Bread & Wine or Body & Blood?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deacon_Ed_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Deacon_Ed_B

Guest
Why are so many Catholics in the habit of referring to the Holy Eucharist as bread and wine, when that is not what it is? Through the miracle of transubstantiation, the bread and wine are changed into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. Bread and wine are no longer present. We should refer to the sacred species as the precious body or the sacred host, and the precious blood. I have even heard those who train our extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist refer to their roles as minister of the bread or minister of the wine. What do you hear?
Deacon Ed B
 
I agree, you don’t hear much of the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ being talked about in the Church anymore. Perhaps this is because Protestants talk consubstantiation and this has pervaded Catholic thinking, I don’t know. Perhaps we squabble too much about reception in the hand. Perhaps we have just been too complacent and receive just for the sake of receiving without asking what we are really receiving. Disconnect with the spiritual world. There are probably a lot of other theories but I don’t know the #1 reason.
 
It is not a new problem. Paul wrote about it in a letter to the Corinthinians. The people were gathering for the Lord’s Supper, but were not considering why they were there. This is contained in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34. I want to mention specifically verses 27-29 "Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself; and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.’ So, old probelms die hard. People not discerning the body and blood of the Lord, as Paul states eat and drink damnation onto themselves. Further if a priest is leading his parishoners toward irreverence for the body and blood of our lord, then as Christ says he will be accountable, “for whosover leads my sheep astray will be held accountable for it.” Sorry if that is misquoted. Anyways it will all be taken care of in the end.

Also, my view on the whole reception in the hand is like when Napoleon was crowned Emperor of the French. Napoloeon had Pope Pius VII come to coronate him. As is shown in that famous painting, Pius is about to crown him, and Napoleon takes the crown and crowns himself. It seems quite comparable to communion. The priest has the Body, Blood, SOul, and Divinity of CHrist, he is ready to place it upon your tongue, but you take it and place it upon your own tongue. Napoleon thought he was more powerful than the Pope. He could crown himself, I wonder what goes through a person’s mind when they take the host and put it on their own tongue?
 
As to your last statement about receiving Communion in the hand, I could not disagree with you more. Simply stated, if Rome and the bishops say it is OK, then it is OK. As to the question of what goes through their minds,? As one who received Communion in my hands, before I ever became a Deacon almost 17 years ago, I was focused on who and what I was receiving. The thought of my Lord and My God coming to me as the very food of eternal life has always been foremost in my mind. Hand or tongue are incidental. The essential is who and how we receive Jesus internally in our souls and with what sort of preparation. This however is not the thread. I would like to keep it on the original question.
Deacon Ed B
 
Deacon_Ed_B said:
. I have even heard those who train our extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist refer to their roles as minister of the bread or minister of the wine. What do you hear?
Deacon Ed B
Click to expand...
Perhaps the terms are used of convenience. After all they both are the body and blood of Christ, even under one form. Yet, we refer to the Body of Christ and Blood of Christ, as opposed to the whole tamale. Sometimes shorthand is just needed. I would not judge anyone’s theology for using such terms. Furthermore, if one is referring to the form, the terms bread and wine are correct. Such terms are even employed by St. Paul in his writings.

Just some thoughts, but then I live in a protected bubble in my parish, I think. We do not mince words about the Real Presence of Christ.
 
I started this thread because of questions I have had from protestants. i.e., If you really believe it is the body and blood, why do you call it the bread and wine if you say it is not that anymore.We can give all kinds of excuses but they are no longer bread and wine.
Deacon Ed B
 
Deacon, with all due respect, you asked a legitimate question in your OP, but you seem to be somewhat belligerent in your replies to those that chose to respond. I will keep this in mind when I respond to such future concerns about Transubstantion, a very important component of Catholic theology.
 
Believe me, I in no way intended to be belligerent. If I came across that way, i profoundly apologize. I guess I am bringing these issues up because I was not compete in the very first post. My fault.(As a side note, - If I intend to be beligerent, there will be no doubt about it.)
Deacon Ed B
 
While it is a heresy to say that the wine and bread do not become the body and blood of Christ, it is equally wrong to indicate that the form changes so that it is no longer in the species of bread and wine. This is not an excuse, but basic Church teaching.
 
While the form of bread and wine remain, it is no longer bread and wine, due to the miracle of transubstantiation. That too is Church teaching. That brings me back to my original question. Why call it bread & wine when it is not bread & wine?
Deacon Ed B
 
Deacon_Ed_B said:
Why are so many Catholics in the habit of referring to the Holy Eucharist as bread and wine, when that is not what it is? Through the miracle of transubstantiation, the bread and wine are changed into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. Bread and wine are no longer present. We should refer to the sacred species as the precious body or the sacred host, and the precious blood. I have even heard those who train our extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist refer to their roles as minister of the bread or minister of the wine. What do you hear?
Deacon Ed B
Click to expand...
Why?

