There’s a significant Slavophile issue in "orthobro" circles, where some seem intent on distancing themselves from anything Roman to gain more ammunition in polemics. I saw this clearly when an Orthodox individual from the Western Rite defended concepts like Absolute Divine Simplicity-claiming the distinction between divine simplicity and absolute divine simplicity is bogus-alongside arguments for actus purus, the dulia/hyperdulia distinctions in veneration, and the use of terms as Original Sin and guilt. Thing is, for everything He was saying He referenced councils and binding confessions, like St. Mogilia’s (albeit very Latin influenced confession but still binding), which use the same language. He also showed binding Councils applying Aristotelian categories of accidents and substance and defending transubstantiation. Yet, despite presenting clear definitions to the terms that match the Catholic understanding and providing authoritative sources using them, the online ortho debate bro audience was fuming, and they tried to do everything to make it seem that i'ts actually very different to what the Catholics are doing. Some outwardly dismissed his points as "unorthodox," accusing him of being legalistic and too Western, and he was reading them their own Church Fathers and Theologians even after citing Councils and Confessions. This disdain extends to practices like the Sacred Heart, the Rosary, and Eucharistic Adoration. It seems rooted in an underlying belief that the Catholic Church is graceless, driving them to reject our saints, their visions, and well-documented Eucharistic miracles as products of Satan, which seem to me to be a very emotionally charged view considering the fruits and evidences we can present. But also many orthodox Christians are allergic to concepts as development of Dogma - and think St. Cardinal Newman somehow invented it, which will drive the rejection of any practice that arises post first millennium, which seem silly to me. But of course these practices as in case of Eucharistic adoration arise as the Church matures and sheds more light on the sacred mysteries of the Deposit of faith while upholding the unity of the Lex Orandi (Law of Prayer), Lex Credendi (Law of Belief), and Lex Vivendi (Law of Life), reflecting a homogeneous evolution /using a Catholic term. When animosity toward the Catholic Church blinds you to practices that could elevate your spirituality or understanding, or even leads you to close your ears to your own confessions and councils, that's a serious problem.
It's mostly a western right thing but even they are starting to come to the realization that it's not orthodox considering it happened post schism. To a saint that is most likely a literal satanist. They can try and make it orthodox. But I wouldn't even try. It's not even worth it
@@BanterWithBojan that's a bad argument, so there are things in the lives of the (Orthodox) saints that are unsavory, but we don't make devotions out of them. why should we accept one that comes directly from a (heterodox) woman having a vision of Jesus, no less (seems legit), telling her to commit self-harm twice?
I agree the the specific argument is bad tths kinda whataboutism like the fact that there are weird things in orthodox saintsvnothing to do with clearly heterosexual prelest
@@ckingufwgleej3362the difference is is that the Jesus she was talking to is not the Lord and Savior it was the devil. Jesus would never tell you to carve his name into your chest. Jesus would never tell you to do that that is something of the devil
I was relatively recently a non-Christian discerning which church to attend. Sacred heart seemed weird to me then, hesychasm didn't. Now that I know more and have heard all the arguments, my position has not changed.
The sacred heart thing always struck me as trying to dissect Christ. And Orthodoxy teaches the wholeness of Christ even down to a particle of the Eucharist. These are not similar things. God bless ☦️
Here’s the thing about it: the Sacred Heart began in the 11th century in Italy about 20 years before the great schism amongst the highly religious Troubadours. Francis of Assisi 150 years later made troubadour hymnology popular outside of Italy, but it had been locally popular since around 1000 or so, the exact starting date is unknown. It was seen as part of folk prayer and to help people pray while working, using popular music that was often sung while working rhythmically to pass the long hours. A certain style of symbolic language developed out of the Troubadours, usually associated with the more secular romantic style, but had a certain amount of crossover, such as “Winning over the” (proverbial) “heart of a lady”. Well, some thought, perhaps inspired by not dissimilar symbolism in “The Song of Solomon” to apply such symbolic language in their prayers to Christ. When The Antioch Synod in the 1950s was investigating what in the western tradition was potentially compatible with their new Western Rite Vicariate, they came to different conclusions than ROCOR by digging deeper than the mad mystic nuns of 1600s France. They went all the way to the beginning. They drew a very strict line, that only versions predating those mad nuns could be used, the older the better, but this also greatly reduced the importance of the prayer, ironically. The effect in practice has been peculiar for former Roman Catholics like myself: Was comforted that a version is allowed, but as I used it on occasion, I found it to be increasingly less important. It lacks certain EMPHASIS that the mad French nuns such as Mary Margret added after hearing the simpler troubadour version as a child, apparently added to the later versions that have always been forbidden by Antioch, but it feels much less important without that emphasis. As Time has gone on and I have heard the anti-Nestorian arguments, I have tended to defend the older versions, but I came to realize that shaking off the baggage of the later versions is much harder than I thought, but moreover, the rise in popularity of BLATANT Nestorians like Mari Mari makes it important for us to have NO possible ambiguity about where the Western Rite stands on the question of Nestorius. In short, while Antioch’s original logic is sound, maintaining this devotional is more trouble than its worth.
There is a book written by Cardinal Manning in the 19th Century called 'The Glories of the Sacred Heart'. He was a Catholic convert from Anglicanism, deeply rooted in Patristics and he was extremely iffy over the devotion. The book is an attempt to justify the devotion to those from a similar Anglican background and it makes for interesting reading, especially for Orthodox as we have very similar qualms over it as the Anglicans did. St Margaret-Mary hardly gets a look in, and there is hardly a quote from her in the book. He frames the devotion as one to Christ's 'Divine Humanity' and says it is anti-Nestorian, anti-Arian and anti-Jansenist. His arguments are scriptural, clear and largely plausible for Orthodox sensibilities. The book is also mercifully devoid of Catholic sentimentality and kitsch. However, it has not become a classic of Catholic devotion and is just a footnote in history, its obscurity these days suggests that the more sensational aspects of the devotion have triumphed.
