Talk:Sacred Heart

Untitled
Who painted the second painting (left side)??? I've always wanted to know.

Graphics help
I've tried to resize the images (see my markup). Why won't this work? Thanks!! --Dpr 06:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Because the "framed" setting implies the original size - you would want the "thumbnail" setting, were it not for something else - there's no point in resizing images beyond their actual size because they only come out pixelized. (Try it yourself with the preview mode.) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   16:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help! --Dpr 04:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Catholic Collaboration
I've overhauled the article, and included a significant amount of text from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Please read it over and help to wikify anything I missed. Thanks! MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 14:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Cheyinka! Incorporating all that Catholic Encyclopedia text was a big undertaking, so I'm glad you're lending a critical eye. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 15:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hee, thanks. Sorry for the dozens of edits. Do we know why St. Margaret Mary felt "dreadful confusion" when Fr. de la Colombière's "little book" was published? Cheyinka 15:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No idea. That came straight from the Catholic Encyclopedia.  I assume the quotes mean that there's a written record of her having spoken those exact words.  It might be best to take them out, though. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 15:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)According to her letters, St Margaret Mary did not want her name to be associated with this work as she felt that her sins and misery would harm the work Jesus was accomplishing. Hence her confusion which she mentions in her letters was because she made this known to all of her Spiritual Directors and frequently prayed that she remain unknown.

Couple issues
I see a couple things that need to be cleared up. Two sections "Vatican endorsement" and "Worship and devotion" seem to have come verbatim out of the Catholic Encyclopedia, which results in archaic language that needs to be simplified and cleared up. I'd also go so far to say that a bit of that information seems to detailed/obscure/irrelevent for a wikipedia article. Secondly, I am not fond of the opening. It is worded in a manner that reeks of Christian POV. Go to the Zulfiqar article about a sacred symbol in Islam and compare how the tone and language differs from the opening here (and notice the lack of a reeking Islamic POV). I'd say the opening needs a whole new rewrite, but want to hear other suggestions, or give others a chance to revise.--Andrew c 01:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Cheyinka has already taken the plunge and cleaned up some of the archaic language. I suggest going ahead and tackling that effort.  As for the opening, since that may be more contentious, why don't you propose it here?  It's only a paragraph, so it's not too long for the talk page. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 11:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

According to her letters, St Margaret Mary did not want her name to be associated with this work as she felt that her sins and misery would harm the work Jesus was accomplishing. Hence her confusion which she mentions in her letters was because she made this known to all of her Spiritual Directors and frequently prayed that she remain unknown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sue Burton (talk • contribs) 16:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

proposed new intro
Here is what I have come up with. Please suggest changes and constructive criticism.
 * The Sacred Heart is a religious devotion to Jesus' physical heart. This devotion is predominantly used in the Roman Catholic Church and represents divine love for humanity. It also stresses the central Christian concept of loving and adoring Jesus. The origin of this devotion in its modern form is derived from a French Catholic nun Marie Alacoque, who allegedly learned the devotion from Jesus in visions. Predecessors to the modern devotion existed to some extent in the Middle Ages in various mystical sects.


 * The Sacred Heart is often depicted in Christian art as a stylized heart wearing a crown of thorns, as well as on fire. Sometimes the image is superimposed over Jesus' body with him pointing at wounds in the heart. The crown of thorns represents the Passion, while the fire represents love.

-Andrew c 15:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a good start. Here's my revised version of the second paragraph (changes italicized). See what you think:
 * The Sacred Heart is often depicted in Christian art as a flaming stylized heart, pierced and bleeding from a surrounding crown of thorns. Sometimes the image is superimposed over Jesus' body with his wounded hands pointing at the heart. The wounds and crown of thorns allude to the manner of Jesus' death, while the fire represents love.

