Eucharistic Adoration

[rcwitness]

From Bryan Cross at Calledtocommunion.com:

Thanks Duane. Do you know of an example from early centuries of Eucharistic Adoration?

 

[Duane1966]

Thanks Duane. Do you know of an example from early centuries of Eucharistic Adoration?

I read an article that says there is evidence of Eucharistic Adoration in the fourth century, which would make sense since St. Augustine talks about adoring the Eucharist before receiving, though the article did not print what the evidence is.

In the quote from St. Polycarp that I posted, he could be talking about the Eucharist right then.

 

[susanlo]

We bow to the altar, which is veneration, because what happens there, We genuflect to the tabernacle, because Christ is physically present there. We do not worship the altar.

Veneration is respect. Adoration is worship. Any created thing can be venerated, only God (uncreated), can be adored / worshipped. If someone were to adore the altar, that would be idolatry.

Is the act of genuflecting only associated with worship/adoration? Or can one show veneration by genuflecting? Are there any other actions that are distinctly considered worship?

I think that we would all agree that the intentions of the heart make a big difference in distinguishing honoring versus worshiping. I wonder when certain actions were classified as being an act of worship while others like bowing were an act of veneration.

 

[commenter]

The best way I can understand Adoration is to recall Moses, at the site of the burning bush. Even the area **around **the bush was holy ground. It is tempting to argue, why should *this *bush, or *this *plot of land, be any holier than any other? Well it is, because God chose to make it so.

This understanding of Presence was developed more, with the Ark of the Covenant, and the Holy of Holies. In the New Covenant, that Presence is carried forward in the Eucharist, and just being near that Presence changes us, just as it did Moses, when we adore.

 

[susanlo]

In the quote from St. Polycarp that I posted, he could be talking about the Eucharist right then.

This, like many of the early frequently quoted writings, is easily accessible on the internet.

“Chapter 17. The Christians are refused Polycarp’s body
But when the adversary of the race of the righteous, the envious, malicious, and wicked one, perceived the impressive nature of his martyrdom, and [considered] the blameless life he had led from the beginning, and how he was now crowned with the wreath of immortality, having beyond dispute received his reward, he did his utmost that not the least memorial of him should be taken away by us, although many desired to do this, and to become possessors of his holy flesh. For this end he suggested it to Nicetes, the father of Herod and brother of Alce, to go and entreat the governor not to give up his body to be buried, lest, said he, forsaking Him that was crucified, they begin to worship this one. This he said at the suggestion and urgent persuasion of the Jews, who also watched us, as we sought to take him out of the fire, being ignorant of this, that it is neither possible for us ever to forsake Christ, who suffered for the salvation of such as shall be saved throughout the whole world (the blameless one for sinners ), nor to worship any other. For Him indeed, as being the Son of God, we adore; but the martyrs, as disciples and followers of the Lord, we worthily love on account of their extraordinary affection towards their own King and Master, of whom may we also be made companions and fellow disciples!”

newadvent.org/fathers/0102.htm

Those within the Roman government thought that if the Christians received his body they would worship Polycarp instead of Jesus. The writer is explaining that they wanted to memorialize Polycarp’s remains out of “love” and respect, but they only “adore”/worship God. He doesn’t mention the Eucharistic elements at all.

 

[rcwitness]

The best way I can understand Adoration is to recall Moses, at the site of the burning bush. Even the area **around **the bush was holy ground. It is tempting to argue, why should *this *bush, or *this *plot of land, be any holier than any other? Well it is, because God chose to make it so.

This understanding of Presence was developed more, with the Ark of the Covenant, and the Holy of Holies. In the New Covenant, that Presence is carried forward in the Eucharist, and just being near that Presence changes us, just as it did Moses, when we adore.

But we have to acknowledge the difference between the Old and the New. In the New, the Veil is broken, and God dwells with us. He does so as a Community (Church) and as individuals (believers).

So the unique distinction should be made over “Christ in our hearts”
and “Christ in the Eucharist”. And how they harmonize one another. That is what I find to be significant. And it has to do with the Worship we observe and practice.

 

[rcwitness]

In the Old Testament times, we understand that:

Romans 9
They are Israelites, and to them belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises

Now, in the New Testament, who does the Worship belong to, or who has it been given to? It was first given to the Apostles. That much, all Christians can agree. But after them, who does it belong to? And I don’t mean individual believers only, but the Body of God’s people.

