FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Fr. McBrien: Adoration Is a "Step Backwards"
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
For me, I like Benediction more than exposition of the Blessed Sacrament sitting on the Altar in a Monstrance. To me it's like the greatest hits of the Catholic Church; Tantum Ergo, O Salutaris Hostia, and Holy God we praise Thy Name.

tim
I'm happy any day I can see God. I am even happier when I can pray to Him for hours in His presence. Adoration is a huge boon to the Faithful, and strengthens belief in the Eucharist in a time of its dire need. Anyone not in favor of adoration I think has a lost his sensus catholicus.
Re this East vs. West thing, isn't a good Eastern principle that we don't need to always rank and classify and dissect everything?  And it's a good Catholic principle that it's always "either/or," sometimes it's "both/and."

So can't we agree that we always receive the Eucharist adoringly because we are receiving God, and we always adore the Eucharist because it is God giving Himself to us to receive?

To receive without adoring would be sin (cf. St. Augustine) but also to adore without the context that this is God *because Our Lord gives Himself to us in this way for us to receive Him, for our salvation* would just be silly.

So why the conflict?
(09-07-2011, 09:35 AM)StevusMagnus Wrote: [ -> ]"No one eats of this flesh without having first adored it . . . and not
only do we not sin in thus adoring it, but we would be sinning if we
did not do so".

St. Augustine

This ends it.  Put perfectly for both the Latin and the Eastern Catholic.

Adoration is a perfect expression of the single greatest devotion -- devotion to the Blessed Sacrament.  Eastern Catholics lose out for not making holy hours.  You guys have your own things.  Your Divine Liturgy is beyond beautiful.  But you still lose out on this one.  I don't think I'd be Catholic if I didn't think so.

This should not become a Latin vs. East thing.  This is about a Latin priest/theologian incurring an anathema from the Council of Trent.
I liken Eucharistic adoration to Mary of Bethany sitting at the feet of the Lord, listening to him, absorbing his presence. Mary chose the better portion, and it was not taken from her.

Mother Teresa's sisters adore the Blessed Sacrament every morning before rolling up their sleeves and going to work. It's second only to daily Mass, without which they couldn't do the work they do. That's what Mother Teresa always said.
(09-07-2011, 02:47 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: [ -> ]So can't we agree that we always receive the Eucharist adoringly because we are receiving God, and we always adore the Eucharist because it is God giving Himself to us to receive?

To receive without adoring would be sin (cf. St. Augustine) but also to adore without the context that this is God *because Our Lord gives Himself to us in this way for us to receive Him, for our salvation* would just be silly.

So why the conflict?

The East/West conflict happens here because the East pretty much teaches that Christ should be consumed by the faithful and not left on the altar in a monstrance for us to adore.

They're not saying he shouldn't be adored, they just don't follow the practice and probably don't understand why us Latins do.

I could see Benediction being done in the East since they could have their hymns, incense, etc. But, adoration I can't see happening.

The practice of reverently kneeling in the church alone, only with Christ seems to be a Latin one. I like adoration, I think it's a very peaceful time for prayer and contemplation but I don't think we should force it on the East if they don't want it.

Don't make them seem like they don't want to adore Christ either. They just do things differently then we do.

Rogger the Shrubber Wrote:Adoration is a perfect expression of the single greatest devotion -- devotion to the Blessed Sacrament.  Eastern Catholics lose out for not making holy hours.  You guys have your own things.  Your Divine Liturgy is beyond beautiful.  But you still lose out on this one.  I don't think I'd be Catholic if I didn't think so.

I agree, I didn't much care for it at first but I've learned to like it more and more.


Also, about this:
Benedict XIV Allatae Sunt Wrote:Since the Latin rite is the rite of the holy Roman church and this church is mother and teacher of the other churches, the Latin rite should be preferred to all other rites

What exactly does this mean? The Latin Rite is used in Rome and is preferred throughout the West, I understand that.

But is he saying the Latin Rite is superior to the Eastern Rites as a whole no matter what?

If this were the case why do we have the Eastern Rites at all?

It doesn't make much sense. I always though all Rites were equal, just that the Latin Rite was the official Rite of Rome and all the West.
(09-07-2011, 03:10 PM)K3vinhood Wrote: [ -> ]Also, about this:
Benedict XIV[i Wrote:Allatae Sunt[/i]]
Since the Latin rite is the rite of the holy Roman church and this church is mother and teacher of the other churches, the Latin rite should be preferred to all other rites

What exactly does this mean? The Latin Rite is used in Rome and is preferred throughout the West, I understand that.

But is he saying the Latin Rite is superior to the Eastern Rites as a whole no matter what?

If this were the case why do we have the Eastern Rites at all?

It doesn't make much sense. I always though all Rites were equal, just that the Latin Rite was the official Rite of Rome and all the West.

It's imprudent statements like that one by Pope Benedict XIV that help prevent union with the East.  We better make sure that if the schism continues, Rome isn't the one responsible for it.  That would be a terrible thing to answer for on the Day of Wrath.
There's nothing like keeping up with Richard McBrien columns from 2009.
(09-06-2011, 08:23 PM)StevusMagnus Wrote: [ -> ]http://ncronline.org/blogs/essays-theolo...-adoration

Quote: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.

© 2009 Richard P. McBrien. All rights reserved. Fr. McBrien is the Crowley-O'Brien Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame.

## I can see his point. It was not universal among Catholics even in the 15th century. And devout practices such as the Forty Hours' Devotion are not, strictly speaking, liturgical;  & these days, there is much more emphasis than there was upon what counts properly liturgical practice - even though a lot of abuses (I think we all know what *they* are !) have sneaked in as well. 

The shift is from a liturgy governed by the Holy Office, assisted by "approved authors" (*auctores probati*), to a liturgy informed by knowledge of the history of the liturgy in the various Rites (including the Roman), & this difference in understanding what the liturgy involves has led to a loss of status for things like Eucharistic Adoration, & the Rosary. The Orthodox keep extra-liturgical devotions to a minimum - for them the Liturgy is central to Christian worship; for Roman Rite Catholics, the Liturgy has been on the fringes, as an "obligation" to be "satisfied", and devotions have been much more prominent. The Orthodox seem to be well-acquainted with their liturgical hymns - how many of us are ?

I think he goes too far, but if one regards what is not strictly liturgical as undesirable for Christian worship, his position makes excellent sense. The question is: is Christian worship the same as the liturgy - or can Christian worship include non-liturgical practices ? Or - is he presupposing a distinction between the Liturgy proper, and devotions, that makes them antagonistic, rather than complimentary ?
(09-07-2011, 07:59 AM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-07-2011, 12:26 AM)In nomine Patris Wrote: [ -> ]Your perspective is wrong

:)  I was being polite.  If your perspective is that the Eucharist is primarily to be adored, and secondarily consumed, it is your perspective that is wrong.

I've never heard a Roman Catholic express that view.

Do Easterners adore the Eucharist before they consume it ?
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6