodiment and mark not of the grace of the Gospel, but of the old Law, as Pope Gregory II says in writing to St. Germanus (for the old Law had the two Cherubim, which were gold statues and sculptured figures containing all the body of the angelic powers, according to ch. 38 of Exodus, which Cherubim, according to an unknown expositor, had the face of a calf, and adored the Ark of the Covenant (here called the Ark of the Testimony, and by this adoration separated the Israelites from the idolatry of the Egyptians, who used to adore the calf. For the Jews learned from this that if a calf adored the Ark, it followed that the Egyptians were wrong in adoring it as a god).

Not only the old Law, but also the custom of the Greeks fostered the erection of statues and sculptured figures, as St. Germanus writes in a letter to Thomas of Claudiopolis which is to be found in Act 4 of the present Council, and which says: “It being obvious that the Savior leveled His own grace to condescension with the faith of the woman, and showed what has been made evident to us above, namely, that it is not that what is performed is in general the object, but that it is the aim of the one performing it that is being reduced to experience . . . ." And again: “We do not say this, so that we may find an excuse for exercising the art of making bronze pillars, but merely in order to make it plain that the Lord did not discard the national custom at this point, but, instead, availed Himself of it to exhibit therein for a considerable length of time the wonder-working and miracle-working efficiency of His own benevolence; on which account it is not devout to disparage the custom of a somewhat more pious nature which has prevailed among us.”

You see here three things as plainly as day, to wit: 1) that the erection of the statue of Christ was moral, and that the Lord accepted it as a matter of compromise with the times; 2) that statues ought not to be manufactured; and 3) that it is more pious and more decent for the venerable images to be depicted, not by means of statues, but by means of colors in paintings. For the same saint said above by way of anticipation that in historically recording the facts concerning the statues, he historically recounts the fact that the icons of the Apostles Peter and Paul, painted in colors, were still extant . . . Canon LXXXII of the 6th, moreover, says that we ought to prefer the grace of the Gospel to the legal form, and ought to set up the human character, or figure, of Christ in icons instead of the olden lamb even in oil paintings.

So that from all that has been said it is proved that the Westerners are acting contrary to the definition of this holy and Ecumenical Seventh Council, and contrary to the tradition of the Church in making statues and sculptured figures and plaster of paris replicas, and setting them up in their churches. We said hereinabove those representations which embody the whole of that which they represent are called statues and sculptured work and plaster of paris figures in general, whereas those representations which do not embody the whole of the person or other object which they are intended to represent, but at most merely exhibit them in relief, projecting, that is to say, here and there above the level and surface of the background, are not called statues or sculptured work or plaster of paris figures or any such name, but, instead, they are called holy icons (or, if they are not holy, simply pictures). Such are those which are to be found engraved or stamped or otherwise delineated upon the sacred vessels, on divine Gospels, and other holy books, on precious crosses, of silver and gold, according to Dositheus (p. 656 of the Dodecabiblus); to the same class are assigned also images cast in wax and more or less in relief, that is to say, projecting at various points above and receding at other points below the plane surface of the image, concerning which divine Chrysostom (in his Discourse wherein he argues that one and the same Lawgiver is the author of both the Old and the New Testament; and in Discourse 307 on the vesture of priests, the origin of which is to be found in the Gospel of the kingdom of Christ) says the following:

“I myself have loved the images cast in wax as a matter of piety. For I beheld an angel in an image driving back hordes of barbarians. I saw barbarian troops being trodden underfoot, and the words of David coming true, wherein he says: ‘Lord, in thy city Thou wilt do their image havoc’ (p. 852 of the second volume of the Conciliar Records, in Act 6 of the 7th C.; and p. 647 of the sixth vol. of Chrysostom). Oecumenius, too, accepts and approves this kind of image which is cast in wax in the manner above described (in his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews). Hence, in writing to Symeon the bishop of Bostra, Anastasius the Patriarch of Antioch says: “though, as a matter of fact, an image is nothing else than a piece of wood and colors mixed and mingled with wax” (p. 845 of the second volume of the Conciliar Records). In the same class with these images are placed also the images which are carved in wooden crosses (crucifixes) and medallions. They, too, likewise are wrought in relief and project above the plane of the level surface, and do not compromise the whole body of the person or thing represented.

The reason and cause why statues are not adored or venerated (aside from the legal observation and custom noted hereinabove) seem to me to be the fact that when they are handled and it is noticed that the whole body and all the members of the person or thing represented are contained in them and that they not only reveal the whole surface of it in three dimensions, but can even be felt in space, instead of merely appearing as such to the eye alone, they no longer appear to be, nor have they any longer any right to be called, icons or pictures, but, on the contrary, they are sheer replications of the originals. Some persons, though, assert or opine that the reason why the Church rejected or did away with statues was in order to avoid entirely any likeness to idols. For the idols were statues of massive sculpture, capable of being felt on all sides with the hand and fingers.


It is clear from the above that, while bas-relief and embossed images are permissible for veneration, fully 3-dimensional statues are not.

And, from Leonid Ouspensky's book Theology of the Icon:

The decisions of the Quinisext Council were signed by the emperor, and a place was left for the signature of the Pope of Rome; following were the signatures of the Patriarchs Paul of Constantinople, Peter of Alexandria, Anastasius of Jerusalem and George of Antioch. These were followed by the signatures of 213 bishops or their representatives. Among the signatures was that of Basil, archbishop of Gortyna (in Crete), who signed on behalf of the Church of Rome. There were also signatures of other bishops of the West. The authority of these representatives of Western Christianity is contested. Hefele writes: "It is true that the Vita Sergii in the Liber Pontificalis reports that the legates of Pope Sergius, having been deceived by the emperor, signed their names. But these legates of the pope were simply pontifical apocrisiaries living in Constantinople and not legates who had been sent expressly to take part in the council." In any case, as soon as the council had ended, the acts were sent to Rome requesting Pope Sergius' signature. He refused, even rejecting his copy of the acts. He declared that the decisions of the council had no value and asserted that he preferred death to accepting error. The error consisted undoubtedly in some teachings and practices which were condemned by the council, such as, for example, the obligatory celibacy of clergy, the Saturday fast (already forbidden by the First Ecumenical Council), the representation of Christ in the form of a lamb, and others. Yet the Roman Church eventually accepted the Seventh Ecumenical Council, which refers to Canon 82 of the Quinisext Council. Therefore, it can be said that the Roman Church implicitly also recognises this canon. Pope St. Gregory II refers to Canon 82 in his letter to the Patriarch of Constantinople, St. Germanus. Pope Hadrian I, for example, solemnly declares in his letter to Patriarch St. Tarasius his adherence to the Quinisext Council; he does the same in a letter to the Frankish bishops in defence of the Seventh Ecumenical Council. Pope John VIII spoke of the decisions of the Quinisext Council without voicing any objection. Later, Pope Innocent III, quoting Canon 82, calls the Quinisext Council the Sixth Ecumenical Council. But all this is only the agreement of some popes, whereas there were others who had contrary opinions. On the whole, the West did not receive the decisions of the Quinisext Council.

The teaching of the Church on the christological basis of the icon, therefore, remained foreign to Western Christianity. This teaching could not enrich the sacred art of the West, which even today retains certain purely symbolic representations such as the lamb. The refusal to accept the decisions of the Quinisext Council later had, in the realm of sacred art, a great importance. The Roman Church excluded itself from the process of a development of an artistic and spiritual language, a process in which all the rest of the Church took an active part, with the Church of Constantinople providentially becoming the leader. The West remained outside of this development.

The Orthodox Church, on the contrary, in accordance with the Quinisext Council, continued to refine its art in form and in contents, an art which conveys, through images and material forms, the revelation of the divine world, giving us a key to approach, contemplate and understand it. It seems to us that it is particularly important for Western Orthodoxy, as it emerges in our own time, to be well aware of the significance of Canon 82 of the Quinisext Council. The canon, in fact, is the theoretical basis of liturgical art. Whatever course Western Orthodox art will take in the future, it will not be able to bypass the basic directive which was formulated for the first time in this canon: the transmission of historical reality and the revealed divine truth, expressed in certain forms which correspond to the spiritual experience of the Church.


The above excerpt well explains why there is such divergence in content and form of western religious art and that of canonical Orthodox iconography. Despite the church of Rome accepting the rulings of the Seventh Ecumenical Council (convened almost a century later), it seems little mind was paid by that church to the prohibitions of that Council to the portrayal of God the Father as a bearded old man, or Christ as a lamb, or in other forms inconsistent with His Incarnation, hence the perpetuation of such images to this day. A conclusion could therefore be drawn, that the west also similarly saw no problem with statues as ecclesiastical art.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Sleeper on October 12, 2011, 08:49:38 AM
That's probably because God Himself sees no problem with statues as ecclesiastical art  8)
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: LBK on October 12, 2011, 09:00:39 AM
That's probably because God Himself sees no problem with statues as ecclesiastical art  8)

You know the mind of God better than the Apostles and Fathers of the Church?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Sleeper on October 12, 2011, 09:01:35 AM
According to Bishop Nikolai Velimirovich in The Prologue from Ohrid:

"This is the woman with the issue of blood, whom the Lord healed (Matt. 9:20). In gratitude to the Lord her healer, Veronica caused a statue of the Lord Jesus to be made, before which she prayed to God. By tradition, this statue was preserved up to the time of Julian the Apostate, when it was altered to become a statue of Zeus. This is one of the very rare occasions that a holy statue has been used in the Eastern Church. As is known, this later became a common custom in the Western Churches. St Veronica remained faithful to Christ till death, and entered peacefully into rest."

Veronica / Veroniki literally translates "true image" or "true icon."  ;)

Professor Sergios Verkhovskoi, the conservative professor of dogmatics at St. Vladimir’s Seminary forthrightly condemns as heretical anyone who declares statues as unOrthodox or in any way canonically inferior to paintings. Because the Council itself does not.

Statues were common in Byzantium. There exists to this day an ivory, three-dimensional statuette of the Virgin and Child, called “Hodegetria,” from 10th Century Constantinople, now in the Victoria and Albert museum, and it differs from similar examples in Hamburg and New York, in that it was not cut out of an ivory tablet. The back is as carefully and skillfully carved as the front.

(http://www.hope.edu/academic/art/hanson/img/Hodegetria.gif)

Here is an example of some of the oldest expressions of Christian devotion, in the Roman catacombs:

(http://www.catacombe.roma.it/images/sopra_a.jpg)

Constantinople itself was filled with statues, both within and outside of the churches. One author claims that over three hundred classical statues adorned the plaza before Sancta Sophia.

Later, in the East, the lingering memory of the Iconoclasts encouraged reticence and the Moslem conquest froze Orthodox art in its most limited form. In the conquered areas the Church was driven indoors, bells were proscribed, and the externals of Christian worship were forbidden in public. While all representations of creatures were banned for Moslem, and pressure put on Christians to conform as much as possible the icon survived while the statue could not. Only in Russia was the Church free enough to maintain its full aesthetic devotional tradition.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Sleeper on October 12, 2011, 09:02:25 AM
That's probably because God Himself sees no problem with statues as ecclesiastical art  8)

You know the mind of God better than the Apostles and Fathers of the Church?

Nope, I can read about it in Exodus 25, where God commands the Hebrews to create golden statues of the Cherubim for the Mercy Seat of the Ark; the very place from which God will speak to them.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: LBK on October 12, 2011, 09:36:11 AM
Quote
Veronica / Veroniki literally translates "true image" or "true icon."

No, it does not. The name means true victory, from the Latin vera (a cognate of veritas), and the Greek nike (victory). Try again.

The scant examples of 3D statues Sleeper refers to are exceptions to the rule. If statues were indeed accepted and venerated as widely as were icons, then they would have been as widespread as 2D icons and bas-reliefs, in churches, and in people's homes. Even taking into account the ravages of time, and the destructive force of iconoclasm, many ancient icons still exist to this day. Where is there evidence of similar numbers of surviving 3D statues (not bas-reliefs) which were objects of veneration? Even St Nikolai of Okhrid states in his Prologue that the use of statues for veneration is "very rare".

Quote
One author claims that over three hundred classical statues adorned the plaza before Sancta Sophia.

Note here that the statues were outside the church, not within it. We are also not told who were depicted in the statues.

Quote
Professor Sergios Verkhovskoi, the conservative professor of dogmatics at St. Vladimir’s Seminary forthrightly condemns as heretical anyone who declares statues as unOrthodox or in any way canonically inferior to paintings. Because the Council itself does not.

I have learned to take much of what comes out of that seminary with caution. Let's say that there are some, er, interesting schools of thought there.

Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on October 12, 2011, 10:10:14 AM

I have learned to take much of what comes out of that seminary with caution. Let's say that there are some, er, interesting schools of thought there.



You are starting to sound like elijahmaria... :laugh:
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: LBK on October 12, 2011, 10:28:08 AM
Statues never became an entrenched and widespread part of Orthodox tradition because they are more earthbound than a painting, and are not adept at acting as windows into heaven. Icons have such features as inverse perspective, lettering, and a gold or neutral background so that they negate earthly, temporal illusion, and rather depict a reality beyond the very limited reality that can be depicted by normal perspective and naturalism.

If statues were as widespread as icons, then surely the iconodule Fathers such as Sts John of Damascus and Theodore of the Studion would have defended their use against the iconoclasts, and the iconoclasts would similarly have railed against statues. Yet neither did, because statues simply weren't part of the picture.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Fr.Aidan on October 12, 2011, 10:38:41 AM
Three-dimensional statues, although they are found in Christianity from the 1st and 2nd century onward (even today there is a wonder-working wooden statue of St. George in Russia), never became a standard or widespread feature of sacred imagery, and this is as true of the West as it is of the East.

That explains why the iconoclasts had not much to say about statues--they were rather rare and so didn't figure in as much.

Statues were known in the West, but rather rare compared to flat, Byzantine-style or -compatible icons.

We think of statues as something Western, only because they proliferated after the Schism to form a standard and prevalent imagery in the Roman Catholic church.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on October 12, 2011, 10:52:06 AM
Statues never became an entrenched and widespread part of Orthodox tradition because they are more earthbound than a painting, and are not adept at acting as windows into heaven. Icons have such features as inverse perspective, lettering, and a gold or neutral background so that they negate earthly, temporal illusion, and rather depict a reality beyond the very limited reality that can be depicted by normal perspective and naturalism.

If statues were as widespread as icons, then surely the iconodule Fathers such as Sts John of Damascus and Theodore of the Studion would have defended their use against the iconoclasts, and the iconoclasts would similarly have railed against statues. Yet neither did, because statues simply weren't part of the picture.


I find Sleeper's line of argument far more compelling than this one, not least because of the Scriptural reference to three dimensional objects.

I think the thing that bothers me, again in keeping with what I wrote above, is the idea that three dimensional representation is in some way inferior or prone to evil, if not evil in itself.

I cannot tell you how many young, and convert, Orthodox children I've met who are writing essays on the diabolical nature of three dimensional art.  Scary it is...to me.

Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: LBK on October 12, 2011, 11:01:44 AM
At no time have I even remotely suggested that statues are "evil" or "diabolical". Please, it's not good form to put words in people's mouths.

What I have said is that statues are deficient in depicting heavenly, spiritual reality compared to painted, 2D icons, and pointed out the historical absence (apart from exceedingly few ad hoc examples) of statues in Orthodox worship practice.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on October 12, 2011, 11:19:35 AM
At no time have I even remotely suggested that statues are "evil" or "diabolical". Please, it's not good form to put words in people's mouths.

What I have said is that statues are deficient in depicting heavenly, spiritual reality compared to painted, 2D icons, and pointed out the historical absence (apart from exceedingly few ad hoc examples) of statues in Orthodox worship practice.

I understand what you are saying and I am inclined, rather strongly at a personal level, to agree!!

What I was noting, and think that needs to be noted, is that your approach is taken, by many more than a few Orthodox converts, many steps too far away from your reasoned approach.

M.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Sleeper on October 12, 2011, 11:26:00 AM
Statues and iconography are not mutually exclusive. We find both in worship from the very beginning, and as we've seen, all the way to the present day. Both can be powerful objects of reverence, adorn our sanctuaries with beauty, teach us eternal truths, etc.

Yes, the flat-panel image is capable of portraying things that a three-dimensional object never could, just by the very nature of its medium. There's also something haunting about the utter simplicity of the statue that spurs me on to prayer that a flat image couldn't do.

I think we deserve the best of both.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: LBK on October 12, 2011, 11:55:45 AM
Quote
We find both in worship from the very beginning, and as we've seen, all the way to the present day.

A tiny handful of statues (most of which were/are situated outside churches, and therefore served no liturgical or devotional function) over 2000 years does not a worship tradition make. And in my time on earth, never have I seen 3D statues in the many Orthodox churches I have set foot in, irrespective of jurisdiction or country, nor have I seen statues inside photographed churches.  I am confident that my experience is the norm, not the exception.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Papist on October 12, 2011, 12:36:15 PM
Statues and iconography are not mutually exclusive. We find both in worship from the very beginning, and as we've seen, all the way to the present day. Both can be powerful objects of reverence, adorn our sanctuaries with beauty, teach us eternal truths, etc.

Yes, the flat-panel image is capable of portraying things that a three-dimensional object never could, just by the very nature of its medium. There's also something haunting about the utter simplicity of the statue that spurs me on to prayer that a flat image couldn't do.

I think we deserve the best of both.
I agree. There is something about the simple stone statue of Christ or the Virgin Mary that certainly draws me into the mystery of the presence of God and his saints.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: J Michael on October 12, 2011, 12:41:40 PM
Statues and iconography are not mutually exclusive. We find both in worship from the very beginning, and as we've seen, all the way to the present day. Both can be powerful objects of reverence, adorn our sanctuaries with beauty, teach us eternal truths, etc.

Yes, the flat-panel image is capable of portraying things that a three-dimensional object never could, just by the very nature of its medium. There's also something haunting about the utter simplicity of the statue that spurs me on to prayer that a flat image couldn't do.

I think we deserve the best of both.

I am very much inclined to agree with you about this.  I love and will venerate a beautiful icon, just as much as I will a beautiful religious statue, whether that statue is outdoors or inside a church.  There are icons I like and those I dislike.  Same with statues.  Unfortunately, there's no accounting for taste, and on a purely personal level I find much western religious statuary, especially the more modern ones, pretty tacky.  Having said that, I would also like to re-emphasize something I feel very strongly about: whether it be an icon or a statue, it is but a tool (to use a rather crass word) or a vehicle to bring us to something other, and much greater, than the physical object before us.

My own conversion to Christianity, while a long process, came to a pre-baptismal apex before a beautiful statue of the Mother of God at the National Shrine of Our Lady of Lourdes in Emmitsburg, Maryland, where I had a very definite, though subtle conversion experience.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Sleeper on October 12, 2011, 12:52:16 PM
Quote
We find both in worship from the very beginning, and as we've seen, all the way to the present day.

A tiny handful of statues (most of which were/are situated outside churches, and therefore served no liturgical or devotional function) over 2000 years does not a worship tradition make. And in my time on earth, never have I seen 3D statues in the many Orthodox churches I have set foot in, irrespective of jurisdiction or country, nor have I seen statues inside photographed churches.  I am confident that my experience is the norm, not the exception.

The theology of holy images is an extension of the theology of the Incarnation. Flat-panel images are but one expression of this incarnational worldview. You're taking this and trying to crystallize it into a binding and sole form as if it's inherent in this theology, but it isn't. Statues are as consonant with the Council as anything else, whether painted, carved, stitched, etc.

It doesn't matter if it wasn't as widespread, the fact is that from the OT decrees from God Himself all the way to the 7th Ecumenical Council and beyond, we find three-dimensional images to be a valid expression of real spirituality.

That's all I'm saying. No more no less.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: LBK on October 12, 2011, 01:00:05 PM
Sleeper, did you read my post #260 on page 6 of this thread? I suspect you haven't. It's long, but please take the time to read and absorb it.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Sleeper on October 12, 2011, 01:40:03 PM
Yes, I read it. Quite interesting, and quite disagreeable.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: LBK on October 12, 2011, 01:52:38 PM
Yes, I read it. Quite interesting, and quite disagreeable.

Hardly my fault if you find Canon 4, and its interpretation in The Rudder problematic. The bulk of that post of mine is not my words, but those of Orthodox tradition. Deal with it, my friend.

Your insistence on the equal status of statues with icons in Orthodox worship and devotional practice has negligible basis in history, nor in the Fathers, nor in the writings of accepted and respected layman writers, nor in verifiable Orthodox practice to this day. If you choose to ignore all that and cling to your own notions ....  ::)
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Sleeper on October 12, 2011, 02:15:45 PM
The difference between you and I, and what likely lies at the heart of our disagreement, is that I don't conflate Orthodoxy with Byzantinism. The Eastern Orthodox tradition is not the whole of the picture, much as the anti-Latinists would like to believe otherwise.

But you're misrepresenting my position anyway. I'm not trying to equate the two, and already said I agreed with the icon's ability to portray things impossible by a statue. It's the supposed "antagonism" to statuary inherent in the theology of images that I find absurd.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: J Michael on October 12, 2011, 03:31:47 PM
The difference between you and I, and what likely lies at the heart of our disagreement, is that I don't conflate Orthodoxy with Byzantinism. The Eastern Orthodox tradition is not the whole of the picture, much as the anti-Latinists would like to believe otherwise.

But you're misrepresenting my position anyway. I'm not trying to equate the two, and already said I agreed with the icon's ability to portray things impossible by a statue. It's the supposed "antagonism" to statuary inherent in the theology of images that I find absurd.

I think I may be getting waaaayyyyy out of my depth here  ;D, but I'll ask anyway--what is the purpose of religious art, inclusive of icons and statuary?  And, did the "theologies" (and hence, the canons and/or "rules") of both the eastern and western traditions of sacred art develop as a response to the art forms or....were the art forms a response to "theology"?  Or...am I just asking the wrong question?  If icons (mainly but not exclusively eastern) and religious statuary (mainly but not exclusively western) are both forms of sacred art, but arising legitimately out of different but equally legitimate cultures and traditions; if both forms of art set out to achieve the same purpose, how could one be inherently better or more adequate or more sufficient than the other, **except** perhaps, that adherents of one tradition believe it so out of a deeper belief that that tradition is the only *correct* one?

(Do those questions make sense?)
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: stanley123 on October 12, 2011, 05:47:37 PM
Quote
We find both in worship from the very beginning, and as we've seen, all the way to the present day.

A tiny handful of statues (most of which were/are situated outside churches, and therefore served no liturgical or devotional function) over 2000 years does not a worship tradition make. And in my time on earth, never have I seen 3D statues in the many Orthodox churches I have set foot in, irrespective of jurisdiction or country, nor have I seen statues inside photographed churches.  I am confident that my experience is the norm, not the exception.
I have seen a 3D Catholic type crucifix in an Orthodox Church. Of course, that was only one item, everything else was 2D and flat keeping with the custom of icons.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: stanley123 on October 12, 2011, 05:50:58 PM
The difference between you and I, and what likely lies at the heart of our disagreement, is that I don't conflate Orthodoxy with Byzantinism. The Eastern Orthodox tradition is not the whole of the picture, much as the anti-Latinists would like to believe otherwise.

But you're misrepresenting my position anyway. I'm not trying to equate the two, and already said I agreed with the icon's ability to portray things impossible by a statue. It's the supposed "antagonism" to statuary inherent in the theology of images that I find absurd.

I think I may be getting waaaayyyyy out of my depth here  ;D, but I'll ask anyway--what is the purpose of religious art, inclusive of icons and statuary?  And, did the "theologies" (and hence, the canons and/or "rules") of both the eastern and western traditions of sacred art develop as a response to the art forms or....were the art forms a response to "theology"?  Or...am I just asking the wrong question?  If icons (mainly but not exclusively eastern) and religious statuary (mainly but not exclusively western) are both forms of sacred art, but arising legitimately out of different but equally legitimate cultures and traditions; if both forms of art set out to achieve the same purpose, how could one be inherently better or more adequate or more sufficient than the other, **except** perhaps, that adherents of one tradition believe it so out of a deeper belief that that tradition is the only *correct* one?

(Do those questions make sense?)
There are a couple of articles on the internet about the difference between icons and western religious art. For example:
http://www.traditionaliconography.com/webgalleryart.html
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on October 12, 2011, 06:25:30 PM
The difference between you and I, and what likely lies at the heart of our disagreement, is that I don't conflate Orthodoxy with Byzantinism. The Eastern Orthodox tradition is not the whole of the picture, much as the anti-Latinists would like to believe otherwise.

But you're misrepresenting my position anyway. I'm not trying to equate the two, and already said I agreed with the icon's ability to portray things impossible by a statue. It's the supposed "antagonism" to statuary inherent in the theology of images that I find absurd.

I think I may be getting waaaayyyyy out of my depth here  ;D, but I'll ask anyway--what is the purpose of religious art, inclusive of icons and statuary?  And, did the "theologies" (and hence, the canons and/or "rules") of both the eastern and western traditions of sacred art develop as a response to the art forms or....were the art forms a response to "theology"?  Or...am I just asking the wrong question?  If icons (mainly but not exclusively eastern) and religious statuary (mainly but not exclusively western) are both forms of sacred art, but arising legitimately out of different but equally legitimate cultures and traditions; if both forms of art set out to achieve the same purpose, how could one be inherently better or more adequate or more sufficient than the other, **except** perhaps, that adherents of one tradition believe it so out of a deeper belief that that tradition is the only *correct* one?

(Do those questions make sense?)
There are a couple of articles on the internet about the difference between icons and western religious art. For example:
http://www.traditionaliconography.com/webgalleryart.html

The only two things I think I might say to this author would be that if icons were intrinsically holy there would be no need to bless them.

