Eucharistic Adoration in the East

[Peter_J]

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.

Nice to see you back here.

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 further 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.

Good points. However, I think it should also be said that there can, I believe, be a little bit of an inferiority/superiority complex among Eastern Catholics. (I emphasize “can” because I’m not claiming it’s prevalent, only that it does exist.) I don’t say, of course, to put all the blame on one side; just trying to give due credit to points made by Latins.

 

[Peter_J]

That’s not what I said.

No, I didn’t much think that was what you meant.

Looking at your post again, it occurs to me that perhaps you meant to say:

  			Originally Posted by **ByzCathCantor** 					[forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=9799026#post9799026) 				
  		*The latter retort, in particular, is uncharitable by definition, -]as/-] and* in itself it is an assertion contrary to Catholic teaching.

 

[lssanjose]

Well, I tried my best to catch up, yet perhaps it’s best to stay on the sideline (where its safe) …

Why am I so resistant to such sound advice?

 

[tdgesq]

Roman Catholicism is not the only expression of Apostolic Faith out there.

Then perhaps you could give us the expression of Apostolic Faith that declares that eucharistic adoration is wrong.

 

[lssanjose]

Then perhaps you could give us the expression of Apostolic Faith that declares that eucharistic adoration is wrong.

Fellow brethren, in Christ, I believe he said it was wrong, in his eyes. I don’t think it’s wrong, personally.

 

[Marybeloved]

Icons are not the object of adoration

They’re still innovative though-that was my point. Plus it was IssanJoe who originally came up with the comparison as a retort, not me.

 

[Marybeloved]

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.

All valid points. But to emphasize:

1. I have not seen any such insistence on this particular thread that there is no difference except in posts by Easterns claiming it about Latins, while doing this very same thing to Latins. Granted, Bookcat’s constant posting of docs was thoroughly tiresome, even to us, but this is not the claim he was making.
2. I have not seen that demand to accept Latin expressions verbatim, except as a claim or implication that Latins do that, in this thread, accompanied again, by a similar impositions on Latins to ‘‘be Eastern’’. What I saw was reference to Eastern docs which then became a debate about it being a Roman doc.

Also, you said: *’‘The latter retort, in particular, is uncharitable by definition, as in itself it is an assertion contrary to Catholic teaching.’’ *

You’re right, and so is it uncharitable and I’m certain contrary to Catholic teaching, to claim or imply that Latin spirituality, approach, concepts are wrong or inferior, just because the Orthodox don’t do it. Too many Easterns feel free to go about doing this to Latins here, which leaves us wondering just when authentic Eastern Catholicism (or Orthodoxy) became about denigrating the West? Why for some, the East cannot be wonderful without the West being… not wonderful, to put it mildly? It seems to me that Latins are more likely to view differences between us this way (we’re both OK) than are Easterns- at least as it appears on some threads.

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.

Noted

 

[GaryTaylor]

to claim or imply that Latin spirituality, approach, concepts are wrong or inferior, just because the Orthodox don’t do it. Too many Easterns feel free to go about doing this to Latins here, which leaves us wondering just when authentic Eastern Catholicism (or Orthodoxy) became about denigrating the West? Why for some, the East cannot be wonderful without the West being… not wonderful, to put it mildly? It seems to me that Latins are more likely to view differences between us this way (we’re both OK) than are Easterns- at least as it appears on some threads.

Bit apparent is it? Perhaps we can all be a bit more charitable.

Maybe we can look to Poland who has stood at the crossroads for many years. I imagine they were also made to feel somehow inferior from the on-set with the West. Probably just normal human behavior to some extent. Sort of like saying the North is of course more American than the South.

Two-way street we all need to be aware of. I hear you Mary.

 

[TrueLight]

Sort of like saying the North is of course more American than the South.

Two-way street we all need to be aware of. I hear you Mary.

The difference is we are speaking about faith and morals. It’s not for example, comments like “icons are prettier than statues”.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I don’t know if this is fair or accurate to say about this thread. Also this statement you made is too broad- ‘‘E. C and W. C are not the same’’. I mean, it could mean too much. Constantine has been speaking of a gap in Catholicism that simply could not be true if the Eastern and Western Catholics are really one communion, and they are. That is just as much exaggeration and inaccurate assertions as any other inaccurate statement made here. ‘‘Worlds apart’’ was the particular phrase (and many others).

