I do not dare to find fault with the sincerity of any particular person praying this or any other devotion. I think love forbids that. But I will remark upon a few things.
First, to say that my opposition to the Sacred Heart devotion is an example of the genetic fallacy, is a position which leads to interesting places. That argument rests on the plank that the whole intent or gist of the modern Sacred Heart devotion is quite different from and opposed to the original, founding intent or gist. If that be so, then this devotion is most assuredly not going to fit in the category of things which logically developed from the Western Orthodox Patrimony. It implies that the Sacred Heart devotion was an aberration later transformed into acceptability through "damage control" which altered its character in a thoroughgoing manner. If bizarre sexual visions of a mentally ill heretic-woman, with their absurd content, involving horrific self-mutilation (the carving of large, deep, bloody letters into her bosoms with a knife) is "logical" development, I posit that illogical development cannot exist. It doesn't get any more illogical than that. Remember, this devotion was profoundly shocking, disturbing, and controversial to Roman Catholics themselves, including to one of their best Popes, and that's how things stood for a very long time.
Furthermore, Sleeper, would you not advocate exclusion from Orthodoxy of devotions from other religions, even if later retro-fitted for Orthodox minimum requirements? Surely you would not advocate the importation into Orthodoxy of entire Muslim services, or Buddhist meditations, or Wiccan devotions, even if by a gentlemen's agreement it were decided proactively to contextualize them in an Orthodox way (taking neo-Wiccan invocations of "Our Great Mother Gaia," for example, as referring to the Eternal Wisdom which is God the Son and is feminine in Scripture)? If you did not accept such things, even after the retrofits were agreed on, would your reticence be due only to a snobbish application of the genetic fallacy, or could it be attributable to an innate Christian sense?
In Orthodoxy, we think that the origination of things is highly important and cannot really be discarded from amongst our consideranda.
Second, no one here will be able to back up the claim, borrowed from Roman Catholic heretics, that the Sacred Heart devotion had a pre-history before Reformation times. No intellectual honesty will permit the few vague and scattered references to the "heart of God" in the Psalms, and whatnot, as constituting an Ur-Sacred Heart devotion. If you feel you must trust modern Roman Catholics' writings, then Trust But Verify.
Even you, Sleeper, wrote that whether the S.H. devotion meets the requirements of the 1958 Antiochian edict is "up for debate" (to quote you).
My principled opposition to the S.H. devotion comes not from my own whims, but from the objections of pious and learned Russian Orthodox theologians and the whole tenor of Russian elders and very devout priests and bishops I have known. Streams of pure Orthodoxy have flowed down to me from them and I will love and treasure them forever. This is true in monastic life as well as in theological life and spiritual life in general. Their canonical witness, smack in the heart of Worldwide Orthodoxy, is far from any "sectarian narrative."
In the W. Rite we must not allow ourselves to become ghettoised, tucked securely away in a defensive stance in one minority corner of the Orthodox world. I myself love the W. Rite deeply and have constantly defended her, but I am a priest in the Orthodox Local Church which is, by far, the largest in Orthodox Christendom. I dare not surround myself with what I find attractive to such an extent, that I grow deaf to how things strike my colleagues. clerical and lay, in the vast Whole of Orthodoxy. One can easily do this, hearing oneself talk until one cannot really see how one comes off to one's brethren in the wider whole. And, trust me on this, the S.H. devotion strikes a lot of Orthodox as very weird. Even if it were permissible, it's just asking for trouble. It's provocative. And even if it is allowed, is it demanded by authority? Is it required? "All things are lawful to me, yet not all are expedient," says St. Paul. You yourself, Sleeper, were just admitting that whether S.H. is lawful (by the edict of 1958, anyway) is something open to question. How much more might we apply the "not all are expedient" to this, then?
A final reflection. It is not fair to contrast "conservative" and "liberal" Western Rite paradigms (we might say "Antiochian" and "Russian," although as categories these are more fluid and criss-crossing than you might imagine) by saying that one is a non-interventionist acceptance of all that the Roman Catholic church gave to modern man, while the other consists of meddlesome ideologues interfering with the natural processes of history. This is really a straw man view of things. The planting of Western herbage into Orthodox soil, in even the Antiochian conception, is something which changes the Western church-life experience rather dramatically in ways which may not be immediately apparent to those in the thick of it all. The whole icons thing. Use of some E. Rite hymns (okay, honestly, what WR parish does NOT do this?). Ordination of W. Rite clergy via the Byzantine rite ordination services, so that the W.R. is a not fully-existing observance. The outright importation into the W.R. of Byzantine prayers. Priests wearing visible pectoral crosses. "Liturgical archaeology" in the form of blessed bread (pain benit) at the end of Mass, something which had died out by and large in the modern West and was then consciously brought back by AWRV churchmen using a scholarly process. And when we look at the more orthopraxic Russian W.R., what do we see? Not puritanical exactness, no desire to recreate church services as if they were some re-enactment of the SCA (Society for Creative Anachronism, which stages mediaeval bouts and such like), no, but melodies from after 1054, even a few texts from after 1054. We see some allowance for post-1054 vestment styles, and post-1054 hats. We see some concessions to the Byz. rite (not as many Byzantinisations as Antioch has, but still, some). There is nothing theoretical or non-practical, non-down-to-earth, about those RWRV Sunday Masses.
To quote Bp. Jerome: "Since the West fell away from the rest of the Church so long ago, there is a good deal of debate as to what texts or service books
should be followed, so as to have a Liturgy that is both Western and Orthodox. It only makes sense to try and solve this by study of what the Western services were before the schism, and where they went since that time. Those who go to church on Sunday morning are not called upon to be liturgicists or liturgical archeologists any more than the patient needs to be a medical scientist or go into the lab to be given medicine. The "finished product" is nevertheless today's worship; if they hear or join in texts that had been in an ancient manuscript, they need never suspect it, for all that is worth. These materials have been returned to use because they provide what was needed."
In the AWRV, plenty of re-working of Western materials was done, by editor clerics, in accordance with certain ideals, to produce the St. Tikhon Liturgy out of various available items. So, you see, there's plenty of adjusting this and that, on all sides, and this is normal and even desirable, according to Bp. Jerome.
And to go yet further, the older form of the Roman rite did survive, in pockets, in the West, all through the Reformation years, the Enlightenment years, and modern times. It's not some cockamamie resurrection of something dead, but a living continuation in its own right. The religious orders of the Papists preserved the older forms. There were Anglicans and Catholics undergoing Sarum rite baptisms and weddings in 19th century England. Even today, Roman Catholic priests will do a Sarum Mass, and so will Episcopalian priests. So it's not like the AWRV forms are just Plain Old Western, and the more orthopraxic RWRV forms (old Roman rite) are scary golems manufactured drily from shards of a vanished past. Far from it! "These materials have been returned to use because they provide what was needed."