Eastern Saints and Eucharistic Adoration

[malphono]

I had thought to pipe-up earlier in this thread and then, as is my wont lately, didn’t bother. With that in mind, don’t expect me to get into this very deeply.

In any case, I will say that Benediction is practiced by the Maronites, and has been since sometime in the 16th century. No matter how one slices or deices it, it is, purely and simply, a latinization, and no one is going to tell me differently. That said, though, one has to bear in mind that the service itself is not identical to the Latin practice but is, rather, an adaptation. Beyond the use of the ostensorium (of which I am not a fan but never mind that now), I personally don’t get rabid about it, at least not when it is done as a stand-alone service or otherwise removed from Mass.

Now, the business of “Eucharistic Adoration” is something a bit different. (And this is something that I do get rabic about, but I digress.) In pre-conciliar times, even in the Latin Church, so-called “perpetual adoration” was an extreme rarity. What was more common (among the Latins) was the “Forty Hours” and, though it may have been done, I don’t recall it in the Maronite Church. In post-conciliar times, and particularly in the wake of the late Roman Pontiff, however, it is done. And again, the practice is purely and simply a latinization, in this case a Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinization (which are far more insidious than the “old” variety but again I digress).

There are those who continually insist that Mar Charbel was engaged in almost constant “Eucharistic Adoration” but it seems to me that the fact that he was a hermit is generally overlooked. Would one really expect a hermit to be sitting alone in his bare little stone chapel staring for hours at a gaudy ostensorium? Highly doubtful. One would, however, expect a hermit to sit for hours in his bare little stone chapel meditating. I suppose one could, because of the presence of the Reserved Sacrament, stretch things and call it “Eucharistic Adoration” but it certainly wasn’t the same type of thing that is done now.

So, there is my :twocents: on the matter, and probably not worth half of that.

 

[dvdjs]

That’s interesting. I do nor recall that in any of the accounts of his life (or death) that I have read. Is this highlighted in any particular account that you may have read?

It is in Pekar’s: Bishops of Muckachevo.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Hahaha. Ignorance of the Oriental tradition? You mean like when people say things like “it seems as though in many ways proper Oriental theology often more closely reflects Latin/Roman theology than it does Byzantine”? Where were the nearest “Latins” in the formative days with whom the Orientals could be found to be in concord? St. Arsenius and the other Romans of the Egyptian desert? Yes, I have no problem with their theology, though something tells me that’s not what most people have in mind when they think of “Roman theology”! Or do you mean like something more like the relatively Western-looking (to a Westerner) practices of the Armenians, who let’s not forget originally worshiped in Syriac before getting their own alphabet in the beginning of the 5th century from St. Mesrop? (A significant number of you probably started out that way, too, and ended up through political machinations considering yourselves proper Byzantines…the “Melkites” aren’t named that for nothing!)

Also, why can’t we just be our own thing? I attend an Oriental Church all the time now, and I don’t really see the affinity towards Latin theology that outsiders seem to see.

Hi dzheremi.

You actually just made the point that I was trying to make, only I believe you said it better. Basically I was trying to get the point across that when most people think of Eastern and Western theology and theological approaches, they automatically think “Byzantine” and “Latin/Roman.” But, as you pointed out, the Orientals are their own breed within the Church and ought to be treated as such instead of being lumped into the “Eastern” (i.e. Byzantine) category. I only brought up the comparison and supposed parallels with Roman theology to illustrate that the Orientals are not Byzantine in their theology or approach to the Faith. Plus, I only mentioned it because I’ve heard a well-educated Coptic Catholic talk about this as well. The statement I made was a paraphrase of something I remember him saying.

But I do confess my general ignorance not only of the various Oriental theologies, but also of their liturgical traditions. I’ve only ever been to a Coptic Vespers services, and that only once. I’d like to get over to the Maronites some day, but usually I’m lucky if the family is feeling well enough just to make it to my own parish on Sunday.

 

[dzheremi]

Not a problem, Phillip. I have never heard a Copt say such a thing, but I could see it as applicable under certain conditions. It would of course need to be heavily qualified, lest people get the wrong idea on the theological front and think we accept Chalcedon; or on the ecclesiastical front and think that we adhere to the Latin Papal dogmas; or in terms of praxis and think we have a uniform expression that has only subforms/rites within it (as the liturgies of the OO churches would be tough to relate to each other in most cases as clearly as the standard Roman to the Mozarabic, Milanese, etc.); or in terms of our monastic life and think that we have Western orders or have somehow adapted Benedictine rule in our own way (rather than the rest of the world adapting from the Egyptians, Syrians, and Palestinians their own rules); or…well, you see where I’m going with this by now. It’s just easier to request that we be taken on our own merits, same as any other church would want.

