Eucharistic Adoration in the East

  • Thread starter Thread starter lssanjose
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TrueLight said:
I took a break from this thread because I was getting quite frustrated, but let me say that criticizing Latin spirituality or bringing up “points of concern” was not the plan either.

Even though I am new to Catholicism, I have read enough books on spirituality to know that you haven’t really put any time into learning about Latin spirituality or the meaning of contemplation. If you had, you would see similarities. We may all take different approaches, but we reach the same truth. At least it should be that way.

I just don’t understand why you need to imply that Eucharistic adoration doesn’t make sense or that it is compartmentalization. Does any Latin say that is the only way we are to pray? We don’t go around asking what is the point of the Jesus prayer do we?

Eucharistic Adoration? That’s how we do.

You do you.
Click to expand...
Well, you asked about an Eastern POV, on the original matter, which people were more than willing to provide you. I know there was plenty of derailment, from your original question (and derailment is still going on, sadly). I’m sure it didn’t mean to come down to this. Alas, it did come down to this.

For Eastern Catholics, and I hope Latin Catholics, too, there is a stance of things not being too clear cut. As, I perceive that was the essence of your original question - if not, do correct me, on this. I mean to say, you wanted a precise perspective on this very issue. Yes, the canons are there, but as I finally found out from ByzCathCantor posting, in another thread, the CCC is meant for bishops. These two items aside, this issue is usually settled with your spiritual father.

To address your address of my puzzlement concerning Eucharistic Adoration, I was just piggy backing off what brother ConstantineTG was saying. I felt he was wrongfully rebuked for his statements, though I know he can make such statements causing others to feel irked. But, I do believe he’s been honest, throughout this discussion.

I’ve read a great deal of Western writers: Milton, Winthrop, Chaucer, Augustine. and so on. I even took on a Bible as literature class (which was fun, in defending its divinity). So, I’d like to think I got a grasp on Western Christian theology.
 
ConstantineTG said:
The problem is when we explain our side, people think its a jab at their side. How can we be honest with our position then? And the discussion takes a futher dive when after we first explain our side in charity, then the other side becomes overtly defensive of their side. When we ask questions, we should be ready for the fact that the answers may not be what we expect them to be.
Click to expand...
The problem is, brother, you are not simply explaining, but making judgments.

An explanation is: This is what we do and this is why we do it.

A judgment is: We are worlds apart, adoration is wrong, etc., etc.

See the difference (no pun intended)?

And the problem with your judgments is not that you know the Eastern Catholic position and are explaining it, but that your judgments are based on a misunderstanding of the Latin Catholic position.

The whole debate about Eucharistic adoration is your presumption that Latin Catholics are bifurcating the Eucharist from the purpose for which it was given. That is your imposition of your Eastern perspective on the Latins (your reverse uniatism). Eucharistic Adoration is a LATIN praxis and so you should accept the LATINS’ own explanation of it, not impose your own. Latin Catholics don’t bifurcate Eucharistic Adoration from the Eucharistic table because it is the same Christ - Who transcends time and space - Who is worshipped at Eucharistic Adoration as consumed at the Eucharistic table. His worship at Eucharistic Adoration is part of the same eternal event as the communion at the Eucharistic table.

Again, please contemplate the difference between an explanation and a judgment given above.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
mardukm said:
The problem is, brother, you are not simply explaining, but making judgments.

An explanation is: This is what we do and this is why we do it.

A judgment is: We are worlds apart, adoration is wrong, etc., etc.

See the difference (no pun intended)?

And the problem with your judgments is not that you know the Eastern Catholic position and are explaining it, but that your judgments are based on a misunderstanding of the Latin Catholic position.

The whole debate about Eucharistic adoration is your presumption that Latin Catholics are bifurcating the Eucharist from the purpose for which it was given. That is your imposition of your Eastern perspective on the Latins (your reverse uniatism). Eucharistic Adoration is a LATIN praxis and so you should accept the LATINS’ own explanation of it, not impose your own. Latin Catholics don’t bifurcate Eucharistic Adoration from the Eucharistic table because it is the same Christ - Who transcends time and space - Who is worshipped at Eucharistic Adoration as consumed at the Eucharistic table. His worship at Eucharistic Adoration is part of the same eternal event as the communion at the Eucharistic table.

