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

[AmateurPianist]

Organic growth referes to growth (i.e. development or change) which is natural to the original church. for an example see my posting regarding adoration.

Of course who decides what is natural or not natural?

And would the process of correction (the church deciding it was wrong and changing course) be considered “organic growth”?

 

[crazzeto]

Of course who decides what is natural or not natural?

And would the process of correction (the church deciding it was wrong and changing course) be considered “organic growth”?

Depends on the kind of correction, the only “correction” that has happened so far was the correcting of a group of people who attempted to pulmigate teachings opposed to the apistolic teaching.

That is, people like the Sebalianists who taught that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all one and the same person… This is the error of modalism which Oneness penticostals accept.

Now something like the church pulmigating today that the Eucharist is truely our Lord and Savior, then tomorrow pulmigating that it isn’t… This is something that can not be done. I have a feeling that you were presenting the second senario in your questioning.

Who decides all of this? Well there is at least one thing we and the Orthodox can agree on (even with out argument). The successors of the Apostles determain this.

 

[AmateurPianist]

Depends on the kind of correction, the only “correction” that has happened so far was the correcting of a group of people who attempted to pulmigate teachings opposed to the apistolic teaching.

That is, people like the Sebalianists who taught that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all one and the same person… This is the error of modalism which Oneness penticostals accept.

Now something like the church pulmigating today that the Eucharist is truely our Lord and Savior, then tomorrow pulmigating that it isn’t… This is something that can not be done. I have a feeling that you were presenting the second senario in your questioning.

Who decides all of this? Well there is at least one thing we and the Orthodox can agree on (even with out argument). The successors of the Apostles determain this.

Actually I wasn’t thinking specifics, just at a high level. Specifically I was thinking about the problem and issues arising from an institution correcting itself.

Self correction may be disruptive but in cases may be absolutely necessary.

If I was thinking about anything, I was thinking about how we got to the point of legal abortion in the United States. It could be argued (again I don’t know exactly what you mean) that by the Supreme Court using the practice of precedent that this was a natural process. At least that is the claim.

Yet I think we agree that the institution needs to correct itself in that matter. I however imagine that if it were to do so, this might be disruptive of the course that it was on and elicit wails and gnashing of teeth by some.

I don’t know how this relates to what you were claiming though.

 

[Nicea325]

Oh…

Well I was not thinking about cherry picking metrics to use against the other guy.

Although as I think about it, that too would be fallacious also…particularly metrics of the form “the early church did not do what you guys do (nah, nah, nah)”

I think we all (if we wanted to) could cherry pick our own selected metrics against the other guy that “the early church did not do”. If you wanted to, you could say against us “the early church did not have guitars in church (nah, nah, nah)”.

Wait a minute. The Church of Christ does exactly that.

Understood…

 

[Anna_Scott]

Crazzeto,

I’ve read your comments on Eucharistic Adoration. I’m still considering what you wrote; but I’ll give a few thoughts, now.

. . . . .Simply put, the Eucharistic is neither sacramentally united with Christ, nor are the bread and wine consubstantial with the divine nature. The Eucharistic bread and wine are in fact, truly the body and blood of our Lord and Savior under the appearance of bread and wine. This is the first Apostolic teaching which we need to understand Adoration.

I don’t need to know exactly how the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, in order to believe they become the Body and Blood of Christ, or to believe Christ is truly present in what appears as bread and wine.

You are talking about transubstantiation, which seems to be grounded more in an Aristotelian view of substance and matter than Apostolic teaching. If this is necessary to understand Eucharistic Adoration, I need your sources for the “Apostolic teaching” of transubstantiation. Your sources do not have to use the word, but I need a teaching that matches transubstantiation.

The second Apostolic teaching which explains how Adoration is an authentic teaching, can be found plainly stated in the scriptures:

. . . . .Mat 13:32 Which is the least indeed of all seeds; but when it is grown up, it is greater than all herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come, and dwell in the branches thereof.

That is, the Church herself is like a mustard seed, it began with a small seed of just a handful of Apostles in the upper room. From there it grew quickly, until today it is the “largest plant on earth” (certainly if one considers Christendom combined/united). Like any organism, it starts out small, and it has certain characteristics which will not be true of it when it grows up. Any seed is typically a single small self-contained organism, but when planted (and it “dies”) it grows roots, sprouts up out of the ground and becomes something new, but not something against its own nature.

