Author Topic: The Sacred Heart  (Read 77975 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,594
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #90 on: August 22, 2011, 08:25:12 PM »
One thing that is factual? What on earth are you talking about? What does a picture have to do with anything at all? What do Antiochians have to do with it?I'm seriously beginning to think you're just trolling now. Or your brain is turned off. Please stop. The OP asked a genuine question about whether or not Orthodox Christians use a devotion toward the Sacred Heart, which has absolutely nothing to do with Margaret Mary, visions, psychosexual orgasmic what-have-you's or any other irrelevant things you're dragging into this conversation. It's almost as if you're incapable of any thinking beyond gut-level reactions, or with any sort of historical nuance whatsoever. Seriously, stop.

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

Offline stanley123

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,812
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #91 on: August 22, 2011, 08:29:04 PM »
The quote from St. Athanasius is good because he had to deal with Nestorianism.

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

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

The fact that they are sitting on their hands and doing nothing to locate this sacred relic is a vast insult to the Orthodox who gifted it to the West before the Schism.
So this was a relic which was venerated by the Orthodox faithful? If so, then it seems to me that it would be perfectly in order for Catholics to venerate the Sacred Heart of Jesus, which speaks to  the unmitigated love, compassion, and long-suffering of the Sacred Heart of Our Divine Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ towards humanity.
V. Lord, have mercy on us.
 R. Christ, have mercy on us.
 V. Lord, have mercy on us. Christ, hear us.
 R. Christ, graciously hear us.
 V. God the Father of Heaven, have mercy on us.
 God the Son, Redeemer of the world, have mercy on us.
 God the Holy Ghost, have mercy on us.
 Holy Trinity, one God, have mercy on us.
 Heart of Jesus, Son of the Eternal Father, have mercy on us.
 Heart of Jesus, formed in the womb of the Virgin Mother by the Holy Ghost, have mercy on us.
 Heart of Jesus, united substantially to the Word of God.
 Heart of Jesus, of infinite majesty.
 Heart of Jesus, holy temple of God.
 Heart of Jesus, tabernacle of the Most High.
 Heart of Jesus, house of God and gate of heaven.
 Heart of Jesus, glowing furnace of charity.
 Heart of Jesus, vessel of justice and love.
 Heart of Jesus, full of goodness and love.
 Heart of Jesus, abyss of all virtues.
 Heart of Jesus, most worthy of all praise.
 Heart of Jesus, King and center of all hearts.
 Heart of Jesus, in whom art all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
 Heart of Jesus, in whom dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead.
 Heart of Jesus, in whom the Father was well pleased.
 Heart of Jesus, of whose fullness we have all received.
 Heart of Jesus, desire of the everlasting hills.
 Heart of Jesus, patient and rich in mercy.
 Heart of Jesus, rich to all who call upon Thee.
 Heart of Jesus, fount of life and holiness.
 Heart of Jesus, propitiation for our offenses.
 Heart of Jesus, overwhelmed with reproaches.
 Heart of Jesus, bruised for our iniquities.
 Heart of Jesus, obedient even unto death.
 Heart of Jesus, pierced with a lance.
 Heart of Jesus, source of all consolation.
 Heart of Jesus, our life and resurrection.
 Heart of Jesus, our peace and reconciliation.
 Heart of Jesus, victim for our sins.
 Heart of Jesus, salvation of those who hope in Thee.
 Heart of Jesus, hope of those who die in Thee.
 Heart of Jesus, delight of all saints.
 
V. Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world,
 R. spare us, O Lord.
 V. Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world,
 R. graciously hear us, O Lord.
 V. Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world,
 R. have mercy on us.
 
V. Jesus, meek and humble of Heart,
 R. Make our hearts like unto Thine.
 
Let us pray.
 
Almighty and everlasting God, look upon the Heart of Thy well-beloved Son and upon the acts of praise and satisfaction which He renders unto Thee in the name of sinners; and do Thou, in Thy great goodness, grant pardon to them who seek Thy mercy, in the name of the same Thy Son, Jesus Christ, who liveth and reigneth with Thee, world without end.