 

[dvdjs]

As has been said before, Eucharistic Adoration is a tradition peculiar to the Latin West. It arose in part as a response to Protestant reformers’ attempts to reduce the Eucharist to a mere symbol. It was also, in part, an expression of popular piety and an extension of the Eucharistic celebration. Since most people couldn’t hear or understand what was going on at the Mass, when the Host was elevated that became a time to adore they newly consecrated species. This sense of adoration was eventually carried over into para-liturgical activity and became what we now know as Adoration and Benediction. At least, this is according to my Dominican liturgy professor. I may be remembering some of this incorrectly as my Liturgy class was many years ago.

I think that the interesting question is: why didn’t this practice develop in the East?
We all share an abiding sense of the real presence, a rejection of receptionism, a reverence for the holy gifts within in the liturgy. I also think that we share - maybe not, or not anymore - a high reverence for the reserved gifts. The East also had the separation of liturgical and vernacular languages, and the development of highly infrequent reception of communion. Even some flirtation with Calvinist ideas of the Eucharist. I don’t know the answer, but ISTM that everything that led to the organic development of this practice in the West, was also present in the East, but somehow it developed only among Eastern Catholics and not others.

Among the Byzantines, it is very much a Latinization. It simply doesn’t really fit into our theological framework.

I wish we would be careful to define terms. If we say that anything that caught on in a given church that did not originate there is inorganic, we are in hopeless trouble.

If we restrict ourselves to items from a different tradition or rite, then, the list gets shorter, but is still rather meaningless. My favorite example is the development of the choral traditions with part singing with standard notation in Russia. That development is unquestionably a borrowing (ultimately made very Slavic) from the West. (Like electric lighting etc.) So what? I’ve never seen a Russian in angst about this, although there are some EO in America who seek an intentional return to monophonic chant - perhaps in neumes. This, of course, is just LARPing.

Usually “Latinization” is used to convey an alien practice that was imported coercively, and has been invasive - like Russian knapweed in the western rangelands. I am not sure that this is the case for Eucharistic devotions. In my experience, they are more like the Russian music than Russian knapweed.

I think that it is very important to agree to what mean to convey when we call something a “Latinization”. We need some rigorous definitions if we are to understand what is authentic or not, or organic or not. It is easy to opine, but harder to make sense.

It’s fine as a pious devotion.

I agree.

In the 18th Century the Melkites introduced a rite of Benediction into their tradition. Whether this happened before or after the split in the Antiochian Patriarchate that took place in 1724 I do not know. But it should be noted that it was a rite of Benediction, not Adoration. In the form it takes in the Byzantine Daily Worship, it is a rather short service. I’d imagine it would take no more than five or ten minutes to celebrate. But I believe it is not at all used among the Melkites here in the U.S. It may still be used in the Middle East, but I don’t know for sure.

Yes and there was also a eucharistic devotion adapted into the Ruthenian church (written, IIRC by the Ukrainians). Magnificent chant, culminating with the elevation of the veiled chalice with the gifts and intonation of “Save your people…” just as in the DL. Followed by incense and reverence. This was done as recently as 2005 or so at the end of the Uniontown pilgrimage long, after liturgy and communion. One last moment, before departing.

Never heard a decent reason as to why some find the practice objectionable.
I also cannot understand why some pretend that this history didn’t happen. It doesn’t help at all when people post that these devotions are not practiced by Eastern Christians, when in fact they are. It does not help to suggest that they have no place, when they surely do.

When I was much younger, the sense of reverence for the Eucharist was far beyond what I see today. We did not talk in church before the tabernacle, before, during, or after liturgy. If the gifts were raised we stopped and faced and venerated them. If they were exposed we were on our knees, walking on them if necessary. If the priest were making a sick call after liturgy, there was silence if we encountered him. In the old country the priest was accompanied by a candle bearer so that people would know.

What is our sense of this today? Hospodi pomiluj! How much of the deterioration can be traced to our fearfulness of developing a stronger sense of reverence for the Eucharist?

 

[dvdjs]

Even when my own Ruthenian Church succumbed to pressure in the U.S. last century to adopt Latin practices, it opted for Benediction as opposed to Adoration

Hazy on the difference, but this has nothing to do with pressure in the US. The practice came over from the old country.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Hazy on the difference, but this has nothing to do with pressure in the US. The practice came over from the old country.

