The Immaculate Heart of Mary is a heresy

[budgie2]

My mum has a picture of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the Sacred Heart of Jesus, a common religious representation. I have been doing some research on the nature of God and light and I really believe that the shining heart represents the love of the Father in the Son as Timothy says that God is light: “God the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone is immortal and who lives in approachable light, whom no one has seen or can see.” 1 Timothy 6:15-16
God (the Father) could be described as a shining presence of love, or shining essence of love as there is a certain light aspect to God. I believe the shining heart of Christ represents divine love and could be used on its own as a symbol of God the Father. Christ resembles Mary in the physical aspect of his body however, the Sacred Heart is an aspect of Christ which resembles the Father. Any comments.

 

[fix]

How is it a heresy?

 

[budgie2]

I believe it is a heresy as it depicts Mary as both God and Woman, a divinity and goddess. Jesus said that he was the way to the Father and that we would know the Father through him. The Sacred Heart of Jesus shows both Christ’s humanity and divinity and is a divinely revealed statue. Mary could be represented as only having a flame in the place of her Immaculate Heart and the Sacred Heart could be placed in Mary’s womb. This would have a more pro-life message (not divinely revealed). This is not yet defined dogma but it will be. Flame represents the Holy Spirit as Mary was a holy woman although I believe the heart with sunrays should really represent God’s love. Sunrays are also used around the monstrance to represent the light of Christ’s soul, Jesus the light of the world.

media.photobucket.com/image/Immaculate%20Heart%20%25252Bimage/TwoHeartsAblaze/2708b1f5.jpg

 

[The_Otaku]

I’m failing to see how this is a heresy as the two hearts represent two different things and different aspects of God’s love. I look at it this way:

The Sacred Heart of Jesus represents the embodiment of God’s love and sacrifice for humanity. The image of the heart itself tells the tale .It often is shown with a crown of thorns and bleeding, etc. We know what the rays of light are. We understand what this all means without having to look into it.

The Immaculate Heart of Mary represents Mary’s perfect purity, her fiat, her obedience to God, her holiness through God, by God, and for God and her pierced heart in watching her Son be tortured and crucified, etc. She has an immaculate heart because of these things. The Immaculate Heart is in no way competing with the Sacred Heart or is meant to be taken on a level with the Sacred Heart, because the Immaculate Heart is not about Redemption. The Sacred Heart represents God’s love, and the Immaculate Heart represents purity, among other things. I think the reason they look very similar is because Jesus is Mary’s Son, and the artwork was created in such a way as to reinforce this by making the rays and the hearts look similar when the two are featured together.

In the end, the Hearts are representing different virtues of God and how He works these out in the persons of Jesus and Mary, and Mary is shown to have these virtues because of who she is among all the other humans in existence. She’s special, and we all know that. Her heart is bound to her Son’s and His to Her’s and both are bound to the Father. This is another reason the pictures of the two Hearts are often promoted together, as well as prayer being done in honor of both.

The Immaculate Heart is in NO WAY upstaging or replacing or lessening to any degree, or stealing from the Sacred Heart and what these symbols mean to us as Catholics. If you ask me, people who would imply there is a problem are the ones promoting heresy. God gave us Mary so that she might be venerated, not worshiped. After Christ Himself, she is our greatest role model in faith and in love. Mary’s heart is the way to Jesus’ heart, and since His heart is one with the Father, Mary’s Heart is there to lead us to God, not away from Him.

To imply the alternative is to imply Mary worship, as if turning to her is a means of salvation as if to say she can do exactly what Jesus can for us, namely save our souls, so why limit worship to just him. She cannot save us because she is not God, she can only intercede and petition for us. Many graces are given to us, by God, through her, which is another reason among many that her Heart is magnificent before us and before the Lord in it’s own unique way and why she shares in SOME, but not all, of the Sacred Heart. The Immaculate Heart is not a ripoff or counterfeit Sacred Heart, it is it’s own heart with it’s own purpose for us to aspire to.

The two Hearts are only meant to be compared in that they both shine with God’s love, which is why they appear similar with the rays and such, but are different. They serve different functions and promote different virtues, but ultimately lead us to God because they come from Him and find their power in Him. If Mary were just an ordinary woman she would not figure into this at all, but to liken her to a “goddess”, due to misunderstandings most likely, is the heresy. Nothing about her Immaculate Heart implies such. She’s the same as she was then, now, and forever. She doesn’t become any more or any less than what God created her to be- another beacon of light to lead us to the Trinity.

