OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 23, 2014, 12:39:04 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Some questions:  (Read 2374 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,416


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« on: May 11, 2012, 03:58:04 PM »

I know this is going to start a fight, but, these questions are burning me. I've been invited to a Roman Catholic wedding, so I've been thinking about some stuff......

1. Perpetual Adoration.....if the purpose of the Eucharist is to eat it, why adore it?

2. Anullment - If there is a technicality that would anull a marriage, but the couple refuse to anull, are they guilty of adultury? If not, why not? Would they not be technically not married?

3. Divine Simplicity - ummmm......so how does the Trinity work into this?

As usual, Im not trying to start a fight, but I am truly perplexed by these things.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #1 on: May 11, 2012, 04:06:16 PM »

So you've got a liturgical, a disciplinary, and a purely theological question and you decided to throw them all into one thread? Why not add 4) What does Rome think of the price of tea in China?

Interesting questions, but if they generate much discussion, this thread is going to get very hard to follow since the answers to any one question have nothing to do with the other two.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #2 on: May 11, 2012, 04:10:41 PM »

I know this is going to start a fight, but, these questions are burning me. I've been invited to a Roman Catholic wedding, so ...

So hit the bar and enjoy the cake.

Just a thought. (and of course - don't receive communion and hold your tongue for the filioque when you recite the creed  Wink )
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #3 on: May 11, 2012, 04:18:31 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

I know this is going to start a fight, but, these questions are burning me. I've been invited to a Roman Catholic wedding, so I've been thinking about some stuff......

1. Perpetual Adoration.....if the purpose of the Eucharist is to eat it, why adore it?

2. Anullment - If there is a technicality that would anull a marriage, but the couple refuse to anull, are they guilty of adultury? If not, why not? Would they not be technically not married?

3. Divine Simplicity - ummmm......so how does the Trinity work into this?

As usual, Im not trying to start a fight, but I am truly perplexed by these things.

PP

Adoration:  I am not a Catholic, but I understand the concept.  The Eucharist is the Real Presence of Jesus Christ, as He us substantially present in the Bread and Wine as they mysteriously become His very real Flesh and Blood.  That being said, if Jesus is really in the room, in a substantial way, is He not then worthy of worship in that instance? That being said, ANYTIME we assemble at Divine Liturgy, the Eucharist is worthy of our adoration, veneration, and worship.  In the Ethiopian Church, many folks have fallen away from regular reception of Holy Communion, so in a sense, for many Ethiopian Orthodox Christians to attend Liturgy is almost always in the same spirit as the Adoration services on Fridays in the Catholic tradition.  This is not because Ethiopians scoff the Eucharist, quite the opposite.  Many Ethiopians scoff themselves and avoid the Eucharist out of sense of humility.  Further, the Father-Confessor relationship has greatly been marred by the effects of the Communists (I understand it is a similar situation in the Russian and Balkan jurisdictions), so folks who do not have a good relationship with a Confessor have no outlet to Confess.  Whether or not they receive Communion, most Ethiopians are extremely pious when it comes to being inside the Church at Liturgy.  I'm not sure why they don't eat the Eucharist at the Catholic Church, do they then eat them as Pre-Sanctified Gifts for Saturday?  Or perhaps they are practicing the Friday Fast? In Ethiopian tradition we don't have Divine Liturgy until afternoons on Fasting days, including Fridays.

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #4 on: May 11, 2012, 04:26:20 PM »

I know this is going to start a fight, but, these questions are burning me. I've been invited to a Roman Catholic wedding, so I've been thinking about some stuff......

1. Perpetual Adoration.....if the purpose of the Eucharist is to eat it, why adore it?

2. Anullment - If there is a technicality that would anull a marriage, but the couple refuse to anull, are they guilty of adultury? If not, why not? Would they not be technically not married?

3. Divine Simplicity - ummmm......so how does the Trinity work into this?

As usual, Im not trying to start a fight, but I am truly perplexed by these things.

PP
1. Because the Eucharist is Jesus, and one should worship and adore Jesus.
2. The Church assumes that all marriages are innocent until proven guilty, that is valid until proven otherwise.
3. Your Church teaches the doctrine of Divine Simplicity as well.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,416


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #5 on: May 11, 2012, 04:38:17 PM »

Quote
So you've got a liturgical, a disciplinary, and a purely theological question and you decided to throw them all into one thread? Why not add 4) What does Rome think of the price of tea in China?

Interesting questions, but if they generate much discussion, this thread is going to get very hard to follow since the answers to any one question have nothing to do with the other two.
You have a point, mebbe I should have broken them up.....

I could have had #4: Is the Pope, a Bayern Munich fan, going to bless the team before the finals?  laugh

Habte, I appreciate your answer, very thoughtful.

Quote
don't receive communion and hold your tongue for the filioque when you recite the creed
given Smiley

Quote
So hit the bar and enjoy the cake
damn skippy

Quote
Because the Eucharist is Jesus, and one should worship and adore Jesus
But the purpose of the Eucharist is to eat it though....

Quote
2. The Church assumes that all marriages are innocent until proven guilty, that is valid until proven otherwise
I appreciate it, but I was more wondering if it is proven that there is something "anull-worthy" but the couple chooses not to, would they be guilty of adultury since they woudl technically not be married?

Quote
Your Church teaches the doctrine of Divine Simplicity as well
Since when?



PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,473


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #6 on: May 11, 2012, 04:44:11 PM »


Quote
2. The Church assumes that all marriages are innocent until proven guilty, that is valid until proven otherwise
I appreciate it, but I was more wondering if it is proven that there is something "anull-worthy" but the couple chooses not to, would they be guilty of adultury since they woudl technically not be married?

Proven by whom?  Contrary to popular belief, the RCC does not go around checking into people's marriages to see if they are valid and licit.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2012, 04:44:19 PM by Schultz » Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #7 on: May 11, 2012, 04:51:13 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!