It is the graced blessing of an icon that makes it a holy object, not the image itself or its production...unless of course it is an ancient miracle working icon whose origins we cannot know with precision.

And the second is that it is clear that the author of that piece has read NOTHING serious concerning the production and history of sacred art in the Catholic Church.

If he'd like to have a negative and cautionary set of opinions and observations to share about "decorating" the "worship space" in burlap in the post-Vatican II Church, I'd be happy to oblige but it would be informed by my own Church's teaching concerning sacred art...something he clearly missed along the way.

Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Rufus on October 12, 2011, 08:04:41 PM
The only two things I think I might say to this author would be that if icons were intrinsically holy there would be no need to bless them.

It is the graced blessing of an icon that makes it a holy object, not the image itself or its production...unless of course it is an ancient miracle working icon whose origins we cannot know with precision.

I'm fairly certain that this is not true. Icons are considerd holy because of the image they bear, which is much more important than whether they have been blessed or not. This is how I learned about icons from a well-known iconographer and elder friend; this is also what Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Boston tells people who buy their icons. I've never heard anyone Orthodox contradict the idea that icons are intrinsically holy objects.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: LBK on October 12, 2011, 08:37:17 PM
Quote
The only two things I think I might say to this author would be that if icons were intrinsically holy there would be no need to bless them.

It is the graced blessing of an icon that makes it a holy object, not the image itself or its production...unless of course it is an ancient miracle working icon whose origins we cannot know with precision.

The holiness of an icon comes from the holiness of the prototype they portray. The clerical blessing of an icon is but a final imprimatur. After all, icons are painted with fasting and constant prayer.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on October 12, 2011, 10:58:52 PM
Quote
The only two things I think I might say to this author would be that if icons were intrinsically holy there would be no need to bless them.

It is the graced blessing of an icon that makes it a holy object, not the image itself or its production...unless of course it is an ancient miracle working icon whose origins we cannot know with precision.

The holiness of an icon comes from the holiness of the prototype they portray. The clerical blessing of an icon is but a final imprimatur. After all, icons are painted with fasting and constant prayer.

We are made in the image and likeness of God.  We remain so whether or not we are blessed by grace.

I think your version of the theology of icons makes grace subordinated to canonical technique.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Rufus on October 12, 2011, 11:22:11 PM
Quote
The only two things I think I might say to this author would be that if icons were intrinsically holy there would be no need to bless them.

It is the graced blessing of an icon that makes it a holy object, not the image itself or its production...unless of course it is an ancient miracle working icon whose origins we cannot know with precision.

The holiness of an icon comes from the holiness of the prototype they portray. The clerical blessing of an icon is but a final imprimatur. After all, icons are painted with fasting and constant prayer.

We are made in the image and likeness of God.  We remain so whether or not we are blessed by grace.

I think your version of the theology of icons makes grace subordinated to canonical technique.

I don't really understad your objection. Your belief about icons seems to imply that the grace that resides in them is subordinated to clerical blessing. How is this different form saying that grace comes to the icon through prayer, fasting, and canonical technique? (Not of necessity of course...you can't force God's grace into an icon by "doing it right"...that's called magic.)

Do you believe, though, that there is an inherent sacredness in an image simply because it is an image of Christ or a saint?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on October 13, 2011, 09:27:07 AM
Quote
The only two things I think I might say to this author would be that if icons were intrinsically holy there would be no need to bless them.

It is the graced blessing of an icon that makes it a holy object, not the image itself or its production...unless of course it is an ancient miracle working icon whose origins we cannot know with precision.

The holiness of an icon comes from the holiness of the prototype they portray. The clerical blessing of an icon is but a final imprimatur. After all, icons are painted with fasting and constant prayer.

We are made in the image and likeness of God.  We remain so whether or not we are blessed by grace.

I think your version of the theology of icons makes grace subordinated to canonical technique.

I don't really understad your objection. Your belief about icons seems to imply that the grace that resides in them is subordinated to clerical blessing. How is this different form saying that grace comes to the icon through prayer, fasting, and canonical technique? (Not of necessity of course...you can't force God's grace into an icon by "doing it right"...that's called magic.)

Do you believe, though, that there is an inherent sacredness in an image simply because it is an image of Christ or a saint?

No.  I do not believe it is automatic or tied to techinque.  As you said: that is magic.

I believe that holy things are holy by grace: not by technique, nor by canon.

My ears are not closed to either you or LBK.  So don't get too frustrated with me...please.  :)

More:  We can only HOPE that there is grace in anything we produce by our hands and the sweat of our brow.  We can only have FAITH in the one who dispenses all graces and His mother who mediates them all: the person of Jesus, the person of His Mother.

So if you tell me that an icon has been produced in hope and faith and blessed by the Church then I can say that I have greatest HOPE that through it, I can find grace.

But when I unwrap an icon from Un-Cut Mountain Supply, I can venerate the one in the image but I am not going to go very long before I have that image blessed, and it will not hold for me the same degree of HOPE in grace till it is blessed...by a priest...sometimes an Orthodox priest or monk.  I don't distinguish the fonts of grace in either Church: but that is just me.

M.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: J Michael on October 13, 2011, 10:30:42 AM
The only two things I think I might say to this author would be that if icons were intrinsically holy there would be no need to bless them.

It is the graced blessing of an icon that makes it a holy object, not the image itself or its production...unless of course it is an ancient miracle working icon whose origins we cannot know with precision.

I'm fairly certain that this is not true. Icons are considerd holy because of the image they bear, which is much more important than whether they have been blessed or not. This is how I learned about icons from a well-known iconographer and elder friend; this is also what Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Boston tells people who buy their icons. I've never heard anyone Orthodox contradict the idea that icons are intrinsically holy objects.

Please forgive me if I respond prematurely--I haven't had time yet to read the whole article.  The very first thing that strikes me, though, is the first paragraph where the author states that he is an Orthodox iconographer.  That immediately warns me that the article is biased.  I would say the same if the author admitted to being a Catholic liturgical artist.  There is an inherent bias that could be difficult to overcome.

Secondly, the author doesn't identify himself.  Anyone know who wrote this and its context?

Thirdly, he says, "...the religious art that comes from Western secular societies..." (emphasis mine)--as if Eastern religious art, i.e. iconography, does *not* arise from a secular society.  When he says that Western religious art is "bereft of any special dignity...etc", and that it portrays "ignorance of true theology...", I am immediately put off.  It is clear that this is no scholarly treatise with at least some degree of impartiality, but rather an erudite and polite rant about how much better iconography is than Western liturgical art.  Kind of makes me want to stop reading right there.  It appears he is writing for a specific, Orthodox, audience and in the very first paragraph comes across as being holier-than-thou.  This attitude, with respect to at least one German artist, is repeated in the second paragraph.

More on the article, perhaps, later, when I can work my way through it.

Last point for this post--Rufus, you write, "Icons are considerd holy because of the image they bear, which is much more important than whether they have been blessed or not."  If this were the case, the icon that sparked this whole discussion must be considered holy, too--because of the image it bears--rosary and all.  It would also imply that an icon I might write in a weekend workshop, unschooled and unholy creature that I am, would also be "holy"--because of the image it bears.  Can this be correct?

I want to reiterate, for clarity and emphasis, that I have no axe to grind whatsoever with regards to iconography or Western liturgical art.  I actually tend to prefer, in most but not all cases, icons and I have 2 icon corners in my house, and pray before and venerate icons.  I would love nothing more than for there to be icons as well as statuary and stained glass in the church we worship in.  Maybe one day.  There is much western liturgical art, both two and three dimensional, that evokes in me the same worshipful response that icons do.  I feel, for many reasons, equally comfortable in an eastern church and a western, Catholic, church.  But...that's just me.


One last thing (again  :))--If there is no Orthodox priest available to bless an icon, if I were to recite the prayer of blessing of an icon over it and sprinkle holy water on it, would it be "blessed"?  I specify Orthodox priest because I'm taking it for granted, perhaps wrongly, that the vast majority of Catholic priests would not know how to bless an icon, or perhaps even see the need to do so.  Does an icon even *need* to be blessed to venerate it?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: J Michael on October 13, 2011, 01:14:02 PM
The difference between you and I, and what likely lies at the heart of our disagreement, is that I don't conflate Orthodoxy with Byzantinism. The Eastern Orthodox tradition is not the whole of the picture, much as the anti-Latinists would like to believe otherwise.

But you're misrepresenting my position anyway. I'm not trying to equate the two, and already said I agreed with the icon's ability to portray things impossible by a statue. It's the supposed "antagonism" to statuary inherent in the theology of images that I find absurd.

I think I may be getting waaaayyyyy out of my depth here  ;D, but I'll ask anyway--what is the purpose of religious art, inclusive of icons and statuary?  And, did the "theologies" (and hence, the canons and/or "rules") of both the eastern and western traditions of sacred art develop as a response to the art forms or....were the art forms a response to "theology"?  Or...am I just asking the wrong question?  If icons (mainly but not exclusively eastern) and religious statuary (mainly but not exclusively western) are both forms of sacred art, but arising legitimately out of different but equally legitimate cultures and traditions; if both forms of art set out to achieve the same purpose, how could one be inherently better or more adequate or more sufficient than the other, **except** perhaps, that adherents of one tradition believe it so out of a deeper belief that that tradition is the only *correct* one?

(Do those questions make sense?)
There are a couple of articles on the internet about the difference between icons and western religious art. For example:
http://www.traditionaliconography.com/webgalleryart.html

Thanks for posting that, Stanley! 

I've read through more of the article (discovered it's by Paul Azkoul, btw--all I had to do was look  ;D).  I won't bother critiquing it any further than I have above, as I don't think he adds much to the discussion, nor has my opinion of it changed.  I've read/heard most of it before, from other Orthodox sources, and as far as I'm concerned he's preachin' to the (Orthodox) kleros.  Not necessarily a bad thing, but his bias is, well, enormous, and I think in a number of places he's just plain wrong, but that's just my *opinion* as a layman who is neither an artist, an iconographer, or a scholar.

You said there were a couple of articles online.  My google search for "differences between iconography and western religious art" didn't yield much.  What else were you referring to?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Rufus on October 13, 2011, 02:53:17 PM
Last point for this post--Rufus, you write, "Icons are considerd holy because of the image they bear, which is much more important than whether they have been blessed or not."  If this were the case, the icon that sparked this whole discussion must be considered holy, too--because of the image it bears--rosary and all.  It would also imply that an icon I might write in a weekend workshop, unschooled and unholy creature that I am, would also be "holy"--because of the image it bears.  Can this be correct?

Well, perhaps I should qualify my point: what makes an icon a holy image is not simply the fact that it is a depiction of Saint Such-and-such, but the degree to which it reflects the spiritual reality behind the person portrayed. Someone who himself is not spiritualy engaged will have a hard time doing that. If you painted an icon in a workshop, I would have no problem venerating it. If the Immaculate Heart and Rosary are not acceptable in Orthodoxy, then we may not venerate an icon that depicts them.

Analogy: my Bibles are holy books. They do not need to be blessed: the teaching of the Holy Spirit is expressed in them, whether they have been blessed or not. On the other hand, if I'm looking at the Watchtower Bible, edited to remove Trinitarian doctrine, I simply cannot venerate that book.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Rufus on October 13, 2011, 03:04:53 PM
There are a couple of articles on the internet about the difference between icons and western religious art. For example:
http://www.traditionaliconography.com/webgalleryart.html

One serious problem with this article is that the author is not treating Latin Christian art in general: he's only criticizing a specific manifestation of it, namely Renaissance paintings. There is obviously a vast amount of Western Christian artwork that is of very questionable spiritual value, going way over the top with regard to carnality and sentimentality. There is also a vast amount of Western art that is much more moderate and more suitable for comparison. Moreover, most Western Christian art is not intended for veneration, so there is little sense in comparing it to Orthodox icons.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: J Michael on October 13, 2011, 03:15:40 PM
There are a couple of articles on the internet about the difference between icons and western religious art. For example:
http://www.traditionaliconography.com/webgalleryart.html

One serious problem with this article is that the author is not treating Latin Christian art in general: he's only criticizing a specific manifestation of it, namely Renaissance paintings. There is obviously a vast amount of Western Christian artwork that is of very questionable spiritual value, going way over the top with regard to carnality and sentimentality. There is also a vast amount of Western art that is much more moderate and more suitable for comparison. Moreover, most Western Christian art is not intended for veneration, so there is little sense in comparing it to Orthodox icons.

Yes, this article is seriously flawed in many ways.  Unfortunately, Mr. Azkoul seems to think he is comparing iconography with all Western liturgical art, which, as you say, he is not.  Perhaps he should stick to writing icons instead of (inaccurate and somewhat inflammatory) articles  ;D.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: J Michael on October 13, 2011, 03:29:47 PM
Last point for this post--Rufus, you write, "Icons are considerd holy because of the image they bear, which is much more important than whether they have been blessed or not."  If this were the case, the icon that sparked this whole discussion must be considered holy, too--because of the image it bears--rosary and all.  It would also imply that an icon I might write in a weekend workshop, unschooled and unholy creature that I am, would also be "holy"--because of the image it bears.  Can this be correct?

Well, perhaps I should qualify my point: what makes an icon a holy image is not simply the fact that it is a depiction of Saint Such-and-such, but the degree to which it reflects the spiritual reality behind the person portrayed. Someone who himself is not spiritualy engaged will have a hard time doing that. If you painted an icon in a workshop, I would have no problem venerating it. If the Immaculate Heart and Rosary are not acceptable in Orthodoxy, then we may not venerate an icon that depicts them.

Analogy: my Bibles are holy books. They do not need to be blessed: the teaching of the Holy Spirit is expressed in them, whether they have been blessed or not. On the other hand, if I'm looking at the Watchtower Bible, edited to remove Trinitarian doctrine, I simply cannot venerate that book.

Clarity is always a good thing  ;) ;)!

I think I'd agree with you about your 1st sentence which I have bolded.  I would also contend that "spiritual reality behind the person portrayed" can also be, and is, a feature of much Western liturgical art.  Also, how does one determine the level of spiritual engagement of any particular artist/iconographer at any given moment?  With respect to Western liturgical art, which many Orthodox seem to denigrate, how do we know that any particular artist has *not* partaken of intense prayer and fasting before and while working on a particular piece?  Unless he or she says so, I would say we don't know, and therefore should be very, very slow to judge.

By the way, has any Orthodox bishop or synod made a statement that the rosary is unacceptable in Orthodoxy?  If so, I'd like to see it.  As far as the Sacred Heart of Jesus or the Immaculate Heart of Mary goes, seems like we've come almost full circle  ;).

Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Apotheoun on October 13, 2011, 04:23:41 PM
My guess is something like this?
(http://www.lessing-photo.com/p3/150304/15030437.jpg)
I think that is just a small portion of a larger icon.  It would be interesting to see the whole image.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Rufus on October 13, 2011, 05:07:08 PM
Last point for this post--Rufus, you write, "Icons are considerd holy because of the image they bear, which is much more important than whether they have been blessed or not."  If this were the case, the icon that sparked this whole discussion must be considered holy, too--because of the image it bears--rosary and all.  It would also imply that an icon I might write in a weekend workshop, unschooled and unholy creature that I am, would also be "holy"--because of the image it bears.  Can this be correct?

Well, perhaps I should qualify my point: what makes an icon a holy image is not simply the fact that it is a depiction of Saint Such-and-such, but the degree to which it reflects the spiritual reality behind the person portrayed. Someone who himself is not spiritualy engaged will have a hard time doing that. If you painted an icon in a workshop, I would have no problem venerating it. If the Immaculate Heart and Rosary are not acceptable in Orthodoxy, then we may not venerate an icon that depicts them.

Analogy: my Bibles are holy books. They do not need to be blessed: the teaching of the Holy Spirit is expressed in them, whether they have been blessed or not. On the other hand, if I'm looking at the Watchtower Bible, edited to remove Trinitarian doctrine, I simply cannot venerate that book.

Clarity is always a good thing  ;) ;)!

I think I'd agree with you about your 1st sentence which I have bolded.  I would also contend that "spiritual reality behind the person portrayed" can also be, and is, a feature of much Western liturgical art.  Also, how does one determine the level of spiritual engagement of any particular artist/iconographer at any given moment?  With respect to Western liturgical art, which many Orthodox seem to denigrate, how do we know that any particular artist has *not* partaken of intense prayer and fasting before and while working on a particular piece?  Unless he or she says so, I would say we don't know, and therefore should be very, very slow to judge.

Well, there's just something uncomfortable about worshiping in the presence of Bodybuilder God the Father touching fingers with Bodybuilder Adam on the ceilng of the Sistine Chapel.

Quote
By the way, has any Orthodox bishop or synod made a statement that the rosary is unacceptable in Orthodoxy?  If so, I'd like to see it.  As far as the Sacred Heart of Jesus or the Immaculate Heart of Mary goes, seems like we've come almost full circle  ;).

Well, I entered this thread because of the icons, and I'd rather avoid the bickering over whatever. That's why I said, "IF they are not acceptable...."
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: J Michael on October 13, 2011, 05:26:57 PM
Last point for this post--Rufus, you write, "Icons are considerd holy because of the image they bear, which is much more important than whether they have been blessed or not."  If this were the case, the icon that sparked this whole discussion must be considered holy, too--because of the image it bears--rosary and all.  It would also imply that an icon I might write in a weekend workshop, unschooled and unholy creature that I am, would also be "holy"--because of the image it bears.  Can this be correct?

Well, perhaps I should qualify my point: what makes an icon a holy image is not simply the fact that it is a depiction of Saint Such-and-such, but the degree to which it reflects the spiritual reality behind the person portrayed. Someone who himself is not spiritualy engaged will have a hard time doing that. If you painted an icon in a workshop, I would have no problem venerating it. If the Immaculate Heart and Rosary are not acceptable in Orthodoxy, then we may not venerate an icon that depicts them.

Analogy: my Bibles are holy books. They do not need to be blessed: the teaching of the Holy Spirit is expressed in them, whether they have been blessed or not. On the other hand, if I'm looking at the Watchtower Bible, edited to remove Trinitarian doctrine, I simply cannot venerate that book.

Clarity is always a good thing  ;) ;)!

I think I'd agree with you about your 1st sentence which I have bolded.  I would also contend that "spiritual reality behind the person portrayed" can also be, and is, a feature of much Western liturgical art.  Also, how does one determine the level of spiritual engagement of any particular artist/iconographer at any given moment?  With respect to Western liturgical art, which many Orthodox seem to denigrate, how do we know that any particular artist has *not* partaken of intense prayer and fasting before and while working on a particular piece?  Unless he or she says so, I would say we don't know, and therefore should be very, very slow to judge.

Well, there's just something uncomfortable about worshiping in the presence of Bodybuilder God the Father touching fingers with Bodybuilder Adam on the ceilng of the Sistine Chapel.

Quote
By the way, has any Orthodox bishop or synod made a statement that the rosary is unacceptable in Orthodoxy?  If so, I'd like to see it.  As far as the Sacred Heart of Jesus or the Immaculate Heart of Mary goes, seems like we've come almost full circle  ;).

Well, I entered this thread because of the icons, and I'd rather avoid the bickering over whatever. That's why I said, "IF they are not acceptable...."

What--you don't like to bicker????????????? :o :o :o :o :o :o :o   ;D  OY VEY :o!!  What a spoil-sport  ;D ;D ;D!

Actually, my question about Orthodox bishops/synod and the rosary was a serious question, even though it may not have come across that way.  I am certainly not aware that anyone has decreed its use unacceptable, but if someone has it'd be interesting to see....that's all I meant. 

As for worshiping in the Sistine Chapel.....I'd love to do so, and believe I would feel totally comfortable.  But then, I *am* a Catholic ;)!
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on October 13, 2011, 07:16:47 PM
Last point for this post--Rufus, you write, "Icons are considerd holy because of the image they bear, which is much more important than whether they have been blessed or not."  If this were the case, the icon that sparked this whole discussion must be considered holy, too--because of the image it bears--rosary and all.  It would also imply that an icon I might write in a weekend workshop, unschooled and unholy creature that I am, would also be "holy"--because of the image it bears.  Can this be correct?

If the Immaculate Heart and Rosary are not acceptable in Orthodoxy, then we may not venerate an icon that depicts them.


That registers and makes good sense.  I am good with that kind of statement but I don't think that one can simply say that this or that image is NOT an icon simply because it has a rosary in it.  It may well be an icon.  It simply may not be one that can genuinely be venerated by an Eastern Orthodox believer.

Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on October 13, 2011, 07:28:10 PM
There are a couple of articles on the internet about the difference between icons and western religious art. For example:
http://www.traditionaliconography.com/webgalleryart.html

Moreover, most Western Christian art is not intended for veneration, so there is little sense in comparing it to Orthodox icons.

This is VERY true.  In fact, the western Catholics actually do not venerate ANY sacred art in general. 

They do distinguish between that which tells a story, like the Sistine Chapel ceiling, and that which is meant for reflective consideration during prayer, private or liturgical.  That many of us can and do manage to distinguish.

Roman rite Catholics venerate the Bible, relics and the cross or crucifix.  Other than that...not so much.

BTW I've been in eastern parish churches and cathedrals where there is so much of the surface features of the interior covered with icons and iconic murals that I am infinitely distracted during liturgy and find myself becoming agitated by the visual stimulus overload.  The interiors are lovely and well loved without a doubt, but I often find myself forced to shut my eyes.  I also get too much stimulus when the choir is TOO good...<smile>...I can live without the soaring soprano more often than not.  There is a reason that I go and visit a Roman rite parish now and then for a bare bones daily liturgy.  I think it is the contemplative tendencies that I have, and though I love the beauty, sometimes it gets to be a bit too much.

M.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Rufus on October 13, 2011, 08:28:38 PM
Last point for this post--Rufus, you write, "Icons are considerd holy because of the image they bear, which is much more important than whether they have been blessed or not."  If this were the case, the icon that sparked this whole discussion must be considered holy, too--because of the image it bears--rosary and all.  It would also imply that an icon I might write in a weekend workshop, unschooled and unholy creature that I am, would also be "holy"--because of the image it bears.  Can this be correct?

If the Immaculate Heart and Rosary are not acceptable in Orthodoxy, then we may not venerate an icon that depicts them.


That registers and makes good sense.  I am good with that kind of statement but I don't think that one can simply say that this or that image is NOT an icon simply because it has a rosary in it.  It may well be an icon.  It simply may not be one that can genuinely be venerated by an Eastern Orthodox believer.

True. I don't really think one can say that something simply is or is not an icon, with no shades of gray in between--to debate about what exactly constitutes an icon involves a lot of hair-splitting.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on October 13, 2011, 09:07:04 PM
Last point for this post--Rufus, you write, "Icons are considerd holy because of the image they bear, which is much more important than whether they have been blessed or not."  If this were the case, the icon that sparked this whole discussion must be considered holy, too--because of the image it bears--rosary and all.  It would also imply that an icon I might write in a weekend workshop, unschooled and unholy creature that I am, would also be "holy"--because of the image it bears.  Can this be correct?

If the Immaculate Heart and Rosary are not acceptable in Orthodoxy, then we may not venerate an icon that depicts them.


That registers and makes good sense.  I am good with that kind of statement but I don't think that one can simply say that this or that image is NOT an icon simply because it has a rosary in it.  It may well be an icon.  It simply may not be one that can genuinely be venerated by an Eastern Orthodox believer.

True. I don't really think one can say that something simply is or is not an icon, with no shades of gray in between--to debate about what exactly constitutes an icon involves a lot of hair-splitting.

I am enjoying this part of the discussion very much so thank you and LBK very much.

What I think about, once we get this far is how then do we teach our young people and converts how to recognize spiritually profitable icons in the east, and spiritually profitable sacred art in the west?

How do we, in the west, get away from the newly formed habit of "decorating" the "worship space" and get back to the production of sacred art used in liturgical worship and in private devotion and paraliturgical devotion....and when I speak of liturgical prayer, I speak here also of the divine office.

M.

PS: I say "we" for east or west since I have been immersed in both for long periods in my life.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: LBK on October 13, 2011, 09:24:58 PM
Quote
How do we, in the west, get away from the newly formed habit of "decorating" the "worship space"

The "decoration of worship space" by covering the interior with icons is nothing new at all. Even the second-century church at Dura Europos, a century before the Edict of Toleration, was covered in icons. And it is beyond question that in many ancient churches, some still standing to this day, icons, be they painted, or mosaic, were in profusion. Even in the post-iconoclastic period after the eighth century, ancient churches, and those of more recent provenance (including humble parish churches, not just the grand cathedrals) which are covered in icons are innumerable. And let's not forget the treasure of the Romanian "painted churches", whose external, as well as internal, walls are covered with icons.

If anything the "newly-formed habit" of Christian practice is the tendency of removing decoration from the "worship space". Untold destruction was inflicted on western churches (RCC and other denominations) in the aftermath of the Reformation, and, more recently, in the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council, in stripping out imagery and decorative elements, for a variety of reasons.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Rufus on October 13, 2011, 10:03:24 PM
I am enjoying this part of the discussion very much so thank you and LBK very much.

What I think about, once we get this far is how then do we teach our young people and converts how to recognize spiritually profitable icons in the east, and spiritually profitable sacred art in the west?

Good question... it would be easier to answer if we had any substantial amount of young people in our churches in the first place. I actually feel like in the Orthodox Church, there is a push to revive traditional iconography, and it is generally preferred to more modern artwork. On the other hand, many of the modern icons we produce look very cheesy, even if there's nothing technically wrong with them.

Since I grew up with traditional icons around me, it's difficult for me to tell how an outsider views them. For me, the difference between a good icon and a naughty one is intuitive. Are my tastes simply subjective? I don't know.