That her Immaculate Hearts bares a resemblance to the Sacred Heart is not a heresy, but a truth about who she is to God and what relation she is to Jesus. Who she is to us varies from culture to culture, and if there are people worshiping her as if she were a goddess, then they’re the ones in a state of heresy, not the majority.

 

[1ke]

I believe it is a heresy as it depicts Mary as both God and Woman, a divinity and goddess.

It does no such thing.

Jesus said that he was the way to the Father and that we would know the Father through him. The Sacred Heart of Jesus shows both Christ’s humanity and divinity and is a divinely revealed statue.

It’s a private devotion, although one approved by the Church. The Deposit of Faith-- divine revelation-- ended with the death of the last Apostle.

Mary could be represented as only having a flame in the place of her Immaculate Heart and the Sacred Heart could be placed in Mary’s womb. This would have a more pro-life message (not divinely revealed).

However, that is not how she is represented. The Immaculate Heart devotion is Church approved both as a devotion and liturgical feast. You are out of step with the Church.

Sunrays are also used around the monstrance to represent the light of Christ’s soul, Jesus the light of the world.

You are misinterpreting the imagery of the Immaculate Heart. Fortunately, we have the Church to guide us as a sure norm, not individual interpretations. What you believe is not relevant. The Church is the only arbiter of what is heresy and what is not, and the Church approves the Immaculate Heart devotion. Until such time as she withdraws approval, you need to reassess your own understanding not rail against the devotion as “heresy.”

 

[budgie2]

I do not believe Mary is being correctly depicted at the moment and the Immaculate Heart is a heresy propounded by Pope Pius IX. I suppose these two pictures of Mary and Christ could be interpreted differently but Mary should only resemble Christ in physical aspect as I’ve said before. I believe that the sunrays also represent the glory of the Lord as mentioned in Luke 2:8"An angel of the Lord appeared to them and the glory of the Lord shone around them" aswell as representing Christ as light of the world. Christ is also represented with a face like the sun in the book of Revelation 1:13-16.

The Sacred Heart is also on fire and fire can be used to represent both Mary and Christ representing the Holy Spirit which also came down on Mary as flames at Pentecost. The fire could also be used around her heart but should emit a smaller light. The Jews used a candle as a prayer to represent the soul of a dead person and it may be that this tells us something of the nature of our soul, a spiritual flame.

I think if we’re concentrating on Mary’s heart then we are not making enough of her womb and it is this that is the most important part of her according to the Hail Mary and the Gospel of Luke. I know it is not current practice to depict her with the Sacred Heart inside her womb instead of in her chest, but symbols sometimes need to be changed and we don’t have a symbol for God the Father.

 

[srlucado]

I don’t know why, but I am continually amazed at people who read a little, hear a little, learn a little, and when they find something that seems inconsistent, or incomprehensible, or outright contradictory, they jump to the immediate conclusion that, “Hey, the Church is wrong!”

How about jumping to this conclusion instead: “Hey, I don’t know what I’m talking about!”

For 2,000 years, the Church has held off a lot of heresies–real ones, like Arians, or Albigensians, or Hussites, or many others. Serious theological divides have been investigated, analyzed, discussed, and resolved.

Then some guy comes along with some partly formed idea and immediately concludes I’m right and that goofball in the Vatican with the big hat doesn’t know what’s going on.

Think about this: Pope Benedict has forgotten more about theology and the Catholic faith than you’ll ever know. Just accept it, even if you haven’t read anything he’s written (and he’s written a lot). He didn’t get to be Pope by drawing a picture of a cute bunny.

Just take the Church’s word for it; is that so hard? And if there’s something you don’t understand, can’t you put it in a question form, like “Isn’t it heretical to…” instead of trying to be the next Martin Luther?

Sorry to be such a grouch about this, but really.

 

[twf]

Read 2 Peter 1:4 - through the death and resurrection of Our Lord, we, in baptism, put on Christ (see Romans 6) and become partakers of the divine nature. In a secondary, derivative sense, Mary is indeed divine; so are all the saints, and indeed, all teh baptized. We have been made “new creations”, true sons and daughters of God, and are given a share in the divine life of the Trinity. Of course Our Lady will reflect aspects of her Divine Son! So should you! You need to study some basic Catholic theology…see what the Catechism, the councils, the Fathers, and doctors have to say on “sanctification”, “deification”, “divinization”, and “theosis”.

