Is the Holy Mass a meal...

[StrictCatholicGirl]

But the early Christians were falsely accused of cannibalism by the pagans, and later Protestants took the extreme opposite approach. They could not fathom the idea that Christians ate real flesh and drank real blood -- therefore the Eucharist had to be a "symbol" to them.

 

But neither approach is the Church's proper understanding of Transubstantiation and the Eucharist. Here is an excerpt from Pope Benedict's (then Cardinal Ratzinger's) "The Presence of the Lord in the Sacrament" in God is Near Us (Ignatius Press, 2003):

 

There were those [in the twelfth century, when the Church began using the term "substance"] filled with the thought: Jesus is really there. But "reality", for them, was simply physical, bodily. Consequently, they arrived at the conclusion: "In the Eucharist we chew on the flesh of the Lord;" but therein they were under the sway of a serious misapprehension. For Jesus has risen.

We do not eat flesh, as cannibals would do. That is why others quite rightly opposed them, arguing against such primitive "realism". But they, too, had fallen into the same fundamental error of regarding only what is material, tangible, visible as reality. They said: Since Christ cannot be there in a body we can bite on, the Eucharist can only be a symbol of Christ; the bread can only signify the body, but not be the body. A dispute such as that has helped the Church to develop a more profound understanding of reality. 

After wrestling with the difficulty, the insight was made explicit: "Reality" is not just what we can measure. It is not only "quantums", quantifiable entities, that are real; on the contrary, these are always only manifestations of the hidden mystery of true being. This is what was being expressed with the word "substance". This does not refer to the quantums, but to the profound and fundamental basis of Being. Jesus is not there like a piece of meat, not in the realm of what can be measured and quantified. Anyone who conceives of reality as being like that is deceiving himself about it and about himself. He is living his life all wrong.

 

When Eucharistic miracles happen; bleeding hosts, bread turned into flesh, etc., the species becomes like a relic, worthy of veneration. However, it is no longer the Real Presence, worthy of adoration. Once the accidents disappear, so does the Real Presence. Catholics consume Our Lord under the appearances of bread and wine, so there is no "cannibalism" by Webster's definition.

 

Further, in Holy Communion, Christ is consumed in His wholeness. Cannibals consume only flesh, not the mind, soul and spirit. They do not consume the entire being (essence) as we do when receiving Christ in the Eucharist.. So the two (cannibalism and Communion) are not honest comparisons.

 

Here is another take on that subject, an excerpt from a book called "Pastoral Answers" by Monsignor Francis Mannion, page 118 on "Eucharistic Cannibalism."

 

To hold that believers receive in the Eucharist the body and blood of Christ, is to say that by the power of the Holy Spirit, the bread and wine, while remaining in the appearance of bread and wine, are changed into the very being of the Risen and Glorified Christ. In the Eucharist, we receive nothing less than the entire Person of the Risen Christ. The Church's doctrine of Transubstantiation excludes the idea that Christ's body is cannibalized during Holy Communion.

 

- Lisa

[Catholicmilkman]

As much as I love the Summa and St Thomas Aquinas (I'm a student, you know), he is not infallible and in fact wrong on some things.

Yeah, but he's smarter than us.[/quote]That's possibly an objectively erroneous statement, Quis. Though I believe he was very holy and humble and the Angelic Doctor, that has no bearing on whether her intelligence was more or less than anyone's. Holiness is comprised of Sanctifying Grace, "smarts" are comprised of knowledge and truth and Supernatural intelligence of Supernatural Knowledge and Truth.
Remember humility, which is, accepting the truth whatever it is, whether it is Supernatural or natural truth whether it is historic or physical or spiritual reality or whatever. St. Therese the Little Flower said: always

Imitate St. Therese of Lisieux’s way of humility, says Pope
The Holy Father concluded by highlighting that “pride, as we have seen, is opposed to humble trust,” and he cited the fourth century spiritual writer John Casiano, who “warned the faithful about the seriousness of this vice, which ‘destroys all virtues at once and targets not only the mediocre and the weak, but mainly those who have reached the top using their own strength.”

Ezra Taft Benson: "Pride is concerned with who is right. Humility is concerned with what is right."
The Talmud says: "He who sacrifices a whole offering shall be rewarded for a whole offering; he who offers a burnt-offering shall have the reward of a burnt-offering; but he who offers humility to God and man shall be rewarded with a reward as if he had offered all the sacrifices in the world."
Saint Augustine: "It was pride that changed angels into devils; it is humility that makes men as angels." "The sufficiency of my merit is to know that my merit is not sufficient." "Humility is the foundation of all other virtues." Harold Warner: Humility is the gateway into the grace and the favor of God.

 So what is the truth? I think what happens is what (I believe) Bl. Mary of Agreda was privately revealed by God, namely, that He goes to start to the heart and soul in Communion.

Private revelation is even shakier than Aquinas.  I think there is a reason he is a Saint and a Doctor of the Church and she hasn't gotten past Blessed.  Maybe because her revelations have contradicted other ones, and they contradict because they are not to be taken literally but as spiritual nourishment and consolation.  Mystical visions often reveal truths but not facts.

