Sacred Heart and Nestorianism?

[ArmyMatt]

Ain't my fault that after two and a half years of weekly catechism courses and attending liturgy every single week, going out of my way to volunteer at my parish's soup kitchen, and trying to go to confession as much as I could without receiving absolution, my parish priest for all intents and purposes told me to get lost just because he didn't like me personally.

that's personal, but still doesn't mean it's your business.

Truly, there are prostitutes that are entering into the Kingdom of God before some Orthodox are. In fact, I would say most prostitutes compared to most Orthodox.

you could very well be correct.

 

[TheLostCoin]

This is amazing, some people think I am endorsing the sacred heart & others think I am putting it down as an example of Nestorianism within the RCC.

All I have been saying is that this is not our tradition, poses theology problems for us, did not think it is Nestorian, and to leave it be but look for any general good it might have as exemplified by the care providers of the Hospice of the Sacred Heart.

Many former Protestants and Trad Cats have a lot of baggage and resent that they, quite frankly, need to grow up from.

 

[TheLostCoin]

that's personal, but still doesn't mean it's your business.

You're right. I'll shut up.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

I think I watched that video too a while back, he’s an Eastern Orthodox youtuber called David, he has some good content and he’s well versed in theological issues I must say. I personally find it odd that one would like to venerate a body part of Christ instead of or alongside of Christ as a whole. Most of these strange Roman Catholic venerations also have extremely weird back stories some of which are quite disturbing, such as Roman Catholic nuns claiming to have had encounters with Christ with sexual overtones.

Sacred heart spiritualized would place a different meaning, like circumcised heart. I’ve wondered how a body could be cut into 12 pieces but that might explain what happened to the Bejamite girl.

 

[Not David]

Yeah to be honest, unless it started impacting Eastern Orthodox tradition, I don't see the point in going out of your way to criticize it. The Sacred Heart began as a private vision given to a Catholic nun, which was later spread by the Jesuits.

Considering that Catholics very clearly don't believe in Nestorianism, and their inherent spirituality will be different from Eastern Orthodoxy, why is it the business of the Orthodox to go out of their way condemning the spirituality of monks and nuns that, quite frankly, put to shame a lot of Orthodox?

It shouldn't be the business of the Orthodox to judge the spiritual lives of non-Orthodox, unless it becomes hostile towards Orthodoxy.

Why don't you say a prayer for them instead of wasting your time complaining on the internet to the winds? What, will this one thread suddenly stop the Sacred Heart devotion?

Nobody likes it when the Catholics criticize Palamism as a Christianized yoga.

And you think you complaining will make me say "I am sorry for creating this thread"?

 

[dzheremi]

Let's refocus onto the actual topic of the thread, ok?

I think it is obvious from what has already been presented by Fr. Matt and others that this sort of devotion is unacceptable in EO tradition, and there is a sense in which it is considered to be Nestorian or quasi-Nestorian, in that it divides Christ into 'pieces' and then worships those pieces in isolation from the Body as a whole (cf. Nestorianism's radical disjunction between the human the divine in Christ). My question following from that would be for people like David and others from Latin America or other places where the 'sacred heart' plays some part in the indigenization of Christianity itself (see: Juan Diego in Mexico and the vision of The Virgin of Guadalupe), is there a way by which people can be brought out from that? Not to air dirty laundry, but I have seen it in some places which presumably recently become EO or are maybe working in a 'Western Rite' paradigm (I think it was in Guatemala, but these pictures were from quite a few years ago by now, and I have no idea how I'd go about finding them), where the argument has been that it is kept as a part of a more general Western Christian patrimony, but they just don't teach the practices and theology connected to it, because that's wrong. What would EO people here think about that? I must admit it gives me pause, as it seems like this kind of 'half in, half out' idea of inculturation eventually creates a lot of problems, as pointed out earlier by TheLostCoin with regard to the Coptic parish/es he went to which were Protestantized (and for our part, we recognize that this is a problem and are working on it, though again that's not the point of the thread). I don't see how you can be 'Orthodox' because that's what the sign on the door says, but inside there's stuff that isn't acceptable. What would be a good EO response to this? I'm thinking of an anecdote I heard on AFR years ago regarding some Melkite Catholics who wanted to come into Eastern Orthodoxy and had asked to retain some of their distinctive practices, and were flatly told that they'd have to leave all that behind. Is it that simple? And if it is, why do we still see such things anywhere? (Is it a matter of ineffective or MIA bishops, overly accommodating priests, or what? And then the question becomes how do you deal with that? See, it just opens up this giant vortex of nonsense...)

 

[Barney2.0]

The Syro-Malabar Catholics from southern India and the Chaldean Catholics from Iraq both have an anaphora supposedly authored by Nestorius which they still use to this day in their liturgies, though sometimes they put it under a different name for some reason.

Here is a video of the Syro-Malabar Catholics celebrating the 'Qudasha of Mar Nestorius', in the Syro-Malabar eparchy of Great Britain:

How can you even be in full communion with the Bishop of Rome and a fully Chalcedonian Church while saying “Mar Nestorius,” this is absolutely beyond me.

 

[Barney2.0]

Although you Copts have a lot more to worry about than the Eastern Orthodox; I've experienced Protestantization and Catholicization first hand at a Coptic parish.

Other than the use of statues and a growing emphasis on the Bible, I’ve seen no Protestanization or Catholicization happening in the Coptic Church. The only thing remotely Protestant about the Coptic Orthodox Church is that it endorses and uses an Arabic Bible known as the Van Dyke translation made by Protestants, literally the Arabic version of the King James Bible, aside from that the Coptic Church is not going Protestant. By the way aside from the common goal of converting Muslims to Christianity and defending Christianity from criticism, in the Arab world the Coptic Orthodox Church and the newer and more modern Protestant/Evangelical denominations are always at each other’s throats.

