Interesting - Eucharistic Flash Mob

[JReducation]

Of course they do. The posture of adoration in the East is STANDING, not kneeling. Hopefully they would stand and bow.

Roman Catholic friars and monks generally sit, not kneel. There is no rule against kneeling. The usual posture is to sit. You show reverence by the venia.

If you looked carefully, there were three brothers. One brother held the monstrance. He is a brother priest. You can tell, because he has a stole over his habit. There was another brother who was the narrator. He stood. He is not a priest, but he is the superior to the priest. There was a third brother whom I caught in a flash. I’m not sure what he was doing, but he was standing as well.

Had the exposition been in the chapel, they would have kissed the floor, knelt for a few minutes in silent prayer and then sat for the remainder. You kneel again for the concluding rites.

There are different traditions not only between East and West, but even within the Churches. Some Eastern monks keep the ciborium exposed. To the best of my knowledge, they do not use a monstrance. That’s a Western custom, maybe about 500 years old. Some of the Eastern Europeans blend Latin and Eastern Catholic customs, because they are Roman Catholics, but they are Easterners.

My guess is that kneeling is a Roman custom. I mean, literally, Roman. It became very common in the Latin Church. Prior to Christianity, Romans had a tradition of kneeling before the Caesars. It was a posture of worship. It came naturally to them to kneel before the Eucharist. Kneeling did not have the same negative meaning to the Romans that it had to the Byzantines, Greeks and Semites. In Jewish tradition there is no kneeling. Reverence is shown by bowing and covering one’s head. That would have been the behavior of the Jewish Christians.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[TheMc]

Had the exposition been in the chapel, they would have kissed the floor, knelt for a few minutes in silent prayer and then sat for the remainder. You kneel again for the concluding rites.

I think that is quite common, minus kissing the floor.

 

[ConstantineTG]

My guess is that kneeling is a Roman custom. I mean, literally, Roman. It became very common in the Latin Church. Prior to Christianity, Romans had a tradition of kneeling before the Caesars. It was a posture of worship. It came naturally to them to kneel before the Eucharist. Kneeling did not have the same negative meaning to the Romans that it had to the Byzantines, Greeks and Semites. In Jewish tradition there is no kneeling. Reverence is shown by bowing and covering one’s head. That would have been the behavior of the Jewish Christians.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Kneeling isn’t really negative in the East, just inappropriate for the occasion of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. Kneeling in the East means we’re begging for mercy for our sins. The Eucharist is an occasion for joy because Christ has become present amongst us in the Eucharist. That is why even though its customary not to kneel on Sundays in the Byzantine Rite, its absolutely forbidden to kneel from the Consecration until the end of the Divine Liturgy (yet it happens in Latinized parishes). Also Sunday is the day of Resurrection. We stand as the risen Christ stands alive. Standing is the posture of the Resurrection.

Any Byzantine Rite Christian would reverence the Eucharist by making a deep bow with the right hand touching the ground.

 

[ProVobis]

Second, Eastern Christians (Catholic and Orthodox) do not kneel before the Eucharist.

We get that. My first thought would have been being in the middle of Preston, that it might have been some CoE event. I think I would have been more comfortable if that second priest had sung “O Salutaris Hostia” instead of reading the English Bible. I might have even joined in.

 

[JReducation]

We get that. My first thought would have been being in the middle of Preston, that it might have been some CoE event. I think I would have been more comfortable if that second priest had sung “O Salutaris Hostia” instead of reading the English Bible. I might have even joined in.

But then you would have been asking the friars to so something contrary to our tradition. That’s not how we do adoration. By the way, only one of the men in that house is a priest. That’s why they all go by Brother, so that he does not stand out.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

I think that is quite common, minus kissing the floor.

Kissing the floor is only done by Franciscans and Camaldolese. It comes from Islam. St. Francis saw the Muslims do it and he was stunned by the reverence in the gesture. He introduced it to the brothers who then introduced it to the local monks who happened to be Camaldolese Benedictines. I’ve seen other people laying prostrate. I believe that may be more of a monastic custom. It’s from the monks that we get the prostration during the praying of the Litany of Saints at professions and ordinations. That was not done by anyone else until the second millenium. Some monastic communities do it as a regular custom, not just during rituals.

Mother Teresa introduced another interesting custom into Catholicism. It comes from the Hindus. I’m not sure what the posture is called. It’s like kneeling except that your head touches the floor and you remain in that position. The Missionaries of Charity (males and females) do this at adoration. I’m not sure how long they remain in that position. I just know that I’m not in physical shape to do it. I don’t think I’d be able to get up after 10 minutes.

