The object for which a priest offers the Eucharistic Sacrifice. This intention is distinct from the priest's decision to offer Mass, which is necessary for valid celebration. It is also distinct from the effects of the Mass which benefit those who take part in the sacrifice and attend the Mass. These are called the special fruits of the Mass and extensively are without limit, as are also the effects on the entire Church, called the general fruits of the Mass.Mass intentions refer to the particular purpose for which a specific Mass is offered. This may be to honor God or thank him for blessings received. But technically a Mass intention means that the sacrifice is offered for some person(s) living or dead. Also called the application of a Mass, it pertains to the ministerial fruits of the Mass. These fruits are both extensively and intensively finite in virtue of the positive will of Christ. Other things being equal, the more often the sacrifice is offered the more benefit is conferred.The intention for which a priest offers a Mass is determined either by the common law of the Church, or by specific precept, or, most often, by the intention of the donor of a Mass stipend, or by the priest's own devotion. Since it is not absolutely certain that the ministerial fruits of the Mass are limited, a priest may conditionally (if the one giving the stipend suffers no loss thereby) offer the Mass for several intentions. It is assumed that the priest does not intend by these second or third intentions to fulfill an obligation of justice by these conditional applications.
Does this exist in the Coptic tradition?
+ Irini nem ehmot,No.
What about it? All that "hearts of Jesus and Mary" stuff is heretical nonsense, based on post-great schism (AD 1054) developments in Latin monasteries, with the actual cults surrounding them (with specific devotions to them and whatnot) developing even much later than that, based on private revelations from supposed visitations of Mary to various European Catholics. Orthodoxy has nothing to do with such things. The Lord and the Theotokos (or any of the saints) are not vivisected for worship, or for any other reason. That is just disturbing.
St. Athanasius of Alexandria pointed out the wrongness of worshipping Christ's body in a separate way, in these words: "We do not worship a created thing, but the Master of created things, the Word of God made flesh. Although the flesh itself, considered separately, is a part of created things, yet it has become the body ofGod. We do not worship this body after having separated it from the Word. Likewise, we do not separate the Word from the body when we wish to worship Him. But knowing that "the Word was made flesh," we recognise the Word existing in the flesh as God." (Ep. ad Adelph., par. 3)
Ultimately, the object of our worship should always be God in His person (whether this be the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit). This may be done through certain portions of Him, such as if we were to find the foreskin of Jesus, we could worship His person through it. But to worship the actual segment of His nature is essentially to succumb to the heresy of Nestorianism in our worship.
This focus on one part of our Lordís physical body effectively separates the worship of the human nature of Christ from His Divine Nature; the Orthodox Church, teaches us to worship the Lord in His Divine-human unity, not in each of the natures separately. Orthodoxy maintains a more restrained and objective devotional approach to the Lord, avoiding sensuality, sentimentality, and emotionalism.
Is it also a big heresy to offer prayer to the Father united with all the Masses that has been and will be celebrated?
What does this even mean?