One of the "Memorial Acclaimations" says "When we eat this bread and drink this cup we proclaim your death, Lord Jesus, until you come in glory." Why do they use the word bread when that word can be misleading? Why not say, "When we eat of your body and drink of this cup" instead? I mean after all, it is no longer bread right.

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), December 26, 2004

Answers

Response to Why does one of the Memorial Acclaimations sa;y bread when it is not bread but the Body of Christ?

bump to new answers

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), December 26, 2004.

Response to Why does one of the Memorial Acclaimations sa;y bread when it is not bread but the Body of Christ?

Why do they use the word bread when that word can be misleading?

Who is "they"? It is the Holy See. The officials of the Church, including the pope, approved that acclamation to be used, starting in 1970. But why?

Back then, at least 80% of living Catholics had been properly catechized on the truth of the Real and Substantial Presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist. Church officials did not fear that the people would misunderstand the metaphorical use of the word "bread" in the acclamation.

But those officials were apparently not aware of the shabby sacramental catechesis that had begun to be given to schoolchildren at the end of Vatican II (1965) and which went on for another fifteen to thirty years in some places. I believe that the current crisis in Eucharistic faith (or ignorance) comes from the following sources, among others:
1. The failure of post-1964 schoolteachers and catechists (and publishers of religion texts) to explain the dogma of Transubstantiation to kids,
2. The failure of some parents and some pastors to explain the dogma at home and from the pulpit,
3. The widespread use of many "Communion hymns" that contain ambiguous or heretical lyrics (often mentioning "bread" or "wine"),
4. The use of the acclamation you have cited, DJ. It would not have been so bad, but publishers failed to even capitalize "bread" and "wine" when they are used as metaphors, as in the acclamation, "When we eat this Bread ..." -- to help children realize that something special is involved here.

But, still, why did the Church give us this acclamation? Because it is from God Himself, speaking through St. Paul. Here, from the RSV translation, is the verse quoted by the Church at Mass:
"1 Cor. 11:26 -- For as often as you eat this Bread and drink the Cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes."

If I had the power to do it, I would remove that acclamation from the Roman Missal (and all "bread/wine" hymns from hymnals and missalettes) until the crisis has passed, even if it takes fifty years.

-- An Adorer (Bending@The.Knee), December 26, 2004.

Response to Why does one of the Memorial Acclaimations sa;y bread when it is not bread but the Body of Christ?

I forgot to mention that St. Paul did not use the word "bread" because of a lack of knowledge or faith. Rather he used it metaphorically, just as Jesus had done when He said, "I am the Bread of life."

-- An Adorer (Bending@The.Knee), December 26, 2004.

Response to Why does one of the Memorial Acclaimations sa;y bread when it is not bread but the Body of Christ?

I don't think He used it metaphorically, even. Look at the context the first Corinthians verse:

"And giving thanks, broke and said: Take ye and eat: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of me. In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood. This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord."

He clearly means to equate this bread with His body and this chalice with His blood.

But they seem to enjoy creating ambiguities by slicing away important points of hardcore truth these days. Masking the context, nixing the qualifiers, hiding the truth and it's all about feeling good and stuff.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), December 26, 2004.

Response to Why does one of the Memorial Acclaimations sa;y bread when it is not bread but the Body of Christ?

I don't think He used it metaphorically, even.

If you "don't think" that, then you have your own personal definition of "metaphor," not accepted by the English-speaking public.

If one says, "I am the Bread of life" -- and if one does not intend to say that one is literally bread, but only that one has similarities to bread (e.g., in the way one nourishes another) -- THAT is an example of the figure of speech known as a "metaphor." The context you quoted is irrelevant in deciding whether a metaphor was present in the words of Jesus and St. Paul.

But they seem to enjoy creating ambiguities by slicing away important points of hardcore truth these days. Masking the context, nixing the qualifiers, hiding the truth and it's all about feeling good and stuff.

Here, as in the opening message, we see the use of the word, "they," without an antecedent. The only logical assumption can be that "they" refers (as in the opening message) to the Holy See. What astonishing disrespect for the successor of Peter, the vicar of Christ, and his closest collaborators! The just-quoted words are nothing but rubbish.

