OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 31, 2014, 06:22:04 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Devotion to the Sacred Heart of Mary  (Read 3224 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
PoorFoolNicholas
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Theologoumenon
Posts: 1,664


« on: April 15, 2009, 09:25:16 AM »

I was wondering what the Orthodox stance on the Sacred Heart of Mary devotions was exactly. I did a search and didn't find a single thread about it(unless I am completely stupid[Very possible]). I would imagine that this encapsulates the idea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Heart_of_Mary
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,292


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #1 on: April 15, 2009, 10:03:21 AM »

Dear friend in Christ,
Its actually the Immactulate heart of Mary. Since its tied up in the belief in the immaculate conception, I am pretty sure its not seen as kosher in the Orthodox world.
The Sacred Heart devotion that you may be thinking of is actually the Sacred Heart of Jesus devotion which I have heard many Orthodox Christians do reject.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
PoorFoolNicholas
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Theologoumenon
Posts: 1,664


« Reply #2 on: April 15, 2009, 10:12:42 AM »

Dear friend in Christ,
Its actually the Immactulate heart of Mary. Since its tied up in the belief in the immaculate conception, I am pretty sure its not seen as kosher in the Orthodox world.
The Sacred Heart devotion that you may be thinking of is actually the Sacred Heart of Jesus devotion which I have heard many Orthodox Christians do reject.
On what grounds is it rejected?
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,292


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #3 on: April 15, 2009, 10:23:48 AM »

Dear friend in Christ,
Its actually the Immactulate heart of Mary. Since its tied up in the belief in the immaculate conception, I am pretty sure its not seen as kosher in the Orthodox world.
The Sacred Heart devotion that you may be thinking of is actually the Sacred Heart of Jesus devotion which I have heard many Orthodox Christians do reject.
On what grounds is it rejected?
Eastern Orthodox Christians believe that in the Sacred Heart of Jesus Devotion we are only worshiping a "part of Christ". This is not really  the case though. The Heart, in our understanding, is not just the emotional part of the person but the very ground of being.  So I don't think its a devotion so much to a piece of Jesus but rather to the whole Christ, especially focusing especially on how much he loves us.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
PoorFoolNicholas
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Theologoumenon
Posts: 1,664


« Reply #4 on: April 15, 2009, 10:29:18 AM »

And how is this tied to Mary, and her Heart exactly?
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,292


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #5 on: April 15, 2009, 10:49:35 AM »

And how is this tied to Mary, and her Heart exactly?
First, here is a bit on the history of the Immaculate Heart of Mary devotion (From New Advent)
It is only in the twelfth, or towards the end of the eleventh century, that slight indications of a regular devotion are perceived in a sermon by St. Bernard (De duodecim stellis), from which an extract has been taken by the Church and used in the Offices of the Compassion and of the Seven Dolours. Stronger evidences are discernible in the pious meditations on the Ave Maria and the Salve Regina, usually attributed either to St. Anselm of Lucca (d. 1080) or St. Bernard; and also in the large book "De laudibus B. Mariae Virginis" (Douai, 1625) by Richard de Saint-Laurent. Penitentiary of Rouen in the thirteenth century. In St. Mechtilde (d. 1298) and St. Gertrude (d. 1302) the devotion had two earnest adherents. A little earlier it had been included by St. Thomas Becket in the devotion to the joys and sorrows of Mary, by Blessed Hermann (d.1245), one of the first spiritual children of St. Dominic, in his other devotions to Mary, and somewhat later it appeared in St. Bridget's "Book of Revelations". Tauler (d. 1361) beholds in Mary the model of a mystical, just as St. Ambrose perceived in her the model of a virginal soul. St. Bernardine of Siena (d.1444) was more absorbed in the contemplation of the virginal heart, and it is from him that the Church has borrowed the lessons of the Second Nocturn for the feast of the Heart of Mary. St. Francis de Sales speaks of the perfections of this heart, the model of love for God, and dedicated to it his "Theotimus".

