Perpetual eucharistic adoration

  • Thread starter Thread starter CGDouglas
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I love this quote and offer it in response to that sadly misguided editorial:

It is not medieval, but biblical for a Christian to realize when considering the sacrament, that we are given the bodily Self of the Lord… that we are given the possibility of addressing ourselves in faith and love, in adoration and acceptance, to that Lord bodily present to us… It is actually plain heresy to say (in theory and hence in practice) that Jesus Christ in the Sacrament of the altar is not to be honored with an external cult of adoration… that exposition is to be rejected.

The Christian Commitment, 
Karl Rahner, S.J.
 
Just a quick thought from another perspective:

If it is true as McBrien states that adoration was started due to a lack of understanding by the laity, couldn’t one claim that additional benefits were discovered by the church after adoration became established and that it is for the sake of these additional benefits that the church continues the practice?

McBrien might find this argument more difficult to refute than heated accusation of heresy.
 
The original post is a peach of a quote.

I had a notion recently that some Catholic intellectuals won’t be happy until we’re reduced to worshipping in a bare room with a ‘presider’ up front lecturing us.

Funny how some forms of Protestantism are like Islam; put a poor shmuck in a bare room and then tell him to find God.
 
I agree with Fr. McBrien that the liturgy of the mass is complete and it provides for the fullness of sanctifying grace for those who are properly disposed. This is consistent with Church teaching.

He is also correct that the change in the bread and wine is sacramental, not physical. The elements of bread and wine remain, meaning if you look at it, taste it, examine it under a microscope all you see is bread and wine. The change is an unseen or one that we cannot perceive with our eyes. The bread and wine is no longer that, but it continues to appear physically as such. That’s ok. He could have explained it better or maybe he did and the author of the article edited it. We never know when we read articles in papers.

I also agree with the history of how Eucharistic devotion began. That part was true.

I strongly disagree that it does nothing for the believer. Adoration of God always does something for the soul. I don’t understand how he does not see that.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Once you read enough of Father McBrien’s ideas you begin to realize something about him. He DELIGHTS in being clever enough to denigrate elements of the faith in a way that is deniable when he is confronted about it. He’s done it over and over throughout his career. It isn’t a coincidence.

It appears to me that one of his chief pleasures in life is getting traditional catholics hot under the collar. He doesn’t so much shape his arguments to persuade the lukewarm (who find his subject matter and presentation utterly dull). Perhaps he has some effect on rallying and encouraging the dissenter wing of the church, but from the numbers, that doesn’t seem to be working very well either these days.

At least many of you are giving him what he appears to want most: the satisfaction of making you mad. 😉 Want to really make him mad? Ignore him and don’t buy his books, nor agitate such that others buy the books to see what the fuss is about.
 
manualman said:
Once you read enough of Father McBrien’s ideas you begin to realize something about him. He DELIGHTS in being clever enough to denigrate elements of the faith in a way that is deniable when he is confronted about it. He’s done it over and over throughout his career. It isn’t a coincidence.

It appears to me that one of his chief pleasures in life is getting traditional catholics hot under the collar. He doesn’t so much shape his arguments to persuade the lukewarm (who find his subject matter and presentation utterly dull). Perhaps he has some effect on rallying and encouraging the dissenter wing of the church, but from the numbers, that doesn’t seem to be working very well either these days.

At least many of you are giving him what he appears to want most: the satisfaction of making you mad. 😉 Want to really make him mad? Ignore him and don’t buy his books, nor agitate such that others buy the books to see what the fuss is about.
Click to expand...
I’m not mad…just dismissive. It makes as much sense for a Catholic to read McBrien as it does to read Jack Chick.
 
Pray for this man’s soul. Can you imagine his interview with God on his last day?

God: “You turned my people away from my Son. Explain yourself.”

I would not want to be in his shoes.

~Liza
 
lizaanne said:
Pray for this man’s soul. Can you imagine his interview with God on his last day?

God: “You turned my people away from my Son. Explain yourself.”

I would not want to be in his shoes.

~Liza
Click to expand...
Astute observation, Liza.