Quote
How do we, in the west, get away from the newly formed habit of "decorating" the "worship space" and get back to the production of sacred art used in liturgical worship and in private devotion and paraliturgical devotion....and when I speak of liturgical prayer, I speak here also of the divine office.

I really don't know. It's a problem that's foreign to my personal experience.

My guess is that learning to discern what is sacred is like learning a language: you can have it explained to you all day, but you'll never get it until you're immersed and conversing with it for a long time. For children, home upbringing is certainly the biggest influence on how they learn the Faith. I think the biggest reason that there are so few young people in churches today is that their parents simply didn't teach them to live out the Faith in daily life. Having something like an icon corner definitely makes an impression.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: stanley123 on October 14, 2011, 12:03:37 AM
The difference between you and I, and what likely lies at the heart of our disagreement, is that I don't conflate Orthodoxy with Byzantinism. The Eastern Orthodox tradition is not the whole of the picture, much as the anti-Latinists would like to believe otherwise.

But you're misrepresenting my position anyway. I'm not trying to equate the two, and already said I agreed with the icon's ability to portray things impossible by a statue. It's the supposed "antagonism" to statuary inherent in the theology of images that I find absurd.

I think I may be getting waaaayyyyy out of my depth here  ;D, but I'll ask anyway--what is the purpose of religious art, inclusive of icons and statuary?  And, did the "theologies" (and hence, the canons and/or "rules") of both the eastern and western traditions of sacred art develop as a response to the art forms or....were the art forms a response to "theology"?  Or...am I just asking the wrong question?  If icons (mainly but not exclusively eastern) and religious statuary (mainly but not exclusively western) are both forms of sacred art, but arising legitimately out of different but equally legitimate cultures and traditions; if both forms of art set out to achieve the same purpose, how could one be inherently better or more adequate or more sufficient than the other, **except** perhaps, that adherents of one tradition believe it so out of a deeper belief that that tradition is the only *correct* one?

(Do those questions make sense?)
There are a couple of articles on the internet about the difference between icons and western religious art. For example:
http://www.traditionaliconography.com/webgalleryart.html

Thanks for posting that, Stanley! 

I've read through more of the article (discovered it's by Paul Azkoul, btw--all I had to do was look  ;D).  I won't bother critiquing it any further than I have above, as I don't think he adds much to the discussion, nor has my opinion of it changed.  I've read/heard most of it before, from other Orthodox sources, and as far as I'm concerned he's preachin' to the (Orthodox) kleros.  Not necessarily a bad thing, but his bias is, well, enormous, and I think in a number of places he's just plain wrong, but that's just my *opinion* as a layman who is neither an artist, an iconographer, or a scholar.

You said there were a couple of articles online.  My google search for "differences between iconography and western religious art" didn't yield much.  What else were you referring to?
http://www.traditionaliconography.com/theology.asp
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on October 14, 2011, 12:09:29 PM
Quote
How do we, in the west, get away from the newly formed habit of "decorating" the "worship space"

The "decoration of worship space" by covering the interior with icons is nothing new at all. Even the second-century church at Dura Europos, a century before the Edict of Toleration, was covered in icons. And it is beyond question that in many ancient churches, some still standing to this day, icons, be they painted, or mosaic, were in profusion. Even in the post-iconoclastic period after the eighth century, ancient churches, and those of more recent provenance (including humble parish churches, not just the grand cathedrals) which are covered in icons are innumerable. And let's not forget the treasure of the Romanian "painted churches", whose external, as well as internal, walls are covered with icons.

If anything the "newly-formed habit" of Christian practice is the tendency of removing decoration from the "worship space". Untold destruction was inflicted on western churches (RCC and other denominations) in the aftermath of the Reformation, and, more recently, in the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council, in stripping out imagery and decorative elements, for a variety of reasons.

Oh my...I didn't expect you to do this with what I said, though I see how it happened.  Comes from not knowing one another very well which is predictable but I wasn't thinking to account for that when I wrote my post.  I thought my comment on burlap decorations in western Catholic parishes would clue you in to that which I was referring.

I do not mean that icons and iconic murals are decorations, in the way that I am talking about decorations.   I see large iconic murals more as "story telling" sacred art, rather than icons for immediate and direct veneration: Much like the paintings on walls in medieval cathedrals and basilicas.  They are not designed for or situated so that they are available for immediate and direct veneration.

There are large icons of saints on the walls of the Church where I spend most of my liturgical life...Those icons are situated so that they can easily be venerated directly by any of the members.   There are, for the moment, no icons or murals on or near the ceiling, or out of direct reach of the people.  Once those remote icons are in place then it is expected that they will be references to the story-telling of scripture and tradition.

That is not at all what I was referring to when I spoke of "decorating" a "worship space"... What I was referring to there are large and temporary pieces of installation art used to invoke some aspect of Advent or Lent, for example, in Roman rite parishes.

I don't think I want to pursue that more in terms of western practice.  I see that Rufus did catch my drift and we can most likely take the next step from his post.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: J Michael on October 14, 2011, 12:53:47 PM
The difference between you and I, and what likely lies at the heart of our disagreement, is that I don't conflate Orthodoxy with Byzantinism. The Eastern Orthodox tradition is not the whole of the picture, much as the anti-Latinists would like to believe otherwise.

But you're misrepresenting my position anyway. I'm not trying to equate the two, and already said I agreed with the icon's ability to portray things impossible by a statue. It's the supposed "antagonism" to statuary inherent in the theology of images that I find absurd.

I think I may be getting waaaayyyyy out of my depth here  ;D, but I'll ask anyway--what is the purpose of religious art, inclusive of icons and statuary?  And, did the "theologies" (and hence, the canons and/or "rules") of both the eastern and western traditions of sacred art develop as a response to the art forms or....were the art forms a response to "theology"?  Or...am I just asking the wrong question?  If icons (mainly but not exclusively eastern) and religious statuary (mainly but not exclusively western) are both forms of sacred art, but arising legitimately out of different but equally legitimate cultures and traditions; if both forms of art set out to achieve the same purpose, how could one be inherently better or more adequate or more sufficient than the other, **except** perhaps, that adherents of one tradition believe it so out of a deeper belief that that tradition is the only *correct* one?

(Do those questions make sense?)
There are a couple of articles on the internet about the difference between icons and western religious art. For example:
http://www.traditionaliconography.com/webgalleryart.html

Thanks for posting that, Stanley! 

I've read through more of the article (discovered it's by Paul Azkoul, btw--all I had to do was look  ;D).  I won't bother critiquing it any further than I have above, as I don't think he adds much to the discussion, nor has my opinion of it changed.  I've read/heard most of it before, from other Orthodox sources, and as far as I'm concerned he's preachin' to the (Orthodox) kleros.  Not necessarily a bad thing, but his bias is, well, enormous, and I think in a number of places he's just plain wrong, but that's just my *opinion* as a layman who is neither an artist, an iconographer, or a scholar.

You said there were a couple of articles online.  My google search for "differences between iconography and western religious art" didn't yield much.  What else were you referring to?
http://www.traditionaliconography.com/theology.asp

Well, okay.  It's certainly a better article if for nothing more than the fact that he writes about that which he knows rather than ranting about that which he does not.  He does offer a decent, brief exposition of the topic of iconography, though.

If anyone knows of any other discussions of eastern/western liturgical art, I'm certainly interested.

Because I wasn't raised in any Christian tradition whatsoever, I found Mary's comment that western Christians do not, on the whole, "venerate" sacred art quite interesting.  Come to think of it, on looking back over my experiences in the western Catholic Church, I would only have to confirm that.  What I have noticed, though, on many occasions, is people bowing before, kneeling in front of statues of the Mother of God or a patron saint and praying.  How might this differ in essence from the eastern veneration of icons, I wonder?  Or, indeed, does it?  What I do know, though, is that they are not "worshiping" an idol or the statue itself.

Mary, perhaps you could explain your statement: "I see that Rufus did catch my drift and we can most likely take the next step from his post."  The fog in my brain is keeping me from decoding your meaning... ;)

JM

Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on October 14, 2011, 01:14:05 PM
Mary, perhaps you could explain your statement: "I see that Rufus did catch my drift and we can most likely take the next step from his post."  The fog in my brain is keeping me from decoding your meaning... ;)

JM



Nothing to decode actually.  I simply meant that Rufus caught what I was trying to talk about while LBK picked up on an opening that I had not covered sufficiently.  Rufus's reply leaves me more room to take the next step...or anyone.  I haven't replied yet and may not have time today...dunno.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: J Michael on October 14, 2011, 01:35:47 PM
Mary, perhaps you could explain your statement: "I see that Rufus did catch my drift and we can most likely take the next step from his post."  The fog in my brain is keeping me from decoding your meaning... ;)

JM



Nothing to decode actually.  I simply meant that Rufus caught what I was trying to talk about while LBK picked up on an opening that I had not covered sufficiently.  Rufus's reply leaves me more room to take the next step...or anyone.  I haven't replied yet and may not have time today...dunno.

There I go, reading things that I guess weren't there  ;D.  It just sort of sounded as if you had a particular "next step" in mind.  Guess not.... :)
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on October 14, 2011, 01:40:56 PM
Mary, perhaps you could explain your statement: "I see that Rufus did catch my drift and we can most likely take the next step from his post."  The fog in my brain is keeping me from decoding your meaning... ;)

JM



Nothing to decode actually.  I simply meant that Rufus caught what I was trying to talk about while LBK picked up on an opening that I had not covered sufficiently.  Rufus's reply leaves me more room to take the next step...or anyone.  I haven't replied yet and may not have time today...dunno.

There I go, reading things that I guess weren't there  ;D.  It just sort of sounded as if you had a particular "next step" in mind.  Guess not.... :)

Not till I have time to think about it, or somebody else thinks of something... ;)
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: stanley123 on October 14, 2011, 03:34:46 PM
If anything the "newly-formed habit" of Christian practice is the tendency of removing decoration from the "worship space". Untold destruction was inflicted on western churches (RCC and other denominations) in the aftermath of the Reformation, and, more recently, in the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council, in stripping out imagery and decorative elements, for a variety of reasons.
It is sad to see so many RC Churches stripped of their statues, images and other decorative which has happened in the last few decades.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: J Michael on October 14, 2011, 04:08:52 PM
If anything the "newly-formed habit" of Christian practice is the tendency of removing decoration from the "worship space". Untold destruction was inflicted on western churches (RCC and other denominations) in the aftermath of the Reformation, and, more recently, in the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council, in stripping out imagery and decorative elements, for a variety of reasons.
It is sad to see so many RC Churches stripped of their statues, images and other decorative which has happened in the last few decades.

Indeed, it is!  The church architecture (exterior and interior) of the 60's, 70's, and 80's is in many ways a real travesty.  Fortunately, that stark minimalism seems to be on the way out.  Unfortunately, some of those ugly creations will hang around for many more years.  The insides, however, are much more amenable to restoration/rehabilitation than the structures themselves.  Keep prayin'!  Our parish is gradually re-doing the interior to make it much more a beautiful worship space and less of a barn.  Change comes slowly and unfortunately, costs money.  But, you know, for all of that "stuff" or lack of it--statues, paintings, icons, etc., etc., "For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them" Matt. 18:20.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: LBK on October 14, 2011, 06:09:10 PM
Quote
I do not mean that icons and iconic murals are decorations, in the way that I am talking about decorations.   I see large iconic murals more as "story telling" sacred art, rather than icons for immediate and direct veneration: Much like the paintings on walls in medieval cathedrals and basilicas.  They are not designed for or situated so that they are available for immediate and direct veneration.

Just because mural icons are out of physical reach of lips and hands does not mean they are not venerated. At every liturgical service they are censed and bowed before. Censing is no less a gesture of veneration than is kissing. It is a small, but very important detail that, all too often, gets missed in people's understanding of iconography.

On stanley123's and J Michael's comments on modern RCC churches:

I had cause in recent months to attend the confirmation and first communion of a family member. Never mind the barn-like early-seventies interior, or the pre-recorded modern songs, this was the least of the problem. What shocked and grieved me far more was the almost total lack of reverence and sense of place and occasion, even though the bishop was present. Indeed, at one stage, the bishop himself invited the little ones to stand with him behind the Holy Table. The whole ceremony was all so .... casual. So sad. So very sad.


Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on October 14, 2011, 06:34:34 PM

Just because mural icons are out of physical reach of lips and hands does not mean they are not venerated. At every liturgical service they are censed and bowed before. Censing is no less a gesture of veneration than is kissing. It is a small, but very important detail that, all too often, gets missed in people's understanding of iconography.


There are other kinds of veneration besides direct and immediate.  I recognize that fact.

I have never seen a bishop, priest or patriarch self-consciously and obviously try to incense the ceiling or anything above eight or ten feet above the ground...but perhaps you have.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: LBK on October 14, 2011, 06:42:14 PM
Incense rises, EM. And the highest point in an Orthodox church is the icon of Christ Pantokrator, looking down over all from the dome or ceiling.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on October 14, 2011, 06:46:28 PM
Incense rises, EM. And the highest point in an Orthodox church is the icon of Christ Pantokrator, looking down over all from the dome or ceiling.

The point is that generally, beyond a certain point, the iconic images begin to take on the aspect of the stories of the faith more so that being images of individual persons.  So that there are variations in what one might call "veneration" depending on what the image portrays and is meant to convey.

Now IF one imagines or asserts that "veneration" means simply a reverence for the truths of the faith told in images, well then we may say that Roman rite Catholics actually DO venerate their sacred art...but then we are moving away from a direct and immediate veneration of a particular person or grouping of persons.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: LBK on October 14, 2011, 06:56:17 PM
Quote
The point is that generally, beyond a certain point, the iconic images begin to take on the aspect of the stories of the faith more so that being images of individual persons.  So that there are variations in what one might call "veneration" depending on what the image portrays and is meant to convey.

The Orthodox Church celebrates feasts of events in salvation history, as well as sainted and holy individuals. Icons of these feasts are painted as murals, usually in the higher registers of the walls of churches, and on iconostases above the main row, and, of course, displayed on the respective feastday as portable icons for direct, personal veneration. It's all part of the same totality of worship and commemoration.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on October 14, 2011, 07:02:53 PM
Quote
The point is that generally, beyond a certain point, the iconic images begin to take on the aspect of the stories of the faith more so that being images of individual persons.  So that there are variations in what one might call "veneration" depending on what the image portrays and is meant to convey.

The Orthodox Church celebrates feasts of events in salvation history, as well as sainted and holy individuals. Icons of these feasts are painted as murals, usually in the higher registers of the walls of churches, and on iconostases above the main row, and, of course, displayed on the respective feastday as portable icons for direct, personal veneration. It's all part of the same totality of worship and commemoration.

Sacred art as story-telling is understood to be as much about the anthropology of the Church as it is the spirituality of the Church.  It was the catechism of the un-lettered.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: LBK on October 14, 2011, 07:08:41 PM
At its heart, iconography is a proclamation of the Incarnation. The invisible God becoming material for our sake. The iconoclasts were all, without exception, deniers and distorters of the fullness of the incarnation.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on October 14, 2011, 08:02:22 PM
At its heart, iconography is a proclamation of the Incarnation. The invisible God becoming material for our sake. The iconoclasts were all, without exception, deniers and distorters of the fullness of the incarnation.

I think you overstate your point a good bit.  There seems to me to be pretty wide variation even in Orthodoxy concerning the layering of iconography in any give jurisdiction.  Some are more dense than others in their adornment of their temples.   Should we take that to mean that the less densely adorned are not fully full of the fullness of the incarnation?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Rufus on October 14, 2011, 09:30:03 PM
Incense rises, EM. And the highest point in an Orthodox church is the icon of Christ Pantokrator, looking down over all from the dome or ceiling.

Someone did actually venerate the Pantokrator in the dome at my church once. Only once. No one else has ever found a way up there.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on October 14, 2011, 09:32:29 PM
Incense rises, EM. And the highest point in an Orthodox church is the icon of Christ Pantokrator, looking down over all from the dome or ceiling.

Someone did actually venerate the Pantokrator in the dome at my church once. Only once. No one else has ever found a way up there.

I love it!!  Good for them!!   

I'd love to have witnessed the climb!
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: biro on October 14, 2011, 09:34:23 PM
Wow. Lucky he.  :angel:
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: stanley123 on October 15, 2011, 03:50:33 AM
I had cause in recent months to attend the confirmation and first communion of a family member.
I thought it was against the canons of the Orthodox Church for an Orthodox to pray with Catholics in a Catholic Church?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: J Michael on October 15, 2011, 11:39:49 AM
Quote
I do not mean that icons and iconic murals are decorations, in the way that I am talking about decorations.   I see large iconic murals more as "story telling" sacred art, rather than icons for immediate and direct veneration: Much like the paintings on walls in medieval cathedrals and basilicas.  They are not designed for or situated so that they are available for immediate and direct veneration.

Just because mural icons are out of physical reach of lips and hands does not mean they are not venerated. At every liturgical service they are censed and bowed before. Censing is no less a gesture of veneration than is kissing. It is a small, but very important detail that, all too often, gets missed in people's understanding of iconography.

On stanley123's and J Michael's comments on modern RCC churches:

I had cause in recent months to attend the confirmation and first communion of a family member. Never mind the barn-like early-seventies interior, or the pre-recorded modern songs, this was the least of the problem. What shocked and grieved me far more was the almost total lack of reverence and sense of place and occasion, even though the bishop was present. Indeed, at one stage, the bishop himself invited the little ones to stand with him behind the Holy Table. The whole ceremony was all so .... casual. So sad. So very sad.




With regards to the bolded above, this has been discussed many times.  Degree of "reverence, sense of place...." is, I believe, more a function of the tone set by the pastor and the level of catechesis than of either Orthodoxy or Catholicism, per se.  I have seen in Orthodox churches (yes, plural) the very same casualness, lack of reverence, etc. that you unfortunately found at the Catholic church you attended.  Lamentable *wherever* it occurs. 


Back to icons--I wonder when icons started to be venerated the way they are today--anyone?  I was always taught that their initial and primary function was, as Mary states, catehesis of an illiterate population.  Did veneration come later or was it always done?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: LBK on October 16, 2011, 07:48:51 AM
At its heart, iconography is a proclamation of the Incarnation. The invisible God becoming material for our sake. The iconoclasts were all, without exception, deniers and distorters of the fullness of the incarnation.

I think you overstate your point a good bit.  There seems to me to be pretty wide variation even in Orthodoxy concerning the layering of iconography in any give jurisdiction.  Some are more dense than others in their adornment of their temples.   Should we take that to mean that the less densely adorned are not fully full of the fullness of the incarnation?

Again, you miss my point, EM. Here's a seminal quote from St John of Damascus:

Of old, the incorporeal and uncircumscribed God was not depicted at all. But now that God has appeared in the flesh and lived among men, I make an image of the God who can be seen. I do not worship matter, but I worship the Creator of matter, who through matter effected my salvation. I will not cease to venerate the matter through which my salvation has been effected.


In other words, the existence of icons and their veneration is nothing less than a declaration of the fullness of the Incarnation of God. It's not how many icons, but their very presence that is important.

On the matter of the variation between churches on the number of icons present within them, it's simply a matter of availability of resources. In  many parts of the world where Orthodoxy is not the dominant faith, local trained iconographers were unavailable until quite recently. In the city where I live, the first Orthodox church to have its walls fully painted with icons had this done barely twenty years ago, with iconographers brought in from Greece. Back then, the cost would have been in the order of $50,000. Since that time, only three more of the approximately twenty Orthodox churches in this city are fully-painted, two of them by locally-trained iconographers. All credit to them.

However, even in fledgling parishes and missions held in rented premises and people's homes, the bare minimum of an icon of Christ and of the Mother of God is required for any liturgical service to proceed (and, in the case of a Divine Liturgy, an antimension). It is simply not possible to conduct an Orthodox service without icons.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: LBK on October 16, 2011, 07:55:32 AM
I had cause in recent months to attend the confirmation and first communion of a family member.
I thought it was against the canons of the Orthodox Church for an Orthodox to pray with Catholics in a Catholic Church?

Is your entire family Roman Catholic, stanley123? Are there no mixed marriages in your family?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: LBK on October 16, 2011, 07:59:35 AM
Quote
Degree of "reverence, sense of place...." is, I believe, more a function of the tone set by the pastor and the level of catechesis than of either Orthodoxy or Catholicism, per se.

Then can anyone explain such laxity in the presence of, and with the encouragement of, the archbishop himself? This is what I found incomprehensible. I can quite understand the consternation felt by good, pious RCs when such transgressions are allowed to occur, promoted by senior clergy.  :( :(
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: LBK on October 16, 2011, 08:06:27 AM
Quote
Back to icons--I wonder when icons started to be venerated the way they are today--anyone?  I was always taught that their initial and primary function was, as Mary states, catehesis of an illiterate population.  Did veneration come later or was it always done?

Icons, from the very beginning, have been venerated in the same way we do to this day, as were the relics of saints and martyrs. Indeed, the practice of incorporating a relic of a saint into altars and antimensia arose from the catacomb days of conducting liturgies on the tombs of martyrs. These tombs were the original "church altars". Later, particularly after Roman persecution ended, innumerable churches were built over the graves of saints, all over the Christian world. The "theology for the illiterate" explanation is not untrue, but it is only a small part of the reason for the existence and necessity of icons and their veneration.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Wyatt on October 16, 2011, 01:35:20 PM
I had cause in recent months to attend the confirmation and first communion of a family member.
I thought it was against the canons of the Orthodox Church for an Orthodox to pray with Catholics in a Catholic Church?

Is your entire family Roman Catholic, stanley123? Are there no mixed marriages in your family?
He's referring to comments made on this forum about how it is sinful for an Eastern Orthodox Christian to "pray with heretics."
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: stanley123 on October 17, 2011, 12:31:54 AM
I had cause in recent months to attend the confirmation and first communion of a family member.
I thought it was against the canons of the Orthodox Church for an Orthodox to pray with Catholics in a Catholic Church?

Is your entire family Roman Catholic, stanley123? Are there no mixed marriages in your family?
He's referring to comments made on this forum about how it is sinful for an Eastern Orthodox Christian to "pray with heretics."
Yes. I thought that was against the canons of the Orthodox Church to pray with heretics?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Cavaradossi on October 17, 2011, 03:03:33 AM
I had cause in recent months to attend the confirmation and first communion of a family member.
I thought it was against the canons of the Orthodox Church for an Orthodox to pray with Catholics in a Catholic Church?

Is your entire family Roman Catholic, stanley123? Are there no mixed marriages in your family?
He's referring to comments made on this forum about how it is sinful for an Eastern Orthodox Christian to "pray with heretics."
Yes. I thought that was against the canons of the Orthodox Church to pray with heretics?

Especially ones that worship body parts, so I guess LBK is SOL. I guess LBK might as well confess now, and receive 20 years of penance for denying the Orthodox faith. ::)









(it's a great thing that canons aren't a rigid legal code, isn't it?)
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: LBK on October 17, 2011, 05:12:27 AM
Yup, just as I thought. Diversions and non-sequiturs. Stanley and Wyatt, you two are incapable of continuing a discussion properly and sensibly because you have no real answers to what I have to say.  ::)
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: J Michael on October 17, 2011, 10:36:42 AM
Quote
Degree of "reverence, sense of place...." is, I believe, more a function of the tone set by the pastor and the level of catechesis than of either Orthodoxy or Catholicism, per se.

Then can anyone explain such laxity in the presence of, and with the encouragement of, the archbishop himself? This is what I found incomprehensible. I can quite understand the consternation felt by good, pious RCs when such transgressions are allowed to occur, promoted by senior clergy.  :( :(

If it was, indeed, as you portray it and the archbishop himself was presiding, well...all I can say is, shame on him!  He is not the first, nor will he be the last archbishop, Catholic or Orthodox, to countenance such behavior.  Appalling and lamentable.  The good news, though, *is* the Good News and that the gates of hell shall not prevail...
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Wyatt on October 17, 2011, 12:12:40 PM
Yup, just as I thought. Diversions and non-sequiturs. Stanley and Wyatt, you two are incapable of continuing a discussion properly and sensibly because you have no real answers to what I have to say.  ::)
Say something sensible and perhaps we will.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: stanley123 on October 17, 2011, 02:09:07 PM
Yup, just as I thought. Diversions and non-sequiturs. Stanley and Wyatt, you two are incapable of continuing a discussion properly and sensibly because you have no real answers to what I have to say.  ::)
I agree with you on icons and their value in Christianity. Also, I understand that not every religious image would be considered an Orthodox (or orthodox) icon, because there are certain conditions which have to be fulfilled for that, including prayer, fasting, and the image represented icon must be in the long honored tradition and style as is taught and known by the Orthodox Church.
I personally don't see the problem with the Sacred Heart Image as it represents the love of Our Divine Lord for humanity, so I would not agree with you on that, although obviously it is not in the Eastern Orthodox tradition.
I mentioned a canon of the Orthodox Church since I thought it applied in the case you had brought up.
Maybe there is such a canon, maybe not, but we hear about it often enough.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: LBK on October 17, 2011, 05:40:06 PM
Quote
I personally don't see the problem with the Sacred Heart Image as it represents the love of Our Divine Lord for humanity, so I would not agree with you on that, although obviously it is not in the Eastern Orthodox tradition.
I mentioned a canon of the Orthodox Church since I thought it applied in the case you had brought up.
Maybe there is such a canon, maybe not, but we hear about it often enough.

The canon is Canon 82, of the Quinisext Ecumenical Council. It decrees that Christ is to be portrayed in icons in the fullness of His revelation (as God and Man), and not as an abstraction or metaphysical concept. IIRC, I posted the text of this canon earlier in this thread.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: stanley123 on October 17, 2011, 07:15:14 PM
Quote
I personally don't see the problem with the Sacred Heart Image as it represents the love of Our Divine Lord for humanity, so I would not agree with you on that, although obviously it is not in the Eastern Orthodox tradition.
I mentioned a canon of the Orthodox Church since I thought it applied in the case you had brought up.
Maybe there is such a canon, maybe not, but we hear about it often enough.