During this same period one finds occasional mention of devotional practices to the Heart of Mary, e.g. in the "Antidotarium" of Nicolas du Saussay (d.1488), in Julius II, and in the "Pharetra" of Lanspergius. In the second half of the sixteenth century and the first half of the seventeenth, ascetic authors dwelt upon this devotion at greater length. It was, however, reserved to St. Jean Eudes (d. 1681) to propagate the devotion, to make it public, and to have a feast celebrated in honor of the Heart of Mary, first at Autun in 1648 and afterwards in a number of French dioceses. He established several religious societies interested in upholding and promoting the devotion, of which his large book on the Coeur Admirable (Admirable Heart), published in 1681, resembles a summary. Père Eudes' efforts to secure the approval of an Office and feast failed at Rome, but, notwithstanding, this disappointment, the devotion to the Heart of Mary progressed. In 1699 Father Pinamonti (d. 1703) published in Italian his beautiful little work on the Holy Heart of Mary, and in 1725 Père de Gallifet combined the cause of the Heart of Mary with that of the Heart of Jesus in order to obtain Rome's approbation of the two devotions and the institution of the two feasts. In 1729 his project was defeated, and in 1765 the two causes were separated, to assure the success of the principal one.

In 1799 Pius VI, then in captivity at Florence, granted the Bishop of Palermo the feast of the Most Pure Heart of Mary for some of the churches in his diocese. In 1805 Pius VII made a new concession, thanks to which the feast was soon widely observed. Such was the existing condition when a twofold movement, started in Paris, gave fresh impetus to the devotion. The two factors of this movement were first of all the revelation of the "miraculous medal" in 1830 and all the prodigies that followed, and then the establishment at Notre-Dame-des-Victoires of the Archconfraternity of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Refuge of Sinners, which spread rapidly throughout the world and was the source of numberless graces. On 21 July, 1855, the Congregation of Rites finally approved the Office and Mass of the Most Pure Heart of Mary without, however, imposing them upon the Universal Church.

Now there are at least three feasts of the Heart of Mary, all with different Offices:

that of Rome, observed in many places on the Sunday after the Octave of the Assumption and in others on the third Sunday after Pentecost or in the beginning of July;
that of Pere Eudes celebrated among the Eudists and in a number of communities on 8 February; and
that of Notre-Dame-des-Victoires, solemnized a little before Lent.
However, no feast has as yet been granted to the entire Church.




Now as to its connection to Jesus and his heart. The prophet in the temple told Mary, "A sword will pierce your heart also..." (Gospel of Luke)
Just as Mary is always honored when she is seen in the light of her Divine Son, so too Mary's heart, that was so united to His passion that the prophet could speak the words above.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #6 on: April 15, 2009, 11:53:29 AM »

This picture:

http://imagecache.allposters.com/images/pic/CLI/84112~Sacred-Heart-of-Jesus-Posters.jpg

Is taped to the wall in our church basement where the Sunday School classes are.
Logged
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #7 on: April 15, 2009, 11:56:41 AM »

Dear friend in Christ,
Its actually the Immactulate heart of Mary. Since its tied up in the belief in the immaculate conception, I am pretty sure its not seen as kosher in the Orthodox world.
It's not, mainly because it requires a belief that we inherited a sinful nature from Adam, which we Orthodox do not believe. If we do not have a sinful nature, then the Theotokos also did not have a sinful nature. Thus there is no need for God to have circumvented a sinful nature through an immaculate conception.

That said, we do say prayers to the Theotokos asking her to have mercy on us or have compassion on us and offer her prayers to Christ her son and our God. So we do take her heart into consideration; a mother's love is a powerful thing indeed. We just don't need any special devotions to it.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
PoorFoolNicholas
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Theologoumenon
Posts: 1,664


« Reply #8 on: April 15, 2009, 01:20:16 PM »

It's not, mainly because it requires a belief that we inherited a sinful nature from Adam, which we Orthodox do not believe. If we do not have a sinful nature, then the Theotokos also did not have a sinful nature. Thus there is no need for God to have circumvented a sinful nature through an immaculate conception.

