OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 23, 2014, 04:43:50 AM *
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 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Sacred Heart  (Read 20716 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,122



« Reply #360 on: August 30, 2011, 07:15:31 PM »

If she knew what her nieces and nephews were up to in New Orleans, I don't think she'd agree, Mary.

I'd say she'd darn well disapprove.  There's a lot of swamp water in my veins...



I had an equally troubled reaction to the 'news' from one of my cousins that said I was related to an RC saint canonized for founding the "Society of the Sacred Heart" in the mid-19th century.  You never know what your genealogist will dig up.  I was really hoping for a martyr, but my ancestors had a habit of surviving wars...  Wink

Sacred Heart has always seemed creepy to me...I dunno.....

PP

St. Madeleine Sophie Barat in 1800

I think it is: meet

 Smiley
Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #361 on: August 30, 2011, 08:00:16 PM »

I dunno...She might surprise you!!


If she knew what her nieces and nephews were up to in New Orleans, I don't think she'd agree, Mary.

I'd say she'd darn well disapprove.  There's a lot of swamp water in my veins...



I had an equally troubled reaction to the 'news' from one of my cousins that said I was related to an RC saint canonized for founding the "Society of the Sacred Heart" in the mid-19th century.  You never know what your genealogist will dig up.  I was really hoping for a martyr, but my ancestors had a habit of surviving wars...  Wink

Sacred Heart has always seemed creepy to me...I dunno.....

PP

St. Madeleine Sophie Barat in 1800

I think it is: meet

 Smiley
Logged

Andrew21091
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,270



« Reply #362 on: September 04, 2011, 02:29:08 AM »

He has done this with the blessings of his bishops so if our hierarchs bless it, it must be ok.

Hierarchs are not infallible. For example the synod of Florence was accepted by quite a number of hierarchs.

By this logic then, are we to ever trust our hierarchs?
Logged
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #363 on: September 04, 2011, 02:47:53 AM »

He has done this with the blessings of his bishops so if our hierarchs bless it, it must be ok.

Hierarchs are not infallible. For example the synod of Florence was accepted by quite a number of hierarchs.

By this logic then, are we to ever trust our hierarchs?

Yes, we are to trust them in everything except heresy.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,743



« Reply #364 on: September 04, 2011, 07:31:01 AM »

He has done this with the blessings of his bishops so if our hierarchs bless it, it must be ok.

Hierarchs are not infallible. For example the synod of Florence was accepted by quite a number of hierarchs.

By this logic then, are we to ever trust our hierarchs?

Yes, we are to trust them in everything except heresy.

That's more or less what I think. We should also obey them in those cases when we think that their orders are misguided but not an actual heresy.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2011, 07:31:26 AM by Alpo » Logged

Andrew21091
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,270



« Reply #365 on: September 04, 2011, 12:39:01 PM »

He has done this with the blessings of his bishops so if our hierarchs bless it, it must be ok.

Hierarchs are not infallible. For example the synod of Florence was accepted by quite a number of hierarchs.

By this logic then, are we to ever trust our hierarchs?

Yes, we are to trust them in everything except heresy.

That's more or less what I think. We should also obey them in those cases when we think that their orders are misguided but not an actual heresy.

How are we as lay people to judge whether or not our bishops are in heresy?

The council of Florence is different because it wasn't declared by lay people as heretical but by a bishop. St. Mark called out his fellow bishops that union shouldn't happen and then he was able to draw the Orthodox bishops back and not enter into union with Rome. I can see how a bishop can call out other bishops of heresy but I don't think lay people have such authority, or discernment.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2011, 12:43:32 PM by Andrew21091 » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #366 on: September 04, 2011, 12:48:45 PM »

He has done this with the blessings of his bishops so if our hierarchs bless it, it must be ok.

Hierarchs are not infallible. For example the synod of Florence was accepted by quite a number of hierarchs.

By this logic then, are we to ever trust our hierarchs?

Yes, we are to trust them in everything except heresy.

That's more or less what I think. We should also obey them in those cases when we think that their orders are misguided but not an actual heresy.

How are we as lay people to judge whether or not our bishops are in heresy?

The council of Florence is different because it wasn't declared by lay people as heretical but by a bishop. St. Mark called out his fellow bishops that union shouldn't happen and then he was able to draw the Orthodox bishops back and not enter into union with Rome. I can see how a bishop can call out other bishops of heresy but I don't think lay people have such authority, or discernment.

Given what I know of the unusual leadership style of your Primate in the States, I can understand why you would write that but it is not like that in other Churches.
Logged
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #367 on: September 04, 2011, 05:36:00 PM »

He has done this with the blessings of his bishops so if our hierarchs bless it, it must be ok.

Hierarchs are not infallible. For example the synod of Florence was accepted by quite a number of hierarchs.

By this logic then, are we to ever trust our hierarchs?

Yes, we are to trust them in everything except heresy.

That's more or less what I think. We should also obey them in those cases when we think that their orders are misguided but not an actual heresy.

How are we as lay people to judge whether or not our bishops are in heresy?

The council of Florence is different because it wasn't declared by lay people as heretical but by a bishop. St. Mark called out his fellow bishops that union shouldn't happen and then he was able to draw the Orthodox bishops back and not enter into union with Rome. I can see how a bishop can call out other bishops of heresy but I don't think lay people have such authority, or discernment.

Fair call, but the laity still needed to exercise their discernment as to which bishop to trust/obey: they were certainly not all within St Mark's diocese.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,670



« Reply #368 on: September 04, 2011, 06:14:06 PM »

He has done this with the blessings of his bishops so if our hierarchs bless it, it must be ok.

Hierarchs are not infallible. For example the synod of Florence was accepted by quite a number of hierarchs.

By this logic then, are we to ever trust our hierarchs?

Yes, we are to trust them in everything except heresy.

That's more or less what I think. We should also obey them in those cases when we think that their orders are misguided but not an actual heresy.

How are we as lay people to judge whether or not our bishops are in heresy?

The council of Florence is different because it wasn't declared by lay people as heretical but by a bishop. St. Mark called out his fellow bishops that union shouldn't happen and then he was able to draw the Orthodox bishops back and not enter into union with Rome. I can see how a bishop can call out other bishops of heresy but I don't think lay people have such authority, or discernment.
Sure they do. The Moldavians, for instance, deposed their Metropolitan for even going to Florence, and the Czar/Grand Duke of Moscow deposed the Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus' for trying to impose it.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,743



« Reply #369 on: September 04, 2011, 06:29:25 PM »

How are we as lay people to judge whether or not our bishops are in heresy?  

In these days when just about every aspect of Orthodoxy is rather settled it's not that hard. We might argue about toll houses and canons but we have overall agreement about basic doctrines.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2011, 06:29:41 PM by Alpo » Logged

Fr.Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church (ROCOR)
Posts: 503


Ds. superbis resistit; humilibus autem dat gratiam


WWW
« Reply #370 on: September 19, 2011, 04:19:25 PM »

To reply to Alpo, our trust of our hierarchs can and must be conditional on their adherence to the essentials of Orthodox belief, practice, and conduct. Otherwise, how are we different from Roman Catholics trusting unconditionally in their Pope?

This does not mean that we are constantly scrutinising our hierarchs to see if they ever made a bad decision, stated something wrongly, or did something dubious. But flagrant departures from Orthodoxy on a bishop's part, should be answered with a transfer in jurisdiction on the clergy's and people's part. For example, if your Patriarch and all his bishops were to go into communion with the Roman Catholic church or the Oriental "orthodox" church, it would be your duty before God to leave them and locate a real Orthodox Bishop, no? Apostasy is apostasy.
Logged
Prufrock
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: MP
Posts: 12



« Reply #371 on: September 19, 2011, 05:00:56 PM »

How are we as lay people to judge whether or not our bishops are in heresy?

The council of Florence is different because it wasn't declared by lay people as heretical but by a bishop. St. Mark called out his fellow bishops that union shouldn't happen and then he was able to draw the Orthodox bishops back and not enter into union with Rome. I can see how a bishop can call out other bishops of heresy but I don't think lay people have such authority, or discernment.

