Question about the Great Schism

[Gabriel_of_12]

I think Jeremy is referring to the cultus of the “Immaculate Heart of Mary” and the one for Christ. As St. Athanasios pointed out, it’s not right.

In Christ,
Andrew

I sense a devil in disguise here; When does the Immaculate heart of Mary or the Immaculate heart of Jesus ever become veneration of body (flesh) parts? When we have no tomb of Mary nor of Jesus.

If this is all that there is, it only reveals to me a false and or misunderstanding of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and Jesus.

Do you have a fact which pertains to Catholics venerating a body part of the flesh? So as to help expose this devil.

 

[Mickey]

I do pick up alot more negativity from Orthodox attitudes towards the Latin Church than I do seeing the Latin towards the Orthodox.

That’s interesting. I often hear the protestants say that about the Roman Catholics.

There is more of a universal perspective in the Latin Church in its perspective of spreading the Good News of Jesus Christ, and in acknowledging and working with diversity of cultures.

And you know this…how?

 

[Formosus]

While I don’t wish to condemn my latin brethren for their devotions to the Sacred Heart and Immaculate Heart, I do not find those devotions to be spiritually helpful and the devotions themselves sound very Nestorian-esque.

Gabriel, if the devotions are not to the physical hearts of Mary and Christ, then why is it every picture of these devotions have very visible images of actual hearts?

 

[Harpazo]

I can’t speak for my friend Formosus, but I always found that those devotions run dangerously close to, as Jeremy said earlier, “vivisecting” parts of them for veneration. I don’t think they were intended to do so, but an incorrect understand can inevitably result from it (of course Orthodox faithful are not exempt from garnering a misunderstanding of things either).

Just my take.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

dzheremi;7972772]That’s exactly what I am referring to, Andrew. I don’t understand it, even with reference to the tradition of the Latin Church itself. The Catholic Encyclopedia itself admits the relative novelty of this devotion, in writing the following (emphasis added):

First of all it should be noted that one not need have a devotion to Mary in order to be in good standing in the Catholic church.

I couldn’t find your quote in the Catholic encyclopedia; but here is one, that conflicts with your inclination;

"the faithful must read therein all that the human heart of Mary suggests, **all of which it is the expressive symbol **and the living reminder: Mary’s interior life, her joys and sorrows, her virtues and hidden perfections, and, above all, her virginal love for her God, her maternal love for her Divine Son, and her motherly and compassionate love for her sinful and miserable children here below. The consideration of Mary’s interior life and the beauties of her soul, without any thought of her physical heart, does not constitute our devotion; .

All this is made sufficiently clear in the explanations given elsewhere (see DEVOTION TO THE HEART OF JESUS ), and, if our devotion to Mary must not be confounded with our devotion to Jesus, on the other hand, it is equally true that our veneration of the Heart of Mary is, as such, analogous to our worship of the Heart of Jesus. … Devotion to the Heart of Jesus is especially directed to the Divine Heart as overflowing with love for men, and it presents this love to us as despised and outraged. **In the devotion to the Heart of Mary, on the other hand, what seems to attract us above all else is the love of this Heart for Jesus and for God. **

I see no worship or veneration being paid to a body part of flesh.

It is wholly absent from the pre-schism worship of the Latin Church, as it is related to developments in the Benedictine monasteries of the 11th and 12th centuries, “in the world of Anselmian or Bernardine thought” (ibid). I find it highly unorthodox and, frankly, weird.

St. Athanasius the Apostolic is right. Again.

I would find your view of the Immaculate heart weird also, because it is never Catholic.

What I find unorthodox is making Constantine a Saint from Orthodoxy. Now does this reveal a true Orthodox pre-schism? Your assumptions in relation to the blessed Mother are unfounded, because scripture and all Orthodox saints venerated our Lady in faith, in speech, and in title. These follow the scriptures when Luke himself writes “All generations will call me blessed”. This is one of the highest biblical venerations of Mary not to mention the Angel Gabriel who “Hails Mary as his queen”. These are all pre-schism pratices supported by scripture.

