Adoration & Bullet Proof Glass Talk

[Jack4]

8 hours ago, dUSt said:

So, this is a quote by "Obi-Wan Kenobi - 4th Degree KoC".

...who is an ordained and learned priest.

7 hours ago, Peace said:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4077.htm#article1
 

 

I don't see any contradiction between that and what I said. I'll come back to you. 

[Peace]

23 minutes ago, Jack4 said:

I don't see any contradiction between that and what I said.

Me neither.

[Amppax]

5 hours ago, Peace said:

Heh. I'll consider it.

What do you think about the portion of the Summa cited near the top of this page of the thread, which indicates that the substance of Jesus does not take on the accidents of the bread and the wine, which remain? Those accidents remain, but without a substance.

It seems that a lot of folks believe that the substance of Jesus takes on the accidents of bread and wine, which leads them to conclude that when they touch the accidents of the bread they are in effect touching the substance in which those accidents are manifested, but that would seem to contradict the portions of the Summa cited above.

 

 

 

 

No, you're right. One of the truly miraculous truths about the Eucharist is that somehow, those accidents remain, while not adhering to a substance. Conversely, the substance of Christ is there, without any manifestation of its accidents. However, it's not as if there's only intellectual/spiritual contact with the reality, while there's physical contact only with the appearance. I think you're coming at this with a decidedly modern, Kantian influenced view (unintentionally, perhaps). For Kant, he makes a sharp distinction between phenomena (the perception) and noumena (the reality). These notions, phenomena and noumena, very roughly correspond to the notions of substance and accidents, as used by St. Thomas. However, I think, in a lot of ways, it is hard for us to view these without an underlying influence from Kant, and the radical separation between material and immaterial that he, and other enlightenment philosophers (hello Descartes!), bequeathed us. And, if we really want to go down the philosophical rabbit hole, we can go back to the nominalists of the late middle ages. 

However, the Thomistic/Aristotelian ideas at play here don't necessarily correspond to these later philosophical notions. For Thomas, you can distinguish substance and accidents, and it is, in fact, necessary to do so, but they are not separable, at least, not in the natural order of things. Something to note as well, and correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that you have in mind a very sharp divide between material and immaterial. I'm not sure if that's accurate or helpful. 

The above are just my rambling thoughts on these matters, and I'd definitely like to think about this more when I'm less sleep-deprived. 

[Peace]

1 hour ago, dUSt said:

If this were true, I don't understand why the Eucharist is placed in a monstrance. Why does the church place importance on being able to see the blessed sacrament?

I don't know homey. But it is a good question. I think I am gonna stop speaking on this topic until I educate myself on it a bit more.

[Peace]

55 minutes ago, Jack4 said:

...who is an ordained and learned priest.

There seems to be a pretty good split on the topic, even among clergy.

Maybe that is  because the terminology is a bit difficult to use and understand. Perhaps to a certain extent folks are talking past each other. . .

[Amppax]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

I don't know homey. But it is a good question. I think I am gonna stop speaking on this topic until I educate myself on it a bit more.

 

Dude, I feel the same way, honestly. This subset of concerns regarding the Eucharist was a major focus of my grad sacraments class. I still feel, and probably always will, that I don't really grasp it at all. 

[dUSt]

From @Pontifex:

"Accidents are only external visible characteristics. Accidents and substance are usually equal. The miracle of the Eucharist turns that upside down. Getting caught up on the word "physical" is an endless circle of rhetoric. To say He is only present sacramentally would be to reduce the Eucharist to the level of the word, which would be heresy. The Eucharist cannot be contained by Thomistic theology. Thomistic theology is good, but the idea of substance and accidents is 13th century language. With our advancements in molecular biology and other sciences we have other ways to understand presence and physical reality."

[PhuturePriest]

How interesting this should come up. My rector just had a conference for us on the topic of adoration.

Adoration is good -- unequivocally so. However, it is not always good to have it. The use of perpetual adoration everywhere is a completely new innovation which would quite honestly shock people even just sixty years ago. The Church is clear that the normal means of worshiping Jesus is worshiping Him before the Tabernacle.

The danger of over-doing exposition is that people can get to where they can't really pray without it. We should be just as able to pray before a Tabernacle as before a monstrance, and the former should be the normal means.

He explained all of this in a much more intelligent and persuasive way, but essentially we need to consider whether we're overdoing exposition and treating it as a right to have 24/7 365 over the norm, which is the Tabernacle. That we get to pray before Jesus in His presence at all is an amazing thing -- and that we can sometimes view it as mundane and exposition as normal perhaps bespeaks a problem of doing too much of a good thing and undermining the very thing we're trying to do.

[dUSt]

8 minutes ago, PhuturePriest said:

How interesting this should come up. My rector just had a conference for us on the topic of adoration.

Adoration is good -- unequivocally so. However, it is not always good to have it. The use of perpetual adoration everywhere is a completely new innovation which would quite honestly shock people even just sixty years ago. The Church is clear that the normal means of worshiping Jesus is worshiping Him before the Tabernacle.

The danger of over-doing exposition is that people can get to where they can't really pray without it. We should be just as able to pray before a Tabernacle as before a monstrance, and the former should be the normal means.

He explained all of this in a much more intelligent and persuasive way, but essentially we need to consider whether we're overdoing exposition and treating it as a right to have 24/7 365 over the norm, which is the Tabernacle. That we get to pray before Jesus in His presence at all is an amazing thing -- and that we can sometimes view it as mundane and exposition as normal perhaps bespeaks a problem of doing too much of a good thing and undermining the very thing we're trying to do.

