Perpetual eucharistic adoration

[JReducation]

From the linked article:

Isn’t transubstantiation still the word? I have never heard Consecration descibed theologically as “transformation”.

And the comments show what the mindset is of people drawn to NCR as regular readers.

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.

If you go back and read the article, somewhere in it they mention that the author is not a Christian and that’s why Father tries to clarify the terms. It is also possible that the author may have cut and pasted Father’s original piece so that is comes off worse that what it is. Having read many of Father’s writings, I can tell this. This is not written by him. They may be his ideas, but not his pen. He is an excellent writer. He has a strong command of grammar and vocabulary. This article fails on both counts. The ideas sound like something that Father would hold to, but not the writing. I would love to see it rewritten by him to get the full message.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Corki]

If you go back and read the article, somewhere in it they mention that the author is not a Christian and that’s why Father tries to clarify the terms. It is also possible that the author may have cut and pasted Father’s original piece so that is comes off worse that what it is. Having read many of Father’s writings, I can tell this. This is not written by him. They may be his ideas, but not his pen. He is an excellent writer. He has a strong command of grammar and vocabulary. This article fails on both counts. The ideas sound like something that Father would hold to, but not the writing. I would love to see it rewritten by him to get the full message.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

No, I read the original on the NCR website under Father’s byline as a regular columist of NCR. It was the Boston Globe writer, whom Fr. McBrien was defending, that was a non-Christian. Fr. McBrien was cutting and pasting from the Globe article; no one cut and pasted Father’s column. But the linked article is supposedly Fr. O’Brien’s work. What you are suggesting, using a ghost writer under Fr. McBrien’s byline, would be fraud on the part of the National Catholic Reporter, wouldn’t it?

Father’s “clarification” is that transubstatiation is the medieval word for what happens at the Consecration. My question was, has the Chuch abandoned the use of the term “transubstaniation,” as Father suggests, in favor of using the term “transformation”?

 

[JaMc]

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.

I agree that he’s correct in saying that the change is not physical, but he is wrong in saying that it is not literal. I am not going to call him a heretic, but I will say he did a very poor job of explaining transubstantiation, or “transformation” as Fr. McBrien likes to call it.

 

[JReducation]

No, I read the original on the NCR website under Father’s byline as a regular columist of NCR. It was the Boston Globe writer, whom Fr. McBrien was defending, that was a non-Christian. Fr. McBrien was cutting and pasting from the Globe article; no one cut and pasted Father’s column. But the linked article is supposedly Fr. O’Brien’s work. What you are suggesting, using a ghost writer under Fr. McBrien’s byline, would be fraud on the part of the National Catholic Reporter, wouldn’t it?

Father’s “clarification” is that transubstatiation is the medieval word for what happens at the Consecration. My question was, has the Chuch abandoned the use of the term “transubstaniation,” as Father suggests, in favor of using the term “transformation”?

OK, I think you have helped me see what happened here. They’re going back and forth between two articles, is that it?

As to your question, the term is still transubstantiation. What I understand is that the author from the Globe called it transformation. Father said that the medieval term is transubstantiation.

The way that the sentence is worded does not make it clear that the term transubstantiation was introduced in the Middle Ages, that’s why it’s medieval, not that it was only used in the Middle Ages. It’s like looking at a medieval castle. It was built back then, but is still in use today.

Up until the Middle Ages the Church always believed that the bread and wine became the body and blood of Jesus Christ, but it did not have a term for it. It described the event. I know this only because the early Franciscan authors often speak of the Eucharist in our early spiritual writings and rather than use transubstantiation, they go through the whole explanation, “bread and wine become the real body and blood of Christ.” We were founded in 1209. All of our writers seem to do the same thing. The writers of the other religious traditions at the time such as Cistercians, Dominicans, Carmelites, Benedictines all wrote in the same manner. It was not until Aquinas that the term was coined. And even Aquinas had to defend it against transignification. It was Bonaventure and John Duns Scotus who came to Aquinas’ defense.