 

[mgull]

Careful budgie2, you don’t want to get involved with blaspheming the Mother of Our Lord.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

My mum has a picture of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the Sacred Heart of Jesus, a common religious representation. I have been doing some research on the nature of God and light and I really believe that the shining heart represents the love of the Father in the Son as Timothy says that God is light: “God the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone is immortal and who lives in approachable light, whom no one has seen or can see.” 1 Timothy 6:15-16
God (the Father) could be described as a shining presence of love, or shining essence of love as there is a certain light aspect to God. I believe the shining heart of Christ represents divine love and could be used on its own as a symbol of God the Father. Christ resembles Mary in the physical aspect of his body however, the Sacred Heart is an aspect of Christ which resembles the Father. Any comments.

You need some help…maybe theology is not your thing.

 

[AdriannaJean]

I don’t know why, but I am continually amazed at people who read a little, hear a little, learn a little, and when they find something that seems inconsistent, or incomprehensible, or outright contradictory, they jump to the immediate conclusion that, “Hey, the Church is wrong!”

How about jumping to this conclusion instead: “Hey, I don’t know what I’m talking about!”

For 2,000 years, the Church has held off a lot of heresies–real ones, like Arians, or Albigensians, or Hussites, or many others. Serious theological divides have been investigated, analyzed, discussed, and resolved.

Then some guy comes along with some partly formed idea and immediately concludes I’m right and that goofball in the Vatican with the big hat doesn’t know what’s going on.

Think about this: Pope Benedict has forgotten more about theology and the Catholic faith than you’ll ever know. Just accept it, even if you haven’t read anything he’s written (and he’s written a lot). He didn’t get to be Pope by drawing a picture of a cute bunny.

Just take the Church’s word for it; is that so hard? And if there’s something you don’t understand, can’t you put it in a question form, like “Isn’t it heretical to…” instead of trying to be the next Martin Luther?

Sorry to be such a grouch about this, but really.

This has to be one of the best posts I have read in a while. I might even print it off…

 

[Newbie2]

I don’t know why, but I am continually amazed at people who read a little, hear a little, learn a little, and when they find something that seems inconsistent, or incomprehensible, or outright contradictory, they jump to the immediate conclusion that, “Hey, the Church is wrong!”

How about jumping to this conclusion instead: “Hey, I don’t know what I’m talking about!”

 

[budgie2]

I have been doing research for the Church and I am developing my own theology.

 

[LilyM]

I have been doing research for the Church and I am developing my own theology.

And the infallible Magisterium, which has been doing research for 2000 years, can’t possibly be right in their teachings on the Immaculate Heart devotion. Whereas you, who can’t have been studying theology for more than five minutes (relatively speaking), is of course correct?

Developing your own theology? Arius developed his own theology. Luther developed his own theology. Both started out as faithful members of the Church, content to do as theologians should do and keep ‘their’ theology in line with the infallible teachings of the Magisterium. They could have been rivals to Augustine and Aquinas. Instead look where ‘their own theology’ led them.

And as that same Augustine said - another who probably forgot more theology than you’re likely to ever know - ‘seek not to understand so that you may believe, but believe so that you may understand’. Faith comes first, my friend, not understanding nor the far less important book-learning.

 

[budgie2]

I really believe the sunrays represent Christ as the light of the world and could be extended outside his body in a light of the world picture. Mary is not the light of the world and Mary’s teaching does not feature in the Gospel. We are asked to imitate Mary’s discipleship and her obedience to God and acceptance to have children in difficult circumstances. A celibate could imitate Mary’s virginity and married women can imitate her chastity prior to marriage.

 

[LilyM]

I really believe the sunrays represent Christ as the light of the world and could be extended outside his body in a light of the world picture. Mary is not the light of the world and Mary’s teaching does not feature in the Gospel. We are asked to imitate Mary’s discipleship and her obedience to God and acceptance to have children in difficult circumstances. A celibate could imitate Mary’s virginity and married women can imitate her chastity prior to marriage.