@@hxplxss1835 Not exactly, the Trads don't like Manning either, because of his percieved uber-Ultramonatism . I have to say, I like Manning, but I am Orthodox, so I don't count! I really didn't think Divine Mercy devotion was that big.... but what do I know.
@@gillianc6514 Not referring to Manning, just the Sacred Heart Devotion as a whole. Only trads do it, I know a total of zero Novus Ordo attendees who do the Sacred Heart devotion.
I'm an Orthodox convert from Anglicanism after a brief stint in the Ordinariate. Manning has, in my mind, the only appropriate idea on the Sacred Heart. The devotion made me uncomfortable as a Roman, and makes me uncomfortable now as an Orthodox.
I watch your videos from time to time because I do enjoy hearing your perspective. To be transparent, I'm Ukrainian Greek Catholic, and I have a particular devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. It intrigued me when you said you found it interesting that no one has made a connection between the Sacred Heart and Hesychasm. However, that's basically how I understand the Sacred Heart: through Byzantine Eyes. Accordingly, the reason Devotion to the Sacred Heart appealed to me is because, in my mind, the heart as nous and attaining the likeness of Christ (Theosis) seemed a very natural pairing. Scripture teaches that the Patriarch David was "a man after God's own heart." See 1 Samuel 13:14 and Acts 13:22. So, with that mind, I wrote the following prayer: Lord Jesus Christ, Lover of Mankind, Make my heart like Thy Most Sacred Heart: Deify it by Thy grace divine That Thy transfiguring love might reign therein. And here is a portion of a Eucharistic hymn I wrote, which was inspired by the Sacred Heart/Praying the Most Holy Rosary: O Sacred Heart, fill Thou each heart: Lord, unto us Thy love impart. Pour out Thy grace in this Thy Feast, Blest Jesus Christ, our great High Priest. Let us drink wine from Thy pierced side, Thy Blood: that deifying tide. The Cup of Blessing and new life, The sacrifice which ends all strife.
I’m a new convert from Catholicism, was atheist before that. Idk if I ever fully understood the idea of “devotion” as they say mean it. I always believed the sacred heart as a metaphor to meditate on. The lungs would be funny, but if someone wanted to meditate on the fact that God LITERALLY breathed oxygen to stay alive I don’t see an issue with it. (Kind of a specific meditation on Philippians 2:6-11)
To be fair we Orthodox talk of the 'prayer of the heart' and the 'Jesus prayer descending from the mind to the heart' and so forth- so the argument about lungs or even toes (which i've heard) doesn't quite add up. I get what you mean though.
@@St.MosestheBlack Not true, Russian Saints like St. Dimitri of Rostov practiced devotions to the wounds of Jesus, the Saint in question includes the "ever living heart of Jesus" in one of his prayers. It's not common in the Orthodox world but to say our Saints have never had devotions to parts of Christ's body is inaccurate.
I agree with you. The first argument against it is enough I think, I don't see the positive of adding an heterodox practice to the rite instead of simply not adding
It's because many in that rite are simply in a halfway house because of post Vatican II Rome and the Anglican church's failings and seek to bring as much stuff they "liked" over from a previous confession.
One of the best things of Catholicism is the Magisterium and the collection of official documents. The devotion of the Sacred Heart and its theology is well explained right there, and however I've never seen any Orthodox adressing the official documents. The origins of the devotion from a controversial saint, the "dissection" of Christ's Body, the Nestorian nature of the Sacred Heart, etc, are completely unnecessary accusations when you have simply read what the Church says!
we have eucharistic adoration in the sense that we adore the eucharist, we have the great entrance every liturgy, body and blood of Christ, within the liturgy the roman catholics have a whole devotion for it, communion is meant to be partaken in, but they dont.
My grandmother was particularly fond of the devotion of the Sacred Heart. As a Catholic, I think certain devotions can strengthen our faith, but I’m not sure why they always seem to be related to some apparition, which Catholics are not obliged to believe. The Sacred Heart, for me, has positive connotations since we can use it to meditate on the love Jesus has for mankind, though I remain skeptical of its origins. I use the devotion of the Sacred Heart to help fashion my own heart to love God and others, as instructed in the Gospel.
The Sacred Heart should never be something Orthodox embrace the main reason why I don't like it is the saint that invented it. You can go well there are some bad things that Saints did in Orthodoxy yeah sure that doesn't escape her being bad she literally believes Jesus ripped out her heart and she lived without a heart for several years and then Jesus gave her his heart this woman was literally insane. She believed that Christ married her and gave her a foreskin ring. The fact that she's even a saint is astonishing. I don't believe we should worship parts of Jesus Christ we worship Christ as a whole.
St. Margaret is not the one who originated the devotion. She is not even mentioned in the Papal documents that approved and explained the cult to the Sacred Heart. We do not worship the Sacred Heart as a separated entity, but as the Center of the Person of Christ, as the Real Symbol of His Love for humanity!
