Christian unity seems to be more focused on Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism rather than Protestant Christians

[Isa_Almisry]

Well, when are you going to stop accusing Catholics of heresy? (which ALL of you are doing, not just some).

For one thing, when filioque is officially dropped.

When are you going to stop saying our sacraments are invalid?

The validity of your sacraments does not involve us, except in conversion, until a reunion. We just refuse to talk about that outside that context.

We don’t say yours are, do we?

Only when you pester us about it. Why do you care?

Seems like we’re being conciliatory and you’re not…

We’re just willing to dilute so you’ll drink.

Your Islamic progeny. I hope you can reclaim them, but of course we will take them just as well (and I say that as one whose son-in-law was formerly of their number)

Blessings to you!

Take as many as you can.

But as for progeny, all the Protestant reformers were Latins, in fact ordained Latins. Muhammad didn’t commune at any Church I know of. Can’t be the Orthodox. We didn’t exist until 1054, or so I am told . A couple centuries (5) too late.

Cant’ blame lingering Arianism either, as I have often seen here. The only Arians lingering were in the West, which is why you fathers were sticking the filioque it at the same time (I’m told that was the reason).

 

[Ridgerunner]

I thought you said something like both sides were to blame and neither the East nor the West has any claim to victim status. If so, when did the Orthodox march to
Rome and loot the Vatican of its treasures and place them in Orthodox Churches in Greece?

Wow! 12,000 people died and your concern is the loot?

Well, since the Turks would have the best claim to whatever might remain of anything the excommunicated Crusaders took from Hagia Sophia and resold or donated in the West, I guess that can be examined whenever their claim is made.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The validity of your sacraments does not involve us, except in conversion, until a reunion. We just refuse to talk about that outside that context.

But as for progeny, all the Protestant reformers were Latins, in fact ordained Latins. Muhammad didn’t commune at any Church I know of. Can’t be the Orthodox. We didn’t exist until 1054, or so I am told . A couple centuries (5) too late.

In other words, if Catholics convert to Orthodoxy, you will consider respecting Catholics as Orthodox. That’s generous of you.

Nice try with “we didn’t exist until 1054”. You claim otherwise of course, so that’s a dodge. Based on your claim, which is really the core of your religion, to more ancient origins, Islam is your baby. Most Orthodox of the era converted to Islam, including those who converted after 1054.

My point, and you know it, is that it is just a gratuitous insult to tell Catholics that Protestantism is “their progeny”, just as it is wrong to say Islam is the progeny of Orthodoxy.

Well, the topic of this thread is certainly resolved. The emphasis is not, and should not be, on reunion with Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is implacably hostile to Catholicism and, if the EO commentators in here are any indication, that hostility is the very essence of Orthodoxy. But for that, you wouldn’t have anything to talk about. You would, indeed, have to give up that monomania for the sake of reunion, and aren’t about to do it.

 

[SolaFide]

In Protestantism, there is** no definitive truth**, because everyone uses their own interpretation, and all disagree. Protestantism has no absolutes.

Don’t make such sweeping generalities please!

Besides, it’s absolutely not true! There is definitive truth and all **evangelical protestant **churches agree on those truths. Secondly we absolutely DO NOT use our own interpretation. We let Scripture interpret Scripture. We use the inductive, exegisis approach to interpretation using the historical/grammatical model.

If we disagree we disagree on minor issues not eternal destiny, salvific issues. Minor issues such as sprinkling vs. immersion for baptism, or speaking in tongues for today or not.

If you question evangelicals about what it necessary to be saved, we all agree.

 

[mgrfin]

Don’t make such sweeping generalities please!

Besides, it’s absolutely not true! There is definitive truth and all **evangelical protestant **churches agree on those truths. Secondly we absolutely DO NOT use our own interpretation. We let Scripture interpret Scripture. We use the inductive, exegisis approach to interpretation using the historical/grammatical model.

