A thought about the Eucharist... can you help me understand?

[StJudePray4Me]

Hi there

Not too long ago, I attended a Mass which was presided over by a priest whose first language is not English. His English is excellent, but I mention the fact because I wondered if it contributed to something he said which sort of blew my mind…

Ever since I was a little girl, my understanding of the Eucharist was that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, even though they do not look or taste any different, they are different and no one understands how, it’s just a mystery of faith. The End. So… wine and bread CHANGE to body and blood.

Now, this priest said something along the lines of how Jesus allows his body and blood to be changed into bread and wine… and I went WHOA! Opposite! Body and Blood CHANGE into wine and bread?!

Is this correct? Is this a big deal? Did everyone but me already think of this and I am bringing up the rear, at age 40-something to have never thought of this? I was too embarrassed to ask the priest in front of everyone after Mass, and it’s not a parish I visit regularly, so I haven’t seen him again.

Your thoughts?

 

[St_Francis]

I have always learned what you said. I think there was a communications breakdown: the priest misspoke, you misheard, or something.

 

[Landelinus]

I agree with St Francis’ response. There must have been some communication difficulty. The bread and wine change into His body and blood - not the other way around.

 

[Joe_5859]

I’m inclined to agree that it was probably a language barrier issue.

Not hearing the exact words in context, I can only speculate, but I imagine the priest was just trying to emphasize the point of how amazing it is that Jesus deigns to come to us under the form of bread and wine.

I would also add that not all priests preach their homilies with utmost theological precision. Unless one is reading from a written, well-prepared text, it is easy to mis-speak and articulate our points in ways that don’t mean exactly what they sometimes sound like.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

I’d also give him benefit of doubt.

But FYI, the teaching that Christ’s body and blood become bread and wine is indeed heretical. One version of this heresy is impanation, which states that our Lord enters into a hypostatic union with the bread and wine, which otherwise remain such as they are.

 

[Gorgias]

Ever since I was a little girl, my understanding of the Eucharist was that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, even though they do not look or taste any different, they are different and no one understands how, it’s just a mystery of faith. The End. So… wine and bread CHANGE to body and blood.

Well, if you’re looking to quibble over theological precision, let’s start with your assertion.

The physical properties of the wine and bread never change – they never become ‘different’, even in a way that’s imperceptible. Rather, the substance of the wine and bread are transformed (bad, un-philosophical use of term – sorry!) into the substance of Christ. So, whereas before consecration we have:

substance of bread and wine + accidents of bread and wine = bread and wine

after the consecration, we have:

substance of Christ + accidents of bread and wine = Eucharist

Strictly speaking, “wine and bread” does not change to Christ.

By the same token, then, Christ does not change into bread and wine. Rather, Christ allows his substance to replace the substance of bread and wine. However, I agree with Joe – in a poetic manner, saying that Christ allows His substance to be clothed with the accidents of bread and wine, is not an improper way to think about the Eucharist. Even theologically, if you’re talking about substance of Christ rather than Jesus, this is theologically sound.

Did everyone but me already think of this and I am bringing up the rear, at age 40-something to have never thought of this?

Nope – I bet that, by and large, most 40-somethings haven’t even thought this deeply about the Eucharist. Your reflections on this subject probably outstrip the vast majority of your peers!

 

[Joe_5859]

Well, if you’re looking to quibble over theological precision, let’s start with your assertion.

The physical properties of the wine and bread never change – they never become ‘different’, even in a way that’s imperceptible. Rather, the substance of the wine and bread are transformed (bad, un-philosophical use of term – sorry!) into the substance of Christ. So, whereas before consecration we have:

substance of bread and wine + accidents of bread and wine = bread and wine

after the consecration, we have:

substance of Christ + accidents of bread and wine = Eucharist

Strictly speaking, “wine and bread” does not change to Christ.

By the same token, then, Christ does not change into bread and wine. Rather, Christ allows his substance to replace the substance of bread and wine. However, I agree with Joe – in a poetic manner, saying that Christ allows His substance to be clothed with the accidents of bread and wine, is not an improper way to think about the Eucharist. Even theologically, if you’re talking about substance of Christ rather than Jesus, this is theologically sound.

