The Early Church: If They Weren't Catholic, What Were They?

[ron77nyc]

It is a practice,not doctrine,big difference. Practices/disciplines can be changed according to need when it is applicable.

It would be like asking: Is Bible Study an Apostolic teaching?

Acts 2:42 They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.

If we’re going to say “breaking of bread” equals “eucharist” then we can say “devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching” equals “bible study.”

 

[ron77nyc]

And all churches have been guided by fallible men too. Some say Catholicism is no exception…

I dont think so unless you are saying Jesus lied when he that the gates of hell shall not prevail?

P.s Go Dodgers

Jesus was saying: “My church will be successful even if you are not.”

Obviously all popes are not infallible because at one time the Church taught only baptized Catholics will be saved. That was infallibly declared and now they make exceptions for non-Catholics.

 

[crazzeto]

I didn’t say anything about "equivalent cases for authority. And yes, you are re-hashing old ground. Eventually, in discussions about Catholic beliefs, it comes down to the authority issue. Even the Eucharist I receive in the Episcopal Church, would fall under the “invalid orders” category according to most Catholics.

The problem is once with enter the authority issue, questions get lost. Our topic “The Early Church: If They Weren’t Catholic, What Were They?” also gets lost. The thread topic concerns the Early Church and whether or not the teachings of the Early Church were “Catholic.” If they weren’t Catholic, what were they? etc.

Crazzeto and I have been discussing whether or not Eucharistic Adoration is an Apostolic teaching. So, I’d like to get back to that. I still have some questions on the table.

Crazzeto, in the quote below, I was referring to your statements about practices involving “the start” of the Eucharist.

Blue color added by me:

Christ instituted the Holy Eucharist at the Last Supper, at a particular point in history. Wasn’t this the “very start” of the Eucharist? I was looking for some indication, in Christ’s institution of the Eucharist, that would point toward Eucharistic Adoration.

As I said before, in looking back at history, it seems like Adoration was born as a result of defending the Real Presence. Any comments on this?

Peace,
Anna

Anna,

But this practice wasn’t just started by monks, developed by monks, propigated by monks. It was started by the Bishops, who taught the monks, who took this teaching and helped propagate it. There is a big difference.

Again, the Apostles almost immediately started teaching things which never got written in the Gosples… In today’s terms, one would say they taught things “Christ never said”… But they got their teaching from somewhere didn’t they?

I’ve offered a solid basis for this teaching dating back prior to 300 A.D. already in the form of the Eucharist being used as a sign of unity between Bishops, something Christ never said. I also showed how the monks took the teachings of the Bishops, and with their encouragement began a personal process of adoration. And I showed how by 300 A.D. this practice had already developed in the East into something very much like what we Catholics do constantly, all the time, with the same encouragement from the Bishops which we have seen here.

I have no doubts that if I really wanted to get serious about this subject matter, I could trace even more roots. When I look at a teaching like this, I tend to evaluate it in terms of a plant. One looks at the developed teaching, and determins it’s “livelyness” by it’s roots. The more you dig, the more roots you uncover, the more I personally tend to take notice of the teaching.

Certainly I see this as being the case with Adoration. The more I look into it, the more I see this as a practice with scriptual roots, based upon the teachings of the Apostles (thus Apostolic) and baring much good fruit, and as we all know we will know a teaching by it’s friuts. The affirmations are more than enough for me to make me all the more egar to go to Our Lady of Lourdes and adore!

Anyway, thanks for the terrific discussion Anna!! I can’t tell you how much I enjoy conversations with you here, it’s always such a pleasure! I guess right now mainly my advice with regards to this teaching (practice), is to just pray about it. God bless!

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna,

But this practice wasn’t just started by monks, developed by monks, propigated by monks. It was started by the Bishops, who taught the monks, who took this teaching and helped propagate it. There is a big difference.

Again, the Apostles almost immediately started teaching things which never got written in the Gosples… In today’s terms, one would say they taught things “Christ never said”… But they got their teaching from somewhere didn’t they?