If we disagree we disagree on minor issues not eternal destiny, salvific issues. Minor issues such as sprinkling vs. immersion for baptism, or speaking in tongues for today or not.

If you question evangelicals about what it necessary to be saved, we all agree.

Well, I disagree. We have this protestant on site and he quotes scripture for almost any purpose, regardless whether such quotes are relevant. He personally sees his scriptural quotes in his private interpretation as revelant.

You may agree about all the Protestant issues: sola fides, sola scriptura, OSAS, etc.

You are unanimous in denying what the Catholic Church teaches: salvation by grace, the sacraments, the primacy of peter, the inerrancy of the Church, the Unwritten word of God (Tradition), the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Eucharist (Real Presence), no sacrifice, no priesthood, no salvation outside of the Catholic Church.

You are thoroughly confused on issues of faith and morals. Whether you agree with your brethren about error is really immaterial. You just don’t believe the truth of the Church Jesus Christ founded. That is what is important. Why there are thousands of christian communities today is indicative of the confusion existing among protestant communities. It is really hard to talk about unaniminity, or believe in it, with such diversity of opinion.

peace

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Wow! 12,000 people died and your concern is the loot?

Well, since the Turks would have the best claim to whatever might remain of anything the excommunicated Crusaders took from Hagia Sophia and resold or donated in the West, I guess that can be examined whenever their claim is made.

Is that the honor amongst thieves?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

In other words, if Catholics convert to Orthodoxy, you will consider respecting Catholics as Orthodox. That’s generous of you.

Nothing to consider, you’re Orthodox or your not.

Nice try with “we didn’t exist until 1054”. You claim otherwise of course, so that’s a dodge. Based on your claim, which is really the core of your religion, to more ancient origins, Islam is your baby. Most Orthodox of the era converted to Islam, including those who converted after 1054.

No doge. Either we existed in 570 (which is before 1054) or we didn’t.

Yes, Orthodoxy is the Faith which founded the univerese, and in that sense Platonism, Judaism, Islam and you are our wayward childred.

As no teaching in Islam (besides those that are shared with the post 1054 Latin church) can be traced to Orthodoxy nor did anything in Orthodoxy give rise to Islam, it seems we are involved in a false paternity suit.

Most Orthodox of the era converted to Islam? What have you been reading?

Fact of the matter is the historical record shows many (whole towns, tribes, populations etc.) fleeing the caliphate to the Roman empire. The Christians did not become a dwindling minority until the Crusades came (and the muslims specifically named that as a concern to exterminate the Christians). This is something the historical sources also show.

Are you claiming North Africa, btw?

My point, and you know it, is that it is just a gratuitous insult to tell Catholics that Protestantism is “their progeny”, just as it is wrong to say Islam is the progeny of Orthodoxy.

The Protestants all take you as the reference point, the debate between you reveals the same presumptions, just different conclusions.

If you could show a reference point to Orthodoxy in Islam, or what Orthodox Church Muhammad or any early (or for that matter, late) Muslim religious figure belonged to, I’m all ears.

Well, the topic of this thread is certainly resolved. The emphasis is not, and should not be, on reunion with Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is implacably hostile to Catholicism and, if the EO commentators in here are any indication, that hostility is the very essence of Orthodoxy. But for that, you wouldn’t have anything to talk about. You would, indeed, have to give up that monomania for the sake of reunion, and aren’t about to do it.

“Hostility to Catholocism” couldn’t be the essence of the Orthodox, as, unless it involves us, we pretty much don’t care what you do.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Don’t make such sweeping generalities please!

Besides, it’s absolutely not true! There is definitive truth and all **evangelical protestant **churches agree on those truths. Secondly we absolutely DO NOT use our own interpretation. We let Scripture interpret Scripture. We use the inductive, exegisis approach to interpretation using the historical/grammatical model.

Then what are those traditions by mouth that St. Paul tells us to hold onto. Do you have them?

