Eucharistic Adoration and the East

[Servus_Pio_XII]

markdum,

I question how one could love the Divine Liturgy without loving the Eucharist.

Perhaps there are some of us who think it counterproductive to, rather than entering into blessed communion with the Lord, stare at the host displayed upon the altar.

Perhaps there are some who, taken by the liturgy - which is the Church’s expression of Faith - find ourselves expressed and able to be expressed by the man-made externals which help us to praise the Trinity and to come to Communion as one Church, in full union with another through our external participation in the “smells and bells” which direct us interiorly to God.

No, the purpose of the Divine Liturgy is the Eucharist, and to love the Divine Liturgy is to love the experience of the Eucharist.

Unity in Church,
Unity in Worship,
Unity in Christ.

Glory to God!

 

[SiempreFiel]

I question how one could love the Divine Liturgy without loving the Eucharist.

I believe that it is absolutely possible for a person to love the Divine Liturgy without loving the Eucharist. Obviously, I’m not saying that this is right. I’m just saying that it may be the case.

Perhaps there are some of us who think it counterproductive to, rather than entering into blessed communion with the Lord, stare at the host displayed upon the altar.

I want to point out that Eucharistic adoration is not merely “staring” at the host. I really don’t know what your intention was when you said, “stare at the host”, but it is clearly denigrating to reduce Eucharistic adoration to “staring”.

Now, whether it is counterproductive to adore the Eucharist before receiveing communion or not, St. Augustine asserts that:

“No one eats that flesh without first adoring it…not only do we not commit a sin by adoring it, but we do sin by not
adoring it.”

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

I believe that it is absolutely possible for a person to love the Divine Liturgy without loving the Eucharist. Obviously, I’m not saying that this is right. I’m just saying that it may be the case.

I would contend that such people love music or incense but, failing to love the Eucharist, cannot love the Liturgy. For the centre and focus of the Liturgy, its purpose, is the Eucharist.

I want to point out that Eucharistic adoration is not merely “staring” at the host. I really don’t know what your intention was when you said, “stare at the host”, but it is clearly denigrating to reduce Eucharistic adoration to “staring”.

Now, whether it is counterproductive to adore the Eucharist before receiveing communion or not, St. Augustine asserts that:

“No one eats that flesh without first adoring it…not only do we not commit a sin by adoring it, but we do sin by not
adoring it.”

If I may use an apt metaphor:

If you were to fall in love with someone, would you forever gaze at that one longingly, or would you want to take that person into your own home as a beloved spouse, and enter into the fullness of love with them?

Naturally the latter.

Furthermore, if that person proposed to you, would you yet do naught but contemplate them, even adore them?

It is doubtful that you would.

Christ has proposed, He has said, “Take, eat, this is my body”. Why, then, would you do anything but?

If I may produce a corollary to Augustine’s quote,

No one adoring that flesh refrains from eating it, for to eat of it is not sinful, it is the whole end of the Eucharist; that is, becoming one with Christ.

To eat is to adore. To receive the precious body and blood of the all-holy and all-pure Lord is to love and adore him.

 

[mardukm]

Dear all,

I believe that it is absolutely possible for a person to love the Divine Liturgy without loving the Eucharist. Obviously, I’m not saying that this is right. I’m just saying that it may be the case.

(To stave off any possible repercussions from this statement by brother SiempreFiel):

I would just like to say I give him the benefit of the doubt and insist that I’m positive he is just as willing to admit that it is absolutely posible for a person to love the Mass without loving the Eucharist (or at least loving the Eucharist properly). I have met a few Latins who,love going to Mass (the music, the community feeling and stuff), but don’t have an idea that the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of Christ. They interpret the Eucharist primarily as some sort of community meal, instead of actual mystical union with the Lord.

I want to point out that Eucharistic adoration is not merely “staring” at the host. I really don’t know what your intention was when you said, “stare at the host”, but it is clearly denigrating to reduce Eucharistic adoration to “staring”.