But if we follow the same logic, then we shouldn't pray in front of a tabernacle too much either, and then of course, limit ourselves from attending too many daily masses--people who live in remote locations and only get to attend mass once a year appreciate it way more than we do.

I understand the argument, I'm just not buying into it.

[PhuturePriest]

3 minutes ago, dUSt said:

But if we follow the same logic, then we shouldn't pray in front of a tabernacle too much either, and then of course, limit ourselves from attending too many daily masses--people who live in remote locations and only get to attend mass once a year appreciate it way more than we do.

I understand the argument, I'm just not buying into it.

But the counter argument would be, well if it's always an absolute good shouldn't we always participate in it as often as humanly possible? If receiving the Eucharist is good, why can't I receive twenty times per day? Why can't I just have thirty consecrated hosts as my meals, and drink the precious blood out of my personal water bottle throughout the day?

[dUSt]

Also, I think the "too much perpetual adoration" argument may be addressing the devout, but might be forgetting about the fringe faithful. The people who are seeking God, or are trying to deepen their faith. Those people who never go to adoration and are in a spiritual crisis. Having adoration available to them, at that moment in need, might be the thing that changes their lives.

10 minutes ago, PhuturePriest said:

But the counter argument would be, well if it's always an absolute good shouldn't we always participate in it as often as humanly possible? If receiving the Eucharist is good, why can't I receive twenty times per day? Why can't I just have thirty consecrated hosts as my meals, and drink the precious blood out of my personal water bottle throughout the day?

Twice a day. Don't get greedy.

[PhuturePriest]

5 minutes ago, dUSt said:

Also, I think the "too much perpetual adoration" argument may be addressing the devout, but might be forgetting about the fringe faithful. The people who are seeking God, or are trying to deepen their faith. Those people who never go to adoration and are in a spiritual crisis. Having adoration available to them, at that moment in need, might be the thing that changes their lives.

Because mass usually lasts an hour, so at most, you could only receive it 24 times a day, and that's only if you have a VERY busy church open 24 hrs, with priests who have very short homilies.

I'm afraid you're not addressing the question. Either goods such as adoration and communion are always good without restriction, or there is a need of moderation for some purpose or other. That we do have restrictions on communion means the Church believes there is something to be said for moderation.

I'm not saying I have the answer as to why -- I'm simply saying if we can apply this idea to some things, we shouldn't be afraid to apply it to others.

In my rector's experience (of which he has much, including even being the head MC for Pope John Paul II's Mass in Saint Louis), he has seen perpetual adoration turn many people to be very casual around the Eucharist, and there is certainly no precedent for it until maybe forty years ago. Perhaps the Church's previous restriction of adoration being just once per week and for special occasions (like the Corpus Christi procession) is not something arbitrary and contains wise insight into human nature?

[KnightofChrist]

@PhuturePriest no precedent for perpetual adoration of the exposed Host by the laity until 40 years ago?

[Amppax]

53 minutes ago, PhuturePriest said:

I'm afraid you're not addressing the question. Either goods such as adoration and communion are always good without restriction, or there is a need of moderation for some purpose or other. That we do have restrictions on communion means the Church believes there is something to be said for moderation.

1

But why is perpetual adoration immoderate? I think the burden is on you to prove that it is. 

[Amppax]

2 hours ago, dUSt said:

From @Pontifex:

"Accidents are only external visible characteristics. Accidents and substance are usually equal. The miracle of the Eucharist turns that upside down. Getting caught up on the word "physical" is an endless circle of rhetoric. To say He is only present sacramentally would be to reduce the Eucharist to the level of the word, which would be heresy. The Eucharist cannot be contained by Thomistic theology. Thomistic theology is good, but the idea of substance and accidents is 13th century language. With our advancements in molecular biology and other sciences we have other ways to understand presence and physical reality."

 

Man, I was really digging this until the last sentence. It strikes me as both bad theology and bad science to say that the physical sciences can advance our understanding of the Eucharist; by its very nature as a miracle, it falls outside the purview of the physical sciences. 

Also, I'm hesitant to dismiss the ideas of substance and accidents as merely "13th-century language." They are, but it's 13th-century language that has been incorporated into the dogmatic definitions of Eucharistic theology. Obviously, this language doesn't "contain" the mystery of the Eucharist, no language can. However, our theological language, especially that language which has been privileged by the Church in her authoritative teachings, can help to guide us, especially in helping us to see what the mystery is not (apophatic theology). Perhaps I'm reading more into Father's statements than he means, and if so, I apologize. 

21 minutes ago, Amppax said:

But why is perpetual adoration immoderate? I think the burden is on you to prove that it is. 

To add to this, though, I do think that there are things that get lost in the emphasis on private adoration. Namely, various devotions from our tradition, such as Forty Hour devotions, or practices like weekly holy hours with benediction. These functions, it seems to me, are much more liturgical in nature, and thus bring the community together in worship of the Blessed Sacrament in a way private adoration in a chapel does not. 

I don't know about the casual attitude, though I will say it is probably much more likely that the gift of being able to spend time with our Lord is taken for granted. I know that I certainly did, when going to adoration was something available to me at any time, all I had to do was walk 5 minutes across campus to the chapel. So, in that sense, I think I can see your rector's point. However, I think that point carries much less weight for those that don't have that sort of access, which is the much larger group and I think includes plenty of people whose parishes have perpetual adoration.