"Moreover, neither Patriarchs nor Councils could then have introduced novelties amongst us, because the protector of religion is the very body of the Church, even the people themselves, who desire their religious worship to be ever unchanged and of the same kind as that of their fathers"

From the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848: http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx
Logged
TheodoraElizabeth3
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 342


« Reply #372 on: September 19, 2011, 07:12:26 PM »


I'm skeptical. Yesterday after Liturgy I went to our parish bookstore which has a few copies of the St. Ambrose Prayer Book for sale (I go to an Eastern Rite Church by the way) and I reviewed the contents and the prayer book contains devotions to the Sacred Heart. It is an Orthodox Western Rite prayer book, edited by an Antiochian Orthodox priest in my city (from an Eastern Rite church). He has done this with the blessings of his bishops so if our hierarchs bless it, it must be ok.

I grew up Catholic and always thought the Sacred Heart statues were weird. I never really knew what it was about.

Anyway, I went poking around on the net yesterday as I've been doing some reading into the Western Rite as I wanted to learn more. I found this about the St. Ambrose Prayer Book:

http://www.andrewespress.com/ambrose_prayer.pdf

It has comments specifically on the Sacred Heart, at the bottom of the page on the first column, continuing into the second column.

I did end up ordering the Prayer Book, as I'm always interested in Liturgy - raised RC, spent time with the Episcopalians in Anglo-Catholic parishes, and now Orthodox. I saw a Western Rite Liturgy once (it was at a special event, as there are no WR parishes near me). It was rather interesting. Reminded me much of Mass when I was a child. Not sure about the music, though, as I rather love the Russian stuff. It will be interesting to sit down with the prayer book when it arrives.

« Last Edit: September 19, 2011, 07:15:57 PM by TheodoraElizabeth3 » Logged
Fr.Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church (ROCOR)
Posts: 503


Ds. superbis resistit; humilibus autem dat gratiam


WWW
« Reply #373 on: September 19, 2011, 09:51:59 PM »

The St. Ambrose prayer book does not have an official endorsement from any Orthodox hierarchy. Therefore it may contain piety or impiety, Orthodoxy or heresy, truth or error.

There is an Orthodox prayer book which has been blessed for use by lawful Orthodox church authority, and its name is "Orthodox Prayers of Old England" (OPOE). Blessed for usage within the Russian Orthodox Church in September 2008, OPOE remains the most comprehensive Western rite prayer book ever published.

It does not contain the Sacred Heart error, nor the problematical "Stations of the Cross." There is an older devotion in it, called the "Salutations Before the Holy Cross." It is somewhat similar to the modern Roman-Catholic Stations of the Cross, in that it focuses on the cross and the passion of Christ, but it is less systematic, including psalms, versicles, with no very definite progression or program. I have heard from a number of people who really like the Salutations Before the Holy Cross.
Logged
Fr.Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church (ROCOR)
Posts: 503


Ds. superbis resistit; humilibus autem dat gratiam


WWW
« Reply #374 on: September 23, 2011, 08:16:25 PM »

The whole point of the creepy devotion was clearly, from the beginning, to worship the actual, separate body part of the Heart of Jesus Christ. This is crystal clear when you read all of the original documents, devotional materials, and of course the creepy visions of the poor deranged heretic-woman who created the whole devotion.

(No, there was NO such devotion to the Heart of Jesus prior to the poor demented lady's ravings. That's just Roman Catholic propaganda, which is not binding, typically, upon the Orthodox.)

It's just creepy and no Orthodox person should be caught dead engaging in this devotion.

To repeat, the St. Ambrose prayer book is not an official publication of any Orthodox body, and therefore does not provide an indication for the consciences of the faithful on this weird topic.

You could recast the whole devotion into a new light, creating a sort of totally-altered, neo-Sacred Heart devotion, as many have done, but that leads to the question: Why not just drop it? Western Orthodoxy never had it. Eastern Orthodoxy never had it. Neither of them ever needed it. It's not necessary for sanctity, it's not recommended by a single Saint... why not just let it go? Why let such manifestations of mental illness cause division and perturbance among the faithful, to no good purpose?
Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,256

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #375 on: September 23, 2011, 09:37:21 PM »

The whole point of the creepy devotion was clearly, from the beginning, to worship the actual, separate body part of the Heart of Jesus Christ. This is crystal clear when you read all of the original documents, devotional materials, and of course the creepy visions of the poor deranged heretic-woman who created the whole devotion.

Genetic Fallacy: The genetic fallacy is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context. The fallacy therefore fails to assess the claim on its merit. The first criterion of a good argument is that the premises must have bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim in question. -Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments (Third Edition) by T. Edward Damer, chapter II, subsection "The Relevance Criterion" (pg. 12)

Quote
(No, there was NO such devotion to the Heart of Jesus prior to the poor demented lady's ravings.

Sure there was. History is not propaganda.

Quote
It's just creepy and no Orthodox person should be caught dead engaging in this devotion.

*Grabs beautiful St. Ambrose Prayer Book, prays devotion, remains in good standing with Orthodox Church, causes no division whatsoever*

Quote
To repeat, the St. Ambrose prayer book is not an official publication of any Orthodox body, and therefore does not provide an indication for the consciences of the faithful on this weird topic.

No, but this is:  Metropolitan Antony issued his Edict of August, 1958, in which he set forth the general and provisional basis for establishing Western rite parishes within his Archdiocese. The Edict’s stipulations were:

1. All converts to the Church must accept the full Orthodox doctrine of Faith.
2. Parishes and larger units received into the Archdiocese retain the use of all Western rites, devotions, and customs which are not contrary to the Orthodox Faith and are logically derived from a Western usage antedating the Schism of 1054.

Now, whether or not the Sacred Heart meets this criteria is up for debate (which is what this thread is about) of course, but it's important to understand why Western Rite parishes might continue to use the devotion and feast, which brings up larger issues of unity and reunion and ecumenism, etc.

And this seems to be a major difference between the approaches of Russia and Antioch. In Antioch, the Western Rite is an example of what a living Western expression might look like were reunion to ever happen with Eastern Orthodoxy. Only whole parishes could come into the Antiochian Archdiocese, and it was a movement of pure ecumenism, not idealism. They took living, breathing Western Christians and united them to the Orthodox Church whilst retaining as much of their communal, customary, liturgical life intact as possible. What would really happen with these types of devotions and feasts that are "post-Schism" if Rome and Orthodoxy reunited? Does anyone really think that 1.2 billion Roman Catholic Christians are going to throw the last 1,000 years of their history into the trash heap to try and "reclaim" some lost golden age of "Western Orthodoxy"? It will never, ever happen if that's what it would take. Thank God Antioch has vision and we can see what a reunited Western patrimony might look like in her Western Rite parishes.

Quote
You could recast the whole devotion into a new light, creating a sort of totally-altered, neo-Sacred Heart devotion, as many have done, but that leads to the question: Why not just drop it? Western Orthodoxy never had it. Eastern Orthodoxy never had it. Neither of them ever needed it. It's not necessary for sanctity, it's not recommended by a single Saint... why not just let it go? Why let such manifestations of mental illness cause division and perturbance among the faithful, to no good purpose?

Unfortunately, it will probably never make sense to you until you drop your sectarian narrative, which we both know is likely never going to happen.
Logged
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #376 on: September 24, 2011, 01:13:03 AM »

*Grabs beautiful St. Ambrose Prayer Book, prays devotion, remains in good standing with Orthodox Church, causes no division whatsoever*

Actually, as this thread alone has repeatedly demonstrated, you have just scandalized a number of your fellow Orthodox. It's your business if you think it's worth doing anyway, but you can't honestly pretend that you don't realize you are causing a scandal among certain of your brethren.

Quote
2. Parishes and larger units received into the Archdiocese retain the use of all Western rites, devotions, and customs which are not contrary to the Orthodox Faith and are logically derived from a Western usage antedating the Schism of 1054.