I understand doctrines become more fully explained as the Church matures. The Doctrine of the Trinity would certainly be a good example. However, I’m very cautious when it comes to defining Divine Mysteries. You’ve got to give me solid pieces, that when assembled, will point to Eucharistic Adoration.

The same is true of the Church, for it is true that one cannot absolutely validate that adoration took place prior to ~1,200 A.D, though Christian Lupus claimed that the newly baptized adored for 8 days as early as the days of Ambrose and Augustine. The first reliable record of a perpetual adoration comes from 1,226 A.D. by the order of Louis VII who had just been victorious over the Albigensians. This adoration remained uninterrupted until 1729.

I see this late date as a problem. I think there is a huge leap between accepting the “Real Presence” of Christ in the Eucharist, as we consume the Body and Blood of Christ; and reserving the Sacrament for the purpose of Adoration.

Our Episcopal Church does reserve the Sacrament for the ill and home bound. It is kept in an Aumbry. A Sanctuary Lamp (with red glass) remains lit at all times and hangs above the Aumbry. However, the purpose of the reserved Sacrament is ultimately for consumption. Every year at Easter, all is consumed. And we begin again. I will say that I’m still not sure how I feel about this practice. It is very new to me, having been in the Episcopal Church for only about 5 months. It’s a major step for this former Baptist.

I will admit, I don’t see much of a leap between reserving the Sacrament in an Aumbry and reserving the Sacrament in a Monstrance. The difference seems to lie in the purpose of the reserved Sacrament. Yet, we do bow or genuflect in honor of the Presence of Christ. We are aware of the presence of Christ, spiritually in our midst, and in the newly consecrated, as well as the reserved, Sacrament. We do show “adoration” and respect to Christ.

So ultimately the question here is, is Eucharistic Adoration, a thing against Apostolic teaching? The answer could only be no, if indeed the Eucharist was not truly our Lord and Savior, but rather merely an objected worked of human hands. In this case it, it would outright be idolatry. But it’s not, more over it is consistent with the theology taught by the Apostles.

A few months ago, I asked my Rector about Eucharistic Adoration. Basically, he said the Sacrament is the means of adoration and grace, and not the end. It’s given to be received.

For me, I think it comes down to the purpose of the Sacrament, and the instructions given by Christ. We are to consume His Body and Blood. Why settle for gazing at the Sacrament, when we can consume the Sacrament. This really doesn’t make sense to me.

For more information on the subject, see these:
newadvent.org/cathen/01152a.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/01151a.htm

I’ll read your links below, and give it some more thought. I do appreciate your post.

Anna

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

A lot of good points, Anna, as usual. The only thing I’d say to give some food for thought is that your concerns about Aristotlean terminology and evaluation shouldn’t worry you too much in that pagan conceptualization and theory and terminology has truly helped shape theology for 2,000 years in all of Christendom to some degree. The Neo-Platonism of Augustine and his Manichiean background both helped him understand Christology and to some degree soteriology and make it tangiable and understandable to us. Most of the early Christian greats, the Fathers, were pagans before they converted and they utilized their pagan education to comprehend and explain so much of Christianity. The hypostatic union, the trinity, atonement, homouseus, so many of the Greek mystical viewpoints and the teachings of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Manicheism, and Eastern disciplines helped make things comprehensible. So that doesn’t really bother me.

What bothers me is that Adoration was not a practice of early Christians or even Christians until the Middle Ages. It’s quite the development and seems innovative. I wish it were more in line with “take, eat” that Christ tells us. The agape, the fellowship meal, the communion, the eating, the meal, always, never “take, adore” or anything like that.

I don’t have a problem with Transubstantiation either. Makes sense to me and seems to fit well not only in common sense with what Christ and Paul tell us the Eucharist is, but it fits with the Fathers’ descriptions. The fully substantial body, blood, soul, divinity the entirety of Christ is there, not sharing space with bread or spiritually hovering, but THERE. Makes sense.

Gotta run…looks like my Giants beat the Doggies! 5-2…talk about diabolical…the Dodgers! eesh!

Crazzeto,

I’ve read your comments on Eucharistic Adoration. I’m still considering what you wrote; but I’ll give a few thoughts, now.

I don’t need to know exactly how the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, in order to believe they become the Body and Blood of Christ, or to believe Christ is truly present in what appears as bread and wine.

