Eucharistic Adoration and the East

[SiempreFiel]

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.

In any case, it can still be said that you think that the Roman Church misinterprets what it means to adore! That is quite a lofty idea!

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.

Christ’s command may not be achieved through perpetual adoration, but that does not mean that we are not fulfilling his command at all. The Church, still “takes, and eats” Christ’s body. The Church, still follows Christ’s command! Perpetual Adoration does not nullify Christ’s command. In fact, when one participates in Perpetual Adoration, one is doing the will of God! Didn’t Jesus Christ Himself say, “Indeed, this is the will of My heavenly Father, that everyone who looks upon the Son, and believes in Him, shall have eternal life. Him I will raise up on the last day”? That is exactly what we do in Eucharistic adoration, we “look upon the Son”!

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”.

Agreed.

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.

In POST #13, I said that Eucharistic adoration is a channel of grace by which morality is restored, virtue is nourished, the afflicted are consoled, and the weak are strengthened!

To which you replied: "Is not reception of Communion a much more perfect accomplishment of all of these things?

Now, I ask you: Is the fact that the reception of Communion accomplishes all these goals more efficaciously than Eucharistic adoration a sufficient reason to not have Eucharistic adoration?

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.

There’s no opposition in what Marduk and I have said regarding Eucharistic adoration! We are in complete agreement. We hold the same faith!

I’m confident that Marduk would agree with the following statement:

Eucharistic adoration is worthwile because Christ Himself is present in the host and because Eucharistic adoration is a channel of grace by which morality is restored, virtue is nourished, the afflicted are consoled, and the weak are strengthened!

As you can see, Marduk’s statements and my statements regarding Eucharistic adoration are completely compatible.

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

You have the right to be confounded, no doubt. But there is no reason for you to be confounded as Marduk and I believe the same things.

 

[Woodstock]

One side seems to be arguing its validity while the other argues its usefulness and application. I think it is important to point out here that a Catholic of any Church would not need to understand or practice Eucharistic Adoration to be in good standing with the Church.

It is a foreign idea to many Catholics who can’t understand it when they encounter it. It isn’t anti-Catholic to say you are baffled, confounded, confused, not called to it, and have no place for it in your prayer life or devotions. Entire Catholic Churches say the same.

 

[SiempreFiel]

One side seems to be arguing its validity while the other argues its usefulness and application. I think it is important to point out here that a Catholic of any Church would not need to understand or practice Eucharistic Adoration to be in good standing with the Church.

It is a foreign idea to many Catholics who can’t understand it when they encounter it. It isn’t anti-Catholic to say you are baffled, confounded, confused, not called to it, and have no place for it in your prayer life or devotions. Entire Catholic Churches say the same.

I agree with you!

The only reason why I felt obligated to join the discussion is because I felt that brother Servus Pius XII denigrated Eucharistic adoration by reducing it to mere “staring at the host”. It was this disrespectful remark that compelled me to offer a defense for the Western practice of Eucharistic adoration.

To reiterate what I said in POST #15, I would like to make plain that by providing a defense for Eucharistic adoration I’m in no way asserting that:

• Latin devotions should be practiced by all Catholics!
• Latin devotions are superior to Eastern devotions!
• Eucharistic adoration is the one and only way to adore Our Lord Jesus Christ!

I firmly believe that there should be mutual respect for each other’s own traditions and practices, be it Western or Eastern.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

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.

Catholics who participate in adoration are doing more than “staring at the host displayed.”

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

Nice use of the word “naught” - you just don’t see that every day…

But why does it have to be an either/or? Do Catholics not receive?

They don’t have to be seen as wrong for us to justify not having something as part of our tradition.

 

[Alexios]

In the same way we could say that venerating icons is not intrinsic to the Church, since many particular Churches do not nor have ever practiced it. But by talking to some Byzantines you’d think it was right up there with more intrinsic stuff.

 

[Alexios]

So what I’m saying is that if people or even entire ritual Churches do not wish to practice Eucharistic Adoration, then that is fine.