HOW RIGHT YOU ARE!

Now, whether it is counterproductive to adore the Eucharist before receiveing communion or not, St. Augustine asserts that:

“No one eats that flesh without first adoring it…not only do we not commit a sin by adoring it, but we do sin by not
adoring it.”

I know many criticize Orthodoxy for being a bit nationalistic,… But I gotta say St. Augustine makes me proud of my (North) African heritage.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[SiempreFiel]

I would contend that such people love music or incense but, failing to love the Eucharist, cannot love the Liturgy. For the centre and focus of the Liturgy, its purpose, is the Eucharist.

If I may use an apt metaphor:

If you were to fall in love with someone, would you forever gaze at that one longingly, or would you want to take that person into your own home as a beloved spouse, and enter into the fullness of love with them?

Naturally the latter.

Furthermore, if that person proposed to you, would you yet do naught but contemplate them, even adore them?

It is doubtful that you would.

Christ has proposed, He has said, “Take, eat, this is my body”. Why, then, would you do anything but?

If I may produce a corollary to Augustine’s quote,

No one adoring that flesh refrains from eating it, for to eat of it is not sinful, it is the whole end of the Eucharist; that is, becoming one with Christ.

To eat is to adore. To receive the precious body and blood of the all-holy and all-pure Lord is to love and adore him.

Catholics adore the Eucharist:



Catholics receive Holy Communion:



Are we missing something!?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Servus Pio XII,

I would contend that such people love music or incense but, failing to love the Eucharist, cannot love the Liturgy. For the centre and focus of the Liturgy, its purpose, is the Eucharist.

If I may use an apt metaphor:

If you were to fall in love with someone, would you forever gaze at that one longingly, or would you want to take that person into your own home as a beloved spouse, and enter into the fullness of love with them?

Naturally the latter.

Furthermore, if that person proposed to you, would you yet do naught but contemplate them, even adore them?

It is doubtful that you would.

Christ has proposed, He has said, “Take, eat, this is my body”. Why, then, would you do anything but?

If I may produce a corollary to Augustine’s quote,

No one adoring that flesh refrains from eating it, for to eat of it is not sinful, it is the whole end of the Eucharist; that is, becoming one with Christ.

To eat is to adore. To receive the precious body and blood of the all-holy and all-pure Lord is to love and adore him.

I used to be of the same mind as you. I asked a Latin priest about this during my swim across the Tiber, and he set me straight. This is exactly the conversation that we had:

Marduk: “Why do you have Eucharistic adoration? Isn’t the greatest act of adoration the consummation of the Eucharist?”

Latin Priest: “Scripture equates the relationship between Christ and his Church as a relationship between husband and wife, correct?”

Marduk: “Yes, Father.”

Latin Priest, with a wry smile: “Do you think husbands and wives are consummating their relationship 24/7”

Marduk, laughing: “Of course not, Father.”

Latin Priest: “Well, we have Holy Communion because we want to consummate our relationship with Christ. We the Church, like husband and wife, become one flesh with Him in that intimate moment. But most of the time husbands and wives who truly love each other just want to spend time in each others’ presence. That is what we do at Eucharistic adoration.”

Being married to a beautiful, Christian Filipina wife, I felt like scales fell from my eyes when he offered that explanation. Ever since I translated to the Catholic Church, I go to a Latin Church for Eucharistic adoration whenever I am able (unfortunately and regretfully, I am not able to do so very often). I do love to be in His REAL Presence as much as I can.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

That is indeed a clever priest you have got!

I have nothing cleverer to say, save for what an old Ukranian (Catholic) priest once said, “God wants mouths, not monstrances”.

I agree that husbands and wives do not consummate continuously, but I should hope that when Christ enters my mouth, I should become His monstrance and, furthermore, that His dwelling in my heart would allow me never to leave his presence.