Question: Many Orthodox admire Francis of Assisi, but is he really as bad as the critics claim? Some points I'd like to see addressed: Are Fr. Seraphim Rose and Ludezhenskys articles really historically accurate or do they contain many anachronisms (like attributing imaginative prayer to him before that practice even originated)? Wouldn't Francis of Assisi have been in communion with Alexandria also with Demetrios Chomatenos? Didn't St. Joseph the Hesychast take Francis' name in baptism? Didn't St. Arsenie Boca paint an icon of Francis? Aren't there icons if Francis in medieval Orthodox churches? Didn't Francis appear to a Protestant girl and convert her to Orthodoxy? Weren't monks in Byzantium allowed to hear confessions and give absolution in his day (Nadieszda Kizenko, Good for the Souls, p. 21)? Didn't John of Antioch and John the Ascetic say monks could hear confessions (Hilarion Alfeyev, St. Symeon the New Theologian, p. 18)? Wouldn't that make Francis' deathbed prayer for his followers forgiveness valid from contemporary Byzantine eyes? Did many Orthodox Saints, such as St. Paisios' own spiritual father, also show confidence of blessedness on their deathbeds? When Francis did public penance, were the people told that it was just for eating a little meat while sick as Fr. Seraphim claims, or were they told he was a glutton, gorging on chicken and weren't told he was sick (that is, was it really pride, or did it look like he was a hypocrite who needed to be punished by his own order - see Thomas Celano, Life of Francis, Chapter 19)? Was Francis the only one to receive stigmata, or are there some parallels with St. Simeon the Stylite and St. Ansbert of Rouen? Does St. Ignatius' claim, in the Arena, really seem directed at Francis or towards the author of that apocrypha?
I don’t understand why people say it’s Nestorian. Nestorianism splits the person due to the distinct natures. But worshipping part of Jesus’ created body would seem to be extremely anti-Nestorian. The only way it would be possible to worship something created is if that thing were deified by being hypostatically united to Christ’s divinity. It emphasize the unity of Christ not the duality.
The problem with the sacred heart (as from the "they are worshipping the physical heart" objection) is that there is special uplifted worship to the heart as a part of Christ above the whole of Christ as a person, this seems to err on the traditional view of worship, for example we dont worship Christ's hands above the whole rest of His Person simply because His Hands were that which grasped and fashioned the mud which became the eyes of the blind man or other suck things, so this idea of worshipping an anatomical part of christ above and specially seperate from His Person is problematic to me I won't say this is a form of worship akin to nestorianism, as im not too educated on how nestorians worship, lol, but it is frightening to me that it departs from how Christ has been worshipped in the totality of His Person, Him being human and divine in perfect unity, regardless of the fact that the human body is made of certain parts
Hey Bojan, I was wondering: beacuse i noticed that some Orthodox Icons draw inspiration from the western style of icons and does the Western Rite have anything to do with it? If it does could you explain what is the connection between the Western Rite and the seemingly Western style of Iconography present in Orthodoxy?
The best advice I've gotten from two different priests on this sort of thing is: Don't worry about it. We have an abundance within our Tradition that the Church has told us is good. Why should I worry at all about specific things other churches do and to what extent they're acceptable? (I shouldn't, I do it sometimes because I am drawn to things that aren't edifying and like the gossip.) For everyone here that isn't a convert from Catholicism with a pre-existing devotion to the sacred heart, this doesn't affect us in any way.
Enjoyed this video brother Bojan thx for sharing. Sacred heart devotion never sat right with me. Thx, but no thx. Unnecessary practice that needs to stay with the RCC.
@BanterWithBojan with all due respect, Margaret Mary Alacoque also claimed Jesus instructed her to carve His name into her chest... TWICE. This is clearly demonic delusion akin to Francis of Assisi's "stigmata" and is not in line with the experience of Christ we see in true Orthodox Saints.
Western-Rite here, my priest said that the propers and prayers for the Sacred Heart mass are completely orthodox, the day will be renamed to focus more on Christ's compassion instead of his heart (mainly the icons that show his physical heart). He also's raises an eye at the Sacred Heart devotion in our St. Ambrose prayer book. I personally don't care what the western-rite does with the sacred heart because I'm a convert from a Baptist church, so it's not a devotion that I'm connected to. We are still ironing things out, discerning things slowly.
My issue with imported devotions is that they don’t share the wider liturgical context & style of the rite that has borne them. Orthodoxy doesn’t treat its devotional life in this manner. It’s like Roman Catholics adopting Orthodox texts & customs that express an Eastern approach to God with vocabulary that just isn’t the Roman-Galisian-Gregorian tradition. That says, Roman Catholic devotions largely developed as a way for the lady, especially the illiterate, to have easily memorized prayers in place of the daily office that wouldn’t have been possible for them to use. I do find in the Orthodox world lack of devotions are easily memorized that can fulfill similar function. This is not at all to criticize the widespread reading of the Salter and activists and cannons. Just to say that I periodically enjoy using the rosary for this reason.
I was wondering about Catholic icons as well. Are there any that we Orthodox Christians should stay away from? I was recently looking through icons of the Theotokos and came across "Madonna di Montevergine" or "Mama Schiavona." The story behind it is strange. Take a look.
Stay away from any icons that break the 7th Ecumenical Council. Read the “Middle Ages” and “Renaissance” chapters of Fr Seraphim Rose’s lecture series “Orthodox Survival Course.” He speaks about how bad icons lead to bad theology which leads to heresy
@@DANtheMANofSIPAif your entire argument hinges on pieces of art it's probably bad Because I can do the same but with iconoclast see icons lead to bad theology and hersey therefore no icons
We already worship with latria His body and blood quote-on-quote "separately" in the elements of Holy Communion, precisely because there is one whole Christ present in them. Just as His divinity and His humanity are considered separately only within meditation and but not in reality, His Heart and the rest of His Sacred Humanity are the same way. To appropriate what was spoken of His mystical body to His physical body: "if one member is honored, all rejoice together with it."
I am becoming Catholic as an adult in the UK. I'm not here to argue and I am not saying this gives the devotion any authority. It is likely just figurative. But as someone interested in the devotion I thought of an old reference to God's heart... In the Old Testament where King David is described as 'a man after God's own heart'. I find that interesting. I am currently learning about the devotion through the book by Fr J Croiset called 'Devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus'. I know my profile picture is of Jesus' sacred heart but this to me atm represents God's love and I like this particular image. God bless
You are a great channel that helps my "Troglodox" and Orthodox fetishist friends understand things more sanely about the Orthodox Church especially the many negative things associated with it.
