IMO, even if we redefine the SH devotion as a devotion to Christ's love, it's still problematic because, just as we don't worship "parts" of Jesus, we don't worship his "attributes", "character traits", "virtues", etc. in isolation.
We worship Thy passion oh Christ and praise and glorify thy Holy Resurrection.
Of course, the difference here is that "worship" and "glory" are not being offered to those events in the sense of latria
. RC theology, at least pre-Vatican II, justified worship of Christ's physical heart by affirming that every part of his humanity was divine through the Incarnation. Just as a piece of the Eucharist, however small, is the "whole" Eucharist, so it was with "pieces" of Christ's human body. I'll be happy to be proven wrong on this, but it is the sense of literature I've read and at least one article I've posted elsewhere on this forum.
We honour attributes, characteristics, virtues, events, etc. of Christ and his life, but not in and of themselves. See the bold above.
We know, for example, that current RC liturgy includes feasts for...dogmas (e.g., Corpus Christi, Immaculate Conception)
Sunday of Orthodoxy (dogmatic victory of Iconodulism)?
OO's don't have that, so it's easy for me to overlook that, but I did remember it later (see below).
Is that feast primarily the commemoration of an event, or a feast of the dogma of icon veneration? While I'm sure both are present, my recollection was that the texts basically addressed the event, but it's been a few years since I've heard them.
When I was in school and had access to a better library, I was able to confirm a hunch I always had: if you consult pre-1854 copies of the Missale Romanum
and compare them with post-1854 copies, the entire focus of the feast of Our Lady's Conception is changed: before the dogmatic definition of Pius IX, the feast was very much of an event, but afterward, it was exclusively about the newly proclaimed theology. The same holds for pre- and post-1950 editions of the Missal when it comes to the feast of the Dormition.
After I posted and it was too late to change it, I realised that I felt bad about including Corpus Christi in my post. Its origins are, IIRC, in an alleged Eucharistic miracle (an event) but became more widespread in the West due to challenges to the teaching on the Eucharist. In this sense, I feel like it could be a Western analog to the Triumph of Orthodox re: icons, so maybe I should've left that particular feast out.
visions (e.g., Lourdes, Guadalupe)
Protection of the Theotokos? A visionary apparition of the Virgin over Constantinople as a promise to protect them from barbarians.
My issue with this is that the phenomena are different. AFAIK, Our Lady's appearance over Constantinople was "silent", she revealed no message. The same was the case at her appearances at Zeitoun in Egypt. Those feasts are very much commemorations of events. But at Lourdes, Guadalupe, Fatima, etc., part of the phenomena involve messages, "secrets", etc. RC teaching is that no Catholic is required to believe any of these "private revelations": when the Church approves them, it is not saying "This definitely happened", but rather "There's nothing wrong with believing in this if you want". If that is so, how could they ever be allowed in that Church's liturgy? You can't say "You don't have to believe it, in fact, you can have doubts if you think those are justified" but then require everyone who goes to Mass on 12 December to participate in the liturgical commemoration of such a thing.
Look, I'll stand by the body parts thing being weird, but I'll agree that praying to the cross or St. Peter's holy nails in Rome or whatever seems equally weird, and we do that. But let's not poke at things that we actually do ourselves.
Sure, as long as we're talking about the same thing. In at least one of your examples, however, we're not.