Now, whether or not the Sacred Heart meets this criteria is up for debate (which is what this thread is about) of course,

As I pointed out earlier in the thread, the Roman Catholics themselves, when being serious and scholarly (like in the Catholic Encyclopedia) can't trace the devotion to anything or anyone predating the schism. If the above quote is the actual criterion, there's no actual debate.

Quote
Does anyone really think that 1.2 billion Roman Catholic Christians are going to throw the last 1,000 years of their history into the trash heap to try and "reclaim" some lost golden age of "Western Orthodoxy"? It will never, ever happen if that's what it would take. Thank God Antioch has vision and we can see what a reunited Western patrimony might look like in her Western Rite parishes.

No. The realistic among us don't think 1.2 billion Roman Catholics are as a corporate body ever going to reject their errors and humbly submit to the living Tradition of the Church. I can understand and even respect the optimists attempts' to make it happen anyway, but the evidence is that without the willingness to simply submit, true conversion remains a pipe-dream.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Fr.Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church (ROCOR)
Posts: 503


Ds. superbis resistit; humilibus autem dat gratiam


WWW
« Reply #377 on: September 24, 2011, 03:13:11 AM »

I do not dare to find fault with the sincerity of any particular person praying this or any other devotion. I think love forbids that. But I will remark upon a few things.

First, to say that my opposition to the Sacred Heart devotion is an example of the genetic fallacy, is a position which leads to interesting places. That argument rests on the plank that the whole intent or gist of the modern Sacred Heart devotion is quite different from and opposed to the original, founding intent or gist. If that be so, then this devotion is most assuredly not going to fit in the category of things which logically developed from the Western Orthodox Patrimony. It implies that the Sacred Heart devotion was an aberration later transformed into acceptability through "damage control" which altered its character in a thoroughgoing manner. If bizarre sexual visions of a mentally ill heretic-woman, with their absurd content, involving horrific self-mutilation (the carving of large, deep, bloody letters into her bosoms with a knife) is "logical" development, I posit that illogical development cannot exist. It doesn't get any more illogical than that. Remember, this devotion was profoundly shocking, disturbing, and controversial to Roman Catholics themselves, including to one of their best Popes, and that's how things stood for a very long time.

Furthermore, Sleeper, would you not advocate exclusion from Orthodoxy of devotions from other religions, even if later retro-fitted for Orthodox minimum requirements? Surely you would not advocate the importation into Orthodoxy of entire Muslim services, or Buddhist meditations, or Wiccan devotions, even if by a gentlemen's agreement it were decided proactively to contextualize them in an Orthodox way (taking neo-Wiccan invocations of "Our Great Mother Gaia," for example, as referring to the Eternal Wisdom which is God the Son and is feminine in Scripture)? If you did not accept such things, even after the retrofits were agreed on, would your reticence be due only to a snobbish application of the genetic fallacy, or could it be attributable to an innate Christian sense?

In Orthodoxy, we think that the origination of things is highly important and cannot really be discarded from amongst our consideranda.

Second, no one here will be able to back up the claim, borrowed from Roman Catholic heretics, that the Sacred Heart devotion had a pre-history before Reformation times. No intellectual honesty will permit the few vague and scattered references to the "heart of God" in the Psalms, and whatnot, as constituting an Ur-Sacred Heart devotion. If you feel you must trust modern Roman Catholics' writings, then Trust But Verify.

Even you, Sleeper, wrote that whether the S.H. devotion meets the requirements of the 1958 Antiochian edict is "up for debate" (to quote you).

My principled opposition to the S.H. devotion comes not from my own whims, but from the objections of pious and learned Russian Orthodox theologians and the whole tenor of Russian elders and very devout priests and bishops I have known. Streams of pure Orthodoxy have flowed down to me from them and I will love and treasure them forever. This is true in monastic life as well as in theological life and spiritual life in general. Their canonical witness, smack in the heart of Worldwide Orthodoxy, is far from any "sectarian narrative."

In the W. Rite we must not allow ourselves to become ghettoised, tucked securely away in a defensive stance in one minority corner of the Orthodox world. I myself love the W. Rite deeply and have constantly defended her, but I am a priest in the Orthodox Local Church which is, by far, the largest in Orthodox Christendom. I dare not surround myself with what I find attractive to such an extent, that I grow deaf to how things strike my colleagues. clerical and lay, in the vast Whole of Orthodoxy. One can easily do this, hearing oneself talk until one cannot really see how one comes off to one's brethren in the wider whole. And, trust me on this, the S.H. devotion strikes a lot of Orthodox as very weird. Even if it were permissible, it's just asking for trouble. It's provocative. And even if it is allowed, is it demanded by authority? Is it required? "All things are lawful to me, yet not all are expedient," says St. Paul. You yourself, Sleeper, were just admitting that whether S.H. is lawful (by the edict of 1958, anyway) is something open to question. How much more might we apply the "not all are expedient" to this, then?

A final reflection. It is not fair to contrast "conservative" and "liberal" Western Rite paradigms (we might say "Antiochian" and "Russian," although as categories these are more fluid and criss-crossing than you might imagine) by saying that one is a non-interventionist acceptance of all that the Roman Catholic church gave to modern man, while the other consists of meddlesome ideologues interfering with the natural processes of history. This is really a straw man view of things. The planting of Western herbage into Orthodox soil, in even the Antiochian conception, is something which changes the Western church-life experience rather dramatically in ways which may not be immediately apparent to those in the thick of it all. The whole icons thing. Use of some E. Rite hymns (okay, honestly, what WR parish does NOT do this?). Ordination of W. Rite clergy via the Byzantine rite ordination services, so that the W.R. is a not fully-existing observance. The outright importation into the W.R. of Byzantine prayers. Priests wearing visible pectoral crosses. "Liturgical archaeology" in the form of blessed bread (pain benit) at the end of Mass, something which had died out by and large in the modern West and was then consciously brought back by AWRV churchmen using a scholarly process. And when we look at the more orthopraxic Russian W.R., what do we see? Not puritanical exactness, no desire to recreate church services as if they were some re-enactment of the SCA (Society for Creative Anachronism, which stages mediaeval bouts and such like), no, but melodies from after 1054, even a few texts from after 1054. We see some allowance for post-1054 vestment styles, and post-1054 hats. We see some concessions to the Byz. rite (not as many Byzantinisations as Antioch has, but still, some). There is nothing theoretical or non-practical, non-down-to-earth, about those RWRV Sunday Masses.

To quote Bp. Jerome: "Since the West fell away from the rest of the Church so long ago, there is a good deal of debate as to what texts or service books
should be followed, so as to have a Liturgy that is both Western and Orthodox. It only makes sense to try and solve this by study of what the Western services were before the schism, and where they went since that time.  Those who go to church on Sunday morning are not called upon to be liturgicists or liturgical archeologists any more than the patient needs to be a medical scientist or go into the lab to be given medicine. The "finished product" is nevertheless today's worship; if they hear or join in texts that had been in an ancient manuscript, they need never suspect it, for all that is worth. These materials have been returned to use because they provide what was needed."

In the AWRV, plenty of re-working of Western materials was done, by editor clerics, in accordance with certain ideals, to produce the St. Tikhon Liturgy out of various available items. So, you see, there's plenty of adjusting this and that, on all sides, and this is normal and even desirable, according to Bp. Jerome.

And to go yet further, the older form of the Roman rite did survive, in pockets, in the West, all through the Reformation years, the Enlightenment years, and modern times. It's not some cockamamie resurrection of something dead, but a living continuation in its own right. The religious orders of the Papists preserved the older forms. There were Anglicans and Catholics undergoing Sarum rite baptisms and weddings in 19th century England. Even today, Roman Catholic priests will do a Sarum Mass, and so will Episcopalian priests. So it's not like the AWRV forms are just Plain Old Western, and the more orthopraxic RWRV forms (old Roman rite) are scary golems manufactured drily from shards of a vanished past. Far from it! "These materials have been returned to use because they provide what was needed."
« Last Edit: September 24, 2011, 03:33:25 AM by Fr.Aidan » Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,256

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #378 on: September 24, 2011, 10:02:03 AM »

*Grabs beautiful St. Ambrose Prayer Book, prays devotion, remains in good standing with Orthodox Church, causes no division whatsoever*

Actually, as this thread alone has repeatedly demonstrated, you have just scandalized a number of your fellow Orthodox. It's your business if you think it's worth doing anyway, but you can't honestly pretend that you don't realize you are causing a scandal among certain of your brethren.