I know this is going to start a fight, but, these questions are burning me. I've been invited to a Roman Catholic wedding, so I've been thinking about some stuff......

1. Perpetual Adoration.....if the purpose of the Eucharist is to eat it, why adore it?


Quote
Chapter IV

DEVELOPMENT OF EUCHARISTIC ADORATION

 

As we have seen, there had been reservation and adoration of the Blessed Sacrament since the early days of the Church. But with the Council of Trent began a new era in the devotion of the faithful to Christ's Real Presence in the Eucharist.

The Forty-Hours Devotion. Before the end of the sixteenth century, Pope Clement VIII in 1592 issued a historic document on what was called in Italian Quarant' Ore (Forty Hours).

The devotion consisted of forty hours of continual prayer before the Blessed Sacrament exposed. Introduced earlier on a local scale in Milan, the Bishop of Rome not only authorized the devotion for Rome, but explained how it should be practiced.

We have determined to establish publicly in this Mother City of Rome an uninterrupted course of prayer in such wise that in the different churches [he specifies them] on appointed days, there be observed the pious and salutary devotion of the Forty Hours; with such an arrangement of churches and times that, at every hour of the day and night, the incense of prayer shall ascend without intermission before the face of the Lord.

About a century later (1731) his successor, Clement XIII, published a detailed set of instructions for the proper carrying out of the Forty-Hours' devotion, for example:

    The Blessed Sacrament is always exposed on the high altar, except in patriarchal basilicas.

    Statues, relics and pictures around the altar of exposition are to be removed or veiled.

    Only clerics in surplices may take care of the altar of exposition.

    There must be continuous relays of worshippers before the Blessed Sacrament and should include a priest or cleric in major orders.

    No Masses are to be said at the altar of exposition.

Gradually the Forty Hours devotion spread throughout the Catholic world. Proposed by the Code of Canon Law in 1917, the new Code states that in churches or oratories where the Eucharist is reserved, "it is recommended (commendatur) . . . that there be held each year a solemn exposition of the Blessed Sacrament for an appropriate, even if not for a continuous, time so that the local community may more attentively meditate on and adore the Eucharistic Mystery" (Canon 942).

 

Perpetual Adoration. The term "perpetual adoration" is broadly used to designate the practically uninterrupted adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. The term may mean several things:

    The adoration is literally perpetual, so that someone is always in prayer before the Holy Eucharist.

    The adoration is morally perpetual, with only such short interruptions as imperative reasons or uncontrollable circumstances require.

    The adoration is uninterrupted for a longer or shorter period, a day or several days, as in the Forty-Hours devotion.

    The adoration is uninterrupted in one special church or chapel.

    The adoration is uninterrupted in different churches or chapels in a locality like a diocese or a country, or throughout the world.

 
Some writers trace the first beginnings of perpetual adoration to the late fourth century, when converts to the faith in some dioceses were to adore the Blessed Sacrament exposed for eight days after their baptism. It is certain, however, that even before the institution of the feast of Corpus Christi, not only religious in convents and monasteries but the laity practiced Eucharistic adoration.

After his victory over the Albigenses, King Louis VII of France asked the Bishop of Avignon to have the Blessed Sacrament exposed in the Chapel of the Holy Cross (September 14, 1226). The throng of adorers was so great that the bishop decided to have the adoration continue day and night. This was later ratified by the Holy See and continued uninterrupted until 1792 during the French Revolution. It was resumed in 1829.

It was not until after the Council of Trent, however, that perpetual adoration began to develop on a world-wide scale. We may distinguish especially the following forms.

 

Cloistered Religious Institutes were founded for the express purpose of adoring the Holy Eucharist day and night. Some, like the Benedictines of the Perpetual Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament in Austria (1654), took a solemn vow of perpetual adoration.

 

Apostolic Religious Institutes were started to both practice adoration themselves and promote perpetual worship of the Eucharist among the faithful. Thus began the Congregation of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary, and of the Perpetual Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar. Formally approved in 1817, its aim is to honor and imitate the four states of Christ's life to be honored and imitated by the exercise of adoration of the Eucharist.

 

Men's Nocturnal Adoration societies began on an international scale in Rome in 1810 with the founding of the Pious Union of the Adorers of the Most Blessed Sacrament. They spread throughout Europe and into North and South America. Their focus was (and is) on perpetual adoration in the strict sense.

 

Perpetual Eucharistic Associations of the faithful go back to the seventeenth century. One of the earliest was started by Baron de Renty in 1641 at St. Paul's parish in Paris. It was a perpetual adoration society for ladies. At Boulonge in France (1753), the parishes were divided into twelve groups representing the twelve months of the year. Each group contained as many parishes as there were days in the month it represented. Each church in every group was assigned one day for Eucharistic adoration.

Among the apostles of perpetual adoration for the laity, none has had a more lasting influence in the modern world than St. Peter Julian Eymard. In 1856 he founded the Blessed Sacrament Fathers in Paris and two years later, with Marguerite Guillot, he established the Servants of the Blessed Sacrament, a cloistered contemplative congregation of women. Peter Eymard's published conferences on the Real Presence have inspired numerous lay associations. They have taken his words literally when he said, "In the presence of Jesus Christ in the Most Blessed Sacrament, all greatness disappears, all holiness humbles itself and comes to nothing. Jesus Christ is there!"

 

Visits to the Blessed Sacrament. Not unlike perpetual adoration, so the history of visits to the Blessed Sacrament is best known from the monastic spirituality of the early Middle Ages. In the thirteenth century Ancren Riwle, or Rule for Anchoresses, the nuns were to begin their day by a visit to the Blessed Sacrament.

Priests also, who had easy access to the reserved Holy Eucharist, would regularly visit Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. Thus the martyr, St. Thomas a Becket (1118-1170), in one of his letters writes to a friend, "If you do not harken to me who have been wont to pray for you in an abundance of tears and with groanings not a few before the Majesty of the Body of Christ" (Materials, V, 276).

