"When we eat this 'bread'"?

Why do we say *‘When we eat this bread and drink this cup we proclaim your death Lord Jesus, until you come again’, * when, at this point during the Mass, the ‘bread’ has been consecrated and is no longer bread?

[quote=Elzee]Why do we say 'When we eat this bread and drink this cup we proclaim your death Lord Jesus, until you come again’, when, at this point during the Mass, the ‘bread’ has been consecrated and is no longer bread?
[/quote]

This is the time when language switches from literal to metaphor.

Because it’s really a quote from scripture. I’ve heard it suggested this passage may in fact be kind of an early Eucharistic prayer. I don’t know if that’s true but in any case it comes from verse 26 of 1 Corinthians 11.

Paul refers to the Body and Blood of Jesus as the ‘bread’ and the ‘cup’. But if you read it in context (see verse 29) you see that he is AFFIRMING that it is Jesus’ Body and Blood rather than denying it.

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.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. 27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. 28 A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.

[quote=Elzee]Why do we say 'When we eat this bread and drink this cup we proclaim your death Lord Jesus, until you come again’, when, at this point during the Mass, the ‘bread’ has been consecrated and is no longer bread?
[/quote]

During consecration the transubstantiation occurs or the changing of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

This is the evidence we have that the meaning of BODY AND BLOOD have been lost, and we are stuck saying bread and wine. This is why we NEED the OLD MASS …
(sorry for the outburst… I am just fed up with this, lax language)

[quote=Elzee]Why do we say 'When we eat this bread and drink this cup we proclaim your death Lord Jesus, until you come again’, when, at this point during the Mass, the ‘bread’ has been consecrated and is no longer bread?
[/quote]

Remember that Christ Himself says “I am the bread that came from Heaven.”

It does not say; When we eat bread and drink wine. It says “This bread” the Eucharist is refered to as “The breaking of the Bread” by the apostles and the early Church.

[quote=HOFseminarian]This is the evidence we have that the meaning of BODY AND BLOOD have been lost, and we are stuck saying bread and wine. This is why we NEED the OLD MASS …
(sorry for the outburst… I am just fed up with this, lax language)
[/quote]

Funny, those were the words of the Apostle Paul and I hardly think he could be described as lax. I don’t think that’s the reason that we have a decrease of a belief in the Real Presence. As has been pointed out, it’s right out of the Bible. And we don’t NEED the OLD MASS, though it would be nice to have it for those who long for it. Trent said that it was impossible for the Church to put forward a defective Mass for the faithful (and I think that they attached an anathema for those who said otherwise, though I may be wrong), so the Mass of Paul VI does exactly what the Church says it does: confects the Sacrifice and propitiates God for our sins.

All fine for us adults in a forum with references to go back to…but our children saying this in Mass may not make the connections. I believe that including this as a form of The Mystery of Faith is clearly indicative of the way that the Novus Ordo does not clearly and forcefully foster the Faith, especially belief in the True Presence.

[quote=HOFseminarian]This is the evidence we have that the meaning of BODY AND BLOOD have been lost, and we are stuck saying bread and wine. This is why we NEED the OLD MASS …
(sorry for the outburst… I am just fed up with this, lax language)
[/quote]

:thumbsup: :clapping:

[quote=JKirkLVNV]Funny, those were the words of the Apostle Paul and I hardly think he could be described as lax. I don’t think that’s the reason that we have a decrease of a belief in the Real Presence. As has been pointed out, it’s right out of the Bible. And we don’t NEED the OLD MASS, though it would be nice to have it for those who long for it. Trent said that it was impossible for the Church to put forward a defective Mass for the faithful (and I think that they attached an anathema for those who said otherwise, though I may be wrong), so the Mass of Paul VI does exactly what the Church says it does: confects the Sacrifice and propitiates God for our sins.
[/quote]

I do not believe that Trent said that. You will have to find that for us.

The Novus Ordo Mass does not contain heresy, it cannot because it was approved by the Church for use. However it can be detrimental to the faith due to the ambigiousness of much of it. Just go to an Anglican communion service, a lutheran service and you will see. They are now just like the Mass of Paul VI - or… let us just go back in time and see that the Mass of Paul VI is identical to their liturgy.

I will never forget what a Lutheral priest who converted to Catholicism said concerning his conversion. He said that when the New Mass came out, when he was still a Lutheran, that one of his parishioners called him and said, “You know what, THEY STOLE OUR LITURGY!!!”