@@CzarLazar1389 It has to do with wearing tinted glasses that cause one to always play up the strengths and ignore any flaws in any region or movement historically Orthodox while doing the opposite for the West, and anything Greek Athonite Elder Paisonostasavistos says, it's like it came from the mouth of King Solomon. I believe this is related to cognitive dissonance from seeing what they subjectively think Orthodoxy should be and what it actually is.
@@TitusConstantineyeah, as an Orthodox Christian, Orthodoxy has it's problems and unless we can acknowledge them, we cannot solve them. That being said, I still find Orthodoxy to be far less problematic and strange than Catholicism.
@@joshuaparsons887 Certainly. Orthodoxy is the fullness of the truth, no question, however Catholicism is much nearer the truth than other Christian communities and other religions. Another thing Orthodox fetishists do is fetishize the historically countries themselves. Bojan understands this and mentioned in a previous video (I paraphrase) "Westerners think Serbia is super based and trad but you literally can't get anything done unless you agree with the ruling party" and mentioned how the devils who run the country agreed to let phone companies strip mine Serbia's natural resources and pollute the environment.
@@TitusConstantine exactly, and it's incredibly important to acknowledge that the while Church is infallible and perfect, the people who comprise it are far from it and being Orthodox does not automatically make a country or person good. I find this idea of "based and tradness" is mostly found in online internet circles of young men, and while they're problematic, hopefully the Church can do them some good and show them the errors of their ways.
@@joshuaparsons887 Unfortunately, among Orthodox Greeks there is a real line of thought that "God is Greek". There is a real emotion of Greek superiority or chauvinism that they believe must be followed by the entire Church. The Orthodox fetishists eat right out of their hands. In fact, I've heard it said in some 21st or 20th century prophecy that unless the Greeks repent of their pride, they will be destroyed.
Avid Devotee of the Most Sacred Heart. It is deeply Eucharistic, shows forth the mercy of God and the need for Reparation. Most Sacred heart of Jesus have mercy on us, help our Orthodox Brothers to be faithful to your teachings and help us Romans to be more charitable to our separated Brothers when we so often revile them. Amen.
AMEN! My primary devotions are Sacred Heart, Immaculate Heart and Eucharist. Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us! Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!
@@St.MosestheBlackYou are the ones separated, this is why you are unable to produce the groundbreaking devotions we've brought to the world. The Sacred Heart is an ocean of mercy for mankind and our saints clearly have a very deep heartfelt bond with Jesus Christ.
@@St.MosestheBlack Post schism your prayer life has been very limited compared to the Catholic Church. You did not have the rosary although you've taken it now because of its success, nor the multitude of our chaplets I won't even try to name there are so many, you did not develop Eucharistic Adoration either you took it from us because it was clearly superior worship, 5 Holy wounds devotion, 7 Sorrows of Mary devotion, Ignatian Meditations which uses our God given imagination to do focus on God, baroque iconography and passionate iconography which used the most advanced painting artistry to render glory to God, precious blood devotion, and so on and so forth. We clearly outperformed you 10 to 1, and this was the will of God. However I have no shame in saying I love the Jesus Prayer that was a very good one you guys came up with and I love it. I think we should share more instead of dividing between brothers.
I mean, when their saints say stuff like "I've always said that we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a better Catholic." (Mother Teresa), it's hard to do so
No, we should not respect Catholic saints. No, we were never one church. No, we should never be one church. Have you not read the creed? Christ established one true holy apostolic catholic church. Not two. One. Rome left that church. That doesn't make them a second true church, it makes them schismatics. This is simple logic. If they want to return to Holy Orthodoxy they are welcome. But your implied equality and equivalence between the churches is wrong.
"Let us remember the shared foundation of our faith, rooted in the teachings of the Apostles and the early Church Fathers, both East and West. As St. Irenaeus of Lyon affirmed, 'The Church, though dispersed throughout the world, carefully preserves the faith received from the Apostles,' and as St. John Chrysostom taught, 'Where love flourishes, unity prevails.' In the spirit of these holy men, let us seek unity in our common love for Christ, honoring the diversity of our traditions as complementary gifts, working together as one body for the glory of God."
There’s a significant Slavophile issue in "orthobro" circles, where some seem intent on distancing themselves from anything Roman to gain more ammunition in polemics. I saw this clearly when an Orthodox individual from the Western Rite defended concepts like Absolute Divine Simplicity-claiming the distinction between divine simplicity and absolute divine simplicity is bogus-alongside arguments for actus purus, the dulia/hyperdulia distinctions in veneration, and the use of terms as Original Sin and guilt. Thing is, for everything He was saying He referenced councils and binding confessions, like St. Mogilia’s (albeit very Latin influenced confession but still binding), which use the same language. He also showed binding Councils applying Aristotelian categories of accidents and substance and defending transubstantiation.
Yet, despite presenting clear definitions to the terms that match the Catholic understanding and providing authoritative sources using them, the online ortho debate bro audience was fuming, and they tried to do everything to make it seem that i'ts actually very different to what the Catholics are doing. Some outwardly dismissed his points as "unorthodox," accusing him of being legalistic and too Western, and he was reading them their own Church Fathers and Theologians even after citing Councils and Confessions.
This disdain extends to practices like the Sacred Heart, the Rosary, and Eucharistic Adoration. It seems rooted in an underlying belief that the Catholic Church is graceless, driving them to reject our saints, their visions, and well-documented Eucharistic miracles as products of Satan, which seem to me to be a very emotionally charged view considering the fruits and evidences we can present.