Let Scripture interpret scripture? The only scripture that says Faith alone, James 2:24

ὁράω ὅτι ἐκ ἔργον δικαιόω ἄνθρωπος καί οὐ ἐκ πίστις μόνον

and you conveniently forget the NOT that comes before it. And built your whole system on it.

No sola scriptura in the scriptura either.

If we disagree we disagree on minor issues not eternal destiny, salvific issues. Minor issues such as sprinkling vs. immersion for baptism, or speaking in tongues for today or not.

If you question evangelicals about what it necessary to be saved, we all agree.

Only problem is you can’t trace your “agreed” statement back far at all.

 

[Hesychios]

In other words, if Catholics convert to Orthodoxy, you will consider respecting Catholics as Orthodox. That’s generous of you.

I don’t follow your complaint. The Orthodox are very courteous and not passing judgment on RC orders and saacraments. It’s not our church and not our theology, if we don’t know about yours we don’t know.

What are we supposed to do…lie about it to make you happy?

Nice try with “we didn’t exist until 1054”.

Essentially, your church had not gone it’s own way until then, so I guess technically you didn’t exist.

You claim otherwise of course, so that’s a dodge. Based on your claim, which is really the core of your religion, to more ancient origins, Islam is your baby. Most Orthodox of the era converted to Islam, including those who converted after 1054.

If you have any idea of the history of the region, you should be aware that most people of that “region” were Christian until the west lauched the crusades, and until then they held their heads up, some did rather well. John Damascene, an Orthodox saint and Doctor of your church was a good example, he was highly placed in the government of the Caliphate at Damascus.

The effect of the crusades on native Christianity was horrendous, something like the effect the U.S. occupation of Iraq today has on the remaining Christian population there. So the situation of Christians you see in the Middle East today took 500 years to really develop.

You should also know that among these converts under duress were Maronites and Melkites. Everyone suffered horribly.

My point, and you know it, is that it is just a gratuitous insult to tell Catholics that Protestantism is “their progeny”,

NO, it isn’t. It is a statement of historical fact.

Plus, it is no accident that Augustine has such a prominent place in Protestant theologies. They inherited it directly from the many Roman Catholic priests who established these Protestant communities. These people were trained and ordained by Roman Catholic bishops. It is also a matter of historical record that some number of Roman Catholic bishops and abbots became Protestants as well, including almost the entire military-religious order of Teutonic Knights. So many went over that the small remnant had to be reoganized hundreds of miles from their old establishments and headquarters, they lost just about everything.

just as it is wrong to say Islam is the progeny of Orthodoxy.

A false dichotomy, as I believe you know.

Muhammed was no Christian of any sort, and encountered it only obliquely through his travels. One (apparently) gnostic monk (probably a native Arab) at Mecca proclaimed him a Prophet of God, that is about the extent of it.

Gnosticism seems to have survived in some places far from established Christendom, like along the Silk Road in Asia and the incense trade routes through Arabia. The Quran mentions Jewish tribes in the desert, which was likely the case in those times. Even the Greek philosophers were known, it was a place full of desert kingdoms but it wasn’t devoid of culture, so there were all kind of influences available to the man, whom we are told was a successful man of commerce (for his time and place) and married well.

The religion first spread violently through pagan Arabia among people who had to be admonished to treat other monotheists with some sort of respect. Thus, while pagans who resisted conversion were put to the sword or enslaved werever they were discovered, “people of the Book” were given a pass under conquest with some legal/financial liabilities…until the crusades.

Well, the topic of this thread is certainly resolved. The emphasis is not, and should not be, on reunion with Orthodoxy.

I basically agree, gather your people up…then let’s talk.

Orthodoxy is implacably hostile to Catholicism

I disagree, honesty and hostility are two different things.

Personally, I would very much like to see reconciliation between us before I pass from this earth.

and, if the EO commentators in here are any indication, that hostility is the very essence of Orthodoxy. But for that, you wouldn’t have anything to talk about. You would, indeed, have to give up that monomania for the sake of reunion, and aren’t about to do it.