I’ve offered a solid basis for this teaching dating back prior to 300 A.D. already in the form of the Eucharist being used as a sign of unity between Bishops, something Christ never said. I also showed how the monks took the teachings of the Bishops, and with their encouragement began a personal process of adoration. And I showed how by 300 A.D. this practice had already developed in the East into something very much like what we Catholics do constantly, all the time, with the same encouragement from the Bishops which we have seen here.

I have no doubts that if I really wanted to get serious about this subject matter, I could trace even more roots. When I look at a teaching like this, I tend to evaluate it in terms of a plant. One looks at the developed teaching, and determins it’s “livelyness” by it’s roots. The more you dig, the more roots you uncover, the more I personally tend to take notice of the teaching.

Certainly I see this as being the case with Adoration. The more I look into it, the more I see this as a practice with scriptual roots, based upon the teachings of the Apostles (thus Apostolic) and baring much good fruit, and as we all know we will know a teaching by it’s friuts. The affirmations are more than enough for me to make me all the more egar to go to Our Lady of Lourdes and adore!

Anyway, thanks for the terrific discussion Anna!! I can’t tell you how much I enjoy conversations with you here, it’s always such a pleasure! I guess right now mainly my advice with regards to this teaching (practice), is to just pray about it. God bless!

crazzeto,

Guess that means our discussion is over? I’ve enjoyed our discussion also. I can’t say that I’m convinced, but at least I have a better understanding regarding how you arrived at your conclusion. However, I was really hoping to get direct responses to these questions.

If you don’t have time, are there any Catholics who would answer these issues?

. . . . .Christ instituted the Holy Eucharist at the Last Supper, at a particular point in history. Wasn’t this the “very start” of the Eucharist? I was looking for some indication, in Christ’s institution of the Eucharist, that would point toward Eucharistic Adoration.

From you responses, I think the answer to the question above is “no.” Correct?

Are there any passages by any of the New Testament authors that would point to taking the Eucharist out of the meal or Communion context–even indirectly?

As I said before, in looking back at history, it seems like Adoration was born as a result of defending the Real Presence. Any comments on this?

From a Catholic standpoint: How long do the “graces” imparted during the Eucharist last?

Do any Catholics carry the Eucharist for protection, as the monks did in the past?

Thanks,
Anna

 

[crazzeto]

crazzeto,

Guess that means our discussion is over? I’ve enjoyed our discussion also. I can’t say that I’m convinced, but at least I have a better understanding regarding how you arrived at your conclusion. However, I was really hoping to get direct responses to these questions.

If you don’t have time, are there any Catholics who would answer these issues?

From you responses, I think the answer to the question above is “no.” Correct?

Anna, I’ll take a look at them.

Thanks,
Anna

 

[crazzeto]

. . . . .Christ instituted the Holy Eucharist at the Last Supper, at a particular point in history. Wasn’t this the “very start” of the Eucharist? I was looking for some indication, in Christ’s institution of the Eucharist, that would point toward Eucharistic Adoration.

It was certainly the first celebrated Eucharist, was it the start of the Eucharist? Well now we have to ask are we asking from our own temporal view point or from Gods? From ours, yes I guess you could say that… From Gods, you can see the Eucharist permunating the bible, the first concrete sign one could point to is the Pach, passover… Then again, over and over, I would note the next firmly concrete but most typically overlooked sign, Christ’s very Birth. After all, when he was born he was wrapped in a swaddling cloth, or more specifically a burail cloth in those days. And where was he put? In a manger, and what is a manger but a food trouph, so Christ at birth was wrapped in the garments of the dead and laid out as food for the world. Eucharist over and over again through out the bible, and finally yes, given to us at the last supper.

Are there any passages by any of the New Testament authors that would point to taking the Eucharist out of the meal or Communion context–even indirectly?

Off hand, I don’t have any… But then again, for me the bible isn’t the authority nor is it in it’s self the completeness of revelation. As Paul said

2Th 2:15 (2:14) Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.

and

1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

That is, it’s not all contained in the scriptures.

