OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 23, 2014, 06:20:47 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Sacred Heart as I know it.  (Read 21270 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,393


« Reply #180 on: October 05, 2011, 06:08:32 PM »


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

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

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

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

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

Quote
Now who is whining?

You in the very act of asking for trying some compesation for not before and not now being able to hide whatever issues you have behind pseudo-apologetics.
Trying to say that the entire Roman Church condones worshiping the literal heart of Jesus Christ by taking snippets of quotes (and, I highly suspect, out of context [see other post above]) is quite bratty, childish, and dishonest.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 11,963


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #181 on: October 05, 2011, 06:54:48 PM »

[quote author
The Immaculate Conception is not blasphemed:  

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



Fixed quote tags  -PtA
« Last Edit: October 05, 2011, 07:02:01 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #182 on: October 05, 2011, 07:17:20 PM »

[quote author
The Immaculate Conception is not blasphemed: 

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

Then it is a good thing that is NOT what the teaching of the Immaculate Conception does...except in your imaginary world of Catholic teaching...
« Last Edit: October 05, 2011, 07:18:07 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,393


« Reply #183 on: October 05, 2011, 09:56:50 PM »

[quote author
The Immaculate Conception is not blasphemed: 

That is the point.  It cannot be blashpemed....because it is an innovation. Undecided
Attacking the Blessed Virgin Mary, conceived immaculate, full of Grace, and set apart by God Himself to be the unblemished vessel to house the Messiah, is blasphemy towards God.
Attacking God, by saying that he would rob the Theotokos of her free will by setting her apart to be an unblemished vessel, is blasphemy.  Roll Eyes
No free will? Who's saying that? Adam and Eve were created without original sin, yet they still had free will and chose to fall into sin and out of communion with God. The wonderful thing about the Theotokos is that she was conceived without original sin and remained sinless her entire life. Adam and Eve were prideful and rebellious, whereas the Theotokos was humble and obedient.
Logged
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,474



« Reply #184 on: October 05, 2011, 10:09:49 PM »

[quote author
The Immaculate Conception is not blasphemed: 

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

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

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

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,430


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #185 on: October 06, 2011, 12:43:06 AM »

Don't we already have enough threads about the Immaculate Conception? Why rehash the argument here where it's off topic?
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #186 on: October 06, 2011, 12:51:09 AM »

[quote author
The Immaculate Conception is not blasphemed: 

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

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

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

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

Dumb
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 35,629



« Reply #187 on: October 07, 2011, 10:13:06 PM »

[quote author
The Immaculate Conception is not blasphemed:  

That is the point.  It cannot be blashpemed....because it is an innovation. Undecided
Attacking the Blessed Virgin Mary, conceived immaculate, full of Grace, and set apart by God Himself to be the unblemished vessel to house the Messiah, is blasphemy towards God.
Attacking God, by saying that he would rob the Theotokos of her free will by setting her apart to be an unblemished vessel, is blasphemy.  Roll Eyes
Saying that Mary was conceived in the same state as Adam and Eve is in no way taking away her free will.
Since she was conceived after the Fall, yes, it is. Otherwise, there is no reason why God could not and should not have had us all conceived as Father Adam and Mother Eve were created before the Fall.
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
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,393


« Reply #188 on: October 08, 2011, 01:33:12 PM »

[quote author
The Immaculate Conception is not blasphemed:  

That is the point.  It cannot be blashpemed....because it is an innovation. Undecided
Attacking the Blessed Virgin Mary, conceived immaculate, full of Grace, and set apart by God Himself to be the unblemished vessel to house the Messiah, is blasphemy towards God.
Attacking God, by saying that he would rob the Theotokos of her free will by setting her apart to be an unblemished vessel, is blasphemy.  Roll Eyes
Saying that Mary was conceived in the same state as Adam and Eve is in no way taking away her free will.
Since she was conceived after the Fall, yes, it is. Otherwise, there is no reason why God could not and should not have had us all conceived as Father Adam and Mother Eve were created before the Fall.
There is a very good reason. None of us were chosen to be vessels to house the Messiah. Do you think that the Theotokos, who is considered both the New Eve and the New Ark of the Covenant, would be bogged down and dirtied by sin? Do you think that God the Son Incarnate would enter this world through a vessel tarnished and covered in filth? To suggest such a thing is blasphemous.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #189 on: October 08, 2011, 06:33:37 PM »

