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

[Javl]

Trust me, Frodo, we have all seen these quotes before. CAF is a proof-texting cut and paste utopia LOL…it drives me nutsoid. Just cite a few and in context and defend and debate holistically not father by father.

Ironically you can go through and find a heap of quotes from the Fathers saying the exact opposite of just about anything. For every five quotes making a pope sound sovereign and all powerful, you can find five quotes that argue the opposite.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Anna_Scott]

… . . .ewtn.com/library/homelibr/historea.txt. . . . .

Crazzeto,

Regarding your link:

. . . .the early hermits reserved the
Eucharist in their cells. From at least the middle of the third
century, . . . .The immediate purpose of this reservation was to enable the hermits
to give themselves Holy Communion. . . . . .

. . . . ., that certainly goes back to as early as 120 A.D. . . . . .a particle of the Eucharistic bread (sometimes dipped in the chalice) transported from the bishop of one diocese to the bishop of another diocese. The latter would then consume the species at his next solemn Mass as a token of unity between the churches. . . . .
. . . . .As monasticism changed from solitary to community life, the monks
received something of the same privilege of carrying the Eucharist
with them. . . . .It was not only to have the hosts ready for Communion but also to insure safety against robbers and protection against the hazards of travel.

The life of St. Comgall (died 601) tells how on one occasion he was
attacked by heathen Pietists while working in a field. On seeing the
around his neck, the attackers did not dare touch him for
fear of some retaliation since they surmised (as the narrator says)
that Comgall was carrying his God. The saint was so moved by the
experience that he exclaimed, “Lord, you are my strength, my refuge,
and my Redeemer.”

The assumption of Corngall’s attackers that he was carrying his God, touches on one of my concerns about displaying the Eucharist in a Monstrance in a Chapel, or carrying it in a procession. It appears as an attempt to capture God, in a sense, and hold Him within time and space for a purpose other than consumption, as instructed by Christ.

As early as the Council of Nicea (325) we know that the Eucharist
began to be reserved in the churches of monasteries and convents.
Again, the immediate reason for this reservation was for the sick and
the dying, and also for the ceremony of the . . . .

. . . .A bewildering variety of names was used to identify the
place of reservation. , , ,
are the most common. As far as we can tell, the Eucharist
was originally kept in a special room, just off the sanctuary but
separated from the church where Mass was offered.

Separating the Eucharist from the Church removes the Sacrament from The Mass. Why do this?

Certainly by the 800’s, the Blessed Sacrament was kept within the
monastic church itself, close to the altar. In fact, we have a poem from the year 802, telling of a pyx containing the Sacred Species reserved on the high altar of the abbey church at Lindisfarne in England.

The practice of reserving the Eucharist in religious houses was so universal that there is no evidence to the contrary even before the year 1000.

. . . .Suddenly a revolution hit the Church when Berengarius (999-1088), archdeacon of Angers in France, publicly denied that Christ was really and physically present under the species of bread and wine. . . . Pope Gregory VII ordered Berengarius to sign a retraction. This credo has made theological history. It was the Church’s first definitive statement of what had always been believed and never seriously challenged. The witness came from the abbot-become-pope, whose faith in the Blessed Sacrament had been nourished for years in a Benedictine monastery.

Gregory’s teaching on the Real Presence was quoted verbatim in Pope Paul VI’s historic document (1965) to meet a new challenge to the Eucharist in our day–very similar to what happened in the eleventh century.

With this profession of faith, the churches of Europe began what can
only be described as a Eucharistic Renascence. Processions of the
Blessed Sacrament were instituted; prescribed acts of adoration were
legislated; visits to Christ in the pyx were encouraged; the cells of
anchoresses had windows made into the church to allow the religious
to view and adore before the tabernacle.

This indicates Eucharistic Adoration developed as an overcompensation during the process of defending the Real Presence.

In following the time line above. . . .

The monks reserved the Eucharist to give themselves Communion.