By the fourteenth century, we read how the English mystic, Richard Rolle, strongly exhorts Christians to visit the nearby church as often as they can. Why? Because "In the Church is most devotion to pray, for there is God upon the altar to hear those who pray to Him and to grant them what they ask and what is best for them" (Works, I, 145). Church historians tell us that by the end of the century, the practice of people visiting the Blessed Sacrament became fairly common.

One of the sobering facts of the Reformation is to know what happened when the English Reformers separated from Rome. At first they did not forbid the clergy to reserve some of both species after the Lord's Supper ceremony--to be taken to the sick and the dying. But before long, reservation of the Eucharistic elements became rare. This was to be expected after the Thirty-Nine Articles (1571) declared that transubstantiation was untrue and that the Eucharist should not be worshipped or carried about in procession.

Three hundred years later, the Anglicans, who started the Oxford Movement, restored continuous reservation of the Eucharist and encouraged visits to the Blessed Sacrament. Credit for this return to Catholic Eucharistic piety belongs to the Anglican Sisterhood of St. Margaret, founded in 1854. The community records show that soon after its foundation the Sisters were making daily visits to the Eucharist in their oratory and, about the same time, Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament was introduced.

In the Catholic Church, visits to the Blessed Sacrament have become a standard part of personal and communal prayer. The first Code of Canon Law urged the "faithful to visit the Most Blessed Sacrament as often as possible" (Canon 1273). The new Code is more specific.

Unless there is a grave reason to the contrary, a church, in which the Blessed Eucharist is reserved, is to be open to the faithful for at least some hours every day, so that they can pray before the Blessed Sacrament (Canon 937).

Members of religious institutes are simply told that each day they are to "adore the Lord Himself present in the Sacrament" (Canon 663, #2).

 

 

Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament. As with other Eucharistic devotions, Benediction, as it is commonly called, began in the thirteenth century. It was strongly influenced by the establishment of the feast of Corpus Christi. Two hymns, especially O Salutaris Hostia and Tantum Ergo, composed by St. Thomas Aquinas, became part of the Benediction service.

One aspect of the history of Benediction that is not commonly known is its early association with devotion to the Blessed Virgin. This was already expressed- in the Pange Lingua for the First Vespers of the Corpus Christi liturgy, saying, "To us He was given, to us he was born of a pure Virgin." Except for Mary, there would have been no Incarnation, and except for the Incarnation there would be no Eucharist.

As related by historians, by the early thirteenth century there were organized confraternities and guilds in great numbers, whose custom was to sing canticles in the evening of the day before a statue of Our Lady. The canticles were called Laude (praises) and were often composed in the vernacular or even the local dialect of the people. In the hands of such people as the Franciscan Giacopone da Todi (1230-1306), these hymns helped to develop a native Italian literature. The confraternities were called Laudesi.

With the stimulus given by the Feast of Corpus Christi, these Marian canticle meetings were often accompanied by exposition of the Blessed Sacrament. What began as a practice to add solemnity to the Marian devotions became, in time, a distinctive form of Eucharistic piety.

In France these Marian canticle sessions were called Salut, in the Low Countries Lof, in Germany and England simply Salve. They were gradually combined with exposition of the Eucharist, especially when the Blessed Sacrament was carried in procession and/or the sick were blessed with the Holy Eucharist. When people made out their wills, many included bequests for the continued support of these evening song-fests honoring Our Lady and would specify that the Blessed Sacrament should be exposed during the whole time of the Salut. The generations-old practice of blessing the sick with the Holy Eucharist at Lourdes is merely an extension of this combining of Benediction with devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

 

 

Eucharistic Congresses.As public demonstrations of faith in the Real Presence, local Eucharistic congresses go back to the Middle Ages. But the first international congress grew out of the zeal of Marie-Marthe Tamisier (1834-1910) a French laywoman who from childhood had an extraordinary devotion to the Blessed Sacrament. She called a day without Holy Communion her Good Friday. Having several times tried unsuccessfully to enter a religious community, she spent much of her life spreading devotion to the Real Presence. Inspired by the conferences of Peter Julian Eymard and directed by Abbe Chevier of Lyons, she first promoted pilgrimages to shrines where Eucharistic miracles were reported to have taken place. Finally the first international Eucharistic Congress was held at Lille in 1881. At the fifth Congress at Toulouse in 1886, over fifteen-hundred bishops and priests, and thirty-thousand of the laity participated.

By now international congresses have been held on all the continents, including Africa, Asia and Australia. Pope Paul VI attended the thirty-eighth and thirty-ninth Eucharistic congresses at Bombay in 1964 and Bogota in 1968. Pope John Paul was to have attended the centenary congress at Lourdes in 1981, but was prevented because of the assassination attempt on his life on May 13th of that year.

National congresses have become widespread. During one of these, at Bogota in 1980, Pope John Paul II synthesized the role which, in God's providence, a Eucharistic congress is meant to serve.
From RealPresence.org

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #8 on: May 11, 2012, 06:04:53 PM »

Why do you need to have these things answered in order to go to the wedding. You're not joining, so don't worry about it. You don't even have to pray during the Mass so you can avoid praying with "heretics."
« Last Edit: May 11, 2012, 06:05:12 PM by Wyatt » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #9 on: May 11, 2012, 06:06:11 PM »

Quote
2. The Church assumes that all marriages are innocent until proven guilty, that is valid until proven otherwise
I appreciate it, but I was more wondering if it is proven that there is something "anull-worthy" but the couple chooses not to, would they be guilty of adultury since they woudl technically not be married?

You raise a good question, although I think I would frame it as: if a couple discovers that their marriage is technically invalid, but aren't seeking annulment, are they obliged to validate it somehow or other?