I was being facetious, as I've already pointed out numerous times in this thread that I don't use this devotion. But I fully support those who do.

But where does the "scandal" stop? Many are scandalized by a Western Rite in general, do we drop that endeavor entirely? Do we keep dropping things that cause any sort of "scandal" for anyone? How do we decide when causing "scandal" is worthwhile in the long run?

Quote
2. Parishes and larger units received into the Archdiocese retain the use of all Western rites, devotions, and customs which are not contrary to the Orthodox Faith and are logically derived from a Western usage antedating the Schism of 1054.

Now, whether or not the Sacred Heart meets this criteria is up for debate (which is what this thread is about) of course,

As I pointed out earlier in the thread, the Roman Catholics themselves, when being serious and scholarly (like in the Catholic Encyclopedia) can't trace the devotion to anything or anyone predating the schism. If the above quote is the actual criterion, there's no actual debate.


Does anyone really think that 1.2 billion Roman Catholic Christians are going to throw the last 1,000 years of their history into the trash heap to try and "reclaim" some lost golden age of "Western Orthodoxy"? It will never, ever happen if that's what it would take. Thank God Antioch has vision and we can see what a reunited Western patrimony might look like in her Western Rite parishes.

No. The realistic among us don't think 1.2 billion Roman Catholics are as a corporate body ever going to reject their errors and humbly submit to the living Tradition of the Church. I can understand and even respect the optimists attempts' to make it happen anyway, but the evidence is that without the willingness to simply submit, true conversion remains a pipe-dream.

That's fine, each his own, but some of us (thank God) are going to work towards it anyway...

I do not dare to find fault with the sincerity of any particular person praying this or any other devotion. I think love forbids that. But I will remark upon a few things.

First, to say that my opposition to the Sacred Heart devotion is an example of the genetic fallacy, is a position which leads to interesting places. That argument rests on the plank that the whole intent or gist of the modern Sacred Heart devotion is quite different from and opposed to the original, founding intent or gist.

There is a difference, though, between the devotion popularized by Margaret Mary, and the feast (which is just undeniably older than her, without question). Modern Western Orthodox use is derived from the feast, not the devotion (even though it's a devotion in and of itself). Some won't agree with that, but that's the logic.

Quote
If that be so, then this devotion is most assuredly not going to fit in the category of things which logically developed from the Western Orthodox Patrimony. It implies that the Sacred Heart devotion was an aberration later transformed into acceptability through "damage control" which altered its character in a thoroughgoing manner.

No, it implies that the concept as popularly conceived and carried out is an aberration in need of re-evaluation in light of the older conceptions.

Quote
If bizarre sexual visions of a mentally ill heretic-woman,

Your colorful language, whilst entertaining at times, is getting tiresome and reeks of propaganda. "Propaganda is often biased...or uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented."

You can't ever seem to argue your points without this type of language. You do the same thing with Corpus Christi.

Quote
with their absurd content, involving horrific self-mutilation (the carving of large, deep, bloody letters into her bosoms with a knife) is "logical" development, I posit that illogical development cannot exist. It doesn't get any more illogical than that. Remember, this devotion was profoundly shocking, disturbing, and controversial to Roman Catholics themselves, including to one of their best Popes, and that's how things stood for a very long time.

I don't doubt Margaret Mary's devotional popularization did (and probably did because they saw what it was doing to an already old devotion based on sound theology).

Quote
Furthermore, Sleeper, would you not advocate exclusion from Orthodoxy of devotions from other religions, even if later retro-fitted for Orthodox minimum requirements? Surely you would not advocate the importation into Orthodoxy of entire Muslim services, or Buddhist meditations, or Wiccan devotions, even if by a gentlemen's agreement it were decided proactively to contextualize them in an Orthodox way (taking neo-Wiccan invocations of "Our Great Mother Gaia," for example, as referring to the Eternal Wisdom which is God the Son and is feminine in Scripture)? If you did not accept such things, even after the retrofits were agreed on, would your reticence be due only to a snobbish application of the genetic fallacy, or could it be attributable to an innate Christian sense?

This is where you and I differ, Father. Though you might not admit it outright, you place Roman Catholics into the same category as Buddhists, Muslims and Wiccans. You constantly reference them (and their "post-Schism" devotions, customs, etc.) as things that "happened outside of the Church" and so you see no stray logic in asking this question. I do. I think it's wholly absurd and, forgive me for pointing it out, is yet another logical fallacy.

A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom. The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B. Modern usage avoids the fallacy by acknowledging the possibility of this middle ground.

To say that allowing a custom or devotion that happened within a distinctly Christian, historically Apostolic environment would then lead to the acceptance of Buddhist or Wiccan elements boggles the mind. Please, forgive me for being "snobbish" I'm honestly not trying to antagonize you, but this needs to be pointed out.

Quote
In Orthodoxy, we think that the origination of things is highly important and cannot really be discarded from amongst our consideranda.

And yet there are numerous examples of Orthodoxy absorbing things into her tradition that did not originate within it. The value of something is not in its origin, but in its truth. All truth belongs to God, and thus belongs to us.

Quote
Second, no one here will be able to back up the claim, borrowed from Roman Catholic heretics, that the Sacred Heart devotion had a pre-history before Reformation times. No intellectual honesty will permit the few vague and scattered references to the "heart of God" in the Psalms, and whatnot, as constituting an Ur-Sacred Heart devotion. If you feel you must trust modern Roman Catholics' writings, then Trust But Verify.

It has been backed up, whether it was written by a Roman Catholic or not. Yes, "Trust But Verify" that's a great idea.

Quote
My principled opposition to the S.H. devotion comes not from my own whims, but from the objections of pious and learned Russian Orthodox theologians and the whole tenor of Russian elders and very devout priests and bishops I have known. Streams of pure Orthodoxy have flowed down to me from them and I will love and treasure them forever. This is true in monastic life as well as in theological life and spiritual life in general. Their canonical witness, smack in the heart of Worldwide Orthodoxy, is far from any "sectarian narrative."

Your sectarian narrative is that the "Schism" ontologically altered the Roman Patriarchate from being "the Church" in 1053 and ceasing to be in 1054. It's a trajectory that then says everything "post-Schism" is in the same camp as Wiccan mantras. Your above post demonstrates how easily your mind allows you to go there.

Quote
In the W. Rite we must not allow ourselves to become ghettoised, tucked securely away in a defensive stance in one minority corner of the Orthodox world. I myself love the W. Rite deeply and have constantly defended her, but I am a priest in the Orthodox Local Church which is, by far, the largest in Orthodox Christendom. I dare not surround myself with what I find attractive to such an extent, that I grow deaf to how things strike my colleagues. clerical and lay, in the vast Whole of Orthodoxy. One can easily do this, hearing oneself talk until one cannot really see how one comes off to one's brethren in the wider whole. And, trust me on this, the S.H. devotion strikes a lot of Orthodox as very weird. Even if it were permissible, it's just asking for trouble. It's provocative. And even if it is allowed, is it demanded by authority? Is it required? "All things are lawful to me, yet not all are expedient," says St. Paul. You yourself, Sleeper, were just admitting that whether S.H. is lawful (by the edict of 1958, anyway) is something open to question. How much more might we apply the "not all are expedient" to this, then?

Believe it or not, in this we agree. But the answers to the questions you've posed I genuinely think will depend on what sort of trajectory our "Western Rite" narrative takes. That's why I brought up the differences between Russia and Antioch, because they seem to represent to competing (though not incompatible) ideas. But as you have pointed out below, perhaps that is not as stark as it might appear. I do think the increased dialog that is going to occur between Russian WR & Antiochian WR is going to be nothing but a good thing for both groups.

