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

[Hesychios]

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.

I understand this, I am only trying to explain the eastern attitude towards it. The East certainly does not reject the Love of Christ, and has a true heartfelt devotion to Our Lord. The imagery (the heart with a flame, the thorns etc.) is culturally informed, it comes from another place and time so I don’t think most Orthodox really abhor it, even if they don’t understand it.

It is a western devotion and obviously, I don’t see any necessity for it to be imposed on the Eastern Churches.

That is only one of two possible problems.

Yes, Orthodox would be concerned that it might be imposed upon them, but I don’t take that concern very seriously. The days have long passed when a devotion could be imposed, it should spring from the heart.

I think a more serious concern is that a declaration of unity between our churches could be interpreted as an endorsement, or validation of them. This could result in their spread, not only in the east, but among Protestants.

If we actually did not care, it would be a form of relativism. An “I’m OK - You’re OK” kind of approach. But really, some aspects of these devotions are just not OK, the “promises” of Margeret Mary Alacoque for example. I wouldn’t want my children picking them up, and I might not necessarily like to see them spread to others. In my opinion the RC church should never have approved it, and now we are discussing reunion.

Orthodox should be cautious about these things, if we appear reluctant to engage that could be because we just don’t know what to do about it yet. Orthodoxy does not, as far as I can tell, have an official position on a lot of these western devotions, visions, etc. It has not been an issue in our house, so we had pretty much overlooked it until now, but on an individual level many if not most Orthodox would have a similar attitude to it as I am expressing here.

BTW, I am sure these comments appear offensive to you. I don’t want to lose you as a friend but I must not lie to you.

Michael

 

[Metaron]

I see nothing wrong with it. It is a devotion to both the spiritual Heart (Core) of Christ, and to His physical Heart as an emblem of that. It is suitable, because the heart, in ancient and modern times, is considered somehow connected to the spiritual aspect of the human. Orthodox worship Christ’s sacred Blood too, right? So do Catholics. And we worship the holy Fount of that Blood, the Heart of Christ.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I understand this, I am only trying to explain the eastern attitude towards it. The East certainly does not reject the Love of Christ, and has a true heartfelt devotion to Our Lord. The imagery (the heart with a flame, the thorns etc.) is culturally informed, it comes from another place and time so I don’t think most Orthodox really abhor it, even if they don’t understand it.
That is only one of two possible problems.

Yes, Orthodox would be concerned that it might be imposed upon them, but I don’t take that concern very seriously. The days have long passed when a devotion could be imposed, it should spring from the heart.

I think a more serious concern is that a declaration of unity between our churches could be interpreted as an endorsement, or validation of them. This could result in their spread, not only in the east, but among Protestants.

If we actually did not care, it would be a form of relativism. An “I’m OK - You’re OK” kind of approach. But really, some aspects of these devotions are just not OK, the “promises” of Margeret Mary Alacoque for example. I wouldn’t want my children picking them up, and I might not necessarily like to see them spread to others. In my opinion the RC church should never have approved it, and now we are discussing reunion.

Orthodox should be cautious about these things, if we appear reluctant to engage that could be because we just don’t know what to do about it yet. Orthodoxy does not, as far as I can tell, have an official position on a lot of these western devotions, visions, etc. It has not been an issue in our house, so we had pretty much overlooked it until now, but on an individual level many if not most Orthodox would have a similar attitude to it as I am expressing here.

BTW, I am sure these comments appear offensive to you. I don’t want to lose you as a friend but I must not lie to you.

Michael

First of all Michael, Sacred Heart of Jesus is a devotion. Latin Catholics are not required to pray this. Our Divine Revelation, which is the Public Revelation of Our Lord Jesus is required. The Catholic Church does not depend its theology on private revelation. It is depended on revealed truths, which Jesus Christ has taught.

Second, Eastern Rite Catholics under Second Vatican Council are called to maintain their Eastern Tradition and to be devoid of any influence of latinization.

The Catholic Church honors those rights of the Oriental Churches. If the Orthodox Church and the Holy See under an Ecumenical Council decide re-unify under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, would you be willing to disavow the decrees of the Council? Or are you willing to become schismatic by not recognizing possible re-unification.