The pope and his Curia do not "enjoy creating ambiguities."
Nor do they "slice away important points of hardcore truth these days."
Nor do they "mask" anything.
Nor do they "nix" any "qualifiers."
Nor do they "hide the truth."
Nor is their interest "all about feeling good and stuff."

As a Catholic observing these matters intimately for decades, I know what I have just stated to be the facts.
But as a Protestant or a Catholic-in-Name-Only, either you were ignorant of these truths before lashing out, or you are mentally deluded, or you are diabolically possessed, or you are a liar.
I hope, for the sake of your soul, that it is one of the first three, because they would excuse you from permanent lodging in Gehenna. But no matter which of the four is the case, it shows you to be unprepared to partake in legitimate discourse here.

Adoremus in aeternum, Sanctissimum Sacramentum!

-- An Adorer (Bending@The.Knee), December 26, 2004.

Response to Why does one of the Memorial Acclaimations sa;y bread when it is not bread but the Body of Christ?

Man, my options don't look real good.

But if you insist that these are my only available options, after carefully considering them for all, I think I'll go with mental insanity.

Onward and upwards, though. Yes, the properties of normal bread and wine in fact do have metaphorical value in relationship to the Blessed Sacrament. God chose these particular things as matter for the Sacrament for good reason. But that passage from first Corinthians clearly does mean to equate that bread and wine with His body and blood, not as a metaphor.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), December 26, 2004.

Response to Why does one of the Memorial Acclaimations sa;y bread when it is not bread but the Body of Christ?

Here, as in the opening message, we see the use of the word, "they," without an antecedent. The only logical assumption can be that "they" refers (as in the opening message) to the Holy See. What astonishing disrespect for the successor of Peter, the vicar of Christ, and his closest collaborators!

Your right, it does sound disrespectful but it was not my intent. I should have used the words "Holy See". Thanks for pointing it out.

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), December 26, 2004.

Response to Why does one of the Memorial Acclaimations sa;y bread when it is not bread but the Body of Christ?

I'm reminded of the city of David, where Jesus Christ was born. Bethlehem of Judea; announced by the prophets; the holy birthplace of the Messias;

Bethlehem means ''House of Bread''.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 26, 2004.

DJ asked:

Why does one of the Memorial Acclamations say bread when it is not bread but the Body of Christ?

An Adorer replied:

Back then, at least 80% of living Catholics had been properly catechized on the truth of the Real and Substantial Presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist. Church officials did not fear that the people would misunderstand the metaphorical use of the word "bread" in the acclamation.

My response:

Just the opposite. The architect of the New Mass, Annibale Bugnini, was clearly hostile to the dogma of transubstantiation. Why? Because it was too Catholic, that's why. It was a roadblock to the all-important goal of ecumenism. His goal was to design a Mass that would not offend the Protestants, and if the dogma of transubstantiation had to go then so be it.

That's why none of the "memorial acclamations" even allude to transubstantiation. The one most frequently used -- Christ has died. Christ is risen. Christ will come again. -- is even heretical because it implicitly denies the Catholic dogma that Christ is present right now on the altar under the appearance of bread and wine.

it is Catholic tradition to refer to transubstantiation specifically as "the mystery of faith." The fact that the New Mass has Catholics proclaiming everything BUT transubstantiation as the mystery of faith ought to set off alarm bells.

-- Bonzo's Cousin (bonzoscuz@yahoo.com), December 27, 2004.

Why, Sir, do you insist on poisoning the minds of impressionable Christians who may be lurking out of our sight? Who gives a fig what you think of any architect of the New Mass; your thumping misnomer? There is NO New Mass.

There is a Novus Ordo Missal. Holy Mass is nothing new, it's almost 2,000 years along. We have ONE faith, ONE spirit and ONE Lord; Jesus Christ. You have skepticism and a grandiose ego. Nothing you contribute here is true. Nothing, Devil's Advocate.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 27, 2004.

The only thing I advocate is the truth. Open your eyes and see things as they really are. This is not your father's Catholic Church. It has been modernized, Protestantized, ecumenized, and compromised to the point where it can no longer be recognized as the same institution that existed 40 years ago. The Papal Kiss

-- Bonzo's Cousin (bonzoscuz@yahoo.com), December 28, 2004.

In my Novus Ordo Church, the priest says "Here now is Jesus, the body of Christ" before placing it in my hand he says "the Body of Christ"

This seems pretty clear to me.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), December 28, 2004.