You are talking about transubstantiation, which seems to be grounded more in an Aristotelian view of substance and matter than Apostolic teaching. If this is necessary to understand Eucharistic Adoration, I need your sources for the “Apostolic teaching” of transubstantiation. Your sources do not have to use the word, but I need a teaching that matches transubstantiation.

I understand doctrines become more fully explained as the Church matures. The Doctrine of the Trinity would certainly be a good example. However, I’m very cautious when it comes to defining Divine Mysteries. You’ve got to give me solid pieces, that when assembled, will point to Eucharistic Adoration.

I see this late date as a problem. I think there is a huge leap between accepting the “Real Presence” of Christ in the Eucharist, as we consume the Body and Blood of Christ; and reserving the Sacrament for the purpose of Adoration.

Our Episcopal Church does reserve the Sacrament for the ill and home bound. It is kept in an Aumbry. A Sanctuary Lamp (with red glass) remains lit at all times and hangs above the Aumbry. However, the purpose of the reserved Sacrament is ultimately for consumption. Every year at Easter, all is consumed. And we begin again. I will say that I’m still not sure how I feel about this practice. It is very new to me, having been in the Episcopal Church for only about 5 months. It’s a major step for this former Baptist.

I will admit, I don’t see much of a leap between reserving the Sacrament in an Aumbry and reserving the Sacrament in a Monstrance. The difference seems to lie in the purpose of the reserved Sacrament. Yet, we do bow or genuflect in honor of the Presence of Christ. We are aware of the presence of Christ, spiritually in our midst, and in the newly consecrated, as well as the reserved, Sacrament. We do show “adoration” and respect to Christ.

A few months ago, I asked my Rector about Eucharistic Adoration. Basically, he said the Sacrament is the means of adoration and grace, and not the end. It’s given to be received.

For me, I think it comes down to the purpose of the Sacrament, and the instructions given by Christ. We are to consume His Body and Blood. Why settle for gazing at the Sacrament, when we can consume the Sacrament. This really doesn’t make sense to me.

I’ll read your links below, and give it some more thought. I do appreciate your post.

Anna

 

[Bluegoat]

A lot of good points, Anna, as usual. The only thing I’d say to give some food for thought is that your concerns about Aristotlean terminology and evaluation shouldn’t worry you too much in that pagan conceptualization and theory and terminology has truly helped shape theology for 2,000 years in all of Christendom to some degree. The Neo-Platonism of Augustine and his Manichiean background both helped him understand Christology and to some degree soteriology and make it tangiable and understandable to us. Most of the early Christian greats, the Fathers, were pagans before they converted and they utilized their pagan education to comprehend and explain so much of Christianity. The hypostatic union, the trinity, atonement, homouseus, so many of the Greek mystical viewpoints and the teachings of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Manicheism, and Eastern disciplines helped make things comprehensible. So that doesn’t really bother me.

What bothers me is that Adoration was not a practice of early Christians or even Christians until the Middle Ages. It’s quite the development and seems innovative. I wish it were more in line with “take, eat” that Christ tells us. The agape, the fellowship meal, the communion, the eating, the meal, always, never “take, adore” or anything like that.

I don’t have a problem with Transubstantiation either. Makes sense to me and seems to fit well not only in common sense with what Christ and Paul tell us the Eucharist is, but it fits with the Fathers’ descriptions. The fully substantial body, blood, soul, divinity the entirety of Christ is there, not sharing space with bread or spiritually hovering, but THERE. Makes sense.

Gotta run…looks like my Giants beat the Doggies! 5-2…talk about diabolical…the Dodgers! eesh!

If Anna is anything like me, it isn’t the language of Aristotle that bothers her, it is the insistence on the necessity of using that language to describe the mystery. It is one way to describe it, but there are other ways that would be just as accurate.

I have similar reservations about adoration. There seems to be no indication in Scripture or Tradition that this is how we are supposed to use the Eucharist. And it seems to me to have a connection to a tendency to emphasize the reception of the Eucharist as the only really important part of the liturgy, and perhaps the faith, which is a tendency one can see in some Catholic circles.

 

[crazzeto]

Anna / Gurney / Bluegoat,

But again now, we’re talking about a unity of form vs. a unity of doctrine. Ultimiatly the argument aginst adoration isn’t that it violates the doctrine… It quite frankly does not violate the doctrine. If one accepts the doctrine of the real presense, and more over if you accept the Catholic view (as witnessed by Dr. Hahn) then one has no choice but to utterly conceed that what stands before them in the mosterance is in no way, the work of human hands.