But the Dominican and the Franciscan schools both agreed that the change was not a literal one, because the word literal has another implication. It means that you should be able to see. Literal came from the Latin to read or letter. Obviously, you cannot see flesh and blood. You see bread and wine. That produced another series of questions. If it was not literal and it was not physical, what was it? The answer was, the change is substantial. It is the substance that changes, not the physical properties or its literal appearance. Thus the term “bread of life” from St. John’s Gospel makes perfect sense. It is literally bread. But a very different kind of bread, because the substance has changed.

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[maggiemay2u]

The whole article is here.

This is interestingly enough from a Theology professor at Notre Dame.

God Bless.

Chris.

He’s one of the reasons I use the diocese newspaper as liner for the bird cage.

 

[JReducation]

He’s one of the reasons I use the diocese newspaper as liner for the bird cage.

There is nothing doctrinally wrong with what Fr. McBrien is saying. What I find is that I disagree with his opinion. He’s not contradicting doctrine. In fact his statement about the mass is 100% correct. The mass is complete and has everything that the person needs. But this does not mean that one is sliding backward because one engages in Eucharistic adoration. That part of his position I disagree with. It’s ok to disagree with it and it’s ok for him to hold his position, because the Church does not teach that Eucharistic adoration is a must. She encourages it, which is not the same. He has a right to disagree with this encouragement.

What I would like to see is an entire paper explaining how it is a step backward. I’m always curious as to how one arrives at these theses statements.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[RobbyS]

There is nothing doctrinally wrong with what Fr. McBrien is saying. What I find is that I disagree with his opinion. He’s not contradicting doctrine. In fact his statement about the mass is 100% correct. The mass is complete and has everything that the person needs. But this does not mean that one is sliding backward because one engages in Eucharistic adoration. That part of his position I disagree with. It’s ok to disagree with it and it’s ok for him to hold his position, because the Church does not teach that Eucharistic adoration is a must. She encourages it, which is not the same. He has a right to disagree with this encouragement.

What I would like to see is an entire paper explaining how it is a step backward. I’m always curious as to how one arrives at these theses statements.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I think his position is essentially re-actionary. He has rejected the devotional practices common in the Church before Vatican II and is pained to see them returning. It is a sign that the “successes” from 1965-1979 are being put aside.

 

[JReducation]

I think his position is essentially re-actionary. He has rejected the devotional practices common in the Church before Vatican II and is pained to see them returning. It is a sign that the “successes” from 1965-1979 are being put aside.

You may be right. But I have spent so many years of my life in the world of theological academia, before moving into Respect Life Ministry that I can’t help being curious as to how someone arrives at a particular thesis. That’s why I would love to see him write at least a position paper on this topic. I want to see his process and his method for supporting this thesis.

It’s simple to put forth a thesis. But in real scholarship you have to sustain it in a forum of peers. Being a scholar, he has a duty to do so. Peer review is part of any discipline. Theology is no exception.

Since he’s speaking on a topic that is part of the the life of prayer, he is talking in my area of expertise, mystical theology. I have several academic questions.

1. What is the thesis?
2. What prior research has been done on this thesis?
3. How valid are the conclusions of this research?
4. How is the validity tested?
5. Can the research be duplicated and arrive at the same conclusion?
6. Has it been duplicated and what was the conclusion?
7. Can the research and the conclusion be demonstrated quantitatively or qualitatively?
8. How does the conclusion explain prior historical mystical methodology that is inconsistent wit this conclusion?
9. Is there a theological tension here that has to be resolved?
10. How is it resolved?
11. What theological and philosophical methodology is used to resolve the theological tension?
12. Will it work?
13. Can you prove it?
14. Try it.

If he can do this, then I can support his position. If he can’t then it is only an opinion. It’s not actual mystical theology. And I know for a fact that Fr. McBrien is not a Mystical Theologian. He is a systematic theologian. I’m not even sure why he would even wander into an area of theology that is not his field. It’s like a cardiologist trying to write a paper on cancer. Oncology and cardiology are both medical sciences, but the one expert is not an expert in the other field. I do not go to an OB/GYN for cataracts.

