Has Adoration Replaced Good Liturgy?

[PKinsale]

The parish at which I am registered has a church that was built in 1975 and reflects all the architectural glory of that great age. The Masses there tend to to reflect this, often to a degree that is improperly casual. We have a perpetual adoration chapel and I wonder whether these chapels are often seen as something to quell complaints from more tradition-minded parishioners.

BTW, the chapel now has a picture of O.L. of Medjugorje in it. Is that allowed?

 

[Volodymyr_988]

Help me out here, Kirkwood, Chesterfield, Ellisville, Manchester? Where?

 

[Contarini]

I’ve been all around these United States and in Ireland and Rome. I have seen traditional looking parishes and some that make the local Baptist church look good. I’ve noticed that the less traditional looking parishes always have a special chapel for Adoration where the Tabernacle resides, yet have the worst Masses I’ve ever attended.

Do you think that the rise in Liturgical abuses and church wreckovations has given rise to more hours of Adoration? From what I have read, before Vatican II there was no 24-7 Adoration. Many Churches would do a 40 Hours Devotion here and there, but having Perpetual Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament was not anything that a parish would do.

It seems that the Suburban Catholics care more that they have Adoration more than they care for having a beautiful church that glorifies God and having a proper Liturgy. The proper Liturgy being the most important part, of course.

The 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia indicates that the practice long predated Vatican II! I don’t know how the frequency of it today compares to pre-Vatican II. I would not be at all surprised to hear that it is actually more common today, but I don’t know this for a fact. I think it’s almost certainly true that it has become for some Catholics a marker of an “orthodox” parish in a way that would have made no sense before Vatican II.

The standard narrative is that extra-liturgical Eucharistic adoration developed in the later Middle Ages as a kind of substitute for Communion, since laypeople received Communion only once a year (or sometimes three times) and then only in one kind. This infrequent communion combined with the increase in Eucharistic devotion and the doctrine of transubstantiation led to extra-liturgical devotions focused on the Sacrament. From the CE article it appears that the concept of “perpetual adoration” really took off in the 17th century. I think that part of it was a response to Protestantism and perhaps the beginnings of secularism, and that fits with your general thesis, I believe.

Edwin

 

[Dan-Man916]

I’ve been all around these United States and in Ireland and Rome. I have seen traditional looking parishes and some that make the local Baptist church look good. I’ve noticed that the less traditional looking parishes always have a special chapel for Adoration where the Tabernacle resides, yet have the worst Masses I’ve ever attended.

Do you think that the rise in Liturgical abuses and church wreckovations has given rise to more hours of Adoration? From what I have read, before Vatican II there was no 24-7 Adoration. Many Churches would do a 40 Hours Devotion here and there, but having Perpetual Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament was not anything that a parish would do.

It seems that the Suburban Catholics care more that they have Adoration more than they care for having a beautiful church that glorifies God and having a proper Liturgy. The proper Liturgy being the most important part, of course.

Volodymyr,

I think there are a lot of things going on. There were very big reforms made to the liturgy in the latin rite. This is not the case in the Eastern Churches. When we talk about liturgical abuses, I think that one needs to look at those from the perspective of the church trying to find its way through these changes. Any implementation of a Church council takes a long time to implement. When some Catholics hear the word, “change”, it evokes feelings and thoughts of something that cannot be. “Church doesn’t change, it’s timeless”, they say. However, that simply isn’t true to the history of liturgy in the Church.
History of the liturgy shows that the ritual meal practiced in the first and second century looked nothing like the Byzantine Rite currently used, nor did it look like the Tridentine Rite that many people love. That doesn’t mean that the ritual meal of the Breaking of the Bread was any less holy or proper. These were Catholics of the first generations. Their eucharist was in a very simple and ancient form. Nor does it mean that the Rites as we have them today (or had them prior to the implementation of Vatican II) are any better, any valid, or any more holy.

Liturgy expresses what we believe (as you well know). The simple ritual Breaking of the Bread in the first centuries did not express what was believed any less than today. That must be true for the Church has the mark of catholicity. It’s fullness was present everywhere at the first moment on Pentecost. As such, everything else that came was a development and deepening of understanding.

So what I am getting at, is that liturgy is less dependent upon the building structure than it is on the disposition of those who take full and active participation in that liturgy. It is a both-and, not an either or. I think that the abuses that are seen don’t stem from a moving away of a pristine liturgy that is no longer present except for some parishes. I think that the abuses come as some in the Church figure out how to implement the liturgical reforms that bring it back in line with the ancient ritual of the first Christians while preserving the understanding of sanctity found in later rites (such as the Tridentine).

 

[palmas85]

I’ve been all around these United States and in Ireland and Rome. I have seen traditional looking parishes and some that make the local Baptist church look good. I’ve noticed that the less traditional looking parishes always have a special chapel for Adoration where the Tabernacle resides, yet have the worst Masses I’ve ever attended.