I think I’ll stick to kissing the floor and then sitting. One has to recognize when one is getting old.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[At_Trent]

Eucharistic Adoration is unique to the Roman Catholic Church although it has made its way to some Eastern Catholic Churches by way of Latinizations.

A Latinization is a good thing isn’t it ?

 

[JReducation]

A Latinization is a good thing isn’t it ?

Good gravy, NO. One of the things that has been discussed over and over at the Vatican it to avoid Latinazing the Oriental Churches… There was a time when they reluctantly accepted Latin Catholics, to avoid contamination.

You see, they are very small Churches, compared to the Roman Catholic Church. We don’t want to lose them through blending.

I am not Oriental Catholic, but this actually makes sense to me. This is what happened to priests between Vatican I and Vatican II. Priests in the Latin Church were all treated as if they were the same. They lived the same way, did the same ministries, had the same rights and duties, and after a while, they even began to dress the same. As a result, the religious orders suffered. They became clericalized. Whereas in the Eastern Churches the religious orders maintain their distance from the secular clergy. They’re not antagonistic. It’s just that they are not partners in ministry and the religious do not engage in the same apostolic work and endeavors as the secular clergy. When you meet a monk, whether he’s a priest or a brother, you can tell that he’s a monk. He thinks differently, acts differently, his theology is different, his spirituality is different, his customs are different, even the way that he celebrates Divine Liturgy is different.

In the Latin Church, we had to come up with two decrees to unblend. We promulgated a decree on religious life commanding all religious to return to their roots and stop looking and acting like diocesan priests. We also produced another decree on the Eastern Churches stating very emphatically, that they are not to blend or allow us (the Latin Catholics) to influence them in their worship or their theology.; We even promulgated a separate Code of Canon Law just for them. That’s how much the Church values the diversity in Catholicism.

We have diversity between the 23 Catholic Churches and we have diversity within each of the Churches as well. We don’t want to undermine that diversity. That’s part of the beauty of Catholicism. We are one out of many.

We don’t want a Melkite to practice Latin devotions and piety any more than we want these Franciscan brothers holding adoration the same way that the diocesan clergy does it. The beauty of the Church is in her many flowers that make up one garden.

The Latin Church is at a disadvantage because of its size and because of its extension. I’m not sure if it’s a good thing or a bad thing. As the Europeans colonized the Church went with them and we brought into this Western European Church many non European cultures, some of which have more in common with the Eastern Catholics than with the Latin Catholics, for example the Macedonians and the Polish They are Slavic not Roman. It’s too late to do anything about that now. But we can prevent further Latinization of Eastern peoples and Churches.

Those are just my :twocents: Given the present economic situation, don’t try to buy anything with them. They’re not worth much.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

A Latinization is a good thing isn’t it ?

I think they mean that in an offensive way. It has very little to do with speaking Latin, although I’m sensing that will be an issue down the road as well.

 

[ProVobis]

In the Latin Church, we had to come up with two decrees to unblend. We promulgated a decree on religious life commanding all religious to return to their roots and stop looking and acting like diocesan priests. We also produced another decree on the Eastern Churches stating very emphatically, that they are not to blend or allow us (the Latin Catholics) to influence them in their worship or their theology.; We even promulgated a separate Code of Canon Law just for them. That’s how much the Church values the diversity in Catholicism.

We have diversity between the 23 Catholic Churches and we have diversity within each of the Churches as well. We don’t want to undermine that diversity. That’s part of the beauty of Catholicism. We are one out of many.

Brother JR, I follow you but isn’t that like saying the beauty of Christianity lies in the fact we have so many Protestant denominations as well? Can’t this diversity be used as an argument by non-Christians that there is too little unity in Christianity? Just asking.

 

[At_Trent]

A Latinization is a good thing isn’t it ?

Good gravy, NO.

I think they mean that in an offensive way. It has very little to do with speaking Latin, although I’m sensing that will be an issue down the road as well.

I was just messin with Constantine

 

[Anthony_V]

Brother JR, I follow you but isn’t that like saying the beauty of Christianity lies in the fact we have so many Protestant denominations as well? Can’t this diversity be used as an argument by non-Christians that there is too little unity in Christianity? Just asking.

It seems that would be a matter of dogma, not of diversity. I think what Brother JR is trying to say is that you can take a flower garden and plant petunias, hibiscus, sunflowers, and other very different flowers in a garden-- it is still a flower garden. When you start planting weeds, or grass, or bushes, it is not a flower garden anymore. Is it still a garden? Yes. But it is not a flower garden.