I really like that revised second paragraph, whoever posted that :)
 * Oops! That was me.  Thanks! MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 12:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I also think the first paragraph is stronger than the existing intro. --Cheyinka 03:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the imput and improvements. I sort of want to end the art paragraph with a mention of the sacred heart in popular culture (namely as a motif for tattoos). How is this for a concluding sentence: This motif has become a part of vernacular culture through its appropriation by tattoo artists. --Andrew c 03:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, that sounds good. I'd love to get a picture of a Sacred Heart tattoo for the page, but am not sure where to find one that'd be okay to use. --Cheyinka 05:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have contacted religioustattoos.net, and asked to owner if he would be so kind to donate an image to our project. Also, I'm going to make the new intro live and allow more editors to take a stab at improvements if/where needed. Thanks everyone--Andrew c 14:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Image
Here's an external link to the most common depiction of the Sacred Heart among Catholics. Does anyone know who the original artist is, what it's copyright status is, and whether we might be able to obtain a copy for Wikipedia? MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 16:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting - I've never seen one where he wasn't pointing at his heart. --Cheyinka 03:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section
"Some Catholics have been critical" apparently requires sourcing, I dunno. "Anglicans generally reject devotion to the Immaculate Heart, except for a very small number of Anglo-Catholics." - but do they reject devotion to the Sacred Heart? --Cheyinka 03:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I think the last two sentences don't fit at all, unless devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus is necessarily linked with devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Any objections to me simply removing them? Cheyinka 22:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here are the sentences I'm taking out: The use of Marian imagery among Roman Catholics underwent a revival under the papacy of Pope John Paul II, who was a devotee of the Blessed Virgin. Anglicans generally reject devotion to the Immaculate Heart, except for a very small number of Anglo-Catholics.

If someone can see why they make sense in this article, please, put them back! (Though provide explanation, too :p) Cheyinka 01:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I suspect that whoever added them was confusing the Sacred Heart with the Immaculate Heart. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 12:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Can anybody include a source as for why/where this is venerated in the Lutheran Church? I just want to know where whoever got that.Audioninja (talk) 22:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Ga nomination
I'd just like to ask, since there's a Catholic collaboration on-going with this article, do any editors forsee any large edits or content disputes to arise out of this? Because that would make it probably fail the GA nomination if the edits are too expansive and widespread, and even though there doesn't seem to be much discussion on the talk page about it, I just thought i'd ask, because I can put the article on hold on the nomination page until the collaboration is over if its likely to become unstable from the collaboration. Homestarmy 04:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The Collaboration effor is over now. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 12:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Normally, only link dates if they are full and in {{mmm dd, yyyy]] format. GA passed. Rlevse 19:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Delisted GA
Four references, while they are in this case adequate to make a stub on this subject, are not sufficient to make a fully-sized article be well-referenced, and thus, this is not a GA. Homestarmy 18:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This, like many other articles of on Catholic topics, incorporates text from the public-domain Catholic Encyclopedia. As this is the primary source for most of the material, and is well-cited itself, it is not necessary to have a plethora of other references.  You may not be familiar with the Catholic Encyclopedia Project here on Wikipedia, which would explain your delisting, but the article really should not be disqualified. - MamaGeek (talk/contrib) 13:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I submitted the article for delisting review. - MamaGeek (talk/contrib) 13:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

While the article currently appears to have been re-listed as a Good Article, I will adopt this article and endeavor to bolster its content with additional references and material. There are several important works on the Sacred Heart that I own which are internationally recognized. These will likely provide excellent material and citations. --TheTriumvir 16:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Eucharist
The article ought to explain the links between the Sacred Heart and the Eucharist. The Sacred Heart is sometimes called the Eucharistic Heart of Jesus. ADM (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Flag of the Sacred Heart
Another thing that should be mentioned is the flag of the Sacred Heart, which is a historical emblem that is associated with Sacred Heart processions. ADM (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Devotional Language
This article is beautifully written, but the language it uses is very devotional. I think that it’s not entirely appropriate for an encyclopaedia. I understand that this image is greatly loved by many people and the last thing I want to do is offend anyone; my own mother has several copies of this image in her home, so I know that it is a genuine devotional item to many. Would people mind if I went through the article and tweaked the language a little? 124.170.123.65 (talk) 08:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, I don't think this article is "perfectly written". It needs some help, but I do not see the language as being over-devotional at all. The KEY challenge for this article right now is the image actually. Please see the "attempt to delete" here: . If you have the image and can add it with the suitable copyright notice to Wikimedia that would be really useful and will be appreciated. Without the image, the article will be almost amiss. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 11:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

