Devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and Christology

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The purpose of this study is to analyze the Christological dimensions of devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. Such an analysis is in principle fruitful and theologically useful. Devotion to the Sacred Heart has a centuries-old tradition in the Catholic Church. Therefore, its theological analysis, as well as a critical theological evaluation, is appropriate.
The article is an attempt at such an analysis, but it remains on a descriptive and summarizing level. Although I would have welcomed more theological analysis and perhaps a critique of previous theological perspectives on this devotion, the article is fruitful even in this form.

Nevertheless, I offer a few comments for the author's consideration:

1/ It would have been good to include the current state of scholarship in the introduction. We do not find any information on what studies have already been published on this topic, and thus in what way the author's study is an original contribution to the theological debate.

2/ The author works with somewhat limited literary sources. He relies heavily on the work of O'Donnell and the recent encyclical of Pope Francis. In particular, I would not take the history of devotion to the Sacred Heart from the encyclical, but rather from the scholarly literature.

3/ The need to explore the biblical meaning of the heart (chapter two) is not clearly justified. It is noted that "heart" in the Bible means "the whole person". What implications does this have for the Christological analysis that follows?

4/ The statement in section 4.1: "Devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus highlights the hypostatic union" is perhaps a little excessive. I would not say that devotion highlights the hypostatic union; rather, it is consistent with it.

5/ Similarly, I would consider the term "highlights" in the heading of 4.3. But perhaps this is my subjective perception of the connotation in question.

6/ Under 4.3 it is said, "Pius XII also explains how the hypostatic union enabled the divine Word to love us with an infinite love shared with the Father and the Holy Spirit." So without the Incarnation, God could not love man? This is a somewhat unfortunate formulation, and it doesn't seem to me that the quoted text of Pius XII intends to say this.

7/ In point 4.9, the quoted texts of Pius XII and Francis defend the relevance of the veneration of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. But they do not affirm the unity of the Sacred Heart with the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Can we say, then, that the Magisterium has not accepted the view of John Eudes quoted here? At least the passages in question do not say what Eudes does. I would therefore modify the heading and the beginning of the second paragraph.

8/ The study contains concepts from magisterial documents from the 18th century onwards, but it only gives a summary, an overview. It would have been useful to analyze the evolution, to compare the different encyclicals, and thus to see the historical evolution also in the theological justification and in the content of the devotion to the Sacred Heart. A final synthesis along these lines should be added to the conclusion. Something more specific should be included here: what is the contribution of this study to theological reflection?

9/ References need to be added for several paragraphs because there are claims made without clear sources (see pages 4, 5, 6).

10/ In the list of references, I would add Acta Sanctae Sedis or Acta Apostolicae Sedis as the source for the papal encyclicals cited.

 

I am not competent to assess the level of the English language

Author Response

I am grateful for all of these suggestions and comments.

My reply is presented anonymously:

1. It would have been good to include the current state of scholarship in the introduction. We do not find any information on what studies have already been published on this topic, and thus in what way the author's study is an original contribution to the theological debate. Author: This is done.
2. The author works with somewhat limited literary sources. He relies heavily on the work of O'Donnell and the recent encyclical of Pope Francis. In particular, I would not take the history of devotion to the Sacred Heart from the encyclical, but rather from the scholarly literature.: Author:: My references have been expanded.
3.  The need to explore the biblical meaning of the heart (chapter two) is not clearly justified. It is noted that "heart" in the Bible means "the whole person". What implications does this have for the Christological analysis that follows? Author: I have addressed this issue. In an expanded section.
4.  The statement in section 4.1: "Devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus highlights the hypostatic union" is perhaps a little excessive. I would not say that devotion highlights the hypostatic union; rather, it is consistent with it. Author: This has been adjusted.
5. Similarly, I would consider the term "highlights" in the heading of 4.3. But perhaps this is my subjective perception of the connotation in question. Author: An adjustment has been made.
6. Under 4.3 it is said, "Pius XII also explains how the hypostatic union enabled the divine Word to love us with an infinite love shared with the Father and the Holy Spirit." So without the Incarnation, God could not love man? This is a somewhat unfortunate formulation, and it doesn't seem to me that the quoted text of Pius XII intends to say this. Author: Some adjustments have been made.
7. In point 4.9, the quoted texts of Pius XII and Francis defend the relevance of the veneration of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. But they do not affirm the unity of the Sacred Heart with the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Can we say, then, that the Magisterium has not accepted the view of John Eudes quoted here? At least the passages in question do not say what Eudes does. I would therefore modify the heading and the beginning of the second paragraph. Author: A qualification has been made.
8. The study contains concepts from magisterial documents from the 18th century onwards, but it only gives a summary, an overview. It would have been useful to analyze the evolution, to compare the different encyclicals, and thus to see the historical evolution also in the theological justification and in the content of the devotion to the Sacred Heart. A final synthesis along these lines should be added to the conclusion. Something more specific should be included here: what is the contribution of this study to theological reflection? Author: In introducing the papal encyclicals I now say a bit a more about their historical contexts and differences.
9. References need to be added for several paragraphs because there are claims made without clear sources (see pages 4, 5, 6). Author: These have been added.
10. In the list of references, I would add Acta Sanctae Sedis or Acta Apostolicae Sedis as the source for the papal encyclicals cited. Author: The ASS and AAS references are now included in the reference section for the major encyclicals., except for Dilexit Nos, which has yet to be published in the AAS.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The contribution offers a good synthesis of the topic, written in a dictionary-entry style. The main drawback is that the final part relies too heavily on long excerpts from papal texts, with little or no contextualization. While this approach does show that there is a shared sentiment among the Popes regarding certain aspects of the Sacred Heart highlighted by the article, it does not engage with the differing hermeneutical approaches of the documents, which do not all present the same perspective. For example, one might consider the contrast between the views expressed in Miserentissimus Redemptor (Pius XI) and Dilexit Nos (Francis) on reparation to the Heart of Jesus. In this sense, the theological value of this part of the article is quite limited.

Author Response

I am grateful for all of these suggestions and comments.

My reply is presented anonymously:

• The contribution offers a good synthesis of the topic, written in a dictionary-entry style. The main drawback is that the final part relies too heavily on long excerpts from papal texts, with little or no contextualization. While this approach does show that there is a shared sentiment among the Popes regarding certain aspects of the Sacred Heart highlighted by the article, it does not engage with the differing hermeneutical approaches of the documents, which do not all present the same perspective. For example, one might consider the contrast between the views expressed in Miserentissimus Redemptor (Pius XI) and Dilexit Nos (Francis) on reparation to the Heart of Jesus. In this sense, the theological value of this part of the article is quite limited. Author: I have noted the difference between Pius XI and Francis on reparation. I have tried to show the theological significance in section 4 and an expanded conclusion.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you very much for considering my comments. I appreciate the author's efforts. The article has been significantly revised. The author has addressed all the points that I found controversial. I have no further comments on the current version of the article. Thank you very much for your hard work and high-quality study.