If you’re a flow chart sort of person (like me), try this out for size…
The Church tradition is made up of three basic parts:

1. The cultural custom (of the people)
2. The ordinary custom (of the Church)
3. The dogma (of the Faith)

The cultural custom can change. Heck, even the ordinary custom of the Church can change. But only to the extent that it does not cross the boundary of warping the dogma. The dogma is what is the “glue” between the ordinary custom and the cultural custom.
Protestant churches split and multiply because they have different dogma. Not because they have different customs.

 

[JReducation]

Brother JR, I follow you but isn’t that like saying the beauty of Christianity lies in the fact we have so many Protestant denominations as well? Can’t this diversity be used as an argument by non-Christians that there is too little unity in Christianity? Just asking.

The diversity that exists between the 23 Catholic Churches is rooted in the Apostles. The diversity that exists in Protestantism is rooted in conflicts among themselves and between them and the Catholic Church.

The first diversity is legitimate, because it can be traced back to the diversity among the Apostles themselves. Even on those points where our theology differs such as our explanations for Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, the Filioque and Original Sin, the differences are not antagonistic toward each other. In other words, they don’t deny each other. The differences are about emphasis. The different Churches put emphasis on different aspects of the same common dogma.

The second diversity, that which exists between Christians has no legitimacy. In other words, it has no reason to exist. It is the product of sin on the part of all parties involved and it is a scandal to the world. Those differences exist because all of us, including Catholics, have been arrogant, uncharitable, unwilling to listen to each other, and have held grudges about fights between our anscestors 500 and more years ago. It’s time that we all grew up and “let the dead bury the dead.”

This is what Bl. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have been trying to tell us all along. We need to get past ourselves. None of us is innocent. While the fulness of truth may subsist in the Catholic Church, Catholics have not modeled it very charitably. Instead, we have flaunted this fact, as if we had been the origin of Truth, when in fact, we should be humbled that we have been privileged to be Catholic. Protestants and Orthodox must also examine their consciences. They have made rash judgments about Catholicism based on the sins of Catholics. If sin were a criteria for judging an entire people, what could we say about Rusians, Germans, Africans, Greeks, Spaniards, British and so forth.

I was just messin with Constantine

Ahhhhhhhhh

It seems that would be a matter of dogma, not of diversity. I think what Brother JR is trying to say is that you can take a flower garden and plant petunias, hibiscus, sunflowers, and other very different flowers in a garden-- it is still a flower garden. When you start planting weeds, or grass, or bushes, it is not a flower garden anymore. Is it still a garden? Yes. But it is not a flower garden.

If you’re a flow chart sort of person (like me), try this out for size…
The Church tradition is made up of three basic parts:

1. The cultural custom (of the people)
2. The ordinary custom (of the Church)
3. The dogma (of the Faith)

The cultural custom can change. Heck, even the ordinary custom of the Church can change. But only to the extent that it does not cross the boundary of warping the dogma. The dogma is what is the “glue” between the ordinary custom and the cultural custom.
Protestant churches split and multiply because they have different dogma. Not because they have different customs.

This is a good way of saying it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

It seems that would be a matter of dogma, not of diversity.

The diversity that exists between the 23 Catholic Churches is rooted in the Apostles.

Maybe but the lines do sometimes occur when it comes to dogma within different Catholic cultures, or at least their understanding of the dogmas. Practices seem to reveal a lot. Why, for example, do 70% of Poles attend Mass, less than half of them receiving communion, while 25% of American English-speaking Catholics attend Mass, virtually all of them receiving? Who understands the Real Presence and the doctrine of the Holy Sacrifice better? (Personally, I think the oplatek used by the Poles to bond with each other while recognizing it is not the Real Presence has a lot to do with it.)

And why are English-speaking Catholics reluctant to attend a Spanish Mass or a Vietnamese Mass? Where’s the beauty there? Being or feeling excluded is not a good thing when trying to unite.

OTOH, even amongst Protestant sectors, there are many dogmas which they and we do share in our belief systems. I know there are many areas of agreement between me and my Protestant friends, including a lady Anglican pastor. There is a certain beauty in that, no?

 

[JReducation]

Maybe but the lines do sometimes occur when it comes to dogma within different Catholic cultures, or at least their understanding of the dogmas. Practices seem to reveal a lot. Why, for example, do 70% of Poles attend Mass, less than half of them receiving communion, while 25% of American English-speaking Catholics attend Mass, virtually all of them receiving? Who understands the Real Presence and the doctrine of the Holy Sacrifice better? (Personally, I think the oplatek used by the Poles to bond with each other while recognizing it is not the Real Presence has a lot to do with it.)

