Eucharistic Adoration and the East

[mardukm]

If the Holy Eucharist is Christ in the flesh, why would you be satisfied with mere Adoration from afar when He offers Himself much more fully to you?!

If the Church offers Communion continuously, I would see some point in this argument. As it is, I go with the Damascene (and the Latin Church) - if it is worthy to be worshipped, then do it.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[East_and_West]

How dare we worship Christ our God. Its just wrong. What are we thinking? We latins are out of our minds to adore Christ, fully present, in the blessed sacrament, body, blood, soul, and divinity. Man I have never heard of anything so absurd as worshiping Jesus and spending time with him physically present. Wow. Nuts!!! We are all Nuts!!!

 

[mardukm]

How dare we worship Christ our God. Its just wrong. What are we thinking? We latins are out of our minds to adore Christ, fully present, in the blessed sacrament, body, blood, soul, and divinity. Man I have never heard of anything so absurd as worshiping Jesus and spending time with him physically present. Wow. Nuts!!! We are all Nuts!!!

Stop being silly. :tsktsk: Seriously, your comments may be viewed as triumphalistic.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[East_and_West]

Stop being silly. :tsktsk: Seriously, your comments may be viewed as triumphalistic.

Blessings,
Marduk

My point is not to sound triumphalistic. I was just showing how silly the arguements against Eucharist Adoration are.

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

Why must we continue to harken to a crtical false dichotomy?

I will say yet again that it isn’t an “either/or” sort of proposition.

We don’t do it - that is fine.
The Latins do it - that is fine.

Having adoration doesn’t mean they don’t commune. Many I know who participate in that form of prayer go to communion daily. It isn’t a “one or the other” sort of proposition. They aren’t satisfied with “mere Adoration” I don’t know why it keeps coming back to that consideration. Frankly I would be just as befuddled if a Latin came here and started asking:

An icon is to be venerated; the representation of the holy person helps one to contemplate the holy person.

The Eucharist is meant to be consumed; the consumption of the Eucharist allows us to enter union with God.

To each thing a purpose, and to each purpose a thing.

The dichotomy is false. They don’t have to be wrong just because we don’t do it that way.

But perhaps, and I am not saying this is so, we don’t do it that way because they are wrong.

Why would a husband or wife sometimes want to just stare into each other’s eyes rather than go to bed? Or why would they rather just sleep like spoons rather than have relations?

We cannot get lost in the marriage comparison (tho I did for a time) to exclusion.

Our relationship with Christ is more than our relationship with the Eucharist. Christ manifests Himself to us in many other ways, the Eucharist is simply the most profound.

Eucharist => Christ’s Presence

No Eucharist =/=> Christ’s Absence.

How dare we worship Christ our God. Its just wrong. What are we thinking? We latins are out of our minds to adore Christ, fully present, in the blessed sacrament, body, blood, soul, and divinity. Man I have never heard of anything so absurd as worshiping Jesus and spending time with him physically present. Wow. Nuts!!! We are all Nuts!!!

There are other ways to worship Christ, you know.

 

[mardukm]

There are other ways to worship Christ, you know.

So St. John Damascene is wrong? If not, then you cannot possibly offer ANY criticism to the Latin practice.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ASimpleSinner]

An icon is to be venerated; the representation of the holy person helps one to contemplate the holy person.

The Eucharist is meant to be consumed; the consumption of the Eucharist allows us to enter union with God.

This seems amazingly and arbitrarily self-serving… No one is saying the Eucharist ISN’T to be consummed. No one is saying that you can only do one or the other.

One wonders why in the East the small portion of the Holy gift is reserved in the tabernacle at all. It generally is not reserved for the ill any longer - elements in the tabernacle remain there for some time with Holy Gifts reserved for the ill at the nearest liturgy, and pre-consecrated gifts frequently reserved during the Great fast elsewhere… Priestless Old Believers are known to have element of the Eucharist centuries old.

To each thing a purpose, and to each purpose a thing.

OK… keep going…

But perhaps, and I am not saying this is so, we don’t do it that way because they are wrong.

You know I know in your enthusiasm for the East who have voraciously consumed Eastern opinion from various and sundry sources, dear Servant of Pius XII…

But you have put me in the odd position of defending a practice I don’t partake in if for no other reason than to pragmatically preclude Latinization! Inasmuch as the East should be left to be the East and feel unecumbered by the burden of having to adapt Latinizations to conform with ill-fitting Latin concepts of piety, I can’t understand why it is so difficult to let the West be the West on this one.

We cannot get lost in the marriage comparison (tho I did for a time) to exclusion.