Rather, what is before you in the Eucharist is God under the appearance of bread and wine. Now if this is something that you struggle with (you appear to Anna), then I would suggest a good first step, is to do more reasearch into what exactly the true presense of the Lord is. A close study of the early fathers will reveal that comsubstantial and sacruamental unions are both innovations in the understanding of exactly what the Eucharist is. The views have been condemed by the Eastern and Western Churchs (I imagin the Orientals as well).

Once one sits back, and understands completely what it is before them then Adoration frankly isn’t a problem. The host which is adored is consumed, once it’s time in adoration is complete. The act of adoration affords the Christian the oppertunity to sit quietly with the Lord, and pray, or reflect upon the gift of the Eucharist etc.

 

[SpectatorX]

If Anna is anything like me, it isn’t the language of Aristotle that bothers her, it is the insistence on the necessity of using that language to describe the mystery. It is one way to describe it, but there are other ways that would be just as accurate.

I think other words which convey the same meaning would not necessarily be wrong, it’s just that the philosophy of the day facilitated the use of Aristotelian language. If one said, “after consecration the Eucharist isn’t bread and wine anymore, despite what our senses tell us, but the very body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ which was offered once for the salvation of the world,” one would be hitting the nail on the head without utilizing the term “substance”. As demonstrated earlier by Crazzeto (… I think… Sorry, if you aren’t Crazzeto) the Orthodox object to the language used in defining Purgatory (and the very act of doing so, tangentially) but not the doctrine itself. I think we are witnessing a similar trend here.

I have similar reservations about adoration. There seems to be no indication in Scripture or Tradition that this is how we are supposed to use the Eucharist. And it seems to me to have a connection to a tendency to emphasize the reception of the Eucharist as the only really important part of the liturgy, and perhaps the faith, which is a tendency one can see in some Catholic circles.

I often find myself arguing with types who cite the dogma of the Assumption as “proof” that Catholic doctrine is arbitrary invention. I often amusedly point out to them that the Assumption, though it cannot be demonstrated to be early in origin, does not materially contradict any doctrine which can be deomonstrated as being as having early origin. The Communion of Saints, and the bodily assumption of Enoch and Elija are there, and the physical remains of Mary aren’t. On the other hand, the most central doctrines of these particular people’s theology (especially Sola Scriptura) have absolutely no early witness at all (except the Arians who most certainly don’t count), so not only does their argument not prove what they want it to prove, but it proves far too much when applied to their own beliefs.

In your case, it’s hard to distinguish more traditional Anglicans from the others using only an anonymous screen name, so I won’t presume to know your theology. I will utilize the first half of my cited argument, though. We worship Jesus Christ, and He is present in a more literal sense in the Eucharist than anywhere else (except Heaven, of course). How does Eucharistic adoration then contradict the Apostolic witness?

 

[catholicarchie]

Of course who decides what is natural or not natural?

And would the process of correction (the church deciding it was wrong and changing course) be considered “organic growth”?

didn’t the Church decide what is natural or not?

remember the Church did have to grow and learn from the Holy Spirit.
the first time was during the Council of Jerusalem, the issue about Circumcision came about and they had to decide upon it which means this particular notion was not taught by Jesus to the Apostles.

and as 2000years of Christianity went by more doctrinal issues arose and were answered.

 

[AmateurPianist]

didn’t the Church decide what is natural or not?

remember the Church did have to grow and learn from the Holy Spirit.
the first time was during the Council of Jerusalem, the issue about Circumcision came about and they had to decide upon it which means this particular notion was not taught by Jesus to the Apostles.

and as 2000years of Christianity went by more doctrinal issues arose and were answered.

And that goes back to my original point of self selecting the metrics.

If I get to cherry pick my metrics, I can make the apostolic church the same as my church.

 

[crazzeto]

I think other words which convey the same meaning would not necessarily be wrong, it’s just that the philosophy of the day facilitated the use of Aristotelian language. If one said, “after consecration the Eucharist isn’t bread and wine anymore, despite what our senses tell us, but the very body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ which was offered once for the salvation of the world,” one would be hitting the nail on the head without utilizing the term “substance”. As demonstrated earlier by Crazzeto (… I think… Sorry, if you aren’t Crazzeto) the Orthodox object to the language used in defining Purgatory (and the very act of doing so, tangentially) but not the doctrine itself. I think we are witnessing a similar trend here.