I think I heard the question to this in one of my theology classes -- but seeing as that was in the 90s I don't want to try to quote it.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #10 on: May 11, 2012, 07:26:21 PM »

But the purpose of the Eucharist is to eat it though....
I still fail to see your point. Jesus didn't institute the Eucharist and say, "oh, by the way, don't adore me in the Eucharist becasue of the fact that the gifts are intended for eating. In fact, you will have to fight back every instinct that says "Worship God" when you go to receive me in Holy Communion."
Honestly dude, the priests in the Orthodox Church worship Jesus in the Eucharist during the Liturgy. If you have a problem with that, you will have to take that up with your own Church.
I appreciate it, but I was more wondering if it is proven that there is something "anull-worthy" but the couple chooses not to, would they be guilty of adultury since they woudl technically not be married?
Really, I don't understand why you are being so legalistic about this.  Cheesy I doubt very mucht that God will treat them as if they are guilty of adultery.

Since when?
Since always, unless your Church has recently dumped the theology of Sts. John of Damascus and Gregory Palamas. Neither The Essence/Engergies distinction nor the Trinity have every been viewed as violations of the doctrine of Divine Simplicity, because God is uncomposed.


« Last Edit: May 11, 2012, 07:26:34 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #11 on: May 11, 2012, 07:50:50 PM »

On Eucharistic adoration, it seems perfectly logical to revere the Precious Gifts while we are in their presence, but it strikes me as odd to put them on display from time to time.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #12 on: May 11, 2012, 08:19:23 PM »

I appreciate it, but I was more wondering if it is proven that there is something "anull-worthy" but the couple chooses not to, would they be guilty of adultury since they woudl technically not be married?
Really, I don't understand why you are being so legalistic about this.  Cheesy I doubt very mucht that God will treat them as if they are guilty of adultery.

So would you say that if a couple discovers that their marriage is technically invalid, but decide to stay married, that decision alone validates the marriage?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,580



« Reply #13 on: May 11, 2012, 11:24:04 PM »

This is one thing I never understood about simplicity. Does saying God is simple cataphatically say anything about God, or is it an apophatic statement veiled as a cataphatic statement? Whenever pressed about what simplicity means, I find that people always have to resort to negative statements, like God is non-composite, without parts, etc.. If simple only means non-composite and is not some cataphatic quality which has being non-composite as a concomitant, I think there are some problems with taking the statement that God is not composed without qualifying that God is not not composed and so-on and so-forth.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2012, 11:30:31 PM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,670



« Reply #14 on: May 11, 2012, 11:41:11 PM »


Quote
2. The Church assumes that all marriages are innocent until proven guilty, that is valid until proven otherwise
I appreciate it, but I was more wondering if it is proven that there is something "anull-worthy" but the couple chooses not to, would they be guilty of adultury since they woudl technically not be married?

Proven by whom?  Contrary to popular belief, the RCC does not go around checking into people's marriages to see if they are valid and licit.
no, but it does boast that it does not have divorce, only anullments, although you can get an annullment only if you are divorced.  But you can only get an anullment, so they say, if there was no marriage in the first place, so what marriage is the divorce dissolving?

Were it not for this vain boast, and the attack it spawns on the Orthodox Church, most of us never come across this peculiarity of the Vatican.

Their supreme pontiff Alexander VI declaired the marriage of GD Alexander of Lithuania/King of Poland null, and tried to rally Poland-Lithuania to separate him (when he refused to do so) from his wife Helena, who insisted on remaining Orthodox.  The armies of her father, Czar Ivan III of Moscow and All Rus', put a stop to the nonsense.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
dzheremi
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,220


« Reply #15 on: May 11, 2012, 11:42:14 PM »

But the purpose of the Eucharist is to eat it though....
I still fail to see your point. Jesus didn't institute the Eucharist and say, "oh, by the way, don't adore me in the Eucharist becasue of the fact that the gifts are intended for eating."

That's true, but what He did say was "Take, eat of this..."

I don't mean to sound flippant, but I think what He did say should take precedence over what He didn't say (unless you want to make the argument that He did not say a particular thing with the idea that it be inferred, as in His answer before the chief priests in the gospel of St. Luke, when He is asked if He is the Christ in chapter 22, verse 67: "If I tell you, ye will not believe"), because, frankly, we don't know what He didn't say.
Logged

witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #16 on: May 12, 2012, 01:04:23 AM »

But the purpose of the Eucharist is to eat it though....
I still fail to see your point. Jesus didn't institute the Eucharist and say, "oh, by the way, don't adore me in the Eucharist becasue of the fact that the gifts are intended for eating. In fact, you will have to fight back every instinct that says "Worship God" when you go to receive me in Holy Communion."
Honestly dude, the priests in the Orthodox Church worship Jesus in the Eucharist during the Liturgy. If you have a problem with that, you will have to take that up with your own Church.

I think you're missing the main thrust of the question. He's not asking why do you worship the Gifts but rather about "Perpetual Adoration"--that is, why you have developed a practice of worshiping it that is outside of the context of 'take and eat'. You are certainly correct that not only priests but all Orthodox worship Jesus in the Eucharist during the liturgy, but we are doing so specifically in the context that leads up to partaking.

(Ancillary question: the Host used for adoration services--sorry, I'm not certain about the exact technical terminology--I assume it is eventually consumed? Is there a particular length of time, either prescribed or traditional, that it is reserved and used for adoration before it is removed from that context and consumed? And when it is consumed is it simply put in with the rest of the Communion at the next liturgy, consume privately by the priest, or ?)
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #17 on: May 12, 2012, 01:35:16 AM »

This is one thing I never understood about simplicity. Does saying God is simple cataphatically say anything about God, or is it an apophatic statement veiled as a cataphatic statement? Whenever pressed about what simplicity means, I find that people always have to resort to negative statements, like God is non-composite, without parts, etc.. If simple only means non-composite and is not some cataphatic quality which has being non-composite as a concomitant, I think there are some problems with taking the statement that God is not composed without qualifying that God is not not composed and so-on and so-forth.