That said, we do say prayers to the Theotokos asking her to have mercy on us or have compassion on us and offer her prayers to Christ her son and our God. So we do take her heart into consideration; a mother's love is a powerful thing indeed. We just don't need any special devotions to it.
I see. Thanks.
Logged
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #9 on: April 16, 2009, 09:46:05 AM »

Dear friend in Christ,
Its actually the Immactulate heart of Mary. Since its tied up in the belief in the immaculate conception, I am pretty sure its not seen as kosher in the Orthodox world.
It's not, mainly because it requires a belief that we inherited a sinful nature from Adam, which we Orthodox do not believe. If we do not have a sinful nature, then the Theotokos also did not have a sinful nature. Thus there is no need for God to have circumvented a sinful nature through an immaculate conception.

That said, we do say prayers to the Theotokos asking her to have mercy on us or have compassion on us and offer her prayers to Christ her son and our God. So we do take her heart into consideration; a mother's love is a powerful thing indeed. We just don't need any special devotions to it.

The Councils on Original Sin:
 
Council of Mileum II 416, Approved by Innocent and Council of Carthage (XVI) 418, Approved by Zosimus against the Pelagians
 
The First Canon States:
 
All the bishops established in the sacred synod of the Carthaginian Chruch have decided that whoever says that Adam, the first man, was made mortal, so that, whether he sinned or whether he did not sin, he would die in body, that is he would go out of the body not because of the merit of sin but by reason of the necessity of nature, let him be anothema.
 
The Second Canon states:
 
Likewise it has been decided that whoever says that infants fresh from their mothers' wombs ought not to be baptized, or says that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin from Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration, whence it follows that in regard to them the form of baptism "unto the remission of sins" is understood as not true, but as false, let him be anathema. Since what the Apostle says: "Though one man sin entered into the world (and through sin death), and so passed into all men, in whom all have sinned" [cf. Romans 5:12], must not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who in themselves thus far have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore truly baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted from generation may be cleansed in them by regeneration.
 
These Carthaginian canons were accepted by the Church at the Ecumenical Council in AD 431. They were received yet again at the Seventh Ecumenical Council (the Second Council of Nicea) in AD 787. These Canons were and 'must not be understood otherwise than as the catholic and apostalic Church spread everywhere has always understood it.'
 
Teachings of Theologians:
 
Nor does this resemble the works of Simeon the New Theologian (i.e. The First-Created Man, Seven Homilies) who clearly presents the 'orthodox' teaching of "Original Sin"...
 
In the present life no one has the divine power in himself to manifest a brilliant glory, and there is no one who is clothed with glory before humility and disgrace; but every man who is born in this world is born inglorious and insignificant, and only later, little by little, advances and becomes glorious.
 
Therefore, if anyone, having experienced beforehand such disgrace and insignificance, shall then become proud, is he not senseless and blind? That saying that calls no one sinless except God, even though he has lived only one day on earth, does not refer to those who sin personally, because how can a one-day old child sin? But in this expressed that mystery of our Faith, that human nature is sinful from its very conception. God did not create man sinful, but pure and holy. But since the first-created Adam lost this garment of sanctity, not from any other sin but from pride alone, and became corruptible and mortal, all people also who come from the seed of Adam are participants of the ancestral sin from their very conception and birth. He who has been born in this way, even though he has not yet performed any sin, is already sinful through this ancestral sin.
- The First-Created Man: Homily 37 The Original Sin and Our Regeneration by St. Symeon The New Theologian
 
I find the underlined very concerning for the modern Orthodox argument that Original Sin was understood in some vague philosophical way as it appears to be now by modern Orthodox apologists. Personally, I will stand beside St. Symeon The New Theologian on this and reject the modernist view.
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
PoorFoolNicholas
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Theologoumenon
Posts: 1,664


« Reply #10 on: April 16, 2009, 09:50:27 AM »

Dear friend in Christ,
Its actually the Immactulate heart of Mary. Since its tied up in the belief in the immaculate conception, I am pretty sure its not seen as kosher in the Orthodox world.
It's not, mainly because it requires a belief that we inherited a sinful nature from Adam, which we Orthodox do not believe. If we do not have a sinful nature, then the Theotokos also did not have a sinful nature. Thus there is no need for God to have circumvented a sinful nature through an immaculate conception.

