Eucharistic Adoration and the East

[Servus_Pio_XII]

This thread was never “intended”; one of the moderators broke it from another thread, wherein it was a digressive sidebar discussion. Thus, the first post is actually a reply to another.

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.

I can certainly see this, tho I would remonstrate (pun) that the monstrance (second half of pun…now is when you laugh) is an enclosed structure, as is the tabernacle. Thus, perhaps it is Christ behind a pane of glass?

Personally, I find private, silent prayer at Church quite edifying. I understand the volition to be near to the Eucharist; I fail to see how adoration goes beyond, say, a well-placed tabernacle.

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.

I would say that the substance of Christ does not change at all, whether he is inside or outside of the tabernacle.

I would say the difference which matters, the true change of the Eucharist from one channel of grace to another, is that point where He is not merely in the same room as the adorer, but in the very body of the adorer.

Whilst there is no objection, of course, to venerating Christ, there is also no especial benefit to His exposition as opposed to His reservation, as I can surmise.

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.

This is a magnificent grace God has given you.

-SPXII

P.S. - Having instigated this firestorm, perhaps it is best to say that Adoration’s edification really depends on how one approaches Christ in the Eucharist. The way may be narrow, but one can walk it with many a gait.

I am fairly sure I will not understand this devotion fully, just as I am sure many of its devotees will never understand my confusions fully. This perhaps results of different mindsets, both of which, I am sure, fall within the mind of Christ.

God bless you all and thank you for a very civil and interesting discussion!

 

[Alexios]

Yeshua,

Some of those you posted, like the Armenian icon, are not clearly icons to me but could be paintings or mosaics.

My definition of icon is perhaps different than yours. I mean to say that it is a written two-D portrait of a saint or saints that is to be venerated.

Even if my icon anology doesn’t work, which I’m not convinced at all that it doesn’t, because just showing pictures of possible icons is not explicating on iconic veneration in those traditions, there are any number of things that are particularly Byzantine that aren’t inherent to the nature of the Church, which is was Servus was saying about adoration (and with which I do not disagree).

How’s that for a run-on sentence?

 

[ronyodish]

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 Syriacs in general (forgive me if I am incorrect, Rony) the written word became an iconographic expression.

yeshua,

This is true.

Few comments:

1. Unlike the Byzantines who have developed such a strong tradition of iconography, the development of iconography in the Church of the East (East Syriac) was hampered by the long history of persecutions. The little that we do have comes from Bible manuscripts.
2. The Cross (specifically Cross of St. Thomas) became the chief visual symbol or icon of the faith.
3. Poetic Hymns became the popular medium of theology rather than iconography.

Here is an interesting icon of the three wise men. What is interesting about it is that they are riding on horses rather than camels! This is because they came from Mesopotamia, rather than Arabia, as the Chaldeans and Assyrians hold:

http://www.socdigest.org/images/wisemen_b.jpg

God bless,

Rony

 

[yeshua]

Yeshua,

Some of those you posted, like the Armenian icon, are not clearly icons to me but could be paintings or mosaics.

My definition of icon is perhaps different than yours. I mean to say that it is a written two-D portrait of a saint or saints that is to be venerated.

Even if my icon anology doesn’t work, which I’m not convinced at all that it doesn’t, because just showing pictures of possible icons is not explicating on iconic veneration in those traditions, there are any number of things that are particularly Byzantine that aren’t inherent to the nature of the Church, which is was Servus was saying about adoration (and with which I do not disagree).

How’s that for a run-on sentence?

I see in no way how my “pictures” (which are in fact icons to these traditions) are somehow limited by your definition. The only one that is sketchy is the Armenian icon only because I do not have access to any. By all means tell me which other icons are not icons, I will do my best to show you otherwise. I showed you how East Syriacs previously had a tradition of icon veneration, what else must I show?

Icon veneration has been a fact to all traditions, it’s practice was inherent to all churches, though some now do not practice it. I can make referrals to particular friends who mine who are practitioners of these individual traditions if that would be proof for you.

Peace and God Bless.

 

[yeshua]

yeshua,

This is true.

Few comments:

1. Unlike the Byzantines who have developed such a strong tradition of iconography, the development of iconography in the Church of the East (East Syriac) was hampered by the long history of persecutions. The little that we do have comes from Bible manuscripts.
2. The Cross (specifically Cross of St. Thomas) became the chief visual symbol or icon of the faith.
3. Poetic Hymns became the popular medium of theology rather than iconography.

Here is an interesting icon of the three wise men. What is interesting about it is that they are riding on horses rather than camels! This is because they came from Mesopotamia, rather than Arabia, as the Chaldeans and Assyrians hold:

http://www.socdigest.org/images/wisemen_b.jpg

God bless,

Rony

Than you, Rony, I did not want to misrepresent your tradition.

Peace and God Bless!

 

[Chris_McAvoy]

Brother Yeshua, I congratulate you, especially as a maronite (whose church is recovering from latinization) on promoting the full truth about Iconography; which is that it is naturally a tradition occurring in all apostolic churches since at least the 300’s AD and should as much as possible be promoted today again as it serves a valuable way of allowing God’s work into the world.