St. John certainly seems to use it apophatically: "Further the divine effulgence and energy, being one and simple and indivisible, assuming many varied forms in its goodness among what is divisible and allotting to each the component parts of its own nature, still remains simple and is multiplied without division among the divided, and gathers and converts the divided into its own simplicity. For all things long after it and have their existence in it. It gives also to all things being according to their several natures, and it is itself the being of existing things, the life of living things, the reason of rational beings, the thought of thinking beings. But it is itself above mind and reason and life and essence."
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
age234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 555


« Reply #18 on: May 12, 2012, 02:13:11 AM »

I think you're missing the main thrust of the question. He's not asking why do you worship the Gifts but rather about "Perpetual Adoration"--that is, why you have developed a practice of worshiping it that is outside of the context of 'take and eat'.

As I understand it (someone correct me if I'm wrong), at a certain time in the RCC the people tended to not afford the Eucharist its proper respect, so the explicit adoration of the Eucharist was instituted. This way, people were taught that Christ is definitely in the Eucharist, so much so that it deserves to be worshipped in its own right, as Christ Himself.

It's like what we did with icons. From what I have read, icons have always been venerated to a degree, but the veneration became much more pronounced after the 7th Ecumenical Council. Why? Because we overcame a major iconoclastic heresy and wanted to make it crystal clear that icons are holy, necessary, and worthy of veneration.

Or another example: Early on, the people were speculating all kinds of strange ideas about Christ, drumming up controversy and misunderstanding. So, St. Justinian wrote a dogmatic statement describing the Orthodox teaching of Christ, and decreed it to be sung in every liturgy. Voila, we have the troparion "Only Begotten Son" that we sing at every Divine Liturgy.

You could call it over-compensation for the sake of driving a point home. These aren't just nice things we do because some priests dreamt them up while they were washing their dishes. Many aspects of our worship and tradition are responses to heresies. And in the RCC, that's how they got Eucharistic adoration (and the filioque, incidentally).

In the context of Orthodoxy, I don't necessarily agree with Eucharistic adoration as an end unto itself, apart from the Liturgy (or the filioque, or other examples). But the reasoning is certainly logical within the RCC's own internal context.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2012, 02:24:10 AM by age234 » Logged
dzheremi
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,220


« Reply #19 on: May 12, 2012, 03:06:02 AM »

They would say the same about the filioque or whatever other thing you can come up with though, age234. If I had a dollar every time I had to sit through another lecture on how it was inserted to fight the Arians in Spain (certainly a worthy goal)...well, let's just say I'm fine with that, but it seems to have created bigger problems because it wasn't kept at that level, and was allowed to grow into something that became quite a bit more than what was apparently intended (or is adoring the Eucharist so central to RC Eucharistic theology now that it would be impossible to teach that Jesus is truly present without this practice? Because then it seems like you exchange one extreme for the other, and that's not the RCism that I was taught, where such things were certainly not mandated). If the veneration of icons had had the same effect (e.g., growing to the point where you were venerating the icon outside of its proper context), then that comparison might work a little better.

The thing I learned in my time in RCism is that it is indeed a very logical faith. Everything fits together quite well, and if you take the Vatican's stances based on their own internal logic then there's very little reason to ever have a problem with anything they do. If, however, you find that reason and logic can only take you so far because they are not truly faith, then...well, then I guess you end up like me. I don't disparage the Vatican for its logic, but I think it's missing the point in all of its immaculately constructed arguments. The reality is much more simple, if it makes sense to call a mystery simple. "Take, eat of this all of you"...you can't get anything simpler than eating, but of course if you want to, you can add all kinds of additional things to that, and reasons for them too.
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #20 on: May 12, 2012, 06:35:34 AM »

You could call it over-compensation for the sake of driving a point home. These aren't just nice things we do because some priests dreamt them up while they were washing their dishes. Many aspects of our worship and tradition are responses to heresies. And in the RCC, that's how they got Eucharistic adoration (and the filioque, incidentally).

They would say the same about the filioque or whatever other thing you can come up with though, age234. If I had a dollar every time I had to sit through another lecture on how it was inserted to fight the Arians in Spain (certainly a worthy goal)...well, let's just say I'm fine with that, but it seems to have created bigger problems because it wasn't kept at that level, and was allowed to grow into something that became quite a bit more than what was apparently intended

In 6th century Toledo you had the coming-together of (1) the [already-existing] belief that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and (2) the desire to fight Arianism. The insertion of the filioque into the creed was a natural outcome, but unfortunately it gave the impression that the filioque was necessary to avoid Arianism.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
dzheremi
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,220


« Reply #21 on: May 12, 2012, 09:01:35 AM »

It was just an example, Peter, to show how to Rome nothing that Rome does is the slightest bit questionable, as it all has such supposed logic to it.
Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #22 on: May 12, 2012, 09:21:16 AM »

I appreciate it, but I was more wondering if it is proven that there is something "anull-worthy" but the couple chooses not to, would they be guilty of adultury since they woudl technically not be married?
Really, I don't understand why you are being so legalistic about this.  Cheesy I doubt very mucht that God will treat them as if they are guilty of adultery.

So would you say that if a couple discovers that their marriage is technically invalid, but decide to stay married, that decision alone validates the marriage?

Sure economia.  Cheesy
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #23 on: May 12, 2012, 09:22:19 AM »

On Eucharistic adoration, it seems perfectly logical to revere the Precious Gifts while we are in their presence, but it strikes me as odd to put them on display from time to time.
Do you not reverence the gifts in the tabernacle in the church?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #24 on: May 12, 2012, 09:24:17 AM »

But the purpose of the Eucharist is to eat it though....
I still fail to see your point. Jesus didn't institute the Eucharist and say, "oh, by the way, don't adore me in the Eucharist becasue of the fact that the gifts are intended for eating."

That's true, but what He did say was "Take, eat of this..."