 

[dzheremi]

How can you even be in full communion with the Bishop of Rome and a fully Chalcedonian Church while saying “Mar Nestorius,” this is absolutely beyond me.

To be fair (?) to the Syro-Malabar Catholics and Chaldeans, they were encouraged (just like all the other Eastern/Oriental Catholics) by recent popes and bishops to return to their traditions and get rid of accrued Latinizations, and this is a part of their tradition, since they came from different populations of Church of the East/Nestorian people.

But yeah, I don't get it. Some people say Nestorius was treated poorly with no real justification (academics and such, not even just the remaining Nestorians), but after reading what he taught, I do not agree.

 

[ArmyMatt]

But yeah, I don't get it. Some people say Nestorius was treated poorly with no real justification (academics and such, not even just the remaining Nestorians), but after reading what he taught, I do not agree.

I don't either. he is quoted as saying that the infant Christ didn't govern the universe...

 

[Barney2.0]

To be fair (?) to the Syro-Malabar Catholics and Chaldeans, they were encouraged (just like all the other Eastern/Oriental Catholics) by recent popes and bishops to return to their traditions and get rid of accrued Latinizations, and this is a part of their tradition, since they came from different populations of Church of the East/Nestorian people.

But yeah, I don't get it. Some people say Nestorius was treated poorly with no real justification (academics and such, not even just the remaining Nestorians), but after reading what he taught, I do not agree.

Yeah, but still, I’ve heard the Melkites only accept seven Ecumenical Councils, then what happens to councils like Trent that are binding on all Catholics, I’ve also heard the Coptic Catholics don’t accept Chalcedon, how does this even happen?

Although my priest and other priests from the Coptic and Syriac Churches I’ve listened to describe him in an extremely negative light, I believe he meant well, but ultimately his theology meant that we would have to affirm two Hypostases in Christ, the problem with Nestorius is that he refused to be corrected even when proven wrong. I don’t think he was some malicious character considering the amazingly respectful dialogues between him and Saint Cyril Of Alexandria that even shocked me, but his theology ultimately was heretical This is why we always have to learn with humility and accept that we are wrong when we are actually wrong, the moment you forget about humility is the moment you become Nestorius.

 

[dzheremi]

Yeah, but still, I’ve heard the Melkites only accept seven Ecumenical Councils, then what happens to councils like Trent that are binding on all Catholics, I’ve also heard the Coptic Catholics don’t accept Chalcedon, how does this even happen?

I've heard that about the Melkites (as part of their attempt to reunite with the Antiochian EO via the Zoghby Initiative in the 1990s, which the Antiochian EO did not accept), but I've never heard that about the Coptic Catholics. It doesn't surprise me, but I don't understand it either.

Although my priest and other priests from the Coptic and Syriac Churches I’ve listened too describe him in an extremely negative light, I believe he meant well, but ultimately his theology meant that we would have to affirm two Hypostases in Christ, the problem with Nestorius is that he refused to be corrected even when proven wrong. I don’t think he was some malicious character considering the amazingly respectful dialogues between him and Saint Cyril Of Alexandria that even shocked me, but his theology ultimately was heretical This is why we always have to learn with humility and accept that we are wrong when we are actually wrong, the moment you forget about humility is the moment you become Nestorius.

Yes, that's fine, I suppose. It's not anything against any individual as a person, but his teaching could not be accepted.

 

[Not David]

Let's refocus onto the actual topic of the thread, ok?

I think it is obvious from what has already been presented by Fr. Matt and others that this sort of devotion is unacceptable in EO tradition, and there is a sense in which it is considered to be Nestorian or quasi-Nestorian, in that it divides Christ into 'pieces' and then worships those pieces in isolation from the Body as a whole (cf. Nestorianism's radical disjunction between the human the divine in Christ). My question following from that would be for people like David and others from Latin America or other places where the 'sacred heart' plays some part in the indigenization of Christianity itself (see: Juan Diego in Mexico and the vision of The Virgin of Guadalupe), is there a way by which people can be brought out from that? Not to air dirty laundry, but I have seen it in some places which presumably recently become EO or are maybe working in a 'Western Rite' paradigm (I think it was in Guatemala, but these pictures were from quite a few years ago by now, and I have no idea how I'd go about finding them), where the argument has been that it is kept as a part of a more general Western Christian patrimony, but they just don't teach the practices and theology connected to it, because that's wrong. What would EO people here think about that? I must admit it gives me pause, as it seems like this kind of 'half in, half out' idea of inculturation eventually creates a lot of problems, as pointed out earlier by TheLostCoin with regard to the Coptic parish/es he went to which were Protestantized (and for our part, we recognize that this is a problem and are working on it, though again that's not the point of the thread). I don't see how you can be 'Orthodox' because that's what the sign on the door says, but inside there's stuff that isn't acceptable. What would be a good EO response to this? I'm thinking of an anecdote I heard on AFR years ago regarding some Melkite Catholics who wanted to come into Eastern Orthodoxy and had asked to retain some of their distinctive practices, and were flatly told that they'd have to leave all that behind. Is it that simple? And if it is, why do we still see such things anywhere? (Is it a matter of ineffective or MIA bishops, overly accommodating priests, or what? And then the question becomes how do you deal with that? See, it just opens up this giant vortex of nonsense...)

Yeah, otherwise it would be like the Catholic Church who recognizes Gregory Palamas as a sain even when he criticized them.