"Consequently, eating and drinking are to be understood of the actual partaking of Christ in person, hence literally. " http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm
Catholc.com defines the Real Presence, stating,
"The doctrine of the Real Presence asserts that in the Holy Eucharist, Jesus is literally and wholly present—body and blood, soul and divinity—under the appearances of bread and wine." http://www.catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp
In "The Blessed Virgin Mary in England: A Mary-Catechism" by Brother Anthony Josemaria Fti - 2008, it states (p. 266)
"we do literally drink Christ's Precious Blood in its Eucharistic mode of being, in Holy Communion."
Less authoritatively, arguing likewise, "Scripture Catholic states that "Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat." http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html
Of course, for Rome, "literal" does not mean literal as in the case of Him looking, tasting as His body, and thus the use of the philosophical term "accidents," though in His miracles, such as Jn. 2, i am sure the wine did not taste like water.
To late for this. My typos tell me my fingers are having to many literal "accidents."
That’s but one problem with the RC church. False doctrines are introduced over the years, and these heresies need to be subsequently validated.
Scripture is clear: The Last Supper was Jesus’ way of communicating who He is in light of the Passover. His flesh and blood are not literally present. That’s just Middle Age stupidity.
Well, I still don’t like the word, literal, and I wish those guys wouldn’t use it. Even Rush misuses it all the time. If somebody says, “I was literally stunned with surprise,” what the words mean is that he was knocled out, collapsed, had to be revived, etc.
The words “really” and “truly” are problematic enough, while substantially has so declined that it now means, NOT substantially but merely sorta kinda more or less.
I would say we really, truly, substantially eat and drink the body blood soul and divinity of Christ — and that’s quite confusing enough without adding “literally.”
I mean, once we’ve said that, we still hardly know what we’ve said! We are not physically nourished or refreshed, not by the body and blood but by the appearances/accidents. So what kind of “literal” is that? How do you eat and drink a spiritual body? I have no clue, myself, but I’m guessing not literally, even if really and truly.
I’m guessing (Is that the Inquisition at the door?) that the ‘calculus’ we “Romans” use would have to be along the lines of God is the REAL, TRUE Father, and we human daddies are pale imitations. Similarly, partaking of IHS in the Sacrament would have to be the REAL TRUE eating and drinking while scarfing down pizza is the pale imitation.
Maybe it’s like chaste and loving sexual intercourse in that the physical part is ALMOST a mere ‘index’ of the REAL union being affirmed and strengthened. Yes it’s a very wonderful and delightful ‘index’ and it is an essential aspect of the whole deal, but the physical joining is not the only or even the most important aspect of the total joining.
The problem with a theology which arises in controversy is that the things contended about are not always the most important things, or the most important aspects of the things.
My mind and fingers both are plagued with ‘accidents’ this AM. May God bless your day.
And this is partially why I think the awful disagreement need not be quite so awful as it is. But I don’t see how eating and drinking, even if it is