As I said before, in looking back at history, it seems like Adoration was born as a result of defending the Real Presence. Any comments on this?

Adoration as we have it? It’s possible, though again I already demonstrated that in 1,200 the first propetual adoration (maintainted until the 1,700s) started not in defence of the real presense, but in thanks giving for the victory over heretics. This predates much of the argumentation that Adoration started to reenforce the real presense. And again, I’ve also shown St. Basil the Great placing a third of the concerated host in a golden dove above his Alter, this was in 300 A.D., and predating that, the practice of religious keeping the concecrated host in their own rooms.

From a Catholic standpoint: How long do the “graces” imparted during the Eucharist last?

There is no answer that I know of, the Church doesn’t typically try to quantify such things. It’s far too arbatrary. I would suggest a better metric is this, you will get as much, and it will last as long, as it pleases God.

Do any Catholics carry the Eucharist for protection, as the monks did in the past?

There is no need to do so for protection, one would carry the host only to bring it to say, a hospital or nursing home.

Edit
Wait for personal protection? Or for protection of the Eucharist? Certainly not for personal protection.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Crazzeto,
In your last two posts, some of your comments ended up in my quotes. Would you edit these?

Thanks,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

This what the link you gave provided. This toward the end of the article,so you tell me what it is saying:

*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.

However, as time went on, eucharistic devotions, including adoration, drifted further and further away from their liturgical grounding in the Mass itself.*

Notwithstanding Pope Benedict XVI’s personal endorsement of eucharistic adoration and the sporadic restoration of the practice in the archdiocese of Boston and elsewhere, it is difficult to speak favorably about the devotion today.

Now that most Catholics are literate and even well-educated, the Mass is in the language of the people (i.e, the vernacular), and its rituals are relatively easy to understand and follow, there is little or no need for extraneous eucharistic devotions. **The Mass itself provides all that a Catholic needs sacramentally and spiritually.**Eucharistic adoration, perpetual or not, is a doctrinal, theological, and spiritual step backward, not forward.

Nicea325,

It is saying Eucharistic adoration began in the 12th century, when the Real Presence was rejected by heretics; over time, Eucharistic devotions, including adoration, drifted further away from their liturgical grounding in the Mass; there is little or no need for extraneous Eucharistic devotions; The Mass provides all that a Catholic needs Sacramentally and spiritually; Eucharistic adoration, perpetual or not, is a doctrinal, theological, and spiritual step backward, not forward.

Acknowledging the need for further study, I would say at this point, I agree with all of the above statements. Are you in agreement with all these statements? It’s difficult to tell which side of the argument you are taking.

Do you still maintain Eucharistic Adoration is a practice and not a doctrine?

I hope you will respond to the questions in my last post to you:

**Any comments on Eucharistic Adoration, other than saying it is a practice and not a doctrine?

. . . .From a Catholic standpoint: How long do the “graces” imparted during the Eucharist last?

As I said before, in looking back at history, it seems like Adoration was born as a result of defending the Real Presence. Any comments on this?

Also, do any Catholics carry the Eucharist for protection, as the monks did in the past?**

Thanks,
Anna

 

[crazzeto]

Crazzeto,
In your last two posts, some of your comments ended up in my quotes. Would you edit these?

Thanks,
Anna

I would, but I can’t… 20 minutes is up. Sorry for accidently attributing 1 Tim to you, the Church indeed still teaches it was written by St. Paul

 

[Anna_Scott]

I would, but I can’t… 20 minutes is up. Sorry for accidently attributing 1 Tim to you, the Church indeed still teaches it was written by St. Paul

Guess I came out of that looking pretty good.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

You know what’s another interesting point, All other denominations where founded by a fallible man

therealpresence.org/eucharst/pea/history.htm

I dont think so unless you are saying Jesus lied when he that the gates of hell shall not prevail?

P.s Go Dodgers

eddy714,

I think you should change your name to the “drive-by poster.”

Best to read a little bit of what’s going on in a thread, before posting.

You gave a link to
The History of Eucharistic Adoration, Development of Doctrine in the Catholic Church
by John A. Hardon, S.J.