I don't mean to sound flippant, but I think what He did say should take precedence over what He didn't say (unless you want to make the argument that He did not say a particular thing with the idea that it be inferred, as in His answer before the chief priests in the gospel of St. Luke, when He is asked if He is the Christ in chapter 22, verse 67: "If I tell you, ye will not believe"), because, frankly, we don't know what He didn't say.
He also didn't say "take and put in the tabernacle" but that is excactly what both Catholics and Orthodox do. So I fail to see your problem. I have always seen the Orthodox objection to Eucharistic adortion to be nothing more than looking for reasons to disagre with us graceless, heretical Latins.
And if we don't know what he didn't say, then I highly suggest that you stop putting words in his mouth about how we should not practice Eucharistic adoration.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2012, 09:25:08 AM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
dzheremi
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,220


« Reply #25 on: May 12, 2012, 09:50:23 AM »

I didn't say what you should or shouldn't do. I really couldn't care less. I just think arguments from what Christ didn't say or do shouldn't take precedence over what He did say and do. Not that you can't have practices that aren't directly based on what we know He did say (neither of our Churches operate on the "sola scriptura" Protestant model, after all), but saying "Christ never said..." is a bad way of arguing, because what is recorded is only a fraction of what He said and did. So using that logic, nearly anything would be permissible by virtue of Christ having not said X, Y, Z.

« Last Edit: May 12, 2012, 09:51:12 AM by dzheremi » Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #26 on: May 12, 2012, 10:04:21 AM »

I didn't say what you should or shouldn't do. I really couldn't care less. I just think arguments from what Christ didn't say or do shouldn't take precedence over what He did say and do. Not that you can't have practices that aren't directly based on what we know He did say (neither of our Churches operate on the "sola scriptura" Protestant model, after all), but saying "Christ never said..." is a bad way of arguing, because what is recorded is only a fraction of what He said and did. So using that logic, nearly anything would be permissible by virtue of Christ having not said X, Y, Z.


Oh geesh. He didn't say anything about icons, hesychasm, the essence/engeries distinction, prayer ropes, the inconstatsis, etc. These all developed out the o the theology of the Church.
Eucharist adoration developed out of the theology of the Church. If you have a problem with worshiping Christ, then that is your issue I suppose, but I honestly think that objections to Adoration are really grounded more in fear of all things Latin, than they are grounded in any theological truth.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,437


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #27 on: May 12, 2012, 10:21:39 AM »

I didn't say what you should or shouldn't do. I really couldn't care less. I just think arguments from what Christ didn't say or do shouldn't take precedence over what He did say and do. Not that you can't have practices that aren't directly based on what we know He did say (neither of our Churches operate on the "sola scriptura" Protestant model, after all), but saying "Christ never said..." is a bad way of arguing, because what is recorded is only a fraction of what He said and did. So using that logic, nearly anything would be permissible by virtue of Christ having not said X, Y, Z.


Oh geesh. He didn't say anything about icons, hesychasm, the essence/engeries distinction, prayer ropes, the inconstatsis, etc. These all developed out the o the theology of the Church.
Eucharist adoration developed out of the theology of the Church. If you have a problem with worshiping Christ, then that is your issue I suppose, but I honestly think that objections to Adoration are really grounded more in fear of all things Latin, than they are grounded in any theological truth.

I tend to agree with much of what you stated here but I would explain it in the sense that just because the west developed certain worship practices and the east developed other worship practices does not make them mutually exclusive. The question which must be asked is whether any particular practice is grounded in substantive theological error, and if so, is such theoretical 'error' so 'grave' that the practice is 'heterodox' (in a broader sense.)

We modern humans tend to forget that what happened in say,Spain, simultaneously with what was happening in  Constantinople may have gone on for decades without the other side of then known world realizing what was going on elsewhere. For example, random messages from merchants may have misstated or failed to fully explain the goings on in other places and, humans being humans, our passions and fevered imaginations often got the better of us. Secular leaders, again of the east as well as the west, quite often seized upon those fears to manipulate clerics and the masses for their own temporal purposes.

I am certainly NOT 'explaining' away the real and substantive differences which do exist between east and west, but many of the less than substantive differences, which people often tend to focus upon, are really not that important.
Logged
LBK
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,752


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #28 on: May 12, 2012, 10:24:57 AM »

Do you not reverence the gifts in the tabernacle in the church?

The Tabernacle remains on the altar at all times. It is never brought out in procession, or for specific adoration in the way an RC monstrance is.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #29 on: May 12, 2012, 10:26:28 AM »

I didn't say what you should or shouldn't do. I really couldn't care less. I just think arguments from what Christ didn't say or do shouldn't take precedence over what He did say and do. Not that you can't have practices that aren't directly based on what we know He did say (neither of our Churches operate on the "sola scriptura" Protestant model, after all), but saying "Christ never said..." is a bad way of arguing, because what is recorded is only a fraction of what He said and did. So using that logic, nearly anything would be permissible by virtue of Christ having not said X, Y, Z.


Oh geesh. He didn't say anything about icons, hesychasm, the essence/engeries distinction, prayer ropes, the inconstatsis, etc. These all developed out the o the theology of the Church.
Eucharist adoration developed out of the theology of the Church. If you have a problem with worshiping Christ, then that is your issue I suppose, but I honestly think that objections to Adoration are really grounded more in fear of all things Latin, than they are grounded in any theological truth.

I tend to agree with much of what you stated here but I would explain it in the sense that just because the west developed certain worship practices and the east developed other worship practices does not make them mutually exclusive. The question which must be asked is whether any particular practice is grounded in substantive theological error, and if so, is such theoretical 'error' so 'grave' that the practice is 'heterodox' (in a broader sense.)

We modern humans tend to forget that what happened in say,Spain, simultaneously with what was happening in  Constantinople may have gone on for decades without the other side of then known world realizing what was going on elsewhere. For example, random messages from merchants may have misstated or failed to fully explain the goings on in other places and, humans being humans, our passions and fevered imaginations often got the better of us. Secular leaders, again of the east as well as the west, quite often seized upon those fears to manipulate clerics and the masses for their own temporal purposes.