 

[PJM]

Is Eucharistic Adoration supported by the fact that Manna was kept in the Ark?

And which is greater, Manna or Eucharist?

YES

Mana was a food gift from God

Eucharist is a “food” gift OF GOD:thumbsup:

GBY

 

[GKC]

YES

Mana was a food gift from God

Eucharist is a “food” gift OF GOD:thumbsup:

GBY

That is an apt comparison.

 

[rcwitness]

YES

Mana was a food gift from God

Eucharist is a “food” gift OF GOD:thumbsup:

GBY

Well that is looking at it from the perspective that I think it supports. And several things involved have to be understood for that view, such as:

● The Manna was venerated (under the conditions God commanded)

● The Manna was inferior to the Eucharist

 

[susanlo]

In the Old Testament times, we understand that:

Romans 9
They are Israelites, and to them belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises

Now, in the New Testament, who does the Worship belong to, or who has it been given to? It was first given to the Apostles. That much, all Christians can agree. But after them, who does it belong to? And I don’t mean individual believers only, but the Body of God’s people.

Is this a trick question? Or a rhetorical question?
Aren’t those who accept Christ and are filled with the Holy Spirit adopted into sonship? Aren’t they called to worship God? I wonder if I am misunderstanding what you are asking here.

 

[commenter]

Aren’t those who accept Christ and are filled with the Holy Spirit adopted into sonship? Aren’t they called to worship God?

Concerning those who are adopted into sonship, does ****adoration **** play a part in their spiritual life? If so, could you describe? I know we all, in a sense, practice adoration through the totality of our lives, but I wonder if there is more specific application in your view.

 

[susanlo]

Concerning those who are adopted into sonship, does ****adoration **** play a part in their spiritual life? If so, could you describe? I know we all, in a sense, practice adoration through the totality of our lives, but I wonder if there is more specific application in your view.

I was looking at the word worship used in the New Testament. (I don’t see the term adore or adoration in the translations I was looking at.) I understand that adoration and worship are synonyms.

I think that Christian worship can be done in many different forms. There is weekly church worship and worship and devotion in private prayer lives.
The only time I see Christians instructed to worship in Romans (where the earlier quote about the Israelites was from) is in Romans 12:1 Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship. I understand this to mean that we should make our lives and all that we are an offering to God and serve Him with all that we have. This is quite a high calling. I don’t know if this is considered adoration or not. I guess it is like you said - “practice adoration through the totality of our lives.”

 

[rcwitness]

Is this a trick question? Or a rhetorical question?
Aren’t those who accept Christ and are filled with the Holy Spirit adopted into sonship? Aren’t they called to worship God? I wonder if I am misunderstanding what you are asking here.

I don’t think a trick question. It seems “sonship” and “the worship” are not exactly the same thing. Israel was given the proper and fullness of what is accurately worshipping God. Now, would it not be “the Church”?

 

[susanlo]

I don’t think a trick question. It seems “sonship” and “the worship” are not exactly the same thing. Israel was given the proper and fullness of what is accurately worshipping God. Now, would it not be “the Church”?

Romans 8:14For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. 15The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship.

All who are God’s children should serve and worship God. Everyone who loves God and lives a Spirit-filled life is part of the universal/catholic Church. I don’t see Paul (or any other New Testament writer) making any other qualifications for joining the church other than accepting Jesus and following Him. Often the Christians were wrong and misguided - as we see in many of the letters - but they were still children of God who were worshiping God. (I also don’t see any requirements in the Bible or in the earliest writings commanding people to the necessity of worshiping the bread of the Eucharist or even stating that this practice was performed.)

 

[Duane1966]

This, like many of the early frequently quoted writings, is easily accessible on the internet.