Crazzeto gave a link to the same thing. That’s what we’ve been discussing.

Anna

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I know I’ll get blasted for this but I’ll just be honest in how I’ve felt with Adoration. I sat there in front of the monstrance. It was a nice quiet, calming environment. It was nice to see devout people in the small chapel and people willing to stay as a guardian. I prayed in front of the Eucharist. I felt strange. I didn’t feel any closer or farther from God than I did in the Church already or at home talking to the Lord? I felt that we’ve taken Jesus into a display mentality, like putting Him up there to stare at and it seemed almost undignified, a bit showcasing and out of the context in which the Eucharist was given. Jesus told us to “take, eat” and it was to be in a meal to take Christ into our very bodies in a sublime union. Here it’s like instead of eating cake, putting it into a window to stare at at a bakery. It felt weird and I just didn’t get what I hear others say they get out of it. My friend swears (and I accept him at his word) he feels this deep abiding presence, spiritual grace, love, acceptance, happiness, etc. I just felt I was forcing myself to feel the way he did and wasn’t sure what I felt? Like I said, I’m NOT against adoration per se or accusing practicioners of it of being evil or sinful. I just don’t totally understand the point, think it seems out of context, and don’t feel what others claim they feel. And I felt this way when I was DEEEEP into that Tiber Swim Team Catholic Answers head-over-heels hardcore Catholic mode, not in recent months…

eddy714,

I think you should change your name to the “drive-by poster.”

Best to read a little bit of what’s going on in a thread, before posting.

You gave a link to
The History of Eucharistic Adoration, Development of Doctrine in the Catholic Church
by John A. Hardon, S.J.

Crazzeto gave a link to the same thing. That’s what we’ve been discussing.

Anna

 

[crazzeto]

Well I won’t blast you, your feelings are your own certainly and you have a right to them. I would like to offer a different point of view however.

I feel it’s a chance for us to answer the Lord when he asked “could you not stay awake for an hour”? I also feel it is our earthly oppertunity to do exactly what it is that we will do in heaven, which one can get a glimps of in Revelation 4, all of it. Our purpose is to adore, what we do before the monstronce is just that.

I’m not going to lie, and say I felt shockwaves of grace thundering through me… No no, quite the contrary the first time I felt a little out of place, but I read scriptures (Acts actually), the next few times I prayed the Rosary with the KoC. Last time I just sat quietly while I was forced to listen to contemporary music when the host was exposed for corpus christi. Not sure who’s idea that was, I was going to read the scriptures again actually… But the music distracted, and for some reason i felt like there was a hint I needed to be taking in this… Just sit there and contemplate, and I did… It’s been a strange, but overwhelmingly postitive experience.

With regard to the direct context of the discussion, I do this knowing the practice is firmly rooted in many hundreds of years of Apostolic tradition. For which I’m actually thanking God for the oppertunity for this discussion, as it forced me to more closely look at the history of Adoration =)

I know I’ll get blasted for this but I’ll just be honest in how I’ve felt with Adoration. I sat there in front of the monstrance. It was a nice quiet, calming environment. It was nice to see devout people in the small chapel and people willing to stay as a guardian. I prayed in front of the Eucharist. I felt strange. I didn’t feel any closer or farther from God than I did in the Church already or at home talking to the Lord? I felt that we’ve taken Jesus into a display mentality, like putting Him up there to stare at and it seemed almost undignified, a bit showcasing and out of the context in which the Eucharist was given. Jesus told us to “take, eat” and it was to be in a meal to take Christ into our very bodies in a sublime union. Here it’s like instead of eating cake, putting it into a window to stare at at a bakery. It felt weird and I just didn’t get what I hear others say they get out of it. My friend swears (and I accept him at his word) he feels this deep abiding presence, spiritual grace, love, acceptance, happiness, etc. I just felt I was forcing myself to feel the way he did and wasn’t sure what I felt? Like I said, I’m NOT against adoration per se or accusing practicioners of it of being evil or sinful. I just don’t totally understand the point, think it seems out of context, and don’t feel what others claim they feel. And I felt this way when I was DEEEEP into that Tiber Swim Team Catholic Answers head-over-heels hardcore Catholic mode, not in recent months…