I am certainly NOT 'explaining' away the real and substantive differences which do exist between east and west, but many of the less than substantive differences, which people often tend to focus upon, are really not that important.
I agree, that our practices are not mutually exclusive here. I don't think that the difference between practicing Eucharistic adoration outside the context of the Liturgy and not practicing it outside of the Liturgy, is not a church dividing issue at all.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #30 on: May 12, 2012, 10:27:17 AM »

Do you not reverence the gifts in the tabernacle in the church?

The Tabernacle remains on the altar at all times. It is never brought out in procession, or for specific adoration in the way an RC monstrance is.

Your point being that we Latins are so zealous in our love of our Eucharistic Lord that we adore him in such beautiful ways?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
LBK
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,752


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #31 on: May 12, 2012, 10:30:06 AM »

Do you not reverence the gifts in the tabernacle in the church?

The Tabernacle remains on the altar at all times. It is never brought out in procession, or for specific adoration in the way an RC monstrance is.

Your point being that we Latins are so zealous in our love of our Eucharistic Lord that we adore him in such beautiful ways?

You asked a question, Papist, and I answered it. Please don't put words in my mouth, it's bad form.  police
« Last Edit: May 12, 2012, 10:31:16 AM by LBK » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #32 on: May 12, 2012, 10:54:26 AM »

Do you not reverence the gifts in the tabernacle in the church?

The Tabernacle remains on the altar at all times. It is never brought out in procession, or for specific adoration in the way an RC monstrance is.

Your point being that we Latins are so zealous in our love of our Eucharistic Lord that we adore him in such beautiful ways?

You asked a question, Papist, and I answered it.

But it was either a rhetorical question or a yes-or-not question (depending how you look at it).

P.S. I can definitely see what witega meant, in reply #1, about a liturgical, a disciplinary, and a purely theological question being thrown into one thread.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #33 on: May 12, 2012, 10:55:44 AM »

I appreciate it, but I was more wondering if it is proven that there is something "anull-worthy" but the couple chooses not to, would they be guilty of adultury since they woudl technically not be married?
Really, I don't understand why you are being so legalistic about this.  Cheesy I doubt very mucht that God will treat them as if they are guilty of adultery.

So would you say that if a couple discovers that their marriage is technically invalid, but decide to stay married, that decision alone validates the marriage?

Sure economia.  Cheesy

Until recently, I would have been fine with saying that deciding to stay married validates the marriage. But while thinking about this thread, it occurs to me that it may be a bit problematic -- what if a few years later, the couple decides that they do want an annulment after all? Does the fact that they mentally validated their marriage prevent them from getting one?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #34 on: May 13, 2012, 11:38:55 AM »

But the purpose of the Eucharist is to eat it though....
I still fail to see your point. Jesus didn't institute the Eucharist and say, "oh, by the way, don't adore me in the Eucharist becasue of the fact that the gifts are intended for eating. In fact, you will have to fight back every instinct that says "Worship God" when you go to receive me in Holy Communion."
Honestly dude, the priests in the Orthodox Church worship Jesus in the Eucharist during the Liturgy. If you have a problem with that, you will have to take that up with your own Church.

I think you're missing the main thrust of the question. He's not asking why do you worship the Gifts but rather about "Perpetual Adoration"--that is, why you have developed a practice of worshiping it that is outside of the context of 'take and eat'. You are certainly correct that not only priests but all Orthodox worship Jesus in the Eucharist during the liturgy, but we are doing so specifically in the context that leads up to partaking.

(Ancillary question: the Host used for adoration services--sorry, I'm not certain about the exact technical terminology--I assume it is eventually consumed? Is there a particular length of time, either prescribed or traditional, that it is reserved and used for adoration before it is removed from that context and consumed? And when it is consumed is it simply put in with the rest of the Communion at the next liturgy, consume privately by the priest, or ?)

The Eucharist used in Benediction and Adoration is consecrated at the mass that occurs that day before the Benediction and Eucharistic Adoration.  It is hardly out of the context of take and eat...or take and drink for that matter. 

It is only out of context of Orthodoxy....solly cholly.

M.
Logged

dzheremi
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,220


« Reply #35 on: May 13, 2012, 01:17:39 PM »

Oh geesh. He didn't say anything about icons, hesychasm, the essence/engeries distinction, prayer ropes, the inconstatsis, etc. These all developed out the o the theology of the Church.
Eucharist adoration developed out of the theology of the Church. If you have a problem with worshiping Christ, then that is your issue I suppose, but I honestly think that objections to Adoration are really grounded more in fear of all things Latin, than they are grounded in any theological truth.

Once again, I'm not even objecting to the practice of Eucharistic adoration. I never participated in it as an RC, but I don't care if you and every other RC does. That's fine. My only point is "Christ never said...." is a lousy argument for a given practice.
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #36 on: May 13, 2012, 03:46:58 PM »

Oh geesh. He didn't say anything about icons, hesychasm, the essence/engeries distinction, prayer ropes, the inconstatsis, etc. These all developed out the o the theology of the Church.
Eucharist adoration developed out of the theology of the Church. If you have a problem with worshiping Christ, then that is your issue I suppose, but I honestly think that objections to Adoration are really grounded more in fear of all things Latin, than they are grounded in any theological truth.

Once again, I'm not even objecting to the practice of Eucharistic adoration. I never participated in it as an RC, but I don't care if you and every other RC does. That's fine. My only point is "Christ never said...." is a lousy argument for a given practice.

If I may "butt in", I think you're missing the point a little bit...

But the purpose of the Eucharist is to eat it though....
I still fail to see your point. Jesus didn't institute the Eucharist and say, "oh, by the way, don't adore me in the Eucharist becasue of the fact that the gifts are intended for eating."

That's true, but what He did say was "Take, eat of this..."

