Andrew21091
OC.Net Guru
Out of curiosity, do any Western Rite Orthodox Churches (either in the ROCOR or Antiochian) practice devotions to the Sacred Heart of Jesus?
I am surprised to read this. I doubt "many" Orthodox have anything to do with the Sacred heart. Have you read the correspondence between Metr. Anthony Khrapovitsky and the Eastern Catholic metr. Andrii Sheptytsky about this? Circa 1900? The Orthodox metr. Anthony Khrapovitsky asks why Sheptytsky does not also introduce the "Sacred Liver" also.Sleeper said:Yes, many do. Even non-Western Orthodox, such as Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon, do.
No, he's a prominent American EO priest. I'll have to ask him about this, as I've never seen or heard of his devotion to the "Sacred Heart."Orest said:I am surprised to read this. I doubt "many" Orthodox have anything to do with the Sacred heart. Have you read the correspondence between Metr. Anthony Khrapovitsky and the Eastern Catholic metr. Andrii Sheptytsky about this? Circa 1900? The Orthodox metr. Anthony Khrapovitsky asks why Sheptytsky does not also introduce the "Sacred Liver" also.Sleeper said:Yes, many do. Even non-Western Orthodox, such as Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon, do.
Sorry I don't know who Fr. Patrick Reardon is supposed to be in this discussion. is he a prominent RC priest?
I'll ask him to clarify.Sleeper said:Ialmisry, he mentioned this during the Q&A after his recent talk at the Antiochian Convention. I should clarify that perhaps it wasn't the full devotion, but he said he "invokes" the Sacred Heart between decades of the Rosary (which he said he prays daily).
Off hand, I can't think of an example in the Eastern rite.Sleeper said:Scamandrius, at this same talk, he brought up the feasts you mentioned, but it's an overall problem he has with feasts that celebrate non-events/concepts, which he is quick to point out the Eastern Rite has as well. It's not a Western peculiarity, though there seem to be more of them.
bleah. Almost makes the criticism of the WRO true.Sleeper said:I for one hope they all stay in place. They are beautiful and life-giving.
ialmisry said:You didn't answer the question, papist.Papist said:Izzy, yes you are a sicko to be taking such pleasure in those murderous images. At this point i'm convinced that you are not a Christian but, rather, a wolf in sheep's clothing.
I'm just watching our flock, watching out for western wolves, in their own skins or eastern ones.ialmisry said:Tell us, can you image yourself kneeling next to those Spaniards?
Forget for the moment a comparison with the Orthodox of the East. Compare these cults to the Church in the West when it confessed the Orthodox Faith. Do we see this obsession with "visionaries," this fascination with body parts and gore, this mutliplication of cults, this dogmatization of the Theotokos on her own before the 11th century in the West?
(Source)St. Athanasius of Alexandria pointed out the wrongness of worshipping Christ's body in a separate way, in these words: "We do not worship a created thing, but the Master of created things, the Word of God made flesh. Although the flesh itself, considered separately, is a part of created things, yet it has become the body of God. We do not worship this body after having separated it from the Word. Likewise, we do not separate the Word from the body when we wish to worship Him. But knowing that "the Word was made flesh," we recognise the Word existing in the flesh as God." (Ep. ad Adelph., par. 3)
But Our Lord telling the parable, which is the Gospel of that day, was a real event.Sleeper said:I believe one example might be the Sunday of the Prodigal Son? This was a parable, not a real event "in the course of salvation history" as Scamandrius put it.
yes, neither have I.Sleeper said:Almost makes the criticism of the WRO true.
I should clarify, I'm mainly thinking of feasts like Trinity Sunday, which actually goes back very far in the Western experience. I've not actually ever seen a Western Rite parish celebrate the Sacred Heart feast, I don't know anyone that personally practices the devotion, and I've not seen or heard of any WRO parishes that celebrate Seven Dolours of Mary.
yes, send it. I just ask that you allow me to post it publicly.Sleeper said:Isa, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on Fr. Edward Hughes's thoughtful analysis of the Sacred Heart devotion, if you're able to track it down somewhere. I wonder, is there a limit to private message length? If not, I could copy it to you, if you're interested. He makes a very good case for it, outside of any macabre or gory caricatures that are associated with it.