**Do you think that the rise in Liturgical abuses and church wreckovations has given rise to more hours of Adoration? From what I have read, before Vatican II there was no 24-7 Adoration. Many Churches would do a 40 Hours Devotion here and there, but having Perpetual Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament was not anything that a parish would **do.

It seems that the Suburban Catholics care more that they have Adoration more than they care for having a beautiful church that glorifies God and having a proper Liturgy. The proper Liturgy being the most important part, of course.

A proper Liturgy the most important thing? What exactly do you mean by that?

I’m not sure what your sources are but I can tell you that prior to Vatican II Adoration was common and widespread. In fact you had religious orders that whose entire focus was exactly that. Perpetual adoration.

After Vatican II there was a concerted effort to do away with Adoration among other devotions, particularly those involving the Eucharist and the Blessed Virgin in many areas, I’m not sure why, but I would have to believe that ecumenism was partly behind it.

Rest assured that Adoration is very old, very well established and completely proper in the Latin Church,

 

[Dan-Man916]

Rest assured that Adoration is very old, very well established and completely proper in the Latin Church,

Most certainly it is. However, there is sometimes still an understanding that is prevalent by some that adoration is the center of our worship. It isn’t. The liturgy is. Adoration is certainly a pious and good thing, and the Church should be encouraging it. But one cannot focus on adoration to the exclusion of the action of the gathered community in the liturgy. It is a both-and. Sometimes people make it an either-or, pitting a perception of piety in eucharistic adoration vs. the current liturgy, and the lack of many Catholics to know what the liturgy is and how they are to become an active part of it. Instead, many just remain bystanders.

 

[Volodymyr_988]

A proper Liturgy the most important thing? What exactly do you mean by that?

I’m not sure what your sources are but I can tell you that prior to Vatican II Adoration was common and widespread. In fact you had religious orders that whose entire focus was exactly that. Perpetual adoration.

After Vatican II there was a concerted effort to do away with Adoration among other devotions, particularly those involving the Eucharist and the Blessed Virgin in many areas, I’m not sure why, but I would have to believe that ecumenism was partly behind it.

Rest assured that Adoration is very old, very well established and completely proper in the Latin Church,

*The Mass is the highest form of worship we can offer God. Shoddy Liturgy seems to have been covered up, as it were, by allowing the “trads” a token adoration chapel so that they can be busy in Adoration instead of writing letters to the bishop and the Vatican complaining about altar girls, 10001 Eucharistic ministers for a congregation of 20, etc…

*I know that Adoration was widespread in such things as 40 Hours Devotion, but I know of no Church where there was a separate chapel with the Host in a monstrance exposed every single minute of every single hour of every single day.

*I also know that there were and still are Orders set up for Adoration. But these are religious orders and not your Joe Twelve Pack Catholics in the pew.

 

[Dan-Man916]

• Shoddy Liturgy seems to have been covered up, as it were, by allowing the “trads” a token adoration chapel so that they can be busy in Adoration instead of writing letters to the bishop and the Vatican complaining about altar girls, 10001 Eucharistic ministers for a congregation of 20, etc…

Neither altar girls nor eucharistic ministers constitute parts of the liturgy, so how does this make the liturgy shoddy?

*I know that Adoration was widespread in such things as 40 Hours Devotion, but I know of no Church where there was a separate chapel with the Host in a monstrance exposed every single minute of every single hour of every single day.

Neither was their adoration in the first and second century. Adoration is a good and pious thing, but I think it would be incorrect to apply something to adoration that it isn’t. It isn’t found in the pre-Constantine era Church as far as I am aware of. Therefore, if we are going to make an appeal to the tradition of the Church, adoration is something that developed later. I don’t understand why adoration is somehow conntected to “proper” liturgy. It really isn’t part of liturgy at all.

 

[Revelation1412]

What I do appreciate is that people on this forum are not afraid to express what they really think.

 

[Volodymyr_988]

Adoration is used as a replacement to supplement what is missing in the Novus Ordo, in my estimation. There were no parishes having a separate chapel with a consecrated host displayed in a monstrance every second of every minute of every hour of every day.

I agree that Adoration is an awesome addendum, but it has become the end in itself and not the means to end in worship at the Mass. This seems to have been done to placate the more orthodox members of the parishes so they don’t complain about the abuses. The things you mention in your first sentence are abuses that have been allowed.

 

[Dan-Man916]

Adoration is used as a replacement to supplement what is missing in the Novus Ordo, in my estimation.

I really don’t mean to be a pain, but can you clarify what you mean by this.
What is missing? Is there something liturgical that is missing, or do you mean this in the sense of the loss of a sense of sacredness on the part of those who like and prefer the Tridentine rite?

The things you mention in your first sentence are abuses that have been allowed.

I don’t see how these are “liturgical” abuses, because they do not really pertain to the liturgy itself in teh case of altar girls. Altar girls are assistants, they do not preside, nor are they necessary for the liturgy to take place. Liturgical abuses are those things that actually change the ritual meaning of what the liturgy is attempting to do.