 

[Formosus]

I understand the criticism you raise here. I was asking for evidence to show that the Sacred Heart devotions aren’t to a physical heart. I think its a fair question to ask considering every image has an image of a heart on them. Gabriel did provide some quotes to suggest it is meant to be a symbol of the Divine Heart of God, which makes some sense. A sort of metaphysical idea of heart as an emotion or act of the will as opposed to a physical organ. Either way, I still do not feel the need to subscribe to such a private devotion.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

if the devotions are not to the physical hearts of Mary and Christ, then why is it every picture of these devotions have very visible images of actual hearts?

So what? are you claiming to be an Iconoclast? Do you deny having icons of full persons viewed in bodily form?

Keep it real folks, make your case or prove that you make false assumptions of mysteries you know nothing about, and before jumping into judgements learn what a devotion to the Immaculate of heart of Mary and Jesus is before making judgements as to worshipping a fleshly body part.

Thus far no one here has truthfully revealed what veneration of the Immaculate heart of Mary is?

It is never worshipping a body flesh part of no one, If this it your take on the Immaculate heart of Mary, it maybe better not reveal your ingnorance and learn before you jump to conclusions. Please

 

[dzheremi]

I couldn’t find your quote in the Catholic encyclopedia;

Sorry, I should have included a link to the article in question. Here it is, paragraph 1 under “Historical ideas on the development of the devotion”. This article is on devotion to the sacred heart of Jesus, but it applies just as well to any similar devotion, as it is the “to the heart” part I have problems with.

but here is one, that conflicts with your inclination;

"the faithful must read therein all that the human heart of Mary suggests, **all of which it is the expressive symbol **and the living reminder: Mary’s interior life, her joys and sorrows, her virtues and hidden perfections, and, above all, her virginal love for her God, her maternal love for her Divine Son, and her motherly and compassionate love for her sinful and miserable children here below. The consideration of Mary’s interior life and the beauties of her soul, without any thought of her physical heart, does not constitute our devotion; .

This is all fine and well, but those of us who have been Catholics (Andrew and me), and even some who still are (Formosus), have some reservations about the devotion in practice that are not answered by this paragraph or any other.

I see no worship or veneration being paid to a body part of flesh.

Forgive me for being a simpleton, but it is right there in the name. If it is not meant to be devotion to a particular piece of the anatomy, then it ought not to be conceptualized in that way, as I can guarantee you that it does lead to problems among the faithful and the skeptical alike. Similar caution could be taken with any number of Catholic-specific devotions, of course (witness, for instance, the vigorous debate around this “Mediatrix” business for some ideas as to why it is not always a good idea to encourage something that is to have such a specific understanding).

I would find your view of the Immaculate heart weird also, because it is never Catholic.

Unfortunately, it is. Would that it were not!

What I find unorthodox is making Constantine a Saint from Orthodoxy. Now does this reveal a true Orthodox pre-schism? Your assumptions in relation to the blessed Mother are unfounded, because scripture and all Orthodox saints venerated our Lady in faith, in speech, and in title. These follow the scriptures when Luke himself writes “All generations will call me blessed”. This is one of the highest biblical venerations of Mary not to mention the Angel Gabriel who “Hails Mary as his queen”. These are all pre-schism pratices supported by scripture.

Unrelated tangents re: Constantine or any other EO saint aside (as I am not EO, I would not feel comfortable addressing this even if it were on topic, which it is not), veneration of the Theotokos has never included these devotions to her heart (in any understanding; it simply was not done), or likewise venerations to the sacred heart of Christ. The Catholic Encyclopedia confirms that these are post-schism activities, so appealing to Orthodox saints (who, yes, hail Mary! I am listening to the Coptic version of this as I type this, the “Shere ne Maria”) does nothing but contradict what your own Church says about the practices.

