This sounds like a memorial to the suffering of Christ. Whether "mere" or not depends on the state of mind of the worshiper. But I do this memorial every Sunday.
My question would be, do you think the average worshiper in the pew understands your almost poetic, but exceedingly subtle, distinction as you presented it? Or is the average worshiper likely more inclined to believe that the sacrifice of Christ is really being repeated in the mass?
BTW what happened? Some of the conversations on the thread are actually civil.
In response to the question about what the average dude or dudette in the pew understands, I answer with the words of C. S. Lewis:
He said, "Take and eat," not, "Take and understand."... which is good because when I venture out as I did last night, I hardly know what all the ramifications and implications of what I'm attempting are, and I could well be fired on from my own side and from others.
I would VENTURE to say that all the "man in the pew" needs to "think" to avoid error is "Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity are here in my mouth." And that is so huge a mystery, if true (as I believe it to be) that all the verbiage in the world is a futile effort to fend off the moment when I shrug and shut up.
As to whether the worshipper thinks it's being repeated, I'd guess probably some do. This is a university parish so there are a lot of smarty-pants around. Last year '(06 -'07) in RCIA (brainwashing the converts class) in a small group a Baptist guy raised the question of repetition and specifically referred to Hebrews. But he SEEMED content with my saying, "It's not a repetition it is the very event itself." If I see him (we go to different services, usually, I'll ask him where his thinking is now.
Civil? Yes! It's terrifying. Peace may break out.!
Back to '"mere" memorial'. That's an old phrase but possibly "simple" would be better then "mere" since "mere" has a put-down vibe.
An out of print book by a Swede (I think) Yngve Brilioth, and I'd guess he's a Lutheran, Eucharistic Faith and Practice — Evangelical and Catholic published in England in 1930 by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge is very nice. It suggests that "we all" think of the Eucharist in the following five categories:
Experientially, "Existentially" one's participation varies from day to day. Some days I hear the rustle of angels' wings (which distresses me because I don't think angels really have wings or feathers, but I'm willing to be surprised on this point), other days I'm scarcely "there" at all.
So for ME, personally, I take comfort in the koinonia aspect: When I am weak, the WHOLE Body of Christ (those with me in the room and those throughout space and time) is strong and bears me more deeply into His grace, while I coast, bruised, dazed, and battered. And that's another way of saying that Christ is, IMHO, present objectively and not depending on my state of mind. Is that responsive?
AS to the Priest, blah blah ...: It is interesting that our precepts require that Cat'licks attend Mass on Sunday and Holidays, NOT that they receive. At least since Aquinas there has been thought to be some good thing happening in the mere consecration and participation (that is, eating and drinking) by the priest. Of course it's better if the individual also communicates. This, I think pertains not just to the special mojo of a priest, as a kind of necessary catalyst to "Confecting" the sacrament, but also to the priest as "parson", that is to say as representative of all the Church.
Please forgive my verbosity. I don't know how to say it cheaper.