Later, “Eucharistic bread” was taken from the bishop of one diocese to the bishop of another diocese and consumed together as a “token of unity.”

Monks began to reserve the Eucharist, not just for Communion, but to carry with them to ensure their safety.

St. Comgall had the Eucharist on him in the fields, when he was attacked by heathen Pietists. The attackers saw the “chrismal” around his neck, and became afraid because they believed he carried his God with him. At this point, the Eucharist has strayed far from the “meal” context, and far from the instructions given by Christ.

325 A.D. the Eucharist was reserved in churches of monasteries and convents for the sick and dying.

Berengarius (999-1088), archdeacon of Angers in France, publicly denied the Real Presence; and Eucharistic Adoration was born as a result of the defense of the Real Presence.

What I am not seeing is Eucharistic Adoration as an Apostolic teaching handed down from the first Apostles.

I still do not understand why consuming the Eucharist is not enough. As I said before, why gaze upon the Eucharist, when you can consume it?

Crazzeto, I appreciate the link and your posts. I will continue studying the info on the link, and do more research, as well.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Javl]

Quoted by Anna Scott:

What I am not seeing is Eucharistic Adoration as an Apostolic teaching handed down from the first Apostles.

It does not have to be an Apostolic teaching for its on the order of a discipline. Although it is a man-made tradition, it is not sinful. It is not heresy, it is not the cause of schism or sin. It is just our version of expessing the love and respect we have for our Lord and Saviour. Eucharistic Adoration is not a requirement, tenet, doctrine or dogma.

I still do not understand why consuming the Eucharist is not enough. As I said before, why gaze upon the Eucharist, when you can consume it?

To some, gazing upon the Eucharist in Adoration is an adjunct to consuming it. It is considered an act, not only of repect, but also of piety and total submission to Our God.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom haMeshiach

 

[Anna_Scott]

Hey Anna,

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you about this, things have been crazy! And sadly I’m not sure I’m going to be writing as much as I originally intended, but I feel I’ve left Eucharistic Adoration go on far too long without writing anything at all, while at the same time I’m fairly exhausted from getting back onto my P90X workout routine (it’s been since December!!).

So how do I claim that Adoration is 100% Apostolic? Well there are two things we need to keep in mind. The first briefly you gave me an answer already, and your answer as I understood it makes it possible for me to be fairly brief on what is actually the most significant part of this posting , that is the doctrine of the real presence. Now I realize there are a number of differing understandings of this doctrine, which is why I wanted to know which one you currently ascribe to. If I understood correctly, then you 100% agree with Dr. Hahn’s theology on the subject matter? If that is the case, then you have all the grounding you should need on this matter. 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.

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

Mat 13:31 Another parable he proposed unto them, saying: The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field.
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.

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.

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.

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

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. . . . . .

It does not have to be an Apostolic teaching for its on the order of a discipline. Although it is a man-made tradition, it is not sinful. It is not heresy, it is not the cause of schism or sin. It is just our version of expessing the love and respect we have for our Lord and Saviour. Eucharistic Adoration is not a requirement, tenet, doctrine or dogma.

To some, gazing upon the Eucharist in Adoration is an adjunct to consuming it. It is considered an act, not only of repect, but also of piety and total submission to Our God.

Hey, Javl,

I appreciate your comments. I do want to clarify: I didn’t say Eucharistic Adoration was sinful or a heresy.

You are saying it is not an Apostolic teaching. Crazzeto says it is an Apostolic teaching.

You say it is not a doctrine, yet it is called a “Doctrine” in the link Crazzeto gave.

So, if whether or not Eucharistic Adoration is an “Apostolic teaching” or a “doctrine,” is confusing among Catholics; surely you can see this may be difficult for non-Catholics to embrace.