I do not think that anyone here is.

Our relationship with Christ is more than our relationship with the Eucharist. Christ manifests Himself to us in many other ways, the Eucharist is simply the most profound.

As a Catholic I understand the Eucharist to be a synonym for Christ. As such your statement leaves me befuddled inasmuch as I cannot understand “Our relationship with Christ is more than our relationship with Christ.”

On the otherhand no one is saying that He is not otherwise manifest. I just don’t understand why you think they think that.

Eucharist => Christ’s Presence
No Eucharist =/=> Christ’s Absence.

I don’t know who you think is proposing that.

There are other ways to worship Christ, you know.

No one denies that.

 

[SiempreFiel]

Why would you want to look, and draw no closer, and fail to enter into full union with Him through the Sacrament?

First of all, we are not just “looking”. We are adoring! Eucharistic Adoration is “heart speaking to heart” (Cor ad cor loquitur).

It is crucial that you stop reducing Eucharistic Adoration to mere “looking” or “staring” at the host.

If the Holy Eucharist is Christ in the flesh, why would you be satisfied with mere Adoration from afar when He offers Himself much more fully to you?!

As far as I am concerned, the Latin Church has not proclaimed that Eucharistic Adoration alone should satisfy our lives. Furthermore, I don’t believe the Latin Church has abolished Catholics from receiving Holy Communion. Have you heard otherwise?

Could you give us a good reason why we should go from:

http://tulsavocations.org/wp-conten...catholic.org/photos/latinmass_priests_pic.jpg

TO

 

[East_and_West]

An icon is to be venerated; the representation of the holy person helps one to contemplate the holy person.

The Eucharist is meant to be consumed; the consumption of the Eucharist allows us to enter union with God.

To each thing a purpose, and to each purpose a thing.

But perhaps, and I am not saying this is so, we don’t do it that way because they are wrong.

We cannot get lost in the marriage comparison (tho I did for a time) to exclusion.

Our relationship with Christ is more than our relationship with the Eucharist. Christ manifests Himself to us in many other ways, the Eucharist is simply the most profound.

Eucharist => Christ’s Presence

No Eucharist =/=> Christ’s Absence.

There are other ways to worship Christ, you know.

I realize this. BUT why would it be wrong to worship Christ physically prensent in the Eucharist? That is my point. Any objection to this is absurd.

 

[East_and_West]

What really bothes me here is that it seem that we in the West are being asked to abandon our Latin traditions. That is just as offensive as Latinizations are in the East. No one is asking Eastern Christians to practice Eucharistic Adoration, though I don’t know why one wouldn’t want to, so why are we being asked to abandon it?

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

Because this is superabundantly sufficient.

It is adoration and it is consummation, it is unity with Christ and unity with the Body of Christ.

Why remove the Sacrament from this context? To do seems to separate it from its very purpose.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Because this is superabundantly sufficient.

It is adoration and it is consummation, it is unity with Christ and unity with the Body of Christ.

Why remove the Sacrament from this context? To do seems to separate it from its very purpose.

At the same time, are we going for “sufficient” on this score dear Servant of Pius XII?

Traveling to church just once a week would be sufficient… Why bother with vespers, Matins, weekday DLs? Even feast days could just be commemorated on Sundays if we wanted to go that minimalist.

I really don’t understand the need to demonstrate it wrong, that need may need to be taken to apologetics forum…

It is one thing to say why we don’t have it in the east, I don’t understand the incessant false dichotomy that if communion is good, why should the Latins have adoration. In fact it is NOT that they don’t commune. It is NOT that they don’t consume. It is NOT that they only adore and no more. So what is the problem with leaving them to have it?

 

[SiempreFiel]

http://www.arkansascatholic.org/photos/latinmass_priests_pic.jpg

Because this is superabundantly sufficient.

You are saying that the Church should abolish Eucharistic Adoration because Holy Communion is “superabundantly sufficient”. I don’t think this is a good reason. Allow me to demonstrate why I think what I think about the reason you provided.

Following in your line of reasoning we would get the following absurd conclusion:

Since Holy Communion is superabundantly sufficient. Therefore, the following practices should be abolished:

• Eucharistic Adoration
• Praying the Holy Rosary
• Veneration of Icons
• Praying the Hours
• Lectio Divina
• Asking the saints to intercede for us
• Etc…

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

Both of the above fail to consider my last sentence.

The reception of communion is superabundantly sufficient in providing the Sacrament with honour and providing the recipient with grace - in other words, the beneficence of the Sacrament is reduced when it is used as a private devotion.