This sounds unnecessarily harsh.

**Pax et Bonum, **

 

[peary]

Yes, I agree. When the Eastern Orthodox removes its excommunication of the Pope, and stops accusing us of heresy, and builds on mutual respect, we have a change of reunification.

Our better efforts, as you say, are with the West.

peace

**Uh, the excommunication was lifted on September 5, 1965. I told you that already. **

 

[Mannyfit75]

**Uh, the excommunication was lifted on September 5, 1965. I told you that already. **

It was *Pope Paul VI *and *Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras *of Constantinople rescinded the execommunication of 1054, but it did not ended the Schism.

The document is from the Catholic-Orthodox Joint Declaration of 1965. It states the following:

1. Among the* obstacles along the road of the development of these fraternal relations of confidence and esteem, there is the memory of the decisions, actions and painful incidents which in 1054 resulted in the sentence of excommunication leveled against the Patriarch Michael Cerularius and two other persons by the legate of the Roman See under the leadership of Cardinal Humbertus*, legates who then became the object of a similar sentence pronounced by the patriarch and the Synod of Constantinople.

1. One cannot pretend that these events were not what they were during this very troubled period of history. Today, however, they have been judged more fairly and serenely. Thus it is important to recognize the excesses which accompanied them and later led to consequences which, insofar as we can judge, went much further than their authors had intended and foreseen. They **had directed their censures against the persons **concerned and not the Churches. These censures were not intended to break ecclesiastical communion between the Sees of Rome and Constantinople.

If you would like to read the entire context of the Catholic-Orthodox Declaration you can view here. I bolded and underline which statement of the document rescinded the execommunication between the two Papal legate *Cardinal Humbertus *and Patriarch Michael Cerularius.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I don’t follow your complaint. The Orthodox are very courteous and not passing judgment on RC orders and saacraments. It’s not our church and not our theology, if we don’t know about yours we don’t know.

It is very apparent. Excuse my Latin brother for making such statement.

What are we supposed to do…lie about it to make you happy?

I don’t agree with my statement friend. I don’t know what issues of re-unification would be brought about by the Vatican and the Patriarchs of the Eastern Orthodox Church. I do believe the issues will be resolve in some form or document under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

I like to keep the same Holy Spirit, who work through both our Churches in the beginning at Pentecost. For Jesus did that we must take it to the church if there is any disagreement.

Like any Council, there will be dissenters on both sides. The first Council of Jerusalem did not end the heresy of the Nicholatians, which favor keeping the all of the Mosaic Law.

Essentially, your church had not gone it’s own way until then, so I guess technically you didn’t exist. If you have any idea of the history of the region, you should be aware that most people of that “region” were Christian until the west lauched the crusades, and until then they held their heads up, some did rather well. John Damascene, an Orthodox saint and Doctor of your church was a good example, he was highly placed in the government of the Caliphate at Damascus.

I have to disagree here. The key essentials remain. In those days, they were mere expressions such as the doctrine of Purgatory, Transubstantiation, Original Sin, Immaculate Conception, Assumption. The East would interpret those as abode of the dead, Real Presence, Sin originated from Adam and Eve, Mary remain sinless, and the Dormition (though from my understanding Dormition of Mary is the Falling Asleep of Mary). Feel free to correct me.

The effect of the crusades on native Christianity was horrendous, something like the effect the U.S. occupation of Iraq today has on the remaining Christian population there. So the situation of Christians you see in the Middle East today took 500 years to really develop.

The Crusades were indeed had its bad side, the Pope however plead to the Crusaders not to commit atrocities against the locals, especially Christians.

I disagree with Runner’s statement comparing Islam and Christian Orthodoxy.

 

[Mannyfit75]

You should also know that among these converts under duress were Maronites and Melkites. Everyone suffered horribly.
NO, it isn’t. It is a statement of historical fact.