It has had some variety in its emphasis, usage and theology in different cultures and peoples I will agree, but it can never be denied as existing in every single region of influence of the One Holy Catholic Apostolic and Orthodox Churches historical pentarchy. It has always had a distinct difference from greco-roman pagan secular painting, though it sometimes kept traits of that in moderation and it has at times been more naturalistic in appearance.

Icons in the Syriac Church? by Fr. Dale A. Johnson (he is one of the few former Latin Catholic seminarians to enter communion with Malankara diocese in Washington state and now serve as a priest)

I have noticed that some maronites have an interest in reviving icons in their churches using the example from the old ones that survive or manuscripts images and I am very happy about this. It is my dream that in the Latin Church this example will also be followed, and especially in the Western Orthodox Churches which use the ancient Latin family of rituals.

meanwhile I take this topic as an excuse to post another western icons that almost no one has ever seen outside of Italy. I also recommend the important ground breaking book by Hans Belting “Likeness and Presence: A History of the Image before the Era of Art” from which people can see proof that Icons were venerated by people in the entire church at some point.

Maria Regina, Virgin of Clemency. 705-707 AD. Encaustic painting on canvas on wood (Rome. Sta. Maria in Trastevere). 60" tall. 8th-century exact copy of a Roman work from the beg. 6th century. Angels in “stupendis” posture. The style is Romano-Hellenistic, i.e., worldly and emotional, but Mary is in the new style, for she is hieratic, has frozen symmetry, and rich clothing.

 

[IrishByzantine]

Hello all,

This is my first post on these forums, and I must say that this thread has me a bit perplexed on this issue.

If I understand things rightly, I believe Catholicism does not dispute the Orthodox church’s Eucharistic theology, and yet the Orthodox church rejects the Catholic church’s Eucharistic devotions.

So can someone explain to me how the lack of Eucharistic Adoration on the part of Eastern Catholics / the Orthodox Church is seen as defective?

Thanks.

 

[East_and_West]

Its not defective. Its just a different tradition.

 

[IrishByzantine]

Ok - I guess I misunderstood the thread.

Thanks.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Its not defective. Its just a different tradition.

Ditto.

One might even argue that an element of Eucharistic adoration takes place in the context of each liturgy when, after communion, the priest blesses the faithful with chalice in hand.

I would never argue it is defective. I only argue that the Latins who have this different tradition aren’t “suspect” for having something we don’t… and vice versa.

 

[East_and_West]

Ditto.

One might even argue that an element of Eucharistic adoration takes place in the context of each liturgy when, after communion, the priest blesses the faithful with chalice in hand.

I would never argue it is defective. I only argue that the Latins who have this different tradition aren’t “suspect” for having something we don’t… and vice versa.

In fact, when I attend Divine Liturgy, I adore Christ in the Eurcharist.

 

[SiempreFiel]

So can someone explain to me how the lack of Eucharistic Adoration on the part of Eastern Catholics / the Orthodox Church is seen as defective?

I’m quite sure no one has suggested that the lack of Eucharistic adoration in the East is defective.

 

[Alexios]

it’s practice was inherent to all churches, though some now do not practice it.

Ok, that’s good enough for me…that some do not now practice it seems proof that it isn’t inherent to the nature of the Church, at least not to particular Churches. I will take back my earlier comment that icon veneration seems almost peculiarly Byzantine, but it seems much more prevalent today in Byzantine churches than any most other Rites, for a number of reasons.

 

[Chris_McAvoy]

I believe that it is absolutely possible for a person to love the Divine Liturgy without loving the Eucharist.

Than it is also possible for a person to love the Adoration of the Monstrance without loving the Eucharist inside it. In the Melkite Church the Divine Liturgy is also called the “Holy Qurbana” in you know what this means in west syriac language?

 

[yeshua]

Than it is also possible for a person to love the Adoration of the Monstrance without loving the Eucharist inside it. In the Melkite Church the Divine Liturgy is also called the “Holy Qurbana” in you know what this means in west syriac language?

I do!

(Though Qurbana is Easy Syriac, Qorbono is West, but the meanings are one in the same)

You make an excellent point, Chris.

Peace and God Bless!

 

[yeshua]

Brother Yeshua, I congratulate you, especially as a maronite (whose church is recovering from latinization) on promoting the full truth about Iconography; which is that it is naturally a tradition occurring in all apostolic churches since at least the 300’s AD and should as much as possible be promoted today again as it serves a valuable way of allowing God’s work into the world.

It has had some variety in its emphasis, usage and theology in different cultures and peoples I will agree, but it can never be denied as existing in every single region of influence of the One Holy Catholic Apostolic and Orthodox Churches historical pentarchy. It has always had a distinct difference from greco-roman pagan secular painting, though it sometimes kept traits of that in moderation and it has at times been more naturalistic in appearance.