To reduce our interaction with Christ to interaction with merely one of his channels of grace in sundry ways, manytimes removed from those contexts for which Christ intended it, is to diminish the experience of the indwelling of Christ resulting from Communion and the experience of His love elsewhere.

If we begin to believe, as the devotion seems to suggest, that Christ “hears us better” when the Sacrament is in the room and visible, we risk corrupting the very essential meaning of the reception of communion - that Christ is no longer external, but a permanent tenent of our hearts.

I can adore Christ without seeing the Sacrament, I can love Him who lives in me (and I in Him, I pray God) without a monstrance.

 

[SiempreFiel]

Both of the above fail to consider my last sentence.

The reception of communion is superabundantly sufficient in providing the Sacrament with honour and providing the recipient with grace - in other words, the beneficence of the Sacrament is reduced when it is used as a private devotion.

To reduce our interaction with Christ to interaction with merely one of his channels of grace in sundry ways, manytimes removed from those contexts for which Christ intended it, is to diminish the experience of the indwelling of Christ resulting from Communion and the experience of His love elsewhere.

If we begin to believe, as the devotion seems to suggest, that Christ “hears us better” when the Sacrament is in the room and visible, we risk corrupting the very essential meaning of the reception of communion - that Christ is no longer external, but a permanent tenent of our hearts.

I can adore Christ without seeing the Sacrament, I can love Him who lives in me (and I in Him, I pray God) without a monstrance.

I think I’m finally understanding what you are trying to convey. By the way, thanks for being patient with me.

It seems to me that your main argument is this: "The Sacrament of the Eucharist was instituted by Jesus Christ in order to be received. Ergo, Eucharistic Adoration is inconsequential."

If the above is in fact your main argument, I would like to answer by quoting the Council of Trent:

THE WORSHIP AND VENERATION TO BE SHOWN TO THIS MOST HOLY SACRAMENT

There is, therefore, no room for doubt that all the faithful of Christ may, in accordance with a custom always received in the Catholic Church, give to this most holy sacrament in veneration the worship of , which is due to the true God. Neither is it to be less adored for the reason that it was instituted by Christ the Lord in order to be received. For we believe that in it the same God is present of whom the eternal Father, when introducing Him into the world, says: And let all the angels of God adore him; whom the Magi, falling down, adored; who, finally, as the Scriptures testify, was adored by the Apostles in Galilee. (Council of Trent, Session XIII, Decree on the Eucharist, Chap. V— Denz. 878 (1643).

This quote is also relevant to our discussion:

“When the faithful adore Christ present in the sacrament, they should remember that his presence derives from the sacrifice and is directed towards both sacramental and spiritual communion” (Sacred Congregation of Rites, Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery, n. 50).

So, what is your reply to the teaching of the Church?

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

The reception of communion is superabundantly sufficient in providing the Sacrament with honour and providing the recipient with grace - in other words, the beneficence of the Sacrament is reduced when it is used as a private devotion.

eucharistic adoration isn’t for God’s benefit but our own. it’s not in line with catholic teaching to think that adoration reduces the sacrament.

JPII and B16 can’t say enough good things about eucharistic adoration.

 

[I_Believe]

This thread has me curious.

Do the Eastern Churches encourage Spiritual Communion ?

Is the Agnus Dei prayed in the Eastern Liturgy ?

Is the consecrated Host elevated during the Liturgy ?

 

[bpbasilphx]

**
Do the Eastern Churches encourage Spiritual Communion ?

Is the Agnus Dei prayed in the Eastern Liturgy ?

Is the consecrated Host elevated during the Liturgy ?**

**First off, there is no such thing as “the Eastern Liturgy.” There are some half-dozen Eastern liturgical families in over 20 sui juris churches.

In the Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil, the Deacon crosses his hands and elevates the Holy Gifts as the Priest says, “Your own of Your own we offer unto You, in behalf of all and for the sake of all,” and later the Priest elevates the Lamb (as we call it) saying “Holy things/gifts for the holy [people].” (Aghia tes aghiis in Greek)**

 

[theistgal]

I can adore Christ without seeing the Sacrament, I can love Him who lives in me (and I in Him, I pray God) without a monstrance.

Hi, Servus –

Sure - and you can adore Christ and love Him without ever looking at an icon of him too. So have you had all the icons removed from your church yet?

 

[East_Anglican]

Dear brother Servus Pio XII,

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

That sounds good but marriages are consumated while a husband and wife adore each other and not by a husband and wife adoring sex. Therefore we can adore Jesus while consumating our marriage and not adore the means of consumation.

though I do like the analogy.