But also many orthodox Christians are allergic to concepts as development of Dogma - and think St. Cardinal Newman somehow invented it, which will drive the rejection of any practice that arises post first millennium, which seem silly to me.
But of course these practices as in case of Eucharistic adoration arise as the Church matures and sheds more light on the sacred mysteries of the Deposit of faith while upholding the unity of the Lex Orandi (Law of Prayer), Lex Credendi (Law of Belief), and Lex Vivendi (Law of Life), reflecting a homogeneous evolution /using a Catholic term.
When animosity toward the Catholic Church blinds you to practices that could elevate your spirituality or understanding, or even leads you to close your ears to your own confessions and councils, that's a serious problem.
I’d stay away from the scared heart personally.
It's mostly a western right thing but even they are starting to come to the realization that it's not orthodox considering it happened post schism. To a saint that is most likely a literal satanist. They can try and make it orthodox. But I wouldn't even try. It's not even worth it
Wouldn’t accepting this devotion also imply to canonization of non Orthodox saints? That’s a slippery slope that doesn’t need to be trod.
The Latin "Saint" responsible for this devotional practice also said Jesus told her to carve his name into her chest TWICE.
@@fahn777 07:07
@@BanterWithBojan that's a bad argument, so there are things in the lives of the (Orthodox) saints that are unsavory, but we don't make devotions out of them. why should we accept one that comes directly from a (heterodox) woman having a vision of Jesus, no less (seems legit), telling her to commit self-harm twice?
I agree the the specific argument is bad tths kinda whataboutism like the fact that there are weird things in orthodox saintsvnothing to do with clearly heterosexual prelest
@@ckingufwgleej3362the difference is is that the Jesus she was talking to is not the Lord and Savior it was the devil. Jesus would never tell you to carve his name into your chest. Jesus would never tell you to do that that is something of the devil
I was relatively recently a non-Christian discerning which church to attend. Sacred heart seemed weird to me then, hesychasm didn't. Now that I know more and have heard all the arguments, my position has not changed.
The sacred heart thing always struck me as trying to dissect Christ. And Orthodoxy teaches the wholeness of Christ even down to a particle of the Eucharist. These are not similar things. God bless ☦️
Here’s the thing about it: the Sacred Heart began in the 11th century in Italy about 20 years before the great schism amongst the highly religious Troubadours. Francis of Assisi 150 years later made troubadour hymnology popular outside of Italy, but it had been locally popular since around 1000 or so, the exact starting date is unknown. It was seen as part of folk prayer and to help people pray while working, using popular music that was often sung while working rhythmically to pass the long hours.
A certain style of symbolic language developed out of the Troubadours, usually associated with the more secular romantic style, but had a certain amount of crossover, such as “Winning over the” (proverbial) “heart of a lady”.
Well, some thought, perhaps inspired by not dissimilar symbolism in “The Song of Solomon” to apply such symbolic language in their prayers to Christ.
When The Antioch Synod in the 1950s was investigating what in the western tradition was potentially compatible with their new Western Rite Vicariate, they came to different conclusions than ROCOR by digging deeper than the mad mystic nuns of 1600s France. They went all the way to the beginning. They drew a very strict line, that only versions predating those mad nuns could be used, the older the better, but this also greatly reduced the importance of the prayer, ironically.
The effect in practice has been peculiar for former Roman Catholics like myself:
Was comforted that a version is allowed, but as I used it on occasion, I found it to be increasingly less important. It lacks certain EMPHASIS that the mad French nuns such as Mary Margret added after hearing the simpler troubadour version as a child, apparently added to the later versions that have always been forbidden by Antioch, but it feels much less important without that emphasis.
As Time has gone on and I have heard the anti-Nestorian arguments, I have tended to defend the older versions, but I came to realize that shaking off the baggage of the later versions is much harder than I thought, but moreover, the rise in popularity of BLATANT Nestorians like Mari Mari makes it important for us to have NO possible ambiguity about where the Western Rite stands on the question of Nestorius. In short, while Antioch’s original logic is sound, maintaining this devotional is more trouble than its worth.
Well then what is the 11 century devotion like? How can it be maintained today ?
There is a book written by Cardinal Manning in the 19th Century called 'The Glories of the Sacred Heart'. He was a Catholic convert from Anglicanism, deeply rooted in Patristics and he was extremely iffy over the devotion. The book is an attempt to justify the devotion to those from a similar Anglican background and it makes for interesting reading, especially for Orthodox as we have very similar qualms over it as the Anglicans did. St Margaret-Mary hardly gets a look in, and there is hardly a quote from her in the book. He frames the devotion as one to Christ's 'Divine Humanity' and says it is anti-Nestorian, anti-Arian and anti-Jansenist. His arguments are scriptural, clear and largely plausible for Orthodox sensibilities. The book is also mercifully devoid of Catholic sentimentality and kitsch. However, it has not become a classic of Catholic devotion and is just a footnote in history, its obscurity these days suggests that the more sensational aspects of the devotion have triumphed.
It's obscurity today is a result of modernism and being effectively overshadowed by the Divine Mercy chaplet
@@hxplxss1835 Not exactly, the Trads don't like Manning either, because of his percieved uber-Ultramonatism . I have to say, I like Manning, but I am Orthodox, so I don't count! I really didn't think Divine Mercy devotion was that big.... but what do I know.
@@gillianc6514 Not referring to Manning, just the Sacred Heart Devotion as a whole. Only trads do it, I know a total of zero Novus Ordo attendees who do the Sacred Heart devotion.
@@hxplxss1835 That is very sad.