Again, please contemplate the difference between an explanation and a judgment given above.

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
I’ll be reading this more than once, to soak these points in.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Well, like I said, it hardly starts that way. The problem is it devolves into that. Here is a sample:

A: Do you do Eucharistic adoration?
B: No
A: Why not?
B: Well, it is because of this…
A: Well, we do it because of this.
B: Yeah, but we just don’t subscribe to that

A: Why not? It’s not good enough for you guys?

Then it goes downhill from there.
Click to expand...
When was the red portion highlighed above done during this thread?

Blessings,
Marduk
 
lssanjose said:
I’ll be reading this more than once, to soak these points in.
Click to expand...
Thank you, brother.

As a further explanation on my two points: the scriptural basis for Eucharistic Adoration is the worship of the Lamb as though it had been slain at the altar of God in the book of Revelation. It is an aspect of the same eternal event as the consummation of the Lamb. Well, that’s the way two different Latin priests on two different occasions explained it to me.

And if you don’t mind, permit me to give a further explanation of the second point of my post - the difference between “explanation” and “judgment.” To say something like “we are worlds apart” indicates that you are comparing two things, which presupposes you have knowledge of what you are comparing. What is being questioned here is not the Eastern self-explanations, but whether brother CTG is correctly representing the Latin self-understanding so as to be able to make that judgment.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Wow! What a day I have missed on this thread!

I have to go back to post #621 to catch up … BRB
 
lssanjose said:
I was perusing this, and other sites; and the Liturgy of Pre-Sanctified Gifts were mentioned in past threads. This is as close to Eucharistic Adoration gets, in the Byzantine tradition.
Click to expand...
The more often I read that and consider the LPG, the more I find that characterization to be a “stretch”.

But let’s save that for a rainy day (this thread is already a hurricane) …
 
TrueLight said:
Even though I am new to Catholicism, I have read enough books on spirituality to know that you haven’t really put any time into learning about Latin spirituality or the meaning of contemplation.
Click to expand...
The Desert Fathers provided a sound foundation for such in both traditions.
 
Marybeloved said:
Except it doesn’t go like that. It starts with a statement like ''Latin approach is…(insert here false statement)… and then Latins interject and then the person insists that the Latin concept/approach is what they (the non Latin) is claiming, then you have a very long thread (which I don’t mind ;)).
Click to expand...
Perpetuated by further insistence in many, but not all, responses claiming that (i) there is no difference between Western and Eastern perspective (other than exaggeration on the part of Easterners) and/or (ii) that Eastern Catholics must accept Latin expression of dogmatic and doctrinal teaching verbatim, or they are not Catholic.

The latter retort, in particular, is uncharitable by definition, as in itself it is an assertion contrary to Catholic teaching.

BTW Mary, this is not a response directed to you, simply the other side of the coin that you fairly noted in the referenced post.
 
ByzCathCantor said:
Wow! What a day I have missed on this thread!

I have to go back to post #621 to catch up … BRB
Click to expand...
A whole day? I was away from this thread for maybe 3 hours this afternoon, and when I got back to it …

Anyhow, now that I’ve gotten to the end, I haven’t much time left to post; but I’m thinking perhaps that just as well. 😃
 
ByzCathCantor said:
The latter retort, in particular, is uncharitable by definition, as in itself it is an assertion contrary to Catholic teaching.
Click to expand...
Surely you don’t mean that everyone who disagrees with Catholic teaching is automatically being uncharitable?
 
Peter_J said:
Surely you don’t mean that everyone who disagrees with Catholic teaching is automatically being uncharitable?
Click to expand...
That’s not what I said. To infer that an Eastern Catholic is not, well, Catholic because they opt to understand Catholic dogma and doctrine from an Eastern perspective is an uncharitable assertion.
 
Peter_J said:
A whole day? I was away from this thread for maybe 3 hours this afternoon, and when I got back to it …

Anyhow, now that I’ve gotten to the end, I haven’t much time left to post; but I’m thinking perhaps that just as well. 😃
Click to expand...
I want to jump in (this thread) but at the very last possible second I stop myself…except for right now 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top