Now, even Judaism and Christianity are very different (They miss out on a whole epoch of revelation, those Jews) yet even I as Christian who shares with them the OT and its saints, still wouldn’t describe that difference as ‘‘worlds apart’’- we still have a common language, a common deposit of truths that we draw from. East and West (in Christianity) have different emphasis and approaches (not to mention that west has several approaches within itself!) yet we are talking of an identical revelation, apostolic truths, sacraments, and (for E.Catholics) one communion. If I could add St. Paul’s admonition, ‘‘One Lord, one faith, one baptism’’. How could we say that differences in approach (which amount to culture) are so great as to amount to such a gap? Are they greater than the one Lord and the one faith and the one baptism that we share?

I find a lot of this to be a continuation of those cultural fights between the Judaizers and gentile Christians. Diversity is great. Unity is most important though. To me that just means that our cultures are great because they are the language in which we approach everything and are so in so far as they are compatible with the faith and can be redeemed by it, used by it for itself- they are not as important as the faith itself though. When I read the NT, it strikes me how much the unity of faith is emphasized over cultural (even theological and philosophical) diversity. But sometimes these threads end up exaggerating the latter (diversity) and throwing the former (unity of faith) under the bus to protect the latter.

Oh, I agree. In fact, I think I sort of intended to undermine the notion that we’re “worlds apart” by admitting that western and eastern Christianity are different: Constantine knows full well that I personally see eastern and western Christianity as compatible - as sharing the same Faith - so for me to say that they’re different is, I think, a subtle but unmistakable way for me to imply that it’s not a stretch at all to hold that we share the same Faith despite our differences…

if that makes any sense.

I think that the Eastern/Oriental Churches prefer to talk about Holy Mysteries and those do not have a one to one correspondence with the seven Sacraments as defined by the Council of Trent. I think that the Holy Mysteries encompass more, including your example of the sacramentals.

True, but I’ve seen lists from Orthodox sources - not Catholic at all - that distinguish the Great Mysteries from the other Holy Mysteries, and the same seven we speak of as Sacraments do indeed alone comprise the former.

According to Marduk, this is more an Eastern phenomenon. The orientals have only seven sacraments, just like the West.

Ah, another great point.

Indeed, such obviously inaccurate statements aren’t much of a danger. It’s often the smaller, subtler errors that are more troublesome.

In this particular case, I should think that most people would reject the idea that “eastern Christianity and western Christianity are the same”; but they might not reject an assumption that’s contained within that statement, namely what we might call the “sameness of Eastern Christianity”. Without that assumption, it wouldn’t even make sense to ask if eastern Christianity and western Christianity are the same.

Ah, here we run into the problem of terminology that I experienced just a few posts ago: in that quote, I meant “eastern Christianity” to refer to Byzantine Christianity specifically, not as umbrella term for all non-western Christianity (Byzantine, Miaphysite, Assyrian, etc.)

I don’t want other people to have that wrong impression. If people come to this forum and this thread and see that we who know about the Eastern faith say nothing about the false Latin claims, then they will assume that what is said is true.

Ah, fair enough. I admit I also prefer to emphasize that Byzantine Christianity and Latin Christianity are, though greatly different, also compatible (i.e. valid expressions of the Orthodox Faith).

The Catholic Church, through Trent, has fixed the number of Sacraments. The Orthodox hasn’t. This is because of a different understanding of what Sacraments are and how it is used in our Christian lives.

Why do you say that?

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.

And yet I’ve read Orthodox Christians say - including priests, though this was online - that it’s heresy from the perspective of Orthodoxy to say that it’s still bread.