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

A very nice post, crazzeto, thoughtful and loving. Like I said, I don’t have any ill will toward anyone adoring the Eucharist. Heck, I’m open, as Anna is I think, to admitting I could be dead wrong about this and I’m the one with the problem…

I just felt that when the Lord said “could you not stay awake for an hour?” that he was referring to His passion and the fact that the Apostles in their human frailty and weakness weren’t willing to appreciate Him and protect Him in his most desperate hour. I think that circumstance and the Lord sitting in the monstrance in the visible form of a wafer are two different realities and I can’t see the connection.

I’ll keep praying and analyzing this. I thank you for your kind contributions to this thread. If anyone could convince me on this it’d be you. You’re a credit to Catholicism.

God bless

Well I won’t blast you, your feelings are your own certainly and you have a right to them. I would like to offer a different point of view however.

I feel it’s a chance for us to answer the Lord when he asked “could you not stay awake for an hour”? I also feel it is our earthly oppertunity to do exactly what it is that we will do in heaven, which one can get a glimps of in Revelation 4, all of it. Our purpose is to adore, what we do before the monstronce is just that.

I’m not going to lie, and say I felt shockwaves of grace thundering through me… No no, quite the contrary the first time I felt a little out of place, but I read scriptures (Acts actually), the next few times I prayed the Rosary with the KoC. Last time I just sat quietly while I was forced to listen to contemporary music when the host was exposed for corpus christi. Not sure who’s idea that was, I was going to read the scriptures again actually… But the music distracted, and for some reason i felt like there was a hint I needed to be taking in this… Just sit there and contemplate, and I did… It’s been a strange, but overwhelmingly postitive experience.

With regard to the direct context of the discussion, I do this knowing the practice is firmly rooted in many hundreds of years of Apostolic tradition. For which I’m actually thanking God for the oppertunity for this discussion, as it forced me to more closely look at the history of Adoration =)

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . . .I feel it’s a chance for us to answer the Lord when he asked “could you not stay awake for an hour”? I also feel it is our earthly oppertunity to do exactly what it is that we will do in heaven, which one can get a glimps of in Revelation 4, all of it. Our purpose is to adore, what we do before the monstronce is just that. . . . .

Crazzeto,

I can see how you might make a connection between the Apostles’ inability to stay awake for an hour; and our inability or neglect to spend time with Christ. I acknowledge foreshadowing and layers of meaning in Scripture; though sometimes I think we can take “spiritualizing” a bit too far. In this case, I don’t see this as a reference to not being willing to spend time in Eucharistic Adoration. Though, equating the rejection of Eucharistic Adoration with the Apostles’ falling asleep on the night of Christ’s betrayal could certainly work the “guilt” angle. I’m not saying that is your intention. I’m saying this through the lens of one who grew up in Baptist Churches–and they have the corner on the “guilt” market.

Even if you equate the Apostles falling asleep with our lack of time in “adoration”; there are many ways to adore Christ such as actually partaking of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, prayer, praise, and meditation upon Holy Scripture (just a few.)

I do think there have been points in the discussion where we were talking past each other. One thing that I should have made clear, is that my questions regarding any passages of Scripture pointing to Eucharistic Adoration, were not asked because I am expecting everything to be found in the Bible. I do not hold to Sola Scriptura. I do acknowledge the role of tradition; and the fact that doctrines develop over time.

When I asked about Christ’s Institution of the Eucharist being the “very start,” I was referring to your comments about reservation of the Eucharist as a practice “from the start.” I was trying to establish a time line of the doctrine. That is a difficult undertaking. I will say, you did a great job of pointing to early practices of reserving the Eucharist for the sick, and for purposes of unity. I agree with Gurney, if anyone could convince me to accept Eucharistic Adoration, it would be you.