I know how much Eastern Orthodox Christian revere their traditions so much, that I believe the Catholic Church would honor it so. Again, I don’t know what terms our two Churches will decide, but Catholics and Orthodox need to support their bishops, when the time of unification comes.

 

[Ridgerunner]

… unless it involves us, we pretty much don’t care what you do.

Then why do you come here to tell Catholics how wrong the Catholic Church is? Nobody asked you to come here. You care all right, but it’s the wrong kind of caring.

 

[peary]

I understand this, I am only trying to explain the eastern attitude towards it. The East certainly does not reject the Love of Christ, and has a true heartfelt devotion to Our Lord. The imagery (the heart with a flame, the thorns etc.) is culturally informed, it comes from another place and time so I don’t think most Orthodox really abhor it, even if they don’t understand it.
That is only one of two possible problems.

Yes, Orthodox would be concerned that it might be imposed upon them, but I don’t take that concern very seriously. The days have long passed when a devotion could be imposed, it should spring from the heart.

I think a more serious concern is that a declaration of unity between our churches could be interpreted as an endorsement, or validation of them. This could result in their spread, not only in the east, but among Protestants.

If we actually did not care, it would be a form of relativism. An “I’m OK - You’re OK” kind of approach. But really, some aspects of these devotions are just not OK, the “promises” of Margeret Mary Alacoque for example. I wouldn’t want my children picking them up, and I might not necessarily like to see them spread to others. In my opinion the RC church should never have approved it, and now we are discussing reunion.

Orthodox should be cautious about these things, if we appear reluctant to engage that could be because we just don’t know what to do about it yet. Orthodoxy does not, as far as I can tell, have an official position on a lot of these western devotions, visions, etc. It has not been an issue in our house, so we had pretty much overlooked it until now, but on an individual level many if not most Orthodox would have a similar attitude to it as I am expressing here.
Michael

**True unification between East and West will take place when the Eucharist is placed in the very center of it. Since both have a valid Eucharist, that is where one must begin. Everything else will eventually fall into place.

The Eastern Catholic churches re-united with Rome without a problem. They kept what is theirs and didn’t adopt whatever theology or devotions were prevalent in the western church. They are united under the Chair of Peter, nothing more.

Excommunication between East and West was lifted on September 5, 1965. No one seems to realize this, and no one is discussing that fact. It hasn’t been the Western church which has kept unification from taking place. There is way too much politics involved in eastern orthodoxy which traded unification of the Church for in their ethnicity and political identity to the country which basically controls them (i.e., Russia). **

 

[Hesychios]

The Eastern Catholic churches re-united with Rome without a problem. They kept what is theirs and didn’t adopt whatever theology or devotions were prevalent in the western church. They are united under the Chair of Peter, nothing more.

** Respectfully, I have to wonder where you got this information.
**

Excommunication between East and West was lifted on September 5, 1965. No one seems to realize this, and no one is discussing that fact.

No one is discussing that, it is true. But that is because the situation has been complicated quite a bit more since 1054AD.

It hasn’t been the Western church which has kept unification from taking place. There is way too much politics involved in eastern orthodoxy which traded unification of the Church for in their ethnicity and political identity to the country which basically controls them (i.e., Russia).

One could debate these two points for a long time.

---

Michael***

 

[Protestant101]

The Catholic Church honors those rights of the Oriental Churches. If the Orthodox Church and the Holy See under an Ecumenical Council decide re-unify under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, would you be willing to disavow the decrees of the Council? Or are you willing to become schismatic by not recognizing possible re-unification.

The choice of wording here is misleading. It would not be “unity” or “unification” if this ocurrs. “Re-unifying”, under such circumstance would mean nothing more than submitting to the authority of the Pope. The Pope, or the Catholic Church will not change any iota of anything they believe; it will all have to be one way. The Pope’s way. I don’t see that as “unity.” The only thing that will be allowed are certain “traditions/rites;” but everything else must be “submitted.” It would be nice to see Catholics be more upfront about their conditions for “unity.”

 

[peary]

The choice of wording here is misleading. It would not be “unity” or “unification” if this ocurrs. “Re-unifying”, under such circumstance would mean nothing more than submitting to the authority of the Pope. The Pope, or the Catholic Church will not change any iota of anything they believe; it will all have to be one way. The Pope’s way. I don’t see that as “unity.” The only thing that will be allowed are certain “traditions/rites;” but everything else must be “submitted.” It would be nice to see Catholics be more upfront about their conditions for “unity.”

I am beginning to believe that the Orthodox in these forums WANT to remain disunited, in which case, you do the work of the devil, not the work of Christ.

 

[Protestant101]

I am beginning to believe that the Orthodox in these forums WANT to remain disunited, in which case, you do the work of the devil, not the work of Christ.

LOL; sorry, I am not “Orthodox;” and as far as “doing the work of the devil;” it remains to be proven that anyone such as myself who doesn’t understand, or agree with Catholicism is in fact "doing the work of the devil. Christ does not work only in your Church.

 

[paarsurrey]

Hi

Not to speak of the Catholics or Eastern Orthodox even Mulsims love Jesus and his mother Mary. They were wonderful persons.

Thanks

 

[mgrfin]

** Respectfully, I have to wonder where you got this information.
** No one is discussing that, it is true. But that is because the situation has been complicated quite a bit more since 1054AD. One could debate these two points for a long time.

---

Michael***

Michael,

Rather than just denying what was said, maybe you could show us your proofs for the opposite.

peace

 

[peary]

Well, WHY isn’t the lifting of the excommunication on September 5, 1965 between the Orthodox and Catholic churches NOT being discussed in these forums? THAT was an event of HISTORICAL PROPORTIONS!! And yet, it has been ignored by both the Orthodox AND western Church for the past 42 years. That makes absolutely no sense to me at all!

 

[bobzills]

Well, WHY isn’t the lifting of the excommunication on September 5, 1965 between the Orthodox and Catholic churches NOT being discussed in these forums? THAT was an event of HISTORICAL PROPORTIONS!! And yet, it has been ignored by both the Orthodox AND western Church for the past 42 years. That makes absolutely no sense to me at all!

Well, here’s the thing. If a Catholic converts to Orthodox he is excommunicated, isn’t he. Why should this be so, if the excommunications were lifted in reality?
Here’s a case in point: A Catholic priest in our area converted to Orthodox. the bishop publicly announced, and it was in the newspapers also, that he was thereby excommunicated from the Catholic Church but that he wished him well.
The lifting of the excommunications in 1965, was a nice gesture, but it really did not accomplish much as far as I can see.

 

[bobzills]

I think a more serious concern is that a declaration of unity between our churches could be interpreted as an endorsement, or validation of them. This could result in their spread, not only in the east, but among Protestants.

Hello Michael:
This is where you lose me. I don’t understand how anyone could seriously object to a devotion such as the First Friday devotion to the Sacred Heart:
“As the object of this devotion is to make our Savior Jesus Christ ardently and perfectly loved, and to make reparation for the outrages offered to Him in the past, as well as for those which he daily receives in the Blessed Eucharist…Jesus Christ merits our love at all times, but alas! He is despised and outraged in the Sacrament of His love at all times, and so people should at all times make reparation to Him.
We should then adore Jesus Christ in this august Sacrament, make a fervent act of love to Jesus in the tabernacle, thank Him for having instituted this Mystery of love, express our sorrow at seeing Him so abandoned, and resolve to visit Him as soon as possible and love Him unceasingly.”
It seems to me that such a devotion would only bring abundant blessings.
Yes, of course we are still friends, even if I think that you are a bit blind in this particular matter.

 

[peary]

The lifting of the excommunications in 1965, was a nice gesture, but it really did not accomplish much as far as I can see.

**But the thing is, Orthodox in these forums continue to use the term ‘excommunication’ of the churches against each other (which is NOT true!!) even though it was lifted on September 5, 1965. The whole churches were NOT involved in the original excommunications, just the pope and ONE patriarch.