Still, your words provoke thought and contemplation from me.

I shall pray on them.

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

Are we missing something!?

Siempre,

I never suggested that you might be “missing” anything.

Perhaps “misinterpreting” might be a better word.

Anyway, I have some praying to do over wise Marduk’s words.

 

[SiempreFiel]

Perhaps “misinterpreting” might be a better word.

OK.

What do you suggest we might be “misinterpreting”?

Anyway, I have some praying to do over wise Marduk’s words.

That is definetely a good thing to do. I, myself, have turned to brother Mardukm for help. He is always there.

Thank you brother Mardukm!!!

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

What do you suggest we might be “misinterpreting”?

What it means to adore.

 

[SiempreFiel]

What it means to adore.

You think the Church misrepresents what it means to adore? OK. Could you expand some more?

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

You think the Church misrepresents what it means to adore? OK. Could you expand some more?

Don’t misquote me. The Latin extraliturgical practice of Adoration misrepresents what it means to adore.

And I have expanded…consuming is consummating, consummation is adoration.

Any less is to neglect the whole purpose of the Eucharist, to enter into full communion with Christ and with His Mystical Body.

Frequent communion is, of course, beneficial insofar as it is a continued participation in this Union. However, to my humble understanding:

1. Simply praying in the same room with the Sacrament exposed, however much it expresses a faith in the Real Presence, takes the Sacrament out of the context of the Liturgy, making it a private devotion and
2. Fails to acknowledge the actual indwelling of Christ which comes about from the reception of communion. If Adoration is exercised simply “to be in the presence of Christ”, and the Adorer has received Communion, He ought to be in the presence of Christ wheresoever he may be.

The Real Presence is absolutely acknowledged, quite fully, by a proper liturgical understanding and reception of Communion. For unless each Prosphora becomes the same body and blood of Christ, each is a separate bread and the union is not real.

Since the Union between Christ and His Body is real, the presence of Christ must also be Real.

Marduk,

Your words are wise, but I must ask this:

If we receive communion as a consummation of our relationship with Christ, is it not so that He becomes present in us? That being the case, the marriage allegory is not destroyed by a failure to “adore” in the Latin sense.

We (should) dwell in and enjoy Christ’s presence as a result of our participation in the Sacrament. Weekly, daily or other timed reception of Communion is, as consummation in marriage, a continual fulfillment of our relationship with Christ, which is ongoing in-or-out of the adoration chapel.

I do not degrade the value of quiet prayer in a holy place to realise and reflect on our relationship with Christ; I question the beneficence of displaying the Sacrament in such a context.

 

[SiempreFiel]

Don’t misquote me. The Latin extraliturgical practice of Adoration misrepresents what it means to adore.

You are making an unnecesary distinction between the Church and what the Church teaches.

The “Latin liturgical practice of Adoration” is part and parcel of the Church. As such, you cannot separate the one from the other. In other words, if you say that the Latin extraliturgical practice of Adoration misrepresents/misinterprets what it means to adore, then ultimately you are saying that the Church Herself misrepresents what it means to adore.

1. Simply praying in the same room with the Sacrament exposed, however much it expresses a faith in the Real Presence, takes the Sacrament out of the context of the Liturgy, making it a private devotion and

Is there something wrong with private devotion?

1. Fails to acknowledge the actual indwelling of Christ which comes about from the reception of communion. If Adoration is exercised simply “to be in the presence of Christ”, and the Adorer has received Communion, He ought to be in the presence of Christ wheresoever he may be.

You are mistaken when you say that "Adoration is exercised simply ‘to be in the presence of Christ’. Like I said, Eucharistic adoration is not merely staring at the host. Eucharistic adoration is a channel of grace by which morality is restored, virtue is nourished, the afflicted are consoled, and the weak are strengthened!

Finally, I would like to leave you with a quote from Pope Pius XII on Eucharistic adoration. Meditate on it and realize that Eucharistic adoration is much more than just being in the presence of the Lord!