Thanks for your thoughts, Father.

Quote
A final reflection. It is not fair to contrast "conservative" and "liberal" Western Rite paradigms (we might say "Antiochian" and "Russian," although as categories these are more fluid and criss-crossing than you might imagine) by saying that one is a non-interventionist acceptance of all that the Roman Catholic church gave to modern man, while the other consists of meddlesome ideologues interfering with the natural processes of history. This is really a straw man view of things. The planting of Western herbage into Orthodox soil, in even the Antiochian conception, is something which changes the Western church-life experience rather dramatically in ways which may not be immediately apparent to those in the thick of it all. The whole icons thing. Use of some E. Rite hymns (okay, honestly, what WR parish does NOT do this?). Ordination of W. Rite clergy via the Byzantine rite ordination services, so that the W.R. is a not fully-existing observance. The outright importation into the W.R. of Byzantine prayers. Priests wearing visible pectoral crosses. "Liturgical archaeology" in the form of blessed bread (pain benit) at the end of Mass, something which had died out by and large in the modern West and was then consciously brought back by AWRV churchmen using a scholarly process. And when we look at the more orthopraxic Russian W.R., what do we see? Not puritanical exactness, no desire to recreate church services as if they were some re-enactment of the SCA (Society for Creative Anachronism, which stages mediaeval bouts and such like), no, but melodies from after 1054, even a few texts from after 1054. We see some allowance for post-1054 vestment styles, and post-1054 hats. We see some concessions to the Byz. rite (not as many Byzantinisations as Antioch has, but still, some). There is nothing theoretical or non-practical, non-down-to-earth, about those RWRV Sunday Masses.

To quote Bp. Jerome: "Since the West fell away from the rest of the Church so long ago, there is a good deal of debate as to what texts or service books
should be followed, so as to have a Liturgy that is both Western and Orthodox. It only makes sense to try and solve this by study of what the Western services were before the schism, and where they went since that time.  Those who go to church on Sunday morning are not called upon to be liturgicists or liturgical archeologists any more than the patient needs to be a medical scientist or go into the lab to be given medicine. The "finished product" is nevertheless today's worship; if they hear or join in texts that had been in an ancient manuscript, they need never suspect it, for all that is worth. These materials have been returned to use because they provide what was needed."

In the AWRV, plenty of re-working of Western materials was done, by editor clerics, in accordance with certain ideals, to produce the St. Tikhon Liturgy out of various available items. So, you see, there's plenty of adjusting this and that, on all sides, and this is normal and even desirable, according to Bp. Jerome.

And to go yet further, the older form of the Roman rite did survive, in pockets, in the West, all through the Reformation years, the Enlightenment years, and modern times. It's not some cockamamie resurrection of something dead, but a living continuation in its own right. The religious orders of the Papists preserved the older forms. There were Anglicans and Catholics undergoing Sarum rite baptisms and weddings in 19th century England. Even today, Roman Catholic priests will do a Sarum Mass, and so will Episcopalian priests. So it's not like the AWRV forms are just Plain Old Western, and the more orthopraxic RWRV forms (old Roman rite) are scary golems manufactured drily from shards of a vanished past. Far from it! "These materials have been returned to use because they provide what was needed."
« Last Edit: September 24, 2011, 10:05:32 AM by Sleeper » Logged
Fr.Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church (ROCOR)
Posts: 503


Ds. superbis resistit; humilibus autem dat gratiam


WWW
« Reply #379 on: September 24, 2011, 01:31:56 PM »

Sleeper, I promise you that you are factually wrong when you state that the feast existed before the carving of the letters into the breasts with a bloody knife. It sounds like you have not examined the history of any of this. The feast was not approved for quite a long time after the bloody self-injuries; the swallowing little pellets of paper; etc. You state the feast came first "undeniably" and "without question" but I tell you now, you will not be able to bring forward even a shred of historical evidence for it.

I have not used any type of slippery slope fallacy. I never stated or implied that importing Sacred Heart devotion into Orthodoxy would result in importing Buddhist practices, Muslim devotions, etc. Nor do I equate those things with modern Roman Catholicism, though it and they are clearly outside the pale of Orthodoxy. I was making the point that even you will decide that certain things are acceptable or non-acceptable in Orthodoxy based on their origination, and not just their content.

All writing which tries to make a point, falls under the dictionary definition of propaganda. Generally, the criterion for something being "propaganda" is whether the person using the word "propaganda" disagrees with its content or import.

The logical fallacy would be the conclusion that if I say modern Roman Catholicism is outside Orthodoxy, I therefore don't make a distinction in the nature of Roman Catholicism, Buddhism, or Islam. The conclusion would be most incorrect.

Sleeper, you stated: "Your sectarian narrative is that the "Schism" ontologically altered the Roman Patriarchate from being "the Church" in 1053 and ceasing to be in 1054. It's a trajectory that then says everything "post-Schism" is in the same camp as Wiccan mantras. Your above post demonstrates how easily your mind allows you to go there."

But my mind doesn't go there at all. That's all in YOUR mind. I am not against all things post-1054 in the West, and even wrote above about this. There are some beautiful sequences, for example, which were penned after 1054 and before there was much change in the liturgical life of the West. I and Bp. Jerome don't see a great problem in using those. I have never striven for some pure 1054 cutoff date as to liturgics, but rather I oppose the introduction into the old Roman rite "base" of later, not-the-same-as-Orthodox, spiritualities and doctrines. Back when W.R. Orthodoxy was first being approved by Orthodox authorities, that's what the "game plan" was, after all, to see Western Rite in a narrower, liturgical-ritual sense, whose spirituality would be the same as Orthodox spirituality. I am faithful to the original course which was charted in 1868. It's a reasonable and conservative course which, I might add, stands the best chance of remaining within Orthodoxy without having to be censured so that the Western Rite baby won't have to be thrown out with the bizarre Papist bathwater, some day.

And, by the way, my concern in this is not limited to W.R. topics. I know of a canonical Orthodox priest who was blessing people to engage in Kundalini yoga. Of another who gives Holy Communion to non-Orthodox "because we have to be nice to everyone." Of a canonical parish where if you dare to call the gay parishioner's "husband" his "roommate," you're in deep trouble, because "you know he's more than that!" That is all wrongful. There is legitimate cause for concern, about bizarre heretical visions, creeping Hinduism, Roman-Catholic spiritualities, and the erosion of our moral teaching, unless we want to throw up our hands and decide to become universalists. Piety is worth its struggle.








Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #380 on: September 24, 2011, 01:53:19 PM »

To those here with a passing interest in reality, you can see from the following that the first feast of the Sacred Heart was celebrated in 1670 which PRE-dated the visions of that "creepy" nun that Father Aidan and the feminists of the latter part of the 20th century are so het up about.

Also popular piety centered on the Sacred Heart of Jesus dates back at least to St. Bernard of Clairvaux and the 11th century.

I am using a readily available source on the Internet so it is a wiki-like source, it but if anyone needs me to find more, I will take the time to look.

http://catholicism.about.com/od/holydaysandholidays/p/Sacred_Heart.htm

History:
Devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus goes back at least to the 11th century, but through the 16th century, it remained a private devotion, often tied to devotion to the Five Wounds of Christ. The first feast of the Sacred Heart was celebrated on August 31, 1670, in Rennes, France, through the efforts of Fr. Jean Eudes (1602-1680). From Rennes, the devotion spread, but it took the visions of St. Margaret Mary Alacoque (1647-1690) for the devotion to become universal.

In all of these visions, in which Jesus appeared to St. Margaret Mary, the Sacred Heart of Jesus played a central role. The “great apparition,” which took place on June 16, 1675, during the octave of the Feast of Corpus Christi, is the source of the modern Feast of the Sacred Heart. In that vision, Christ asked St. Margaret Mary to request that the Feast of the Sacred Heart be celebrated on the Friday after the octave (or eighth day) of the Feast of Corpus Christi, in reparation for the ingratitude of men for the sacrifice that Christ had made for them. The Sacred Heart of Jesus represents not simply His physical heart but His love for all mankind.