Eastern Theology just hasn’t attempted to describe/define the Real Presence with as much specificity as Latin Theology has. So I don’t think statements as specific as the above can validly be made of Orthodoxy as a whole.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Dear brother ConstantineTG,

Are you learning about the East itself ONLY, or are your sources also inclined to give you a rather inaccurate understanding of Latin Catholicism in the process of their attempts to make the distinction? I have to tell you right now that upon reading your posts in the past several months insisting on the “worlds apart” view, you have shown very little understanding of Latin Catholic doctrines. I don’t know if it’s because you forgot what was taught you as a Latin Catholic, or because you are simply now more inclined to listen to non-Latins who know little or nothing about Latin Catholicism.

You really need to distinguish between the two (i.e., learning about the East for its own sake, on the one hand, and learning about the differences with the West through the eyes of Easterns who know little or nothing about the Latins, on the other), or you end up doing the same thing to the Latins that you claim the Latins are doing to Easterns.

Blessings,
Marduk

This is an excellent point, Marduk. It’s a trap we can all fall into: failing to ensure that we’re learning about the East from eastern sources (Orthodox, of course, being those who live that whole approach most fully) and the West from western sources.

I’ve lost count of the number of times when I’ve read Orthodox sources explain something, thought “Wow, that’s a great explanation!”, then scratched my head in puzzlement at their assertion that “Roman Catholics” believe otherwise. “But that’s what I was taught, and I’ve been a Latin Catholic all my life!” I find myself inevitably thinking.

When people typically see the word rite, they think physical expressions, of the same thing.

That can be true, though, depending on what that “same thing” is said to be. The different rites are different expressions of the One True Faith…

That’s an entirely different claim from the dubious suggestion that the theology, beliefs, etc. are the same. Sometimes they are “worlds apart,” as Constantine has said… but is the Faith they live worlds apart?

If so, then the full communion between Latin, Eastern, and Oriental Catholics is a lie, a falsehood. I don’t believe that to be the case.

This isn’t emphasized so much, if at all, in Western thought.

I agree, although sometimes you find it there, too. The Carmelites, for instance, have it.

Of course, they originated in the Middle East, so they probably picked it up from eastern Christianity to begin with…

Eastern Catholics too is a bit of a misnomer, one reason why many do not subscribe to the “two lung” theory. Does it mean a Ukrainian Catholic is the same as an Ethiopian Catholic? Or a Maronite? Or a Chaldean?

“Eastern Catholic” can be an ambiguous term, it’s true.

But no, of course the examples you cite are very differnent. Ukrainian Catholics are Byzantines; they should be like the Eastern Orthodox as much as they can. Ethiopian Catholics are Oriental Catholics, probably Miaphysites like the Oriental Orthodox, for instance. Maronites, of course, are their own unique entity, and Chaldeans don’t have Orthodox roots at all.

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?

Because, as you well know, He is present as the Holy Eucharist in a manner and to a degree not found elsewhere in this world.

To adore a consecrated host as God is to worship Jesus Christ, our Lord, God, and Savior.

To worship a human being in the same sense as one might adore a consecrated host would be idolatry.

There’s a deeper Mystery, I think, to the Eucharist. I actually think the Latins have come to express that deeper Mystery better than the Easterns or Orientals in Eucharistic Adoration (of course, I think there are some things that I think the Easterns express better than the Latins, and some things I think Orientals express better than Easterns or Latins ). I’m just glad to be in a Church that can appreciate all the varied expressions of the one, true Faith.

Blessings,
Marduk

Yeah, me too.

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.

As you have repeatedly and justly emphasized, Constantine, the Latin practice of “Eucharistic Adoration” is not at all a part of “your side.”

So in statements from you about Eucharistic Adoration, you’re going beyond merely explaining your side.

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.

Fair enough. I, for one, am not saying you should do Eucharistic Adoration.

You shouldn’t, obviously.

What I do object to, Constantine, is the claim that Eucharistic Adoration is wrong. That was your word - “wrong.” Did you mean “wrong” for an Eastern Christian? Okay, then. I agree. If you mean “wrong” across the board, then it is you who are incorrect. The adored consecrated host as the icon of the West has a beautiful and proper place in Latin spirituality, and it’s inconceivable that a thousand years of Latin saints and mystics have somehow missed what you see so clearly…

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Peter J

Hmm … so what should we say then, that there are issues between the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox, but not between the Eastern Orthodox and Byzantine Catholics because they are both part of “Byzantine Christianity”? (Of course, I put that in the form of a rhetorical question b/c I’m assuming your answer would be No. But then, I’ve been wrong before. )

 

[ConstantineTG]

Ah, fair enough. I admit I also prefer to emphasize that Byzantine Christianity and Latin Christianity are, though greatly different, also compatible (i.e. valid expressions of the Orthodox Faith).