Its not as if the old country is free from Latinizations.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Hazy on the difference, but this has nothing to do with pressure in the US. The practice came over from the old country.

So it “came over on the boat”? I’m not so sure …

It is clear that it is / was practiced on both sides of the Pond, but likely a result of different circumstances and influences.

 

[thomas_jd]

Eucharisric Adoration was first recorded by the great St. Basil , DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH.
I find this rather odd that the practise is mistakenly attributed to the west!
He broke the bread in thirds, consumed one part, gave another part to the clerics, and suspended the remainder over the altar.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Eucharisric Adoration was first recorded by the great St. Basil , DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH.
I find this rather odd that the practise is mistakenly attributed to the west!
He broke the bread in thirds, consumed one part, gave another part to the clerics, and suspended the remainder over the altar.

“Suspending the remainder over the altar” very possibly/likely refers to the manner in which the East traditionally reserves the Eucharist in the tabernacle. The tabernacle in many Eastern churches is actually suspended from the ceiling over the altar.

Can you provide the passage(s) where it talks about St. Basil and adoration? I’m curious to see what they say.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

dvdjs,

Cyril Korolevsky (prior to World War II) wrote a fantastic “polemic” defining uniatism/Latinization, and the problems and scope of Latinizations. It’s available from Eastern Christian Publications and is very much worth the read. I highly recommend anyone interested check it out for a solid and clear definition of what constitutes Latinizations. Unfortunately I can’t remember off the top of my head if he says anything about Eucharistic Benediction and/or Adoration among Easterners.

Generally the Eastern attitude is that the Eucharist is for consuming, not for “looking at.” This in no way is less reverent than Adoration because we consume in order to become that which we consume. Ideally there ought to be a great deal of preparation involved when one approaches to receive the Eucharist. Likewise, as others have mentioned here, we do all of our adoring at the Divine Liturgy, especially when we’ve prepared for participation in the Divine Liturgy by also attending Vespers and/or Matins/Orthros - if those aren’t available there are canons of preparation to receive Holy Communion written up in almost every prayer book.

Lack of reverence towards the Eucharist has nothing to do with a lack of Eucharistic Adoration and everything to do with Christians being infected by the secularist society in which they live. This “infection” is cured by frequent (weekly or even daily) reception of Communion, frequent Confession, daily prayer, and participation in the liturgical life of the Church. Eucharistic Adoration (in the sense of exposition) needn’t be a part of that, even for Roman Catholics.

 

[dvdjs]

Its not as if the old country is free from Latinizations.

Let me repeat.

I think that it is very important to agree to what mean to convey when we call something a “Latinization”. We need some rigorous definitions if we are to understand what is authentic or not, or organic or not. It is easy to opine, but harder to make sense.

Moreover the point was raised in response to the idea that this service was created in the US in response to conditions here.

 

[smad0142]

dvdjs,

I have heard a lot about Adoration at the Uniontown pilgrimage. Can you provide me a copy of the service the way it is done there? Or do you know where I should go to get a copy of it?

 

[Seamus_L]

I find it ironic that while Philip Rolfes makes an argument in favor of frequent reception of Holy Communion, I’ve heard other OICWR types who at least seem to be subtly making an argument against it, claiming in even some instances that’s it’s a Latinization.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I find it ironic that while Philip Rolfes makes an argument in favor of frequent reception of Holy Communion, I’ve heard other OICWR types who at least seem to be subtly making an argument against it, claiming in even some instances that’s it’s a Latinization.

Perhaps that claim should be carefully considered and understood in the context of Eastern thought on the subject matter.

In fairness, infrequent reception of the Holy Eucharist became a trend in many Eastern Churches, Catholic and Orthodox, a trend that thoughtful pastors are trying to reverse through good adult catechesis.

Frequent reception cannot be claimed as a Latinization - it was clearly the norm of the early Church. That the trend toward infrequent reception is also evident in Orthodoxy discounts an argument attributing such to “Latinization”.

Phillip makes a correct statement, based on thoughtful reflection of the Eastern Churches themselves, that frequency of reception of the Holy Eucharist should be the norm. It would thus be a source of unity among those gathering in the name of Christ (community and Communion), and a means to ensure that faithful remain focused on a life in Christ (as we must be worthy to receive).

An interesting analysis can be found here: The Decline in Frequency of Communion in the Christian East

 

[dvdjs]

Perhaps that claim should be carefully considered …

All such claims should.

Frequent reception cannot be claimed as a Latinization - it was clearly the norm of the early Church. That the trend toward infrequent reception is also evident in Orthodoxy discounts an argument attributing such to “Latinization”.

