Is the Mass a sacrifice or a meal?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Homerun
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Homerun said:
Can it be both? Which takes precedence over the other? :confused:
Click to expand...
Both. 🙂

In Exodus, the Jews are commanded to sacrifice a lamb without blemish, spread it’s blood over the doorposts and lintel of each house and consume it’s flesh; by doing so, they would be spared. In a much more perfect way, Christ is the sacrificial lamb (without blemish) whose blood was spread over a type of doorpost & lintel (the cross) and whose flesh we consume in the Eucharist.

I do think that there is a tendency by some to overemphasize the meal aspect of the Eucharist and, in many cases, completely overlook the importance of the sacrificial aspect. The fact is that the two are inextricably linked.
 
Corki said:
The Mass IS a Sacrifice in rememberance of a meal.
Click to expand...
I don’t think so.

It’s both sacrifice and meal. One isn’t complete without the other. Neither stands alone.

It’s a sacrifice and a sacramental banquet–Edward put it very well.

Catholic Tiger, I don’t think it’s the Mass without the meal. Yes, it matters–It matters to our very existence. The priest must consume for the Mass to be valid, right? In the OT, the sacrifice wasn’t complete or valid without the consumption of the meal.

I think that some “progressives” overemphasize the “meal” part, as in “gather around the Lord’s table.” They forget that the table is an altar of sacrifice, and the altar represents the actual body of Christ.
 
The meal is extremely important. It is how we come into union with Christ and receive the grace of the sacrament.
 
Corki said:
The Mass IS a Sacrifice in rememberance of a meal.
Click to expand...
No, the “remembrance” part comes from the Greek “anamnesis” which means “to make present”. It is not about “remembering” as in a mental image of the past even which we recal today. We call on God to remembrance of the covenant He made with us. When God “remembers”, God acts.
 
The Mass is, by nature, a sacrifice that is presented to us under the form of a meal. It IS a sacrifice, period. However, it is not, by nature, a re-presentation of a meal, it is a re-presentation of a sacrifice - the Sacrifice of Calvary. The Council of Trent makes this very clear.

So we need to distinguish between essence and form.

See the link below:
personal.psu.edu/glm7/m178.htm
 
Windmill said:
The Mass is, by nature, a sacrifice that is presented to us under the form of a meal. It IS a sacrifice, period. However, it is not, by nature, a re-presentation of a meal, it is a re-presentation of a sacrifice - the Sacrifice of Calvary. The Council of Trent makes this very clear.

So we need to distinguish between essence and form.

See the link below:
personal.psu.edu/glm7/m178.htm
Click to expand...
Christ’s sacrifice is a sacrifice.

The Mass is also a sacrifice.

The Mass is also a meal. If it’s not also a meal, then please explain how a Mass can take place without anyone eating anything or using any food.

How can something have the form of a meal and not be a meal?

“When we eat this bread and drink this cup we proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes again.” -St. Paul referring to the Lord’s Supper post-consecration. So, if we’re eating and drinking…

It’s a sacrificial meal.
 
The use of the word meal in the context of even the reformed rite of Mass is reaching too far. To modern people a meal is something we eat to get full and the reception of a small host (Christ’s Body) and a sip of wine (the Precious Blood) is hardly a meal in the proper sense. The Church removed the meal component from the Eucharistic Liturgy in the early Church because of abuses as Paul experienced with the laity in Corinth–who had rich people bringing food to Mass and not sharing it with the poorer members of the congregation. During the Last Supper Christ and the Apostles had a proper meal with the institution of the first Eucharist, but this was done away by the Church again because of abuses. So reading a meal into the celebration of the Mass is really out of context. Meal theology is really a concession to what is commonly thought of to be the Protestant theology of anamnesis or memorial, but it lacks ground in the Catholic theology which has developed over the centuries. The Mass properly is a Sacrifice contained within a ritualized setting with the reception of bread (and wine) and is not a meal either in the NT sense, demonstrated by the Last Supper, or in the contemporary sense as we would see at a potluck or a meal at home. Our current experience of Mass just does not support meal-theology or even banquet theology just on a practical level since the Eucharist has not had a truly meal element since the 1st century or since the time of its institution by Christ in the Upper Room with His Apostles who ate a full meal with the communion of bread and wine.
 
fordhamstudent said:
The use of the word meal in the context of even the reformed rite of Mass is reaching too far. To modern people a meal is something we eat to get full and the reception of a small host (Christ’s Body) and a sip of wine (the Precious Blood) is hardly a meal in the proper sense. The Church removed the meal component from the Eucharistic Liturgy in the early Church because of abuses as Paul experienced with the laity in Corinth–who had rich people bringing food to Mass and not sharing it with the poorer members of the congregation. During the Last Supper Christ and the Apostles had a proper meal with the institution of the first Eucharist, but this was done away by the Church again because of abuses. So reading a meal into the celebration of the Mass is really out of context. Meal theology is really a concession to what is commonly thought of to be the Protestant theology of anamnesis or memorial, but it lacks ground in the Catholic theology which has developed over the centuries. The Mass properly is a Sacrifice contained within a ritualized setting with the reception of bread (and wine) and is not a meal either in the NT sense, demonstrated by the Last Supper, or in the contemporary sense as we would see at a potluck or a meal at home. Our current experience of Mass just does not support meal-theology or even banquet theology just on a practical level since the Eucharist has not had a truly meal element since the 1st century or since the time of its institution by Christ in the Upper Room with His Apostles who ate a full meal with the communion of bread and wine.
Click to expand...
So does the Church herself reach too far in speaking of the “Eucharistic meal” in the Catechism (1390)?
 