I'm an Orthodox convert from Anglicanism after a brief stint in the Ordinariate. Manning has, in my mind, the only appropriate idea on the Sacred Heart. The devotion made me uncomfortable as a Roman, and makes me uncomfortable now as an Orthodox.
I watch your videos from time to time because I do enjoy hearing your perspective.
To be transparent, I'm Ukrainian Greek Catholic, and I have a particular devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. It intrigued me when you said you found it interesting that no one has made a connection between the Sacred Heart and Hesychasm. However, that's basically how I understand the Sacred Heart: through Byzantine Eyes.
Accordingly, the reason Devotion to the Sacred Heart appealed to me is because, in my mind, the heart as nous and attaining the likeness of Christ (Theosis) seemed a very natural pairing.
Scripture teaches that the Patriarch David was "a man after God's own heart." See 1 Samuel 13:14 and Acts 13:22.
So, with that mind, I wrote the following prayer:
Lord Jesus Christ, Lover of Mankind,
Make my heart like Thy Most Sacred Heart:
Deify it by Thy grace divine
That Thy transfiguring love might reign therein.
And here is a portion of a Eucharistic hymn I wrote, which was inspired by the Sacred Heart/Praying the Most Holy Rosary:
O Sacred Heart, fill Thou each heart:
Lord, unto us Thy love impart.
Pour out Thy grace in this Thy Feast,
Blest Jesus Christ, our great High Priest.
Let us drink wine from Thy pierced side,
Thy Blood: that deifying tide.
The Cup of Blessing and new life,
The sacrifice which ends all strife.
Could we also do a devotion to Christs lungs?
I’m a new convert from Catholicism, was atheist before that. Idk if I ever fully understood the idea of “devotion” as they say mean it. I always believed the sacred heart as a metaphor to meditate on. The lungs would be funny, but if someone wanted to meditate on the fact that God LITERALLY breathed oxygen to stay alive I don’t see an issue with it.
(Kind of a specific meditation on Philippians 2:6-11)
To be fair we Orthodox talk of the 'prayer of the heart' and the 'Jesus prayer descending from the mind to the heart' and so forth- so the argument about lungs or even toes (which i've heard) doesn't quite add up.
I get what you mean though.
@@marcokite we do not devote any prayer to Christ body parts and/or organs
@@St.MosestheBlack Not true, Russian Saints like St. Dimitri of Rostov practiced devotions to the wounds of Jesus, the Saint in question includes the "ever living heart of Jesus" in one of his prayers. It's not common in the Orthodox world but to say our Saints have never had devotions to parts of Christ's body is inaccurate.
@@St.MosestheBlackBut you devote prayer to the Cross?
What is this golden bridge icon you’re talking about? Trying to look it up and all that shows up is the Golden Gate Bridge lol
I agree with you. The first argument against it is enough I think, I don't see the positive of adding an heterodox practice to the rite instead of simply not adding
It's because many in that rite are simply in a halfway house because of post Vatican II Rome and the Anglican church's failings and seek to bring as much stuff they "liked" over from a previous confession.
Sacred Heart goes directly against Ephesus.
One of the best things of Catholicism is the Magisterium and the collection of official documents. The devotion of the Sacred Heart and its theology is well explained right there, and however I've never seen any Orthodox adressing the official documents. The origins of the devotion from a controversial saint, the "dissection" of Christ's Body, the Nestorian nature of the Sacred Heart, etc, are completely unnecessary accusations when you have simply read what the Church says!
The only post schism devotion that has any place in Orthodoxy is Eucharistic Adoration imo
we have eucharistic adoration in the sense that we adore the eucharist, we have the great entrance every liturgy, body and blood of Christ, within the liturgy
the roman catholics have a whole devotion for it, communion is meant to be partaken in, but they dont.
My grandmother was particularly fond of the devotion of the Sacred Heart. As a Catholic, I think certain devotions can strengthen our faith, but I’m not sure why they always seem to be related to some apparition, which Catholics are not obliged to believe. The Sacred Heart, for me, has positive connotations since we can use it to meditate on the love Jesus has for mankind, though I remain skeptical of its origins. I use the devotion of the Sacred Heart to help fashion my own heart to love God and others, as instructed in the Gospel.
The Sacred Heart should never be something Orthodox embrace the main reason why I don't like it is the saint that invented it. You can go well there are some bad things that Saints did in Orthodoxy yeah sure that doesn't escape her being bad she literally believes Jesus ripped out her heart and she lived without a heart for several years and then Jesus gave her his heart this woman was literally insane. She believed that Christ married her and gave her a foreskin ring. The fact that she's even a saint is astonishing. I don't believe we should worship parts of Jesus Christ we worship Christ as a whole.
th-cam.com/video/FYBY4In1BPU/w-d-xo.htmlsi=zcX6yO2_LY-vxVrS this is a good video on the subject.
Again that's private revelation it doesn't have to be taken seriously
St. Margaret is not the one who originated the devotion. She is not even mentioned in the Papal documents that approved and explained the cult to the Sacred Heart. We do not worship the Sacred Heart as a separated entity, but as the Center of the Person of Christ, as the Real Symbol of His Love for humanity!
Question: Many Orthodox admire Francis of Assisi, but is he really as bad as the critics claim?