The canon is Canon 82, of the Quinisext Ecumenical Council. It decrees that Christ is to be portrayed in icons in the fullness of His revelation (as God and Man), and not as an abstraction or metaphysical concept. IIRC, I posted the text of this canon earlier in this thread.
Ok. I am not sure exactly how to interpret that, but would you say it applies to both East and West? Of course, the West also has religious images which may not meet the requirements for a Byzantine iconic image, but are still venerated.
When I spoke about Church canons, I was speaking about what I thought I read on this board (not this thread) concerning a canon which forbids praying with heretics. How seriously are Orthodox supposed to take these canons?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on October 17, 2011, 08:13:31 PM
Quote
I personally don't see the problem with the Sacred Heart Image as it represents the love of Our Divine Lord for humanity, so I would not agree with you on that, although obviously it is not in the Eastern Orthodox tradition.
I mentioned a canon of the Orthodox Church since I thought it applied in the case you had brought up.
Maybe there is such a canon, maybe not, but we hear about it often enough.

The canon is Canon 82, of the Quinisext Ecumenical Council. It decrees that Christ is to be portrayed in icons in the fullness of His revelation (as God and Man), and not as an abstraction or metaphysical concept. IIRC, I posted the text of this canon earlier in this thread.

 :D

He may be there mystically in the fullness of his divinty but I'll be darned if it is the "fault" of the iconographer's talent or lack there-of...

So however you cut it...the PRESENTATION of divinity is mystical or abstract in so far as it is impossible to render it in its FULLNESS and it is the PRESENCE that we can HOPE for but to PRESENT it?....I don't think so.

C'mon....
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: LBK on October 17, 2011, 09:07:14 PM
Quote
Ok. I am not sure exactly how to interpret that,

Here is Canon 82 (bold is my emphasis):

In certain reproductions of venerable images, the Forerunner is pictured pointing to the lamb with his finger. This representation was adopted as a symbol of grace. It was a hidden figure of that true Lamb who is Christ our God, shown to us according to the Law. Having thus welcomed these ancient figures and shadows as symbols of the truth transmitted to the Church, we prefer today grace and truth themselves, as a fulfilment of the Law. Therefore, in order to expose the sight of all, at least with the help of painting, that which is perfect, we decree that henceforth, Christ our God be represented in His human form, and not in the form of the ancient lamb. We understand this to be the elevation of the humility of God the Word, and we are led to remembering His life in the flesh, His Passion, His salvific death, and thus, deliverance which took place for the world.

The interpretation of the Canon from The Rudder:

In certain reproductions of venerable images, the Forerunner is pictured pointing to the lamb with his finger. This representation was adopted as a symbol of grace. It was a hidden figure of that true Lamb who is Christ our God, shown to us according to the Law. Having thus welcomed these ancient figures and shadows as symbols of the truth transmitted to the Church, we prefer today grace and truth themselves, as a fulfilment of the Law. Therefore, in order to expose the sight of all, at least with the help of painting, that which is perfect, we decree that henceforth, Christ our God be represented in His human form, and not in the form of the ancient lamb. We understand this to be the elevation of the humility of God the Word, and we are led to remembering His life in the flesh, His Passion, His salvific death, and thus, deliverance which took place for the world.

In other words, symbolic or abstracted representations of Christ are inferior in proclaiming the fullness of the revelation of God Incarnate.

And this analysis, from chapter 7 of Leonid Ouspensky's Theology of the Icon:

The first sentence of the canon explains the situation existing at that time. It speaks of St. John the Baptist (the "Precursor") pointing out Christ, who is represented as a lamb. We know that the realistic image of Christ, His adequate portrait, existed from the beginning, and it is this portrait which is the true witness of His incarnation. In addition, there were also larger cycles representing subjects from the Old and New Testaments, particularly those of our major feasts, where Christ was represented in His human form. And yet symbolic representations replacing the human image of Christ also existed in the seventh century. This attachment to the biblical prefigurations, in particular to the image of the lamb, was particularly widespread in the West. It was necessary, however, to guide the faithful towards the stand adopted by the Church, and this is what Canon 82 of the Quinisext Council does.

Because it is the truth which came through Jesus Christ, it is not a matter of translating a word into images, but of showing the truth itself, the fulfilment of the words. Indeed, when he was speaking of "the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world," it was not a lamb at which St. John the Baptist was pointing but rather Jesus Christ Himself, the Son of God who became Man and came to the world to fulfil the law and to offer Himself in sacrifice. It is He who was prefigured by the lamb of the Old Testament. It is this fulfilment, this reality, this truth which had to be shown to everyone. Thus the truth is revealed not only by the word, but it is also shown by the image. The text of the canon implies an absolute denial of all abstractions and of all metaphysical conceptions of religion. Truth has its own image. For it is not an idea or an abstract formula, it is concrete and living, it is a Person, the Person, "crucified under Pontius Pilate." When Pilate asks Christ, "What is truth?" (John 18:38), Christ answers by remaining silent before him. Pilate leaves, without even awaiting an answer, knowing that a whole multitude of answers can be given to this question without one of them being valid. For it is the Church alone which possesses the answer to the question of Pilate. Christ says to His apostles: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life" (John 14:6). The correct question is not "What is truth?" but rather "Who is the truth?" Truth is a person, and it has an image. This is why the Church not only speaks of the truth, but also shows the truth: the image of Jesus Christ.

The council orders that the symbols of the Old Testament, used in the first centuries of Christianity, be replaced by direct representations of the truth they prefigured. It calls for the unveiling of their meaning. The image contained in the symbols of the Old Testament becomes reality in the incarnation. Since the Word became flesh and lived among us, the image must directly show that which happened in time and became visible, representable and describable.

Thus the ancient symbols are suppressed because a direct image now, exists and, in relation to this direct image, these symbols are belated manifestations of "Jewish immaturity." As long as the wheat was not ripe, their existence was justified, even indispensable, since they contributed to its maturation. But in "the wheat ripe with truth," their role was no longer constructive. They even became a negative force because they reduced the principal importance and role of the direct image. As soon as a direct image is replaced by a symbol, it loses the absolute importance it embodies.

The Fathers and the Christological councils had found clear and precise dogmatic formulas to express, as much as it was possible to do in words, the teaching of the Church on the incarnation of God. But words were not enough: The truth still had to be defended for a long time against those who did not accept it, in spite of the extreme clarity of conciliar decrees and patristic formulas. It was not only necessary to speak the truth, it was also necessary to show it. In the realm of the image, it was also necessary to make a rigorous confession which would stand up against the obscure and confused doctrines which everyone could accept equivocally, but which were not true. It was not a matter of finding a compromise to satisfy everyone, but of clearly confessing the truth, so "that this fulfilment might be seen by all," according to the words of Canon 82.

Thus Canon 82 of the Quinisext Council expresses, for the first time, the teaching of the Church on the icon and simultaneously indicates the possibility of conveying a reflection of the divine glory through the means of art and with the help of some symbolism. It emphasises all the importance of historical reality, acknowledging the realistic image, but only one which is represented in a special way, with the help of a symbolic language that reveals the spiritual reality which only the Orthodox teaching conveys. It considers that the symbols, "the figures and shadows," do not express the fullness of grace, although they are worthy of respect and may correspond to the needs of a given epoch. The iconographic symbol is therefore not completely excluded. But its importance is seen as secondary. Our own contemporary iconography still retains several of these symbols: for example, the three stars on the robe of the Virgin, which denote her virginity before, during and after the nativity, or else a hand descending from the sky to designate the divine presence. But this iconographic symbolism is relegated to its secondary place and never replaces the direct image.

Canon 82 expresses, for the first time, what we call the iconographic canon, i.e. a set criterion for the liturgical quality of an image, just as the "canon of Scripture" establishes the liturgical quality of a text. The iconographic canon is a principle allowing us to judge whether an image is an icon or not. It establishes the conformity of the icon with Holy Scripture and defines what this conformity consists in: the authenticity of the transmission of the divine revelation in historical reality, by means of what we call symbolic realism, and in a way that truly reflects the Kingdom of God.


Quote
but would you say it applies to both East and West?

Does the Roman Catholic Church accept the canons of the Quinisext Council?


Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: LBK on October 17, 2011, 09:11:02 PM
May I add that one aspect which distinguishes iconography from other religious art is its depiction of feasts of the Church, particularly with the feasts of the Nativity of the Lord, and the Resurrection. The composition of proper Orthodox icons of these feasts is very different to the common western depictions.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Deacon Lance on October 17, 2011, 10:01:43 PM
Does the Roman Catholic Church accept the canons of the Quinisext Council?

Not canons 13,32,36,52,55,56,81,82,90.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: stanley123 on October 17, 2011, 10:07:22 PM
Does the Roman Catholic Church accept the canons of the Quinisext Council?

Not canons 13,32,36,52,55,56,81,82,90.
That's interesting. When did the RCC explicitly reject these canons?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: LBK on October 17, 2011, 10:39:12 PM
Does the Roman Catholic Church accept the canons of the Quinisext Council?

Not canons 13,32,36,52,55,56,81,82,90.
That's interesting. When did the RCC explicitly reject these canons?

More importantly, why did the RCC reject them? The rejection, if this is the case, of Canon 82 would explain very well the gulf between Orthodox iconography and western religious art, in form, function, and understanding.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Deacon Lance on October 17, 2011, 11:20:53 PM
Does the Roman Catholic Church accept the canons of the Quinisext Council?

Not canons 13,32,36,52,55,56,81,82,90.
That's interesting. When did the RCC explicitly reject these canons?

Always.  These canons were written with the pratices of the Latin and in some cases the Armenian and Syriac Churches in mind.  A local synod, in this case a Byzantine one, saw fit to tell other Churches what they should or should not be doing exhibiting the same arrogance the Byzantine Church accused the Latin Church of.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Deacon Lance on October 17, 2011, 11:26:04 PM
More importantly, why did the RCC reject them? The rejection, if this is the case, of Canon 82 would explain very well the gulf between Orthodox iconography and western religious art, in form, function, and understanding.

Canon 82 proscribes the image of the Lamb of God which had traditionally been used in the Roman Church for some time.  One may also ask what power or right a local Synod had to proscribe the uses of other Churches not under their jurisdiction. 
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: ialmisry on October 18, 2011, 12:53:57 AM
Does the Roman Catholic Church accept the canons of the Quinisext Council?

Not canons 13,32,36,52,55,56,81,82,90.
That's interesting. When did the RCC explicitly reject these canons?

Always.  These canons were written with the pratices of the Latin and in some cases the Armenian and Syriac Churches in mind.  A local synod, in this case a Byzantine one, saw fit to tell other Churches what they should or should not be doing exhibiting the same arrogance the Byzantine Church accused the Latin Church of.
Ea Semper.

The Latin church created its Byzantine church.

As for the Church of Constantinople and the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (II-III) held in Trullo
Quote
Hefele.  Hist. of the Councils, Vol. V., p. 222.)

The year 6199 of the Constantinopolitan era coincides with the year 691 after Christ and the IVth Indiction ran from September 1, 690, to August 31, 691.  If then, our Synod, in canon iij., speaks of the 15th of January in the past Indiction IV., it means January 691; but it belongs itself, to the Vth Indiction, i.e., it was opened after September 1, 691, and before September 1, 692.

As this is not a history of the Councils but a collection of their decrees and canons with illustrative notes, the only other point to be considered is the reception these canons met with.

The decrees were signed first by the Emperor, the next place was left vacant for the Pope, then followed the subscriptions of the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Antioch, the whole number being 211, bishops or representatives of bishops.  It is not quite certain whether any of the Patriarchs were present except Paul of Constantinople; but taking it all in all the probability is in favour of their presence. Blank places were left for the bishops of Thessalonica, Sardinia, Ravenna and Corinth.  The Archbishop of Gortyna in Crete added to his signature the phrase “Holding the place of the holy Church of Rome in every synod.”  He had in the same way signed the decrees of III. Constantinople, Crete belonging to the Roman Patriarchate; as to whether his delegation on the part of the Roman Synod continued or was merely made to continue by his own volition we have no information.  The ridiculous blunder of Balsamon must be noted here, who asserts that the bishops whose names are missing and for which blank places were left, had actually signed.

Pope Sergius refused to sign the decrees when they were sent to him, rejected them as “lacking authority” (invalidi) and described them as containing “novel errors.”  With the efforts to extort his signature we have no concern further than to state that they signally failed.  Later on, in the time of Pope Constantine, a middle course seems to have been adopted, a course subsequently in the ninth century thus expressed by Pope John VIII., “he accepted all those canons which did not contradict the true faith, good morals, and the decrees of Rome,” a truly notable statement!  Nearly a century later Pope Hadrian I. distinctly recognizes all the Trullan decrees in his letter to Tenasius of Constantinople and attributes them to the Sixth Synod.  “All the holy six synods I receive with all their canons, which rightly and divinely were promulgated by them, among which is contained that in which reference is made to a Lamb being pointed to by the Precursor as being found in certain of the venerable images.”  Here the reference is unmistakably to the Trullan Canon LXXXII.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiv.ii.html
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: ialmisry on October 18, 2011, 12:55:20 AM
More importantly, why did the RCC reject them? The rejection, if this is the case, of Canon 82 would explain very well the gulf between Orthodox iconography and western religious art, in form, function, and understanding.

Canon 82 proscribes the image of the Lamb of God which had traditionally been used in the Roman Church for some time.  One may also ask what power or right a local Synod had to proscribe the uses of other Churches not under their jurisdiction. 
Simple. It wasn't a local synod.  (btw, in contrast, the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople I was convened as a local council).
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: LBK on October 18, 2011, 12:59:19 AM
More importantly, why did the RCC reject them? The rejection, if this is the case, of Canon 82 would explain very well the gulf between Orthodox iconography and western religious art, in form, function, and understanding.

Canon 82 proscribes the image of the Lamb of God which had traditionally been used in the Roman Church for some time.  One may also ask what power or right a local Synod had to proscribe the uses of other Churches not under their jurisdiction. 
Simple. It wasn't a local synod.  (btw, in contrast, the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople I was convened as a local council).

How very interesting. So it seems that an Ecumenical Council is not really ecumenical, according to the RCC? Or that the RCC still regards the Quinisext Council as ecumenical, but has chosen to not abide by some of its canons? Hmmm.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: ialmisry on October 18, 2011, 01:14:19 AM
More importantly, why did the RCC reject them? The rejection, if this is the case, of Canon 82 would explain very well the gulf between Orthodox iconography and western religious art, in form, function, and understanding.

Canon 82 proscribes the image of the Lamb of God which had traditionally been used in the Roman Church for some time.  One may also ask what power or right a local Synod had to proscribe the uses of other Churches not under their jurisdiction. 
Simple. It wasn't a local synod.  (btw, in contrast, the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople I was convened as a local council).

How very interesting. So it seems that an Ecumenical Council is not really ecumenical, according to the RCC? Or that the RCC still regards the Quinisext Council as ecumenical, but has chosen to not abide by some of its canons? Hmmm.
It's not the only case for the Vatican: Orthodox Rome accepted Constantinople IV (879), until the late 11th century, when the Vatican decided it would rather have the voided council of Constantinople of 869 and its canons in its Investiture Controversy.

Odd that Deacon Lance should bring it up, as Quintsext/Pentheke is one of those things guarenteed in the "unions," and cast aside for Latinization (e.g. the Apostolic practice of married clergy).
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: stanley123 on October 18, 2011, 01:17:54 AM
More importantly, why did the RCC reject them? The rejection, if this is the case, of Canon 82 would explain very well the gulf between Orthodox iconography and western religious art, in form, function, and understanding.

Canon 82 proscribes the image of the Lamb of God which had traditionally been used in the Roman Church for some time.  One may also ask what power or right a local Synod had to proscribe the uses of other Churches not under their jurisdiction. 
Simple. It wasn't a local synod.  (btw, in contrast, the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople I was convened as a local council).

How very interesting. So it seems that an Ecumenical Council is not really ecumenical, according to the RCC? Or that the RCC still regards the Quinisext Council as ecumenical, but has chosen to not abide by some of its canons? Hmmm.
It looks like the split between East and West was already in place by this time with EO accepting the canons of Trullo but RC rejecting them, at least to some extent.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Deacon Lance on October 18, 2011, 01:18:11 AM
How very interesting. So it seems that an Ecumenical Council is not really ecumenical, according to the RCC? Or that the RCC still regards the Quinisext Council as ecumenical, but has chosen to not abide by some of its canons? Hmmm.

Rome does not regard the Trullan synod as ecumenical although it does not proscribe the majority of its canons.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Deacon Lance on October 18, 2011, 01:20:28 AM
Odd that Deacon Lance should bring it up, as Quintsext/Pentheke is one of those things guarenteed in the "unions," and cast aside for Latinization (e.g. the Apostolic practice of married clergy).

Married clergy is much older than the Trullan synod.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: ialmisry on October 18, 2011, 01:22:11 AM
Odd that Deacon Lance should bring it up, as Quintsext/Pentheke is one of those things guarenteed in the "unions," and cast aside for Latinization (e.g. the Apostolic practice of married clergy).

Married clergy is much older than the Trullan synod.
yes, and the Trullan Council has kept it that way.  That is the purpose of a Council, to keep things the same.  The idea of councils innovating is a Vatican invention.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Deacon Lance on October 18, 2011, 01:24:25 AM
Simple. It wasn't a local synod.

Good luck convincing the Latins, Armenians, or Syriacs of that.  Are the Oriental Orthodox to obey the suppression of their customs from this Byzantine synod?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: LBK on October 18, 2011, 01:31:36 AM
Simple. It wasn't a local synod.

Good luck convincing the Latins, Armenians, or Syriacs of that.  Are the Oriental Orthodox to obey the suppression of their customs from this Byzantine synod?

You'll have to ask the OO which councils after Chalcedon they accept, and which of their decrees they accept.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: ialmisry on October 18, 2011, 01:40:14 AM
Simple. It wasn't a local synod.

Good luck convincing the Latins
for the WRO, done.

Armenians, or Syriacs of that.
Not any different from Chalcedon through Nicea II. You want to make them local too?


Are the Oriental Orthodox to obey the suppression of their customs from this Byzantine synod?
What Byzantine synod?  Florence is a byzantine synod. Trullo is not.  The Creed wasn't sealed at "Byzantium I."

It's been a while, but I only recall something about Armenian clerical dynasties (in which case yes, at least as far any canon is authoritative) and sacrificing animals in the Church. Don't recall any Syriac customs.

Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Deacon Lance on October 18, 2011, 01:51:10 AM
It's been a while, but I only recall something about Armenian clerical dynasties (in which case yes, at least as far any canon is authoritative) and sacrificing animals in the Church. Don't recall any Syriac customs.

The Trullan canons proscribe the Armenian use of an unmixed chalice and the Syrian use of "who was crucified for us" in the Trisagion, now common to all the Oriental Orthodox I believe.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Fr.Aidan on October 20, 2011, 04:07:16 PM
Yes, it is forbidden, in the Orthodox Church, to pray together with those of a different faith. The Moscow Patriarchate, by far the largest and most predominant Orthodox Church in the world, has clarified this recently and it is on the conscience of every Orthodox Christian whether Russian Orthodox or not.

But attending some event at a non-Orthodox church is not the same as the sin of praying with the non-Orthodox. I'm sure the fellow who attended his family member's chrismation did not actually say the prayers together with the Roman-Catholic people, or sing along on anything. If so, it was a sin. But doubtless he was simply showing respect for his family, not (God forbid!) seeking some kind of spiritual nourishment from the heretical church.

One can show love, without sacrificing the truth of Christ. Due to heresies having entered in, we cannot all participate in Sacraments together, but we can participate, without asking any blessing or waiting on anyone else, jump in and participate in the Sacrament of Love for one another.

Just because someone does something wrong, or picks up a wrong belief, is not a reason to cease loving him.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: J Michael on October 20, 2011, 04:27:05 PM
Yes, it is forbidden, in the Orthodox Church, to pray together with those of a different faith. The Moscow Patriarchate, by far the largest and most predominant Orthodox Church in the world, has clarified this recently and it is on the conscience of every Orthodox Christian whether Russian Orthodox or not.

But attending some event at a non-Orthodox church is not the same as the sin of praying with the non-Orthodox. I'm sure the fellow who attended his family member's chrismation did not actually say the prayers together with the Roman-Catholic people, or sing along on anything. If so, it was a sin. But doubtless he was simply showing respect for his family, not (God forbid!) seeking some kind of spiritual nourishment from the heretical church.

One can show love, without sacrificing the truth of Christ. Due to heresies having entered in, we cannot all participate in Sacraments together, but we can participate, without asking any blessing or waiting on anyone else, jump in and participate in the Sacrament of Love for one another.

Just because someone does something wrong, or picks up a wrong belief, is not a reason to cease loving him.

POPE-BARTHOLOMEW Mar-6-2008 (710 words) With photos. xxxi

Pope, Orthodox patriarch meet privately, pray together

By Cindy Wooden
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Pope Benedict XVI and Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople spent almost half an hour speaking privately March 6 before going into a small Vatican chapel to pray together.


See the whole article:http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0801277.htm

Did +Bartholomew sin?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: ialmisry on October 20, 2011, 04:50:09 PM
Yes, it is forbidden, in the Orthodox Church, to pray together with those of a different faith. The Moscow Patriarchate, by far the largest and most predominant Orthodox Church in the world, has clarified this recently and it is on the conscience of every Orthodox Christian whether Russian Orthodox or not.

But attending some event at a non-Orthodox church is not the same as the sin of praying with the non-Orthodox. I'm sure the fellow who attended his family member's chrismation did not actually say the prayers together with the Roman-Catholic people, or sing along on anything. If so, it was a sin. But doubtless he was simply showing respect for his family, not (God forbid!) seeking some kind of spiritual nourishment from the heretical church.

One can show love, without sacrificing the truth of Christ. Due to heresies having entered in, we cannot all participate in Sacraments together, but we can participate, without asking any blessing or waiting on anyone else, jump in and participate in the Sacrament of Love for one another.

Just because someone does something wrong, or picks up a wrong belief, is not a reason to cease loving him.

POPE-BARTHOLOMEW Mar-6-2008 (710 words) With photos. xxxi

Pope, Orthodox patriarch meet privately, pray together

By Cindy Wooden
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Pope Benedict XVI and Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople spent almost half an hour speaking privately March 6 before going into a small Vatican chapel to pray together.


See the whole article:http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0801277.htm

Did +Bartholomew sin?
did they pray in unison, or side by side?

Btw, we don't have a supreme pontiff, so the EP sinning doesn't give us any existentialist crisis.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: J Michael on October 20, 2011, 04:59:44 PM
Yes, it is forbidden, in the Orthodox Church, to pray together with those of a different faith. The Moscow Patriarchate, by far the largest and most predominant Orthodox Church in the world, has clarified this recently and it is on the conscience of every Orthodox Christian whether Russian Orthodox or not.

But attending some event at a non-Orthodox church is not the same as the sin of praying with the non-Orthodox. I'm sure the fellow who attended his family member's chrismation did not actually say the prayers together with the Roman-Catholic people, or sing along on anything. If so, it was a sin. But doubtless he was simply showing respect for his family, not (God forbid!) seeking some kind of spiritual nourishment from the heretical church.

One can show love, without sacrificing the truth of Christ. Due to heresies having entered in, we cannot all participate in Sacraments together, but we can participate, without asking any blessing or waiting on anyone else, jump in and participate in the Sacrament of Love for one another.

Just because someone does something wrong, or picks up a wrong belief, is not a reason to cease loving him.

POPE-BARTHOLOMEW Mar-6-2008 (710 words) With photos. xxxi

Pope, Orthodox patriarch meet privately, pray together

By Cindy Wooden
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Pope Benedict XVI and Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople spent almost half an hour speaking privately March 6 before going into a small Vatican chapel to pray together.


See the whole article:http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0801277.htm

Did +Bartholomew sin?
did they pray in unison, or side by side?

Btw, we don't have a supreme pontiff, so the EP sinning doesn't give us any existentialist crisis.

Fr. Aidan said it was a sin for Orthodox to pray together with those of another faith.  +Bartholomew (Orthodox) reportedly prayed together with Pope Benedict (Catholic).  If Orthodox and Catholics are not the same faith, did +Bartholomew sin? 

I don't know whether the prayed in unison or side by side or what.  Here's a further quote from the link: "After a few moments, the two began reciting the Lord's Prayer in Latin. When the prayer was finished, the pope turned to his guest -- as if to see if he was ready to leave -- and the patriarch began reciting the Hail Mary in Latin. The pope joined in.

When the prayer was finished, the two turned to their aides and together blessed them.
"

Draw your own conclusions. 

Whether +Bartholomew sins or not doesn't give you an existentialist crisis?  Phew....Glad to hear it  ;).  Nor does it give us one.

Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Fr.Aidan on October 20, 2011, 05:21:20 PM
Yes, if things occurred as described, it was a sin.

We all have our failings. Lord forgive us.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: J Michael on October 20, 2011, 05:28:26 PM
Yes, if things occurred as described, it was a sin.

We all have our failings. Lord forgive us.

Amen.

And may we be able to forgive each other and ourselves.

(I won't suggest we pray together about that  ;))
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: stanley123 on October 20, 2011, 08:40:19 PM
Yes, it is forbidden, in the Orthodox Church, to pray together with those of a different faith. The Moscow Patriarchate, by far the largest and most predominant Orthodox Church in the world, has clarified this recently and it is on the conscience of every Orthodox Christian whether Russian Orthodox or not.