Homerun said:
Can it be both? Which takes precedence over the other? :confused:
Click to expand...
The Holy Mass is both a Sacrifice and an Eucharistic Banquet where the Body and Blood of Christ are received. As a Sacrifice the Mass serves to praise God, thank Him, atone for sins and request for graces. The Sacrificial character was separately defended by the Council of Trent (Session 22, Chapter 9, Canon 1): “If any one saith, that in the mass a true and proper sacriflce is not offered to God; or, that to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema.” The 2004 Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum (38.) calls the Mass “pre-eminently” a Sacrifice:

“The constant teaching of the Church on the nature of the Eucharist not only as a meal, but also and pre-eminently as a Sacrifice, is therefore rightly understood to be one of the principal keys to the full participation of all the faithful in so great a Sacrament. For when “stripped of its sacrificial meaning, the mystery is understood as if its meaning and importance were simply that of a fraternal banquet”.”
 
Some denominations believe Mass or their version of the word is a commemoration e.g. Quakers, but Catholics believe it to be a sacrifice.
 
I have thought of it thus: Mass is a sacrifice, and “meal” is a characteristic of it.
 
The Mass is a sacrifice and a meal. It is not a sacrifice with the characteristics of a meal. Nor is it a meal with the characteristics of a sacrifice. The Mass is not the Mass without both sacrifice and meal; both are integral and essential. This is why the Mass is also called the Paschal Banquet.

If referring to the Mass as a meal is “reaching too far” and “out of context,” then Holy Mother Church herself is guilty of reaching too far and taking things out of context.

Part II, Article 3, Section VI of the CCC, “The Paschal Banquet”

CCC 1382: The Mass is at the same time, and inseparably, the sacrificial memorial in which the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated and the sacred banquet of communion with the Lord’s body and blood. But the celebration of the Eucharistic sacrifice is wholly directed toward the intimate union of the faithful with Christ through communion. To receive communion is to receive Christ himself who has offered himself for us.

CCC 1383 The altar, around which the Church is gathered in the celebration of the Eucharist, represents the two aspects of the same mystery: the altar of the sacrifice and the table of the Lord. This is all the more so since the Christian altar is the symbol of Christ himself, present in the midst of the assembly of his faithful, both as the victim offered for our reconciliation and as food from heaven who is giving himself to us. “For what is the altar of Christ if not the image of the Body of Christ?” asks St. Ambrose. He says elsewhere, “The altar represents the body [of Christ] and the Body of Christ is on the altar.” The liturgy expresses this unity of sacrifice and communion in many prayers. Thus the Roman Church prays in its anaphora:

We entreat you, almighty God,
that by the hands of your holy Angel
this offering may be borne to your altar in heaven
in the sight of your divine majesty,
so that as we receive in communion at this altar
the most holy Body and Blood of your Son,
we may be filled with every heavenly blessing and grace.

For references, see the CCC online.

fordhamstudent, I suggest that you read St Ambrose on the Eucharist if you are confused about what the early Church believed. He writes quite eloquently on the “banquet table,” and he writes at a time that you say the Church had abandoned any meal or banquet theology.
 
Of course it is a meal. Just beware of those that take this meal symbology too far and deny the sacrificial aspect.
 
Windmill said:
The Mass is, by nature, a sacrifice that is presented to us under the form of a meal. It IS a sacrifice, period. However, it is not, by nature, a re-presentation of a meal, it is a re-presentation of a sacrifice - the Sacrifice of Calvary. The Council of Trent makes this very clear.

So we need to distinguish between essence and form.

See the link below:
personal.psu.edu/glm7/m178.htm
Click to expand...
The link that you post is filled with logical fallacies to make some bad points from quoting the Council of Trent.

The biggest problem that I have when I read this kind of threads is when someone tries to separate things that cannot be separated even if one proceeds from the other.
 
The most serious challenge to the Catholic faith in the Eucharist was the claim that the Mass is not a real but merely a symbolic sacrifice.

To defend this basic Eucharistic mystery, the Council of Trent made a series of definitions. Originally drafted as negative anathemas, they may be reduced to the following positive affirmation of faith.

The Mass is a true and proper sacrifice which is offered to God.

By the words, “Do this in commemoration of me” (Luke 22:19; I Corinthians 11:24), Christ made the apostles priests. Moreover, He decreed that they and other priests should offer His Body and Blood.

The Sacrifice of the Mass is not merely an offering of praise and thanksgiving, or simply a memorial of the sacrifice on the Cross. It is a propitiatory sacrifice which is offered for the living and dead, for the remission of sins and punishment due to sin, as satisfaction for sin and for other necessities.

The Sacrifice of the Mass in no way detracts from the sacrifice which Christ offered on the Cross (Council of Trent, Session XXII, September 17, 1562).

Volumes of teaching by the Church’s magisterium have been written since the Council of Trent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top