That said, we do say prayers to the Theotokos asking her to have mercy on us or have compassion on us and offer her prayers to Christ her son and our God. So we do take her heart into consideration; a mother's love is a powerful thing indeed. We just don't need any special devotions to it.

The Councils on Original Sin:
 
Council of Mileum II 416, Approved by Innocent and Council of Carthage (XVI) 418, Approved by Zosimus against the Pelagians
 
The First Canon States:
 
All the bishops established in the sacred synod of the Carthaginian Chruch have decided that whoever says that Adam, the first man, was made mortal, so that, whether he sinned or whether he did not sin, he would die in body, that is he would go out of the body not because of the merit of sin but by reason of the necessity of nature, let him be anothema.
 
The Second Canon states:
 
Likewise it has been decided that whoever says that infants fresh from their mothers' wombs ought not to be baptized, or says that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin from Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration, whence it follows that in regard to them the form of baptism "unto the remission of sins" is understood as not true, but as false, let him be anathema. Since what the Apostle says: "Though one man sin entered into the world (and through sin death), and so passed into all men, in whom all have sinned" [cf. Romans 5:12], must not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who in themselves thus far have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore truly baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted from generation may be cleansed in them by regeneration.
 
These Carthaginian canons were accepted by the Church at the Ecumenical Council in AD 431. They were received yet again at the Seventh Ecumenical Council (the Second Council of Nicea) in AD 787. These Canons were and 'must not be understood otherwise than as the catholic and apostalic Church spread everywhere has always understood it.'
 
Teachings of Theologians:
 
Nor does this resemble the works of Simeon the New Theologian (i.e. The First-Created Man, Seven Homilies) who clearly presents the 'orthodox' teaching of "Original Sin"...
 
In the present life no one has the divine power in himself to manifest a brilliant glory, and there is no one who is clothed with glory before humility and disgrace; but every man who is born in this world is born inglorious and insignificant, and only later, little by little, advances and becomes glorious.
 
Therefore, if anyone, having experienced beforehand such disgrace and insignificance, shall then become proud, is he not senseless and blind? That saying that calls no one sinless except God, even though he has lived only one day on earth, does not refer to those who sin personally, because how can a one-day old child sin? But in this expressed that mystery of our Faith, that human nature is sinful from its very conception. God did not create man sinful, but pure and holy. But since the first-created Adam lost this garment of sanctity, not from any other sin but from pride alone, and became corruptible and mortal, all people also who come from the seed of Adam are participants of the ancestral sin from their very conception and birth. He who has been born in this way, even though he has not yet performed any sin, is already sinful through this ancestral sin.
- The First-Created Man: Homily 37 The Original Sin and Our Regeneration by St. Symeon The New Theologian
 
I find the underlined very concerning for the modern Orthodox argument that Original Sin was understood in some vague philosophical way as it appears to be now by modern Orthodox apologists. Personally, I will stand beside St. Symeon The New Theologian on this and reject the modernist view.
Anyone more qualified than me like to respond to this?
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,292


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #11 on: April 16, 2009, 10:03:46 AM »

Dear friend in Christ,
Its actually the Immactulate heart of Mary. Since its tied up in the belief in the immaculate conception, I am pretty sure its not seen as kosher in the Orthodox world.
It's not, mainly because it requires a belief that we inherited a sinful nature from Adam, which we Orthodox do not believe. If we do not have a sinful nature, then the Theotokos also did not have a sinful nature. Thus there is no need for God to have circumvented a sinful nature through an immaculate conception.

That said, we do say prayers to the Theotokos asking her to have mercy on us or have compassion on us and offer her prayers to Christ her son and our God. So we do take her heart into consideration; a mother's love is a powerful thing indeed. We just don't need any special devotions to it.