It is no different than the idea of venerating icons, which some people do not wish to do and entire ritual Churches have never practiced.

Servus, would you admit the analogous nature of these two things? Perhaps then you would be more willing to leave Latins (and other Catholics who wish to practice it) their Eucharistic Adoration, which even if you do not agree with, is wholly orthodox, just like the veneration of icons.

 

[Woodstock]

So what I’m saying is that if people or even entire ritual Churches do not wish to practice Eucharistic Adoration, then that is fine.

It is no different than the idea of venerating icons, which some people do not wish to do and entire ritual Churches have never practiced.

Servus, would you admit the analogous nature of these two things? Perhaps then you would be more willing to leave Latins (and other Catholics who wish to practice it) their Eucharistic Adoration, which even if you do not agree with, is wholly orthodox, just like the veneration of icons.

The second ecumenical council said that any who reject icons or images are rejecting the incarnation. While no one is obligated to use icons, rejecting them is heretical.

Is there a similar ecumenical pronouncement on Eucharistic adoration?

 

[East_and_West]

The second ecumenical council said that any who reject icons or images are rejecting the incarnation. While no one is obligated to use icons, rejecting them is heretical.

Is there a similar ecumenical pronouncement on Eucharistic adoration?

More sophistry as your analogies are poorly constructed. You are correct in saying that we cannot reject icons as they are images of our faith in the incarnation. But the rejection of icons is not analogous to the rejection of Eucharistic Adoration but, rather it is analogous to the rejection of the Eucharist which is the substance of the faith.
Not using icons, on the other hand, is analogous to not practicing Eucharistic Adoration. Neither is necessary as neither is required by the Catholic faith. These practices are limited to certain particlular Churches. But neither should be run out of our Churches.

 

[Woodstock]

More sophistry as your analogies are poorly constructed.

What?! It wasn’t my analogy. I asked a genuine question. And I don’t recall any instance of my exhibiting sophistry now or previously. Since when is having a discussion or asking a question sophistry?

 

[Alexios]

That’s what I was saying…neither is required for the Catholic Faith, and neither is required to be practiced or is practiced in all the particular Churches.

In fact, venerating icons is almost peculiarly Byzantine, more or less, it seems. Most Latin Catholics, as well as Indian and Middle Eastern Christian traditions do not place much of an emphasis on it. I don’t know enough about Coptic, Ethiopian, and Armenian traditions to say.

 

[East_and_West]

What?! It wasn’t my analogy. I asked a genuine question. And I don’t recall any instance of my exhibiting sophistry now or previously. Since when is having a discussion or asking a question sophistry?

Poorly constructed analogies, were hallmarks of the sophists. They carry little meaning but sound nice when spouted out quickly.

 

[yeshua]

In fact, venerating icons is almost peculiarly Byzantine, more or less, it seems. Most Latin Catholics, as well as Indian and Middle Eastern Christian traditions do not place much of an emphasis on it. I don’t know enough about Coptic, Ethiopian, and Armenian traditions to say.

All Apostolic Churches have roots with an individual icon tradition. The Latin icon tradition thrived until the late thirteenth/early fourteenth century. The Coptic, Ethiopian and Armenian all have individual icon traditions. The Syriac Christians (which I am assuming you are partly referring to as Middle Eastern traditions, that can be in many cases an inappropriate conclusion for future reference), once did have an icon tradition, but the yoke of Islam thwarted that effort. I believe the Churches of the East (who are Syriac) are the only ones who do not have a normative icon tradition. Perhaps the Chaldean and/or Assyrian posters could expand on this.

For the Catholic Syriac Churches, there exist individual movements to revive or recreate their icon tradition, and for the Syriac Orthodox not in India, they are predominately borrowing from the Coptic Church. In India, heavily Latinization by missionaries have affected those Churches with Latin statuary and painting, replacing all former institutions, so you are correct in this regard.