The devotion became quite popular after St. Margaret Mary’s death in 1690, but, because the Church initially had doubts about the validity of St. Margaret Mary’s visions, it wasn’t until 1765 that the feast was celebrated officially in France. Almost 100 years later, in 1856, Pope Pius IX, at the request of the French bishops, extended the feast to the universal Church. It is celebrated on the day requested by our Lord—the Friday after the octave of Corpus Christi, or 19 days after Pentecost Sunday.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++

ALSO the following is the formal source and is worth reading: something which I believe Father Aidan never bothered to do, or shows no sign of ever having done.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_15051956_haurietis-aquas_en.html

103. Quite the contrary is the thought and teaching of Catholic theologians, among whom St. Thomas writes as follows: "Religious worship is not paid to images, considered in themselves, as things; but according as they are representations leading to God Incarnate. The approach which is made to the image as such does not stop there, but continues towards that which is represented. Hence, because a religious honor is paid to the images of Christ, it does not therefore mean that there are different degrees of supreme worship or of the virtue of religion."(106) It is, then, to the Person of the divine Word as to its final object that that devotion is directed which, in a relative sense, is observed towards the images whether those images are relics of the bitter sufferings which our Savior endured for our sake or that particular image which surpasses all the rest in efficacy and meaning, namely, the pierced Heart of the crucified Christ.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2011, 01:54:52 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

Fr.Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church (ROCOR)
Posts: 503


Ds. superbis resistit; humilibus autem dat gratiam


WWW
« Reply #381 on: September 24, 2011, 07:44:07 PM »

The reference posted, is somewhat confusing. It says that a feast was held in Rennes in 1670, but that the first official feast in France occurred in 1765. We know that our poor madwoman was suffering various hallucinations in early 1671, and that they did involve the heart of Jesus. So what was this "unofficial" feast? A single priest somewhere, deciding to dedicate some Mass to the Heart of Jesus without approval from the necessary church authorities? Because that's sure what it sounds like. Even in France this was not approved until 1765, if I read correctly, and the Vatican did not institute any feast at all until 1856 (over the dead body of Pope Benedict XIV, who was powerfully opposed to the devotion).

So I don't see where the feast really preceded our madwoman's hallucinations, God bless her heart.

And, no, some researcher in the 27th century is NOT allowed to take my statement in the sentence preceding, as evidence to put in the Twenty-Seventh Century Catholic Encyclopaedia, that devotion to the Pious Heart of Margaret-Mary Alacoque is documentable to the year 2011 in Texas... ! Because that's exactly how shaky this claim is, that Sacred Heart devotion goes back to the 11th century, or even the 14th... it was just not present back then. There was the Five Wounds of Christ, from the early 1400s on, with a depiction of the heart among the other wounds, but it was a Wounds devotion, not a Heart devotion. I think the earliest documented devotions which could even possibly be stretched to make a "pre-history" for the Sacred Heart devotion, are in the early 1500s, where there were very creative Passion prayers printed up, which are addressed to the Side of Christ, the Feet of Christ, and so forth, and if I recall the Heart may be among those. I think they originated in Germany. Just going from my failing memory...
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #382 on: September 24, 2011, 08:01:16 PM »

The reference posted, is somewhat confusing. It says that a feast was held in Rennes in 1670, but that the first official feast in France occurred in 1765.

The records go back prior to the 1600's in fact.  But that is really not the issue here.  The issue is a devotion to the Sacred Heart prior to Sr. Margaret Mary and there is evidence for that in archival documents that I cannot access for the Internet audience.

There is a similar localized record of feast days of the Immaculate Conception centuries prior to the universal inclusion in the liturgical cycle.

Also I am fascinated by western rite and ritual ripped out of context and grafted into Byzantine saints and spirituality and traditions.  I think there's a name for that...isn't there?  Seems to me it is with reference to Latinized eastern rites if I am not mistaken...

M.

Logged

Fr.Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church (ROCOR)
Posts: 503


Ds. superbis resistit; humilibus autem dat gratiam


WWW
« Reply #383 on: September 24, 2011, 08:13:52 PM »

I challenge the existence of these supposed pre-1600s records.

You say there are "archival documents" you cannot access. Do you know what type of archival documents these are? Tell us. Are they prayers in a prayer book? Mass propers? Vague foreshadowings in certain art works? I am all ears.

Correction: Western rite and ritual restored to their rightful, original context, with Western saints and pre-heresy Western spirituality (which fits perfectly with Orthodox spirituality in the East), and Western traditions. Call it what you want, it's beautiful and full of the saving grace of God.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #384 on: September 24, 2011, 08:18:26 PM »

I challenge the existence of these supposed pre-1600s records.

You say there are "archival documents" you cannot access. Do you know what type of archival documents these are? Tell us. Are they prayers in a prayer book? Mass propers? Vague foreshadowings in certain art works? I am all ears.

Correction: Western rite and ritual restored to their rightful, original context, with Western saints and pre-heresy Western spirituality (which fits perfectly with Orthodox spirituality in the East), and Western traditions. Call it what you want, it's beautiful and full of the saving grace of God.

Your comments on the Sacred Heart bear far less weight of proof than those of my Church.
Logged

jewish voice
Elder
*****
Online Online

Posts: 495



« Reply #385 on: September 24, 2011, 09:15:52 PM »

I challenge the existence of these supposed pre-1600s records.

You say there are "archival documents" you cannot access. Do you know what type of archival documents these are? Tell us. Are they prayers in a prayer book? Mass propers? Vague foreshadowings in certain art works? I am all ears.

Correction: Western rite and ritual restored to their rightful, original context, with Western saints and pre-heresy Western spirituality (which fits perfectly with Orthodox spirituality in the East), and Western traditions. Call it what you want, it's beautiful and full of the saving grace of God.

Your comments on the Sacred Heart bear far less weight of proof than those of my Church.
LOL you just got owned.  Cheesy
« Last Edit: September 24, 2011, 09:20:02 PM by jewish voice » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #386 on: September 24, 2011, 09:29:25 PM »

I challenge the existence of these supposed pre-1600s records.

You say there are "archival documents" you cannot access. Do you know what type of archival documents these are? Tell us. Are they prayers in a prayer book? Mass propers? Vague foreshadowings in certain art works? I am all ears.

Correction: Western rite and ritual restored to their rightful, original context, with Western saints and pre-heresy Western spirituality (which fits perfectly with Orthodox spirituality in the East), and Western traditions. Call it what you want, it's beautiful and full of the saving grace of God.

Your comments on the Sacred Heart bear far less weight of proof than those of my Church.
LOL you just got owned.  Cheesy

I don't think so.  The western rite advocates and aficionados may borrow bits and pieces of the holy traditions of my Church...but OWN them?....I don't think so.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #387 on: September 24, 2011, 09:50:15 PM »

I challenge the existence of these supposed pre-1600s records.

You say there are "archival documents" you cannot access. Do you know what type of archival documents these are? Tell us. Are they prayers in a prayer book? Mass propers? Vague foreshadowings in certain art works? I am all ears.

Correction: Western rite and ritual restored to their rightful, original context, with Western saints and pre-heresy Western spirituality (which fits perfectly with Orthodox spirituality in the East), and Western traditions. Call it what you want, it's beautiful and full of the saving grace of God.

Your comments on the Sacred Heart bear far less weight of proof than those of my Church.
LOL you just got owned.  Cheesy

I don't think so.  The western rite advocates and aficionados may borrow bits and pieces of the holy traditions of my Church...but OWN them?....I don't think so.

http://ia600201.us.archive.org/10/items/lifeofjohneudes00russuoft/lifeofjohneudes00russuoft.pdf

Page 88 begins the chapter on Blessed John Eudes' devotion to the sacred hearts of Jesus and Mary that clearly predated that of Sr. Margaret Mary, and there is one other interesting reference to the symbol of the Sacred Heart surrounded by flames which also pre-dated Sr. Margaret Mary: and those references alone indicate that the private devotion pre-dated the desire to invest it with liturgical significance.