The Councils on Original Sin:
 
Council of Mileum II 416, Approved by Innocent and Council of Carthage (XVI) 418, Approved by Zosimus against the Pelagians
 
The First Canon States:
 
All the bishops established in the sacred synod of the Carthaginian Chruch have decided that whoever says that Adam, the first man, was made mortal, so that, whether he sinned or whether he did not sin, he would die in body, that is he would go out of the body not because of the merit of sin but by reason of the necessity of nature, let him be anothema.
 
The Second Canon states:
 
Likewise it has been decided that whoever says that infants fresh from their mothers' wombs ought not to be baptized, or says that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin from Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration, whence it follows that in regard to them the form of baptism "unto the remission of sins" is understood as not true, but as false, let him be anathema. Since what the Apostle says: "Though one man sin entered into the world (and through sin death), and so passed into all men, in whom all have sinned" [cf. Romans 5:12], must not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who in themselves thus far have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore truly baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted from generation may be cleansed in them by regeneration.
 
These Carthaginian canons were accepted by the Church at the Ecumenical Council in AD 431. They were received yet again at the Seventh Ecumenical Council (the Second Council of Nicea) in AD 787. These Canons were and 'must not be understood otherwise than as the catholic and apostalic Church spread everywhere has always understood it.'
 
Teachings of Theologians:
 
Nor does this resemble the works of Simeon the New Theologian (i.e. The First-Created Man, Seven Homilies) who clearly presents the 'orthodox' teaching of "Original Sin"...
 
In the present life no one has the divine power in himself to manifest a brilliant glory, and there is no one who is clothed with glory before humility and disgrace; but every man who is born in this world is born inglorious and insignificant, and only later, little by little, advances and becomes glorious.
 
Therefore, if anyone, having experienced beforehand such disgrace and insignificance, shall then become proud, is he not senseless and blind? That saying that calls no one sinless except God, even though he has lived only one day on earth, does not refer to those who sin personally, because how can a one-day old child sin? But in this expressed that mystery of our Faith, that human nature is sinful from its very conception. God did not create man sinful, but pure and holy. But since the first-created Adam lost this garment of sanctity, not from any other sin but from pride alone, and became corruptible and mortal, all people also who come from the seed of Adam are participants of the ancestral sin from their very conception and birth. He who has been born in this way, even though he has not yet performed any sin, is already sinful through this ancestral sin.
- The First-Created Man: Homily 37 The Original Sin and Our Regeneration by St. Symeon The New Theologian
 
I find the underlined very concerning for the modern Orthodox argument that Original Sin was understood in some vague philosophical way as it appears to be now by modern Orthodox apologists. Personally, I will stand beside St. Symeon The New Theologian on this and reject the modernist view.

Thanks for these points Ignatius. I have always felt that the modern EO rejection of Original Sin is a symptom of the anit-latinism that has been fostered in the EO communion over the past few centeries.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
PoorFoolNicholas
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Theologoumenon
Posts: 1,664


« Reply #12 on: April 24, 2009, 10:17:20 AM »

It's not, mainly because it requires a belief that we inherited a sinful nature from Adam, which we Orthodox do not believe. If we do not have a sinful nature, then the Theotokos also did not have a sinful nature. Thus there is no need for God to have circumvented a sinful nature through an immaculate conception.

That said, we do say prayers to the Theotokos asking her to have mercy on us or have compassion on us and offer her prayers to Christ her son and our God. So we do take her heart into consideration; a mother's love is a powerful thing indeed. We just don't need any special devotions to it.
I have looked, and looked for articles descibing the Sacred Heart devotions, in regards to original sin, and the immaculate conception. Is there anything from an Orthodox perspective, refuting these devotions? I have read that, perhaps, these devotions are "quasi-Nestorian", but I can't find the Original sin/Immaculate conception points anywhere. Anyone know of some good Orthodox articles? Thanks, and God Bless!
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,292


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #13 on: April 24, 2009, 10:23:11 AM »

It's not, mainly because it requires a belief that we inherited a sinful nature from Adam, which we Orthodox do not believe. If we do not have a sinful nature, then the Theotokos also did not have a sinful nature. Thus there is no need for God to have circumvented a sinful nature through an immaculate conception.