Simply because the Latin Church and those she has affected no longer emphasize it as norm (despite that she abandoned it’s practice only 600 years ago), does not mean it is exclusively Byzantine. Though the Byzantines certainly do love their icons!

Peace and God Bless!

 

[Alexios]

But Yeshua, just as you yourself stated, veneration of icons is not a hallmark of all the Church’s ancient Rites and ritual traditions. The East Syriacs, as you mention, and I’m almost certain the Mar Thoma Christians of India never had a tradition of venerating icons.

And yes, the Latin Church would fall under one of those Rites which does have a tradition of venerating icons.

 

[yeshua]

But Yeshua, just as you yourself stated, veneration of icons is not a hallmark of all the Church’s ancient Rites and ritual traditions. The East Syriacs, as you mention, and I’m almost certain the Mar Thoma Christians of India never had a tradition of venerating icons.

And yes, the Latin Church would fall under one of those Rites which does have a tradition of venerating icons.

I was just correcting that icons were exclusively Byzantine. The fact is, there exist more Apostolic Churches who continue to venerate icons than there are who don’t. Tragic historical circumstances (Islam’s yoke, Latinization etc.) have crippled if not almost eliminated icons in some churches. But their original practice and veneration by all churches is not up for debate.

Peace and God Bless!

 

[Alexios]

Yes it is. Like I said, I know of no specific Mar Thoma veneration of icons, or Assyrian, or East Syriac, and I’m not sure about Ethiopian Christianity. Can you provide proof that all apostolic Christian traditions venerated icons? I thought we had just agreed it didn’t exist in the East Syriac traditions.

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

Servus, would you admit the analogous nature of these two things? Perhaps then you would be more willing to leave Latins (and other Catholics who wish to practice it) their Eucharistic Adoration, which even if you do not agree with, is wholly orthodox, just like the veneration of icons.

Maybe, but here is the difference:

Ikons are used, nowadays, nearly exclusively by the East. The Eucharist is common to both Churches. Thus, on the one hand, ikons are used in one Church and not used in another, whilst on the other hand, the Eucharist is employed in a different context in the West as in the East.

Here are some of my opinions, and (on reflexion) they are not so severe as perhaps they seemed:

1. I do not have issue with the intention of any adorer who truly adores because he wishes to be in the Presence of the Lord. This is great, and I truly wish that more people desired as earnestly to enter God’s Presence.
2. I do not doubt the dogma which holds that, in all circumstances, the consecrated elements are quite fully Jesus Christ. I question the contention that somehow Christ is more present to the onlooker when He is exposed in the monstrance than, say, when He is in the tabernacle.
3. Indeed, the species are the body and blood of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine. Is it, then, really beneficial to behold the appearance in attempting to contemplate the Mystery?

I have more to opine, but I shan’t be garrulous, and leave you with these three for starters.

 

[mardukm]

Here are some of my opinions, and (on reflexion) they are not so severe as perhaps they seemed:

1. I do not have issue with the intention of any adorer who truly adores because he wishes to be in the Presence of the Lord. This is great, and I truly wish that more people desired as earnestly to enter God’s Presence

.
Thank you, brother.

2) I do not doubt the dogma which holds that, in all circumstances, the consecrated elements are quite fully Jesus Christ. I question the contention that somehow Christ is more present to the onlooker when He is exposed in the monstrance than, say, when He is in the tabernacle.

He is more present sacramentally. from my understanding. That is the great Mystery of the resurrected body of our Lord (which is present to us in a real way under the appearance of bread and wine. Let me ask you this: would the Apostles have experienced just as much Grace from Jesus’ resurrected Presence if He spoke to them merely from behind the locked doors, as opposed to actually appearing before them despite the locked doors.

That we can experience more Grace with the Lord exposed is part of the Incarnational nature of our Faith, from my understanding. If we do not see the difference between the Lord’s Presence in the Tabernacle than outside of it, what use is the Tabernacle at all? Is it all merely symbolic? Or is there a a very real, sacramental, and ultimately unexplainable, difference between the Lord in the Tabernacle and the Lord outside of it?