I am aware of that I read some of the background from reading 101 Q&A on Eastern Catholicism. The history is very similar to the Eastern Orthodox.

Plus, it is no accident that Augustine has such a prominent place in Protestant theologies. They inherited it directly from the many Roman Catholic priests who established these Protestant communities. These people were trained and ordained by Roman Catholic bishops. It is also a matter of historical record that some number of Roman Catholic bishops and abbots became Protestants as well, including almost the entire military-religious order of Teutonic Knights. So many went over that the small remnant had to be reoganized hundreds of miles from their old establishments and headquarters, they lost just about everything. A false dichotomy, as I believe you know.

I have to disagree with you. Even though Protestantism stem from the root of Catholicism, they are completely separate from Catholic theology. Protestant theologians have misinterpreted St. Augustine’s writings in such a way, that they form their brand of theology. As you know most Protestants held a OSAS mentality, faith alone and scripture alone.

The number of bishops and abbots became Protestant is the mere fact they are dismayed at the Catholic Church is run. So like all other heretics, they left the Church and cease to be Catholic. Once you leave the Catholic Church, you are out.

It is no different from an Orthodox Christian to convert to Protestantism. You know in Africa, your Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters there are threaten by the Penecostals. You cannot equate Catholicism and Protestantism. They are two different brand of theology and doctrine, my Eastern Orthodox friend.

Muhammed was no Christian of any sort, and encountered it only obliquely through his travels. One (apparently) gnostic monk (probably a native Arab) at Mecca proclaimed him a Prophet of God, that is about the extent of it.

Gnosticism seems to have survived in some places far from established Christendom, like along the Silk Road in Asia and the incense trade routes through Arabia. The Quran mentions Jewish tribes in the desert, which was likely the case in those times. Even the Greek philosophers were known, it was a place full of desert kingdoms but it wasn’t devoid of culture, so there were all kind of influences available to the man, whom we are told was a successful man of commerce (for his time and place) and married well.

The religion first spread violently through pagan Arabia among people who had to be admonished to treat other monotheists with some sort of respect. Thus, while pagans who resisted conversion were put to the sword or enslaved werever they were discovered, “people of the Book” were given a pass under conquest with some legal/financial liabilities…until the crusades.
I basically agree, gather your people up…then let’s talk.
I disagree, honesty and hostility are two different things.

Personally, I would very much like to see reconciliation between us before I pass from this earth. This sounds unnecessarily harsh.

I agree with you. We can pray for unity everyday. I believe if God leads us to unit, we will. There will be dissenters on both sides. That’s just part of our human nature.
Pax et Bonum, :

 

[Ridgerunner]

I don’t follow your complaint. The Orthodox are very courteous and not passing judgment on RC orders and saacraments. It’s not our church and not our theology, if we don’t know about yours we don’t know.

What are we supposed to do…lie about it to make you happy?

…you should be aware that most people of that “region” were Christian until the west lauched the crusades, and until then they held their heads up, some did rather well. John Damascene, an Orthodox saint and Doctor of your church was a good example, he was highly placed in the government of the Caliphate at Damascus.

The effect of the crusades on native Christianity was horrendous, something like the effect the U.S. occupation of Iraq today has on the remaining Christian population there. So the situation of Christians you see in the Middle East today took 500 years to really develop.

Muhammed was no Christian of any sort, and encountered it only obliquely through his travels. One (apparently) gnostic monk (probably a native Arab) at Mecca proclaimed him a Prophet of God, that is about the extent of it.

I basically agree, gather your people up…then let’s talk.
I disagree, honesty and hostility are two different things.

Personally, I would very much like to see reconciliation between us before I pass from this earth. This sounds unnecessarily harsh.

**Pax et Bonum, **

I would like very much to see reconciliation between us before I pass from this earth as well, but I do not expect to see it.

It might sound harsh to you, but it’s simply true, and you ought to just admit it rather than pretend otherwise but exhibit it in virtually every statement.