Christ instituted the Holy Eucharist at the Last Supper, at a particular point in history. Wasn’t this the “very start” of the Eucharist? I was looking for some indication, in Christ’s institution of the Eucharist, that would point toward Eucharistic Adoration.

However, in misunderstanding the intentions of my question; you gave an interesting foreshadowing of the Eucharist. The Passover is a more obvious one; but I hadn’t read anything about the correlation to Christ being placed in a manger/food trough and the Eucharist.

It was certainly the first celebrated Eucharist, was it the start of the Eucharist? Well now we have to ask are we asking from our own temporal view point or from Gods? From ours, yes I guess you could say that… From Gods, you can see the Eucharist permunating the bible, the first concrete sign one could point to is the Pach, passover… Then again, over and over, I would note the next firmly concrete but most typically overlooked sign, Christ’s very Birth. After all, when he was born he was wrapped in a swaddling cloth, or more specifically a burail cloth in those days. And where was he put? In a manger, and what is a manger but a food trouph, so Christ at birth was wrapped in the garments of the dead and laid out as food for the world. Eucharist over and over again through out the bible, and finally yes, given to us at the last supper.

Crazzeto, I do appreciate your posts and your consideration. It’s always a pleasure to have a respectful discussion.

The issue of the Magisterium as opposed to Protestants’ interpreting Scripture through the Holy Spirit came up on this thread. It comes up on many threads. There are problems with this–I know it can lead to a gazillion denominations–I get that. However, I do want to urge Catholics not to under estimate the power of the Holy Spirit working in one’s life and in one’s search for God’s truth.

About 4 or 5 years ago, while I was still a member of the Baptist Church; I realized on a spiritual level, that something was wrong. Something was missing in my life as a Christian. At that moment, I asked God to reveal His truth to me, not man’s truth about Him. I had no idea what that prayer would bring. I read the Bible cover to cover. I researched Christianity online. I began to study history from many perspectives. Soon, I had stacks of books in my living room. Still have quite a few books out–can’t help it (I don’t have 20 cats, and books are my only clutter. )

I formally resigned from the Baptist Church. I embraced infant Baptism. I discovered the Sacraments and the Real Presence. I accepted graces imparted in Baptism and the Eucharist. I released Sola Scriptura and embraced the role of tradition. I released OSAS. I realized the dangers in the misuse of a “sinner’s prayer.” I embraced liturgical worship. There’s more; but this gives you an idea.

Discussions on CAF helped me understand many of these truths, as I was studying. I’ve only been on the forums since May 2009. However, if you were to follow my posts from the beginning to now, you would witness the change in my views as they happened–in real time. I’ve been very honest about my questions, issues, struggles, and many of the ups and downs. I’m still not there yet; but I’m getting closer.

Guess I got a little carried away :coolinoff:

Anna

 

[crazzeto]

Anna & Gurney,

I can appreciate what the two of you are saying about believeing Christ was merely speaking directly to his Apostles… But a question which pops up in my mind is, how many recorded words of Christ, lacked spiritual meaning? This is after all, God we’re talking about, truely and fully man as well yes, but also truely and fully God. It seems to me that if your argument is true, then it would very likely be the only instance in the bible, where the words spoken by Christ, lacked any form of spiritual meaning.

I’ve opened Matthew 26:40 in Faith Database (nifty app, for sure recommend it, it’s only $30 for download and you can buy add ons like the confessions of St. Patrick which are wonderful!), and here are some of the related data for this passage:

St John Chrysostom Homily 83 on the Gospel of Matthew

After that He cometh and saith to Peter, as it is said, “What, couldest thou not watch one hour with me?” All were sleeping, and He re- bukes Peter, hinting at him, in what He spake. And the words, “with me,” are not employed without reason; it is as though He had said, Thou couldest not watch with me one hour, and wilt thou lay down thy life for me? and what follows also, intimates this self-same thing. For “Watch,” saith He, “and pray not to enter into temptation.” See how He is again instructing them not to be self-confident, but contrite in mind, and to be humble, and to refer all to God.