The Curtain has been torn. Scripturally and theologically, there should not be any objection to the exposition of the Blessed Sacrament.

3) Indeed, the species are the body and blood of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine. Is it, then, really beneficial to behold the appearance in attempting to contemplate the Mystery?

Personally, when contemplating or simply resting in front of the exposed Eucharist, I have no consciousness of the bread and wine, but simply of the Presence of my Lord.

Blessings,
Marduk

I have more to opine, but I shan’t be garrulous, and leave you with these three for starters.

 

[yeshua]

Yes it is. Like I said, I know of no specific Mar Thoma veneration of icons, or Assyrian, or East Syriac, and I’m not sure about Ethiopian Christianity. Can you provide proof that all apostolic Christian traditions venerated icons? I thought we had just agreed it didn’t exist in the East Syriac traditions.

I believe both Western and Eastern Syriacs see the Rabbula Gospels as an example of their mutual, yet former, icon tradition. If you require more information, see here. For Syriacs in general (forgive me if I am incorrect, Rony) the written word became an iconographic expression.

For the Syriac Indian Christians, like I said, the icon tradition they had was radically eliminated due to Latinization. In the Mar Thoma Church, a protestant variant, there is of course no icon tradition, or veneration of saints at that.

Here is an example of an Ethiopian icon.

Here is an example of a Coptic icon.

Here is an example of an Armenian icon.

Here is an example of an Eastern Syriac icon.

Here is an example of an Assyrian (even though they are East Syriac) icon.

Here is an example of a Western Syriac icon.

Here is an example of a Latin icon.

Here is an example of a Byzantine icon.

Obviously, icons are not limited to the Byzantine tradition. Am I missing any traditions?

Peace and God Bless.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother East and West,

Poorly constructed analogies, were hallmarks of the sophists. They carry little meaning but sound nice when spouted out quickly.

I don’t think the word “sophistry” is insulting, but your phrase “spouted out quickly” seems to betray a sarcastic animosity? I hope I’m wrong.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ASimpleSinner]

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.

I am not sure what we then are to draw from this conclusion. There is not now and hasn’t been for decades (if ever) the Latinized service of Eucharistic adoration at my Greek Catholic Church. Adoration of a Latin variety is not in my personal piety, but I am keenly aware of the special presense when in Church and orient my prayer toward the tabernacle.

Still, I feel we could almost start a sticky thread on the Rosary on here… We seem to need to discuss it anew at least every other month… It is a private devotion that has origins in the Latin Church but is fairly universal to the four corners as a private devotion - at least as private devotions go.

It is not mandated and not liturgical and a Roman themselves could go two lifetimes NEVER praying the Rosary. On the other hand the reduction of it to “just a Latin custom” betrays the goodly amount of Eastern Catholics who have made it part of their own personal rule of prayer. A number of the newly beatified New Martyrs of the Soviet Yoke come immediately to mind.

Servus Pio XII I am not sure I understand the intent of this thread. I mean I dont think you find many parishes in Greek Catholic circles that still practice this devotion - you may if you look hard enough. I don’t think there are great calls for a return to it… thought it is never impossible to find one or two voices calling for any number of things at any given time!

I do think the point that was alluded to - that kind of meandered - about iconography and the place of their veneration was an apt comparison. As laudible and pious and entrenched as veneration of icons have become among Byzantines, in other non-Byzantine circles, you see varying degrees of interest in that expression of prayer. Some - like the Copts - are roundly similar to the Byzantines on this matter. Others - like the Assyrians - may at one time have had a greater tradition of it, but have for centuries been much less attentive to that form (either by way of suppression or otherwise).

I don’t think this boils down to an “either/or” proposition in any case. That the Romans do it, and we Greek Catholics don’t (at least traditionally did not have it!) is just a difference, no more or less than that.