For Catholics we believe they are complementary, not necessarily compatible. Remember that compatible means we can mix-and-match. That would be terrible because the spirituality of each rite is built upon the traditions it has lived for the last 2000 years. That is why we want to get rid of Latinizations, not because by itself they are bad, but they are bad when taken with our entire spirituality. Look at it this way, it is like a dish. A dish has ingredients. If you put other ingredients in the dish, it ruins the dish. Does that mean those other ingredients are bad? No. They just don’t belong to the dish, but then the dish becomes bad because of those ingredients. You do not want Latin traditions mixed with Byzantine traditions, and this goes for either way. The same reason Latins do not want to stand during Anaphora and during Communion is the same reason we do not want Stations of the Cross in our parishes or Eucharistic Adoration.

Why do you say that?

It is a completely different praxis. I haven’t read The Orthodox Church by Met. Kallistos but it has a section on Sacraments. I bet it will be as good as the book I am currently reading regarding the Orthodox Church. Even the Byzantine understanding of Grace is different from the Latin, therefore we use our Sacraments in a different way. For example, during Lent we do anointing for all. It is a general anointing because we believe we are all afflicted with the sickness of sin. It is for spiritual sickness, not physical, yet we do anointing for everyone and not just the physically sick and dying. General Absolution is also an acceptable practice also within Lent. Though such practices have dropped out and are only starting to be revived in some Orthodox circles. The entire approach to Sacraments is different and how the Byzantine life revolves around them.

And yet I’ve read Orthodox Christians say - including priests, though this was online - that it’s heresy from the perspective of Orthodoxy to say that it’s still bread.

Eastern Theology just hasn’t attempted to describe/define the Real Presence with as much specificity as Latin Theology has. So I don’t think statements as specific as the above can validly be made of Orthodoxy as a whole.

Jesus himself said he is the bread of life. What is being said here is that we don’t have qualms in calilng the Eucharist bread and wine knowing fully well that the Eucharist is indeed Jesus Christ fully. Try calling the Eucharist bread and win in our Liturgy forum and you’ll get 5 dozen responses wrangling through the verbal gymnastics of what is the correct way to call it. To us, if one calls it bread and thinks it is indeed bread, then it is a simple matter of one does not get it. Although of course there are those who already bought into that concept of semantic gymnastics. We are not immune from that.

“Eastern Catholic” can be an ambiguous term, it’s true.

But no, of course the examples you cite are very differnent. Ukrainian Catholics are Byzantines; they should be like the Eastern Orthodox as much as they can. Ethiopian Catholics are Oriental Catholics, probably Miaphysites like the Oriental Orthodox, for instance. Maronites, of course, are their own unique entity, and Chaldeans don’t have Orthodox roots at all.

And even within the Byzantine Churches there are subtle differences between them even though they follow the same rite. Like Ukrainians will have certain traditions that you will not find with Melkites, and so on. But generally the Byzantine faith has a major commonality, but still we can’t just say “East” and refer to a huge group that is very much diverse. Although you can say the Eastern/Byzantine faith is closer to the Oriental faith than either are to the Latin.

Because, as you well know, He is present as the Holy Eucharist in a manner and to a degree not found elsewhere in this world.

And Jesus is present in the Eucharist because he wants us to eat and drink it

To adore a consecrated host as God is to worship Jesus Christ, our Lord, God, and Savior.

It doesn’t make any increase or decrease in our adoration, praise and worship of Christ even without the Eucharist in our midst. Christ already promised that he is among those gathered in His Name. Is that any less of a presence than the Eucharist? Christ is the same for all time, and God is everywhere. I fail to see the difference. If we feel Christ presence differently during Eucharistic Adoration than during our Bible Study Group, then there is something wrong with our Bible Study Group. Or there is something wrong with us.