Here already St. John [C] makes a connection to these words going beyond the surface meaning… Not only, “could you not stay awake with me an hour”, but “would you not lay down your life for me?”. Already this passage has far more impact that merely to show the humanity of Christ, which it certainly does (and is a main point of the homiliy, as already there are heretics who deny the incarnation (gnostics)).

Could that question, also not be applied to us? Not that I’m suggesting that we should seek to become martyers, but look at our luke warm culture. The very idea of standing up for your faith is so discouraged that if you fight, merely for religious freedom you are considered a loone by the world at large. An idiot, a dolt, someone who managed to get by on a 5th grade education. Thus so precious few of us would even stand up for the faith, let alone lay down our lives for it if need be. How different we are from the fathers, and how sad that is.

St Jerome, Letter 109

You tell me farther that Vigilantius execrates vigils. In this surely he goes contrary to his name. The Wakeful one wishes to sleep and will not hearken to the Saviour’s words, “What, could ye not watch with me one hour? Watch and pray that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing but the flesh is weak.” And in another place a prophet sings: “At midnight I will rise to give thanks unto thee because of thy righteous judgments.” We read also in the gospel how the Lord spent whole nights in prayer and how the apostles when they were shut up in prison kept vigil all night long, singing their psalms until the earth quaked, and the keeper of the prison believed, and the magistrates and citizens were filled with terror. Paul says: “continue in prayer and watch in the same,” and in another place he speaks of himself as “in watchings often.” Vigilantius may sleep if he pleases and may choke in his sleep, destroyed by the destroyer of Egypt and of the Egyptians. But let us say with David: “Behold, he that keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep.” So will the Holy One and the Watcher come to us. And if ever by reason of our sins He fall asleep, let us say to Him: “Awake, why sleepest thou, O Lord;” and when our ship is tossed by the waves let us rouse Him and say, “Master, save us: we perish.”

Here we see St. Jerome use Christ’s question, as well as the later behaviour of the Apostles as an example to us in prayer. How we should pray all night, as our Lord did. He reminds his reader, of how the Apostles prayed all night in the prison, and the citizens and even the king quaked in fear.

My purpose in posting this is just to show that, indeed this passage does carry spiritual meaning, and one can even derive the application to the Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament from it.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna & Gurney,

I can appreciate what the two of you are saying about believeing Christ was merely speaking directly to his Apostles… But a question which pops up in my mind is, how many recorded words of Christ, lacked spiritual meaning? This is after all, God we’re talking about, truely and fully man as well yes, but also truely and fully God. It seems to me that if your argument is true, then it would very likely be the only instance in the bible, where the words spoken by Christ, lacked any form of spiritual meaning.

I’ve opened Matthew 26:40 in Faith Database (nifty app, for sure recommend it, it’s only $30 for download and you can buy add ons like the confessions of St. Patrick which are wonderful!), and here are some of the related data for this passage:

St John Chrysostom Homily 83 on the Gospel of Matthew

Here already St. John [C] makes a connection to these words going beyond the surface meaning… Not only, “could you not stay awake with me an hour”, but “would you not lay down your life for me?”. Already this passage has far more impact that merely to show the humanity of Christ, which it certainly does (and is a main point of the homiliy, as already there are heretics who deny the incarnation (gnostics)).

Could that question, also not be applied to us? Not that I’m suggesting that we should seek to become martyers, but look at our luke warm culture. The very idea of standing up for your faith is so discouraged that if you fight, merely for religious freedom you are considered a loone by the world at large. An idiot, a dolt, someone who managed to get by on a 5th grade education. Thus so precious few of us would even stand up for the faith, let alone lay down our lives for it if need be. How different we are from the fathers, and how sad that is.

St Jerome, Letter 109

Here we see St. Jerome use Christ’s question, as well as the later behaviour of the Apostles as an example to us in prayer. How we should pray all night, as our Lord did. He reminds his reader, of how the Apostles prayed all night in the prison, and the citizens and even the king quaked in fear.

My purpose in posting this is just to show that, indeed this passage does carry spiritual meaning, and one can even derive the application to the Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament from it.

crazzeto,

These are great quotes. I’ve learned from your posts, no doubt. I agree that there are problems in standing up for one’s faith; and most of us could certainly spend more time with our Lord.