I am no Koran scholar, but I have read those who are, and a great deal of Mohammed’s writings and sayings were lifted from Christianity.

As you probably know, but might not care to admit, the Orthodox of the Middle East were supine in the face of Islam; preferring rule by Islam than by their own, from beginning to end. And state/church alliance was one of the reasons. As you know, the Muslim Arabs often allied themselves with Crusaders against the Seljuks; the latter being harshly oppressive against both Latin and Orthodox Christians, and none too kind to the Arab Muslims. The Crusades were an effect of that oppression, not the cause. Blaming the Crusades for what happened to Orthodox in the Middle East over the centuries is just an adaptation of Wahabbist mythology.

The Orthodox were certainly not in the majority when the Crusades started; were dwindling, and certainly did not rule, even before the Seljuks.

And Christians have, at times and places, often had access to high office in Islamic states, because, being a minority with no Islamic constituency, they couldn’t successfully intrigue against the ruling power. Saddam had a fair number of them in his government, for that very reason. That doesn’t prove anything about numbers in the population.

Let’s talk? About what? About how Catholic sacraments are invalid in your mind? True negotiation only properly takes place between parties that are at least formally acknowledged as equals. You don’t consider us your equals. So, no thanks.

I do hope the EO on here are not representative of the EO generally, and that’s certainly possible. It does not appear the Ecumenical Patriarch quite shares your views. And, of course, the Monks of Athos (your plural equivalent of the Pope) condemn him for that. Please don’t deny that. I read their statement on the previous forum.

 

[bobzills]

I don’t follow your complaint. The Orthodox are very courteous and not passing judgment on RC orders and saacraments. It’s not our church and not our theology, if we don’t know about yours we don’t know.

Thanks for work in posting here but please excuse me if
I have a question for you. Is it not true that there are Orthodox Christians who are not courteous and who strongly object to first Friday devotions to the Sacred Heart, even though these devotions are taking place in the Western Roman Catholic Church?

 

[peary]

Then what does the Catholic Church do that their church doesn’t? I mean, if the Holy Spirit works through their sacraments even though their hierarchy is invalid, then why should they become Catholic. Perhaps the new stance of Rome has weak spots, no?

**The Anglican ecclesial community REJECTS the Catholic Church’s priesthood as well as the HOLY SACRIFICE OF THE MASS.

There is no apostolic succession because in the ensuing centuries after Henry VIII they murdered or expunged from the country the bishops and cardinals who were legitimate heirs to the apostles.

I do not know if the Holy Spirit validly works through their sacramental structure, but I can tell you that they rejected the workings of the Spirit and His protection when they disrupted the apostolic succession, got rid of the legitimate Catholic priesthood, and changed the nature of the Mass.**

 

[Protestant101]

I hope our lost Eastern brothers will someday submit to the authority of Rome.

“Submission” to the “authority of Rome;” has nothing to do with Biblical “unity.” But that does not mean that many Protestants do not currently submit to Rome’s “authority” now, does it?

 

[Mannyfit75]

“Submission” to the “authority of Rome;” has nothing to do with Biblical “unity.” But that does not mean that many Protestants do not currently submit to Rome’s “authority” now, does it?

I think the word **submission is the not the word ** to best describe it. Rather, it is recognization of Papal primacy. The Early Church was One Church, and Jesus prayed that His Church be one not divided. Of course, through the sin of man, division happen out of ignorance and pride.

I’ll tell you why submission is** improper to discribe the term**.

Most of the Eastern Catholic churches re-established communion with Rome during the 17th through 19th centuries. They did not submit to Rome wishes but due to differences in Eastern Orthodoxy, they desire reunion with Rome.

The Coptic Catholic Church in Alexandria Egypt in 1741 reunited with Rome.

The Syriac Catholic Church re-establish their union with Rome in 1781.

Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church joined in Full communion with the Bishop of Rome on September 20, 1930.

The Caldeanean Catholic Church in 1692.

Armenian Catholic Church in 1439 reunited with Rome. For more information visit this website en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Catholic_Churches

These Church willing decide to reunit with Rome. They did not submit to Rome’s wishes. The theology of these Churches are the same found in Eastern Orthodox Churches. They desire unification prior to the Schism of 1054 AD, and that’s what they got. As result we have 20 Eastern Rite Churches that reunited with Rome.

 

[Hesychios]

Thanks for work in posting here but please excuse me if
I have a question for you. Is it not true that there are Orthodox Christians who are not courteous and who strongly object to first Friday devotions to the Sacred Heart, even though these devotions are taking place in the Western Roman Catholic **Church? **

Hi Bobzills,

Its an honest question, and I believe it deserves an honest answer.

• Orthodox Christians don’t understand them.
• It has no place in Orthodox spirituality.
• Orthodox may think it somewhat peculiar.
  I grew up with these things, so I know the Roman Catholic perspective. But I can see the Orthodox reasoning as well, to be honest this is suitable mateial for another thread.

In brief though, I can say that the whole idea of adoring Christs body parts, as if distinct from the whole, is alien to Orthodox mindset.

Don’t laugh, or get upset please, but how would you feel about someone having a devotion to the Sacred Liver?..or …the Sacred Lungs?

If the Sacred Liver has no appeal to you, perhaps that is only because you have not been exposed to that yet. I only make this analogy so that you can feel for the moment what many Orthodox can feel when it is mentioned.

I remember hearing Scott Hahn (I believe it was Hahn, anyway) say that honestly, when he was just becoming exposed to the Roman Catholic Faith the Infant of Prague seemed kind of weird to him. I never really understood that, but from his perspective as a Protestant I guess that must be the case.

The fact is (as we both know), he need never ever have a devotion to the Infant of Prague to be a good Catholic, but he must be aware that such a devotion exists and accept that it does.

Now, for Orthodox, I think The Infant of Prague would be less of a problem because we are perfectly aware that Jesus was a human child, and accordingly was fully Divine even then. But it is foreign nonetheless, and the devotion is about a miracle-working wax doll from Spain. Not much to recommend it to Orthodox.

But (back to the Sacred Heart devotion) we don’t think in terms of body parts, and cannot even imagine why Jesus would ask for such a devotion from us. It certainly has no relation to the Gospel accounts. Nothing like that appeared in early Christianity, not even for 1000 years.

To us, in spiritual terms “the heart” is like an aspect of the soul, a spiritual thing, not physical. Thus we can have a “prayer of the heart” which is an emotional-spiritual concept, not associated with a medical type image of a heart.

I understand the symbolism of His Heart as representing His Love, but then, we don’t adore God’s Love as distinct from God Himself, they are the same. So saying the ‘heart of Jesus’ can be like saying the ‘God of God’ or the ‘Love of Love’. We find it difficult and unnecessary to make further distinctions in Christ’s humanity.

Finally, even in the west the devotion was quite obscure, and probably just a poetic metaphor, until the visions of Margeret Mary Alacoque. Most Orthodox, myself included, would consider them false visions. We do not want to be associated with them in any way.

So on many levels, devotions like this are not well received by Orthodox. Also, to the extent that these devotions have spread among the Eastern Catholic communities, we see a departure from their original Eastern Catholic mindset, which is a bad sign.

Further, the western church is noted for coming up with new devotions on a regular basis, like a company introducing new product lines, and they are promoted like products. Each religious order or movement seems to have it’s own ‘specialty’ it can market (I know that is an exaggeration, I am only trying to give a sense for how it can look to outsiders).

In fact, the whole subject is a cause for alarm, because these types of devotions are not only tolerated but vigorously promoted by Popes. It further erodes the teaching authority of these men in the minds of Orthodox faithful.