And why are English-speaking Catholics reluctant to attend a Spanish Mass or a Vietnamese Mass? Where’s the beauty there? Being or feeling excluded is not a good thing when trying to unite.

OTOH, even amongst Protestant sectors, there are many dogmas which they and we do share in our belief systems. I know there are many areas of agreement between me and my Protestant friends, including a lady Anglican pastor. There is a certain beauty in that, no?

I believe that we’re speaking of a different kind of unity and diversity. Let me try to clarify what is most important to the Vatican. All of these things are important, but not in the same order and not in the same order as they may be to you and me. The Vatican has its own order of priorities that we don’t always understand.

Let’s look at unity and diversity inside the Latin Church first. Between Vatican I and Vatican II a misconsception arose about the priesthood. All priests were the same. As a result, all priests did the same things: celebrated sacraments and ran parishes. Then there were the few who did something beyond the parish. They would get up in the morning and their day was pretty similar around the world.

That was catastrophic to the religious life. At the time, about 80% of priests were both priests and consecrated men and 20% were priests and secular. But you could not tell the difference. Those who were consecrated men, sometimes wore a habit, but lived and worke exactly like those who were secular.

Today, the Church is saying that if a priest is a Dominican Friar, he must live and work according to the Dominican tradition. He should preach and teach. If he is a Franciscan Friar, he must live and work according to the Franciscan tradition. He must be a brother, live and work among the poorest of the poor, be involved in social ministry and live in a community of ordained and non ordained brothers where all are equal, not in a parish rectory in middle class America. If he is a diocesan priest. He should not mimic the life of those who are religious by adopting customs that are really part of the consecrated life. He should be in a parish. He should be free to own property and to come and go as he needs to do in order to serve God’s people. He should not be bound to a house schedule of prayer, meals and community activities. He does not belong to a community. He should live and work in fraternal cooperation with other priests, without the bonds of religious life and without the vows.

That would be an example of diversity inside the Latin Church. This diversity goes back to the early Church where you had lay people, priests and religious. Gradually, some priests became religious until we had hundreds of thousands who became religious. After Vatican I, with the explosion of the Church into many lands and nations, the bishops needed help. They called on these religious orders that had some priests to lend them priests. The result was that these priests stopped looking and living like brothers and more like diocesan priests. They even started to celebrate the mass using the same form. This had never been done and never been authorized. Each religious community had its form of the Tridentine Mass. Some communities didn’t even use the Tridentine mass: Dominicans, Carmelites, and Carthusians. They had their own rites.

The Church does not want this to be lost forever. She wants to see these rites again. She also wants the religious who used different forms of the Latin Rite to use them. Whatever Franciscans and Salesians did differently from the diocesan priest up the street, he should continue to do. She also wants people to feel the difference when they are in the presence of a Jesuit, Franciscan, Dominican, Augustinians and a Diocesan priest. The first our are consecrated religious. You should feel that you’re in the presence of consecrated religious by the way they speak, the work they do and their customs. You should not find many Franiscands serving the middle class or many Dominicans running soup kitchens. Franciscans belong in soup kitchens and Dominicans should be in parishes or universities. There are always exceptions, but they should be just that, an exception.

 

[JReducation]

In the same way then, that we try to preserve and promote the differences and unity inside the Latin Church, we look at the other 23 Churches and see their customs, their theology and we must try to keep it as it is and not make it like that of the Latin Church. They are in great danger of disappearing, because they’re smaller. They have to be protected. A Catholic should know the difference between a Chaldean and a Roman and keep those differences, while recognizing that we are the one Catholic Church, not the one Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church is the largest of the Catholic Churches, but it is not the only one. This kind of appreciation for diversity and unity opens the door for cooperation between Catholics from the different Church, without contaminating each other. We should not become Eastern and they should not become Catholic anymore than a Diocesan priest should become a religious and a religious should become a diocesan. Preserving this diversity while maintaining communion is very important to the Vatican. It’s a little different from the diversity between Catholics and Protestants. We probably have more in common with European Protestants than we do with Eastern Catholics, because European Protestants out of Catholicism. Eastern Catholics did not come out of the Latin Church. They were born at the same time.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Wohu]

I have watched this video a few times and I can only testify to how my soul responds
It has the Power of God in it.
It is awesome.

I have been telling people to view it.

Only Good can come from it.

Thanks Friars for such an experience!

God Bless

 

[At_Trent]

I have watched this video a few times and I can only testify to how my soul responds
It has the Power of God in it.
It is awesome.

I have been telling people to view it.

Only Good can come from it.

Thanks Friars for such an experience!

God Bless

You bet it is good

I’ve probably watched it 20 times