Eucharistic ministers receive communion from the priest (if it is done correctly according to the GIRM), and they distribute the Eucharist as a sign of unity of the Body in sharing of the breaking of the bread. The sacramental action is meant to mirror the more ancient ritual described in Scripture and the early practice of the Church where the eucharist was a meal of thanksgiving and the presider and community formed a sign of the unitive act of Christ being present both in teh community gathered as well as in the consecrated gifts. The emphasis is different to be sure, but the use of Eucharistic ministers is a valid practice according to the mind of the Church because the ritual action is a sign of the unity of the body of Christ WITH the priest. The Tridentine Rite places the emphasis solely on the consecrated gifts. Both are correct within the ritual action of liturgy. The difference is only in the emphasis.

In regards to the eucharistic portion of the liturgy, it is meant to express the sacrifice of the cross as an eternal event, the active remembrance of the new covenant, the ritual meal of communion in the breaking of the bread that brings unity of those partaking to God the Father in Christ through the Holy Spirit, and the sign of the eschatological kingdom to come.

To me, those are the essential elements that need to be changed in order to qualify as a liturgical abuse. The Novus Ordo itself does not violate any of these.
Now, if the priest were to change the eucharistic prayer, or fiddle with the rubrics in such a way that the sacramental action of the priest and faithful do not actualize the sign they are to signify, then that is what real liturgical abuse is, IMO.
Those ritual actions that signify what the liturgy is and does, cannot be abuse becuase they are truly proper to the sacramental action that the liturgy is attempting to accomplish.

 

[Volodymyr_988]

Yes, I meant that Perpetual Adoration is a way to add to the mystery and sense of sacredness that most of the Masses since 1970 have lost.

---

Let me guess, Schaumburg?

 

[Volodymyr_988]

Altar girls, ad orientem Masses, and EMs are illicit things that have been allowed since they were already being done. This is what we could call oikonomia, to borrow Greek term.

 

[malphono]

Altar girls, ad orientem Masses, and EMs are illicit things that have been allowed since they were already being done. This is what we could call oikonomia, to borrow Greek term.

Did you really mean to say ad orientem in the above??? I hope not.

 

[malphono]

Neither altar girls nor eucharistic ministers constitute parts of the liturgy, so how does this make the liturgy shoddy?

That can’t be a serious question. Particularly in this forum. Unless, of course, it’s meant to stoke the fire.

 

[DavidPalm]

The standard narrative is that extra-liturgical Eucharistic adoration developed in the later Middle Ages as a kind of substitute for Communion, since laypeople received Communion only once a year (or sometimes three times) and then only in one kind. This infrequent communion combined with the increase in Eucharistic devotion and the doctrine of transubstantiation led to extra-liturgical devotions focused on the Sacrament. From the CE article it appears that the concept of “perpetual adoration” really took off in the 17th century. I think that part of it was a response to Protestantism and perhaps the beginnings of secularism, and that fits with your general thesis, I believe.

Don’t know about the first part of this poster’s paragraph, but Msgr. Klaus Gamber, in his The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, notes that there have been specific times and places in history when for various reasons the laity have been more or less alienated from the liturgy. In those instances, he notes, there has indeed been an increase in extra-liturgical devotions like the Forty Hours. I wish I had my copy here so I could cite him exactly. But I think he supports the general thesis of the OP.

 

[Volodymyr_988]

Did you really mean to say ad orientem in the above??? I hope not.

Sorry, man, I meant versus populum. My blood sugar must have been low or something.

 

[elts1956]

I’ve been all around these United States and in Ireland and Rome. I have seen traditional looking parishes and some that make the local Baptist church look good. I’ve noticed that the less traditional looking parishes always have a special chapel for Adoration where the Tabernacle resides, yet have the worst Masses I’ve ever attended.

Do you think that the rise in Liturgical abuses and church wreckovations has given rise to more hours of Adoration? From what I have read, before Vatican II there was no 24-7 Adoration. Many Churches would do a 40 Hours Devotion here and there, but having Perpetual Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament was not anything that a parish would do.

It seems that the Suburban Catholics care more that they have Adoration more than they care for having a beautiful church that glorifies God and having a proper Liturgy. The proper Liturgy being the most important part, of course.

I attended Catholic Grade School Pre Vatican II. We had forty hours devotion quite frequently.

In my present parish, we are now having adoration of the Eucharist on Wed. during Lent from eight in the a.m. to 6 p.m.

 

[I_Believe]

Pleas for a Latin Mass are certainly being ignored at my parish.

" Behold the new schismatics, they who take away the Faith of the world "

 

[Chiltepin]

" Behold the new schismatics, they who take away the Faith of the world "

Yeah, I don’t know what that means. I hate how often I have had to admit that today, but it’s the only way to learn, right? It is good to be in the presence of (well, on the internet with) such intelligent people!

To be fair, he doesn’t give a flat out no, he just says, “Well we really have more interest in a Spanish Mass.” It is kind of crazy that such a large parish in Texas does not currently have a Spanish Mass. Still, pfft Spanish is Latin-based, they would figure it out!