That said, we do say prayers to the Theotokos asking her to have mercy on us or have compassion on us and offer her prayers to Christ her son and our God. So we do take her heart into consideration; a mother's love is a powerful thing indeed. We just don't need any special devotions to it.
I have looked, and looked for articles descibing the Sacred Heart devotions, in regards to original sin, and the immaculate conception. Is there anything from an Orthodox perspective, refuting these devotions? I have read that, perhaps, these devotions are "quasi-Nestorian", but I can't find the Original sin/Immaculate conception points anywhere. Anyone know of some good Orthodox articles? Thanks, and God Bless!
That's funny. I would think that if anything, anti-Catholic polemics would charge with monophysitism for these devotion. Of course such charges would be unfounded.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
PoorFoolNicholas
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Theologoumenon
Posts: 1,664


« Reply #14 on: April 24, 2009, 12:15:44 PM »

I have finally found where the Sacred Heart devotions are tied to the satisfaction theory of the Atonement, but have yet to find where it is tied to the immaculate conception. Help?
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #15 on: April 24, 2009, 12:25:48 PM »

There were four councils of Carthage and not all of their decrees were accepted by the later councils. Quotes are nice, but let's see a document which describes the history of these councils and whether their decrees are accepted universally, by which councils, under what circumstances.

I'm not sure about the methodology of just throwing in a quote from St Symeon either.  Of course he taught Ancestral sin. Every Orthodox author believes in this (even Romanides, who titled his book this).  Whether ancestral sin and original sin are understood the same way is the issue.
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #16 on: April 24, 2009, 12:26:18 PM »

Dear friend in Christ,
Its actually the Immactulate heart of Mary. Since its tied up in the belief in the immaculate conception, I am pretty sure its not seen as kosher in the Orthodox world.
The Sacred Heart devotion that you may be thinking of is actually the Sacred Heart of Jesus devotion which I have heard many Orthodox Christians do reject.
On what grounds is it rejected?

It's not part of our tradition should be the basic reason.
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
PoorFoolNicholas
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Theologoumenon
Posts: 1,664


« Reply #17 on: April 24, 2009, 12:28:56 PM »

It's not part of our tradition should be the basic reason.
I know that....how is it tied to the immaculate conception though? That is what I can't find anywhere.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,292


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #18 on: April 24, 2009, 12:30:26 PM »

I have finally found where the Sacred Heart devotions are tied to the satisfaction theory of the Atonement, but have yet to find where it is tied to the immaculate conception. Help?
The Sacred Heart of Jesus devotion is not tied to the Immaculate Conception. However,
the Immaculate Heart of Mary devotion is. The "Immaculate" in the title Immaculate Heart of Mary referrs to the Immaculte Conception.
Fr Anastasios does raise a good point. The SHJ and IHM devotions are not part of the Eastern Orthodox tradition so its seem unlikely that an Eastern Orthodox Christian would want to participate in these devotions. However, I would say that the Rosary is part of the Eastern Orthodox experience as it is a pre schism.
That being said, as a Catholic, I wished that everyone could find peace in Jesus' Sacred Heart and a wonderful example in the Immaculate Heart of our Blessed Mother. Still I would never try to push these devotions on a non-Catholic.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2009, 12:33:25 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
PoorFoolNicholas
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Theologoumenon
Posts: 1,664


« Reply #19 on: April 24, 2009, 12:31:35 PM »

I have finally found where the Sacred Heart devotions are tied to the satisfaction theory of the Atonement, but have yet to find where it is tied to the immaculate conception. Help?
The Sacred Heart of Jesus devotion is not tied to the Immaculate Conception. However,
the Immaculate Heart of Mary devotion is. The "Immaculate" in the title Immaculate Heart of Mary referrs to the Immaculte Conception.
Oh, I see. Thanks, and God Bless.
Logged
Tags: Sacred Heart 
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.092 seconds with 48 queries.