. . . . .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.
I’m not saying Corngall saw the Eucharist is an “idol.” Though, I’ve read some commentaries that claim the practice of Eucharistic Adoration is “idolatry.” Yet, I’m not taking that position.
I’m not saying Corngall didn’t understand the Eucharist.
What concerns me is that Corngall decided to carry the Eucharist and saw it as “protection.” The Eucharist was taken out of the “Communion” meal context. And–carrying the Eucharist in the field doesn’t seem to be about unity with others through a shared “Communion.” Corngall went from reservation of the Eucharist for Communion to carrying the Eucharist for protection. How does this fit with the instructions given by Christ?
.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.
You are starting to sound like me.
.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.
I agree that the Eucharist is a great gift and that we should show reverence for this gift. I agree that it is an intimate union with God, because it is the Body, Blood, and Divinity of Christ. It is when the Eucharist is taken out of the context of an “intimate union with God,” that causes concern.
I can understand reserving the Host for those who are ill or home bound. I can even see carrying it long distances for Communion with another Bishop. This is still within the context of Communion, unity, and consumption. Carrying the Host for protection is a completely different issue.
. . . . .from where I sit I see every objection to Adoration answered:
- It is the body, blood and divinity of Christ
Agreed.
- From the start, it has been reserved for extra-mass usage
I think we have different definitions of “from the start.” For me, “from the start,” means the instructions given by Christ at a particular point in history.
- 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
Again, reservation for unity is not the same thing as reservation for protection or reservation for Adoration.
- The Eucharist from the start has been reserved with in the personal rooms of religous, who would contemplate the awesome gift.
I’m not disputing the fact that monks were reserving the Sacrament in their personal rooms. It is the purpose of reservation that concerns me.
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.
I’m not seeing how “all of this” equals Eucharistic Adoration.
I do have a question. Since the origins of Adoration go back to the monks, I must ask: Do you accept every practice and belief held by these monks?
Also, from a Catholic standpoint: How long do the “graces” imparted during the Eucharist last?
When you are considering Catholicism, it matters. Catholicism is pretty much an “all or nothing” package.
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.
We’re pretty much back to “all or nothing.” If I convert to Catholicism and don’t accept “all”; I would be placed in the “sad category” of one lacking faith. So, I’ll continue on my “prudent course.”
I’m still researching the subject, Crazzeto. I always appreciate all that you put into your posts. You’ve given me some good resources. That is never wasted on me.
Anna
Socal…yeesh…
I’d rather hear you’re a scientologist than a Dodger fan! 