As I said before, I can see how you might make a connection between the Apostles’ inability to stay awake and our inability or neglect to spend time with Christ. However, for me, the issue is not whether or not we should spend time with our Lord; but rather determining if Eucharistic Adoration is part of what Christ intended in His Institution of the Eucharist. Is the Eucharist to be separated from the “meal” context of Communion, and used purely for adoration?

You’ve given ample proof that from an early date the Eucharist was reserved for the sick and for the purpose of unity—all in context of Communion. I just don’t see enough evidence to justify making the leap to reserving the Eucharist in a Monstrance for people to gaze upon. It still seems to be an attempt to “capture” the Sacrament for a purpose outside Communion. There is something about this that disturbs me on spiritual level.

Crazzeto,

I can see how you might make a connection between the Apostles’ inability to stay awake for an hour; and our inability or neglect to spend time with Christ. I acknowledge foreshadowing and layers of meaning in Scripture; though sometimes I think we can take “spiritualizing” a bit too far. In this case, I don’t see this as a reference to not being willing to spend time in Eucharistic Adoration. Though, equating the rejection of Eucharistic Adoration with the Apostles’ falling asleep on the night of Christ’s betrayal could certainly work the “guilt” angle. I’m not saying that is your intention. I’m saying this through the lens of one who grew up in Baptist Churches–and they have the corner on the “guilt” market.

Even if you equate the Apostles falling asleep with our lack of time in “adoration”; there are many ways to adore Christ such as actually partaking of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, prayer, praise, and meditation upon Holy Scripture (just a few.)

Peace,
Anna

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

For me I felt like they were putting the Lord on display in a museum, people staring at Him, like an exhibit. It felt odd and I didn’t feel any closer to Him than in prayer or at Church anyway since He is present sacramentally in the Tabernacle.

I feel the deep presence of Christ when I actually take Him into my mouth, chew and swallow and feel a literal moment where we are One. That is powerful enough to me. Like I’ve said, I might be wrong. My perceptions might be wrong. I respect Crazzeto’s passion for his view. Like yours Anna, mine might change as well. At the moment, I am where I am (I sound like Popeye!)

crazzeto,
I just don’t see enough evidence to justify making the leap to reserving the Eucharist in a Monstrance for people to gaze upon. It still seems to be an attempt to “capture” the Sacrament for a purpose outside Communion. There is something about this that disturbs me on spiritual level.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

For me I felt like they were putting the Lord on display in a museum, people staring at Him, like an exhibit. It felt odd and I didn’t feel any closer to Him than in prayer or at Church anyway since He is present sacramentally in the Tabernacle.

I feel the deep presence of Christ when I actually take Him into my mouth, chew and swallow and feel a literal moment where we are One. That is powerful enough to me. Like I’ve said, I might be wrong. My perceptions might be wrong. I respect Crazzeto’s passion for his view. Like yours Anna, mine might change as well. At the moment, I am where I am (I sound like Popeye!)

I understand, Popeye. “I am where I am,” too; but doesn’t mean I’ll still be in the same place as time passes.

I do appreciate the forums, especially when the discussions are respectful.

Crazzeto, you do represent your faith well.

Anna

 

[eddy714]

Are you actually serious, ed? Do you really in your heart believe I’m calling Jesus a liar and are you willing to do these below-the-belt type of arguments. Ed, you know perfectly well that you are looking at the Matthew 16 statement through a Catholic lens and that there are many interpretations of that citation. Don’t insult my spirituality and imply I’m a blasphemer who calls my saviour a liar. I think those Santa Ana winds are affecting your reasoning! That or the smog Socal

When did I say you were a blasphmer you implied that yourself I didn’t know you were goingt o go off on a rant about that. And of course i’m looking at in from a catholic point of view becuase if I looked at it from a protestant point of view I would have 33,000 interpretations dont you think?

Its all good we got 2 months left where have you guys been for the past 55 yrs?