"The Blessed Eucharist is for Its adorers an inexhaustible source of light and strength. Those who…gather together in adoration with the angels…draw abundantly for themselves and for all the Church waters from the fountains of the Savior." Pope Pius XII

 

[Diak]

We have to be very careful of judging another particular Catholic tradition as not somehow being “full” because of a practice or tradition that differs from that of our own. Respect is mutual, and Latin and Eastern Catholics (in my case Ukrainian Greek Catholics) are in full and complete Eucharistic communion -the Eucharist is Itself an excellent public manifestation of communion (and Communion ) .

In the Eastern Catholic Churches, a formal liturgical veneration of the Blessed Sacrament has not developed outside of the Divine Liturgy except directly as an imitation of the Latin practice. Even then it has only arisen in the last two hundred years, and in nearly all cases it has ceased in favor of restoration of more ancient particular Eastern liturgical services.

While Adoration is not a practice of my own Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, this is one very beautiful aspects of Latin practice, and I would even say a magnificent display of the particular Latin liturgical genious.

Although it arised because of questioning of the Real Presence that did not happen in the same way in the East, it has arisen to a beautiful practice. One practice that has unfortunately fallen into disuse in many Latin parishes is Benediction. Sunday evening Vespers and Benediction was a fairly common practice in many Latin parishes, and it is good to see Adoration and Benediction becoming more common again.
FDRLB

I also will slip into a Perpetual Adoration chapel every now and then. Keep up the good work, Latin Catholic brethren!!!

 

[SiempreFiel]

We have to be very careful of judging another particular Catholic tradition as not somehow being “full” because of a practice or tradition that differs from that of our own. Respect is mutual, and Latin and Eastern Catholics (in my case Ukrainian Greek Catholics) are in full and complete Eucharistic communion -the Eucharist is Itself an excellent public manifestation of communion (and Communion ) .

In the Eastern Catholic Churches, a formal liturgical veneration of the Blessed Sacrament has not developed outside of the Divine Liturgy except directly as an imitation of the Latin practice. Even then it has only arisen in the last two hundred years, and in nearly all cases it has ceased in favor of restoration of more ancient particular Eastern liturgical services.

While Adoration is not a practice of my own Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, this is one very beautiful aspects of Latin practice, and I would even say a magnificent display of the particular Latin liturgical genious.

Although it arised because of questioning of the Real Presence that did not happen in the same way in the East, it has arisen to a beautiful practice. One practice that has unfortunately fallen into disuse in many Latin parishes is Benediction. Sunday evening Vespers and Benediction was a fairly common practice in many Latin parishes, and it is good to see Adoration and Benediction becoming more common again.
FDRLB

I also will slip into a Perpetual Adoration chapel every now and then. Keep up the good work, Latin Catholic brethren!!!

Father Deacon,

Thank you for your post! I’m in complete agreement with you.

I want to make it very clear that by defending the adoration of Jesus Christ present in the Holy Eucharist I’m not:

• Implying that that is the only and best way to adore the Eucharist!
• Implying that the Eastern Catholic Churches do not adore the Eucharist!
• Implying that Eastern Catholics should adopt our way of worshiping the Eucharist!

If I have done any of the above, please bring it to my attention so that I can retract whatever I said.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Servus Pio XII,

If we receive communion as a consummation of our relationship with Christ, is it not so that He becomes present in us? That being the case, the marriage allegory is not destroyed by a failure to “adore” in the Latin sense.

We (should) dwell in and enjoy Christ’s presence as a result of our participation in the Sacrament. Weekly, daily or other timed reception of Communion is, as consummation in marriage, a continual fulfillment of our relationship with Christ, which is ongoing in-or-out of the adoration chapel.

I do not degrade the value of quiet prayer in a holy place to realise and reflect on our relationship with Christ; I question the beneficence of displaying the Sacrament in such a context.

