Is the hymn Supper of the Lord heretical?

[april32010]

This? This is the hymn you’re worried about? We sing A Mighty Fortress. Well, they sing it. I just hold up my fist in silent protest. Then the ushers ask me to leave, it’s a big scene.

you protest during Mass,that is is the definition of Protestantism isn’t it ?

 

[Sirach2]

Paulisrael:

St. Paul doesn’t say “wine.” The Bread of Life we know is true. But we don’t refer to His Precious Blood as wine.

Neither do we refer to His Precious Body as “bread.”

The accidents (appearances) are bread and wine. That we know. But the substance is Him. So the bread and wine no longer exist. “Precious body precious blood here in bread and wine…”

From the CCC:

**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.

In your OP you stated: “Precious body precious blood here in bread and wine…”

I do not understand why you believe this is heretical, because He truly IS present “here in bread and wine.” The Church has always taught this. The hymn correctly states that truth. Jesus is not only present in the accidents of the bread, but also in the accidents of the wine, which is truly His “precious blood.” When we receive either species (accidents) of bread OR wine, we receive both the body and blood of Our Lord, Jesus. Some folks cannot partake of the bread because of allergies, but they are permitted to partake of the “wine” instead and they receive the entire Christ, not just His blood.

The difference is that Jesus says He is the Bread of Life, but he never says His Blood is wine. that’s where I’m coming from. The wine no longer exists. So how can He be there IN bread and wine?

How can He be IN bread, for that matter? The bread no longer exists, either. You are picking straws trying to make a new dogma. IOW, just because you believe St Paul did not say “wine” … we know that Jesus took the wine, saying: “This is the cup of My Blood, the Blood of the new and eternal covenant…” The “cup” is the wine that He blessed and consecrated.

It looks as if you are trying to make scripture conform to Church teaching, rather than trust the Church to teach authoritatively what the scripture means. Try reading John 6:54-57. There is no heresy whatsoever, other than in your misunderstanding.

 

[Phemie]

Neither do we refer to His Precious Body as “bread.”

From the CCC:

In your OP you stated: “Precious body precious blood here in bread and wine…”

I do not understand why you believe this is heretical, because He truly IS present “here in bread and wine.” The Church has always taught this. The hymn correctly states that truth. Jesus is not only present in the accidents of the bread, but also in the accidents of the wine, which is truly His “precious blood.” When we receive either species (accidents) of bread OR wine, we receive both the body and blood of Our Lord, Jesus. Some folks cannot partake of the bread because of allergies, but they are permitted to partake of the “wine” instead and they receive the entire Christ, not just His blood.

How can He be IN bread, for that matter? The bread no longer exists, either. You are picking straws trying to make a new dogma. IOW, just because you believe St Paul did not say “wine” … we know that Jesus took the wine, saying: “This is the cup of My Blood, the Blood of the new and eternal covenant…” The “cup” is the wine that He blessed and consecrated.

It looks as if you are trying to make scripture conform to Church teaching, rather than trust the Church to teach authoritatively what the scripture means. Try reading John 6:54-57. There is no heresy whatsoever, other than in your misunderstanding.

I don’t think he’s trying to make a new dogma.

His concern is that the song says ‘in bread and wine’ but that is incorrect since the the Church teaches that bread and wine no longer exist, although to our perception they haven’t changed. Only the Body and Blood of Christ are there under the ‘appearance’ of bread and wine. The hymn makes it seem as though both exist together - consubstantiation - and that’s his concern.

I venture to say that the average PIP could not tell you the difference between ‘consubstantiation’ and ‘transubstantiation’. In fact, catechesis being what it is, the young person in the pew may never have heard the terms, particularly in parishes that use the Apostles Creed on a regular basis.

 

[Sirach2]

I can’t see how you get that, Phemie. The song clearly says that the Precious Bread and Precious Blood are present here IN the bread and wine. I doubt that other Catholics think these accidents are coexisting side by side as separate entities. It simply says what we believe: the Body and Blood are present IN the accidents of bread and wine. It doesn’t have to be spelled out that they are *accidents. *

It is very remote possibility that anyone catechised in the faith would interpret it that way. We are not under obligation to make hymns spell out the doctrine of transubstantiation. It is understood. I suppose the burden of proof is on the doubters to show cause that MOST people in the church would think otherwise.

Can you imagine for one moment that anyone receiving the Eucharist, and hearing the words “The Body of Christ” as the priest distributes it, that he would have to clarify the host is merely the accidents? It is understood.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

I don’t think he’s trying to make a new dogma.