Then there are the sort of “renegade” (for lack of a better word) Catholics like Fr. Richard McBrien, who said, “Eucharistic adoration, perpetual or not, is a doctrinal, theological, and spiritual step backward, not forward.” Link: ncronline.org/blogs/essays-theology/perpetual-eucharistic-adoration.

I’m not claiming to be a fan of Fr. McBrien, especially since he had unfavorable things to say about Pope John Paul II. I’m just pointing out that not all Catholics agree, when it comes to the issue of Eucharistic Adoration.

Peace,
Anna

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

I’m a few pages behind, so hopefully this isn’t redundant. Just wanted to offer a few thoughts on adoration.

Also, I apologize for my formatting - my quote tags are goofed up somehow, and I don’t have the strength to debug it right now.
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.

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.\quote]

Eucharistic Adoration does not rely on transubstantiation per se. Transubstabtiation is a particular formal description of how consecration works. What adoration relies on is a belief that the Eucharist really is Christ. If it’s Christ, and if you love Christ, then you love the Eucharist.

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.
\quote]

I’m no historian, but I heard that the practice of Adoration was developed to counter a dangerous lukewarmness in the laity. Because peoples’ only encounter with the Eucharist was in Mass, and since Mass wasn’t going to change, Adoration was created to help remind people about what is really going on.

New practice, for sure. New theology? Only if loving Christ is new.

God bless!

 

[crazzeto]

Just a few quick comments before bed

Crazzeto,

Regarding your link:

The assumption of Corngall’s attackers that he was carrying his God, touches on one of my concerns about displaying the Eucharist in a Monstrance in a Chapel, or carrying it in a procession. It appears as an attempt to capture God, in a sense, and hold Him within time and space for a purpose other than consumption, as instructed by Christ.

So so far as this goes, I have absolutly no doubt that Corngall’s attackers thought exactly this, and they no doubt framed it to them selves in a more pegan term… His attackers were no doubt, idol worshipers and regarded the Eucharist as an idol.

This however in no way represents an attempt to “capture God” than the very Eucharist it’s self does. You’ve taken Corngall’s attackers views, and transposed them upon Corngall and the Church. Corngall understood quite well that the Eucharist is no idol, but he also understands very well that indeed it is mysteriously the body, blood and divinity of Jesus Christ. Not trapped in a small hunk of unlevened bread, but mysteriously, completely there, while not be completely contained with in the confines of the bread.

The Eucharist is a great mystery. How could God be completley present in it, but that object not completly contain God (nor could it). At some point, we just have to conceed that none of us completely understand how the Eucharist can work, mearly understand what it is and that it is a gift from God. Thus we are called to be like childeren in our faith.

Separating the Eucharist from the Church removes the Sacrament from The Mass. Why do this?

To show your reverence for the great gift of the Eucharst, just as St. Basil the Great did in ~300 A.D. The Eucharist is a spectacular gift, it’s is an intimate union with God, becuse it is it’s self the body, blood and divinity of Christ. From the begining it has been acceptable to reserve the host, thus taking it out of the Mass context right there. More over, reading over the document, you should see that it has been seen as acceptable to carry it long distance, send it to a fellow Bishop as a sign of unity, and even place it in a Golden Dove above the Alter as St. Basil the Great did in 300 A.D.

All of this demonstrates the Apostolic roots, and appropriateness of Adoration as we have it. Yes the nature of Adoration as we have it today developed over time (sorry for the confusion, while I maintain it’s apostolic I also tried to acknowlege from the start it developed over time), but at least from where I sit I see every objection to Adoration answered:

1. It is the body, blood and divinity of Christ
2. From the start, it has been reserved for extra-mass usage
3. These usages, while always ending in consumption have gone beyond the strict mass context from the start, as a symbol of unity for instance ,or to be reserved in a golden dove
4. The Eucharist from the start has been reserved with in the personal rooms of religous, who would contemplate the awesome gift.

All of this is exactly what Eucharistic adoration is, even if they weren’t placeing it in a Monstrum on the Alter yet. And it all gets traced back to Apistolic times.