Will do, and I have no problem with you posting portions. I'd post the whole thing if I could, but I believe there are restrictions against that...ialmisry said:yes, send it. I just ask that you allow me to post it publicly.Sleeper said:Isa, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on Fr. Edward Hughes's thoughtful analysis of the Sacred Heart devotion, if you're able to track it down somewhere. I wonder, is there a limit to private message length? If not, I could copy it to you, if you're interested. He makes a very good case for it, outside of any macabre or gory caricatures that are associated with it.
Could it not also be said, then, that Christ instituted the Eucharist (Corpus Christi) and His heart was really pierced on the cross (Sacred Heart), so these feasts also commemorate real events?ialmisry said:But Our Lord telling the parable, which is the Gospel of that day, was a real event.Sleeper said:I believe one example might be the Sunday of the Prodigal Son? This was a parable, not a real event "in the course of salvation history" as Scamandrius put it.
No. Christ instituted the Eucharist on Maudy Thursday and His heart was pierced on Great and Holy Friday. Corpus Christi (btw, I have heard of WRO celebrating, and I don't really have a problem with it) has little to do with the institution of the Eucharist, nor does the Sacred Heart have much to do with the Crucifixion. Corpus Christi has more to do with combating denial of the Real Presence in the West (a perennial problem), and the Sacred Heart with, of course, the visions of a nun, Margaret Mary Alacoque.Sleeper said:Could it not also be said, then, that Christ instituted the Eucharist (Corpus Christi) and His heart was really pierced on the cross (Sacred Heart), so these feasts also commemorate real events?ialmisry said:But Our Lord telling the parable, which is the Gospel of that day, was a real event.Sleeper said:I believe one example might be the Sunday of the Prodigal Son? This was a parable, not a real event "in the course of salvation history" as Scamandrius put it.
The arguments you hear, quite honestly, are mostly good ones, but they are against something that I don't think you'll find amongst WRO. Primarily the emotionalism and hyper-sentimentalism of what became the Margaret Mary-influenced popular piety-style devotion.Andrew21091 said:I've heard many arguments against the devotion to the Sacred Heart. I was just wondering if the devotion has found its way into Orthodox Western Rite devotion. I would love to hear Western Rite Orthodox arguments in favor of the devotion if there are any.
Sleeper, I'm going to assume you are in the Western Rite. If not then forgive me but if so, do you make it a practice to say the devotion to the Sacred Heart?
I think you'll find, with the Sacred Heart, that it's not as simple as that, once you read through Fr. Hughes's article. Perhaps you'll still disagree, but I think you'll see why some defend it as a legitimate part of our Western patrimony.ialmisry said:No. Christ instituted the Eucharist on Maudy Thursday and His heart was pierced on Great and Holy Friday. Corpus Christi (btw, I have heard of WRO celebrating, and I don't really have a problem with it) has little to do with the institution of the Eucharist, nor does the Sacred Heart have much to do with the Crucifixion. Corpus Christi has more to do with combating denial of the Real Presence in the West (a perennial problem), and the Sacred Heart with, of course, the visions of a nun, Margaret Mary Alacoque.Sleeper said:Could it not also be said, then, that Christ instituted the Eucharist (Corpus Christi) and His heart was really pierced on the cross (Sacred Heart), so these feasts also commemorate real events?ialmisry said:But Our Lord telling the parable, which is the Gospel of that day, was a real event.Sleeper said:I believe one example might be the Sunday of the Prodigal Son? This was a parable, not a real event "in the course of salvation history" as Scamandrius put it.