Offline Sleeper

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,350
  • On hiatus for the foreseeable future.
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #92 on: August 22, 2011, 08:36:05 PM »
One thing that is factual? What on earth are you talking about? What does a picture have to do with anything at all? What do Antiochians have to do with it?I'm seriously beginning to think you're just trolling now. Or your brain is turned off. Please stop. The OP asked a genuine question about whether or not Orthodox Christians use a devotion toward the Sacred Heart, which has absolutely nothing to do with Margaret Mary, visions, psychosexual orgasmic what-have-you's or any other irrelevant things you're dragging into this conversation. It's almost as if you're incapable of any thinking beyond gut-level reactions, or with any sort of historical nuance whatsoever. Seriously, stop.

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

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

It's the intensely lazy thinking that has me flustered. I have no dog in this fight, I'm not a practitioner of the devotion, my parish does not celebrate the feast, it just irks me when misinformation is spread in attempts to undermine something else entirely.

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #93 on: August 22, 2011, 08:38:09 PM »

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


In that case, prove your point...

You said:

1.  Read the Fathers,

What Fathers?  Which chapters of what books?

2. read the history of this devotion,

Where?  What books?

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

Tell me how

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

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

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #94 on: August 22, 2011, 08:43:30 PM »
The quote from St. Athanasius is good because he had to deal with Nestorianism.

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

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

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

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

The Sacred Prepuce is a physical object.  It exists and can be seen and touched.  If you have the Sacred Heart somewhere in one of your churches, just tell us and you'll find queues of Orthodox 10 miles long waiting to venerate it.

Offline stanley123

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,812
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #95 on: August 22, 2011, 08:49:17 PM »
The quote from St. Athanasius is good because he had to deal with Nestorianism.

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

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

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

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

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

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #96 on: August 22, 2011, 08:53:34 PM »
The quote from St. Athanasius is good because he had to deal with Nestorianism.

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

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

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

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

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


If you tell us where you keep the Sacred Heart we'll come and venerate it too.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,541
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #97 on: August 22, 2011, 08:54:22 PM »
The quote from St. Athanasius is good because he had to deal with Nestorianism.

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

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

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

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

The Sacred Prepuce is a physical object.  It exists and can be seen and touched.  If you have the Sacred Heart somewhere in one of your churches, just tell us and you'll find queues of Orthodox 10 miles long waiting to venerate it.
Actually, worship it.
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

Offline stanley123

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,812
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #98 on: August 22, 2011, 08:55:31 PM »
The quote from St. Athanasius is good because he had to deal with Nestorianism.

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

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

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

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

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

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,541
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #99 on: August 22, 2011, 08:56:50 PM »
The quote from St. Athanasius is good because he had to deal with Nestorianism.

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

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

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

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

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

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,594
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #100 on: August 22, 2011, 09:01:47 PM »
There is not a single feast of the Orthodox Church which is dedicated to an allegory or concept. Devotions to the sacred heart, divine mercy, holy name, etc, fall into the "concept" category, and have no place (and never had any place) on Orthodox worship or devotion.
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline Sleeper

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,350
  • On hiatus for the foreseeable future.
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #101 on: August 22, 2011, 09:04:17 PM »

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


In that case, prove your point...

You said:

1.  Read the Fathers,

What Fathers?  Which chapters of what books?

2. read the history of this devotion,

Where?  What books?

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

Tell me how

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

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

Fine.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

The Gradual verse following is Matt. 11: 29:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here, then, more than four centuries before the revelations made to St. Margaret Mary, we discover in the Franciscan school of piety as witnessed chiefly in the writings of St. Bonaventure a full expression of the devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus; and here, too, we see the outlet, as it were, of those divergent streams of Patristic meditation which we have followed from their principal source in the side of the Saviour--according to the witness of St. John.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2011, 09:06:12 PM by Sleeper »

Offline stanley123

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,812
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #102 on: August 22, 2011, 09:05:12 PM »
The quote from St. Athanasius is good because he had to deal with Nestorianism.