But attending some event at a non-Orthodox church is not the same as the sin of praying with the non-Orthodox. I'm sure the fellow who attended his family member's chrismation did not actually say the prayers together with the Roman-Catholic people, or sing along on anything. If so, it was a sin. But doubtless he was simply showing respect for his family, not (God forbid!) seeking some kind of spiritual nourishment from the heretical church.

One can show love, without sacrificing the truth of Christ. Due to heresies having entered in, we cannot all participate in Sacraments together, but we can participate, without asking any blessing or waiting on anyone else, jump in and participate in the Sacrament of Love for one another.

Just because someone does something wrong, or picks up a wrong belief, is not a reason to cease loving him.
if an Orthodox said a prayer with a Catholic, would he go to hell for that? Or would he be able to be purified in Purgatory with other Catholics and then get to go to heaven?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: stanley123 on October 20, 2011, 08:42:16 PM
Yes, if things occurred as described, it was a sin.
Suppose then that he does not repent, would he still go straight to heaven, in spite of these sins? Or would he have to spend some time in Purgatory to purify his soul before entering heaven? Or does he go to hell?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: LBK on October 20, 2011, 08:48:20 PM
Yes, it is forbidden, in the Orthodox Church, to pray together with those of a different faith. The Moscow Patriarchate, by far the largest and most predominant Orthodox Church in the world, has clarified this recently and it is on the conscience of every Orthodox Christian whether Russian Orthodox or not.

But attending some event at a non-Orthodox church is not the same as the sin of praying with the non-Orthodox. I'm sure the fellow who attended his family member's chrismation did not actually say the prayers together with the Roman-Catholic people, or sing along on anything. If so, it was a sin. But doubtless he was simply showing respect for his family, not (God forbid!) seeking some kind of spiritual nourishment from the heretical church.

One can show love, without sacrificing the truth of Christ. Due to heresies having entered in, we cannot all participate in Sacraments together, but we can participate, without asking any blessing or waiting on anyone else, jump in and participate in the Sacrament of Love for one another.

Just because someone does something wrong, or picks up a wrong belief, is not a reason to cease loving him.

For the record, I was present at these RCC services as a passive observer. No participation in any way, and certainly no receiving of Communion. Though family members of the newly-confirmed were invited to receive a blessing without receiving Communion (those who were not receiving, be they RCC or not, were asked to cross their arms over their chests), I chose not to join the queue.

And, Stanley, you have yet to answer my question of the existence or otherwise of mixed marriages in your family.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: ignatius on October 20, 2011, 11:19:51 PM
Boy, I haven't missed a thing in this place have I?  :laugh:
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: podkarpatska on October 21, 2011, 11:31:14 AM
Yes, it is forbidden, in the Orthodox Church, to pray together with those of a different faith. The Moscow Patriarchate, by far the largest and most predominant Orthodox Church in the world, has clarified this recently and it is on the conscience of every Orthodox Christian whether Russian Orthodox or not.

But attending some event at a non-Orthodox church is not the same as the sin of praying with the non-Orthodox. I'm sure the fellow who attended his family member's chrismation did not actually say the prayers together with the Roman-Catholic people, or sing along on anything. If so, it was a sin. But doubtless he was simply showing respect for his family, not (God forbid!) seeking some kind of spiritual nourishment from the heretical church.

One can show love, without sacrificing the truth of Christ. Due to heresies having entered in, we cannot all participate in Sacraments together, but we can participate, without asking any blessing or waiting on anyone else, jump in and participate in the Sacrament of Love for one another.

Just because someone does something wrong, or picks up a wrong belief, is not a reason to cease loving him.

POPE-BARTHOLOMEW Mar-6-2008 (710 words) With photos. xxxi

Pope, Orthodox patriarch meet privately, pray together

By Cindy Wooden
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Pope Benedict XVI and Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople spent almost half an hour speaking privately March 6 before going into a small Vatican chapel to pray together.


See the whole article:http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0801277.htm

Did +Bartholomew sin?



I tire of extreme anti-ecumenical talk, especially when one bothers to fully understand and read what both sides write and publish, including the Moscow Patriarchate... "Clarification is in the eyes of the beholder", I suppose, how about these?

http://www.mospat.ru/en/2011/10/07/news49170/ (American secular choir sings at service....)

http://www.mospat.ru/en/2011/10/07/news49170/ (Pope presented with Icon, both hierarchs photographed venerating it together....)

http://www.mospat.ru/ru/2011/10/19/news50018/  (annual interfaith in London Orthodox Cathedral with Anglicans...!!!!)

http://www.mospat.ru/ru/2011/10/19/news50018/ (read the sermon...)

and of course, Russian Orthodox pilgrims meeting, praying and concelebrating Divine  Liturgy with the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople... http://www.mospat.ru/ru/2011/10/18/news49937/

Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: J Michael on October 21, 2011, 12:02:07 PM
Yes, it is forbidden, in the Orthodox Church, to pray together with those of a different faith. The Moscow Patriarchate, by far the largest and most predominant Orthodox Church in the world, has clarified this recently and it is on the conscience of every Orthodox Christian whether Russian Orthodox or not.

But attending some event at a non-Orthodox church is not the same as the sin of praying with the non-Orthodox. I'm sure the fellow who attended his family member's chrismation did not actually say the prayers together with the Roman-Catholic people, or sing along on anything. If so, it was a sin. But doubtless he was simply showing respect for his family, not (God forbid!) seeking some kind of spiritual nourishment from the heretical church.

One can show love, without sacrificing the truth of Christ. Due to heresies having entered in, we cannot all participate in Sacraments together, but we can participate, without asking any blessing or waiting on anyone else, jump in and participate in the Sacrament of Love for one another.

Just because someone does something wrong, or picks up a wrong belief, is not a reason to cease loving him.

POPE-BARTHOLOMEW Mar-6-2008 (710 words) With photos. xxxi

Pope, Orthodox patriarch meet privately, pray together

By Cindy Wooden
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Pope Benedict XVI and Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople spent almost half an hour speaking privately March 6 before going into a small Vatican chapel to pray together.


See the whole article:http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0801277.htm

Did +Bartholomew sin?



I tire of extreme anti-ecumenical talk, especially when one bothers to fully understand and read what both sides write and publish, including the Moscow Patriarchate... "Clarification is in the eyes of the beholder", I suppose, how about these?

http://www.mospat.ru/en/2011/10/07/news49170/ (American secular choir sings at service....)

http://www.mospat.ru/en/2011/10/07/news49170/ (Pope presented with Icon, both hierarchs photographed venerating it together....)

http://www.mospat.ru/ru/2011/10/19/news50018/  (annual interfaith in London Orthodox Cathedral with Anglicans...!!!!)

http://www.mospat.ru/ru/2011/10/19/news50018/ (read the sermon...)

and of course, Russian Orthodox pilgrims meeting, praying and concelebrating Divine  Liturgy with the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople... http://www.mospat.ru/ru/2011/10/18/news49937/



Soooo many sinners!!!!!! :o :o :o  ;D  Well, at least according to Fr. Aidan according to the MP.

Did the MP *really* state that it was a "sin" for Orthodox to pray with non-Orthodox??  I'd love to see the statement.  And, if there is such a statement, what do other bishops/synods/Patriarchates have to say about it?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on October 21, 2011, 12:32:11 PM
Yes, it is forbidden, in the Orthodox Church, to pray together with those of a different faith. The Moscow Patriarchate, by far the largest and most predominant Orthodox Church in the world, has clarified this recently and it is on the conscience of every Orthodox Christian whether Russian Orthodox or not.

But attending some event at a non-Orthodox church is not the same as the sin of praying with the non-Orthodox. I'm sure the fellow who attended his family member's chrismation did not actually say the prayers together with the Roman-Catholic people, or sing along on anything. If so, it was a sin. But doubtless he was simply showing respect for his family, not (God forbid!) seeking some kind of spiritual nourishment from the heretical church.

One can show love, without sacrificing the truth of Christ. Due to heresies having entered in, we cannot all participate in Sacraments together, but we can participate, without asking any blessing or waiting on anyone else, jump in and participate in the Sacrament of Love for one another.

Just because someone does something wrong, or picks up a wrong belief, is not a reason to cease loving him.

POPE-BARTHOLOMEW Mar-6-2008 (710 words) With photos. xxxi

Pope, Orthodox patriarch meet privately, pray together

By Cindy Wooden
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Pope Benedict XVI and Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople spent almost half an hour speaking privately March 6 before going into a small Vatican chapel to pray together.


See the whole article:http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0801277.htm

Did +Bartholomew sin?



I tire of extreme anti-ecumenical talk, especially when one bothers to fully understand and read what both sides write and publish, including the Moscow Patriarchate... "Clarification is in the eyes of the beholder", I suppose, how about these?

http://www.mospat.ru/en/2011/10/07/news49170/ (American secular choir sings at service....)

http://www.mospat.ru/en/2011/10/07/news49170/ (Pope presented with Icon, both hierarchs photographed venerating it together....)

http://www.mospat.ru/ru/2011/10/19/news50018/  (annual interfaith in London Orthodox Cathedral with Anglicans...!!!!)

http://www.mospat.ru/ru/2011/10/19/news50018/ (read the sermon...)

and of course, Russian Orthodox pilgrims meeting, praying and concelebrating Divine  Liturgy with the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople... http://www.mospat.ru/ru/2011/10/18/news49937/



Soooo many sinners!!!!!! :o :o :o  ;D  Well, at least according to Fr. Aidan according to the MP.

Did the MP *really* state that it was a "sin" for Orthodox to pray with non-Orthodox??  I'd love to see the statement.  And, if there is such a statement, what do other bishops/synods/Patriarchates have to say about it?

Resumption of communion, when it comes, is going to be impossible for many to accept.

M.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: J Michael on October 21, 2011, 01:06:11 PM
Yes, it is forbidden, in the Orthodox Church, to pray together with those of a different faith. The Moscow Patriarchate, by far the largest and most predominant Orthodox Church in the world, has clarified this recently and it is on the conscience of every Orthodox Christian whether Russian Orthodox or not.

But attending some event at a non-Orthodox church is not the same as the sin of praying with the non-Orthodox. I'm sure the fellow who attended his family member's chrismation did not actually say the prayers together with the Roman-Catholic people, or sing along on anything. If so, it was a sin. But doubtless he was simply showing respect for his family, not (God forbid!) seeking some kind of spiritual nourishment from the heretical church.

One can show love, without sacrificing the truth of Christ. Due to heresies having entered in, we cannot all participate in Sacraments together, but we can participate, without asking any blessing or waiting on anyone else, jump in and participate in the Sacrament of Love for one another.

Just because someone does something wrong, or picks up a wrong belief, is not a reason to cease loving him.

POPE-BARTHOLOMEW Mar-6-2008 (710 words) With photos. xxxi

Pope, Orthodox patriarch meet privately, pray together

By Cindy Wooden
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Pope Benedict XVI and Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople spent almost half an hour speaking privately March 6 before going into a small Vatican chapel to pray together.


See the whole article:http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0801277.htm

Did +Bartholomew sin?



I tire of extreme anti-ecumenical talk, especially when one bothers to fully understand and read what both sides write and publish, including the Moscow Patriarchate... "Clarification is in the eyes of the beholder", I suppose, how about these?

http://www.mospat.ru/en/2011/10/07/news49170/ (American secular choir sings at service....)

http://www.mospat.ru/en/2011/10/07/news49170/ (Pope presented with Icon, both hierarchs photographed venerating it together....)

http://www.mospat.ru/ru/2011/10/19/news50018/  (annual interfaith in London Orthodox Cathedral with Anglicans...!!!!)

http://www.mospat.ru/ru/2011/10/19/news50018/ (read the sermon...)

and of course, Russian Orthodox pilgrims meeting, praying and concelebrating Divine  Liturgy with the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople... http://www.mospat.ru/ru/2011/10/18/news49937/



Soooo many sinners!!!!!! :o :o :o  ;D  Well, at least according to Fr. Aidan according to the MP.

Did the MP *really* state that it was a "sin" for Orthodox to pray with non-Orthodox??  I'd love to see the statement.  And, if there is such a statement, what do other bishops/synods/Patriarchates have to say about it?

Resumption of communion, when it comes, is going to be impossible for many to accept.

M.

That really *is* sad.  I guess they will be the ones worse off for it.  I can't help but wonder, will they then "protest" and break communion--again?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: ialmisry on October 21, 2011, 01:58:22 PM
Yes, it is forbidden, in the Orthodox Church, to pray together with those of a different faith. The Moscow Patriarchate, by far the largest and most predominant Orthodox Church in the world, has clarified this recently and it is on the conscience of every Orthodox Christian whether Russian Orthodox or not.

But attending some event at a non-Orthodox church is not the same as the sin of praying with the non-Orthodox. I'm sure the fellow who attended his family member's chrismation did not actually say the prayers together with the Roman-Catholic people, or sing along on anything. If so, it was a sin. But doubtless he was simply showing respect for his family, not (God forbid!) seeking some kind of spiritual nourishment from the heretical church.

One can show love, without sacrificing the truth of Christ. Due to heresies having entered in, we cannot all participate in Sacraments together, but we can participate, without asking any blessing or waiting on anyone else, jump in and participate in the Sacrament of Love for one another.

Just because someone does something wrong, or picks up a wrong belief, is not a reason to cease loving him.

POPE-BARTHOLOMEW Mar-6-2008 (710 words) With photos. xxxi

Pope, Orthodox patriarch meet privately, pray together

By Cindy Wooden
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Pope Benedict XVI and Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople spent almost half an hour speaking privately March 6 before going into a small Vatican chapel to pray together.


See the whole article:http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0801277.htm

Did +Bartholomew sin?
did they pray in unison, or side by side?

Btw, we don't have a supreme pontiff, so the EP sinning doesn't give us any existentialist crisis.

Fr. Aidan said it was a sin for Orthodox to pray together with those of another faith.  +Bartholomew (Orthodox) reportedly prayed together with Pope Benedict (Catholic).  If Orthodox and Catholics are not the same faith, did +Bartholomew sin? 

I don't know whether the prayed in unison or side by side or what.  Here's a further quote from the link: "After a few moments, the two began reciting the Lord's Prayer in Latin. When the prayer was finished, the pope turned to his guest -- as if to see if he was ready to leave -- and the patriarch began reciting the Hail Mary in Latin. The pope joined in.

When the prayer was finished, the two turned to their aides and together blessed them.
"

Draw your own conclusions. 

Whether +Bartholomew sins or not doesn't give you an existentialist crisis?  Phew....Glad to hear it  ;).  Nor does it give us one.
you have a supreme pontiff for that. In fact, you have often had several at one time to give you an existentialist crisis.

When the EP vests and concelebrates with the Vatican, I'll worry about it.  If and when he communes with the Vatican, I will call for his deposition.  We dealt with this recently in Romania.  Otherwise, I'll leave EP Bartholomew's father confessor and the Holy Synod of Constantinople to worry about it.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: ialmisry on October 21, 2011, 01:59:24 PM
Yes, it is forbidden, in the Orthodox Church, to pray together with those of a different faith. The Moscow Patriarchate, by far the largest and most predominant Orthodox Church in the world, has clarified this recently and it is on the conscience of every Orthodox Christian whether Russian Orthodox or not.

But attending some event at a non-Orthodox church is not the same as the sin of praying with the non-Orthodox. I'm sure the fellow who attended his family member's chrismation did not actually say the prayers together with the Roman-Catholic people, or sing along on anything. If so, it was a sin. But doubtless he was simply showing respect for his family, not (God forbid!) seeking some kind of spiritual nourishment from the heretical church.

One can show love, without sacrificing the truth of Christ. Due to heresies having entered in, we cannot all participate in Sacraments together, but we can participate, without asking any blessing or waiting on anyone else, jump in and participate in the Sacrament of Love for one another.

Just because someone does something wrong, or picks up a wrong belief, is not a reason to cease loving him.
if an Orthodox said a prayer with a Catholic, would he go to hell for that? Or would he be able to be purified in Purgatory with other Catholics and then get to go to heaven?
since purgatory doesn't exist, no.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: ialmisry on October 21, 2011, 02:02:26 PM
Yes, it is forbidden, in the Orthodox Church, to pray together with those of a different faith. The Moscow Patriarchate, by far the largest and most predominant Orthodox Church in the world, has clarified this recently and it is on the conscience of every Orthodox Christian whether Russian Orthodox or not.

But attending some event at a non-Orthodox church is not the same as the sin of praying with the non-Orthodox. I'm sure the fellow who attended his family member's chrismation did not actually say the prayers together with the Roman-Catholic people, or sing along on anything. If so, it was a sin. But doubtless he was simply showing respect for his family, not (God forbid!) seeking some kind of spiritual nourishment from the heretical church.

One can show love, without sacrificing the truth of Christ. Due to heresies having entered in, we cannot all participate in Sacraments together, but we can participate, without asking any blessing or waiting on anyone else, jump in and participate in the Sacrament of Love for one another.

Just because someone does something wrong, or picks up a wrong belief, is not a reason to cease loving him.

POPE-BARTHOLOMEW Mar-6-2008 (710 words) With photos. xxxi

Pope, Orthodox patriarch meet privately, pray together

By Cindy Wooden
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Pope Benedict XVI and Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople spent almost half an hour speaking privately March 6 before going into a small Vatican chapel to pray together.


See the whole article:http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0801277.htm

Did +Bartholomew sin?



I tire of extreme anti-ecumenical talk, especially when one bothers to fully understand and read what both sides write and publish, including the Moscow Patriarchate... "Clarification is in the eyes of the beholder", I suppose, how about these?

http://www.mospat.ru/en/2011/10/07/news49170/ (American secular choir sings at service....)

http://www.mospat.ru/en/2011/10/07/news49170/ (Pope presented with Icon, both hierarchs photographed venerating it together....)

http://www.mospat.ru/ru/2011/10/19/news50018/  (annual interfaith in London Orthodox Cathedral with Anglicans...!!!!)

http://www.mospat.ru/ru/2011/10/19/news50018/ (read the sermon...)

and of course, Russian Orthodox pilgrims meeting, praying and concelebrating Divine  Liturgy with the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople... http://www.mospat.ru/ru/2011/10/18/news49937/



Soooo many sinners!!!!!! :o :o :o  ;D  Well, at least according to Fr. Aidan according to the MP.

Did the MP *really* state that it was a "sin" for Orthodox to pray with non-Orthodox??  I'd love to see the statement.  And, if there is such a statement, what do other bishops/synods/Patriarchates have to say about it?

Resumption of communion, when it comes, is going to be impossible for many to accept.
Yes, I suspect the numbers of Sedevantissts will shoot up: since it will only come with the repentance of the Vatican, it won't be difficult for the Orthodox to accept at all, but those who cling to Ultramontanism will be at a loss how to explain the situation.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: ialmisry on October 21, 2011, 02:03:55 PM
Yes, it is forbidden, in the Orthodox Church, to pray together with those of a different faith. The Moscow Patriarchate, by far the largest and most predominant Orthodox Church in the world, has clarified this recently and it is on the conscience of every Orthodox Christian whether Russian Orthodox or not.

But attending some event at a non-Orthodox church is not the same as the sin of praying with the non-Orthodox. I'm sure the fellow who attended his family member's chrismation did not actually say the prayers together with the Roman-Catholic people, or sing along on anything. If so, it was a sin. But doubtless he was simply showing respect for his family, not (God forbid!) seeking some kind of spiritual nourishment from the heretical church.

One can show love, without sacrificing the truth of Christ. Due to heresies having entered in, we cannot all participate in Sacraments together, but we can participate, without asking any blessing or waiting on anyone else, jump in and participate in the Sacrament of Love for one another.

Just because someone does something wrong, or picks up a wrong belief, is not a reason to cease loving him.

POPE-BARTHOLOMEW Mar-6-2008 (710 words) With photos. xxxi

Pope, Orthodox patriarch meet privately, pray together

By Cindy Wooden
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Pope Benedict XVI and Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople spent almost half an hour speaking privately March 6 before going into a small Vatican chapel to pray together.


See the whole article:http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0801277.htm

Did +Bartholomew sin?



I tire of extreme anti-ecumenical talk, especially when one bothers to fully understand and read what both sides write and publish, including the Moscow Patriarchate... "Clarification is in the eyes of the beholder", I suppose, how about these?

http://www.mospat.ru/en/2011/10/07/news49170/ (American secular choir sings at service....)

http://www.mospat.ru/en/2011/10/07/news49170/ (Pope presented with Icon, both hierarchs photographed venerating it together....)

http://www.mospat.ru/ru/2011/10/19/news50018/  (annual interfaith in London Orthodox Cathedral with Anglicans...!!!!)

http://www.mospat.ru/ru/2011/10/19/news50018/ (read the sermon...)

and of course, Russian Orthodox pilgrims meeting, praying and concelebrating Divine  Liturgy with the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople... http://www.mospat.ru/ru/2011/10/18/news49937/



Soooo many sinners!!!!!! :o :o :o  ;D  Well, at least according to Fr. Aidan according to the MP.

Did the MP *really* state that it was a "sin" for Orthodox to pray with non-Orthodox??  I'd love to see the statement.  And, if there is such a statement, what do other bishops/synods/Patriarchates have to say about it?

Resumption of communion, when it comes, is going to be impossible for many to accept.

M.

That really *is* sad.  I guess they will be the ones worse off for it.  I can't help but wonder, will they then "protest" and break communion--again?
aren't you along the border with the sedenvacantists? you would know better than the rest of us I suppose.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: dzheremi on October 21, 2011, 02:15:52 PM
Why all the hue and cry over how sad it is that this theoretical situation would be hard for some to accept? There's plenty to deal with in the real world that is much more sad than your "what ifs" that are not even within the realm of possibility. The Roman Church does not control the Holy Spirit. There is no "when it happens" separate from very real and immediate cooperation of the recalcitrant. You don't get to have communion just because you want it or you think it would be nice or whatever.

I am saddened to see the Latin church capitalize on every little statement from or meeting with an Orthodox representative so as to give the Roman faithful false hope of reunion. Real hope is so much better, but requires an understanding and spirit of repentance that is apparently beyond the Roman Catholic Church and its Pope, even with his magical infallibility powers.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on October 21, 2011, 09:30:47 PM
Why all the hue and cry over how sad it is that this theoretical situation would be hard for some to accept? There's plenty to deal with in the real world that is much more sad than your "what ifs" that are not even within the realm of possibility. The Roman Church does not control the Holy Spirit. There is no "when it happens" separate from very real and immediate cooperation of the recalcitrant. You don't get to have communion just because you want it or you think it would be nice or whatever.

I am saddened to see the Latin church capitalize on every little statement from or meeting with an Orthodox representative so as to give the Roman faithful false hope of reunion. Real hope is so much better, but requires an understanding and spirit of repentance that is apparently beyond the Roman Catholic Church and its Pope, even with his magical infallibility powers.

 :D

I am taking my cue today, on the approaching resumption of communion, from a recent posting on the web-site of a very perspicacious Orthodox priest!!

 :D
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: ialmisry on October 21, 2011, 09:41:07 PM
Why all the hue and cry over how sad it is that this theoretical situation would be hard for some to accept? There's plenty to deal with in the real world that is much more sad than your "what ifs" that are not even within the realm of possibility. The Roman Church does not control the Holy Spirit. There is no "when it happens" separate from very real and immediate cooperation of the recalcitrant. You don't get to have communion just because you want it or you think it would be nice or whatever.

I am saddened to see the Latin church capitalize on every little statement from or meeting with an Orthodox representative so as to give the Roman faithful false hope of reunion. Real hope is so much better, but requires an understanding and spirit of repentance that is apparently beyond the Roman Catholic Church and its Pope, even with his magical infallibility powers.

 :D

I am taking my cue today, on the approaching resumption of communion, from a recent posting on the web-site of a very perspicacious Orthodox priest!!

 :D
who will remain nameless, in the anonymity of Oz. ;)
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: stanley123 on October 21, 2011, 09:46:01 PM
Yes, it is forbidden, in the Orthodox Church, to pray together with those of a different faith. The Moscow Patriarchate, by far the largest and most predominant Orthodox Church in the world, has clarified this recently and it is on the conscience of every Orthodox Christian whether Russian Orthodox or not.

But attending some event at a non-Orthodox church is not the same as the sin of praying with the non-Orthodox. I'm sure the fellow who attended his family member's chrismation did not actually say the prayers together with the Roman-Catholic people, or sing along on anything. If so, it was a sin. But doubtless he was simply showing respect for his family, not (God forbid!) seeking some kind of spiritual nourishment from the heretical church.

One can show love, without sacrificing the truth of Christ. Due to heresies having entered in, we cannot all participate in Sacraments together, but we can participate, without asking any blessing or waiting on anyone else, jump in and participate in the Sacrament of Love for one another.

Just because someone does something wrong, or picks up a wrong belief, is not a reason to cease loving him.
if an Orthodox said a prayer with a Catholic, would he go to hell for that? Or would he be able to be purified in Purgatory with other Catholics and then get to go to heaven?
since purgatory doesn't exist, no.
Well then if you said a prayer, say the Our Father, with a Catholic and did not have a chance to repent, would you go to heaven or hell?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: dzheremi on October 21, 2011, 09:47:05 PM
"The approaching resumption of communion"...? You know something we don't, elijahmaria? :laugh:

Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: ialmisry on October 21, 2011, 09:50:22 PM
Yes, it is forbidden, in the Orthodox Church, to pray together with those of a different faith. The Moscow Patriarchate, by far the largest and most predominant Orthodox Church in the world, has clarified this recently and it is on the conscience of every Orthodox Christian whether Russian Orthodox or not.

But attending some event at a non-Orthodox church is not the same as the sin of praying with the non-Orthodox. I'm sure the fellow who attended his family member's chrismation did not actually say the prayers together with the Roman-Catholic people, or sing along on anything. If so, it was a sin. But doubtless he was simply showing respect for his family, not (God forbid!) seeking some kind of spiritual nourishment from the heretical church.