I haven't read the article yet (I got it, but I also have the flu). Once I do I'll respond, Lord willing.Sleeper said:I think you'll find, with the Sacred Heart, that it's not as simple as that, once you read through Fr. Hughes's article. Perhaps you'll still disagree, but I think you'll see why some defend it as a legitimate part of our Western patrimony.ialmisry said:No. Christ instituted the Eucharist on Maudy Thursday and His heart was pierced on Great and Holy Friday. Corpus Christi (btw, I have heard of WRO celebrating, and I don't really have a problem with it) has little to do with the institution of the Eucharist, nor does the Sacred Heart have much to do with the Crucifixion. Corpus Christi has more to do with combating denial of the Real Presence in the West (a perennial problem), and the Sacred Heart with, of course, the visions of a nun, Margaret Mary Alacoque.Sleeper said:Could it not also be said, then, that Christ instituted the Eucharist (Corpus Christi) and His heart was really pierced on the cross (Sacred Heart), so these feasts also commemorate real events?ialmisry said:But Our Lord telling the parable, which is the Gospel of that day, was a real event.Sleeper said:I believe one example might be the Sunday of the Prodigal Son? This was a parable, not a real event "in the course of salvation history" as Scamandrius put it.
My main point, though, was that the Feast of the Prodigal Son is no more about Christ's telling of the parable (the real event) than these are about the events they are related to. The Kontakion for this feast says, "When I disobeyed in ignorance Thy fatherly glory, I wasted in iniquities the riches that Thou gavest me. Wherefore, I cry to Thee with the voice of the prodigal son, saying, I have sinned before Thee, O compassionate Father, receive me repentant, and make me as one of Thy hired servants."
Compare that with the Collect from Corpus Christ, "O God, who in a wonderful Sacrament hast left unto us the memorial of Thy Passion; grant, we beseech Thee, that we may so venerate the sacred mysteries of Thy Body and Blood as to experience continually within ourselves the fruit of Thy Redemption. Who livest and reignest with God the Father, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end."
Both feasts are loosely related to real events, though are not in and of themselves celebrations of those events.
That's what I thought, and why I presented other images which elicit from us a similar contemplation. It is also why I said that the image of the Sacred Heart, in comparison with an image of the Crucifixion (containing, as it does, the wound in the side of Christ), is just a little derivative. Everything is complete and whole in the image of Christ on the Cross: "the entire mystery of the Passion, culminating in the piercing of Christ's [side] by the lance, from which issued water and blood" plus the mourning of the Apostle John and the Mother of God, the confession of St Longinus, and the fulfilling of prophecy (c.a. the solar eclipse and blood-red moon).Sleeper said:That is what the Sacred Heart is about.
Well, I'm not sure what a "purified" version might involve, but there is already an Akathist to the Passion of Christ:Sleeper said:I don't really see it as an either/or scenario, I suppose. Why could one not pray a purified Orthodox Sacred Heart devotion before this beautiful icon?
It might look something like this:J.M.C said:Well, I'm not sure what a "purified" version might involveSleeper said:I don't really see it as an either/or scenario, I suppose. Why could one not pray a purified Orthodox Sacred Heart devotion before this beautiful icon?
Right. There's "already" lots of things Orthodox Christians can use for their devotions. But the whole point of a Western expression is utilizing those elements that have come about in our Western experience that is consonant with the faith of the Fathers., but there is already an Akathist to the Passion of Christ.
Well, I guess that settles it then. Thanks for chiming in. :IreneOlinyk said:People have alread quoted two well-known Orthodox thelogians:
Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky:"Orthodox Dogmatic Theology"
& Metr. Anthony Krapovitsky who both explained by the Orthodox Church can never accept the RC devotion to the Sacred Heart. Both say there are problems of Cry-Nestorianism
You cannot change Orthodoxy to suit your whims or your past pre-covert days.
Secondly there is no "icon of the Sacred heart", there is only a RC religious pisture which does not adhere to the canons of Orthodox iconography and symbolism
It's my understanding that this book is considered somewhat of a fundamentalist nature by many EO's and it's teachings would not be taken by them as dogmatic by any means. I can still understand why the Sacred Heart devotion would be considered controversial at best by many Orthodox (It was considered so by many Catholics until the 19Th century).J.M.C said:From "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology" by Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky:
The one worship of Christ.