This really leaves me scratching my head…in a way it reminds me of those who say “golly I already went to Mass this week, why on earth do I need to do anything else?” 🤷

Recently our parish dropped Eucharistic Adoration to “business hours”, which is a disappointment…😦
 
Only reading the quote in the original post - it makes it sound like the practice of Adoration is a former, pre-vatican II practice that the Pope is now reviving, which, of course, is not true. My Parish has a holy hour every first Sunday, before Mass, which includes Adoration and Benediction. We also say the Rosary 1/2 hour before every Mass, and the act of consecration to Our Lady of Perpetual Help weekly at one of the daily Masses. To my knowledge, this has been happening for many years - likely while Pope Benedict XVI was still “Father Ratzinger.” I guess my Parish is more “traditional” than most? 🤷
 
. . . but Catholics (and many other Christians as well) believe that the bread and wine have been sacramentally changed into the body and blood of Christ.
Click to expand...
Thus, the bread and wine may still appear to be bread and wine, but in the course of the Eucharistic Prayer (formerly called the Canon of the Mass) they have been changed sacramentally, not literally or physically, into the body and blood of Christ.
Click to expand...
(emphasis added).

He does sound like a Lutheran here. At best, he does a horrendous job of explaining transubstantiation and how the Body and Blood retain the incidents of bread and wine. At worst, he is preaching outright heresy. To give him the benefit of the doubt, I’ll settle for poor explanation.
The practice of eucharistic adoration began in the 12th century, when the Real Presence of Christ was widely rejected by heretics or misunderstood by poorly educated Catholics. The church saw eucharistic adoration as a way of reaffirming its faith in the Real Presence and of promoting renewed devotion to it.
Click to expand...
(emphasis added).

And this is different from today how?
 
JaMc said:
(emphasis added).

He does sound like a Lutheran here. At best, he does a horrendous job of explaining transubstantiation and how the Body and Blood retain the incidents of bread and wine. At worst, he is preaching outright heresy. To give him the benefit of the doubt, I’ll settle for poor explanation.

(emphasis added).

And this is different from today how?
Click to expand...
He is correct is that the Host is not physically changed. Physics is that which measures the accidents, how much it weights, what is it’s chemical composition, what is it’s color.

The Physical qualities of the Host. Those do remain.

Being Sacramentally present is actually a much deeper reality, a much more TRUE reality than simple physics. Physics can only measure the accidents, it cannot describe the true nature of God. The Sacraments do, at least to the limit of our mortal understanding.
 
Fr Mc Brien’s crass ignorance of the so many saints (that it is impossible to quote them all) who used and still are using today to practise the daily Eucharistic Adoration to receive a lot of amazing graces is apalling. He probably never read the Life of Saints although this book is strongly recommended by the Church to both catholic faithfuls and clerics.

That means that this man is fully disqualified to write in prominent catholic newspapers on such an issue and should be banned before he dares to write similar nonsenses regarding other important issues.
The fact (that I didn’t know before) that he is coming from the Notre Dame University is in no way an excuse.
 
manualman said:
Once you read enough of Father McBrien’s ideas you begin to realize something about him. He DELIGHTS in being clever enough to denigrate elements of the faith in a way that is deniable when he is confronted about it. He’s done it over and over throughout his career. It isn’t a coincidence.

It appears to me that one of his chief pleasures in life is getting traditional catholics hot under the collar. He doesn’t so much shape his arguments to persuade the lukewarm (who find his subject matter and presentation utterly dull). Perhaps he has some effect on rallying and encouraging the dissenter wing of the church, but from the numbers, that doesn’t seem to be working very well either these days.

At least many of you are giving him what he appears to want most: the satisfaction of making you mad. 😉 Want to really make him mad? Ignore him and don’t buy his books, nor agitate such that others buy the books to see what the fuss is about.
Click to expand...
Just like the “Father of Lies,” McBrien uses deception and intellect to try and lead the faithful away from the faith. Of course he knows the radical wing of the Church has done a very good job at destroying it from the inside out. Their numbers are dwindling and he and others of his ilk know this but are in denial. The once great Catholic institutions like Notre Dame have not been Catholic for a long time now, but because of tenure and academic freedoms these guys have, they continue to spout off and even the Church refuses to do anything about it. You are probably right–just ignore him. So predictable.
 
This thread has gone off completely into the uncharitable and unjust domain. Fr. McBrien is wrong in his views on Eucharistic adoration. However, that does not make him a heretic, the “father of lies”, a Protestant, or an evil person.