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

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

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

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

The Sacred Prepuce is a physical object.  It exists and can be seen and touched.  If you have the Sacred Heart somewhere in one of your churches, just tell us and you'll find queues of Orthodox 10 miles long waiting to venerate it.
Actually, worship it.
So it is in order to worship a body part of Christ.
only if it is still attatched.
Given that Orthodox believe that it is in order to venerate the Sacred Prepuce, I find the  objection of the Orthodox  to Catholic devotion to the Sacred Heart to be faulty.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2011, 09:07:58 PM by stanley123 »

Offline Sleeper

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,350
  • On hiatus for the foreseeable future.
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #103 on: August 22, 2011, 09:05:31 PM »
There is not a single feast of the Orthodox Church which is dedicated to an allegory or concept. Devotions to the sacred heart, divine mercy, holy name, etc, fall into the "concept" category, and have no place (and never had any place) on Orthodox worship or devotion.

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

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,541
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #104 on: August 22, 2011, 09:11:33 PM »
Fine.

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

Offline Sleeper

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,350
  • On hiatus for the foreseeable future.
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #105 on: August 22, 2011, 09:11:43 PM »
Lest anyone think otherwise (and if you couldn't tell already) that lengthy post was not my own work, but was via Fr. Edward Hughes' interpolation of a popular work by Fr. Peter Milford.

Offline Sleeper

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,350
  • On hiatus for the foreseeable future.
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #106 on: August 22, 2011, 09:12:07 PM »
Fine.

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


And, indeed, we do.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,541
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #107 on: August 22, 2011, 09:12:19 PM »
There is not a single feast of the Orthodox Church which is dedicated to an allegory or concept. Devotions to the sacred heart, divine mercy, holy name, etc, fall into the "concept" category, and have no place (and never had any place) on Orthodox worship or devotion.

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

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,541
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #108 on: August 22, 2011, 09:13:52 PM »
Fine.

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


And, indeed, we do.
don't recall seeing anything like this before even the Reformation.
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

Offline Sleeper

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,350
  • On hiatus for the foreseeable future.
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #109 on: August 22, 2011, 09:16:05 PM »
Fine.

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


And, indeed, we do.
don't recall seeing anything like this before even the Reformation.


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

Offline Sleeper

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,350
  • On hiatus for the foreseeable future.
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #110 on: August 22, 2011, 09:28:07 PM »
There is not a single feast of the Orthodox Church which is dedicated to an allegory or concept. Devotions to the sacred heart, divine mercy, holy name, etc, fall into the "concept" category, and have no place (and never had any place) on Orthodox worship or devotion.

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

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

Offline Sleeper

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,350
  • On hiatus for the foreseeable future.
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #111 on: August 22, 2011, 09:34:37 PM »
On a related note: It is interesting to me, Irish Hermit, the extent to which you oppose the Toll House theory and the depth of thought you're willing to expend in defending your position, and yet you won't extend the same courtesy here. All you see is "Sacred Heart" and all you think is "psychosexual orgasmic dreams of an insane woman" and go no further.

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

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #112 on: August 22, 2011, 09:40:57 PM »
The quote from St. Athanasius is good because he had to deal with Nestorianism.

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

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

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

Equine Apples!!

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,594
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #113 on: August 22, 2011, 09:42:35 PM »
Quote
On a related note: It is interesting to me, Irish Hermit, the extent to which you oppose the Toll House theory and the depth of thought you're willing to expend in defending your position, and yet you won't extend the same courtesy here. All you see is "Sacred Heart" and all you think is "psychosexual orgasmic dreams of an insane woman" and go no further.

The notion of toll houses is, at best, a theologoumenon, a pious opinion held by some, and in no way espoused by the Church as a whole. I'm not sure devotion to the sacred heart could even be called a theologoumenon. And there has never been a feast of the Church based on a theologoumenon.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2011, 09:43:24 PM by LBK »
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline Sleeper

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,350
  • On hiatus for the foreseeable future.
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #114 on: August 22, 2011, 09:46:34 PM »
Quote
On a related note: It is interesting to me, Irish Hermit, the extent to which you oppose the Toll House theory and the depth of thought you're willing to expend in defending your position, and yet you won't extend the same courtesy here. All you see is "Sacred Heart" and all you think is "psychosexual orgasmic dreams of an insane woman" and go no further.