To the Lord Jesus Christ as to one person, as the God-man it is fitting to give a single inseparable
worship, both according to Divinity and according to Humanity, precisely because both
natures are inseparably united in Him. The decree of the Fathers of the Fifth Ecumenical Council
(the Ninth Canon against Heretics) reads: “If anyone shall take the expression, Christ ought to be
worshipped in His two natures, in the sense that he wishes to introduce thus two adorations, the
one in special relation to God the Word and the other as pertaining to the Man… and does not
venerate, by one adoration, God the Word made man, together with His flesh, as the Holy Church
has taught from the beginning: let him be anathema” Eerdmans, Seven Ecumenical Councils, p.
314).
On the Latin cult of the “Heart of Jesus.”
In connection with this decree of the Council it may be seen how out of harmony with the
spirit and practice of the Church is the cult of the “sacred heart of Jesus” which has been introduced
into the Roman Catholic Church. Although the above-cited decree of the Fifth Ecumenical
Council touches only on the separate worship of the Divinity and the Humanity of the Saviour, it
still indirectly tells us that in general the veneration and worship of Christ should be directed to
Him as a whole and not to parts of His Being; it must be one. Even if by “heart” we should understand
the Saviour’s love itself, still neither in the Old Testament nor in the New was there
ever a custom to worship separately the love of God, or His wisdom, His creative or providential
power, or His sanctity. All the more must one say this concerning the parts of His bodily nature.
There is something unnatural in the separation of the heart from the general bodily nature of the
Lord for the purpose of prayer, contrition and worship before Him. Even in the ordinary relationships
of life, no matter how much a man might be attached to another — for example, a mother
to a child — he would never refer his attachment to the heart of the beloved person, but will refer
it to the given person as a whole.
Two photos from an Antiochian WRO parish:Andrew21091 said:Out of curiosity, do any Western Rite Orthodox Churches (either in the ROCOR or Antiochian) practice devotions to the Sacred Heart of Jesus?
Just because such images are present in a church does not mean they conform with Orthodox doctrine and theology. Many churches contain uncanonical images (such as God the Father as an old man, Christ Holy Wisdom as an androgynous winged angel, etc). This does not make them canonical.Michał said:Two photos from an Antiochian WRO parish:Andrew21091 said:Out of curiosity, do any Western Rite Orthodox Churches (either in the ROCOR or Antiochian) practice devotions to the Sacred Heart of Jesus?
![]()
![]()
Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/occidentalis/sets/72157603991844778
That is a very wise point.Just because such images are present in a church does not mean they conform with Orthodox doctrine and theology. Many churches contain uncanonical images (such as God the Father as an old man, Christ Holy Wisdom as an androgynous winged angel, etc). This does not make them canonical.
Please, we had some images of that in our church, back home, and that's not because there were former Catholics there. It's just that for most people, that's still an image of Christ so they do not see what the big deal is.IreneOlinyk said:In addition to the words of Metr. Anthony Khrapovitsky another article expaling why the Orthodox DO NOT accept the RC Sacred Heart can be found online here:
http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/Liturgy/SacredHeart.html
The author cites St. Athanasius:
St. Athanasius of Alexandria pointed out the wrongness of worshipping Christ's body in a separate way, in these words: "We do not worship a created thing, but the Master of created things, the Word of God made flesh. Although the flesh itself, considered separately, is a part of created things, yet it has become the body of God. We do not worship this body after having separated it from the Word. Likewise, we do not separate the Word from the body when we wish to worship Him. But knowing that "the Word was made flesh," we recognise the Word existing in the flesh as God." (Ep. ad Adelph., par.
His concluding remarks are:
"Many in America are converts to the Orthodox Faith and may keep Sacred Heart images in their homes, as literal baggage from their pre-Orthodox days. Also, well-meaning friends may give Sacred Heart prayers or images as gifts. The faithful should replace all such images with genuine Orthodox icons. They should not place Sacred Heart images, or any other non-Orthodox images, in their icon corners."