For my part, I find it very difficult to compose a description of the Orthodox attitude toward these things and yet not come across as discourteous (so I understand how it can seem offensive most of the time). I hope that you accept my explanation in the spirit it was intended.

 

[bobzills]

Hi Bobzills,

Its an honest question, and I believe it deserves an honest answer.

• Orthodox Christians don’t understand them.
• It has no place in Orthodox spirituality.
• Orthodox may think it somewhat peculiar.
  I grew up with these things, so I know the Roman Catholic perspective. But I can see the Orthodox reasoning as well, to be honest this is suitable mateial for another thread.

In brief though, I can say that the whole idea of adoring Christs body parts, as if distinct from the whole, is alien to Orthodox mindset.

Don’t laugh, or get upset please, but how would you feel about someone having a devotion to the Sacred Liver?..or …the Sacred Lungs?

If the Sacred Liver has no appeal to you, perhaps that is only because you have not been exposed to that yet. I only make this analogy so that you can feel for the moment what many Orthodox can feel when it is mentioned.

I remember hearing Scott Hahn (I believe it was Hahn, anyway) say that honestly, when he was just becoming exposed to the Roman Catholic Faith the Infant of Prague seemed kind of weird to him. I never really understood that, but from his perspective as a Protestant I guess that must be the case.

The fact is (as we both know), he need never ever have a devotion to the Infant of Prague to be a good Catholic, but he must be aware that such a devotion exists and accept that it does.

Now, for Orthodox, I think The Infant of Prague would be less of a problem because we are perfectly aware that Jesus was a human child, and accordingly was fully Divine even then. But it is foreign nonetheless, and the devotion is about a miracle-working wax doll from Spain. Not much to recommend it to Orthodox.

But (back to the Sacred Heart devotion) we don’t think in terms of body parts, and cannot even imagine why Jesus would ask for such a devotion from us. It certainly has no relation to the Gospel accounts. Nothing like that appeared in early Christianity, not even for 1000 years.

To us, in spiritual terms “the heart” is like an aspect of the soul, a spiritual thing, not physical. Thus we can have a “prayer of the heart” which is an emotional-spiritual concept, not associated with a medical type image of a heart.

I understand the symbolism of His Heart as representing His Love, but then, we don’t adore God’s Love as distinct from God Himself, they are the same. So saying the ‘heart of Jesus’ can be like saying the ‘God of God’ or the ‘Love of Love’. We find it difficult and unnecessary to make further distinctions in Christ’s humanity.

Finally, even in the west the devotion was quite obscure, and probably just a poetic metaphor, until the visions of Margeret Mary Alacoque. Most Orthodox, myself included, would consider them false visions. We do not want to be associated with them in any way.

So on many levels, devotions like this are not well received by Orthodox. Also, to the extent that these devotions have spread among the Eastern Catholic communities, we see a departure from their original Eastern Catholic mindset, which is a bad sign.

Further, the western church is noted for coming up with new devotions on a regular basis, like a company introducing new product lines, and they are promoted like products. Each religious order or movement seems to have it’s own ‘specialty’ it can market (I know that is an exaggeration, I am only trying to give a sense for how it can look to outsiders).

In fact, the whole subject is a cause for alarm, because these types of devotions are not only tolerated but vigorously promoted by Popes. It further erodes the teaching authority of these men in the minds of Orthodox faithful.

For my part, I find it very difficult to compose a description of the Orthodox attitude toward these things and yet not come across as discourteous (so I understand how it can seem offensive most of the time). I hope that you accept my explanation in the spirit it was intended.

The devotion is based on the symbolism of the heart as the emblem of love, and the devotion is to Jesus Himself as all loving. The reparation aspect of the first Friday devotion is in view of the observation that His love is in many cases rejected. So I would not agree with those who are going out of their way to object to the devotion as it is practised in the Western Roman Catholic Church.
It is a western devotion and obviously, I don’t see any necessity for it to be imposed on the Eastern Churches.