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

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

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,541
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #115 on: August 22, 2011, 09:48:42 PM »
Fine.

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


And, indeed, we do.
don't recall seeing anything like this before even the Reformation.


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

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #116 on: August 22, 2011, 09:55:49 PM »
Fine.

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


And, indeed, we do.
don't recall seeing anything like this before even the Reformation.


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

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

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,541
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #117 on: August 22, 2011, 09:56:22 PM »
There is not a single feast of the Orthodox Church which is dedicated to an allegory or concept. Devotions to the sacred heart, divine mercy, holy name, etc, fall into the "concept" category, and have no place (and never had any place) on Orthodox worship or devotion.

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

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

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


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

Offline Sleeper

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,350
  • On hiatus for the foreseeable future.
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #118 on: August 22, 2011, 09:59:59 PM »
Fine.

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


And, indeed, we do.
don't recall seeing anything like this before even the Reformation.


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

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

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

That was said by Fr Paul Schneirla, the first Vicar General of the AWRV. And I believe devotion to the Sacred Heart falls in that category, as a valid survival of something that is rooted in the ancient West, despite what it may've become on the popular level.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #119 on: August 22, 2011, 10:00:25 PM »
The quote from St. Athanasius is good because he had to deal with Nestorianism.

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

Take for instance the incorrupt relics of St. John Maximovich.  His whole body is there.  I just venerated the hand, there is no reason to kiss every square inch of him, as his hand is conected to the rest of him.  I once venerated the arm of St. George, which is still conected with the rest of him, in particular his soul/spirit in heaven.  The icon of him with the relic showed all of him, not just his arm.
But that's just my point. Just like St. John and his hand, Jesus' heart is still connected with the rest of Him. Why can't one venerate His heart and not just have to venerate "every square inch of Him?" The woman with the issue of blood said just touching Jesus' garment would be enough to heal her. I don't recall His clothes being fused to His body.
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #120 on: August 22, 2011, 10:01:22 PM »
The quote from St. Athanasius is good because he had to deal with Nestorianism.

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

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

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

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

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


If you tell us where you keep the Sacred Heart we'll come and venerate it too.
In Heaven, inside Jesus.
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline Sleeper

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,350
  • On hiatus for the foreseeable future.
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #121 on: August 22, 2011, 10:03:25 PM »
There is not a single feast of the Orthodox Church which is dedicated to an allegory or concept. Devotions to the sacred heart, divine mercy, holy name, etc, fall into the "concept" category, and have no place (and never had any place) on Orthodox worship or devotion.

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

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

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


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

Come on now, I know you're capable of deeper thinking than that. I've seen it and admire it. What more can be said to have things not be reduced to one-liners?

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,541
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #122 on: August 22, 2011, 10:04:15 PM »
The quote from St. Athanasius is good because he had to deal with Nestorianism.

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

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

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,541
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #123 on: August 22, 2011, 10:04:51 PM »
Fine.

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


And, indeed, we do.
don't recall seeing anything like this before even the Reformation.


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

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

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

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #124 on: August 22, 2011, 10:07:30 PM »
The quote from St. Athanasius is good because he had to deal with Nestorianism.

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

Take for instance the incorrupt relics of St. John Maximovich.  His whole body is there.  I just venerated the hand, there is no reason to kiss every square inch of him, as his hand is conected to the rest of him.  I once venerated the arm of St. George, which is still conected with the rest of him, in particular his soul/spirit in heaven.  The icon of him with the relic showed all of him, not just his arm.
But that's just my point. Just like St. John and his hand, Jesus' heart is still connected with the rest of Him. Why can't one venerate His heart and not just have to venerate "every square inch of Him?" The woman with the issue of blood said just touching Jesus' garment would be enough to heal her. I don't recall His clothes being fused to His body.
I don't recall a devotion of the sacred fringe either.
There's no relics of Jesus' clothing? I'm surprised.
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline stanley123

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,812
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #125 on: August 22, 2011, 10:09:34 PM »
Fine.