His concern is that the song says ‘in bread and wine’ but that is incorrect since the the Church teaches that bread and wine no longer exist, although to our perception they haven’t changed. Only the Body and Blood of Christ are there under the ‘appearance’ of bread and wine. The hymn makes it seem as though both exist together - consubstantiation - and that’s his concern.

I venture to say that the average PIP could not tell you the difference between ‘consubstantiation’ and ‘transubstantiation’. In fact, catechesis being what it is, the young person in the pew may never have heard the terms, particularly in parishes that use the Apostles Creed on a regular basis.

If you agree that the hymn in question seems to support consubstantiation, what are your thoughts regarding the Memorial Acclamation in the Roman Missal: “When we eat this bread and drink this cup…?” As that occurs after the Consecration, would it be your opinion that the Missal also teaches consubstantiation?

 

[Sirach2]

Good point!

 

[Phemie]

If you agree that the hymn in question seems to support consubstantiation, what are your thoughts regarding the Memorial Acclamation in the Roman Missal: “When we eat this bread and drink this cup…?” As that occurs after the Consecration, would it be your opinion that the Missal also teaches consubstantiation?

No, I wouldn’t because I understand the way it’s being used. In this case it is the symbol being the thing it rather than representing the thing. I haven’t studied philosophy but do get that there are two schools and this represents an earlier understanding of the word symbol than the understanding that we have today.

 

[paulisrael]

How can He be IN bread, for that matter? The bread no longer exists, either. You are picking straws trying to make a new dogma. IOW, just because you believe St Paul did not say “wine” … we know that Jesus took the wine, saying: “This is the cup of My Blood, the Blood of the new and eternal covenant…” The “cup” is the wine that He blessed and consecrated.

It looks as if you are trying to make scripture conform to Church teaching, rather than trust the Church to teach authoritatively what the scripture means. Try reading John 6:54-57. There is no heresy whatsoever, other than in your misunderstanding.

I perhaps poorly explained myself. I know the bread no longer exists…thus my original issue with this song for years now. I appreciate the further explanations of our faith to help me understand.

What I don’t appreciate is your insinuations of trying to make Scripture conform to Church teaching, and trying to make a new dogma. I simply have been trying to clear up my issues with this song. Thankfully I’m not one who would just leave based on others’ accusations and assumptions.

Perhaps you never intended the way it came off. If so, no worries. Please though…in the future be more careful what you accuse people of. Thanks for all your help though…and to all others of you who’ve tried to help me with this!

 

[paulisrael]

*What I don’t appreciate ARE…

 

[Sirach2]

Paulisrael:

*What I don’t appreciate is your insinuations of trying to make Scripture conform to Church teaching, and trying to make a new dogma

I can appreciate that you perceived this to be a firm rebuttal, but it was prompted by your assertions against Church hierarchy and seeming dismissal of others’ replies to you. (Bold emphasis below is mine)

Paulisrael:

Honestly, yes I trust our bishops…to a point. Lies can and do sneak into the Church in undetected ways…and have been so at times by the hierarchy. I believe in Jesus and His Church, but I’m also very aware of human nature…as well as the cleverness of the enemy.

and…

I see only one way to take this…and no matter what’s been said here it’s still not conclusive.

We have been terrible at teaching and proclaiming the Truth for decades. It’s now the worst it’s ever been. And then **they **go and put songs like this in the hymnals? No wonder so many are confused!

I’m pleased that my sharing has apparently been helpful to you, at long last.

 

[paulisrael]

I can appreciate that you perceived this to be a firm rebuttal, but it was prompted by your assertions against Church hierarchy and seeming dismissal of others’ replies to you. I’m pleased that my sharing has apparently been helpful to you, at long last.

Just because we are Catholicd, doesn;t mean we don;t or can’t question the hierarchy. If anything, that’s healthy. If the scandals have taught us anything, it’s that we can’t just blindly assume everything is right. History itself has taught us that as well. Our bishops aren’t perfect any more than we are. All I was dong was questioning because from what I read I wasn’t gaining an understanding. So I 1) didn’t challenge the authority of the Church, or 2) intentionally dismiss anyone. As for my comment about catechesis…I stand by that. Thirty percent or so of Catholics don’t believe in the True Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. The biggest reasons, as far as I can tell are lack of good catechesis and the current culture. We as a Church have failed verily (myself included) in sharing the Truth of Christ. We really have to fix this. And to be honest, many of our hymns seem to be wishy washy. We could use a good old dose of Catholicism in the Catholic Church. It would seem Pope Benedict XVI agrees from what he’s said during his papacy.

I apologize if I’ve given the wrong impressions. I’m coming from a good place with this. If not heresy, then it would be good for clarification. Too many don’t know the Truth…and we barely hear it these days…even and especially at Mass. Thank you for hyour sincere attempts to help me understand.