For those who are interested:

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

THE HEARTS OF JESUS AND MARY by Cardinal von Schoenborn OP




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

LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 9,116


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #190 on: October 08, 2011, 11:04:54 PM »





A cautionary note: This image cannot be considered a proper icon of the Mother of God from the Orthodox POV, as it is deficient in many ways. It is simply a well-executed religious painting reflecting certain non-Orthodox beliefs.
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 9,949


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #191 on: October 09, 2011, 12:28:23 PM »





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

At the possible risk of derailing this thread, for those who may not know, would you mind elaborating, please?  Specifically, how the icon is deficient, what makes an icon "Orthodox" and therefore "proper", which non-Orthodox beliefs this one reflects, and what it is that makes any icon worthy or unworthy of veneration.  (By the way, I'm not looking for a fight, snide or triumphalistic comments, or any kind of holier-than-thou attitudes--just a straight-forward answer of explanation.  If the mods see fit to move this, I certainly have no problem with that.)  Thanks!
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #192 on: October 09, 2011, 12:41:50 PM »

I've never seen an Orthodox icon of the MoG wearing those color clothes, she is usually always holding Christ, she is never depicted holding a rosary or cupping her "heart".
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 9,949


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #193 on: October 09, 2011, 12:57:19 PM »

I've never seen an Orthodox icon of the MoG wearing those color clothes, she is usually always holding Christ, she is never depicted holding a rosary or cupping her "heart".

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

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 9,949


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #194 on: October 09, 2011, 01:41:18 PM »

I still have this booklet, a little soiled after 31 years, but it is still a powerful catechism in my opinion.  And even at eight years old I understood the Sacred Heart was a symbol for Christ and His divine love for us, not a seperated piece of him.

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

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,393


« Reply #195 on: October 09, 2011, 02:34:53 PM »





A cautionary note: This image cannot be considered a proper icon of the Mother of God from the Orthodox POV, as it is deficient in many ways. It is simply a well-executed religious painting reflecting certain non-Orthodox beliefs.
In what ways is it deficient?
Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,216

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #196 on: October 09, 2011, 02:45:35 PM »

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

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

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

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,908



WWW
« Reply #197 on: October 09, 2011, 03:23:50 PM »

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

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

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

+1
Logged


I'm going to need this.
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 9,116


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #198 on: October 09, 2011, 05:58:35 PM »

I've never seen an Orthodox icon of the MoG wearing those color clothes, she is usually always holding Christ, she is never depicted holding a rosary or cupping her "heart".

To which I would add that this image does not bear the essential feature of the three stars of perpetual virginity on her maphorion, a detail of dogmatic importance. The Mother of God always points to her Son and God in proper icons, never to her heart, be that heart figurative or material.
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #199 on: October 09, 2011, 10:10:28 PM »

I've never seen an Orthodox icon of the MoG wearing those color clothes, she is usually always holding Christ, she is never depicted holding a rosary or cupping her "heart".

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

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

If she is holding the rosary and cupping her heart, she is expressing RC theology, not Orthodox.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,908



WWW
« Reply #200 on: October 09, 2011, 10:11:04 PM »

I've never seen an Orthodox icon of the MoG wearing those color clothes, she is usually always holding Christ, she is never depicted holding a rosary or cupping her "heart".

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

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

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

A contrary theology?
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #201 on: October 09, 2011, 10:15:27 PM »

I still have this booklet, a little soiled after 31 years, but it is still a powerful catechism in my opinion.  And even at eight years old I understood the Sacred Heart was a symbol for Christ and His divine love for us, not a seperated piece of him.