One can show love, without sacrificing the truth of Christ. Due to heresies having entered in, we cannot all participate in Sacraments together, but we can participate, without asking any blessing or waiting on anyone else, jump in and participate in the Sacrament of Love for one another.

Just because someone does something wrong, or picks up a wrong belief, is not a reason to cease loving him.
if an Orthodox said a prayer with a Catholic, would he go to hell for that? Or would he be able to be purified in Purgatory with other Catholics and then get to go to heaven?
since purgatory doesn't exist, no.
Well then if you said a prayer, say the Our Father, with a Catholic and did not have a chance to repent, would you go to heaven or hell?
I'll never find out.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: ialmisry on October 21, 2011, 09:52:09 PM
"The approaching resumption of communion"...? You know something we don't, elijahmaria? :laugh:
LOL. No, just trying to convince herself, as usual.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: stanley123 on October 21, 2011, 09:52:59 PM
Yes, it is forbidden, in the Orthodox Church, to pray together with those of a different faith. The Moscow Patriarchate, by far the largest and most predominant Orthodox Church in the world, has clarified this recently and it is on the conscience of every Orthodox Christian whether Russian Orthodox or not.

But attending some event at a non-Orthodox church is not the same as the sin of praying with the non-Orthodox. I'm sure the fellow who attended his family member's chrismation did not actually say the prayers together with the Roman-Catholic people, or sing along on anything. If so, it was a sin. But doubtless he was simply showing respect for his family, not (God forbid!) seeking some kind of spiritual nourishment from the heretical church.

One can show love, without sacrificing the truth of Christ. Due to heresies having entered in, we cannot all participate in Sacraments together, but we can participate, without asking any blessing or waiting on anyone else, jump in and participate in the Sacrament of Love for one another.

Just because someone does something wrong, or picks up a wrong belief, is not a reason to cease loving him.
if an Orthodox said a prayer with a Catholic, would he go to hell for that? Or would he be able to be purified in Purgatory with other Catholics and then get to go to heaven?
since purgatory doesn't exist, no.
Well then if you said a prayer, say the Our Father, with a Catholic and did not have a chance to repent, would you go to heaven or hell?
I'll never find out.
So the Orthodox Church has no teaching on whether or not it is a serious issue to violate a canon of the Orthodox Church ?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: ialmisry on October 21, 2011, 10:37:22 PM
Yes, it is forbidden, in the Orthodox Church, to pray together with those of a different faith. The Moscow Patriarchate, by far the largest and most predominant Orthodox Church in the world, has clarified this recently and it is on the conscience of every Orthodox Christian whether Russian Orthodox or not.

But attending some event at a non-Orthodox church is not the same as the sin of praying with the non-Orthodox. I'm sure the fellow who attended his family member's chrismation did not actually say the prayers together with the Roman-Catholic people, or sing along on anything. If so, it was a sin. But doubtless he was simply showing respect for his family, not (God forbid!) seeking some kind of spiritual nourishment from the heretical church.

One can show love, without sacrificing the truth of Christ. Due to heresies having entered in, we cannot all participate in Sacraments together, but we can participate, without asking any blessing or waiting on anyone else, jump in and participate in the Sacrament of Love for one another.

Just because someone does something wrong, or picks up a wrong belief, is not a reason to cease loving him.
if an Orthodox said a prayer with a Catholic, would he go to hell for that? Or would he be able to be purified in Purgatory with other Catholics and then get to go to heaven?
since purgatory doesn't exist, no.
Well then if you said a prayer, say the Our Father, with a Catholic and did not have a chance to repent, would you go to heaven or hell?
I'll never find out.
So the Orthodox Church has no teaching on whether or not it is a serious issue to violate a canon of the Orthodox Church ?
It teaches not to fantasize about breaking the canons.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: stanley123 on October 22, 2011, 12:09:49 AM
Yes, it is forbidden, in the Orthodox Church, to pray together with those of a different faith. The Moscow Patriarchate, by far the largest and most predominant Orthodox Church in the world, has clarified this recently and it is on the conscience of every Orthodox Christian whether Russian Orthodox or not.

But attending some event at a non-Orthodox church is not the same as the sin of praying with the non-Orthodox. I'm sure the fellow who attended his family member's chrismation did not actually say the prayers together with the Roman-Catholic people, or sing along on anything. If so, it was a sin. But doubtless he was simply showing respect for his family, not (God forbid!) seeking some kind of spiritual nourishment from the heretical church.

One can show love, without sacrificing the truth of Christ. Due to heresies having entered in, we cannot all participate in Sacraments together, but we can participate, without asking any blessing or waiting on anyone else, jump in and participate in the Sacrament of Love for one another.

Just because someone does something wrong, or picks up a wrong belief, is not a reason to cease loving him.
if an Orthodox said a prayer with a Catholic, would he go to hell for that? Or would he be able to be purified in Purgatory with other Catholics and then get to go to heaven?
since purgatory doesn't exist, no.
Well then if you said a prayer, say the Our Father, with a Catholic and did not have a chance to repent, would you go to heaven or hell?
I'll never find out.
So the Orthodox Church has no teaching on whether or not it is a serious issue to violate a canon of the Orthodox Church ?
It teaches not to fantasize about breaking the canons.
If it is as you say, it would appear to be a fuzzy and wishy washy teaching and not a clear cut rule. Do you think it is all right to have your eternal salvation depend on such a fuzzy rule that no one knows exactly how to interpret ?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Wyatt on October 22, 2011, 01:56:45 AM
Yes, it is forbidden, in the Orthodox Church, to pray together with those of a different faith. The Moscow Patriarchate, by far the largest and most predominant Orthodox Church in the world, has clarified this recently and it is on the conscience of every Orthodox Christian whether Russian Orthodox or not.

But attending some event at a non-Orthodox church is not the same as the sin of praying with the non-Orthodox. I'm sure the fellow who attended his family member's chrismation did not actually say the prayers together with the Roman-Catholic people, or sing along on anything. If so, it was a sin. But doubtless he was simply showing respect for his family, not (God forbid!) seeking some kind of spiritual nourishment from the heretical church.

One can show love, without sacrificing the truth of Christ. Due to heresies having entered in, we cannot all participate in Sacraments together, but we can participate, without asking any blessing or waiting on anyone else, jump in and participate in the Sacrament of Love for one another.

Just because someone does something wrong, or picks up a wrong belief, is not a reason to cease loving him.
if an Orthodox said a prayer with a Catholic, would he go to hell for that? Or would he be able to be purified in Purgatory with other Catholics and then get to go to heaven?
since purgatory doesn't exist, no.
Well then if you said a prayer, say the Our Father, with a Catholic and did not have a chance to repent, would you go to heaven or hell?
I'll never find out.
So the Orthodox Church has no teaching on whether or not it is a serious issue to violate a canon of the Orthodox Church ?
What does the Eastern Orthodox Church have a universal teaching on?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: LBK on October 22, 2011, 05:51:55 AM
Quote
What does the Eastern Orthodox Church have a universal teaching on?

Plenty. Most of it can be found in our hymnography and iconography.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: ialmisry on October 22, 2011, 07:42:39 AM
Yes, it is forbidden, in the Orthodox Church, to pray together with those of a different faith. The Moscow Patriarchate, by far the largest and most predominant Orthodox Church in the world, has clarified this recently and it is on the conscience of every Orthodox Christian whether Russian Orthodox or not.

But attending some event at a non-Orthodox church is not the same as the sin of praying with the non-Orthodox. I'm sure the fellow who attended his family member's chrismation did not actually say the prayers together with the Roman-Catholic people, or sing along on anything. If so, it was a sin. But doubtless he was simply showing respect for his family, not (God forbid!) seeking some kind of spiritual nourishment from the heretical church.

One can show love, without sacrificing the truth of Christ. Due to heresies having entered in, we cannot all participate in Sacraments together, but we can participate, without asking any blessing or waiting on anyone else, jump in and participate in the Sacrament of Love for one another.

Just because someone does something wrong, or picks up a wrong belief, is not a reason to cease loving him.
if an Orthodox said a prayer with a Catholic, would he go to hell for that? Or would he be able to be purified in Purgatory with other Catholics and then get to go to heaven?
since purgatory doesn't exist, no.
Well then if you said a prayer, say the Our Father, with a Catholic and did not have a chance to repent, would you go to heaven or hell?
I'll never find out.
So the Orthodox Church has no teaching on whether or not it is a serious issue to violate a canon of the Orthodox Church ?
What does the Eastern Orthodox Church have a universal teaching on?
Lots, but only on real life.  We leave the speculation to you all.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: ialmisry on October 22, 2011, 07:44:57 AM
Yes, it is forbidden, in the Orthodox Church, to pray together with those of a different faith. The Moscow Patriarchate, by far the largest and most predominant Orthodox Church in the world, has clarified this recently and it is on the conscience of every Orthodox Christian whether Russian Orthodox or not.

But attending some event at a non-Orthodox church is not the same as the sin of praying with the non-Orthodox. I'm sure the fellow who attended his family member's chrismation did not actually say the prayers together with the Roman-Catholic people, or sing along on anything. If so, it was a sin. But doubtless he was simply showing respect for his family, not (God forbid!) seeking some kind of spiritual nourishment from the heretical church.

One can show love, without sacrificing the truth of Christ. Due to heresies having entered in, we cannot all participate in Sacraments together, but we can participate, without asking any blessing or waiting on anyone else, jump in and participate in the Sacrament of Love for one another.

Just because someone does something wrong, or picks up a wrong belief, is not a reason to cease loving him.
if an Orthodox said a prayer with a Catholic, would he go to hell for that? Or would he be able to be purified in Purgatory with other Catholics and then get to go to heaven?
since purgatory doesn't exist, no.
Well then if you said a prayer, say the Our Father, with a Catholic and did not have a chance to repent, would you go to heaven or hell?
I'll never find out.
So the Orthodox Church has no teaching on whether or not it is a serious issue to violate a canon of the Orthodox Church ?
It teaches not to fantasize about breaking the canons.
If it is as you say, it would appear to be a fuzzy and wishy washy teaching and not a clear cut rule. Do you think it is all right to have your eternal salvation depend on such a fuzzy rule that no one knows exactly how to interpret ?
we already have plenty of threads on Pastor Aeternus and "ex cathedra."
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on October 22, 2011, 04:22:48 PM
Quote
What does the Eastern Orthodox Church have a universal teaching on?

Plenty. Most of it can be found in our hymnography and iconography.

I'll back you on this one LBK.

Let's not get too crazy here.

Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on October 22, 2011, 05:54:45 PM
Why all the hue and cry over how sad it is that this theoretical situation would be hard for some to accept? There's plenty to deal with in the real world that is much more sad than your "what ifs" that are not even within the realm of possibility. The Roman Church does not control the Holy Spirit. There is no "when it happens" separate from very real and immediate cooperation of the recalcitrant. You don't get to have communion just because you want it or you think it would be nice or whatever.

I am saddened to see the Latin church capitalize on every little statement from or meeting with an Orthodox representative so as to give the Roman faithful false hope of reunion. Real hope is so much better, but requires an understanding and spirit of repentance that is apparently beyond the Roman Catholic Church and its Pope, even with his magical infallibility powers.

 :D

I am taking my cue today, on the approaching resumption of communion, from a recent posting on the web-site of a very perspicacious Orthodox priest!!

 :D
who will remain nameless, in the anonymity of Oz. ;)

You should take lessons from Met. Hilarion of the Russian Patriarchate. 

As I said you're not going to make the transition as you are now.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: LBK on October 23, 2011, 04:57:36 AM
Quote
What does the Eastern Orthodox Church have a universal teaching on?

Plenty. Most of it can be found in our hymnography and iconography.

I'll back you on this one LBK.

Wha-...??? Miracles will never cease.  ;) :laugh:
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on October 23, 2011, 12:29:58 PM
Quote
What does the Eastern Orthodox Church have a universal teaching on?

Plenty. Most of it can be found in our hymnography and iconography.

I'll back you on this one LBK.

Wha-...??? Miracles will never cease.  ;) :laugh:

 :D...Well...I thought about what you said and IF I am going to insist that the seeds of the teaching concerning the immaculate Mother of God are contained in the texts from the feast of her Entry into the Temple, then I had BETTER agree with you... ;)

OTOH...I'd have to agree in any event.

 :angel:
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Ortho_cat on October 23, 2011, 07:47:50 PM
Yes, it is forbidden, in the Orthodox Church, to pray together with those of a different faith. The Moscow Patriarchate, by far the largest and most predominant Orthodox Church in the world, has clarified this recently and it is on the conscience of every Orthodox Christian whether Russian Orthodox or not.

But attending some event at a non-Orthodox church is not the same as the sin of praying with the non-Orthodox. I'm sure the fellow who attended his family member's chrismation did not actually say the prayers together with the Roman-Catholic people, or sing along on anything. If so, it was a sin. But doubtless he was simply showing respect for his family, not (God forbid!) seeking some kind of spiritual nourishment from the heretical church.

One can show love, without sacrificing the truth of Christ. Due to heresies having entered in, we cannot all participate in Sacraments together, but we can participate, without asking any blessing or waiting on anyone else, jump in and participate in the Sacrament of Love for one another.

Just because someone does something wrong, or picks up a wrong belief, is not a reason to cease loving him.
if an Orthodox said a prayer with a Catholic, would he go to hell for that? Or would he be able to be purified in Purgatory with other Catholics and then get to go to heaven?
since purgatory doesn't exist, no.
Well then if you said a prayer, say the Our Father, with a Catholic and did not have a chance to repent, would you go to heaven or hell?
I'll never find out.
So the Orthodox Church has no teaching on whether or not it is a serious issue to violate a canon of the Orthodox Church ?
What does the Eastern Orthodox Church have a universal teaching on?

conciliarity.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: ialmisry on October 24, 2011, 09:21:31 AM
Yes, it is forbidden, in the Orthodox Church, to pray together with those of a different faith. The Moscow Patriarchate, by far the largest and most predominant Orthodox Church in the world, has clarified this recently and it is on the conscience of every Orthodox Christian whether Russian Orthodox or not.

But attending some event at a non-Orthodox church is not the same as the sin of praying with the non-Orthodox. I'm sure the fellow who attended his family member's chrismation did not actually say the prayers together with the Roman-Catholic people, or sing along on anything. If so, it was a sin. But doubtless he was simply showing respect for his family, not (God forbid!) seeking some kind of spiritual nourishment from the heretical church.

One can show love, without sacrificing the truth of Christ. Due to heresies having entered in, we cannot all participate in Sacraments together, but we can participate, without asking any blessing or waiting on anyone else, jump in and participate in the Sacrament of Love for one another.

Just because someone does something wrong, or picks up a wrong belief, is not a reason to cease loving him.
if an Orthodox said a prayer with a Catholic, would he go to hell for that? Or would he be able to be purified in Purgatory with other Catholics and then get to go to heaven?
since purgatory doesn't exist, no.
Well then if you said a prayer, say the Our Father, with a Catholic and did not have a chance to repent, would you go to heaven or hell?
I'll never find out.
So the Orthodox Church has no teaching on whether or not it is a serious issue to violate a canon of the Orthodox Church ?
What does the Eastern Orthodox Church have a universal teaching on?
Lots, but only on real life.  We leave the speculation to you all.
btw, Wyatt I was in your neck of the woods in Peoria yesterday.  Hello.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Rufus on October 24, 2011, 02:40:06 PM
Yes, it is forbidden, in the Orthodox Church, to pray together with those of a different faith. The Moscow Patriarchate, by far the largest and most predominant Orthodox Church in the world, has clarified this recently and it is on the conscience of every Orthodox Christian whether Russian Orthodox or not.

But attending some event at a non-Orthodox church is not the same as the sin of praying with the non-Orthodox. I'm sure the fellow who attended his family member's chrismation did not actually say the prayers together with the Roman-Catholic people, or sing along on anything. If so, it was a sin. But doubtless he was simply showing respect for his family, not (God forbid!) seeking some kind of spiritual nourishment from the heretical church.

One can show love, without sacrificing the truth of Christ. Due to heresies having entered in, we cannot all participate in Sacraments together, but we can participate, without asking any blessing or waiting on anyone else, jump in and participate in the Sacrament of Love for one another.

Just because someone does something wrong, or picks up a wrong belief, is not a reason to cease loving him.
if an Orthodox said a prayer with a Catholic, would he go to hell for that? Or would he be able to be purified in Purgatory with other Catholics and then get to go to heaven?
since purgatory doesn't exist, no.
Well then if you said a prayer, say the Our Father, with a Catholic and did not have a chance to repent, would you go to heaven or hell?
I'll never find out.
So the Orthodox Church has no teaching on whether or not it is a serious issue to violate a canon of the Orthodox Church ?
What does the Eastern Orthodox Church have a universal teaching on?
Lots, but only on real life.  We leave the speculation to you all.
btw, Wyatt I was in your neck of the woods in Peoria yesterday.  Hello.
You could've had an ecumenical dialogue together.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: J Michael on October 24, 2011, 02:44:43 PM
Yes, it is forbidden, in the Orthodox Church, to pray together with those of a different faith. The Moscow Patriarchate, by far the largest and most predominant Orthodox Church in the world, has clarified this recently and it is on the conscience of every Orthodox Christian whether Russian Orthodox or not.

But attending some event at a non-Orthodox church is not the same as the sin of praying with the non-Orthodox. I'm sure the fellow who attended his family member's chrismation did not actually say the prayers together with the Roman-Catholic people, or sing along on anything. If so, it was a sin. But doubtless he was simply showing respect for his family, not (God forbid!) seeking some kind of spiritual nourishment from the heretical church.

One can show love, without sacrificing the truth of Christ. Due to heresies having entered in, we cannot all participate in Sacraments together, but we can participate, without asking any blessing or waiting on anyone else, jump in and participate in the Sacrament of Love for one another.

Just because someone does something wrong, or picks up a wrong belief, is not a reason to cease loving him.
if an Orthodox said a prayer with a Catholic, would he go to hell for that? Or would he be able to be purified in Purgatory with other Catholics and then get to go to heaven?
since purgatory doesn't exist, no.
Well then if you said a prayer, say the Our Father, with a Catholic and did not have a chance to repent, would you go to heaven or hell?
I'll never find out.
So the Orthodox Church has no teaching on whether or not it is a serious issue to violate a canon of the Orthodox Church ?
What does the Eastern Orthodox Church have a universal teaching on?
Lots, but only on real life.  We leave the speculation to you all.
btw, Wyatt I was in your neck of the woods in Peoria yesterday.  Hello.
You could've had an ecumenical dialogue together.

Or tea.  That probably would have been safer  ;D. 
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on October 24, 2011, 03:30:25 PM
Yes, it is forbidden, in the Orthodox Church, to pray together with those of a different faith. The Moscow Patriarchate, by far the largest and most predominant Orthodox Church in the world, has clarified this recently and it is on the conscience of every Orthodox Christian whether Russian Orthodox or not.

But attending some event at a non-Orthodox church is not the same as the sin of praying with the non-Orthodox. I'm sure the fellow who attended his family member's chrismation did not actually say the prayers together with the Roman-Catholic people, or sing along on anything. If so, it was a sin. But doubtless he was simply showing respect for his family, not (God forbid!) seeking some kind of spiritual nourishment from the heretical church.

One can show love, without sacrificing the truth of Christ. Due to heresies having entered in, we cannot all participate in Sacraments together, but we can participate, without asking any blessing or waiting on anyone else, jump in and participate in the Sacrament of Love for one another.

Just because someone does something wrong, or picks up a wrong belief, is not a reason to cease loving him.
if an Orthodox said a prayer with a Catholic, would he go to hell for that? Or would he be able to be purified in Purgatory with other Catholics and then get to go to heaven?
since purgatory doesn't exist, no.
Well then if you said a prayer, say the Our Father, with a Catholic and did not have a chance to repent, would you go to heaven or hell?
I'll never find out.
So the Orthodox Church has no teaching on whether or not it is a serious issue to violate a canon of the Orthodox Church ?
What does the Eastern Orthodox Church have a universal teaching on?
Lots, but only on real life.  We leave the speculation to you all.
btw, Wyatt I was in your neck of the woods in Peoria yesterday.  Hello.
You could've had an ecumenical dialogue together.

Or tea.  That probably would have been safer  ;D. 

DO NOT DO THAT  when I am drinking something!!!   >:( >:( >:(

 :laugh:
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: ialmisry on October 24, 2011, 03:44:26 PM
Yes, it is forbidden, in the Orthodox Church, to pray together with those of a different faith. The Moscow Patriarchate, by far the largest and most predominant Orthodox Church in the world, has clarified this recently and it is on the conscience of every Orthodox Christian whether Russian Orthodox or not.

But attending some event at a non-Orthodox church is not the same as the sin of praying with the non-Orthodox. I'm sure the fellow who attended his family member's chrismation did not actually say the prayers together with the Roman-Catholic people, or sing along on anything. If so, it was a sin. But doubtless he was simply showing respect for his family, not (God forbid!) seeking some kind of spiritual nourishment from the heretical church.

One can show love, without sacrificing the truth of Christ. Due to heresies having entered in, we cannot all participate in Sacraments together, but we can participate, without asking any blessing or waiting on anyone else, jump in and participate in the Sacrament of Love for one another.

Just because someone does something wrong, or picks up a wrong belief, is not a reason to cease loving him.
if an Orthodox said a prayer with a Catholic, would he go to hell for that? Or would he be able to be purified in Purgatory with other Catholics and then get to go to heaven?
since purgatory doesn't exist, no.
Well then if you said a prayer, say the Our Father, with a Catholic and did not have a chance to repent, would you go to heaven or hell?
I'll never find out.
So the Orthodox Church has no teaching on whether or not it is a serious issue to violate a canon of the Orthodox Church ?
What does the Eastern Orthodox Church have a universal teaching on?
Lots, but only on real life.  We leave the speculation to you all.
btw, Wyatt I was in your neck of the woods in Peoria yesterday.  Hello.
You could've had an ecumenical dialogue together.

Or tea.  That probably would have been safer  ;D. 

DO NOT DO THAT  when I am drinking something!!!   >:( >:( >:(

 :laugh:
Something stronger?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Fr.Aidan on October 24, 2011, 04:09:44 PM
You were going through Peoria? Did you get to attendance any Western Rite services at St. John Maximovitch Church there?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: ialmisry on October 24, 2011, 05:31:13 PM
You were going through Peoria? Did you get to attendance any Western Rite services at St. John Maximovitch Church there?
I was not aware that there was any WRO parish/mission in all of Illinois.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on October 24, 2011, 05:47:48 PM
Quote from: ialmisry link=topic=39189.msg658989#msg658989 date=1319485466

Or tea.  That probably would have been safer  ;D. 
[/quote

DO NOT DO THAT  when I am drinking something!!!   >:( >:( >:(

 :laugh:
Something stronger?
[/quote]

  8)...just tea...shooting out of my nose.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Fr.Aidan on October 24, 2011, 07:13:45 PM
The most complete online directory of canonical Western Rite parishes and monasteries is here:

http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/Liturgy/Groups.html

The pastor there is a noted Orthodox author and has served in Orthodox churches for several decades.

Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Schultz on October 25, 2011, 11:50:57 AM
Yes, it is forbidden, in the Orthodox Church, to pray together with those of a different faith. The Moscow Patriarchate, by far the largest and most predominant Orthodox Church in the world, has clarified this recently and it is on the conscience of every Orthodox Christian whether Russian Orthodox or not.

But attending some event at a non-Orthodox church is not the same as the sin of praying with the non-Orthodox. I'm sure the fellow who attended his family member's chrismation did not actually say the prayers together with the Roman-Catholic people, or sing along on anything. If so, it was a sin. But doubtless he was simply showing respect for his family, not (God forbid!) seeking some kind of spiritual nourishment from the heretical church.

One can show love, without sacrificing the truth of Christ. Due to heresies having entered in, we cannot all participate in Sacraments together, but we can participate, without asking any blessing or waiting on anyone else, jump in and participate in the Sacrament of Love for one another.

Just because someone does something wrong, or picks up a wrong belief, is not a reason to cease loving him.
if an Orthodox said a prayer with a Catholic, would he go to hell for that? Or would he be able to be purified in Purgatory with other Catholics and then get to go to heaven?
since purgatory doesn't exist, no.
Well then if you said a prayer, say the Our Father, with a Catholic and did not have a chance to repent, would you go to heaven or hell?
I'll never find out.

Well, you DID pray with my wife when we had dinner. ;)
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: J Michael on October 25, 2011, 11:52:43 AM
Yes, it is forbidden, in the Orthodox Church, to pray together with those of a different faith. The Moscow Patriarchate, by far the largest and most predominant Orthodox Church in the world, has clarified this recently and it is on the conscience of every Orthodox Christian whether Russian Orthodox or not.

But attending some event at a non-Orthodox church is not the same as the sin of praying with the non-Orthodox. I'm sure the fellow who attended his family member's chrismation did not actually say the prayers together with the Roman-Catholic people, or sing along on anything. If so, it was a sin. But doubtless he was simply showing respect for his family, not (God forbid!) seeking some kind of spiritual nourishment from the heretical church.

One can show love, without sacrificing the truth of Christ. Due to heresies having entered in, we cannot all participate in Sacraments together, but we can participate, without asking any blessing or waiting on anyone else, jump in and participate in the Sacrament of Love for one another.

Just because someone does something wrong, or picks up a wrong belief, is not a reason to cease loving him.
if an Orthodox said a prayer with a Catholic, would he go to hell for that? Or would he be able to be purified in Purgatory with other Catholics and then get to go to heaven?
since purgatory doesn't exist, no.
Well then if you said a prayer, say the Our Father, with a Catholic and did not have a chance to repent, would you go to heaven or hell?
I'll never find out.