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


And, indeed, we do.
don't recall seeing anything like this before even the Reformation.


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

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


Inasmuch as you venerate another body part of Christ, your arguments are unconvincing and close to absurd.  

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,541
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #126 on: August 22, 2011, 10:13:14 PM »
There is not a single feast of the Orthodox Church which is dedicated to an allegory or concept. Devotions to the sacred heart, divine mercy, holy name, etc, fall into the "concept" category, and have no place (and never had any place) on Orthodox worship or devotion.

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

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

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


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

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

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #127 on: August 22, 2011, 10:14:41 PM »
The quote from St. Athanasius is good because he had to deal with Nestorianism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Likewise with the heart of Mary.  We shall come in great numbers if you tell us what church to come to.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #128 on: August 22, 2011, 10:19:11 PM »
There is not a single feast of the Orthodox Church which is dedicated to an allegory or concept. Devotions to the sacred heart, divine mercy, holy name, etc, fall into the "concept" category, and have no place (and never had any place) on Orthodox worship or devotion.

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

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

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


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

Come on now, I know you're capable of deeper thinking than that. I've seen it and admire it. What more can be said to have things not be reduced to one-liners?
The problem is the Sacred Heart is not alone: besides the "Immaculate Heart," we have "Sacred Blood" (I used to pass by that parish in Chicago all the time), the Five Wounds, the Pierced Hearts of Jesus and Mary, the Pierced Heart of the Virgin, etc. and when we are through disecting the divine, Divine Mercy (that one doesn't bother me so much, though I'm not so much a fan of Sister Faustina as her cult presents her), Corpus Christi, etc.  Once one ceases to hold on to the concrete that the Apostles left us, he is left without moorings and cast adrift into all the directions "visions" will take him.  That is the biggest problem with all of this, the role that "visions" played in all these cults.
I'd like to see somebody actually interact with post 101 before talking like this...
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #129 on: August 22, 2011, 10:19:37 PM »
Fine.

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


And, indeed, we do.
don't recall seeing anything like this before even the Reformation.


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

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

Offline Sleeper

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,350
  • On hiatus for the foreseeable future.
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #130 on: August 22, 2011, 10:20:00 PM »
There is not a single feast of the Orthodox Church which is dedicated to an allegory or concept. Devotions to the sacred heart, divine mercy, holy name, etc, fall into the "concept" category, and have no place (and never had any place) on Orthodox worship or devotion.

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

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

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


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

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

And I quite honestly believe that all Western Orthodox would agree with you. I certainly do. That is why the patristic roots of anything that crystallized post-Schism must be defending and brought to light.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,541
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #131 on: August 22, 2011, 10:21:32 PM »
The quote from St. Athanasius is good because he had to deal with Nestorianism.

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

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

Offline Sleeper

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,350
  • On hiatus for the foreseeable future.
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #132 on: August 22, 2011, 10:23:50 PM »
Fine.

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


And, indeed, we do.
don't recall seeing anything like this before even the Reformation.


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

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

Perhaps that's because you insist on the Sacred Heart being about a organ and not about Christ's Passion?

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #133 on: August 22, 2011, 10:24:18 PM »
On a related note: It is interesting to me, Irish Hermit, the extent to which you oppose the Toll House theory and the depth of thought you're willing to expend in defending your position, and yet you won't extend the same courtesy here. All you see is "Sacred Heart" and all you think is "psychosexual orgasmic dreams of an insane woman" and go no further.

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

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

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #134 on: August 22, 2011, 10:24:33 PM »
Fine.

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


And, indeed, we do.
don't recall seeing anything like this before even the Reformation.


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

I read all the above and it seems to have nothing to do with the Sacred Heart but with the Sacred Lateral.
Blood and water flowed from His side because His heart was pierced, the article quoted also ties the devotion to frequent Biblical references to the heart of God.
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.