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

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



Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,908



WWW
« Reply #202 on: October 09, 2011, 10:16:34 PM »

I still have this booklet, a little soiled after 31 years, but it is still a powerful catechism in my opinion.  And even at eight years old I understood the Sacred Heart was a symbol for Christ and His divine love for us, not a seperated piece of him.

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

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

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


I'm going to need this.
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #203 on: October 09, 2011, 10:20:42 PM »

I've never seen an Orthodox icon of the MoG wearing those color clothes, she is usually always holding Christ, she is never depicted holding a rosary or cupping her "heart".

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

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

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

A contrary theology?

Yes I think so. She is emphasizing the Rosary and Sacred Heart Devotion. The fact that she is not pointing to Christ (as she is in EO icons) but to her heart is problematic imo, as others have mentioned.
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #204 on: October 09, 2011, 10:21:13 PM »

I still have this booklet, a little soiled after 31 years, but it is still a powerful catechism in my opinion.  And even at eight years old I understood the Sacred Heart was a symbol for Christ and His divine love for us, not a seperated piece of him.

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

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

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

Any icon of Christ will do.
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,393


« Reply #205 on: October 10, 2011, 12:41:57 AM »

I still have this booklet, a little soiled after 31 years, but it is still a powerful catechism in my opinion.  And even at eight years old I understood the Sacred Heart was a symbol for Christ and His divine love for us, not a seperated piece of him.

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

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




Take that argument to its logical conclusion and you have the iconoclasm heresy (i.e. you don't have to see an icon at all to realize theological truths).
Logged
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,474



« Reply #206 on: October 10, 2011, 04:02:49 AM »

I still have this booklet, a little soiled after 31 years, but it is still a powerful catechism in my opinion.  And even at eight years old I understood the Sacred Heart was a symbol for Christ and His divine love for us, not a seperated piece of him.

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

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




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

There are specific theological reasons why one must venerate icons, and I don't think that being able to understand Christ's love for us is one of them. So even taken to its logical conclusion, that statement is still not the same as iconoclasm.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #207 on: October 10, 2011, 04:06:20 AM »

I still have this booklet, a little soiled after 31 years, but it is still a powerful catechism in my opinion.  And even at eight years old I understood the Sacred Heart was a symbol for Christ and His divine love for us, not a seperated piece of him.

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

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




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

sigh, I wasn't implying that. My statement was in the context of discussion about icons and showing Jesus or Mary's heart to imply love.
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 9,949


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #208 on: October 10, 2011, 12:34:57 PM »

I've never seen an Orthodox icon of the MoG wearing those color clothes, she is usually always holding Christ, she is never depicted holding a rosary or cupping her "heart".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

So, it seems my original questions are still unanswered.

Given that all of our actions have consequences, I wonder what consequences would ensue were an Orthodox Christian to venerate the icon we're discussing?
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #209 on: October 10, 2011, 02:51:03 PM »

no consequences, I just wouldn't do it because I don't recognize her.

Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 9,949


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #210 on: October 10, 2011, 03:38:35 PM »

no consequences, I just wouldn't do it because I don't recognize her.



1.  What about the other questions I asked?

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

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

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #211 on: October 10, 2011, 04:29:19 PM »

no consequences, I just wouldn't do it because I don't recognize her.



1.  What about the other questions I asked?

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

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

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

« Last Edit: October 10, 2011, 04:30:43 PM by Ortho_cat » Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 9,949


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #212 on: October 10, 2011, 04:50:45 PM »

no consequences, I just wouldn't do it because I don't recognize her.



1.  What about the other questions I asked?

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

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

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



What about #2 above, bolded?

What characteristics **must** (according to whom? I would also ask) an icon of the Theotokos have to make it "an EO icon of the Theotokos"?  And, again....how does the icon we're discussing fail in that regard?  And, if it indeed does fail, does that make it unworthy of  veneration by Orthodox Christians?
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #213 on: October 10, 2011, 05:00:36 PM »

a proper icon of the theotokos should bear several of the following characteristics which we already mentioned. Perhaps not all at the same time (which most do) but at least several.
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,393


« Reply #214 on: October 10, 2011, 05:05:20 PM »

I still have this booklet, a little soiled after 31 years, but it is still a powerful catechism in my opinion.  And even at eight years old I understood the Sacred Heart was a symbol for Christ and His divine love for us, not a seperated piece of him.