I want to see how a systematic theologian can draw such a conclusion about a topic that falls under the umbrella of mystical theology or at best sacramental theology. I understand that like medicine and law, all branches of theology overlap, like the hoops on the olympic flag. But even the hoops on the olympic flag are different colors for a reason.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[CDNowak]

There is nothing doctrinally wrong with what Fr. McBrien is saying. What I find is that I disagree with his opinion. He’s not contradicting doctrine. In fact his statement about the mass is 100% correct. The mass is complete and has everything that the person needs.

Actually it is very incorrect to say that the Mass has everything that a person needs sacramentally, let alone spiritually. In particular the sacraments of Baptism, Confession, and Anointing are definitely necessary for the Christan life, as is Confirmation. Holy orders and Marriage are also needed for the Church as a whole and for those called to them.

 

[catharina]

Actually it is very incorrect to say that the Mass has everything that a person needs sacramentally, let alone spiritually. In particular the sacraments of Baptism, Confession, and Anointing are definitely necessary for the Christan life, as is Confirmation. Holy orders and Marriage are also needed for the Church as a whole and for those called to them.

JR did not say “the Mass has everything that a person needs sacramentally, let alone spiritually.” You are misquoting him.

 

[mdgspencer]

Yesterday I happened to come across what Pope John Paul II wrote in his “The Mystery and Worship of the Eucharist.”
“This worship, given therefore to the Trinity of the Father and the Son and of the Holy Spirit, above all accompanies and permeates the celebration of the Eucharistic Liturgy. But it must fill our churches also outside the timetable of Masses. Indeed, since the Eucharistic Mystery was instituted out of love, and makes Christ sacramentally present, it is worthy of thanksgiving and worship…”
“Adoration of Christ in this sacrament of love must also find expression in various forms of eucharistic devotion: personal prayer before the Blessed Sacrament, Hours of Adoration, periods of exposition-short, prolonged and annual (FortyHours)-eucharistic benediction, eucharistic processions, eucharistic congresses…”
“The encouragement of the deepening of eucharistic worship are proofs of that authentic renewal which the Vatican Council set itself as an aim and of which they are the central point. And this, venerable and dear brothers, deserves separate reflection. The Church and the world have a great need of eucharistic worship. Jesus waits for us in this sacrament of love. Let us be generous with our time in going to meet Him in adoration and in contemplation that is full of faith and ready to make reparation for the great faults and crimes of the world. May our adoration never cease.” (section 3, Pope John Paul II, “On the Mystery and Worship of the Eucharist” (Dominicae Cenae)
You can find the Pope’s entire statement by typing the title into google.com if you would like to see more of it, though this is the part about eucharistic adoration.

 

[Sunflower15]

IMHO,
His brain might be in the right place, but his heart is not. Unfortunately, he hasn’t experienced Eucharistic Adoration… or he would not possibly believe what he stated.

I am usually a mental, rather than emotional, person. However, the Eucharist takes a hold of our entire being, brain, heart, soul and body. Precisely because it is the Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity of Jesus Christ - it is called the Holy Presence of the Blessed Sacrament.

Is it possible to believe enough to receive Communion but not to ADORE it first?

Apparently it is…

Let’s ‘get back’ at him by praying for his ‘conversion’ to this ‘outdated practice’……in front of the Eucharist at Adoration! Imagine what glory it would bring God to have this same guy witness to the incredible Eucharistic Adoration afterwards!!!

I can’t wait!

 

[catharina]