As I said, one can borrow from the Catholic Church but it takes divine right to OWN it.

 angel
« Last Edit: September 24, 2011, 09:50:58 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

Fr.Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church (ROCOR)
Posts: 503


Ds. superbis resistit; humilibus autem dat gratiam


WWW
« Reply #388 on: September 24, 2011, 10:51:33 PM »

But you said that records go back prior to the 1600s, and all the things you adduced, did not demonstrate anything existing before the 1600s. The words attributed to Gertrude of Helfta (+ 14th c.) fall very far short of this aim.

So I challenged you to back up your words with something before the 1600s, and you gave me a bunch of 1600s stuff.

Unless we believe the author of that book, who says that the Sacred Heart veneration dates back to the 1st century A.D., which really is not worthy of credence.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #389 on: September 25, 2011, 11:37:50 AM »

But you said that records go back prior to the 1600s, and all the things you adduced, did not demonstrate anything existing before the 1600s. The words attributed to Gertrude of Helfta (+ 14th c.) fall very far short of this aim.

So I challenged you to back up your words with something before the 1600s, and you gave me a bunch of 1600s stuff.

Unless we believe the author of that book, who says that the Sacred Heart veneration dates back to the 1st century A.D., which really is not worthy of credence.

It is worthy of my credence, Father.  And the reason for that is that there is never smoke where there is not fire [yes indeed, one of them failed metaphors], and some fires take longer than others to come to light.  The documents of the monastic orders will give up what you seek.  But you don't have access to them at the moment and neither do I.  But I trust they are there because others from those orders reference them.  At least from the 11th century on there is a shift in focus from the wounds to a singular focus on the heart.

Besides: Your claim that the devotion was nothing till Sr. Margaret Mary Looney: that at least is bunko.

You need to be more clever than 2000 years of the Catholic Church to make your jell-o stick on the wall...and more truthful:   Wink

M.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2011, 11:38:45 AM by elijahmaria » Logged

Fr.Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church (ROCOR)
Posts: 503


Ds. superbis resistit; humilibus autem dat gratiam


WWW
« Reply #390 on: September 25, 2011, 07:46:30 PM »

Even the Roman Catholic books which strive, and strive, and strive with might and main, to convince us that the Sacred Heart devotion goes way, way back, are not able to offer any documentation for the claim.

Now you appeal to never-before-published, secret inaccessible documents (you know not which, or what they might contain) which you believe exist in some monastery somewhere? Because WHO said so, exactly?

On this one point, of the preposterousness of having a feast of the Sacred Heart, I am of one mind with Pope Benedict XIV--one of the most respected Popes of the last 700 years, whose overriding characteristics were level-headedness and erudition. Not that I agree with him on other things--the Filioque, for example. But it goes to show that my position is hardly outré.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #391 on: September 25, 2011, 07:58:38 PM »

Even the Roman Catholic books which strive, and strive, and strive with might and main, to convince us that the Sacred Heart devotion goes way, way back, are not able to offer any documentation for the claim.

Now you appeal to never-before-published, secret inaccessible documents (you know not which, or what they might contain) which you believe exist in some monastery somewhere? Because WHO said so, exactly?

You're so slick.  The monasteries are FILLED with not-at-all secret inaccessible documents and histories and writings of individuals whose names the world has long forgotten.  The devotion to the Sacred Heart dates back at least to St. Bernard.

I remember one time saying, innocently, that the Cathari had the roots of their theology directly in the mire of the Bogomils and a slick scholar, much like yourself, mocked me publicly and made fun of me with high hilarity.

Now what do I find on Amazon?  Books tracing the Cathari of France, back through Italy, and directly to the Bogomils...how?...inaccessible documents finally brought to light...that's how.

So pthhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh to that other slickster....and to you...well...have a good evening... angel
Logged

Fr.Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church (ROCOR)
Posts: 503


Ds. superbis resistit; humilibus autem dat gratiam


WWW
« Reply #392 on: September 25, 2011, 08:26:29 PM »

But there is no evidence that the Sacred Heart devotion goes back to St. Bernard. I mean, St. Bernard? I raise my eyebrow, sir.

I'm not slick, I'm just adamant. People are making this stuff up out of whole cloth, and you just believe it. And I'm just as put off by it as Pope Benedict XIV (+1758), the Pope still greatly revered for his sober mind.

The origins of Cathars in Bogomilism is a more obscure point, and not one that relates to any Roman-Catholic teaching or proclamation. But the Sacred Heart--now that is something which R-Catholic clergy over the last few hundred years would surely be motivated to research and defend. And, to be sure, they have tried, and tried valiantly. And it's not odd that none of them has ever succeeded?

The secret documents no one can identify or locate, not even the best Roman Catholic scholars such as Von Hefele or Guettee, to cast a glance on the 19th century's best and brightest, must be not merely Secret but Top-Secret.

Now, I'm keeping an open mind. If anyone can point to any proof or some such, I'm not averse to backpedaling, and revising. That's all well and good. To me, it doesn't GREATLY matter at which exact point this error crept in. Just a few days ago, I'd always said that the first known use of the bishop's vestment called the rationale was in the 12th century, then someone showed me where it appears in an 11th century manuscript.

The Orthodox Christian Faith is forever true and the gates of hell will never prevail against the Orthodox Church. But history--well, it's always subject to some sober revision. St. Martin of Tours certainly thought so!
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #393 on: September 25, 2011, 08:32:32 PM »

But there is no evidence that the Sacred Heart devotion goes back to St. Bernard. I mean, St. Bernard? I raise my eyebrow, sir.


Don't knock yourself over with that high-brow...

The devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and Mary is a beautiful devotion that has emerged over the centuries and feeds the spiritual lives of many Catholics.  There is an entire heart theology in the east and as we all know heart speaks unto heart.

Simply because it does not resonate with you...well...perhaps that says something about your heart.  Mind over matter...and all that...
Logged

Fr.Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church (ROCOR)
Posts: 503


Ds. superbis resistit; humilibus autem dat gratiam


WWW
« Reply #394 on: October 03, 2011, 11:39:01 AM »

Elijahmaria, you can disagree with my points, but it is not necessary or proper to resort to the ad-hominems of calling me "pope Aidan of Texas," and saying that I am full of arrogant pride, and saying there must be something wrong with my heart / spiritual life.

I have never, in the course of this discussion, cast an aspersion about any other forum members, not their qualities, not their spiritual lives (which I do not judge), not their motives.

Please, we need to maintain respect for one another, or how can we have a discussion?
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #395 on: October 03, 2011, 12:10:23 PM »

Elijahmaria, you can disagree with my points, but it is not necessary or proper to resort to the ad-hominems of calling me "pope Aidan of Texas," and saying that I am full of arrogant pride, and saying there must be something wrong with my heart / spiritual life.

I have never, in the course of this discussion, cast an aspersion about any other forum members, not their qualities, not their spiritual lives (which I do not judge), not their motives.

Please, we need to maintain respect for one another, or how can we have a discussion?

Read your latest attack on the devotion to the Sacred Heart.  You presume more than the popes of Rome presume about the devotion.  So it occurred to me that you are claiming a status for your own infallibility greater than the popes of the Vatican Organization and since the territory of Texas is so much greater than the territory of the Vatican, I expected that is part of what allows you to pontificate on all aspects of the Roman Catholic Religious Organization the way that you do.

I no more expect an honest "discussion" out of you than I would expect one out of Jack Chick.

M.