I am not sure that sentence came out as you intended - Are you suggesting that there is no such thing as Latinization within Orthodoxy?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I am not sure that sentence came out as you intended - Are you suggesting that there is no such thing as Latinization within Orthodoxy?

Not necessarily, yet I would not want to unfairly comment on that which I do not fully appreciate, as I am not a member of an Orthodox Church. If there are Orthodox who feel that there have been Latin influences introduced into their own praxis, it would be interesting to consider their thoughts and the specific instances and circumstances.

That said, the analyses I’ve read on the phenominom of infrequent reception of Communion in Eastern Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) seem to focus on other trends which, while may be arguably influenced by the Latin Church (such as societal notions of piety), are not the direct, forced result of the Latin Church.

At some point in this or another thread, it was properly mentioned (perhaps by you) that the term “Latinization” ought to be considered and carefully defined. IMHO, it applies to both forced adoption or suppression of traditions that are not inherent to the Eastern Churches (e.g. prohibition on communicating infants, thus suppressing the Rite of Christian Initiation), as well as to those changes (adaptations or suppressions) which were “voluntarily” undertaken due to a “Latinization of the mind”.

While many may (with varying degrees of merit) debate this definition, particularly the latter part I’d imagine, in fairness I do not believe that infrequent reception of the Holy Eucharist can be thrown into this category, for reasons previously mentioned.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I find it ironic that while Philip Rolfes makes an argument in favor of frequent reception of Holy Communion, I’ve heard other OICWR types who at least seem to be subtly making an argument against it, claiming in even some instances that’s it’s a Latinization.

The arguments against infrequent reception simply don’t follow the Patristic tradition, but a later development that actually took place both in the East and in the West. It is notable that a great number of saints in the East lamented this development and encouraged frequent reception of Communion as well as Confession. A few saints that spring immediately to mind are Ignatios and Kallistos Xanthopoulos, Seraphim of Sarov, Theophan the Recluse, and Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain. If memory serves me correctly (I’ll have to check my source again) Ignatios and Kallistos Xanthopoulos actually encouraged daily reception of the Eucharist. Seraphim of Sarov and Theophan the Recluse are both known to have received Communion daily. So the claim that frequent reception of the Eucharist is a Latinization is simply unfounded. But that’s not really what this thread is about.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

At some point in this or another thread, it was properly mentioned (perhaps by you) that the term “Latinization” ought to be considered and carefully defined. IMHO, it applies to both forced adoption or suppression of traditions that are not inherent to the Eastern Churches (e.g. prohibition on communicating infants, thus suppressing the Rite of Christian Initiation), as well as to those changes (adaptations or suppressions) which were “voluntarily” undertaken due to a “Latinization of the mind”.

ByzCathCantor,

You’ll realize once you read Korolevsky’s Uniatism just how accurate of a definition you have given to Latinization. High praises to you, sir!

It must be pointed out, however, that the Orthodox Churches are certainly not free of Latin influence. The main difference is that the influence I’ve encountered seems to be on an individual and not a corporate basis. For example, St. Dimitri Rostov is known to have prayed the Dominican rosary daily. St. Theophan the Recluse prayed his own adaptation of the Stations of the Cross. But here, again, this was a private devotion for them. I don’t know that the Stations have ever been prayed in an Orthodox parish (and I say that because I genuinely don’t know). I’ve never heard of that happening. Nor have I heard of instances where Orthodox parishes have had a public recitation of the rosary (or even the Prayer Rule of the Theotokos) or “rosary guilds.” If anyone can provide an example of Orthodoxy being influenced by the West on a corporate level, I’m all ears. The only real example I can think of is Russian Orthodoxy’s adoption of choral musical arrangements in the liturgical services. But this adoption has been bemoaned as a Latinization/Westernization among a growing crowd of Orthodox, at least here in the U.S. So…

 

[ByzCathCantor]

You’ll realize once you read Korolevsky’s Uniatism just how accurate of a definition you have given to Latinization.

I eagerly await the arrival of my copy from our lending library!

It must be pointed out, however, that the Orthodox Churches are certainly not free of Latin influence.

Academically, I am sure you are correct. However, I prefer to avoid the temptation seen so often here to offer opinion on that which I cannot attest from personal witness or from careful study. I’m sure I have failed at that from time to time, unworthy sinner that I am …

There is little doubt that over the course of 2,000+ years, the Church has shaped the world and vice versa (though some may deny the latter). In that context, we’ve all been “Latinized” and “Greeked” / “Easternized” in many ways, even absent our witness to Christ in our respective Churches.