Eucharistic Adoration in the East

[lssanjose]

Thanks, but isn’t this what I said? This gap is still not as has been exaggerated here, though.

In some ways, it truly is, depending on how strongly the emphasis is exercised. Take the blessed sacrament, as example. It’s something Eastern Christians don’t have in their tradition, for theological reasons. It’s not to say, something like Eucharistic Adoration is wrong, it just doesn’t fit the theological basis, by which Eastern Christians are guided. Their reasoning, from conversations with my friend, and reading literature, as well as listening to podcasts on Ancient Faith Radio, the Eucharist is meant to be eaten.

Secondly, my friend holds the contention regarding transubstantiation. To him, puts it this way: we believe we’re eating Christ; and, acknowledge we’re eating bread at the same time.

Note from Moderator:

This discussion on Eucharistic Adoration was sufficiently off-topic to create a new thread from it. It also, sadly, did not maintain our expectations for charitable discussion in places, but I expect that will be amended as the conversation continues.

Please see here for the original discussion asking if one may receive Communion in the Eastern Catholic Churches with a serious sin on the soul.

May God Bless You Abundantly,
Catherine Grant
Eastern Catholicism Moderator

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Issanjose,

In some ways, it truly is, depending on how strongly the emphasis is exercised. Take the blessed sacrament, as example. It’s something Eastern Christians don’t have in their tradition, for theological reasons. It’s not to say, something like Eucharistic Adoration is wrong, it just doesn’t fit the theological basis, by which Eastern Christians are guided. Their reasoning, from conversations with my friend, and reading literature, as well as listening to podcasts on Ancient Faith Radio, the Eucharist is meant to be eaten.

Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say the Eucharist is meant to be eaten and adored at the same time? The Eucharist is Christ, is it not, to the Easterns?

Secondly, my friend holds the contention regarding transubstantiation. To him, puts it this way: we believe we’re eating Christ; and, acknowledge we’re eating bread at the same time.

So your friend believes there is no change in the bread and Christ is simply really present simultaneously with the bread, or does he believe that only part of the bread changes? Can you ask him?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[lssanjose]

Dear brother Issanjose,

Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say the Eucharist is meant to be eaten and adored at the same time? The Eucharist is Christ, is it not, to the Easterns?

So your friend believes there is no change in the bread and Christ is simply really present simultaneously with the bread, or does he believe that only part of the bread changes? Can you ask him?

Blessings,
Marduk

in the eyes of orthodoxy, the Eucharist isn’t meant to be adored, it’s meant to be eaten. There is change, but the nature of the change, is left for speculation, left for mystery. They just acknowledge the real presence, but at the same time, they also acknowledge they’re eating bread, drinking wine. My wild thinking/guessing is this: we can’t separate the two natures of Christ, so it shall be the same with the Eucharist.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Issanjose,

in the eyes of orthodoxy, the Eucharist isn’t meant to be adored, it’s meant to be eaten.

So are you saying that while the Eucharist is being eaten, the Orthodox don’t adore the bread as Christ himself? Isn’t the Eucharist Christ Himself? Isn’t Christ always to be adored? I hope some other Eastern Christians can join in and answer the question.

There is change, but the nature of the change, is left for speculation, left for mystery.

OK.

They just acknowledge the real presence, but at the same time, they also acknowledge they’re eating bread, drinking wine. My wild thinking/guessing is this: we can’t separate the two natures of Christ, so it shall be the same with the Eucharist.

The Easterns profess “lex credendi, les orandi.” The words of the Liturgy asks the Holy Spirit to change the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. A union of two things is not the same thing as changing one thing into another. I can see how the Easterns can reject the attempt to define, but I don’t see how they can reject the essence of the definition.

It should be noted that an “accident” is a REAL thing, not a phantom or an imaginary thing. There is no difference on this point. It’s just that Easterns prefer not to use the definition. It’s a difference of emphasis, not a difference in essence of belief.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[lssanjose]

Dear brother Issanjose,

So are you saying that while the Eucharist is being eaten, the Orthodox don’t adore the bread as Christ himself? Isn’t the Eucharist Christ Himself? Isn’t Christ always to be adored? I hope some other Eastern Christians can join in and answer the question.

not at all. I’m referring to adoration in the context of eucharistic adoration: where the host is taken, and placed in an apparatus, for adoration in a chapel, of some kind

OK.

The Easterns profess “lex credendi, les orandi.” The words of the Liturgy asks the Holy Spirit to change the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. A union of two things is not the same thing as changing one thing into another. I can see how the Easterns can reject the attempt to define, but I don’t see how they can reject the essence of the definition.