Well, you DID pray with my wife when we had dinner. ;)

Uh, ohhh..... :o  ;)


Was there *tea*, afterwards  ;D?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Schultz on October 25, 2011, 12:01:49 PM
Yes, it is forbidden, in the Orthodox Church, to pray together with those of a different faith. The Moscow Patriarchate, by far the largest and most predominant Orthodox Church in the world, has clarified this recently and it is on the conscience of every Orthodox Christian whether Russian Orthodox or not.

But attending some event at a non-Orthodox church is not the same as the sin of praying with the non-Orthodox. I'm sure the fellow who attended his family member's chrismation did not actually say the prayers together with the Roman-Catholic people, or sing along on anything. If so, it was a sin. But doubtless he was simply showing respect for his family, not (God forbid!) seeking some kind of spiritual nourishment from the heretical church.

One can show love, without sacrificing the truth of Christ. Due to heresies having entered in, we cannot all participate in Sacraments together, but we can participate, without asking any blessing or waiting on anyone else, jump in and participate in the Sacrament of Love for one another.

Just because someone does something wrong, or picks up a wrong belief, is not a reason to cease loving him.
if an Orthodox said a prayer with a Catholic, would he go to hell for that? Or would he be able to be purified in Purgatory with other Catholics and then get to go to heaven?
since purgatory doesn't exist, no.
Well then if you said a prayer, say the Our Father, with a Catholic and did not have a chance to repent, would you go to heaven or hell?
I'll never find out.

Well, you DID pray with my wife when we had dinner. ;)

Uh, ohhh..... :o  ;)


Was there *tea*, afterwards  ;D?

It was a Chinese restaurant so there was tea before, during and after.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: J Michael on October 25, 2011, 12:03:41 PM
Yes, it is forbidden, in the Orthodox Church, to pray together with those of a different faith. The Moscow Patriarchate, by far the largest and most predominant Orthodox Church in the world, has clarified this recently and it is on the conscience of every Orthodox Christian whether Russian Orthodox or not.

But attending some event at a non-Orthodox church is not the same as the sin of praying with the non-Orthodox. I'm sure the fellow who attended his family member's chrismation did not actually say the prayers together with the Roman-Catholic people, or sing along on anything. If so, it was a sin. But doubtless he was simply showing respect for his family, not (God forbid!) seeking some kind of spiritual nourishment from the heretical church.

One can show love, without sacrificing the truth of Christ. Due to heresies having entered in, we cannot all participate in Sacraments together, but we can participate, without asking any blessing or waiting on anyone else, jump in and participate in the Sacrament of Love for one another.

Just because someone does something wrong, or picks up a wrong belief, is not a reason to cease loving him.
if an Orthodox said a prayer with a Catholic, would he go to hell for that? Or would he be able to be purified in Purgatory with other Catholics and then get to go to heaven?
since purgatory doesn't exist, no.
Well then if you said a prayer, say the Our Father, with a Catholic and did not have a chance to repent, would you go to heaven or hell?
I'll never find out.

Well, you DID pray with my wife when we had dinner. ;)

Uh, ohhh..... :o  ;)


Was there *tea*, afterwards  ;D?

It was a Chinese restaurant so there was tea before, during and after.

Pheee-----ew  ;D.  I guess there were no casualties, then, eh?  ;)
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: ialmisry on October 25, 2011, 01:00:54 PM
Yes, it is forbidden, in the Orthodox Church, to pray together with those of a different faith. The Moscow Patriarchate, by far the largest and most predominant Orthodox Church in the world, has clarified this recently and it is on the conscience of every Orthodox Christian whether Russian Orthodox or not.

But attending some event at a non-Orthodox church is not the same as the sin of praying with the non-Orthodox. I'm sure the fellow who attended his family member's chrismation did not actually say the prayers together with the Roman-Catholic people, or sing along on anything. If so, it was a sin. But doubtless he was simply showing respect for his family, not (God forbid!) seeking some kind of spiritual nourishment from the heretical church.

One can show love, without sacrificing the truth of Christ. Due to heresies having entered in, we cannot all participate in Sacraments together, but we can participate, without asking any blessing or waiting on anyone else, jump in and participate in the Sacrament of Love for one another.

Just because someone does something wrong, or picks up a wrong belief, is not a reason to cease loving him.
if an Orthodox said a prayer with a Catholic, would he go to hell for that? Or would he be able to be purified in Purgatory with other Catholics and then get to go to heaven?
since purgatory doesn't exist, no.
Well then if you said a prayer, say the Our Father, with a Catholic and did not have a chance to repent, would you go to heaven or hell?
I'll never find out.

Well, you DID pray with my wife when we had dinner. ;)
LOL. And although I thereafter sailed off to the Bermuda Triangle, I lived to tell the tale.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Schultz on October 25, 2011, 01:41:28 PM
We can always say she prayed with US instead of the other way around ;)
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: ialmisry on October 25, 2011, 02:05:25 PM
We can always say she prayed with US instead of the other way around ;)
we could if we were Jesuits.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: J Michael on October 25, 2011, 02:08:04 PM
We can always say she prayed with US instead of the other way around ;)
we could if we were Jesuits.

Tea, anybody  ;D ;D?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on October 25, 2011, 05:42:18 PM
We can always say she prayed with US instead of the other way around ;)
we could if we were Jesuits.

Oh...you  mean if you can think clearly and accurately and prayerfully all at once?...

I agree!!
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: stanley123 on October 26, 2011, 12:57:16 AM
Yes, it is forbidden, in the Orthodox Church, to pray together with those of a different faith. The Moscow Patriarchate, by far the largest and most predominant Orthodox Church in the world, has clarified this recently and it is on the conscience of every Orthodox Christian whether Russian Orthodox or not.

But attending some event at a non-Orthodox church is not the same as the sin of praying with the non-Orthodox. I'm sure the fellow who attended his family member's chrismation did not actually say the prayers together with the Roman-Catholic people, or sing along on anything. If so, it was a sin. But doubtless he was simply showing respect for his family, not (God forbid!) seeking some kind of spiritual nourishment from the heretical church.

One can show love, without sacrificing the truth of Christ. Due to heresies having entered in, we cannot all participate in Sacraments together, but we can participate, without asking any blessing or waiting on anyone else, jump in and participate in the Sacrament of Love for one another.

Just because someone does something wrong, or picks up a wrong belief, is not a reason to cease loving him.
if an Orthodox said a prayer with a Catholic, would he go to hell for that? Or would he be able to be purified in Purgatory with other Catholics and then get to go to heaven?
since purgatory doesn't exist, no.
Well then if you said a prayer, say the Our Father, with a Catholic and did not have a chance to repent, would you go to heaven or hell?
I'll never find out.

Well, you DID pray with my wife when we had dinner. ;)
Does that mean that  he violated a canon of the Holy Orthodox Church? Is that a sin at all to violate such a canon or can the canons of the Holy Orthodox Church safely be ignored? And you will get to heaven regardless of whether you observe or whether you violate such canons?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: LBK on October 26, 2011, 01:37:53 AM
Quote
Does that mean that  he violated a canon of the Holy Orthodox Church? Is that a sin at all to violate such a canon or can the canons of the Holy Orthodox Church safely be ignored? And you will get to heaven regardless of whether you observe or whether you violate such canons?

Stanley, last time I checked, the canon you are so fond of bringing up is also part of your church's tradition. I ask you again: Are there no mixed marriages in your family? And, furthermore, if a close friend or relative of yours who is not RC invited you to a wedding, baptism/christening or other church service, what would you do?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: J Michael on October 26, 2011, 11:15:15 AM
Quote
Does that mean that  he violated a canon of the Holy Orthodox Church? Is that a sin at all to violate such a canon or can the canons of the Holy Orthodox Church safely be ignored? And you will get to heaven regardless of whether you observe or whether you violate such canons?

Stanley, last time I checked, the canon you are so fond of bringing up is also part of your church's tradition. I ask you again: Are there no mixed marriages in your family? And, furthermore, if a close friend or relative of yours who is not RC invited you to a wedding, baptism/christening or other church service, what would you do?

I won't pretend to speak for Stanley, as he's more than capable for speaking for himself, but I will just say that the canon I *think* people are talking about (I write "think", because to the best of my knowledge no one has yet specified *any particular canon*, so maybe there really even isn't one!) has to do with Orthodox being forbidden, at least *according to Fr. Aidan*, to pray with those not of Orthodoxy.  In the Catholic Church, members of any church are welcome to pray with us, and members of the Orthodox Church, the ACOE, the Polish National Catholic Church are welcomed to partake of Holy Communion, while being encouraged to be in obedience with the canons of their own church.  One only has to read the inside (back) cover of the missalette found in virtually every Catholic church to verify that.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: primuspilus on October 26, 2011, 11:25:09 AM
After 10 pages of posts, I still say the Sacred Heart is creepy.

PP
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: J Michael on October 26, 2011, 11:40:58 AM
After 10 pages of posts, I still say the Sacred Heart is creepy.

PP

And you're certainly entitled to your opinion  ;) ;), and under no obligation whatsoever to participate in the devotion or even think about it!  ;D
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: ialmisry on October 26, 2011, 12:11:08 PM
After 10 pages of posts, I still say the Sacred Heart is creepy.

PP

And you're certainly entitled to your opinion  ;) ;),
not being under the Vatican's jurisdiction, of course he is.

and under no obligation whatsoever to participate in the devotion or even think about it!  ;D
not being under the Vatican's jurisdiction, of course he's not.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: J Michael on October 26, 2011, 12:17:26 PM
After 10 pages of posts, I still say the Sacred Heart is creepy.

PP

And you're certainly entitled to your opinion  ;) ;),
not being under the Vatican's jurisdiction, of course he is.

and under no obligation whatsoever to participate in the devotion or even think about it!  ;D
not being under the Vatican's jurisdiction, of course he's not.

Even if he were "under the Vatican's jurisdiction", he's still entitled to his opinion and under no obligation with regard to the Sacred Heart Devotion.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: ialmisry on October 26, 2011, 12:35:43 PM
After 10 pages of posts, I still say the Sacred Heart is creepy.

PP

And you're certainly entitled to your opinion  ;) ;),
not being under the Vatican's jurisdiction, of course he is.

and under no obligation whatsoever to participate in the devotion or even think about it!  ;D
not being under the Vatican's jurisdiction, of course he's not.

Even if he were "under the Vatican's jurisdiction", he's still entitled to his opinion and under no obligation with regard to the Sacred Heart Devotion.
yeah, that's what they say. Try to criticize it (and there is much to criticize, as we have seen).  Ditto the Fatima cult.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: primuspilus on October 26, 2011, 12:39:09 PM
After 10 pages of posts, I still say the Sacred Heart is creepy.

PP

And you're certainly entitled to your opinion  ;) ;),
not being under the Vatican's jurisdiction, of course he is.

and under no obligation whatsoever to participate in the devotion or even think about it!  ;D
not being under the Vatican's jurisdiction, of course he's not.

Even if he were "under the Vatican's jurisdiction", he's still entitled to his opinion and under no obligation with regard to the Sacred Heart Devotion.
yeah, that's what they say. Try to criticize it (and there is much to criticize, as we have seen).  Ditto the Fatima cult.
Speaking of that, I have a question. So the Virgin appeared to that Portugese girl right? If so, does that mean that anyone asking the Virgin to pray for them did not get answered?

PP
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: J Michael on October 26, 2011, 12:45:39 PM
After 10 pages of posts, I still say the Sacred Heart is creepy.

PP

And you're certainly entitled to your opinion  ;) ;),
not being under the Vatican's jurisdiction, of course he is.

and under no obligation whatsoever to participate in the devotion or even think about it!  ;D
not being under the Vatican's jurisdiction, of course he's not.

Even if he were "under the Vatican's jurisdiction", he's still entitled to his opinion and under no obligation with regard to the Sacred Heart Devotion.
yeah, that's what they say. Try to criticize it (and there is much to criticize, as we have seen).  Ditto the Fatima cult.
Speaking of that, I have a question. So the Virgin appeared to that Portugese girl right? If so, does that mean that anyone asking the Virgin to pray for them did not get answered?

PP

Where'd you get *that* idea?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: J Michael on October 26, 2011, 12:52:55 PM
After 10 pages of posts, I still say the Sacred Heart is creepy.

PP

And you're certainly entitled to your opinion  ;) ;),
not being under the Vatican's jurisdiction, of course he is.

and under no obligation whatsoever to participate in the devotion or even think about it!  ;D
not being under the Vatican's jurisdiction, of course he's not.

Even if he were "under the Vatican's jurisdiction", he's still entitled to his opinion and under no obligation with regard to the Sacred Heart Devotion.
yeah, that's what they say. Try to criticize it (and there is much to criticize, as we have seen).  Ditto the Fatima cult.

I don't need to criticize it.  I've heard plenty of criticisms of both of those (and others), and to the best of my admittedly very limited knowledge, no one, if Catholic (and even if not Catholic), has been beheaded, sent to Devil's Island, or even excommunicated for doing so. 

I guess, too, how a critic is responded to depends, at least in part, on the tone and substance of their criticism.  There are those who criticize just to criticize, because that's what they do, and have nothing to offer except their criticism.  Then there are those who criticize out of ignorance; those who criticize in order to understand more deeply and thoroughly; those who criticize because they see a perceived flaw and have something constructive to offer in return...and so on.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: primuspilus on October 26, 2011, 12:55:39 PM
After 10 pages of posts, I still say the Sacred Heart is creepy.

PP

And you're certainly entitled to your opinion  ;) ;),
not being under the Vatican's jurisdiction, of course he is.

and under no obligation whatsoever to participate in the devotion or even think about it!  ;D
not being under the Vatican's jurisdiction, of course he's not.

Even if he were "under the Vatican's jurisdiction", he's still entitled to his opinion and under no obligation with regard to the Sacred Heart Devotion.
yeah, that's what they say. Try to criticize it (and there is much to criticize, as we have seen).  Ditto the Fatima cult.
Speaking of that, I have a question. So the Virgin appeared to that Portugese girl right? If so, does that mean that anyone asking the Virgin to pray for them did not get answered?

PP

Where'd you get *that* idea?
just using reason....if the Virgin was appearing to that kid for those prohpesies then she could not very well be praying to the Lord for us. So if anyone did so during that time, then the Virgin ignored it....right?


PP
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: J Michael on October 26, 2011, 01:45:00 PM
After 10 pages of posts, I still say the Sacred Heart is creepy.

PP

And you're certainly entitled to your opinion  ;) ;),
not being under the Vatican's jurisdiction, of course he is.

and under no obligation whatsoever to participate in the devotion or even think about it!  ;D
not being under the Vatican's jurisdiction, of course he's not.

Even if he were "under the Vatican's jurisdiction", he's still entitled to his opinion and under no obligation with regard to the Sacred Heart Devotion.
yeah, that's what they say. Try to criticize it (and there is much to criticize, as we have seen).  Ditto the Fatima cult.
Speaking of that, I have a question. So the Virgin appeared to that Portugese girl right? If so, does that mean that anyone asking the Virgin to pray for them did not get answered?

PP

Where'd you get *that* idea?
just using reason....if the Virgin was appearing to that kid for those prohpesies then she could not very well be praying to the Lord for us. So if anyone did so during that time, then the Virgin ignored it....right?


PP

Okay, now I understand your question  ;)!  I'm afraid, however, that that's above my pay-grade  :(.  Based on my poor human logic, given that the Theotokos is NOT God, and unable to be in more than one place at a "time", the best I can offer is that when she was appearing at Fatima, as when she was appearing to St. Seraphim of Sarov, or at Zeitoun, she was only in that one place at that time.  As for what else occurred, I couldn't say.  Now, she *could* be appearing somewhere, *and* simultaneously praying to God for us--you know, like I can be here at my desk and pray at the same time.  How is it that many holy people are able to go about their business, have conversations, do work, etc. *and* be continuously praying to God?

What point are you trying to make?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: ialmisry on October 26, 2011, 02:29:51 PM
After 10 pages of posts, I still say the Sacred Heart is creepy.

PP

And you're certainly entitled to your opinion  ;) ;),
not being under the Vatican's jurisdiction, of course he is.

and under no obligation whatsoever to participate in the devotion or even think about it!  ;D
not being under the Vatican's jurisdiction, of course he's not.

Even if he were "under the Vatican's jurisdiction", he's still entitled to his opinion and under no obligation with regard to the Sacred Heart Devotion.
yeah, that's what they say. Try to criticize it (and there is much to criticize, as we have seen).  Ditto the Fatima cult.

I don't need to criticize it.  I've heard plenty of criticisms of both of those (and others), and to the best of my admittedly very limited knowledge, no one, if Catholic (and even if not Catholic), has been beheaded, sent to Devil's Island, or even excommunicated for doing so. 
Crack open a book predating Vatican II.

I remember they had a video on EWTN, and they were all gushing about how the heart attack of a bus driver on their pilgrimage to Fatima.  The bus driver told them that they had to lay their statue of "Our Lady of Fatima" down in the aisle of the bus, as it was a driving hazard standing up.  They were giddy when the bus driver on the return trip had a heart attack and they had to lay him down in the same spot, waiting for the ambulance.  They took the heart attack as a wonderful sign from God. I took their obvious glee as a sign of their perversity.

I guess, too, how a critic is responded to depends, at least in part, on the tone and substance of their criticism.  There are those who criticize just to criticize, because that's what they do, and have nothing to offer except their criticism.  Then there are those who criticize out of ignorance; those who criticize in order to understand more deeply and thoroughly; those who criticize because they see a perceived flaw and have something constructive to offer in return...and so on.
one need only state that one does not personally believe in the visions of Sr. Marguerite Marie or Sr. Lucia and her cousins, and see what happens.

So, can one opt out of the supreme pontiff's consecration of the world to Fatima's "immaculate heart"?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: J Michael on October 26, 2011, 02:44:10 PM
After 10 pages of posts, I still say the Sacred Heart is creepy.

PP

And you're certainly entitled to your opinion  ;) ;),
not being under the Vatican's jurisdiction, of course he is.

and under no obligation whatsoever to participate in the devotion or even think about it!  ;D
not being under the Vatican's jurisdiction, of course he's not.

Even if he were "under the Vatican's jurisdiction", he's still entitled to his opinion and under no obligation with regard to the Sacred Heart Devotion.
yeah, that's what they say. Try to criticize it (and there is much to criticize, as we have seen).  Ditto the Fatima cult.

I don't need to criticize it.  I've heard plenty of criticisms of both of those (and others), and to the best of my admittedly very limited knowledge, no one, if Catholic (and even if not Catholic), has been beheaded, sent to Devil's Island, or even excommunicated for doing so. 
Crack open a book predating Vatican II.

I remember they had a video on EWTN, and they were all gushing about how the heart attack of a bus driver on their pilgrimage to Fatima.  The bus driver told them that they had to lay their statue of "Our Lady of Fatima" down in the aisle of the bus, as it was a driving hazard standing up.  They were giddy when the bus driver on the return trip had a heart attack and they had to lay him down in the same spot, waiting for the ambulance.  They took the heart attack as a wonderful sign from God. I took their obvious glee as a sign of their perversity.

I guess, too, how a critic is responded to depends, at least in part, on the tone and substance of their criticism.  There are those who criticize just to criticize, because that's what they do, and have nothing to offer except their criticism.  Then there are those who criticize out of ignorance; those who criticize in order to understand more deeply and thoroughly; those who criticize because they see a perceived flaw and have something constructive to offer in return...and so on.
one need only state that one does not personally believe in the visions of Sr. Marguerite Marie or Sr. Lucia and her cousins, and see what happens.

So, can one opt out of the supreme pontiff's consecration of the world to Fatima's "immaculate heart"?

Which page(s) of the several million books in print did you have in mind? 

The way you describe the EWTN video is actually pretty funny!  But then, I have a strange sense of humor  ;D.  Is that how it ended, with the bus driver laying down, waiting for the ambulance? 

Was the pope's "consecration of the world to Fatima's 'immaculate heart'" an ex-cathedra, infallible statement about faith and morals?  (Uh oh...here we go again...)

Just out of curiosity, why does all of this seem to matter so much to you?  I'm genuinely asking, not trying to be provocative or snippy or anything.  It's just that you appear, by what you write and how you write it (not just here, but in many threads), to have been somehow deeply hurt by and therefore very bitter towards Catholics/the Catholic Church/Catholicism.  That is not, by the way, a criticism.  Just an observation which may, in fact, be incorrect.  Forgive me if I'm out of line for asking.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: ialmisry on October 26, 2011, 03:08:54 PM
After 10 pages of posts, I still say the Sacred Heart is creepy.

PP

And you're certainly entitled to your opinion  ;) ;),
not being under the Vatican's jurisdiction, of course he is.

and under no obligation whatsoever to participate in the devotion or even think about it!  ;D
not being under the Vatican's jurisdiction, of course he's not.

Even if he were "under the Vatican's jurisdiction", he's still entitled to his opinion and under no obligation with regard to the Sacred Heart Devotion.
yeah, that's what they say. Try to criticize it (and there is much to criticize, as we have seen).  Ditto the Fatima cult.

I don't need to criticize it.  I've heard plenty of criticisms of both of those (and others), and to the best of my admittedly very limited knowledge, no one, if Catholic (and even if not Catholic), has been beheaded, sent to Devil's Island, or even excommunicated for doing so.
Crack open a book predating Vatican II.

I remember they had a video on EWTN, and they were all gushing about how the heart attack of a bus driver on their pilgrimage to Fatima.  The bus driver told them that they had to lay their statue of "Our Lady of Fatima" down in the aisle of the bus, as it was a driving hazard standing up.  They were giddy when the bus driver on the return trip had a heart attack and they had to lay him down in the same spot, waiting for the ambulance.  They took the heart attack as a wonderful sign from God. I took their obvious glee as a sign of their perversity.

I guess, too, how a critic is responded to depends, at least in part, on the tone and substance of their criticism.  There are those who criticize just to criticize, because that's what they do, and have nothing to offer except their criticism.  Then there are those who criticize out of ignorance; those who criticize in order to understand more deeply and thoroughly; those who criticize because they see a perceived flaw and have something constructive to offer in return...and so on.
one need only state that one does not personally believe in the visions of Sr. Marguerite Marie or Sr. Lucia and her cousins, and see what happens.

So, can one opt out of the supreme pontiff's consecration of the world to Fatima's "immaculate heart"?

Which page(s) of the several million books in print did you have in mind?
Anyone dealing with the doings of the Vatican.

The way you describe the EWTN video is actually pretty funny!  But then, I have a strange sense of humor  ;D.  Is that how it ended, with the bus driver laying down, waiting for the ambulance?
No, the cultists gloating over him, and then into the wonders of whoever joins the cult of Fatima.

Was the pope's "consecration of the world to Fatima's 'immaculate heart'" an ex-cathedra, infallible statement about faith and morals?  (Uh oh...here we go again...)
I guess we would have to wait until they sort out whether the Vatican did it to the specifications of Fatima or not.  There seems to be some debate on that.

Just out of curiosity, why does all of this seem to matter so much to you?
Well, for one, the Fatimists have their ilk bothering us to fulfil "the prophecy of Fatima" with the conversion of Russia.

I'm genuinely asking, not trying to be provocative or snippy or anything.  It's just that you appear, by what you write and how you write it (not just here, but in many threads), to have been somehow deeply hurt by and therefore very bitter towards Catholics/the Catholic Church/Catholicism.
No, sorry to disappoint you, but no, I wasn't molested by the brothers in HS nor beaten by the nuns in grammar school (for one, I went to a public grammar school).  No hurt, no bitterness. Just a quirk of calling a spade a spade.

That is not, by the way, a criticism.  Just an observation which may, in fact, be incorrect.  Forgive me if I'm out of line for asking.
no problem.  Didn't bother me at all.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Papist on October 26, 2011, 03:18:01 PM
After 10 pages of posts, I still say the Sacred Heart is creepy.

PP
I think it's creepy that anyone thinks that the Sacred Heart devotion is creepy.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: J Michael on October 26, 2011, 03:45:34 PM
After 10 pages of posts, I still say the Sacred Heart is creepy.

PP

And you're certainly entitled to your opinion  ;) ;),
not being under the Vatican's jurisdiction, of course he is.

and under no obligation whatsoever to participate in the devotion or even think about it!  ;D
not being under the Vatican's jurisdiction, of course he's not.

Even if he were "under the Vatican's jurisdiction", he's still entitled to his opinion and under no obligation with regard to the Sacred Heart Devotion.
yeah, that's what they say. Try to criticize it (and there is much to criticize, as we have seen).  Ditto the Fatima cult.

I don't need to criticize it.  I've heard plenty of criticisms of both of those (and others), and to the best of my admittedly very limited knowledge, no one, if Catholic (and even if not Catholic), has been beheaded, sent to Devil's Island, or even excommunicated for doing so.
Crack open a book predating Vatican II.

I remember they had a video on EWTN, and they were all gushing about how the heart attack of a bus driver on their pilgrimage to Fatima.  The bus driver told them that they had to lay their statue of "Our Lady of Fatima" down in the aisle of the bus, as it was a driving hazard standing up.  They were giddy when the bus driver on the return trip had a heart attack and they had to lay him down in the same spot, waiting for the ambulance.  They took the heart attack as a wonderful sign from God. I took their obvious glee as a sign of their perversity.

I guess, too, how a critic is responded to depends, at least in part, on the tone and substance of their criticism.  There are those who criticize just to criticize, because that's what they do, and have nothing to offer except their criticism.  Then there are those who criticize out of ignorance; those who criticize in order to understand more deeply and thoroughly; those who criticize because they see a perceived flaw and have something constructive to offer in return...and so on.
one need only state that one does not personally believe in the visions of Sr. Marguerite Marie or Sr. Lucia and her cousins, and see what happens.