Yesterday I happened to come across what Pope John Paul II wrote in his “The Mystery and Worship of the Eucharist.”
“This worship, given therefore to the Trinity of the Father and the Son and of the Holy Spirit, above all accompanies and permeates the celebration of the Eucharistic Liturgy. But it must full our churches also outside the timetable of Masses. Indeed, since the Eucharistic Mystery was instituted out of love, and makes Christ sacramentally present, it is worthy of thanksgiving and worship…”
“Adoration of Christ in this sacrament of love must also find expression in various forms of eucharistic devotion: personal prayer before the Blessed Sacrament, Hours of Adoration, periods of exposition-short, prolonged and annual (FortyHours)-eucharistic benediction, eucharistic processions, eucharistic congresses…”
“The encouragement of the deepening of eucharistic worship are proofs of that authentic renewal which the Vatican Council set itself as an aim and of which they are the central point. And this, venerable and dear brothers, deserves separate reflection. The Church and the world have a great need of eucharistic worship. Jesus waits for us in this sacrament of love. Let us be generous with our time in going to meet Him in adoration and in contemplation that is full of faith and ready to make reparation for the great faults and crimes of the world. May our adoration never cease.” (section 3, Pope John Paul II, “On the Mystery and Worship of the Eucharist” (Dominicae Cenae)
You can find the Pope’s entire statement by typing the title into google.com if you would like to see more of it, though this is the part about eucharistic adoration.

Thank you for sharing the quote.

 

[PapaSquash]

When you find yourself standing at the rim of the pit of Hell, a step back might not be a bad idea.

 

[fultonfish]

Haven’t read all the posts, but this might be helpful:

therealpresence.org/eucharst/pea/a2.html

 

[CDNowak]

JR did not say “the Mass has everything that a person needs sacramentally, let alone spiritually.” You are misquoting him.

Considering that the following statement was taken from his post by the Quote feature, I can hardly be misquoting him:

There is nothing doctrinally wrong with what Fr. McBrien is saying. What I find is that I disagree with his opinion. He’s not contradicting doctrine. In fact his statement about the mass is 100% correct. The mass is complete and has everything that the person needs.

JR is saying that this statement is 100% correct:
Fr McBrien:

The Mass itself provides all that a Catholic needs sacramentally and spiritually.

In effect, Fr McBrien denies 6 of the 7 sacraments and the entire rest of the spiritual life as necessary, which is problematic doctrinally. Even if we were limit ourselves to direct commands from Christ in Scripture Baptism, faith, and works are all still necessary for salvation along with the Eucharist.

 

[JReducation]

Considering that the following statement was taken from his post by the Quote feature, I can hardly be misquoting him:

JR is saying that this statement is 100% correct:

In effect, Fr McBrien denies 6 of the 7 sacraments and the entire rest of the spiritual life as necessary, which is problematic doctrinally. Even if we were limit ourselves to direct commands from Christ in Scripture Baptism, faith, and works are all still necessary for salvation along with the Eucharist.

You are misunderstanding the statement. The statement is a statement about the Eucharistic celebration, not about the sacramental system. The Eucharistic celebration, as the Holy Father says in the quote provided above, provides the opportunity to be united with and worship the Trinity. This is the fullness of which we are speaking.

If we were to say what you’re implying then we would say, “The Eucharist fulfills all the sacramental needs of the faithful.” That is not the statement. We’re not talking about the sacramental needs. We’re talking about the need to enter into union with the God-head and the Trinitarian mystery. All the other sacraments point to the Eucharist and rotate around it. Without the Eucharist, the other sacraments cannot stand alone. Therefore, the Eucharistic liturgy is the center and fulfillment of our Christian faith. This is the theological reality to which Fr. McBrien is referring and which I am affirming is true. You can check this out in the CCC.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Walking_Home]