 

[Bluegoat]

Not only post-schism: the Sacred Heart and Immaculate Heart are very recent things. Through the vast majority of the history of the Church no such idea existed.

 

[dzheremi]

Yes, Blue, you are right. I am referring to the fact that even the roots of the practice are in post-schism developments. The ‘cult’ around it or whatever you’d call it (talking about the sacred heart, ascribing this or that to it, etc.) is very recent.

 

[KathleenGee]

True…devotions to the Hearts are recent…but also to fill a need…a mission…

It can also be said that secularization is dehumanizing us; we lose our own authenticity, the essence of our own beings…our heart. These devotions help us to realize God is not dead, but ignored. These devotions assist us in likewise, returning to our own hearts, our own essence, and living again in the presence of God, and making reparation for all the neglect done to our Lord and to His mother, who makes the church a family.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Unrelated tangents re: Constantine or any other EO saint aside (as I am not EO, I would not feel comfortable addressing this even if it were on topic, which it is not), veneration of the Theotokos has never included these devotions to her heart (in any understanding; it simply was not done), or likewise venerations to the sacred heart of Christ. The Catholic Encyclopedia confirms that these are post-schism activities, so appealing to Orthodox saints (who, yes, hail Mary! I am listening to the Coptic version of this as I type this, the “Shere ne Maria”) does nothing but contradict what your own Church says about the practices.

Let’s keep it simple here. First of all the EO veneration of their St.Constantine is not a Catholic veneration post schism, but it is not rejected or protested we just don’t view a man who murdered and lived a life of paganology deemed worthy to receive veneration, this line of reasoning is not off topic. The Catholic Church allows, not binding, on believers to have a devotion to the Immaculate heart of Mary and Jesus.

You falsely view this as one having a devotion to a heart of flesh. That is understandable coming from a Orthodox view, which remains stagnant in mixing the natural with the spiritual.

What I object to, is that you insist on your false view, because you read in the devotion “heart”. What the author’s intent deals with the gospel experiences lived which the heart experienced by both the blessed Virgin Mary and our dear Lord Jesus Christ, the spiritual life lived which comes from the heart, your view remains stagnant, because you relate this “heart” as to being venerated as a body part.

I assure you, the gospel message from the Immaculate heart of Mary and Jesus is pre-schism never post schism.

For one, the devotion relates to praying the gospels and meditating upon the gospel events (thus the author recommends reading the gospels) from the perspective viewed from the joy, sorrowful, Luminous, and Glorious events from Mary and Jesus heart of love and sacrifice.

If you pretend that these devotions are something new, then you are hard pressed to refute them.

This is the contradiction between your false view, and the Catholic view. Your view comes from the natural, while the Catholic view’s this devotion as both “flesh and Spiritual” which grounds the devotion to reflect upon the “Incarnation” =fully flesh and fully divine. From this take, places the devotee to meditate on the gospels events which is pre-schism. This is nothing new, what is new is venerating a Saint who’s life example could never compare to a real Catholic Saint and Martyr.

I think your argument that this devotion is post schism is never the case, because the foundation never changes.

** If God chose bread and wine to become his body and blood, are you venerating a part of this body, that you falsely think St. Anthanasius is referring too here? because after all we do venerate the blood and body of Christ. Do you do this veneration of Jesus body and blood which consist of body parts?

Are you not going against St. Anthanasius teaching here? If you can justify veneration of Jesus body and blood, I think you can graduate to venerating his Love and sacrifice from this heart, as Catholics do and have always done since the resurrection which is pre-schism.**

Peace be with you

 

[dzheremi]

Wow, Gabriel. I’m sorry, but that is some bizarre reasoning. I’m not able to follow your logic at all. Constantine is not worthy of veneration so it is fine to engage in veneration of the hearts of Jesus Christ and St. Mary? Forgive me, but I’m not seeing the connection.