Some points I'd like to see addressed: Are Fr. Seraphim Rose and Ludezhenskys articles really historically accurate or do they contain many anachronisms (like attributing imaginative prayer to him before that practice even originated)? Wouldn't Francis of Assisi have been in communion with Alexandria also with Demetrios Chomatenos? Didn't St. Joseph the Hesychast take Francis' name in baptism? Didn't St. Arsenie Boca paint an icon of Francis? Aren't there icons if Francis in medieval Orthodox churches? Didn't Francis appear to a Protestant girl and convert her to Orthodoxy? Weren't monks in Byzantium allowed to hear confessions and give absolution in his day (Nadieszda Kizenko, Good for the Souls, p. 21)? Didn't John of Antioch and John the Ascetic say monks could hear confessions (Hilarion Alfeyev, St. Symeon the New Theologian, p. 18)? Wouldn't that make Francis' deathbed prayer for his followers forgiveness valid from contemporary Byzantine eyes? Did many Orthodox Saints, such as St. Paisios' own spiritual father, also show confidence of blessedness on their deathbeds? When Francis did public penance, were the people told that it was just for eating a little meat while sick as Fr. Seraphim claims, or were they told he was a glutton, gorging on chicken and weren't told he was sick (that is, was it really pride, or did it look like he was a hypocrite who needed to be punished by his own order - see Thomas Celano, Life of Francis, Chapter 19)? Was Francis the only one to receive stigmata, or are there some parallels with St. Simeon the Stylite and St. Ansbert of Rouen? Does St. Ignatius' claim, in the Arena, really seem directed at Francis or towards the author of that apocrypha?
I don’t understand why people say it’s Nestorian. Nestorianism splits the person due to the distinct natures. But worshipping part of Jesus’ created body would seem to be extremely anti-Nestorian. The only way it would be possible to worship something created is if that thing were deified by being hypostatically united to Christ’s divinity. It emphasize the unity of Christ not the duality.
It's not nestorian but it is the heresy of mutilation of God
The problem with the sacred heart (as from the "they are worshipping the physical heart" objection) is that there is special uplifted worship to the heart as a part of Christ above the whole of Christ as a person, this seems to err on the traditional view of worship, for example we dont worship Christ's hands above the whole rest of His Person simply because His Hands were that which grasped and fashioned the mud which became the eyes of the blind man or other suck things, so this idea of worshipping an anatomical part of christ above and specially seperate from His Person is problematic to me
I won't say this is a form of worship akin to nestorianism, as im not too educated on how nestorians worship, lol, but it is frightening to me that it departs from how Christ has been worshipped in the totality of His Person, Him being human and divine in perfect unity, regardless of the fact that the human body is made of certain parts
Hey Bojan, I was wondering: beacuse i noticed that some Orthodox Icons draw inspiration from the western style of icons and does the Western Rite have anything to do with it? If it does could you explain what is the connection between the Western Rite and the seemingly Western style of Iconography present in Orthodoxy?
The best advice I've gotten from two different priests on this sort of thing is: Don't worry about it. We have an abundance within our Tradition that the Church has told us is good. Why should I worry at all about specific things other churches do and to what extent they're acceptable? (I shouldn't, I do it sometimes because I am drawn to things that aren't edifying and like the gossip.) For everyone here that isn't a convert from Catholicism with a pre-existing devotion to the sacred heart, this doesn't affect us in any way.
Enjoyed this video brother Bojan thx for sharing. Sacred heart devotion never sat right with me. Thx, but no thx. Unnecessary practice that needs to stay with the RCC.
It doesn't come from the Church. That's reason enough to reject it.
Sacred Heart is inherently Nestorian and did not originate within the Church. The latter part alone should be sufficient to reject it.
Yeah.
It's not inherently Nestorian.
@@BanterWithBojan David Erhan explained it very well. :)
@BanterWithBojan with all due respect, Margaret Mary Alacoque also claimed Jesus instructed her to carve His name into her chest... TWICE.
This is clearly demonic delusion akin to Francis of Assisi's "stigmata" and is not in line with the experience of Christ we see in true Orthodox Saints.
@@OrthodoxLoner11:58
Western-Rite here, my priest said that the propers and prayers for the Sacred Heart mass are completely orthodox, the day will be renamed to focus more on Christ's compassion instead of his heart (mainly the icons that show his physical heart). He also's raises an eye at the Sacred Heart devotion in our St. Ambrose prayer book. I personally don't care what the western-rite does with the sacred heart because I'm a convert from a Baptist church, so it's not a devotion that I'm connected to. We are still ironing things out, discerning things slowly.
They took the sacred heart from the awrv
My issue with imported devotions is that they don’t share the wider liturgical context & style of the rite that has borne them. Orthodoxy doesn’t treat its devotional life in this manner. It’s like Roman Catholics adopting Orthodox texts & customs that express an Eastern approach to God with vocabulary that just isn’t the Roman-Galisian-Gregorian tradition.
That says, Roman Catholic devotions largely developed as a way for the lady, especially the illiterate, to have easily memorized prayers in place of the daily office that wouldn’t have been possible for them to use. I do find in the Orthodox world lack of devotions are easily memorized that can fulfill similar function. This is not at all to criticize the widespread reading of the Salter and activists and cannons. Just to say that I periodically enjoy using the rosary for this reason.
I was wondering about Catholic icons as well. Are there any that we Orthodox Christians should stay away from? I was recently looking through icons of the Theotokos and came across "Madonna di Montevergine" or "Mama Schiavona." The story behind it is strange. Take a look.
Stay away from any icons that break the 7th Ecumenical Council. Read the “Middle Ages” and “Renaissance” chapters of Fr Seraphim Rose’s lecture series “Orthodox Survival Course.” He speaks about how bad icons lead to bad theology which leads to heresy
@@DANtheMANofSIPAif your entire argument hinges on pieces of art it's probably bad
Because I can do the same but with iconoclast see icons lead to bad theology and hersey therefore no icons
We already worship with latria His body and blood quote-on-quote "separately" in the elements of Holy Communion, precisely because there is one whole Christ present in them.
Just as His divinity and His humanity are considered separately only within meditation and but not in reality, His Heart and the rest of His Sacred Humanity are the same way.
To appropriate what was spoken of His mystical body to His physical body:
"if one member is honored, all rejoice together with it."