Pope Benedict XVI ---- Sacramentum Caritatis

Adoration and eucharistic devotion

The intrinsic relationship between celebration and adoration

1. One of the most moving moments of the Synod came when we gathered in Saint Peter’s Basilica, together with a great number of the faithful, for eucharistic adoration**. In this act of prayer, and not just in words, the assembly of Bishops wanted to point out the intrinsic relationship between eucharistic celebration and eucharistic adoration.** A growing appreciation of this significant aspect of the Church’s faith has been an important part of our experience in the years following the liturgical renewal desired by the Second Vatican Council. During the early phases of the reform, the inherent relationship between Mass and adoration of the Blessed Sacrament was not always perceived with sufficient clarity. For example, an objection that was widespread at the time argued that the eucharistic bread was given to us not to be looked at, but to be eaten. In the light of the Church’s experience of prayer, however, this was seen to be a false dichotomy.** As Saint Augustine put it: “nemo autem illam carnem manducat, nisi prius adoraverit; peccemus non adorando – no one eats that flesh without first adoring it; we should sin were we not to adore it.” (191) In the Eucharist, the Son of God comes to meet us and desires to become one with us; eucharistic adoration is simply the natural consequence of the eucharistic celebration, which is itself the Church’s supreme act of adoration. (192) Receiving the Eucharist means adoring him whom we receive. Only in this way do we become one with him, and are given, as it were, a foretaste of the beauty of the heavenly liturgy. The act of adoration outside Mass prolongs and intensifies all that takes place during the liturgical celebration itself. Indeed, “only in adoration can a profound and genuine reception mature. And it is precisely this personal encounter with the Lord that then strengthens the social mission contained in the Eucharist, which seeks to break down not only the walls that separate the Lord and ourselves, but also and especially the walls that separate us from one another.”** (193)

The practice of eucharistic adoration

1. With the Synod Assembly, therefore, I heartily recommend to the Church’s pastors and to the People of God the practice of eucharistic adoration, both individually and in community. (194) Great benefit would ensue from a suitable catechesis explaining the importance of this act of worship, which enables the faithful to experience the liturgical celebration more fully and more fruitfully. Wherever possible, it would be appropriate, especially in densely populated areas, to set aside specific churches or oratories for perpetual adoration. I also recommend that, in their catechetical training, and especially in their preparation for First Holy Communion, children be taught the meaning and the beauty of spending time with Jesus, and helped to cultivate a sense of awe before his presence in the Eucharist.

Here I would like to express appreciation and support for all those Institutes of Consecrated Life whose members dedicate a significant amount of time to eucharistic adoration. In this way they give us an example of lives shaped by the Lord’s real presence. I would also like to encourage those associations of the faithful and confraternities specifically devoted to eucharistic adoration; they serve as a leaven of contemplation for the whole Church and a summons to individuals and communities to place Christ at the centre of their lives.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20070222_sacramentum-caritatis_en.html

 

[CDNowak]

You are misunderstanding the statement. The statement is a statement about the Eucharistic celebration, not about the sacramental system. The Eucharistic celebration, as the Holy Father says in the quote provided above, provides the opportunity to be united with and worship the Trinity. This is the fullness of which we are speaking.

If we were to say what you’re implying then we would say, “The Eucharist fulfills all the sacramental needs of the faithful.” That is not the statement. We’re not talking about the sacramental needs. We’re talking about the need to enter into union with the God-head and the Trinitarian mystery. All the other sacraments point to the Eucharist and rotate around it. Without the Eucharist, the other sacraments cannot stand alone. Therefore, the Eucharistic liturgy is the center and fulfillment of our Christian faith. This is the theological reality to which Fr. McBrien is referring and which I am affirming is true. You can check this out in the CCC.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Whatever Fr McBrien may have intended, what he said was incorrect. He stated (and *again *I quote): “The Mass itself provides all that a Catholic needs sacramentally and spiritually.” Let’s compare that to what you say he is not saying: “The Eucharist fulfills all the sacramental needs of the faithful.”

The only substantial differences are the Mass vs the Eucharist distinction and that he carries it a step further (“all that a Catholic needs…spiritually”). If he had said that the Mass ought to be the center of Catholic life (or source and summit), then he would have been correct. He did not.

 

[Albizzi]

When you find yourself standing at the rim of the pit of Hell, a step back might not be a bad idea.

A LOOOONG STEP BACKWARD that so called “Spirit of VATII” would be good and salvific to the Church. These hollow words of which nobody could explain me the exact meaning until now have served as the pretext to all sort of nonsenses, fantasies, blasphemies, desecrations and heresies. The disordering of the brains of some of the most prominent of the Church’s clerics is the logical consequence.
Instead of the edification of the souls the article of Fr Mc Brien is leading to more trouble and disorientation among the basic faithfuls, it there weren’t already enough.
In all charity, it would be preferable that he refrains from writing such harmful articles in the future.