This indicates Eucharistic Adoration developed as an overcompensation during the process of defending the Real Presence.

In following the time line above. . . .

The monks reserved the Eucharist to give themselves Communion.

Later, “Eucharistic bread” was taken from the bishop of one diocese to the bishop of another diocese and consumed together as a “token of unity.”

Monks began to reserve the Eucharist, not just for Communion, but to carry with them to ensure their safety.

St. Comgall had the Eucharist on him in the fields, when he was attacked by heathen Pietists. The attackers saw the “chrismal” around his neck, and became afraid because they believed he carried his God with him. At this point, the Eucharist has strayed far from the “meal” context, and far from the instructions given by Christ.

325 A.D. the Eucharist was reserved in churches of monasteries and convents for the sick and dying.

Berengarius (999-1088), archdeacon of Angers in France, publicly denied the Real Presence; and Eucharistic Adoration was born as a result of the defense of the Real Presence.

What I am not seeing is Eucharistic Adoration as an Apostolic teaching handed down from the first Apostles.

I still do not understand why consuming the Eucharist is not enough. As I said before, why gaze upon the Eucharist, when you can consume it?

Crazzeto, I appreciate the link and your posts. I will continue studying the info on the link, and do more research, as well.

Peace,
Anna

 

[lax16]

Anna,

A book that REALLY amazed me in its scholarship and readability as well as outstanding points in favor of the Orthodox approach to the papacy was a book I picked up in a Catholic book store, of all places, in San Francisco about 8 years ago.

It’s called “The Primacy of Peter.” I consider it one of the best-written Orthodox books I’ve ever read. amazon.com/Primacy-Peter-Essays-Ecclesiology-Church/dp/0881411256/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1279853933&sr=8-1

The late John Meyendorff was an incredibly learned man. Along with two other big named Orthodox writers/scholars they make a very, very convincing argument that the Roman Catholic approach to the papacy is extremely misguided and at bare minimum extremely shaky ground. You can read the book in about three days, two if you really sit down and curl up with it. I have read it five or six times. It’s awesome.

Hey gurney - I hope to read the book you recommended but just received Volumes 1-3 of Jurgens “The Faith of the Early Fathers” and haven’t even taken the plastic wrap off yet. I have a new rule - no new books until I catch up with the ones I have already received from Amazon!

Anyway, I was wondering if you have read any books that would be on the other side of the discussion? One I came across that seems to be along the same lines is “Upon This Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church” by Stephen K. Ray. I haven’t read it but it might provide a Catholic perspective to go along with the one you’ve been nurturing.

Let me know if you have any feedback on this, or any other Catholic books on the subject. Thanks!

 

[Cinette]

*Please note that the official name of the Church to which we belong is the Catholic Church.

Some people refer to the Roman Catholic Church…even priests. This sort of stuck but apparently it was the Anglicans who gave us that name.

*

 

[ron77nyc]

Why is John 6:56 (“He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him”) used to authenticate the true church while John 14:12 (“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father”) is completely ignored?

 

[crazzeto]

Why is John 6:56 (“He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him”) used to authenticate the true church while John 14:12 (“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father”) is completely ignored?

This statement is neither here nor there in the context of the discussion, no one is denying John 14:12, what’s being addressed is the up front denial of John 6 by some, by others the appropriateness of certain practices with in the Church.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I’m a few pages behind, so hopefully this isn’t redundant. Just wanted to offer a few thoughts on adoration.

Also, I apologize for my formatting - my quote tags are goofed up somehow, and I don’t have the strength to debug it right now.

Eucharistic Adoration does not rely on transubstantiation per se. Transubstabtiation is a particular formal description of how consecration works. What adoration relies on is a belief that the Eucharist really is Christ. If it’s Christ, and if you love Christ, then you love the Eucharist.

