Is the Mass Idolatry?

[StAugustine]

But the fact remains- the Eucharistic species, the accidents, are non deified portions of reality with no subject which are outwardly adored and treated as God in the divine praises.

There needs to be an actual reason for treating something that is not God at LEAST as though it were conjoined in honor with God.

But being a discrete and distinct part of reality, I can see no justification for that. I need a theological answer.

 

[rom]

When the substance of bread is changed into the substance of Christ, the accidents remain.

What is the specific relationship of the accidents to the Christ present in the altar?

The accidents have no real relation to the Body, except as a sign or symbol of the real Body that is present there. This is not the same as what Protestants say. Many Protestants say that the Eucharist itself is only a symbol of Christ, but Christ is not really present. Catholics say that Christ is really present in the sacrament, and the accidents of the Eucharist are the signs or symbol of that presence.

 

[PetraG]

Where is the relationship to the accidents explained?

There are two possibilities. Either the things consecrated become Christ or the presence of Christ hovers around them but the things themselves are not changed. The Church teaches that the things themselves are changed, such that Christ Himself has the same accidental appearance as bread and wine. That is the only thing that the Blessed Sacrament has in common with bread in wine: the accidental appearance. Yet the consecrated species do not disappear or look different after consecration, because even though Christ is truly present the appearance if of bread and wine.

We don’t worship the appearance separately from the total reality–Gee, Lord, you look good in whole wheat–but rather we worship Christ Himself even with under this appearance. We don’t reject His Presence because of the appearance He has chosen. (cont)

 

[PetraG]

CCC 1373 “Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us,” is present in many ways to his ChurchRom 8:34; cf. Lumen Gentium 48.) in his word, in his Church’s prayer, “where two or three are gathered in my name,”( Mt 18:20) in the poor, the sick, and the imprisoned,(Cf. Mt 25:31-46) in the sacraments of which he is the author, in the sacrifice of the Mass, and in the person of the minister. But “he is present . . . most especially in the Eucharistic species .”( SC 7)

CCC 1374 The mode of Christ’s presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as “the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend.”( St. Thomas Aquinas, STh III,73,3c.) In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained. (Council of Trent (1551): Denzinger-Schonmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum (1965), 1651) “This presence is called ‘real’ - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be ‘real’ too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present.”(Paul VI, Mysterium fidei 39)

CCC 1375 It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. The Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion. Thus St. John Chrysostom declares:

It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. The priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God’s. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered ( St. John Chrysostom, prod. Jud. 1:6G 49,380)

And St. Ambrose says about this conversion:

Be convinced that this is not what nature has formed, but what the blessing has consecrated. The power of the blessing prevails over that of nature, because by the blessing nature itself is changed. . . . Could not Christ’s word, which can make from nothing what did not exist, change existing things into what they were not before? It is no less a feat to give things their original nature than to change their nature.(St. Ambrose, De myst. 9,50; 52L 16,405-407)

cont

 

[PetraG]

CCC 1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.” (Council of Trent (1551): DS 1642; cf. Mt 26:26 ff.; Mk 14:22 ff.; Lk 22:19 ff.; 1 Cor 11:24 ff.)

1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.(Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1641)

CCC 1378 Worship of the Eucharist . In the liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by, among other ways, genuflecting or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord. “The Catholic Church has always offered and still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist the cult of adoration, not only during Mass, but also outside of it, reserving the consecrated hosts with the utmost care, exposing them to the solemn veneration of the faithful, and carrying them in procession.”(Paul VI, Mysterium fidei 56)

 

[StAugustine]

Okay, so then the approach we take to the accidents really has to be iconographic- whether those signs and symbols of the accidents are due to receive the adoration which passes on to the substance.

But this appears false, for even iconographic representations do not receive Latria, but solely Dulia, ergo it is not proper to adore the figure of the accidents.

 

[PetraG]

The Eucharist is symbolic. God taught in parables. We are not worshiping bread or wine, we are doing a symbolic gesture in memory of him. That might not be Catholic of me, but that’s how I see it.

That is incorrect. If that is how you see it, try to see it correctly, instead. It does make a difference.

If you read John 6, consider this scene:
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?” Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink."

He didn’t say, did he, “Calm down, calm down, I’m talking about a symbolic presence.” No, He doubled down on the Real Presence.

 

[ZMystiCat]

But the fact remains- the Eucharistic species, the accidents, are non deified portions of reality with no subject which are outwardly adored and treated as God in the divine praises.

There needs to be an actual reason for treating something that is not God at LEAST as though it were conjoined in honor with God.

But being a discrete and distinct part of reality, I can see no justification for that. I need a theological answer.

If Jesus were to appear to you with His human body, would it be improper to worship Him? If yes, then, since He now possesses a human body, we cannot worship Him, in which case the whole of Christianity, including Protestantism, is rendered moot. If no, then I see no reason why we cannot worship Him as He appears to us in the form of bread and wine.

 

[PetraG]

But the fact remains- the Eucharistic species, the accidents, are non deified portions of reality with no subject which are outwardly adored and treated as God in the divine praises.

There needs to be an actual reason for treating something that is not God at LEAST as though it were conjoined in honor with God.

But being a discrete and distinct part of reality, I can see no justification for that. I need a theological answer.

No, those are the appearances chosen by Christ so that by using eyes informed by faith we may encounter Him in a form par excellence. If it were wrong to look on the accidents and see Christ in the most excellent way available to us, we would be warned against this error. We aren’t warned because it is not an error to look at a consecrated host and see Christ: Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity made visible.

Rather, it is an error to see the consecrated host and deny what faith teaches us to be true.

 

[rom]

I will not admit that Christ mingled adoration of the Godhead with a creature not united to that Godhead.

But He did. The Bible said He took the bread and said, “This is My Body.” Didn’t He?