And I don’t have to pretend that the devotions are new. I know they’re new because that’s what Catholic sources say about them. Their roots are in 11-12th century developments in Benedictine monasteries (as per the Catholic Encyclopedia, quoted earlier), with the actual practice as it is engaged in today developing somewhat later (as pointed out by Bluegoat).

So again, I really have no idea what you’re getting at here.

 

[Hesychios]

… the EO veneration of their St.Constantine is not a Catholic veneration post schism…

Yes it is.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Yes it is.

Thank you Hesychios for agreeing. The point is Veneration of a Saint post schism is a new veneration. The Roman Catholic church does not recognize Constantine as a Saint.

The Immaculate heart of Mary and Jesus is a post schism. But it is pre-schism from the content of what is being venerated the heart and soul of Jesus Christ and Mary from the Gospels.

If one cannot understand this simple fact. I have no other way to explain it here. Other than recommend don’t knock it, until you know what your knocking at. If you don’t know or understand, then it may not apply to you, but that gives no one no liberty to try and discredit ones love and devotion to Jesus and Mary. As I do not refuse the EO veneration of their St.Constantine which is new.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

dzheremi;7976098]o again, I really have no idea what you’re getting at here.

It’s very simple. Do you venerate the body and blood of Jesus Christ? this is a yes or no question to you.

Does your understanding of St.Anthanasius quote measure up to the Catholic Church’s teaching from scripture here or does your view contradict scripture and agrees with your view of the Saints quote?

"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)

**1Corinthians 11:27
Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. 12
28
A person should examine himself, 13 and so eat the bread and drink the cup. **
29
**For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, **eats and drinks judgment 14 on himself.

Tell me does this biblical teaching pre-schism conflict with your reason and faith towards veneration of body parts? If you venerate the body of Christ and His blood, are you in contradiction to what your falsly accusing Catholics who have only a devotion to the love from the Immaculate hearts of Jesus and Mary.

Tell me do you venerate the Chalices, or vessels as St. Jerome teachings which holds the precious body and blood of Jesus.

Do you believe that Jesus body and blood are truly present in His Eucharist?

Because according to your reason and view of any body, your not supposed to venerate. Can you clarify your view here, so as to grasp your understanding please, so that I do not have to take another aspirin.

Veneration of the Immaculate heart of Jesus and Mary does not contradict scripture nor the St.Athanasius opinon.

Peace be with you

 

[Hesychios]

Thank you Hesychios for agreeing. The point is Veneration of a Saint post schism is a new veneration. The Roman Catholic church does not recognize Constantine as a Saint.
.

No, I do not agree.

-1- Saint Constantine is a saint of the Catholic church.

-2- It is not new.

 

[GaryTaylor]

St. Athanasius spent basically a lifetime defining the nature of Jesus Christ. I just don’t see an issue other than the ones made for him while he was alive.

The confusion or lack of clarity to the Sacred Heart or Immaculate Heart may well be there at first glance. Nonetheless any indepth reading for example Our Lady of Sorrows. Always relate back to the Mysteries and are in relation to the belief existing pre-schism in both churchs.

The Sacred Heart of Jesus is to make us aware of the Lords love and to arouse individuals to respond to that love by offering our love in return. Thats all there is to it really.

Those who follow the devotion do this by the consecration to Jesus by prayer and sacrifice in atonement for our sins and others.

The reason the devotion was started was to save the Family by devotion to a Christian life in Jesus. No different that pre-schism thinking.

Nonetheless we can go on and explaining devotion and why they came about or when they came, how they came about, but they don’t change the deposit of faith in anyway. They bring souls back to it on the contrary.

The physical aspect of a Icon, Painting etc, of either situation may well point to a physical aspect of Jesus or Mary. Yet that remains an indication of the real intention. If there’s a wrong word placed which cause’s one to think wrong, then its just an explaination away from the truth.