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

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




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

sigh, I wasn't implying that. My statement was in the context of discussion about icons and showing Jesus or Mary's heart to imply love.
I guess I'm just having difficulty understanding your objection to such Icons. What is wrong or heretical about utilizing the heart in an Icon to portray love? Certainly there are other ways that love can be portrayed in Icons that are also effective, but what is wrong with the use of the heart?
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 9,949


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #215 on: October 10, 2011, 05:24:16 PM »

a proper icon of the theotokos should bear several of the following characteristics which we already mentioned. Perhaps not all at the same time (which most do) but at least several.

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

*Which* characteristics?

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

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

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

If, for whatever reason, you do not know the answers, that's fine!  Just say so!  "I don't know", when it's true, is a perfectly acceptable and appropriate answer.  You've made a judgment about a particular icon and we are asking you to back it up with some specifics, but you seem more unwilling than unable.  But perhaps I'm wrong.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2011, 05:25:52 PM by J Michael » Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #216 on: October 10, 2011, 05:31:43 PM »

Here is a description of what a Theotokos icon should look like:

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Icons_of_the_Theotokos
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #217 on: October 10, 2011, 05:35:45 PM »

The image is called Fatimskaia so it depicts Our Lady of Fatima and the image in her hands is Eucharist or Body of Christ which can be seen in context as a dual reference to Jesus and to the Church.  It is certainly not a traditional Eastern Orthodox icon.  I did not intend to present it as such.

For those who are interested:

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

THE HEARTS OF JESUS AND MARY by Cardinal von Schoenborn OP




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

Logged

LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 9,116


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #218 on: October 10, 2011, 06:54:01 PM »

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

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

To J Michael and elijahmaria:

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

Proper iconography is the visual counterpart of Orthodox hymnography and Holy Tradition. "Sacred heart" and "immaculate heart" devotions are not part of Orthodox doctrine or devotion, therefore there is no place for this image in Orthodox iconographic tradition. Coupled with the other deficiencies others have mentioned (the colors of her clothing, the absence of the stars of perpetual virginity, and the absence of Christ), this image is completely unsuitable as an Orthodox icon.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 11,963


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #219 on: October 10, 2011, 07:16:55 PM »

Oh good... This conversation is still going on.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,731


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #220 on: October 10, 2011, 07:32:15 PM »

...and the image in her hands is Eucharist or Body of Christ which can be seen in context as a dual reference to Jesus and to the Church. 

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

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

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 9,116


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #221 on: October 10, 2011, 07:36:31 PM »

...and the image in her hands is Eucharist or Body of Christ which can be seen in context as a dual reference to Jesus and to the Church. 

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

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

^ What I said.  Smiley
Logged
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 9,116


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #222 on: October 10, 2011, 07:45:05 PM »

From the blog that Dcn Lance linked to:
Quote
In the icon, besides the traditional MR ZY that indicates Maria's Divine Maternity two inscriptions have been written. The superior indicates the title of the icon: image of the Holiest Virgin of Fátima. The lower left one, in bigger characters, says “Toboiu Edinstbo” that means in you the Unity.

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

My suspicions have been verified. Shame on the Orthodox iconographer who painted this work. He should have known better.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,908



WWW
« Reply #223 on: October 10, 2011, 07:48:32 PM »

From the blog that Dcn Lance linked to:
Quote
In the icon, besides the traditional MR ZY that indicates Maria's Divine Maternity two inscriptions have been written. The superior indicates the title of the icon: image of the Holiest Virgin of Fátima. The lower left one, in bigger characters, says “Toboiu Edinstbo” that means in you the Unity.

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

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

Known better?
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #224 on: October 10, 2011, 07:56:31 PM »

So that is the immaculate heart that Russia is consecrated to...
Logged
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 »   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 0.173 seconds with 72 queries.