So, can one opt out of the supreme pontiff's consecration of the world to Fatima's "immaculate heart"?

Which page(s) of the several million books in print did you have in mind?
Anyone dealing with the doings of the Vatican.

The way you describe the EWTN video is actually pretty funny!  But then, I have a strange sense of humor  ;D.  Is that how it ended, with the bus driver laying down, waiting for the ambulance?
No, the cultists gloating over him, and then into the wonders of whoever joins the cult of Fatima.

Was the pope's "consecration of the world to Fatima's 'immaculate heart'" an ex-cathedra, infallible statement about faith and morals?  (Uh oh...here we go again...)
I guess we would have to wait until they sort out whether the Vatican did it to the specifications of Fatima or not.  There seems to be some debate on that.

Just out of curiosity, why does all of this seem to matter so much to you?
Well, for one, the Fatimists have their ilk bothering us to fulfil "the prophecy of Fatima" with the conversion of Russia.

I'm genuinely asking, not trying to be provocative or snippy or anything.  It's just that you appear, by what you write and how you write it (not just here, but in many threads), to have been somehow deeply hurt by and therefore very bitter towards Catholics/the Catholic Church/Catholicism.
No, sorry to disappoint you, but no, I wasn't molested by the brothers in HS nor beaten by the nuns in grammar school (for one, I went to a public grammar school).  No hurt, no bitterness. Just a quirk of calling a spade a spade.

That is not, by the way, a criticism.  Just an observation which may, in fact, be incorrect.  Forgive me if I'm out of line for asking.
no problem.  Didn't bother me at all.

Wow, why on earth would you think I'd be disappointed that you weren't molested by the brothers, etc.???  I know we've had some deep disagreements and harsh words with each other before, but please........to think that of me (or of anyone else, for that matter) is **really** unkind and uncharitable--not to mention just plain wrong.

I know you like to call a spade a spade.  It's just the manner in which you do it that makes me think you've been somehow hurt, etc.  Others do so, but are far less vitriolic, condescending, and just plain nasty than you can sometimes be.  Forgive me for being blunt.  My experience is that usually, but not always, people who write/respond in that kind of manner are harboring some kind of deep, unhealed hurt--even though they may not be consciously aware of it.  If I'm wrong about that with regards to you, then I'm wrong.  It won't be the first time, nor the last that I've been wrong about something  ;).  Hurt, by the way, can come from a multitude of other sources besides brothers or nuns or priests.  But I guess you know that.

And....just for the record, for whatever it's worth, I have my own doubts about Fatima.  And I'll have nothing to do with Medjugorje, even though I personally know of some very deep, real, and sincere conversions that have taken place there.  Go figure...
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Fr.Aidan on October 26, 2011, 04:26:52 PM
If there be a Christian who has part in the Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, or the Church of the Holy Apostles of Jesus Christ, then let him know he is forbidden to pray together with any man of any other faith.

1.   Canon 10 of the Holy Apostles: "If one who is not in communion prays together, even at home, let him be excommunicated”

2.   Canon 11 of the Holy Apostles: "If one who is a priest prays together with a defrocked priest, let him too be defrocked.”

3.   Canon 45 of the Holy Apostles: "A Bishop, or a Presbyter, or a Deacon that only prays together with heretics, should be excommunicated; if he has permitted them to perform anything as Clergymen, let him be defrocked.”

4.   Canon 64 of the Holy Apostles: "If a Clergyman or a Layman should enter a Jewish synagogue, or pray with heretics, let him be excommunicated and defrocked.”

5.   Canon 71 of the Holy Apostles: "If a Christian should bring oil to a Gentile altar, or to a Jewish synagogue during their feast-days, or light lamps, let him be excommunicated”

6.   Canon 6 of the Local Synod of Laodicea: "On the matter of not allowing heretics to enter the house of God, who persist in their heresy"

7.   Canon 9 of the Local Synod of Laodicea: "On the matter of not allowing those who are of the Church to go to the cemeteries or to the so-called places of martyrdom of all who are heretics, on the pretext of a blessing or a cure; if they are of the faithful, let them be excommunicated for a certain time, and, after repenting and confessing that they erred, be re-admitted.”

8.   Canon 32 of the Local Synod of Laodicea: "That it is not permitted to accept the blessings of heretics, which are foolishness rather than blessings”

9.   Canon 33 of the Local Synod of Laodicea: "That one must not pray together with heretics or schismatics”

10.  Canon 34 of the Local Synod of Laodicea:. “That it is not proper for any Christian to abandon the witnesses of Christ and go to the false witnesses, that is to say the heretics, or to those who are predisposed to becoming heretics.  For they are alien to God. Let them therefore be anathema, who would depart for their sake.”

11.  Canon 37 of the Local Synod of Laodicea:. "One must not accept the festive tokens sent by Jews or heretics, nor celebrate together with them."

12.   Canon 9 of Timothy of Alexandria: "Question. May a Clergyman offer prayers in the presence of Arians or other heretics?  Or does this not harm him in any way, whenever he performs the benediction, that is, the offering?;  Reply. During the divine anaphora, the Deacon recites this address prior to the greeting: "Those not in communion, walk away”. Therefore, they do not need to be present, unless they have reported their intention to repent and abandon the heresy" 

To the above Canons, one must also add the following: 

13.   Canon B’ of the Antioch Synod: "All those entering the Church and listening to the divine Scriptures, but not participating in the prayer together with the people, or displaying aversion to the Holy Communion of the Eucharist as an act of disorderliness, let them be cast out of the Church, until they have confessed and have shown works of repentance and are able to beseech forgiveness, thereafter not intending to be in communion with the excommunicated, nor congregate in houses with those who do not pray together in Church, nor with those who do not congregate.  Should any of the bishops, or presbyters, or deacons, or someone of the Canon be seen in communion with the excommunicated, let them also be excommunicated, as ones who have confused the Canon of the Church.”

14.  Canon A’ of the 4th Ecumenical Synod, (which validates the Canons of the Local Synods of Laodicea and Antioch, and of Saint Timothy of Alexandria)

15.  Canon B’ of the 6th Ecumenical Synod, (which validates the Apostolic Canons, the Canons of the Local Synods of Laodicea and Antioch, and of Saint Timothy of Alexandria).

16.  Canon A’ of the 7th Ecumenical Synod , (which validates the Apostolic Canons, the Canons of the Local Synods of Laodicea and Antioch, and of Saint Timothy of Alexandria). 
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: J Michael on October 26, 2011, 04:36:31 PM
If there be a Christian who has part in the Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, or the Church of the Holy Apostles of Jesus Christ, then let him know he is forbidden to pray together with any man of any other faith.

1.   Canon 10 of the Holy Apostles: "If one who is not in communion prays together, even at home, let him be excommunicated”

2.   Canon 11 of the Holy Apostles: "If one who is a priest prays together with a defrocked priest, let him too be defrocked.”

3.   Canon 45 of the Holy Apostles: "A Bishop, or a Presbyter, or a Deacon that only prays together with heretics, should be excommunicated; if he has permitted them to perform anything as Clergymen, let him be defrocked.”

4.   Canon 64 of the Holy Apostles: "If a Clergyman or a Layman should enter a Jewish synagogue, or pray with heretics, let him be excommunicated and defrocked.”

5.   Canon 71 of the Holy Apostles: "If a Christian should bring oil to a Gentile altar, or to a Jewish synagogue during their feast-days, or light lamps, let him be excommunicated”

6.   Canon 6 of the Local Synod of Laodicea: "On the matter of not allowing heretics to enter the house of God, who persist in their heresy"

7.   Canon 9 of the Local Synod of Laodicea: "On the matter of not allowing those who are of the Church to go to the cemeteries or to the so-called places of martyrdom of all who are heretics, on the pretext of a blessing or a cure; if they are of the faithful, let them be excommunicated for a certain time, and, after repenting and confessing that they erred, be re-admitted.”

8.   Canon 32 of the Local Synod of Laodicea: "That it is not permitted to accept the blessings of heretics, which are foolishness rather than blessings”

9.   Canon 33 of the Local Synod of Laodicea: "That one must not pray together with heretics or schismatics”

10.  Canon 34 of the Local Synod of Laodicea:. “That it is not proper for any Christian to abandon the witnesses of Christ and go to the false witnesses, that is to say the heretics, or to those who are predisposed to becoming heretics.  For they are alien to God. Let them therefore be anathema, who would depart for their sake.”

11.  Canon 37 of the Local Synod of Laodicea:. "One must not accept the festive tokens sent by Jews or heretics, nor celebrate together with them."

12.   Canon 9 of Timothy of Alexandria: "Question. May a Clergyman offer prayers in the presence of Arians or other heretics?  Or does this not harm him in any way, whenever he performs the benediction, that is, the offering?;  Reply. During the divine anaphora, the Deacon recites this address prior to the greeting: "Those not in communion, walk away”. Therefore, they do not need to be present, unless they have reported their intention to repent and abandon the heresy" 

To the above Canons, one must also add the following: 

13.   Canon B’ of the Antioch Synod: "All those entering the Church and listening to the divine Scriptures, but not participating in the prayer together with the people, or displaying aversion to the Holy Communion of the Eucharist as an act of disorderliness, let them be cast out of the Church, until they have confessed and have shown works of repentance and are able to beseech forgiveness, thereafter not intending to be in communion with the excommunicated, nor congregate in houses with those who do not pray together in Church, nor with those who do not congregate.  Should any of the bishops, or presbyters, or deacons, or someone of the Canon be seen in communion with the excommunicated, let them also be excommunicated, as ones who have confused the Canon of the Church.”

14.  Canon A’ of the 4th Ecumenical Synod, (which validates the Canons of the Local Synods of Laodicea and Antioch, and of Saint Timothy of Alexandria)

15.  Canon B’ of the 6th Ecumenical Synod, (which validates the Apostolic Canons, the Canons of the Local Synods of Laodicea and Antioch, and of Saint Timothy of Alexandria).

16.  Canon A’ of the 7th Ecumenical Synod , (which validates the Apostolic Canons, the Canons of the Local Synods of Laodicea and Antioch, and of Saint Timothy of Alexandria). 

From wikipedia (sorry!): The Apostolic Canons[1] or Ecclesiastical Canons of the Same Holy Apostles[2] is a collection of ancient ecclesiastical decrees concerning the government and discipline of the Early Christian Church, first found as last chapter of the eighth book of the Apostolic Constitutions and belonging to genre of the Church Orders.

These eighty-five canons were approved by the Eastern Council in Trullo in 692 but rejected by Pope Constantine. In the Western Church only fifty of these canons circulated, translated in Latin by Dionysius Exiguus in about 500 AD, and included in the Western collections and afterwards in the "Corpus Juris Canonici". Canon n. 85 contains a list of canonical books, thus it is important for the history of the Biblical canon.


Are those the canons you are quoting above?

Are canons of a local synod binding on the whole Church?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Fr.Aidan on October 26, 2011, 04:52:17 PM
Pope Adrian of Rome confirmed every single canon of Trullo (Sixth Ecumenical Council), even though other Popes after him did not.

The canons of a local council are binding for the whole Church, when an Ecumenical Council representing the whole Church and accepted by the whole Church, makes them so.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: J Michael on October 26, 2011, 04:57:54 PM
Pope Adrian of Rome confirmed every single canon of Trullo (Sixth Ecumenical Council), even though other Popes after him did not.

The canons of a local council are binding for the whole Church, when an Ecumenical Council representing the whole Church and accepted by the whole Church, makes them so.

Why did Pope Constantine (as above) reject them?  And what significance did that rejection have?

By the way, thanks for posting those.  At least now there's something real to talk about rather than "So and so said such and such, therefore it must be true"  ;).

It would seem that if all the canons you quoted were accepted by all Catholics and Orthodox and rigorously and consistently applied, there'd be a helluva lot of folks in really deep doo doo--popes, patriarchs, metropolitans, archbishops, bishops, priests, deacons, sub-deacons, readers, religious, lay people--of all ilks.  Eeeeeeeeeek!!!!  (At least my cats are safe  ;)!!)
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on October 26, 2011, 05:02:50 PM
Pope Adrian of Rome confirmed every single canon of Trullo (Sixth Ecumenical Council), even though other Popes after him did not.

The canons of a local council are binding for the whole Church, when an Ecumenical Council representing the whole Church and accepted by the whole Church, makes them so.

As long as I have been interacting with Orthodox faithful it has been made ABUNDANTLY clear to me that reception of the canons must come from the entire Church and that takes time, and sometimes a LONG time.

Apparently...in the long run...not all of the aforementioned canons have been received by the whole Church.

M.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: stanley123 on October 26, 2011, 06:48:18 PM
If there be a Christian who has part in the Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, or the Church of the Holy Apostles of Jesus Christ, then let him know he is forbidden to pray together with any man of any other faith.

1.   Canon 10 of the Holy Apostles: "If one who is not in communion prays together, even at home, let him be excommunicated”

2.   Canon 11 of the Holy Apostles: "If one who is a priest prays together with a defrocked priest, let him too be defrocked.”

3.   Canon 45 of the Holy Apostles: "A Bishop, or a Presbyter, or a Deacon that only prays together with heretics, should be excommunicated; if he has permitted them to perform anything as Clergymen, let him be defrocked.”

4.   Canon 64 of the Holy Apostles: "If a Clergyman or a Layman should enter a Jewish synagogue, or pray with heretics, let him be excommunicated and defrocked.”

5.   Canon 71 of the Holy Apostles: "If a Christian should bring oil to a Gentile altar, or to a Jewish synagogue during their feast-days, or light lamps, let him be excommunicated”

6.   Canon 6 of the Local Synod of Laodicea: "On the matter of not allowing heretics to enter the house of God, who persist in their heresy"

7.   Canon 9 of the Local Synod of Laodicea: "On the matter of not allowing those who are of the Church to go to the cemeteries or to the so-called places of martyrdom of all who are heretics, on the pretext of a blessing or a cure; if they are of the faithful, let them be excommunicated for a certain time, and, after repenting and confessing that they erred, be re-admitted.”

8.   Canon 32 of the Local Synod of Laodicea: "That it is not permitted to accept the blessings of heretics, which are foolishness rather than blessings”

9.   Canon 33 of the Local Synod of Laodicea: "That one must not pray together with heretics or schismatics”

10.  Canon 34 of the Local Synod of Laodicea:. “That it is not proper for any Christian to abandon the witnesses of Christ and go to the false witnesses, that is to say the heretics, or to those who are predisposed to becoming heretics.  For they are alien to God. Let them therefore be anathema, who would depart for their sake.”

11.  Canon 37 of the Local Synod of Laodicea:. "One must not accept the festive tokens sent by Jews or heretics, nor celebrate together with them."

12.   Canon 9 of Timothy of Alexandria: "Question. May a Clergyman offer prayers in the presence of Arians or other heretics?  Or does this not harm him in any way, whenever he performs the benediction, that is, the offering?;  Reply. During the divine anaphora, the Deacon recites this address prior to the greeting: "Those not in communion, walk away”. Therefore, they do not need to be present, unless they have reported their intention to repent and abandon the heresy" 

To the above Canons, one must also add the following: 

13.   Canon B’ of the Antioch Synod: "All those entering the Church and listening to the divine Scriptures, but not participating in the prayer together with the people, or displaying aversion to the Holy Communion of the Eucharist as an act of disorderliness, let them be cast out of the Church, until they have confessed and have shown works of repentance and are able to beseech forgiveness, thereafter not intending to be in communion with the excommunicated, nor congregate in houses with those who do not pray together in Church, nor with those who do not congregate.  Should any of the bishops, or presbyters, or deacons, or someone of the Canon be seen in communion with the excommunicated, let them also be excommunicated, as ones who have confused the Canon of the Church.”

14.  Canon A’ of the 4th Ecumenical Synod, (which validates the Canons of the Local Synods of Laodicea and Antioch, and of Saint Timothy of Alexandria)

15.  Canon B’ of the 6th Ecumenical Synod, (which validates the Apostolic Canons, the Canons of the Local Synods of Laodicea and Antioch, and of Saint Timothy of Alexandria).

16.  Canon A’ of the 7th Ecumenical Synod , (which validates the Apostolic Canons, the Canons of the Local Synods of Laodicea and Antioch, and of Saint Timothy of Alexandria). 
So, according to you, and according to what you have posted,  all the Orthodox members of this board who have said a prayer with a Catholic are excommunicated from the Holy Orthodox Church?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Fr.Aidan on October 26, 2011, 09:16:38 PM
No, because the canons are not self-enforcing and self-acting. They are guidelines or instructions for bishops. It takes a bishop to implement the corrective action.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on October 26, 2011, 09:27:07 PM
No, because the canons are not self-enforcing and self-acting. They are guidelines or instructions for bishops. It takes a bishop to implement the corrective action.

I would think that the almost predictable lack of action on the aforementioned canons would tell you something about the reception of those canons.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Fr.Aidan on October 26, 2011, 09:40:01 PM
It's not like these canons, which show so clear a picture of the teaching on this point of the Undivided Church of the first millennium, are a dead letter these days. They are not a dead letter but indeed are enforced in our day and age, though the penalty may be abridged.

Still, it's clear what the difference is between right and wrong, from the point of view of universal Christian morality.

Whether it's popular in our days, is another question. But it really doesn't matter, as to rightness or wrongness, whether Christian teaching about keeping oneself from praying with those of another faith, or about premarital sex, or about abortion, or about failure to attend divine services, is being observed widely or by just a few.

Right is right, even if nobody is doing it. And wrong is wrong, even if everybody is doing it.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on October 27, 2011, 09:44:10 AM
It's not like these canons, which show so clear a picture of the teaching on this point of the Undivided Church of the first millennium, are a dead letter these days. They are not a dead letter but indeed are enforced in our day and age, though the penalty may be abridged.

Still, it's clear what the difference is between right and wrong, from the point of view of universal Christian morality.

Whether it's popular in our days, is another question. But it really doesn't matter, as to rightness or wrongness, whether Christian teaching about keeping oneself from praying with those of another faith, or about premarital sex, or about abortion, or about failure to attend divine services, is being observed widely or by just a few.

Right is right, even if nobody is doing it. And wrong is wrong, even if everybody is doing it.

Do you consider all of the unused canons to still be of moral force?
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on October 27, 2011, 09:47:51 AM
It's not like these canons, which show so clear a picture of the teaching on this point of the Undivided Church of the first millennium, are a dead letter these days. They are not a dead letter but indeed are enforced in our day and age, though the penalty may be abridged.


Or it could simply be a matter of lack of reception by the universal Church.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: mike on November 02, 2011, 01:09:16 PM
The Church is universal.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: ialmisry on November 02, 2011, 01:31:21 PM
It's not like these canons, which show so clear a picture of the teaching on this point of the Undivided Church of the first millennium, are a dead letter these days. They are not a dead letter but indeed are enforced in our day and age, though the penalty may be abridged.


Or it could simply be a matter of lack of reception by the universal Church.
they would have to lack such reception.  Renigging and inconstancy on the part of Rome or the Vatican doesn't count.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on November 02, 2011, 01:55:03 PM
The Church is universal.

In the sense that it is greater than the sum of its parts however each part is not bound to experience and teach the faith in identical ways...If that were the case you'd all be in trouble.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: ialmisry on November 02, 2011, 01:57:09 PM
The Church is universal.

In the sense that it is greater than the sum of its parts however each part is not bound to experience and teach the faith in identical ways...If that were the case you'd all be in trouble.
so you keep claiming.

The same Faith must be taught.  Whether in identical or dissimilar ways is irrelevant.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Aindriú on November 02, 2011, 02:07:45 PM
The Church is universal.

In the sense that it is greater than the sum of its parts however each part is not bound to experience and teach the faith in identical ways...If that were the case you'd all be in trouble.
so you keep claiming.

The same Faith must be taught.  Whether in identical or dissimilar ways is irrelevant.

Like toll houses, metaphorical hell, and the latinclasm.  ;D
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on November 02, 2011, 02:17:33 PM
The Church is universal.

In the sense that it is greater than the sum of its parts however each part is not bound to experience and teach the faith in identical ways...If that were the case you'd all be in trouble.
so you keep claiming.

The same Faith must be taught.  Whether in identical or dissimilar ways is irrelevant.

Like toll houses, metaphorical hell, and the latinclasm.  ;D

It is a puzzlement.  Orthodox believers will demand for themselves a leeway to be diverse that they absolutely and most rudely refuse to offer to the Church of my Baptism.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: ialmisry on November 02, 2011, 02:18:49 PM
The Church is universal.

In the sense that it is greater than the sum of its parts however each part is not bound to experience and teach the faith in identical ways...If that were the case you'd all be in trouble.
so you keep claiming.

The same Faith must be taught.  Whether in identical or dissimilar ways is irrelevant.

Like toll houses, metaphorical hell, and the latinclasm.  ;D

It is a puzzlement.  Orthodox believers will demand for themselves a leeway to be diverse that they absolutely and most rudely refuse to offer to the Church of my Baptism.
because diverse=/=contradictory.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: Aindriú on November 02, 2011, 02:25:27 PM
The Church is universal.

In the sense that it is greater than the sum of its parts however each part is not bound to experience and teach the faith in identical ways...If that were the case you'd all be in trouble.
so you keep claiming.

The same Faith must be taught.  Whether in identical or dissimilar ways is irrelevant.

Like toll houses, metaphorical hell, and the latinclasm.  ;D

It is a puzzlement.  Orthodox believers will demand for themselves a leeway to be diverse that they absolutely and most rudely refuse to offer to the Church of my Baptism.
because diverse=/=contradictory.

Unless it's 'western'?

I'm not just picking on Orthodoxy. I'm cynical of both sides. But I do see a double standard applied here.

If only there was an Byz Cath parish near where I'm moving to. Then I could be critical of all sides. :D
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: elijahmaria on November 02, 2011, 02:33:30 PM
The Church is universal.

In the sense that it is greater than the sum of its parts however each part is not bound to experience and teach the faith in identical ways...If that were the case you'd all be in trouble.
so you keep claiming.

The same Faith must be taught.  Whether in identical or dissimilar ways is irrelevant.

Like toll houses, metaphorical hell, and the latinclasm.  ;D

It is a puzzlement.  Orthodox believers will demand for themselves a leeway to be diverse that they absolutely and most rudely refuse to offer to the Church of my Baptism.
because diverse=/=contradictory.

Unless it's 'western'?

I'm not just picking on Orthodoxy. I'm cynical of both sides. But I do see a double standard applied here.

If only there was an Byz Cath parish near where I'm moving to. Then I could be critical of all sides. :D

Ideally you'll find a Byz Cath parish across the street from a western rite Orthodox parish...THEN...you can be critical of all...western Catholics... ;D...

Don't fergit the true orientalis!!

BTW I am happy you can see that there's an assertion of contradiction and not a demonstration of contradiction in many of the things that Orthodoxy says about the west.

Don't worry about being critical.  It is every thinking man's prerogative!!

Just don't forget that faith seeks understanding and not the other way around!!
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: ialmisry on November 02, 2011, 03:13:29 PM
The Church is universal.

In the sense that it is greater than the sum of its parts however each part is not bound to experience and teach the faith in identical ways...If that were the case you'd all be in trouble.
so you keep claiming.

The same Faith must be taught.  Whether in identical or dissimilar ways is irrelevant.

Like toll houses, metaphorical hell, and the latinclasm.  ;D

It is a puzzlement.  Orthodox believers will demand for themselves a leeway to be diverse that they absolutely and most rudely refuse to offer to the Church of my Baptism.
because diverse=/=contradictory.

Unless it's 'western'?
You would have to ask someone who had a problem with the west to answer your question.

I always took Bernarad of Clairveaux as Western, for instance. Didn't stop him from condemning the IC.  Nor, does it seem, that the West needed the body part cults during the whole of the first millenium, when it was Orthodox, nor for over half the millenium or so since it left Orthodoxy.  Not even baby steps in that direction centuries after 1054.

I'm not just picking on Orthodoxy. I'm cynical of both sides. But I do see a double standard applied here.
could be just the view from the fence.

If only there was an Byz Cath parish near where I'm moving to. Then I could be critical of all sides. :D
and that's what is important.
Title: Re: The Sacred Heart as I know it.
Post by: ialmisry on November 02, 2011, 03:18:32 PM
The Church is universal.

In the sense that it is greater than the sum of its parts however each part is not bound to experience and teach the faith in identical ways...If that were the case you'd all be in trouble.
so you keep claiming.

The same Faith must be taught.  Whether in identical or dissimilar ways is irrelevant.

Like toll houses, metaphorical hell, and the latinclasm.  ;D

It is a puzzlement.  Orthodox believers will demand for themselves a leeway to be diverse that they absolutely and most rudely refuse to offer to the Church of my Baptism.
because diverse=/=contradictory.

Unless it's 'western'?

I'm not just picking on Orthodoxy. I'm cynical of both sides. But I do see a double standard applied here.

If only there was an Byz Cath parish near where I'm moving to. Then I could be critical of all sides. :D

Ideally you'll find a Byz Cath parish across the street from a western rite Orthodox parish...THEN...you can be critical of all...western Catholics... ;D...

Don't fergit the true orientalis!!

BTW I am happy you can see that there's an assertion of contradiction and not a demonstration of contradiction in many of the things that Orthodoxy says about the west.
(http://www.bilerico.com/2010/06/hear-see-speak-no-evil1.jpg)

Don't worry about being critical.  It is every thinking man's prerogative!!
so much so that no thinking need be demonstrated.

Just don't forget that faith seeks understanding and not the other way around!!
I seem to remember your scholastics arguments contradicting each other on that being part of the issue behind your supreme pontiffs Innocent II and Celestine III contradicting each other when this came to a head at Sens between Bernard and Ab