It isn’t any different than murals or Icons of the Transfiguration or Annunciation or St Michael. The actual pictures mean nothing. Its what they represent that mean everything in history. No one was there at the Annunciation but Mary. Who would know what exactly the real life senerio in fact looked like? Yet looking at one of the hunderds of different paintings from 2-AD up, it brings you back to a time when you can only imagine the wonder of the reality? Is one painted post schism non-valid?

Maybe I’m missing the point. You seem to think the church changed into some horrible representation of Christianity. The opposite argument is just as compelling. Yet in the end that leaves two seperate churchs. We have a small wndow of time left to correct the issue which is dwindling.

Its understandable that one situation is different than the other. You have two churchs that have been seperate for 1000-years. Should they have came out the other side identicle? Now you know thats impossible, improbable, and just not logical.

Nonetheless you have the same two churchs which started together at Pentecost this very day with Peter speaking and converting souls:shrug:

One didn’t become evil and the other good. Both became weakened which remains the fact in why Christainity isn’t able to move foward as we believe it can.

Nothing is constant but change.

God Bless, Gary

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hesychios;7977045]No, I do not agree.

-1- Saint Constantine is a saint of the Catholic church.

-2- It is not new.

Well then, you pose a contradiction of faith here; According to the posting here, anything post schism is “New”. Is Constantines canonization pre-schism or post-schism?

Correction; Constantine is never a canonized or venerated as a st. in the Roman Catholic Church, only in Your Catholic Rite.

Same rule applies here in the veneration of the Immaculate heart of Jesus and Mary. Devotees are Mostly in the Roman Catholic Church, but for some odd reason the Immaculate heart of Jesus and Mary are not venerated by these posters who object to the love from Jesus and Mary’s Immaculate heart, thinking it to be of flesh?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

St. Athanasius spent basically a lifetime defining the nature of Jesus Christ. I just don’t see an issue other than the ones made for him while he was alive.

The confusion or lack of clarity to the Sacred Heart or Immaculate Heart may well be there at first glance. Nonetheless any indepth reading for example Our Lady of Sorrows. Always relate back to the Mysteries and are in relation to the belief existing pre-schism in both churchs.

The Sacred Heart of Jesus is to make us aware of the Lords love and to arouse individuals to respond to that love by offering our love in return. Thats all there is to it really.

Those who follow the devotion do this by the consecration to Jesus by prayer and sacrifice in atonement for our sins and others.

The reason the devotion was started was to save the Family by devotion to a Christian life in Jesus. No different that pre-schism thinking.

Nonetheless we can go on and explaining devotion and why they came about or when they came, how they came about, but they don’t change the deposit of faith in anyway. They bring souls back to it on the contrary.

The physical aspect of a Icon, Painting etc, of either situation may well point to a physical aspect of Jesus or Mary. Yet that remains an indication of the real intention. If there’s a wrong word placed which cause’s one to think wrong, then its just an explaination away from the truth.

It isn’t any different than murals or Icons of the Transfiguration or Annunciation or St Michael. The actual pictures mean nothing. Its what they represent that mean everything in history. No one was there at the Annunciation but Mary. Who would know what exactly the real life senerio in fact looked like? Yet looking at one of the hunderds of different paintings from 2-AD up, it brings you back to a time when you can only imagine the wonder of the reality? Is one painted post schism non-valid?

Maybe I’m missing the point. You seem to think the church changed into some horrible representation of Christianity. The opposite argument is just as compelling. Yet in the end that leaves two seperate churchs. We have a small wndow of time left to correct the issue which is dwindling.

Its understandable that one situation is different than the other. You have two churchs that have been seperate for 1000-years. Should they have came out the other side identicle? Now you know thats impossible, improbable, and just not logical.

Nonetheless you have the same two churchs which started together at Pentecost this very day with Peter speaking and converting souls:shrug:

One didn’t become evil and the other good. Both became weakened which remains the fact in why Christainity isn’t able to move foward as we believe it can.

Nothing is constant but change.

God Bless, Gary

Ditto:thumbsup: