Bread & Wine or Body & Blood?

[Alethiaphile]

It is not wrong to refer to the consecrated elements as “bread and wine”, They are both bread and wine AND (more importantly) the body and blood of Christ.

St. Paul: “Every time, then, you eat this bread… you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.” (I Corinthians 11:26).

St. Irenaeus of Lyons: “For as the bread of the earth, receiving the invocation of God, is no longer common bread (note: he didn’t say “no longer bread”) but Eucharist, consisting of two things, an earthly and a heavenly…” Adv. Haer. IV, xviii.

And Pope Gelasius I (sixth century): “Certainly the sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ that we receive are a divine reality, because of which and through which we are made sharers of the divine nature. Nevertheless the substance or nature of bread and wine does not cease to exist.” De Duabus Naturis.

Joe

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

**Excuse me, but you are wrong. **They are not both bread and wine and the Precious Body and Blood. What you state here is a heresy that has been condemned by the church. It is called consubstantiation. The Catholic church has condemned this teaching. It teaches that transubstantiation takes place, not consubstantiation. Consubstantiation teaches that the bread and body are both substantially present. It teaches that the wine and blood are each present, instead of the form of bread and wine being present, but not actually being bread and wine. If you think that is impossible, think of the entirety of creation which took place with a single thought of God. If he can do this, transubstantiation can take place. Remember, God is not subject to the laws of nature (his creation). Rather creation is subject to God.
Deacon Ed B

 

[Alethiaphile]

**Excuse me, but you are wrong. **They are not both bread and wine and the Precious Body and Blood. What you state here is a heresy that has been condemned by the church. It is called consubstantiation. The Catholic church has condemned this teaching. It teaches that transubstantiation takes place, not consubstantiation. Consubstantiation teaches that the bread and body are both substantially present. It teaches that the wine and blood are each present, instead of the form of bread and wine being present, but not actually being bread and wine. If you think that is impossible, think of the entirety of creation which took place with a single thought of God. If he can do this, transubstantiation can take place. Remember, God is not subject to the laws of nature (his creation). Rather creation is subject to God.
Deacon Ed B

Excuse me, but I don’t believe that St. Paul, St. Irenaeus, and Pope St. Gelasius were wrong.
And, no, I don’t think either view is impossible. Joe

 

[allhers]

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 hear from the Priest that we are to call them the Precious Body and Precious Blood. I hear from many others the same thing everyone else hears, anything but what they are to be called. Obediance would be nice wouldn’t it?

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

Excuse me, but I don’t believe that St. Paul, St. Irenaeus, and Pope St. Gelasius were wrong.
And, no, I don’t think either view is impossible. Joe

It’s always helpful to look at what the Catechism has to say:

1376
The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.”

 

[porthos11]

Nevertheless, St. Paul indeed uses the term bread to refer to the Body of Christ and under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and the venerable Roman Canon does the same. For example (using the older traditional translation):

Wherefore, O Lord, we thy servants, as also thy holy people, calling to mind the blessed passion of the same Christ thy Son our Lord, and also his rising up from hell, and his glorious ascension into heaven, do offer unto thy most excellent majesty, of thine own gifts bestowed upon us,a pure http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/lmass/img/cross.jpg victim, a holy http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/lmass/img/cross.jpg victim, a spotless http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/lmass/img/cross.jpg victim, the holy http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/lmass/img/cross.jpg Bread of eternal life, and the Chalice http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/lmass/img/cross.jpg of everlasting salvation.

Clearly using the language of John 6 here. But it’s still referred to as bread.

Later in the Mass, the priest said this prayer:

I will take the** Bread of heaven**, and call upon the name of the Lord.

People can and still do use the language of appearances, and since even our older liturgies and even inspired apostles used the term “bread”, then there is indeed precedent for the use of the term.

The thing is, is it proper for us to assume the worst in people who say “bread” instead of “body of Christ” and think of them as heretics first rather than faithful people merely using the language of appearances?

 

[Elzee]

The thing is, is it proper for us to assume the worst in people who say “bread” instead of “body of Christ” and think of them as heretics first rather than faithful people merely using the language of appearances?

No, but getting used to saying “Precious Body and Blood” instead of bread may help alleviate the confusion of Catholics adn non-Catholis that is is not bread and wine any longer - it is our Lord. So, while certainly it’s not wrong (St. Paul says ‘bread’ as it has been pointed out), confused times may call for a change in the words we use to clear up the confusion.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

It might help to realize that statistics say that 30% to 45% of professed Catholics do not believe in the real presence in the Eucharistic. I have had many cases where people have expressed their disbelief with a smug smile of intellectualism and a lack of faith. I was shocked by the large number.
Deacon Ed B

 

[pnewton]

It might help to realize that statistics say that 30% to 45% of professed Catholics do not believe in the real presence in the Eucharistic. I have had many cases where people have expressed their disbelief with a smug smile of intellectualism and a lack of faith. I was shocked by the large number.
Deacon Ed B

I have offten heard this figure and wonder how many of professed Catholics also do not attend Mass every week. We might find that has a greater correlation than anything.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I had not thought of it that way, but I think you just hit on something.
Deacon Ed B

 

[Jolly_Joe]

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

Well, the real answer is that the Bible does it.

1Co 10:16-17 ESV
(16) The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?
(17) Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.

It does, like other passages use the word cup for the wine, but as you can see, it refers to the bread and it’s clearly after institution. It even appeals to the one bread as proof we are one body.

So it would be a real stretch to say it is improper to refer to the wine and bread as such even after institution.

JJ

 

[MrS]

It might help to realize that statistics say that 30% to 45% of professed Catholics do not believe in the real presence in the Eucharistic. I have had many cases where people have expressed their disbelief with a smug smile of intellectualism and a lack of faith. I was shocked by the large number.
Deacon Ed B

Sad. (However, I often hear that only 30-45% do believe) We hear “bread and wine” from the mouths of those who often fall short of the true level of reverence (or basic understanding) that is necessary.

The non-Catholic is perhaps well aware of how we have become “protestantized” in our liturgy. It is bread and wine for them, whether it be their service or ours.

The Catholic who stays home on Sundays is unconcerned about obligation, and certainly not in tune with the Real Presence. To them, bread and wine is all it is…so missing Mass is not missing much at all for them.

The Catholic in the pew often opts for the casual, or horizontal liturgy… to include less kneeling, less silence, hand reception, excessive EMHC who are often so casual in what they do, etc.

So I would agree that most of those who express reverence, oral, physical, and emotional for the Body and Blood of the Lord would be found in the 35%.

This is a big job for our priests and catechists, parents, teachers. But we have the tools, we have the history, we have the truths.

As B16 has expressed… the Church will be smaller and stronger.

 

[MrS]

So it would be a real stretch to say it is improper to refer to the wine and bread as such even after institution.

JJ

Agreed… but the understanding of the Eucharist has developed as the Church has developed.

A continued striving for care in terminology is a great thing. When we revert to “simple” terms, or choose our own easier terms (lector for reader, or Euchristic Minister for EMHC), we offer less to those who do not know the difference. We cloud the distinction and thus cloud the theology. Not a good thing IMHO.