Comparing this to my marriage - when my wife and I fight, my wife walks away, and it is sometimes through much effort on my part that she even lets me near her. And sometimes it is me who is the stubborn one.

But God loves us so much more than a wife or husband can love each other, wouldn’t you agree?.

I call Eucharistic adoration “BATHING IN THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST.”
I agree with everything you state. HOWEVER, we are not always “in Christ” because we are sinners, and we DO sin (comparably when husband and wife fight). When my sin weighs down upon me, and I have not had a chance to avail myself of the Sacrament of Confession, I go to Eucharistic adoration to get comfort from His Real Presence. I know He is actually there in his FULL PERSON, Body, Blood Soul, and Divinity. Despite my sinfulness - despite my not being “in Christ” all the time - I am SOOOO thankful to have the opportunity to dwell/bask in his Real Presence. It truly offers this great sinner so much comfort and strength to have the Grace of His Presence. Unlike my wife who sometimes walks away from me, the Latins have given us the opportunity to be in His Real Presence despite our sinfulness.

To me, it is a SURE and REAL sign that God accepts us despite our sinfulness.

There is no theologizing necessary in this area. All I know is that I feel thoroughly blessed to be in the Presence of my beloved Jesus Christ, whether I am “in Him” or not (i.e., when I have sinned).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

You are making an unnecesary distinction between the Church and what the Church teaches.

The “Latin liturgical practice of Adoration” is part and parcel of the Church. As such, you cannot separate the one from the other. In other words, if you say that the Latin extraliturgical practice of Adoration misrepresents/misinterprets what it means to adore, then ultimately you are saying that the Church Herself misrepresents what it means to adore.

It is not inescapably part of the Church, as not all of the particular Churches exercise it! The Holy Liturgy itself is part and parcel of the Church, for no Church is Catholic without it.

The Rosary, however common it may be, and however the Popes may have lauded it, is not part and parcel of the Catholic Church, for it is a purely Latin devotion.

The same holds true for Adoration.

Is there something wrong with private devotion?

In my mind there is something fundamentally wrong with making what is the communal Sacrament of the liturgical Church into a private devotion, yes.

You are mistaken when you say that "Adoration is exercised simply ‘to be in the presence of Christ’. Like I said, Eucharistic adoration is not merely staring at the host. Eucharistic adoration is a channel of grace by which morality is restored, virtue is nourished, the afflicted are consoled, and the weak are strengthened!

Is not reception of Communion a much more perfect accomplishment of all of these things?

Finally, I would like to leave you with a quote from Pope Pius XII on Eucharistic adoration. Meditate on it and realize that Eucharistic adoration is much more than just being in the presence of the Lord!

Now I am terribly confused! On the one hand, Marduk “bathes in the Real Presence of the Lord”, while on the other you say that there is much more beyond this bathing!

Someone, please tell me, what and why?

---

Marduk,

I will not degrade that which you find spiritually beneficial. I am glad it gives your soul comfort to attend Adoration, but simultaneously the rationale confounds me.

Forgive, then, if I have caused offence. I mean not to degrade.

-SPXII

 

[SiempreFiel]

It is not inescapably part of the Church, as not all of the particular Churches exercise it! The Holy Liturgy itself is part and parcel of the Church, for no Church is Catholic without it.

Obviously, I meant the Roman Church. Eucharistic adoration is part and parcel of the Roman Church, the Church to which you and I belong to.

The Rosary, however common it may be, and however the Popes may have lauded it, is not part and parcel of the Catholic Church, for it is a purely Latin devotion.

The Holy Rosary is part and parcel of the Roman Church.

In my mind there is something fundamentally wrong with making what is the communal Sacrament of the liturgical Church into a private devotion, yes.

You claim that there is something “fundamentally” wrong, yet, you don’t tell us what it is that is fundamentally wrong.