I often find myself arguing with types who cite the dogma of the Assumption as “proof” that Catholic doctrine is arbitrary invention. I often amusedly point out to them that the Assumption, though it cannot be demonstrated to be early in origin, does not materially contradict any doctrine which can be deomonstrated as being as having early origin. The Communion of Saints, and the bodily assumption of Enoch and Elija are there, and the physical remains of Mary aren’t. On the other hand, the most central doctrines of these particular people’s theology (especially Sola Scriptura) have absolutely no early witness at all (except the Arians who most certainly don’t count), so not only does their argument not prove what they want it to prove, but it proves far too much when applied to their own beliefs.

In your case, it’s hard to distinguish more traditional Anglicans from the others using only an anonymous screen name, so I won’t presume to know your theology. I will utilize the first half of my cited argument, though. We worship Jesus Christ, and He is present in a more literal sense in the Eucharist than anywhere else (except Heaven, of course). How does Eucharistic adoration then contradict the Apostolic witness?

Well stated, for what it’s worth Bluegoat in my estimation has a very good reputation. I accept his posting at face value.

 

[SpectatorX]

The apostolic church existed in one organization.

Now a neutral observer would observe Christianity existing in many organizations.

The issue is whether
(A) Only one of these organizations that exist today must be in God’s sight the sole heir of the apostolic church
(B) Many organizations can be in God’s sight the heirs of the apostolic church.

You claim the former while we claim the latter. It really is as simple as that.

While I would not deny anyone who can legitimately claim to be Christian membership in the Church (in an imperfect way, at least), I cannot see a cacophony of contradicting beliefs as the Church. We know that the apostles were given the authority to lead the Church, and we know that said authority was passed by the laying of hands. When did it become okay (or even “the norm”) for one to claim apostolic authority for himself? I saw a building labeled “New Apostolic Church” the other day and asked “Isn’t that oxymoronic?”

The point of this thread was for noncatholics to provide the validation for their beliefs. I’ve had some cherry picked quotes and citation of the development of doctrine (as being “just as bad” as Protestant innovation, I’ve interpreted these) to little avail, and I was fully expecting some of the usual defensive stances. I was already aware that there is no Apostolic or Early Church witness for the doctrines of the Reformation, but I was hoping that just beyond that discussion there would be some discussion in which a validation would be offered. Given the reality of Apostolic Succession, how can a Christian institution stand without it?

You seem to be moving in that direction already. Forgive my prodding. This question has weighed on my mind for some time.

 

[Bluegoat]

I think other words which convey the same meaning would not necessarily be wrong, it’s just that the philosophy of the day facilitated the use of Aristotelian language. If one said, “after consecration the Eucharist isn’t bread and wine anymore, despite what our senses tell us, but the very body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ which was offered once for the salvation of the world,” one would be hitting the nail on the head without utilizing the term “substance”. As demonstrated earlier by Crazzeto (… I think… Sorry, if you aren’t Crazzeto) the Orthodox object to the language used in defining Purgatory (and the very act of doing so, tangentially) but not the doctrine itself. I think we are witnessing a similar trend here.

What you are describing though is the idea of the Real Presence, which many groups hold and have no problem with. Transubstantiation is something more specific, and it is the insistence on that that is the issue. Saying that it is necessary to use that Aristotelian language.

I often find myself arguing with types who cite the dogma of the Assumption as “proof” that Catholic doctrine is arbitrary invention. I often amusedly point out to them that the Assumption, though it cannot be demonstrated to be early in origin, does not materially contradict any doctrine which can be deomonstrated as being as having early origin. The Communion of Saints, and the bodily assumption of Enoch and Elija are there, and the physical remains of Mary aren’t. On the other hand, the most central doctrines of these particular people’s theology (especially Sola Scriptura) have absolutely no early witness at all (except the Arians who most certainly don’t count), so not only does their argument not prove what they want it to prove, but it proves far too much when applied to their own beliefs.

In your case, it’s hard to distinguish more traditional Anglicans from the others using only an anonymous screen name, so I won’t presume to know your theology. I will utilize the first half of my cited argument, though. We worship Jesus Christ, and He is present in a more literal sense in the Eucharist than anywhere else (except Heaven, of course). How does Eucharistic adoration then contradict the Apostolic witness?