I believe the reasons may be many for individual people, but ultimately, I believe it comes from a lack of faith from someone somewhere.

But then that person with little faith, gets in a position of authority and passes on this terminolgy that others repeat without really thinking about it, agree with it, laziness, misunderstandings that they have run into with non-Catholics and don’t want to explain each and everytime,

Thankfully in our church, those in charge of training stress the Body and blood aspects.
 
Deacon_Ed_B said:
Why call it bread & wine when it is not bread & wine?
Deacon Ed B
Click to expand...
And I answered one reason why some people do. I know it is not the only one. Another may be that they are following the usage of St. Paul, as he used the words in 1 Corinthians.
 
I would love to believe they are following the usage of St. Paul. But somehow I don’t think that is the case.
Deacon Ed B
 
Deacon_Ed_B said:
I would love to believe they are following the usage of St. Paul. But somehow I don’t think that is the case.
Deacon Ed B
Click to expand...
I thought of a third reason. It might be used when distinguishing between the two species. After all, they both are the Body and Blood of Christ.

If you do not think that is the case, then I misunderstood the question. I took the question more literal than rhetorical.
 
After seeing what all of you had to say, it just might be just a personal foible on my part. Every time I hear it, , it’s like I hear a voice within me saying, "but it’s not just bread & wine.
Deacon Ed B
 
I’m not sure why people use the terms bread and wine to refer to the sacred species except, perhaps, for convenience. But there’s something about the terminology we use, just as there’s something about the actions we perform, that’s important.

I was talking with a friend one day about the care we take if a host should be dropped or some of the Precious Blood should be spilled. The host is picked up and consumed, the area of the spill is carefully cleaned. That same care extends to purifying the vessels. We talked about how that care isn’t necessarily for Jesus’ sake – he’s been through worse – but for our own sake. We need to be constantly reminded of what it is we’re dealing with – not just a wafer and some wine, but Jesus himself.

I think the same thing extends to the words we use. It’s not so much that Jesus is somehow lesser if we call communion bread and wine. We’re the ones who lose sight of who and what we’re receiving.

Words, actions, and attitudes are all wrapped up together.
 
Deacon_Ed_B said:
While the form of bread and wine remain, it is no longer bread and wine, due to the miracle of transubstantiation. That too is Church teaching. That brings me back to my original question. Why call it bread & wine when it is not bread & wine?
Deacon Ed B
Click to expand...
I, too, have been quite often a little “hawkish” about this in the same way that you seem to be. It kind of irks me to hear people refer to “bread and wine”.

I posed the question to a priest who is a professor of liturgy (STD in liturgy) and he said that while my logic and point of view are very valid, one should note that even the Eucharistic prayers refer to it as bread and wine, as does scripture. So he said that it’s not exactly “illicit” to refer to it as such, so long as we have an understanding.
 
For post 16.& 17 Thanks for a very good responses. I think you worded it much better than what I did and you really expressed it quite well .
Deacon Ed B
 
SuscipeMeDomine said:
We talked about how that care isn’t necessarily for Jesus’ sake – he’s been through worse – but for our own sake. We need to be constantly reminded of what it is we’re dealing with – not just a wafer and some wine, but Jesus himself.
Click to expand...
I agree with Deacon. Wonderful post.

What would bother me about this whole topic is not so much use of the terms, but exclusive use of the terms, or use of the terms when it does not seem appropriate. For example, “Eat this bread” is such a biblical use it would not bother me, but someone saying they were going to receive the bread or communion wafer seems an inappropriate use. If someone never referred to the body of Christ, but always used “bread”, that would be problematic.

I think I know now where Deacon and PaixGioiaAmor are coming from. I sure can understand being defense of the respect due our Lord.
 
Post 16 is beautiful. Thank you.

I think the reasons are embarrassment and fear.

I think deep down, some people are embarrassed to say we are eating the Body and Blood of Christ, even if they do believe it. It is very “raw language” to the non-Catholic and to some Catholics. This was the case for me years ago. It was uncomfortable - much like the discomfort felt by Jesus’ followers when he gave the Bread of Life discourse, I imagine. I believed it, but to say it, well, that was difficult. I finally figured out that by saying “body and blood” I was forcing myself to face the question: *“Do I have the courage to proclaim my faith and stand by my Lord without embarassment to those who may think I’m crazy and who may ridicule me?” *

As for fear, I think Catholics are afraid of the possibility of having to explain this belief. There are many Catholics who don’t know their faith well enough to explain it, and saying “bread and wine” will not raise the eyebrows or questions that ‘body and blood’ raise with non-Catholics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top