PS: I am conflating the two discussion so it is time that I stop talking to you before I get myself in a knot with the administrators of this Forum.  But my final word is this: You are deadly wrong in what you say about Catholic teaching concerning the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

« Last Edit: October 03, 2011, 12:12:55 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,151



WWW
« Reply #396 on: October 03, 2011, 12:28:26 PM »

Moderators, has elihamaria got a licence to disrespect clergy?
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,235


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #397 on: October 03, 2011, 12:41:08 PM »

Moderators, has elihamaria got a licence to disrespect clergy?
Rather than post that question on this thread, we would prefer you to use the "Report to Moderator" function to refer your concern to us privately. Thank you.
Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,910


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #398 on: October 03, 2011, 09:48:17 PM »

But there is no evidence that the Sacred Heart devotion goes back to St. Bernard. I mean, St. Bernard? I raise my eyebrow, sir.

I would agree that St. Bernard may be stretching it, but St. Bonaventure, St. Lutgardis, and St. Herman Jospeh are all ca. the 1200s.  Devotion to the Heart of Jesus begins with these.  St. John Eudes formalized this devotion with an Office and Mass of the Sacred Heart for his order the Congregation of Jesus and Mary.

From the Office of Matins for the Feast of the Sacred Heart (extraordianry form) the readings of the third nocturn:

A Homily by St. Bonaventure the Bishop

In order that the Church might be taken out of the side of Christ, in his deep sleep on the Cross, and that the Scripture might be fulfilled which saith : They shall look on him whom they pierced : it was divinely ordained that one of the soldiers should pierce his sacred side with a spear, and open it. Then forthwith there came flowing out blood and water, which was the price of our salvation, pouring forth from its mountain-source, in sooth, from the secret places of his Heart, to give power to the Sacraments of the Church, to bestow the life of grace, and to be as a saving drink of living waters, flowing up to life eternal for those who were already quickened in Christ. Arise, then, O soul beloved of Christ. Cease not thy vigilance, place there thy lips, and drink the waters from the fount of salvation.
Because we are now come to the sweet Heart of Jesus, and because it is good for us to be here, let us not too soon turn away therefrom. O how good and joyful a thing it is to dwell in this Heart. What a good treasure, what a precious pearl, is thy Heart, O most excellent Jesu, which we have found hidden in the pit which hath been dug in this field, namely, in thy body. Who would cast away such a pearl? Nay, rather, for this same I would give all my pearls. I will sell all my thoughts and affections, and buy the same for myself, turning all my thoughts to the Heart of the good Jesus, and without fail it will support me. Therefore, o most sweet Jesu, finding this Heart that is thine and mine, I will pray to thee, my God : admit my prayers into the shrine of hearkening : and draw me even more altogether into thy Heart.
For to this end was thy side pierced, that an entry might be open unto us. To this end was thy Heart wounded, that in it we might be able to dwell secure from alarms from without. And it was wounded none the less on this account that, because of the visible wound, we may perceive the wound of love which is invisible. How could this fire of love better shine forth than for him to permit that not only his body, but that even his Heart, should be wounded with the spear? Who would not love that Heart so wounded? Who would not, in return, love one who is so loving? Who would not embrace one so chaste? Wherefore let us who are in the flesh love in return, as much as we can, him who so loveth, embrace our wounded one, whose hands and feet, side and Heart, have been pierced by wicked husbandmen ; and let us pray that he may deign to bind our hearts, still hard and impenitent, with the chain of his love, and wound them with the dart thereof.

ttp://www.breviary.net/propseason/trinitytide/propseasonpent026.htm#First Vespers
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #399 on: October 04, 2011, 12:04:01 PM »

But there is no evidence that the Sacred Heart devotion goes back to St. Bernard. I mean, St. Bernard? I raise my eyebrow, sir.

I would agree that St. Bernard

St. Bernard is hardly stretching it.  Are you aware of his famous prayer to many of Jesus' body parts?  That poem set the tone for ALL that came after.
Logged

Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,910


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #400 on: October 04, 2011, 07:30:31 PM »

St. Bernard is hardly stretching it.  Are you aware of his famous prayer to many of Jesus' body parts?  That poem set the tone for ALL that came after.

I am aware of the Prayer to the Sacred Members of Christ on the Cross and like the Memorare and Vitis Mystica which were/are incorrectly attributed to him I believe this to be the case with this prayer as well.  It is too well developed.  I think St. Bonaventure and the others I cited are surer ground to stand on and easily refute the claim that St. Margaret Mary invented the devotion.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #401 on: October 04, 2011, 07:40:08 PM »

St. Bernard is hardly stretching it.  Are you aware of his famous prayer to many of Jesus' body parts?  That poem set the tone for ALL that came after.

I am aware of the Prayer to the Sacred Members of Christ on the Cross and like the Memorare and Vitis Mystica which were/are incorrectly attributed to him I believe this to be the case with this prayer as well.  It is too well developed.  I think St. Bonaventure and the others I cited are surer ground to stand on and easily refute the claim that St. Margaret Mary invented the devotion.

I am not so willing to pass it off as an error in attribution.  I don't have the texts with me but I've seen some pretty good historical and textual arguments in favor of it being St. Bernard's composition.
Logged

Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,473


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #402 on: October 05, 2011, 09:51:18 AM »

St. Bernard is hardly stretching it.  Are you aware of his famous prayer to many of Jesus' body parts?  That poem set the tone for ALL that came after.

I am aware of the Prayer to the Sacred Members of Christ on the Cross and like the Memorare and Vitis Mystica which were/are incorrectly attributed to him I believe this to be the case with this prayer as well.  It is too well developed.  I think St. Bonaventure and the others I cited are surer ground to stand on and easily refute the claim that St. Margaret Mary invented the devotion.

I am not so willing to pass it off as an error in attribution.  I don't have the texts with me but I've seen some pretty good historical and textual arguments in favor of it being St. Bernard's composition.

Oh look.  More amorphous sources.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #403 on: October 05, 2011, 11:58:06 AM »

St. Bernard is hardly stretching it.  Are you aware of his famous prayer to many of Jesus' body parts?  That poem set the tone for ALL that came after.

I am aware of the Prayer to the Sacred Members of Christ on the Cross and like the Memorare and Vitis Mystica which were/are incorrectly attributed to him I believe this to be the case with this prayer as well.  It is too well developed.  I think St. Bonaventure and the others I cited are surer ground to stand on and easily refute the claim that St. Margaret Mary invented the devotion.

I am not so willing to pass it off as an error in attribution.  I don't have the texts with me but I've seen some pretty good historical and textual arguments in favor of it being St. Bernard's composition.

Oh look.  More amorphous sources.

Well...no....the sources are sound.  I am the amorphous one who has to periodically return things to the library  Cool

Besides...members of Bernard's religious order are perfectly happy to accept what textual evidence they have that he is the author of that particular prayer...so that's good'nuff fer me.  I don't need 20 lay historians to back that up fer me...

PS: follows an explanation of the Memorare and how it may sound like things that St. Bernard wrote but it is not his composition.  Odd that you won't find the same kind of detailed explanation for the rhythmical prayer.

http://www.preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/BVM/Memorare.html

NB THAT THE MEMORARE IS OLDER THAN St. BERNARD
« Last Edit: October 05, 2011, 12:15:45 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #404 on: October 05, 2011, 12:17:45 PM »

St. Bernard is hardly stretching it.  Are you aware of his famous prayer to many of Jesus' body parts?  That poem set the tone for ALL that came after.

I am aware of the Prayer to the Sacred Members of Christ on the Cross and like the Memorare and Vitis Mystica which were/are incorrectly attributed to him I believe this to be the case with this prayer as well.  It is too well developed.  I think St. Bonaventure and the others I cited are surer ground to stand on and easily refute the claim that St. Margaret Mary invented the devotion.

Can you explain what you mean by "too well developed?"

Are you aware that the Memorare is OLDER than St. Bernard. 

Is the Memorare too well developed as well?

Here is a source on-line that references that editors who claim that the Vitis Mystica comes from St. Bonaventure rather than St. Bernard, HOWEVER, the entire scholarly monastic community is NOT in full agreement.

http://www.thesacredheart.com/shdhis.htm

I will continue to look for more amorphous sources but not not not...this instant. Smiley
« Last Edit: October 05, 2011, 12:25:46 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

Tags: seven wounds Sacred Heart train wreck 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »   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 0.206 seconds with 72 queries.