I’m no historian, but I heard that the practice of Adoration was developed to counter a dangerous lukewarmness in the laity. Because peoples’ only encounter with the Eucharist was in Mass, and since Mass wasn’t going to change, Adoration was created to help remind people about what is really going on.

New practice, for sure. New theology? Only if loving Christ is new.

God bless!

NaturalEnquirer,

I appreciate your comments; but I would ask for your sources. Gotta show me the money.

Crazzeto and I have been discussing the link he gave to “The History of Eucharistic Adoration, Development of Doctrine in the Catholic Church,” by John A. Hardon, S.J.

Anna,

Have you looked at the EWTN posting I sent you? One thing I found interesting and relevent to the question

“But was the Eucharist ever taken out of the meal context and placed on the alter…”

ewtn.com/library/homelibr/historea.txt . . . .

Peace,
Anna

 

[ron77nyc]

Why is John 6:56 (“He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him”) used to authenticate the true church while John 14:12 (“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father”) is completely ignored?

This statement is neither here nor there in the context of the discussion, no one is denying John 14:12, what’s being addressed is the up front denial of John 6 by some, by others the appropriateness of certain practices with in the Church.

Why focus on the Eucharist only to prove apostolic succession? The apostles also healed people.

Acts 2:42 They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43 Everyone kept feeling a sense of awe; and many wonders and signs were taking place through the apostles.

They also observed the Sabbath on Saturday. They were Catholic but not Roman Catholic. You will never find anyone in the bible at mass. They didn’t go to mass on Sunday.

I would like to turn the question around. If they were Catholic then what are we?

 

[crazzeto]

Why focus on the Eucharist only to prove apostolic succession? The apostles also healed people.

Acts 2:42 They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43 Everyone kept feeling a sense of awe; and many wonders and signs were taking place through the apostles.

They also observed the Sabbath on Saturday. They were Catholic but not Roman Catholic. You will never find anyone in the bible at mass. They didn’t go to mass on Sunday.

I would like to turn the question around. If they were Catholic then what are we?

Ron, I get the feeling you’re not quite on the same page as everyone else, there is no denial the the Apostles healed… In fact our discussions have affirmed this, as our discussions always affirm faith in Jesus Christ.

But the Eucharist is a great gift of God, right now there is much discussion regarding it’s proper role in our faith. I would also exhort you Ron, never to forget the terrific gift of God that the Eucharist is. Fully the body soul and divinity of our Lord, the Christ Jesus, while not fully containing it. It is a spectacular gift, the very physical manifistation of him being the very living water which gives eteranal life.

 

[Nicea325]

Why focus on the Eucharist only to prove apostolic succession? The apostles also healed people.

Acts 2:42 They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43 Everyone kept feeling a sense of awe; and many wonders and signs were taking place through the apostles.

They also observed the Sabbath on Saturday. They were Catholic but not Roman Catholic. You will never find anyone in the bible at mass. They didn’t go to mass on Sunday.

I would like to turn the question around. If they were Catholic then what are we?

Huh? “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10:16).

The Breaking of the Bread is the old reference to the Mass. Jesus resurrected on Sunday and that is the Day of the Lord.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna,

Have you looked at the EWTN posting I sent you? One thing I found interesting and relevent to the question

“But was the Eucharist ever taken out of the meal context and placed on the alter…”

ewtn.com/library/homelibr/historea.txt

It would seem the answer to this is yes, and it originated in the East actually.

Just a few quick comments before bed

So so far as this goes, I have absolutly no doubt that Corngall’s attackers thought exactly this, and they no doubt framed it to them selves in a more pegan term… His attackers were no doubt, idol worshipers and regarded the Eucharist as an idol.

This however in no way represents an attempt to “capture God” than the very Eucharist it’s self does. You’ve taken Corngall’s attackers views, and transposed them upon Corngall and the Church. Corngall understood quite well that the Eucharist is no idol, but he also understands very well that indeed it is mysteriously the body, blood and divinity of Jesus Christ. Not trapped in a small hunk of unlevened bread, but mysteriously, completely there, while not be completely contained with in the confines of the bread.