Shows how much theology you know - and how much you know about the Sacred Heart and Immaculate Heart devotions. Mary IS the light of the world - we are ALL the light of the world - Our Blessed Lord said it in the Gospels, Matthew 5:14: '‘Ye are the light of the world. A city built on a hill …’

And to say Mary’s heart cannot be depicted surrounded by rays of light is as nonsensical as to say that she and the other saints cannot be depicted with a halo of light around their heads - which they almost invariably are - as Jesus’ head is also depicted surrounded by a halo of light.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

I believe it is a heresy as it depicts Mary as both God and Woman, a divinity and goddess. Jesus said that he was the way to the Father and that we would know the Father through him. The Sacred Heart of Jesus shows both Christ’s humanity and divinity and is a divinely revealed statue. Mary could be represented as only having a flame in the place of her Immaculate Heart and the Sacred Heart could be placed in Mary’s womb. This would have a more pro-life message (not divinely revealed). This is not yet defined dogma but it will be. Flame represents the Holy Spirit as Mary was a holy woman although I believe the heart with sunrays should really represent God’s love. Sunrays are also used around the monstrance to represent the light of Christ’s soul, Jesus the light of the world.

media.photobucket.com/image/Immaculate%20Heart%20%25252Bimage/TwoHeartsAblaze/2708b1f5.jpg

When Mary appeared to Bernadette Soubirous at Lourdes in the 19th century (too lazy to look up the year), the way she specifically identified herself, almost at the end of the appearnces, was “I am the Immaculate Conception”. This had only been a defined dogma for about three years at the time, and I doubt if a rather uneducated 14 year old poverty stricken girl in the backblocks of France had ever heard of it.

Her priest had though, and it shook him to the core.

I can’t see the problem.

I might add what Bishop Fulton Sheen had to say about the term. You will notice the uncanny timing of Mary’s appearance and self-description at Lourdes and the new philosophical publications at around the same time.

"The definition of the Immaculate Conception was made when the modern world was born. Within five years of that date, and within six months of the apparition of Lourdes where Mary said, “I am the Immaculate Conception”, Charles Darwin wrote his “Origin of Species”, Karl Marx completed his “Introduction to the Philosophy of Hegel” (‘Religion is the opiate of the people’) and John Stuart Mill published his “Essay on Liberty”. At the moment the spirit of the world was drawing up a philosophy that would issue in two world wars in twenty-one years and the threat of a third, the Church came forward to challenge the falsity of the new philosophy…

If these philosophers were right and if man is naturally good and capable of deification through his own efforts, then it follows that everyone is immaculately conceived…

The dogma of the Immaculate Conception wilted and killed the false optimism of the inevitable and necessary progress of man without God. Humbled in his Darwinian-Marxian-Millian pride, modern man saw his doctrine of progress evaporate. The interval between the Napoleonic and Franco-Prussian Wars was fifty-five years; the interval between the Franco-Prussian War and World War I was forty three years; the interval between World War I and World War II twenty one years. Fifty-five, forty-three, twenty-one, and a Korean War five years after World War II are hardly progress. Man finally saw that he was not naturally good. Once having boasted he came from the beast, he now found himself to be acting as a beast."

 

[1ke]

I know it is not current practice to depict her with the Sacred Heart inside her womb instead of in her chest,

You are a confused individual. Mary is not depicted with the Sacred Heart in her chest. Mary is depicted with her Immaculate Heart in her chest, pierced by a sword as prophesied in Scripture. Hence the name of the image: The Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Get your symbols right. You are tilting at windmills. You have made up a fiction in your mind. And, calling the Pope a heretic is a bad idea.

but symbols sometimes need to be changed and we don’t have a symbol for God the Father.

Of course we do. Christian art has symbols for the Father.

 

[1ke]

I have been doing research for the Church and I am developing my own theology.

I think you need to talk to a priest. Catholics don’t “develop their own theology.” Catholics faithfully teach and adhere to authentic revelation as handed down by the Magesterium. Catholics who “develop their own theology” have a name: heretics.

 

[budgie2]

Shows how much theology you know - and how much you know about the Sacred Heart and Immaculate Heart devotions. Mary IS the light of the world - we are ALL the light of the world - Our Blessed Lord said it in the Gospels, Matthew 5:14: '‘Ye are the light of the world. A city built on a hill …’

Christ was talking to his disciples and would really see it as referring to the Church as the light of the world which is the body of Christ on Earth, or his disciples for showing the light of the Gospel to others. I don’t know where in the Gospel Christ says he’s the light of the world, excuse me. I’ve been inspired by a religious picture at Church showing Jesus with sunrays coming out of him although there are also sunrays around a monstrance.

theangelsgarden.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000002/10-416-Monstrance-Lg.jpg