I am becoming Catholic as an adult in the UK. I'm not here to argue and I am not saying this gives the devotion any authority. It is likely just figurative. But as someone interested in the devotion I thought of an old reference to God's heart...
In the Old Testament where King David is described as 'a man after God's own heart'. I find that interesting.
I am currently learning about the devotion through the book by Fr J Croiset called 'Devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus'. I know my profile picture is of Jesus' sacred heart but this to me atm represents God's love and I like this particular image.
God bless
john bekkos moment, God bless you Bojan!
Dear Bojan. How do I ask a question in private?
What about the way eastern catholics do with Christ Lover of Mankind?
You are a great channel that helps my "Troglodox" and Orthodox fetishist friends understand things more sanely about the Orthodox Church especially the many negative things associated with it.
@@CzarLazar1389 It has to do with wearing tinted glasses that cause one to always play up the strengths and ignore any flaws in any region or movement historically Orthodox while doing the opposite for the West, and anything Greek Athonite Elder Paisonostasavistos says, it's like it came from the mouth of King Solomon. I believe this is related to cognitive dissonance from seeing what they subjectively think Orthodoxy should be and what it actually is.
@@TitusConstantineyeah, as an Orthodox Christian, Orthodoxy has it's problems and unless we can acknowledge them, we cannot solve them. That being said, I still find Orthodoxy to be far less problematic and strange than Catholicism.
@@joshuaparsons887 Certainly. Orthodoxy is the fullness of the truth, no question, however Catholicism is much nearer the truth than other Christian communities and other religions. Another thing Orthodox fetishists do is fetishize the historically countries themselves. Bojan understands this and mentioned in a previous video (I paraphrase) "Westerners think Serbia is super based and trad but you literally can't get anything done unless you agree with the ruling party" and mentioned how the devils who run the country agreed to let phone companies strip mine Serbia's natural resources and pollute the environment.
@@TitusConstantine exactly, and it's incredibly important to acknowledge that the while Church is infallible and perfect, the people who comprise it are far from it and being Orthodox does not automatically make a country or person good. I find this idea of "based and tradness" is mostly found in online internet circles of young men, and while they're problematic, hopefully the Church can do them some good and show them the errors of their ways.
@@joshuaparsons887 Unfortunately, among Orthodox Greeks there is a real line of thought that "God is Greek". There is a real emotion of Greek superiority or chauvinism that they believe must be followed by the entire Church. The Orthodox fetishists eat right out of their hands. In fact, I've heard it said in some 21st or 20th century prophecy that unless the Greeks repent of their pride, they will be destroyed.
4:54 I hope it happens . Nice
You did not say my name right: (
I'm sorry :/ How is it pronounced?
Never mind its my fault I just notice I spelt it wrong🙃
herretical nestorian roman catholic tradition.
simple as.
Why don’t you watch the video?
Avid Devotee of the Most Sacred Heart. It is deeply Eucharistic, shows forth the mercy of God and the need for Reparation. Most Sacred heart of Jesus have mercy on us, help our Orthodox Brothers to be faithful to your teachings and help us Romans to be more charitable to our separated Brothers when we so often revile them. Amen.
You are separated from the Apostolic faith. May you return.
AMEN! My primary devotions are Sacred Heart, Immaculate Heart and Eucharist.
Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us!
Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!
@@St.MosestheBlackYou are the ones separated, this is why you are unable to produce the groundbreaking devotions we've brought to the world. The Sacred Heart is an ocean of mercy for mankind and our saints clearly have a very deep heartfelt bond with Jesus Christ.
@@VirginMostPowerfull we’ve brought the prayers of the saints to the world
@@St.MosestheBlack Post schism your prayer life has been very limited compared to the Catholic Church.
You did not have the rosary although you've taken it now because of its success, nor the multitude of our chaplets I won't even try to name there are so many, you did not develop Eucharistic Adoration either you took it from us because it was clearly superior worship, 5 Holy wounds devotion, 7 Sorrows of Mary devotion, Ignatian Meditations which uses our God given imagination to do focus on God, baroque iconography and passionate iconography which used the most advanced painting artistry to render glory to God, precious blood devotion, and so on and so forth.
We clearly outperformed you 10 to 1, and this was the will of God.
However I have no shame in saying I love the Jesus Prayer that was a very good one you guys came up with and I love it. I think we should share more instead of dividing between brothers.
Too complicated for me
I'm curious if you can offer credible evidence that your god is real? Thank you.
This is a slippery slope.
yup
Brody Fields
Anathema.
The Orthodox and Catholics should respect each others saints, we once were, and should again be, one church.
I mean, when their saints say stuff like "I've always said that we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a better Catholic." (Mother Teresa), it's hard to do so
There aren't saints outside the church, as Christ's body cannot be divided so the church cannot be divided.
Why would we wanna be in your church that thinks all religions are paths to god. And there are no Saints outside of the Orthodox Church.
No, we should not respect Catholic saints. No, we were never one church. No, we should never be one church. Have you not read the creed? Christ established one true holy apostolic catholic church. Not two. One. Rome left that church. That doesn't make them a second true church, it makes them schismatics. This is simple logic. If they want to return to Holy Orthodoxy they are welcome. But your implied equality and equivalence between the churches is wrong.
"Let us remember the shared foundation of our faith, rooted in the teachings of the Apostles and the early Church Fathers, both East and West. As St. Irenaeus of Lyon affirmed, 'The Church, though dispersed throughout the world, carefully preserves the faith received from the Apostles,' and as St. John Chrysostom taught, 'Where love flourishes, unity prevails.' In the spirit of these holy men, let us seek unity in our common love for Christ, honoring the diversity of our traditions as complementary gifts, working together as one body for the glory of God."