I think it is quite different to say a practice is Apostolic, and that it does not contradict Apostolic teaching. The first has a claim to authority which the second does not. In the latter case you must show that it indeed does not contradict Apostolic understanding, and also that it is a good idea in and of itself.

So one first cannot use Apostolic witness as the reason for adoration. That is simply untrue. They didn’t do it. Then one must ask, why not? They seem to have confined themselves to using it only in the way they were instructed to in the institution. Adoration is going beyond that - there is a difference of approach. Is that significant? Another question would be whether adoration might be likely to lead to unwholesome practices or superstition.

It is simply not as simple as "It is the Real Presence, therefor it must be good and natural to have Adoration.

 

[SpectatorX]

Well stated, for what it’s worth Bluegoat in my estimation has a very good reputation. I accept his posting at face value.

Whoops! I didn’t mean to steal your thunder. I think you posted while I was composing.

 

[crazzeto]

Whoops! I didn’t mean to steal your thunder. I think you posted while I was composing.

Oh no! I found your post to be terrific and well thought out! Thanks for posting it

 

[crazzeto]

I think it is quite different to say a practice is Apostolic, and that it does not contradict Apostolic teaching. The first has a claim to authority which the second does not. In the latter case you must show that it indeed does not contradict Apostolic understanding, and also that it is a good idea in and of itself.

So one first cannot use Apostolic witness as the reason for adoration. That is simply untrue. They didn’t do it. Then one must ask, why not? They seem to have confined themselves to using it only in the way they were instructed to in the institution. Adoration is going beyond that - there is a difference of approach. Is that significant? Another question would be whether adoration might be likely to lead to unwholesome practices or superstition.

It is simply not as simple as "It is the Real Presence, therefor it must be good and natural to have Adoration.

I think I understand what you’re getting at, but I would propose one can claim it’s apistolic onf the following grounds:

1. It wouldn’t have offended the actual apostles
2. It is from the actual apostles legitimate successors

This is what it means to be an apoistolic teaching. We hold many things as being Apistolic, which are not confirmed in writing until a time at which all the actual apostles of Christ are already dead, so IMHO trying to claim a distinction between 500 A.D. and 1,200 A.D. is splitting hairs really.

I do have a problem with your last suggestion, I would ask you to put forward what superstition or unwholesome practice has ever been born of adortaiton? At least to my knowlege, any such charge originates from Protestant misunderstandings of what the host is. Most directly, from those who reject any idea that the bread and wine could possibly be our Lord and Savior.

 

[SpectatorX]

What you are describing though is the idea of the Real Presence, which many groups hold and have no problem with. Transubstantiation is something more specific, and it is the insistence on that that is the issue. Saying that it is necessary to use that Aristotelian language.

I think I can assuage your concerns, then. The Council of Trent worded the definition of transubstantiation such that it did not impose the philosophy of Aristotle by omitting use of the term “accident” in favor of “species”. The word “substance” has been used in regard to the Real Presence before the Aristotelian influence on theology according to English theologian Charles Davis, anyway. As such, I posit that the Aristotelian philosophy was a way to convey the Real Presence philosophically at Trent (in opposition to a mere spiritual presence and what was called consubstantiation) and that the philosophy itself is not, nor was it intended to be, mandated.

I think it is quite different to say a practice is Apostolic, and that it does not contradict Apostolic teaching. The first has a claim to authority which the second does not. In the latter case you must show that it indeed does not contradict Apostolic understanding, and also that it is a good idea in and of itself.

So one first cannot use Apostolic witness as the reason for adoration. That is simply untrue. They didn’t do it. Then one must ask, why not? They seem to have confined themselves to using it only in the way they were instructed to in the institution. Adoration is going beyond that - there is a difference of approach. Is that significant? Another question would be whether adoration might be likely to lead to unwholesome practices or superstition.

Nor can one use apostolic witness for such things as the Assumption or papal infallibility. The concept of doctrinal development has long been accepted by the Church, though. If a principle is posited by the Church itself which is not demonstrably untrue or in opposition to Apostolic or Early Church witness, by what means can it be opposed? To say that the Apostles did not practice it does not prove or even imply that they considered it a bad idea. Why didn’t they formulate the Trinity or hypostasis, for that matter? Regarding the question of whether or not it is fitting to worship Christ in the Eucharist, my Church has decided in the positive, and there is no argument I have yet seen to the contrary. This is one of those things I accept because I accept that authority but which can scarcely be proven true to someone who doesn’t. The best I can offer is to demonstrate that, while there is no argument for this practice in apostolic witness, there certainly isn’t one against it, either.