Eucharistic adoration is not a dogma of the Church. It is a ritual and a pious practice. Fr. McBrien is not denying the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. That would be heresy. In fact, he states that Christ is sacramentally present. In other words, he is ontologically present and the bread and wine undergo an ontological change, which is far deeper than a physical change. Unfortunately, he does not go on to explain the difference between a physical and a sacramental change, maybe because the article is about adoration, not about the sacrament of the Eucharist itself.

Though I strongly disagree with his opinion that adoration of Christ in the Eucharist is not really necessary, as a theologian I must agree that it is not a requirement of the Church. It is a devotion that is promoted by the Church. It is a devotion that has led many people to the altar of sanctity and therefore worth promoting. Thus I disagree with him as to its benefit.

But I do agree that it does not take the place of the liturgy, but it is the result of the liturgy and therefore there is a strong link between devotion to the Blessed Sacrament and the liturgy of the mass and the liturgy of the hours. In fact, in many communities, mine included, it is a custom to pray the Liturgy of the Hours before the exposed sacrament. Even when it’s not exposed, we pray it before the tabernacle. Only monks pray the liturgy of the hours in the chapter hall, where the sacrament is not present, because adoration is not part of the Benedictine and Carthusian traditions.

I can see where Fr. McBrien is coming from. He is using the ancient monastic traditions, which do not include adoration, even to this day. But he is ignoring that other religious and secular traditions have developed that do include adoration and have found it to be spiritually beneficial. It is this spiritual benefit that he ignores.

That being said, ignoring this does not make him a heretic, agnostic or even a rebel. The Church does not demand Eucharistic adoration. She strongly promotes it. There is a big difference. To attack this man as a heretic and as a malicious person is against justice and charity. I even noticed that some people took the liberty in their posts to drop his title and refer to him by his last name only, as if he were not a priest in good standing with the Church, which he is.

Let’s be balanced here. Father’s opinion is not one that many of us share. But it is an opinion that is allowed by the Church by the mere fact that it is not against any doctrine or dogma of the Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
This thread has gone off completely into the uncharitable and unjust domain. Fr. McBrien is wrong in his views on Eucharistic adoration. However, that does not make him a heretic, the “father of lies”, a Protestant, or an evil person.
Click to expand...
True, however his views on the sacraments (and other issues) could make him a heretic. That still is no reason not to him the respect due to a fellow human and particularly a priest.
 
CDNowak said:
True, however his views on the sacraments (and other issues) could make him a heretic. That still is no reason not to him the respect due to a fellow human and particularly a priest.
Click to expand...
We agree. Our spiritual journey and inner peace is more important the whatever Fr. McBrien opines. We must never compromise that with a lack of charity or justice.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
From the linked article:
The transformation (the medieval word was “transubstantiation”) is sacramental, not literal or physical.
Click to expand...
Isn’t transubstantiation still the word? I have never heard Consecration descibed theologically as “transformation”. :confused:
Eucharisted said:
NCR once again shows itself to be ignorant of Catholicism and its long history.
Click to expand...
And the comments show what the mindset is of people drawn to NCR as regular readers.
manualman said:
Once you read enough of Father McBrien’s ideas you begin to realize something about him. He DELIGHTS in being clever enough to denigrate elements of the faith in a way that is deniable when he is confronted about it. He’s done it over and over throughout his career. It isn’t a coincidence.

It appears to me that one of his chief pleasures in life is getting traditional catholics hot under the collar. He doesn’t so much shape his arguments to persuade the lukewarm (who find his subject matter and presentation utterly dull). Perhaps he has some effect on rallying and encouraging the dissenter wing of the church, but from the numbers, that doesn’t seem to be working very well either these days.

At least many of you are giving him what he appears to want most: the satisfaction of making you mad. 😉 Want to really make him mad? Ignore him and don’t buy his books, nor agitate such that others buy the books to see what the fuss is about.
Click to expand...
His plan may have backfired this time. I usually rise to his bait and get mad at his bizzare characterizations of the Church and other clergy. But this time, I am just profoundly sad. He seems to have, whether he realizes it or not, revealed a dark, deep, emptiness. I will pray for him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top