I don't mean to sound flippant, but I think what He did say should take precedence over what He didn't say

I agree that "Take, eat" should have precedence. But that shouldn't exclude Eucharistic Adoration -- if anything, it just makes it an optional practice.

If there are Catholics who associate the Eucharist primarily with Eucharistic Adoration, then I think that's a misunderstanding of Catholic teaching.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
dzheremi
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,220


« Reply #37 on: May 13, 2012, 03:52:47 PM »

Of course its an optional practice (though my experience of what importance is given to these optional practices was a bit disconcerting, but anyway...), but again, I don't care about the practice one way or another. I'm not going to condemn Catholics for doing something I never even saw as necessary when I was Catholic. It's more that if the best argument for a practice is "Christ never said we couldn't do this", then you might want to think a little bit more about why you do what you do. And, yes, in anticipation of the probable response, the same goes from the Orthodox.
Logged

primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,416


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #38 on: May 14, 2012, 11:26:11 AM »

Quote
Really, I don't understand why you are being so legalistic about this.   I doubt very mucht that God will treat them as if they are guilty of adultery
Dont take this badly, but the Church tends to be legalistic about things, so would the marriage thing not be any different?

Quote
But while thinking about this thread, it occurs to me that it may be a bit problematic -- what if a few years later, the couple decides that they do want an annulment after all? Does the fact that they mentally validated their marriage prevent them from getting one?
This is pretty much my thoughts about it.

Quote
He didn't say anything about icons, hesychasm, the essence/engeries distinction, prayer ropes, the inconstatsis, etc
He didnt say anything about using holy water for putting out cigarettes either  laugh

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #39 on: May 14, 2012, 11:48:22 AM »




The Eucharist used in Benediction and Adoration is consecrated at the mass that occurs that day before the Benediction and Eucharistic Adoration.  It is hardly out of the context of take and eat...or take and drink for that matter. 

It is only out of context of Orthodoxy.
M.


You all need to revisit this whole issue of "out of context"...I don't think I have ever spent time in front of the exposed Eucharist without first having received.

You can point to perpetual adoration chapels, true, but they are not separated from a parish or monastic church where liturgy is a daily occurrence. 

It may LOOK out of context to all of you out there, but in here...not so much.

M.
Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #40 on: May 14, 2012, 11:53:03 AM »

Oh geesh. He didn't say anything about icons, hesychasm, the essence/engeries distinction, prayer ropes, the inconstatsis, etc. These all developed out the o the theology of the Church.
Eucharist adoration developed out of the theology of the Church. If you have a problem with worshiping Christ, then that is your issue I suppose, but I honestly think that objections to Adoration are really grounded more in fear of all things Latin, than they are grounded in any theological truth.

Once again, I'm not even objecting to the practice of Eucharistic adoration. I never participated in it as an RC, but I don't care if you and every other RC does. That's fine. My only point is "Christ never said...." is a lousy argument for a given practice.
Fine. But that is not our argument for the practice. Our argument for the practice is that the Eucharist is Jesus. "The Christ never said" argument is just in response to your "Christ never said" argument.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #41 on: May 14, 2012, 11:53:58 AM »




The Eucharist used in Benediction and Adoration is consecrated at the mass that occurs that day before the Benediction and Eucharistic Adoration.  It is hardly out of the context of take and eat...or take and drink for that matter. 

It is only out of context of Orthodoxy.
M.


You all need to revisit this whole issue of "out of context"...I don't think I have ever spent time in front of the exposed Eucharist without first having received.

You can point to perpetual adoration chapels, true, but they are not separated from a parish or monastic church where liturgy is a daily occurrence. 

It may LOOK out of context to all of you out there, but in here...not so much.

M.
In fact, priests have told me that the point of Eucharistic adoration is to draw us to love our Eucharist Lord even more, so that our desire to receive him in Holy Communion will grow.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #42 on: May 14, 2012, 12:03:28 PM »




The Eucharist used in Benediction and Adoration is consecrated at the mass that occurs that day before the Benediction and Eucharistic Adoration.  It is hardly out of the context of take and eat...or take and drink for that matter. 

It is only out of context of Orthodoxy.
M.


You all need to revisit this whole issue of "out of context"...I don't think I have ever spent time in front of the exposed Eucharist without first having received.

You can point to perpetual adoration chapels, true, but they are not separated from a parish or monastic church where liturgy is a daily occurrence. 

It may LOOK out of context to all of you out there, but in here...not so much.

M.
In fact, priests have told me that the point of Eucharistic adoration is to draw us to love our Eucharist Lord even more, so that our desire to receive him in Holy Communion will grow.

More to the point historically and now...To inspire us to receive Eucharist WORTHILY...ya know.

That's not for you Pape'o My Thumb!!
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #43 on: May 14, 2012, 12:43:21 PM »

I'm pretty certain that I prayed before the Blessed Sacrament long before I received it. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
dzheremi
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,220


« Reply #44 on: May 14, 2012, 12:48:34 PM »

Oh geesh. He didn't say anything about icons, hesychasm, the essence/engeries distinction, prayer ropes, the inconstatsis, etc. These all developed out the o the theology of the Church.
Eucharist adoration developed out of the theology of the Church. If you have a problem with worshiping Christ, then that is your issue I suppose, but I honestly think that objections to Adoration are really grounded more in fear of all things Latin, than they are grounded in any theological truth.

Once again, I'm not even objecting to the practice of Eucharistic adoration. I never participated in it as an RC, but I don't care if you and every other RC does. That's fine. My only point is "Christ never said...." is a lousy argument for a given practice.
Fine. But that is not our argument for the practice. Our argument for the practice is that the Eucharist is Jesus. "The Christ never said" argument is just in response to your "Christ never said" argument.

I don't have a "Christ never said" argument. My first post in this thread was in response to that.

One question, though: Using your argument, why is there no adoration of the precious blood, as well? Isn't that also Christ? (Or is there such a thing?)
Logged

Tags:
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.186 seconds with 73 queries.