Icons in the Syriac Church? by Fr. Dale A. Johnson (he is one of the few former Latin Catholic seminarians to enter communion with Malankara diocese in Washington state and now serve as a priest)

I have noticed that some maronites have an interest in reviving icons in their churches using the example from the old ones that survive or manuscripts images and I am very happy about this. It is my dream that in the Latin Church this example will also be followed, and especially in the Western Orthodox Churches which use the ancient Latin family of rituals.

meanwhile I take this topic as an excuse to post another western icons that almost no one has ever seen outside of Italy. I also recommend the important ground breaking book by Hans Belting “Likeness and Presence: A History of the Image before the Era of Art” from which people can see proof that Icons were venerated by people in the entire church at some point.

Maria Regina, Virgin of Clemency. 705-707 AD. Encaustic painting on canvas on wood (Rome. Sta. Maria in Trastevere). 60" tall. 8th-century exact copy of a Roman work from the beg. 6th century. Angels in “stupendis” posture. The style is Romano-Hellenistic, i.e., worldly and emotional, but Mary is in the new style, for she is hieratic, has frozen symmetry, and rich clothing.

Peace Chris!

Thank you for your kind words, but this little Maronite is no hero, just a sinner trying to “get by.”

Icon veneration is an Apostolic Christian staple, and in the cases where history has taken away that practice, there is adaptation, much like the veneration of the written word as Rony elaborated on. While it is important to distinguish differences for the sake of retaining tradition, it is equally important to recognize what is truly universal, no matter how the form of veneration must adapt to harsh history.

I know the renewed Maronite icon tradition is quite diverse, some (in my opinion) venerable, others not so, but at least there is an attempt to reclaim what was formerly ours.

With the little I have dabbled in Art History, I absolutely adore Italo-Byzantine Latin icons. I might be Oriental through and through, but traditional Latin iconography is beyond words. I share in the dream for your tradition to reclaim such a remarkable devotion.

Peace and God Bless!

 

[SiempreFiel]

Than it is also possible for a person to love the Adoration of the Monstrance without loving the Eucharist inside it.

It is possible to love the Monstrance without loving the Eucharist inside it, but this would be ridiculous. Likewise, it is possible to love the Divine Liturgy without loving the Eucharist, but this would be ridiculous.

 

[Aramis]

Likewise, it is possible to love the Divine Liturgy without loving the Eucharist, but this would be ridiculous.

No, this is not… it is often the first step in conversion, and then learning to long for, then eventually love, the Eucharist.

 

[SiempreFiel]

No, this is not… it is often the first step in conversion, and then learning to long for, then eventually love, the Eucharist.

CORRECT

 

[Chris_McAvoy]

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.

First you must know the definition of adoration.

*Adoration (Latin) is to give homage or worship to someone or something.

Ad, to, and ora, mouth; (i.e. "carrying to one’s mouth "), primarily an act of homage or worship, which, among the Romans, was performed by raising the hand to the mouth, kissing it and then waving it in the direction of the adored object. The devotee had his head covered, and after the act turned himself round from left to right. Sometimes he kissed the feet or knees of the images of the gods themselves, and Saturn and Hercules were adored with the head bare.

By a gradual transition the homage, at first paid to divine beings alone, came to be paid to monarchs. Thus the Greek and Roman emperors were adored by bowing or kneeling, laying hold of the imperial robe, and presently withdrawing the hand and pressing it to the lips, or by putting the royal robe itself to the lips.*

(yes this is from wikipedia but it is accurate)

Augustine was not talking about Adoration in the sense it is today in a monstrance publicly by the laity as an official ritual of the church for it did not exist until 800 years later.

Toward the end of the eleventh century we enter on a new era in the history of Eucharistic adoration. **Until then the Real Presence was taken for granted in Catholic belief **and its reservation was the common practice in Catholic churches, including the chapels and oratories of religious communities. Suddenly a revolution hit the Church when Berengarius (999-1088), archdeacon of Angers in France, publicly denied that Christ was really and physically present under the species of bread and wine. Others took up the idea and began writing about the Eucharistic Christ as not exactly the Christ of the Gospels or, by implication, as not actually there. - Fr Jonn A Hardon, SJ taken from missionariesforpriests.com/History.htm

So in the west developed a heresy of denial of the eucharist being God’s presence. Thus Corpus Christi was made a feast of the Church in the year 1321 in order to promote the fullness of truth.
Why this heresy developed is an interested question, was it random or was there an underlying instigation? (something done differently in the west) I have no idea. Nevertheless as the heresy did not develop in the East there is no reason to counter it. If you have Eucharistic Adoration as an official ritual you may as well add Corpus Christi to Eastern Churches too, and thats not going to work…it is unnecessary.

As a friend of mine once said, to a certain degree Eastern and Western Churches should have a policy somewhat like the Federation of Planets in the Star Trek series. There should be a recognition that the cultures have developed differently and interference in a culture which you do not understand will most likely lead to profound conflicts if you introduce your culture into it for them to use.

While I agree with this, I also think that for a Church to be united there is a degree which there should be unity. And I also think there is a degree which cultures must understand each other. But until they do understand each other, they can not pretend to speak for one another. For instance I believe that the west should use leavened bread as well, as it did for its first 800 years and for even longer in Italy, but this is because it is it’s ancient tradition, not because I wish for it to be exactly like the east, only that it retain the similarities which it had in the past which are beneficial to make its current culture orthodox.