In addition, you cannot say that we have changed the communal Sacrament of the Church into a private devotion. The Church has not changed anything; we still receive Holy Communion when we gather as a family of faith to celebrate the Eucharist.

Is not reception of Communion a much more perfect accomplishment of all of these things?

Is the fact that the reception of Holy Communion is better than Eucharistic adoration a sufficient reason to not have Eucharistic adoration? I believe not! Similarly, just because the graces received through Holy Communion are greater than prayer, it does not follow that we must cease to pray!

Now I am terribly confused! On the one hand, Marduk “bathes in the Real Presence of the Lord”, while on the other you say that there is much more beyond this bathing!

Don’t misquote me. I said that Eucharistic adoration is much more than just staring at the host. You denigrated Eucharistic adoration by reducing it to mere “staring”. Naturally, I had to correct you.

There’s no reason whatsoever for you to be confused as Marduk and I are in agreement in everything we have said.

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

Obviously, I meant the Roman Church. Eucharistic adoration is part and parcel of the Roman Church, the Church to which you and I belong to.

The Holy Rosary is part and parcel of the Roman Church.

This was my point - the Church is more than Roman, and just because a certain Roman practise may be very, very common it does not imply that it is an inseparable part of the Catholic faith, as demonstrated by the many, many Catholics who make no use of it whatsoever and yet live what the Church Herself considers full Christian lives.

You claim that there is something “fundamentally” wrong, yet, you don’t tell us what it is that is fundamentally wrong.

In addition, you cannot say that we have changed the communal Sacrament of the Church into a private devotion. The Church has not changed anything; we still receive Holy Communion when we gather as a family of faith to celebrate the Eucharist.

If you consecrate a host and place it forever in a monstrance for the purpose of perpetual adoration, what becomes of the words spoken at the consecration itself, “Take, eat” and “Do this in remembrance of me”? Neither command is achieved.

The consecration itself is not just to make Jesus present, it is to make Jesus present with a purpose, and that purpose is for the benefit of the whole Church’s unity in Him. Too often we dismiss the Eucharist with the mere words that “Jesus is present”.

He is also present for a specific purpose, as with all Sacraments.

Is the fact that the reception of Holy Communion is better than Eucharistic adoration a sufficient reason to not have Eucharistic adoration? I believe not! Similarly, just because the graces received through Holy Communion are greater than prayer, it does not follow that we must cease to pray!

It is not a question of prayer; prayer completes the Eucharist. Remember, the Eucharist is the source of Christian life, as well as its summit (quoting VII again).

It is the source insofar as it is the foundation from which Union with Christ begins. It is the summit in that it is the highest act of Union with Christ, for one properly disposed.

Thus, adoration is “just” prayer, and I fail to see how the monstrance aids prayer any further, provided that prayer was begun with a reception of Communion.

There’s no reason whatsoever for you to be confused as Marduk and I are in agreement in everything we have said.

You had every right to correct my poor diction, but then you went further -

You insisted that adoration was “more” than simply being in the presence of Christ, while Marduk insisted that it was the very presence of Christ Himself that made Adoration worthwhile.

So I feel that I have every right to be properly and profoundly confounded.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

There was a Seventh Day Adventist woman attending Andrews University in Berrien Springs, MI not all that far from Notre Dame in South Bend, IN. She was getting her masters in theology and so frequently made the trip down to South Bend to use the University library.

Occasionally while there, she would slip into the church in the afternoon for a little quiet time while they were having adoration. Now as an Adventist, she would never have gone to a Mass, but she enjoyed the quiet. There she was wooed by the Sacrament. Occasionally became frequently and finally she became Catholic and a Discalced Carmelite.

It should be remembered in the course of this conversation on the pros and cons of adoration of the exposed Sacrament, that there are entire orders of nuns and monks (many of them cloistered) who are devoted to Perpetual Adoration. Mother Angelica of EWTN was originally a member of the Poor Clares of Perpetual Adoration.