That’s the point. How is the idolatry avoided?

The idolatry is avoided because the accidents of the Eucharist become a symbol of his real presence. When you bow or pray before a statue of, say the Virgin Mary, are you praying to the statue? No, you are praying to the Virgin Mary who is represented by the statue. In the same manner, when you bow, genuflect, or pray before the accidents of the Eucharist, you are not worshiping the accidents, but Christ whose presence is represented by the accidents. The accidents of the Eucharist are a sign or symbol of Christ’s Body in the same way that a statue of the Blessed Virgin is a sign or symbol of the Blessed Virgin.

 

[PetraG]

I will not admit that Christ mingled adoration of the Godhead with a creature not united to that Godhead.

That’s the point. How is the idolatry avoided?

The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?” Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
(John 6:52-55)
and

So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old and you have seen Abraham?"
Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM.”
So they picked up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid and went out of the temple area.
(John 8: 57-59)

 

[Wesrock]

I am not asking for incompetent answers, but competent ones. Let the weak refrain- I seek the meat of the strong.

If you feel my answer was incompetent maybe you could competently address it so we can move forward instead of incompetently handwaving it away.

 

[Wesrock]

Okay, so then the approach we take to the accidents really has to be iconographic- whether those signs and symbols of the accidents are due to receive the adoration which passes on to the substance.

But this appears false, for even iconographic representations do not receive Latria, but solely Dulia, ergo it is not proper to adore the figure of the accidents.

It doesn’t pass on to the substance. The substance isn’t in la-la land, it’s really there, really present in what you’re holding, in that few square inches of space in your real physical reality.

 

[rom]

Okay, so then the approach we take to the accidents really has to be iconographic- whether those signs and symbols of the accidents are due to receive the adoration which passes on to the substance.

But this appears false, for even iconographic representations do not receive Latria, but solely Dulia, ergo it is not proper to adore the figure of the accidents.

You are getting closer, but not quite. You see, the Eucharist is a very special icon, because Christ is really present behind the accidents. You cannot say that of the icon of the Blessed Virgin. A statue of the Blessed Virgin represents the Virgin, but the Virgin Mary herself is not really present in the statue. This is why we give the Eucharist much more respect. At any rate, it is not the accidents themselves, but the Real Body of Christ that we worship.

StAugustine, I labor to explain this to you because I know you are seeking understanding, and not debating for the sake of debate. I know you are a Catholic and believe the same faith as I do. But I hope you get what I have been laboring hard to explain.

 

[otjm]

How about a short answer. The Apostles walked and talked with a human being; they gradually came to understand that individual was God incarnate. some of what you are asking really gets back to that.

And as to your questions concerning the Host (and by reference, to the contents of the Cup) I would direct you to the miracle of Lanciano. There are several globules which test as blood, and the Host has been tested and cound to be of flesh of the heart.

You may choose to disbelieve the history (the conversion of the Host and the Precious Blood occurred in the 700’s, and is still present today.

Do we adore the accidents? No, we adore God, who has chosen for whatever reason(s) to make himself present to us through the Eucharist, which is Christ. And given that Lanciano is not the only miracle where the Host and/or the Precious blood changed from the the accidents of bread and wine to flesh and blood of Christ, I will leave you with the observation that you are stuck in an interesting dichotomy between accident and substance, terms which go back to classic scholastic philosophy, used to try to explain something which is ultimately accepted by faith - not head knowledge.

 

[StAugustine]

I do and I am reading my Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic dogma. Even he asserts, but does not explain, that the sacramental species are co-objects of adoration.

Additionally, it appears an allowable opinion of the Scotists and Nominalists that the sacramental species simply exist side by side with the substance of Christ’s body and blood by Gods power.

Have any works offering explanations?

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Whenever I make mashed potatos I think of them as a vehicle for whatever flavor I’d like to give them. Without any salt, butter or spice, potatoes are fairly bland. But I wouldn’t be able to eat the flavor by itself. The potato has to be a part of it. There has to be something to carry the flavor so I can receive it in the manner that a human being is capable of receiving it.

If we were all pure spirit, there would be no need for Jesus in a body. No need to have spirit and material together. But we are, and so it is. It is apparently necessary for this relationship between spirit and material to exist for our benefit. We are material and spirit, so this idea makes sense to me. It also makes sense that we can tell the two apart with a little guidance from above.

I would hazard a guess that the accidents are a convenient place for us to focus our attention. Without something to focus on people can be pretty useless and/or dangerous.

 

[AlNg]

The Eucharist is symbolic.

I thought that it was more than just a symbol.

 

[AlNg]

There are several globules which test as blood, and the Host has been tested and cound to be of flesh of the heart.

That can’t be right, otherwise we are speaking of cannibalism. I thought that cannibalism was wrong?

 

[Vico]

…

So how do we arise above a paganistic way of thinking of God “contained” in something without altering the incarnation? Are the Eucharistic accidents taken up into the Godhead? How and where is it taught? This would be like a Eucharistic Monophysitism…

The Eucharist is God and through a miracle appears to be bread and wine.

Modern Catholic Dictionary – PERICHORESIS

The penetration and indwelling of the three divine persons reciprocally in one another. In the Greek conception of the Trinity there is an emphasis on the mutual penetration of the three persons, thus bringing out the unity of the divine essence. In the Latin idea called circumincession the stress is more on the internal processions of the three divine persons. In both traditions, however, the fundamental basis of the Trinitarian perichoresis is the one essence of the three persons in God. The term is also applied to the close union of the two natures in Christ. Although the power that unites the two natures proceeds exclusively from Christ’s divinity, the result is a most intimate coalescence. The Godhead, which itself is impenetrable, penetrates the humanity, which is thereby deified without ceasing to be perfectly human.