The Eucharist is a great mystery. How could God be completley present in it, but that object not completly contain God (nor could it). At some point, we just have to conceed that none of us completely understand how the Eucharist can work, mearly understand what it is and that it is a gift from God. Thus we are called to be like childeren in our faith.

To show your reverence for the great gift of the Eucharst, just as St. Basil the Great did in ~300 A.D. The Eucharist is a spectacular gift, it’s is an intimate union with God, becuse it is it’s self the body, blood and divinity of Christ. From the begining it has been acceptable to reserve the host, thus taking it out of the Mass context right there. More over, reading over the document, you should see that it has been seen as acceptable to carry it long distance, send it to a fellow Bishop as a sign of unity, and even place it in a Golden Dove above the Alter as St. Basil the Great did in 300 A.D.

All of this demonstrates the Apostolic roots, and appropriateness of Adoration as we have it. Yes the nature of Adoration as we have it today developed over time (sorry for the confusion, while I maintain it’s apostolic I also tried to acknowlege from the start it developed over time), but at least from where I sit I see every objection to Adoration answered:

1. It is the body, blood and divinity of Christ
2. From the start, it has been reserved for extra-mass usage
3. These usages, while always ending in consumption have gone beyond the strict mass context from the start, as a symbol of unity for instance ,or to be reserved in a golden dove
4. The Eucharist from the start has been reserved with in the personal rooms of religous, who would contemplate the awesome gift.

All of this is exactly what Eucharistic adoration is, even if they weren’t placeing it in a Monstrum on the Alter yet. And it all gets traced back to Apistolic times.

Crazzeto,

I am “pondering.” Will respond later. As always, I appreciate your posts.

Anna

 

[SnakeMauler]

I don’t get why everyone’s making a big deal about the whole adoration thing. It’s not like it’s the pinnacle of our faith, and a lot of parishes might not even have it. And besides, whats wrong with placing the body of our Lord (if you have the faith to believe it) up on an altar for prayer to and such?

 

[Anna_Scott]

I don’t get why everyone’s making a big deal about the whole adoration thing. It’s not like it’s the pinnacle of our faith, and a lot of parishes might not even have it. And besides, whats wrong with placing the body of our Lord (if you have the faith to believe it) up on an altar for prayer to and such?

When you are considering Catholicism, it matters. Catholicism is pretty much an “all or nothing” package.

Anna

 

[crazzeto]

When you are considering Catholicism, it matters. Catholicism is pretty much an “all or nothing” package.

Anna

Yes and no… Yes for the doctrinal beliefs of which Adoration is a part, no to the individual practices and disciplines of the faith. One is free to reject the rosary, for instance if they wish.

But to be perfectly honest, I appreciate the prudent course you are taking. While you are free to reject these faith pratices, I find such rejections sad. One should have faith in the teaching authority of the Church, otherwise what do you have?

You’re not required to Adore, but you should disire because it is a practice practice which the church has determained, in her wisdom is right and proper. More over, quite frankly, proper adoration is what we were made for.

 

[CMatt25]

*Please note that the official name of the Church to which we belong is the Catholic Church.

Some people refer to the Roman Catholic Church…even priests. This sort of stuck but apparently it was the Anglicans who gave us that name.

*

Except that copies of my Certificate of Baptism (the most recent request from just last yr) both say I was baptized according to the Rite of the Roman Catholic Church.

But I do know some in TEC make a point of saying Roman because they believe TEC is catholic too as well as in apostolic succession.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Maybe they’ll do like the Angels did…the Los Angeles Catholics of Anaheim…and Rome

Except that copies of my Certificate of Baptism (the most recent request from just last yr) both say I was baptized according to the Rite of the Roman Catholic Church.

But I do know some in TEC make a point of saying Roman because they believe TEC is catholic too as well as in apostolic succession.