“Chapter 17. The Christians are refused Polycarp’s body
But when the adversary of the race of the righteous, the envious, malicious, and wicked one, perceived the impressive nature of his martyrdom, and [considered] the blameless life he had led from the beginning, and how he was now crowned with the wreath of immortality, having beyond dispute received his reward, he did his utmost that not the least memorial of him should be taken away by us, although many desired to do this, and to become possessors of his holy flesh. For this end he suggested it to Nicetes, the father of Herod and brother of Alce, to go and entreat the governor not to give up his body to be buried, lest, said he, forsaking Him that was crucified, they begin to worship this one. This he said at the suggestion and urgent persuasion of the Jews, who also watched us, as we sought to take him out of the fire, being ignorant of this, that it is neither possible for us ever to forsake Christ, who suffered for the salvation of such as shall be saved throughout the whole world (the blameless one for sinners ), nor to worship any other. For Him indeed, as being the Son of God, we adore; but the martyrs, as disciples and followers of the Lord, we worthily love on account of their extraordinary affection towards their own King and Master, of whom may we also be made companions and fellow disciples!”

newadvent.org/fathers/0102.htm

Those within the Roman government thought that if the Christians received his body they would worship Polycarp instead of Jesus. The writer is explaining that they wanted to memorialize Polycarp’s remains out of “love” and respect, but they only “adore”/worship God. He doesn’t mention the Eucharistic elements at all.

You’re right.

 

[rcwitness]

Romans 8:14For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. 15The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship.The Spirit “brought about” adoption. Does this entail Baptism… and Baptism into the Body?

All who are God’s children should serve and worship God. Everyone who loves God and lives a Spirit-filled life is part of the universal/catholic Church. I don’t see Paul (or any other New Testament writer) making any other qualifications for joining the church other than accepting Jesus and following Him.

 

[paperwight66]

We bow to the altar, which is veneration, because what happens there, We genuflect to the tabernacle, because Christ is physically present there. We do not worship the altar.

QUOTE]

Sorry, Duane, be careful not to confuse people with inexact language.

The Real Presence is not physical. If the Blessed Sacrament species of bread decays, as all physical things do, would you say that Jesus had decayed? The ‘accidents’ - taste, appearance, texture, volume in space - are physical, but Jesus is the substance, not the accidents.

In the Catechism, the Real Presence is described thus (para 1374): ‘The mode of Christ’s presence under the Eucharistic species is unique…it is presence in the fullest sense, that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present’.

And see para 1381. ''That in this sacrament at the true Body of Christ and his true Blood is something that ‘cannot be comprehended by the senses,’ says St. Thomas, ‘but only by faith, which relies on divine authority’.

The physical is what is perceived by the senses - sight, touch and taste - remember. But we are told that the Real Presence cannot be comprehended by the senses. It is unique, of a different order to what we knew before - in short, Jesus is present really, truly and sacramentally.

 

[MichaelP3]

Is this a trick question? Or a rhetorical question?
Aren’t those who accept Christ and are filled with the Holy Spirit adopted into sonship? Aren’t they called to worship God? I wonder if I am misunderstanding what you are asking here.

Hi Susanlo

Your post made me think, although it is not directed to you, rather related to your post?

We all believe in the Trinity? So the Holy Spirit makes sense so far, as having God in us, between us and among us. What is the purpose of the Holy Spirit if “Jesus” would actually be in us, between us and among us? I can see the argument between physical and spiritual and maybe something else? But having the Holy Spirit in us, among us and between us, which is God? Why would we look further? Just looking for an understanding?

Thank you!

 

[Duane1966]

Duane1966;14346357:

We bow to the altar, which is veneration, because what happens there, We genuflect to the tabernacle, because Christ is physically present there. We do not worship the altar.

QUOTE]

Sorry, Duane, be careful not to confuse people with inexact language.

The Real Presence is not physical. If the Blessed Sacrament species of bread decays, as all physical things do, would you say that Jesus had decayed? The ‘accidents’ - taste, appearance, texture, volume in space - are physical, but Jesus is the substance, not the accidents.

In the Catechism, the Real Presence is described thus (para 1374): ‘The mode of Christ’s presence under the Eucharistic species is unique…it is presence in the fullest sense, that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present’.

And see para 1381. ''That in this sacrament at the true Body of Christ and his true Blood is something that ‘cannot be comprehended by the senses,’ says St. Thomas, ‘but only by faith, which relies on divine authority’.

The physical is what is perceived by the senses - sight, touch and taste - remember. But we are told that the Real Presence cannot be comprehended by the senses. It is unique, of a different order to what we knew before - in short, Jesus is present really, truly and sacramentally.

You’re right.