All I can see in this is pride, but that's just me. I am not saying she was right or even that I heard that right from whomever told me that (I can't remember who). But it's just a possibility for the Church has yet to define dogmatically either way.

We may have the mission from God to help His Church realize and define another. Would this not possibly help our Holy Mother?

No, I don't think we have that mission, and no I don't think it would help.  And I'll be happy to explain why.

That means you have not the virtue of magnanimity. I have been told we will be asked by Jesus at our judgments: What did you do for my Church? Did He not also say that "what you do for the lest of my brethren you do for me...."

1) We aren't educated enough.  People like Aquinas and the other theologians who advise the Pope on dogma are people who have dedicated their whole lives to it and know the matter thoroughly.  We're idiots with keyboards and library cards.  There's a difference in competence.

I have tried and vowed to dedicate my life to helping Church as a Christian in whatever way He needs by freely willing to try to cooperate with His Divine Grace.

2) It is irresponsible to posit ideas of speculative theology in the public arena especially with an eye towards developing them.  Those posits belong in the academic and ecclesiastical arena where they can be tried and proven to have some level of probability.  The reason for this is people pick them up and start believing and quoting them even though they may be random musings not worthy of belief or completely or quasi heretical.  In this way we work against the Church which would have to deal with combating a new heresy or erroneous belief.

Quite true, except the quasi heretical part, nothing can be half heretical: either it's orthodox or it's heretical.

There was no way for Christ to be sacrificed without becoming incarnate.  He had to be 1) sense-perceptible, and 2) affected by a real change - death.

With God all things are possible, but not all things are reality with God. God freely chose to become Man forever for He as God knew this was the best way for us.

Love is not a sense-perceptible gift, therefore it cannot be a sacrifice.

Okay Love is a sacrifice, I don't even know if I said, did I? Nonetheless SAINT Therese said "without sacrifice there is no love"

 I say Christ thirsts to consume souls really and truly, as St. Paul says "And I live, now not I; but Christ liveth in me", Christ Wills us to participate in His Divine Nature forever just as He does ours. This is God's purpose of creation. Maybe it's creation already, we just to accept it by Faith, Hope and Charity. All of creation is a single and eternal act of God sacrificing Himself, no?

Consume: 1: to do away with completely
 
Does God do away with our souls completely?  Nope

I was talking about "consume" in the sense of like eating and digesting food. Food is not done away from completely when eaten but it becomes a part of us. We assimilate it. God assimilates us into His Divine Nature by Grace which is Himself. "Know ye not that you are temples of the Holy Ghost?" and 1 John 4:13 In this we know that we abide in him, and he in us: because he hath given us of his spirit. & 1 John 2:28 And now, little children, abide in him, that when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be confounded by him at his coming. and John 15:4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abide in the vine, so neither can you, unless you abide in me.
 

But let's go to the full truth.
 
There is nothing God qua God is in need of because he is complete.  If he needed something, He would be incomplete and not God.  Thirst is a sign of need - a need for drink and refreshment.  Christ on the Cross thirsted.  You say it is for souls.  Does God in any way, shape or form need souls?  No, of course not.  Does Christ Incarnate need water to sustain His flesh?  Yes, of course.  So it seems to me He was asking for a drink of water, as dying men are wont to do, rather than a pitcher of souls.

No, we humans are not in need of drink, we can refuse and still live, that is the dogma of the immorality of the human soul. 
 
[/quote]Creation is not a single and eternal act of God sacrificing Himself.[/QUOTE]Do we not believe Jesus gave Himself as the Eternal Sacrifice? Jesus is God.
 

Before the fall, there was no need for the Sacrifice.  And, Creation occurred before the fall.  If there was an act of sacrifice before or even in Creation, then that would mean God did something needlessly and that would be stupid.  God is not stupid, therefore there was no act of Sacrifice in Creation.

1 Corinthians 1:25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men... and  2:14 But the sensual man perceiveth not these things that are of the Spirit of God; for it is foolishness to him, and he cannot understand, because it is spiritually examined.
 

I didn't deny it wasn't a substantial union.  However, I have never heard it taught that He consumes us (read: makes us disappear), that we lose our individuality and become part of a "greater whole".  In fact, evidence points to the contrary or there wouldn't be degrees of Sanctity and the angels and souls wouldn't be distinct from God.

I don't know, Blessed Marmion(?)Columba said it is our human personality that gets in our way with God for our Lord has no human person but only a human nature and Divine Person. I don't think we lose our free will but it is recreated with Grace.

If we are consumed by God and cease to be individual souls, then how would the General Judgment take place?  He would be judging part of Himself which doesn't make sense.

Our being does not cease but is raised, I agreed. The raising is an infinite one though. With Grace we have God's Very Divine Virtues.

BTW, I have to warn you (and anyone else reading this): this forum is not the place to posit theological speculation with an eye towards convincing others of the truth of the posit.

I am not so I hope it doesn't look like that. Just stating my ridiculous, and erroneous, speculations, as Fr. Pazat told me the Mass is a meal also. I'd just like to know what the dogma is clearly defined.

I hope we can agree on those parameters.

We do.