Why Orthodox Reject Sacred Heart Worship
There’s a few articles already detailing the argument that sacred heart worship within Roman Catholicism is Nestorian or Neo-Nestorian. I seek to make this less about that argument and more so about why the concept is just completely foreign to the East. I intend this to be more of an explanation instead of attack. May the Lord Jesus Christ grace me with the right words. Amen.
What is the Sacred Heart?
Sacred heart is the adoration of the heart of Jesus Christ in Roman Catholicism, and is often associated with God’s love for mankind. It is usually depicted as a flaming heart with a crown of thorns.
The practice is attested to be an outgrowth from devotion to “holy wounds” in the Catholic Church during the time of the Middle Ages. While it’s origins are debated, from anywhere from the 1100’s to the 1600’s, the vast consensus is that it does not come about and gain any real prominence until the 1600’s. The Roman Catholic Catechism describes it as, “Jesus knew and loved us each and all during his life, his agony and his Passion, and gave himself up for each one of us: "The Son of God. . . loved me and gave himself for me." He has loved us all with a human heart. For this reason, the Sacred Heart of Jesus, pierced by our sins and for our salvation, "is quite rightly considered the chief sign and symbol of that. . . love with which the divine Redeemer continually loves the eternal Father and all human beings" without exception.”
And as defined from John Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary, he states the following: “Historically the Devotion to the Sacred Heart is an outgrowth of devotion to Christ's sacred humanity, which the Church has more than once defended as adorable because the human nature of Christ forms one Person with the divine nature, and that Person is divine.”
From this we see the crux of the difference and the rejection of sacred heart worship in the Eastern perspective; it’s focus is on “Christ’s sacred humanity” not the Person of Christ Himself.
The Eastern Perspective Against It Summarized
The focus is on the human nature of Christ, not the Person.
It separates Christ into a part (hence accusations of Nestorianism).
There is no Scriptural basis.
Through the first 1600 years of Christianity this was not practiced by either East or West.
This practice is outside the realm and promises of the Holy Orthodox Church.
There are questionable things regarding the apparitions Mary Alacoque experienced or claimed to experience.
It is clear that Pope Pius XII attempted to avoid this notion of separation by stating the heart is united in the hypostasis of Jesus Christ. This is true, however what it boils down to in the East is this means the focus is on the natures of Christ and not Christ Himself.
“The first, which applies also to the other sacred members of the Body of Jesus Christ, rests on that principle whereby we recognize that His Heart, the noblest part of human nature, is hypostatically united to the Person of the divine Word. Consequently, there must be paid to it that worship of adoration with which the Church honors the Person of the Incarnate Son of God Himself.” (Pope Pius XII, Haurietis Aquas: On Devotion to the Sacred Heart, May 15, 1956).
Some send back Nestorian accusations to the Orthodox, saying refusing the sacred heart is like refusing to worship/honor Christ’s humanity. But here lies the underlying distinction of views again between East and West, simply it’s about the person of Christ, not the natures of Christ. The focus is not a dialectical human nature vs. divine nature, it’s about Him as a whole.
Catholics (or maybe even some Antiochian WR) may object and say the heart is about the Person too but.. Jesus Christ was fully human which involves more than just a heart. If you say the sacred heart worships the whole Person of Christ, you are saying the Person of Christ is only His heart or human nature.
To take from Fr. Pomazansky, in practical applicable terms, when we love someone we simply say “I love (person)” not, “I love (person)’s heart.” Our attachment or connection is not to their heart, it’s to them as an entire person.
Eucharistic adoration (in this manner) for the East too does not follow, Christ tells us to consume His Body & Blood, not to simply look at it. And to the Orthodox this is telling to our perspectives, where it seems the West has the tendency to simply observe and look at what God is doing while the East wants to encounter Him. (It’s not my intent to generalize or imply Catholics do not encounter God, I’m just trying to address what looks like to me theological undercurrents or tendencies, please forgive me if I have caused offense).
Pope Pius XII openly admits that this practice is not found in either Scripture or Tradition. For the East, if it cannot be found in either, its value is severely diminished and is ultimately, unsupported. The first 1600 years of Christianity did not have sacred heart practice, so the East is heavily skeptical of innovations, which this would fall under. Would the first millennium Christians recognize such a practice? I would argue certainly not.
The other problem is this is a post-schism practice, meaning it is outside the bounds of the Holy Orthodox Church. Naturally, this means it is without the protection of God guiding into all truth. This is pretty straightforward that Catholics would apply to their own position as well.
Finally the circumstances themselves even if we were to give an actual legitimacy to it for the sake of discussion, is bizarre. Mary Alacoque carved the name of Jesus into her chest and signed a contract in blood regarding the sacred heart, how does this not resemble demonic possession more than anything? Where does Jesus tell us to self-mutilate ourselves? For this, it can quickly devolve into offense, so I will stop here. Look into the circumstances of these apparitions for yourselves.
And finally, the council of Ephesus (the Third Ecumenical Council) in its anathemas against the heretic Nestorius, includes what we see being done with sacred heart worship.
Oh, how I hate this in Christianity. Really, people sometimes go too far in their analyses and create problems without any need. What useful things do we get from whether Mary was immaculately conceived or the relationship between the divine and human nature of Jesus? Nothing.
I’m not convinced these arguments hold any substance. If you’d like to debate this with someone, I run a WR server and there are a few people willing to debate it. You don’t have to, but extend this offer because I want to give you a more full view of sacred heart, even if I don’t support it.