It should be noted that an “accident” is a REAL thing, not a phantom or an imaginary thing. There is no difference on this point. It’s just that Easterns prefer not to use the definition. It’s a difference of emphasis, not a difference in essence of belief.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ConstantineTG]

Dear brother Issanjose,

So are you saying that while the Eucharist is being eaten, the Orthodox don’t adore the bread as Christ himself? Isn’t the Eucharist Christ Himself? Isn’t Christ always to be adored? I hope some other Eastern Christians can join in and answer the question.

There is a great big difference in adoring Christ while you are receiving the Eucharist, than making the Eucharist the focus of your worship. Christ instructed us to eat and drink the Eucharist. Why do we want to do anything else with it?

 

[ConstantineTG]

And there’s a great big difference between saying “this is how Westerns do it, and this is how Easterns do it” and “What the Westerns are doing is wrong.”

Which statement most accurately reflects your pov on this matter?

Blessings,
Marduk

I am just tying to be careful with my words, but personally I believe that to use the Eucharist as an object of worship is wrong. Again, Christ gave us the Eucharist to eat and drink for the remission of sins and to have eternal life. For worship, Christ has guaranteed that when two or three are gathered in His Name, He is among them. So why do we need the presence of Christ in the Eucharist for adoration? When we gather, he is there.

 

[Marybeloved]

I am just tying to be careful with my words, but personally I believe that to use the Eucharist as an object of worship is wrong. Again, Christ gave us the Eucharist to eat and drink for the remission of sins and to have eternal life. For worship, Christ has guaranteed that when two or three are gathered in His Name, He is among them. So why do we need the presence of Christ in the Eucharist for adoration? When we gather, he is there.

He’s in the Eucharist too. Why not worship him wherever we find him? There’s no if/or, both/and is more like it.

 

[lssanjose]

I am just tying to be careful with my words, but personally I believe that to use the Eucharist as an object of worship is wrong. Again, Christ gave us the Eucharist to eat and drink for the remission of sins and to have eternal life. For worship, Christ has guaranteed that when two or three are gathered in His Name, He is among them. So why do we need the presence of Christ in the Eucharist for adoration? When we gather, he is there.

I wouldn’t say, “it’s wrong,” personally. I think it just doesn’t make sense.

 

[lssanjose]

He’s in the Eucharist too. Why not worship him wherever we find him? There’s no if/or, both/and is more like it.

I’m thinking brother CTG is speaking from the standpoint, why isolate Christ in such a way, to begin with? It just goes back to the context of Eucharistic Adoration. If we believe the Eucharist is mean to be taken, blessed, broken, and eaten/drank, then why place it in such a context where some may take it as contrary to the original intention.

 

[ConstantineTG]

He’s in the Eucharist too. Why not worship him wherever we find him? There’s no if/or, both/and is more like it.

Do you direct worship to the least of our brethren? When you see a poor beggar at the street corner, do you kneel down before him and pray?

 

[mardukm]

Do you direct worship to the least of our brethren? When you see a poor beggar at the street corner, do you kneel down before him and pray?

That’s not a good response, brother. The Eucharist is uniquely Christ Himself, as if you did not know.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Marybeloved]

Do you direct worship to the least of our brethren? When you see a poor beggar at the street corner, do you kneel down before him and pray?

No, I dont. I also don’t worship myself or my soul. Christ may be in me/them, yet he is not me/them, and I don’t worship what is not him. He is, however the Eucharist, so again… Why not worship him? Or rather, what is wrong in worshiping him?

 

[ConstantineTG]

That’s not a good response, brother. The Eucharist is uniquely Christ Himself, as if you did not know.

Blessings,
Marduk

It is not a good response, it is a great response! If we are to worship Christ wherever his presence is, why not in other places where He says He is? Also, don’t we believe that God is everywhere and in everything? So why stop at the Eucharist? Actually, it is an Orthodox teaching that we live this way, worshiping God and praying to Him every minute and every second of our lives and with every breath we take.

No, I dont. I also don’t worship myself or my soul. Christ may be in me/them, yet he is not me/them, and I don’t worship what is not him. He is, however the Eucharist, so again… Why not worship him?

I worship Him, but again the Eucharist is given for us to eat and drink for the remission of sins and life everlasting. It is like I gave you a stack of $100 bills and you just burned it to start a barbecue. Yes, you can do that, yes it works. But as lssanjose said, it does not make sense.