It is simply not as simple as "It is the Real Presence, therefor it must be good and natural to have Adoration.

I would not expect you to accept this practice based solely on said reasoning. I"m afraid the best stance I can advocate given the circumstances is a neutral one.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Part 1 of 2

You are talking about transubstantiation, which seems to be grounded more in an Aristotelian view of substance and matter than Apostolic teaching. If this is necessary to understand Eucharistic Adoration, I need your sources for the “Apostolic teaching” of transubstantiation. Your sources do not have to use the word, but I need a teaching that matches transubstantiation.

I still need your sources for the “Apostolic teaching” of transubstantiation; since you are claiming I must embrace this in order to understand Eucharist Adoration.

Rather, what is before you in the Eucharist is God under the appearance of bread and wine. Now if this is something that you struggle with (you appear to Anna), then I would suggest a good first step, is to do more reasearch into what exactly the true presense of the Lord is. A close study of the early fathers will reveal that comsubstantial and sacruamental unions are both innovations in the understanding of exactly what the Eucharist is. The views have been condemed by the Eastern and Western Churchs (I imagin the Orientals as well).

I’m not struggling with the “Real Presence.” I just don’t think acceptance of a particular definition, such as one derived from Aristotelian metaphysics, is necessary to believe in the “Real Presence,” nor is it necessary in order to understand the doctrine of Eucharist Adoration. The bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. I get that. I may eventually accept transubstantiation as the metaphysical explanation behind the Mystery; But, I’m very cautious about defining or accepting definitions of a Divine Mystery.

I don’t need to know exactly how the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, in order to believe they become the Body and Blood of Christ, or to believe Christ is truly present in what appears as bread and wine.

But again now, we’re talking about a unity of form vs. a unity of doctrine. Ultimiatly the argument aginst adoration isn’t that it violates the doctrine… It quite frankly does not violate the doctrine. If one accepts the doctrine of the real presense, and more over if you accept the Catholic view (as witnessed by Dr. Hahn) then one has no choice but to utterly conceed that what stands before them in the mosterance is in no way, the work of human hands.

I never said the Sacrament contained in the Monstrance is the work of human hands, or that it is not the Body and Blood of Christ. My issue is the reservation of the Sacrament for the specific purpose of Adoration. I might be more open to the argument that if the Sacrament is going to be reserved for the sick and home-bound; it might as well be displayed in a Monstrance, rather than concealed in an Aumbry, until it is taken to the sick and home-bound. I’m helping your argument here. Proof that I am considering all sides of the issue.

. . . . . food for thought is that your concerns about Aristotlean terminology and evaluation shouldn’t worry you too much in that pagan conceptualization and theory and terminology has truly helped shape theology for 2,000 years in all of Christendom to some degree. . . . .

I don’t have a problem with Transubstantiation either. Makes sense to me and seems to fit well not only in common sense with what Christ and Paul tell us the Eucharist is, but it fits with the Fathers’ descriptions. The fully substantial body, blood, soul, divinity the entirety of Christ is there, not sharing space with bread or spiritually hovering, but THERE. Makes sense.

Excellent points. I do understand the influence of philosophy (I studied Philosophy-even lived in Greece and studied at a university there about 23 years ago–I’m a little rusty, but I remember a few things. )

If Anna is anything like me, it isn’t the language of Aristotle that bothers her, it is the insistence on the necessity of using that language to describe the mystery. It is one way to describe it, but there are other ways that would be just as accurate.

I think Bluegoat p(name removed by moderator)ointed my issue. It is the insistence upon using the language; and it is the insistence that one must accept transubstantiation in order to understand the Eucharist, and Eucharistic Adoration.

What you are describing though is the idea of the Real Presence, which many groups hold and have no problem with. Transubstantiation is something more specific, and it is the insistence on that that is the issue. Saying that it is necessary to use that Aristotelian language.

I agree.

I think other words which convey the same meaning would not necessarily be wrong, it’s just that the philosophy of the day facilitated the use of Aristotelian language. If one said, “after consecration the Eucharist isn’t bread and wine anymore, despite what our senses tell us, but the very body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ which was offered once for the salvation of the world,” one would be hitting the nail on the head without utilizing the term “substance”. . . . .

I agree.