Nope – I bet that, by and large, most 40-somethings haven’t even thought this deeply about the Eucharist. Your reflections on this subject probably outstrip the vast majority of your peers!

Good break down.

 

[R_C]

Well, first: the full Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Lord is made present under each of the consecrated species (as far as I know).

Second: the only thing that truly, truly mattes is the words of consecration. No matter how big a language barrier, the priest must say the words that Our Lord said and that Holy Church has preserved in the Canon in Latin and translated in the vernacular languages.

 

[JimG]

Well, if you’re looking to quibble over theological precision, let’s start with your assertion.

The physical properties of the wine and bread never change – they never become ‘different’, even in a way that’s imperceptible. Rather, the substance of the wine and bread are transformed (bad, un-philosophical use of term – sorry!) into the substance of Christ. So, whereas before consecration we have:

substance of bread and wine + accidents of bread and wine = bread and wine

after the consecration, we have:

substance of Christ + accidents of bread and wine = Eucharist

Strictly speaking, “wine and bread” does not change to Christ.

By the same token, then, Christ does not change into bread and wine. Rather, Christ allows his substance to replace the substance of bread and wine. However, I agree with Joe – in a poetic manner, saying that Christ allows His substance to be clothed with the accidents of bread and wine, is not an improper way to think about the Eucharist. Even theologically, if you’re talking about substance of Christ rather than Jesus, this is theologically sound.

Nope – I bet that, by and large, most 40-somethings haven’t even thought this deeply about the Eucharist. Your reflections on this subject probably outstrip the vast majority of your peers!

Let me add one refinement. The substance of the bread and wine is changed into the body and blood of Christ, who is present, whole and entire, under each of the species or any particle thereof.

The accidents of bread and wine do not inhere in Christ. They inhere in no substance whatsoever. The substance of bread and wine is gone, replaced by Jesus. And Jesus has his own proper accidents, which are not those of bread and wine. The accidents of bread and wine remain, but without inhering in any substance.

 

[StJudePray4Me]

Well, if you’re looking to quibble over theological precision, let’s start with your assertion.

The physical properties of the wine and bread never change – they never become ‘different’, even in a way that’s imperceptible. Rather, the substance of the wine and bread are transformed (bad, un-philosophical use of term – sorry!) into the substance of Christ. So, whereas before consecration we have:

substance of bread and wine + accidents of bread and wine = bread and wine

after the consecration, we have:

substance of Christ + accidents of bread and wine = Eucharist

Strictly speaking, “wine and bread” does not change to Christ.

By the same token, then, Christ does not change into bread and wine. Rather, Christ allows his substance to replace the substance of bread and wine. However, I agree with Joe – in a poetic manner, saying that Christ allows His substance to be clothed with the accidents of bread and wine, is not an improper way to think about the Eucharist. Even theologically, if you’re talking about substance of Christ rather than Jesus, this is theologically sound.

Nope – I bet that, by and large, most 40-somethings haven’t even thought this deeply about the Eucharist. Your reflections on this subject probably outstrip the vast majority of your peers!

This was SO helpful, thank you!

And actually, it kind of blew my mind, too!

 

[graciew]

Hi there

Not too long ago, I attended a Mass which was presided over by a priest whose first language is not English. His English is excellent, but I mention the fact because I wondered if it contributed to something he said which sort of blew my mind…

Ever since I was a little girl, my understanding of the Eucharist was that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, even though they do not look or taste any different, they are different and no one understands how, it’s just a mystery of faith. The End. So… wine and bread CHANGE to body and blood.

Now, this priest said something along the lines of how Jesus allows his body and blood to be changed into bread and wine… and I went WHOA! Opposite! Body and Blood CHANGE into wine and bread?!

Is this correct? Is this a big deal? Did everyone but me already think of this and I am bringing up the rear, at age 40-something to have never thought of this? I was too embarrassed to ask the priest in front of everyone after Mass, and it’s not a parish I visit regularly, so I haven’t seen him again.

Your thoughts?

If he was a Spanish speaker the phrase is familiar to me.
And this is most often used to point out His humility.
It is clear to us bread and wine become HIs Body and Blood.Yet His choice to be present and real in something so simple and humble as a piece of bread,is sometimes expressed along these lines .Not exactly isolated as quoted but along these lines.
At least,this is my experience.