Eastern Orthodoxy and the Eucharist
#11
(12-10-2019, 04:34 PM)newenglandsun Wrote:
(12-10-2019, 04:17 PM)yablabo Wrote:
(12-10-2019, 02:33 PM)newenglandsun Wrote: Cannot add to PorphyriosK's comments. The argument seems to build on a faulty premise that since there is no Eucharistic adoration, the East must reject generation of the Eucharist. The East never defined a moment of transubstantiation (or rather transformation) as the elements are revealed to be in their redeemed state - the Body and Blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation is not a transformation.  There is no corruption and generation of bread and wine into Christ, but rather a singular conversion of the entire substance with accidents of bread and wine residing in no substance.
And this would be why the East does not define this mystery. What exactly is an accident? The scholastic definition is orthodox but it gets lost in the detail.

The “east” has no authority to define anything.  ...and Rome has defined it, which settles the issue for the universal church.
[-] The following 1 user Likes yablabo's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#12
(12-09-2019, 08:43 PM)Augustinian Wrote: I'm really trying to understand this apparent disparity between worship of the Eucharist by Roman Catholics and the lack thereof among the Orthodox. Some of the remarks made by Orthodox are lacking, boiling down to a simple "we love the whole Jesus, not just a part of Him" or; "our worship is to Christ alone, not the semi-Nestorian practices of parts of Christ's humanity like the Sacred Heart or Eucharist." even; "we genuflect or cross ourselves when the Eucharist is present."

If the belief is that the Eucharist becomes the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ (as I think the EO believe as well); and that Christ is both God and man; then the worship of the Eucharist, that which takes on these properties through transubstantiation, is no different than worshiping Christ in person. If the bread and wine become His body and blood, as the Gospels proclaim, then worshiping the Eucharist is worshiping the whole Christ, thanks to the hypostatic union, as each part of Christ's humanity is wholly divine. Just as the worship of Christ in the symbol of His Sacred Heart is worship of Christ entire, which is really just an extension of devotion to the Blessed Sacrament at its core anyway.

I really want to understand why the Orthodox do not appear to adore and worship Christ in the Blessed Sacrament as us in the Church do. I know the practice of Eucharistic Adoration has made its way into the "Latinized" Orthodox liturgy, which is just the Roman rite outside of Rome's jurisdiction. But why is this not practiced in some form by the Easterners?

We don't have Eucharistic adoration because in Byzantine spirituality, that worship and adoration is appropriate only to the context of receiving the Eucharist.  Full metanoias are made when approaching to receive and, if the church doesn't have pews, people remain prostrate during the consecration.

Personally, I believe that human sexuality is a foreshadowing of receiving Christ in the Eucharist.  Even if the connection between sex and the Eucharist is not as close as I perceive it, there are obvious allusions to it.  Because of this, we do not parade the Eucharist around and down the street anymore than you would hold a procreation ceremony on your front yard with your wife.  Receiving the Eucharist is to be a veiled mystery, one of profound intimacy between you and Christ.  Eucharistic adoration outside of the context of the liturgy, from a perspective of Byzantine sensibility, is out of place and somewhat shocking.  If receiving the Eucharist has this same private intimacy with Christ as sex with one's spouse, the Divine Liturgy is the bedroom in which that conjugal act is carried out (hospital visits and other extraordinary circumstances notwithstanding).
[-] The following 3 users Like Melkite's post:
  • Augustinian, formerbuddhist, newenglandsun
Reply
#13
(12-10-2019, 04:50 PM)Melkite Wrote: We don't have Eucharistic adoration because in Byzantine spirituality, that worship and adoration is appropriate only to the context of receiving the Eucharist.  Full metanoias are made when approaching to receive and, if the church doesn't have pews, people remain prostrate during the consecration.

Personally, I believe that human sexuality is a foreshadowing of receiving Christ in the Eucharist.  Even if the connection between sex and the Eucharist is not as close as I perceive it, there are obvious allusions to it.  Because of this, we do not parade the Eucharist around and down the street anymore than you would hold a procreation ceremony on your front yard with your wife.  Receiving the Eucharist is to be a veiled mystery, one of profound intimacy between you and Christ.  Eucharistic adoration outside of the context of the liturgy, from a perspective of Byzantine sensibility, is out of place and somewhat shocking.  If receiving the Eucharist has this same private intimacy with Christ as sex with one's spouse, the Divine Liturgy is the bedroom in which that conjugal act is carried out (hospital visits and other extraordinary circumstances notwithstanding).

This is pretty much an answer I was hoping for. This makes a lot of sense to me, I apologize if some of you thought I was trying to denigrate the devotion of Easterners to the Eucharist. I have no doubts about the adoration and profound love you have for Christ in the Eucharist. And with your answer, I now know why adoration isn't really a thing outside of the liturgy.

It's interesting that you compare sexuality to the union provided through Communion, I recall several saints (whose names escape me right now) making similar comparisons in the West. I personally don't see the scandal in presenting the Eucharist in a monstrance, I admit that the act of receiving the Host is a profoundly intimate act, that I would never wish to see outside of the Mass or Divine Liturgy, but it's not like we're placing Christ's phallus inside of the monstrance. But I get the logic behind the Eastern tradition when you put it that way.
"The Heart of Jesus is closer to you when you suffer, than when you are full of joy." - St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

"modern Catholics have tended to put too much faith in the pope and too little in the Church." - Bishop Williamson.
Reply
#14
I never really understood why it was an issue either way;East and West have their own very distinctive traditions surrounding the Eucharist. 

I can only speak for myself but I always thought Eucharistic adoration within the Western Tradition as a fairly rich and beautiful practice in its own right.  

I strongly believe that whether East or West we should safeguard our respective traditions and not mingle them much, if at all.
Walk before God in simplicity, and not in subtleties of the mind. Simplicity brings faith; but subtle and intricate speculations bring conceit; and conceit brings withdrawal from God. -Saint Isaac of Syria, Directions on Spiritual Training


"It is impossible in human terms to exaggerate the importance of being in a church or chapel before the Blessed Sacrament as often and for as long as our duties and state of life allow. I very seldom repeat what I say. Let me repeat this sentence. It is impossible in human language to exaggerate the importance of being in a chapel or church before the Blessed Sacrament as often and for as long as our duties and state of life allow. That sentence is the talisman of the highest sanctity. "Father John Hardon
[-] The following 3 users Like formerbuddhist's post:
  • Augustinian, jovan66102, newenglandsun
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)