The whole attitude is disappointing in here. There is no reason that the eastern and western church cannot unite. And I keep saying that it is the EUCHARIST which will accomplish this unification, and not so-called talks and “feel good” sessions among representatives.**

 

[Hesychios]

Michael,

Rather than just denying what was said, maybe you could show us your proofs for the opposite.

peace

Well, I was a bit short of time when I wrote that.

But since the other poster asserts that :

*"The Eastern Catholic churches re-united with Rome without a problem. They kept what is theirs and didn’t adopt whatever theology or devotions were prevalent in the western church. They are united under the Chair of Peter, nothing more." *peary

I would say the burden of proof is on him. I don’t have a clue where he could have gotten that idea.

Ideally, we would like to have seen that the Eastern Catholic churches united “without a problem”, because it would potentially provide a good model for church unity.

Unfortunately, that is anything but the case. In fact, even Rome has abandoned Uniatism as a model for church unity, according to the Freising Statement and the Balamand Agreement (which followed and incorporated it).

If I were to list all of the past and present problems I can think of, it would require several posts, and I am weary of beginning the effort.

But if you want to see some realtime evidence of “problems”, check out the EC forum, where you will find contemporary Eastern Catholics and Roman Catholics going at it like cats and dogs, with the EC a very divided bunch. There are the

• Highly Latinized,
• The very Orthodox, and…
• The very blended relativists who are trying to demonstrate that the East and West are really saying/believing the same things and just don’t know it! They are kidding only themselves, although they work hard at it.
  I have a lot of sympathy for the EC who want to hold on to their traditional theology and praxis, and maintain a position as “Orthodox in Communion with Rome” which **peary **seems to be implying when he states “no problem”. They would set a good example for Orthodox who are open to the idea.

But those EC are getting beat up something awful in there. It seems that there is no room under the umbrella for them.

So, while I don’t have anything personal against the guy, I don’t buy peary’s argument in the least.

Michael

 

[peary]

So, while I don’t have anything personal against the guy, I don’t buy peary’s argument in the least.

Michael

**Who said you should? **

 

[Mickey]

So, while I don’t have anything personal against the guy, I don’t buy peary’s argument in the least.

Ditto.

 

[bobzills]

**But the thing is, Orthodox in these forums continue to use the term ‘excommunication’ of the churches against each other (which is NOT true!!) even though it was lifted on September 5, 1965. The whole churches were NOT involved in the original excommunications, just the pope and ONE patriarch.

The whole attitude is disappointing in here. There is no reason that the eastern and western church cannot unite. And I keep saying that it is the EUCHARIST which will accomplish this unification, and not so-called talks and “feel good” sessions among representatives.**

But what is the effect of the lifting of these excommunications? Really nothing because if a Catholic converts to Orthodox, he is excommunicated. It is so, isn’t it?

 

[peary]

But what is the effect of the lifting of these excommunications? Really nothing because if a Catholic converts to Orthodox, he is excommunicated. It is so, isn’t it?

**What EXACTLY is ‘excommunication’? Is it being “kicked out” of the Church? Absolutely NOT. That is ‘interdict’. It’s amazing how the excommunication term is carelessly used time and time again without a proper understanding of its meaning, and, what it is supposed to mean to the person who experiences it.

When a person is excommunicated, it means that he or she is banned from reception of most of the sacraments until repentence. It does not mean that they are banned from the Church. See, the problem is, how can you excommunicate an individual from reception of sacraments when they are valid in both churches? It’s like the Pius X society. How do you excommunicate those who choose to participate in not only a valid liturgical rite but valid sacraments? That’s a big issue.

An ‘interdict’ is an ecclesiastical censure that excludes a person or entire district from participation in most sacraments and from Christian burial. This is, in effect, dismembering the person from the body of Christ Himself.

The FIRST thing both churches need to do is lift excommunication off of reception of the Eucharist. This is an absolute travesty since both churches have a valid Eucharist regardless of whatever nonsensical arguments are put forth to discredit this. And I keep hammering the point that it is the EUCHARIST Who will unify the churches, not ecclesial talks.

**