We all agree in the “Real Presence.” I agree that in the Eucharist, we consume Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ. I agree this same Sacrament exists in the Aumbry in Episcopal Churches and in the Monstrance in Catholic Churches. The issue is the purpose of reserving the Sacrament—what is done with the Sacrament–and how that relates to the instructions given by Christ.

Continued—Next Post

 

[Anna_Scott]

Part 2 of 2

A few months ago, I asked my Rector about Eucharistic Adoration. Basically, he said the Sacrament is the means of adoration and grace, and not the end. It’s given to be received. . . . .

Once one sits back, and understands completely what it is before them then Adoration frankly isn’t a problem. The host which is adored is consumed, once it’s time in adoration is complete. The act of adoration affords the Christian the oppertunity to sit quietly with the Lord, and pray, or reflect upon the gift of the Eucharist etc.

Understanding what is before us does not necessarily lead to a practice which was not given to us by Christ. As I said, “Why settle for gazing at the Sacrament, when we can consume the Sacrament.”

For me, I think it comes down to the purpose of the Sacrament, and the instructions given by Christ. We are to consume His Body and Blood. Why settle for gazing at the Sacrament, when we can consume the Sacrament. This really doesn’t make sense to me.

What bothers me is that Adoration was not a practice of early Christians or even Christians until the Middle Ages. It’s quite the development and seems innovative. I wish it were more in line with “take, eat” that Christ tells us. The agape, the fellowship meal, the communion, the eating, the meal, always, never “take, adore” or anything like that.

I agree. Again, it goes back to the instructions given by Christ.

I have similar reservations about adoration. There seems to be no indication in Scripture or Tradition that this is how we are supposed to use the Eucharist. . . . .

. . . . .We worship Jesus Christ, and He is present in a more literal sense in the Eucharist than anywhere else (except Heaven, of course). How does Eucharistic adoration then contradict the Apostolic witness?

Agreed: heaven and earth meet in the Eucharist. Agreed: Christ is present in a more literal sense in the Eucharist. However, there is quite a leap between consuming the Sacrament and reserving the Sacrament specifically for Adoration.

I think it is quite different to say a practice is Apostolic, and that it does not contradict Apostolic teaching. The first has a claim to authority which the second does not. In the latter case you must show that it indeed does not contradict Apostolic understanding, and also that it is a good idea in and of itself.

Agreed. I still haven’t seen a convincing argument for Eucharistic Adoration.

So one first cannot use Apostolic witness as the reason for adoration. That is simply untrue. They didn’t do it. Then one must ask, why not? They seem to have confined themselves to using it only in the way they were instructed to in the institution. Adoration is going beyond that - there is a difference of approach. . . . . .

Agreed. I think this does go back to the instructions given by Christ, and the purpose of the Eucharist.

. . . . .To say that the Apostles did not practice it does not prove or even imply that they considered it a bad idea. . . . .The best I can offer is to demonstrate that, while there is no argument for this practice in apostolic witness, there certainly isn’t one against it, either.

Saying there is no argument against Eucharistic Adoration does not prove the Apostles would think it was a good idea.

It is simply not as simple as "It is the Real Presence, therefor it must be good and natural to have Adoration.

Agreed.

I think I understand what you’re getting at, but I would propose one can claim it’s apistolic onf the following grounds:

1. It wouldn’t have offended the actual apostles
2. It is from the actual apostles legitimate successors

This is what it means to be an apoistolic teaching. We hold many things as being Apistolic, which are not confirmed in writing until a time at which all the actual apostles of Christ are already dead, so IMHO trying to claim a distinction between 500 A.D. and 1,200 A.D. is splitting hairs really.

Re #1: In reading the N.T., we find practices within the early Church, which offended others within the early Church. So, I would be hesitant to make a blanket assumption that Eucharistic Adoration would not have offended the Apostles.

Re #2: We are back to the authority issue of “Apostles legitimate successors.” You can use this argument to dismiss any beliefs not in line with the Catholic Church; and even to dismiss the very Sacrament of the Eucharist, when I receive it from an Episcopal Priest.

Also, I think there is a big difference between 500 A.D and 1,200 A.D. Why did it take so long?

The bottom line is; I need more concrete evidence for Eucharistic Adoration in the early Church, and how the practice is justified in light of the instructions given by our Lord.

Great discussion!!!
Anna

Edited to add P.S. Question for Catholics: How does Eucharistic Adoration fit into the issue of salvation? Should this be a sidebar question? If so, I welcome PMs–as long as they are nice.