To worship a human being in the same sense as one might adore a consecrated host would be idolatry.

It works the other way around too. To limit an infinite God to the Host. St. Stephen blasted the Jews prior to his martyrdom because they believe God is limited to the Temple, that God resides there and he is there and that he is only for the Jews. Have we made our Monstrance the Jewish Temple?

 

[ConstantineTG]

As you have repeatedly and justly emphasized, Constantine, the Latin practice of “Eucharistic Adoration” is not at all a part of “your side.”

So in statements from you about Eucharistic Adoration, you’re going beyond merely explaining your side.

Well, I was Latin Catholic for 33 years. I’ve spent a great deal of my life on that side.

Fair enough. I, for one, am not saying you should do Eucharistic Adoration.

You shouldn’t, obviously.

What I do object to, Constantine, is the claim that Eucharistic Adoration is wrong. That was your word - “wrong.” Did you mean “wrong” for an Eastern Christian? Okay, then. I agree. If you mean “wrong” across the board, then it is you who are incorrect. The adored consecrated host as the icon of the West has a beautiful and proper place in Latin spirituality, and it’s inconceivable that a thousand years of Latin saints and mystics have somehow missed what you see so clearly…

It is wrong from our point of view. Isn’t it what this thread and forum is about? The Eastern praxis and the Eastern point of view? Like I said, when people here ask questions, they should be ready to listen to the answer. Don’t expect us to give a Latin answer. And don’t expect us to give an answer you would like. That is just how it is. Do you think we are happy when Latins say, “oh, standing for Consecration is just so disrespectful.” Do they try to reword what they say so we won’t be offended?

 

[Vico]

There is no Monstrance or hours of Adoration, but the Sacrament is reserved for use to commune the sick and dying and when entering the church, we are aware of Christ’s presence so we cross ourselves when passing in front of the Sacrament. And of course, great devotion is shown in the Divine Liturgy for the Sacrament. Besides our prayer and crossings, in the Divine Liturgy, the celebrant does present to the faithful the Sanctified Gifts before reception.
The deacon then places the remaining particles for the communion of the faithful into the chalice and covers it. He places the asterisk and the veils on the diskos. The deacon bows once, takes the chalice from the celebrant and, turning toward the faithful, intones from within the holy doors:

DEACON: Approach with fear of God and with faith.
RESPONSE: Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. The Lord is God and has revealed himself to us.
The celebrant takes the chalice back from the deacon. The faithful come forward to receive communion from the priest. The deacon may also give communion to the faithful if need be. The priest or deacon, giving communion to each, says:

The servant of God, (Name), partakes of the precious, most holy, and most pure body and blood of our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ for the remission of (his-her) sins and for life everlasting. Amen.
Or:
The servant of God, (Name), partakes of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and for life everlasting. Amen.
​

We show great reverence in the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts:“Now the powers of heaven are serving with us invisibly! For behold the King of Glory enters! They escort the mystical sacrifice already accomplished. Let us draw near with faith and love that we may become partakers of life everlasting. Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia!”

• from the Entrance Hymn of the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts

 

[Cyrillic]

Many people would say so about icons- I don’t remember reading about their use in the church of the New Testament.

The Apostle St. Luke was the first iconographer. Then there is the mandylion of Edessa.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The Apostle St. Luke was the first iconographer. Then there is the mandylion of Edessa.

You mean the tradition of the painting of Mary with the baby Jesus by Luke? The mandylon of Edessa I believe dates to the 4th century? If I’m not mistaken I believe there are Byzantine Icons dating earlier to the 2nd century. Can’t remember the specific work nevertheless it was well covered in “Mary through the Centuries.”

 

[Peter_J]

The Apostle St. Luke

Not to be a nerd, but I think you mean Evangelist.

 

[Aramis]

Not to be a nerd, but I think you mean Evangelist.

Apostle AND Evangelist. At least according to the liturgical prayers.

 

[Stephentlig]

Sitting be the Divine presence of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament is amazing. I pray that all the Churches worldwide adopt this great gift in their parish.