 

[lssanjose]

That’s not a good response, brother. The Eucharist is uniquely Christ Himself, as if you did not know.

Blessings,
Marduk

I think this is a general acknowldgement. But, to take that object, outside of its intended context, is something potentially dangerous, just saying. I think this may have something to do with some - within Orthodoxy - contention about other devotions, like the Sacred Heart, and Immaculate Heart of Mary devotions.

 

[mardukm]

I am just tying to be careful with my words, but personally I believe that to use the Eucharist as an object of worship is wrong. Again, Christ gave us the Eucharist to eat and drink for the remission of sins and to have eternal life. For worship, Christ has guaranteed that when two or three are gathered in His Name, He is among them. So why do we need the presence of Christ in the Eucharist for adoration? When we gather, he is there.

This is the second response you’ve made that indicates you really don’t understand (perhaps “understand” is not the right word, but rather “appreciate”) the uniqueness of the Eucharist as the fullness of Christ Himself, not merely spiritually (as He is when two or three are gathered), but REALLY present, body, blood, soul and divinity. This is Christ as He is in heaven.

Really? Given that, you can’t even have a modicum of understanding why Latins would worship the Eucharist?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[lssanjose]

It is not a good response, it is a great response! If we are to worship Christ wherever his presence is, why not in other places where He says He is? Also, don’t we believe that God is everywhere and in everything? So why stop at the Eucharist? Actually, it is an Orthodox teaching that we live this way, worshiping God and praying to Him every minute and every second of our lives and with every breath we take.

I worship Him, but again the Eucharist is given for us to eat and drink for the remission of sins and life everlasting. It is like I gave you a stack of $100 bills and you just burned it to start a barbecue. Yes, you can do that, yes it works. But as lssanjose said, it does not make sense.

You just reminded me of this:

Heavenly King, Comforter, Spirit of Truth, everywhere present, filling all things, Treasury of Blessings, and Giver of Life…

 

[ConstantineTG]

This is the second response you’ve made that indicates you really don’t understand (perhaps “understand” is not the right word, but rather “appreciate”) the uniqueness of the Eucharist as the fullness of Christ Himself, not merely spiritually (as He is when two or three are gathered), but REALLY present, body, blood, soul and divinity. This is Christ as He is in heaven.

Really? Given that, you can’t even have a modicum of understanding why Latins would worship the Eucharist?

Blessings,
Marduk

In this case you are putting words into my mouth. I don’t know how else to explain this. The Eucharist is given to us for a purpose. Jesus already guaranteed his presence when we gather to worship. The Eucharist is for our salvation, for the remission of sins and eternal life. To use it for anything other than what God intended, well, don’t we always say we shouldn’t use things for purposes other than what God intended? I don’t know why you think I lack the appreciation. Can I only have the appreciation if I agree with how you view it?

 

[Marybeloved]

It is not a good response, it is a great response! If we are to worship Christ wherever his presence is, why not in other places where He says He is? Also, don’t we believe that God is everywhere and in everything? So why stop at the Eucharist? Actually, it is an Orthodox teaching that we live this way, worshiping God and praying to Him every minute and every second of our lives and with every breath we take.

I worship Him, but again the Eucharist is given for us to eat and drink for the remission of sins and life everlasting. It is like I gave you a stack of $100 bills and you just burned it to start a barbecue. Yes, you can do that, yes it works. But as lssanjose said, it does not make sense.

What doesn’t make sense is your analogy. Worshiping and adoring Christ is to you like burning $100 bills? Considering what Christ said about Mary to her sister Martha and about the woman who washed his feet with her tears, I’d say he disagrees.

And no- it’s not a good response. If you equate the Eucharistic presence with all other ways that God is present (everywhere, as you said), then why don’t you also worship him and eat him in your breakfast? We could go all day with this, but what’s the point? Every Apostolic Christian who is not a heretic believes that Christ’s presence in the Eucharist is quite literal and unique, so there’s no point in having this argument.

 

[lssanjose]

This is the second response you’ve made that indicates you really don’t understand (perhaps “understand” is not the right word, but rather “appreciate”) the uniqueness of the Eucharist as the fullness of Christ Himself, not merely spiritually (as He is when two or three are gathered), but REALLY present, body, blood, soul and divinity. This is Christ as He is in heaven.

Really? Given that, you can’t even have a modicum of understanding why Latins would worship the Eucharist?

Blessings,
Marduk

I’m sure he does, brother. It’s a matter of context, for him. Christ’s command was to take it, and eat, for it is his body, which is for the remission of sins.