This is one of the post-consecration responses by the faithful. At my parish, we use it just about every Sunday. But I find it highly troubling–haven’t the bread and wine ceased to exist by the time this is sung, so the chant is not truthful? Shouldn’t it instead say, “When we eat of his flesh and drink of his blood…,” though that obviously sounds a little graphic. Thoughts?
They are still under the appearance of the bread and wine, so I don’t really see a flaw in it. If nothing else, it is metonymy, saying one thing while meaning something which is closely related.
1 Corinthians 11:26: “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.”
This Memorial Acclamation is probably the best one because it follows the institution narrative in 1 Corinthians 23-26:
23 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread,
24 and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”l
26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
And at the very least, “cup” is certainly a metonymy, since we drink the precious blood, not the cup! :rolleyes:
I understand the OP’s line of thinking, but a nearly verbatim quote from the Scriptures has to be a safe bet.
It is the substance that changes while the accidents do not. We are seeing bread and wine even as it is body blood soul and divinity. Nothing wro.g witb what is said.
Scripture references are troubling?
1 Corinthians 11:26, which is quoted in this Memorial Acclamation, is pulled from a section of scripture that has some of the most convincing evidence for Christ’s presence in the Eucharist.