What's with all the "He"s and "His"s?
If editors want this to return to being a Good Article, could someone take a look at WP:MOSCAPS, and tidy up the POV capitalized pronouns.Straw Cat (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Be my guest and do it. History2007 (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Article as it stands currently complies with MOS:ISMCAPS Artemgy (talk) 08:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

cleaning up - consider moving Gallery?
Hi, in response to the template, following Category:Articles with HTML markup I have a) removed the markup (I considered converting to Template:Font color except the font was actually in a link), b) converted   to and c) cleaned up some quotations in quotations MOS:QWQ. Thus I have now removed the cleanup template. Following the comment above I also rechecked that the article still complies with MOS:ISMCAPS.

However there is an image Gallery which, following Manual_of_Style/Images editors might consider moving to Wikimedia Commons instead. Thanks. Artemgy (talk) 08:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Domskitect (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC) It has been decided that my conflict of interest is too compromising. I have therefore been instructed by my superiors to remove the link to the cathedral of the sacred heart kericho kenya, regrettably.

A diadem?
Could someone explain the sense of this newly added info on a diadem, because I do not get it? Thx. --Medusahead (talk) 10:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

To put a pontifical crown on the foot of the Sacred Heart in France. Said to be deemed improper to crown an adult form of Jesus in that time, or at least that’s what I have knew. Da Boauss Ss (talk) 02:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Or if you’re asking what is a diadem well I it’s a crown. Da Boauss Ss (talk) 02:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for answering: I know what a diadem is, I just could not find a sense or any context to the already given in the message Pope Pius X granted a Pontifical decree for the imposition of a golden diadem to the lowly foot of a statue bearing the same namesake to the Nevers Cathedral on 9 July 1908, via the Archbishop of Nevers and Besancon, Francois Leon Gauthey, both signed and notarized by the Sacred Congregation of Rites. --Medusahead (talk) 11:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Da Boauss Ss: I tried to give the statement some kind of sense and put it into any context, you could have done this also. Anyone can just remove control characters. If that statement had made much sense as it was, I would not have asked.--Medusahead (talk) 11:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Recent changes
Dear "SSPXManillensis", dear various IPs: please explain what the improvement of your version against that of 5th November should be? Namely, subdividing continous text with subheadings containing the name of Popes. It is never desirable to do so. In case there is no explanation given (as before) I shall recover the last stable version. Furthermore, it is not necessary to say things like "[he] instituted a form of Catholic Mass" if it is already said in the same sentence that a pope did it. Greetings --Medusahead (talk) 09:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC) Another one: this is not exactly what one understands as "adding information" – you've been deleting a lot of text without saying so.--Medusahead (talk) 11:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Insufficient citations
"During the month of June, which is traditionally devoted to the Sacred Heart, many observant Catholics have posted images of the Sacred Heart of Jesus on social media in opposition to pride month, which they consider to be a celebration of sin by corporations, politicians, government agencies and other secular institutions."

The sources cited in this section do not mention the use of the Sacred Heart image on social media in opposition to pride month, and I can't find any sources that suggest this is a widespread practice. Unless someone can find a source, I think this section should be removed. Bear of Tomato (talk) 06:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Merge
Both Alacoque and Mary of the Divine Heart are discussed at length here; their prayers of consecration don't need a separate page. Manannan67 (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed.—Alalch E. 22:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * +1 --Medusahead (talk) 07:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * all for it - the prayer page doesn't really have anything on it, other than the prayers themselves Onepo (talk) 07:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)