Ken

[quote=oldfogey]All fine for us adults in a forum with references to go back to…but our children saying this in Mass may not make the connections. I believe that including this as a form of The Mystery of Faith is clearly indicative of the way that the Novus Ordo does not clearly and forcefully foster the Faith, especially belief in the True Presence.
[/quote]

On the contrary, I don’t know Catholics who don’t believe in the Real Presence. Do you? Have you actually spoken with any who don’t? How many? Some must exist, as we’ve been constantly told they do, but I don’t know any and I’ve lived in a number of states. If, however, the belief is as widespread as is alledged, I don’t think that can be laid at the feet of the Pauline Mass, but rather with poor catechisis. Now I do know that that exists.

[quote=kleary]I do not believe that Trent said that. You will have to find that for us. I’ll do a search and get back to you.

The Novus Ordo Mass does not contain heresy, it cannot because it was approved by the Church for use. However it can be detrimental to the faith due to the ambigiousness of much of it. Just go to an Anglican communion service, a lutheran service and you will see. They are now just like the Mass of Paul VI - or… let us just go back in time and see that the Mass of Paul VI is identical to their liturgy.** This is an excellent example of why it pays to read history: those liturgys are similar to ours because they have the same liturgical, historical antcedents. For Anglicans, it was the Old Sarum Rite, for example, repressed by Trent. **

I will never forget what a Lutheral priest who converted to Catholicism said concerning his conversion. He said that when the New Mass came out, when he was still a Lutheran, that one of his parishioners called him and said, “You know what, THEY STOLE OUR LITURGY!!!” See above

Ken
[/quote]

The person starting this thread was obviously confused.

Many also are obviously confused concerning a lot of other things they hear and see today.

Another example - “Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again” can be taken as as denial of the Real Presence.

Why?

Because at that moment Jesus is present on the Altar of Sacrifice in the Blessed Sacrament. So then why is He referred to in the third person as if He is not there? Should it not say “You Christ have died, You Christ have risen, You Christ will come again.”

Ken

[quote=kleary]The person starting this thread was obviously confused.

Many also are obviously confused concerning a lot of other things they hear and see today.

Another example - “Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again” can be taken as as denial of the Real Presence.

Why?

Because at that moment Jesus is present on the Altar of Sacrifice in the Blessed Sacrament. So then why is He referred to in the third person as if He is not there? Should it not say “You Christ have died, You Christ have risen, You Christ will come again.”

Ken
[/quote]

Because the Mass is addressed to God the Father (who certainly cannot be seperated from either the Second or the Third Persons of the Trinity)? Because the Son’s Sacrifice is what we offer to propitiate the Father? Because all of the Mass speaks of Christ in the 3rd Person (“on the night before HE was handed over to suffering and death, HE took bread in HIS Sacred Hands, HE broke the bread…” etc.) It’s all in the 3rd person, either in the subjective case or the objective case, except for the Mysterium Fidei “Salvtor Mundi, salva nos, qui per crucem et resurectionem, tuum liberasti nos (Savior of the world, save us, by your Cross and Resurection, you have set us free),” which is in the second person. It is absolutely NOT a denial of the Real and Transubstantial Presence of Our Lord in the Sacrament. I think you are a little confused yourself.

[quote=JKirkLVNV]Because the Mass is addressed to God the Father (who certainly cannot be seperated from either the Second or the Third Persons of the Trinity)? Because the Son’s Sacrifice is what we offer to propitiate the Father? Because all of the Mass speaks of Christ in the 3rd Person (“on the night before HE was handed over to suffering and death, HE took bread in HIS Sacred Hands, HE broke the bread…” etc.) It’s all in the 3rd person, either in the subjective case or the objective case, except for the Mysterium Fidei “Salvtor Mundi, salva nos, qui per crucem et resurectionem, tuum liberasti nos (Savior of the world, save us, by your Cross and Resurection, you have set us free),” which is in the second person. It is absolutely NOT a denial of the Real and Transubstantial Presence of Our Lord in the Sacrament. I think you are a little confused yourself.
[/quote]

This is a brilliant point, Kirk. I’m glad you’re coming around to my way of thinking.

Yes, the Mass is addressed to God. Specifically, the entire Canon is addressed to God. Which is why the people have absolutely no need to hear it at all.

I knew I’d convince you sooner or later. :tiphat:

[quote=Dr. Bombay]This is a brilliant point, Kirk. I’m glad you’re coming around to my way of thinking.

Yes, the Mass is addressed to God. Specifically, the entire Canon is addressed to God. Which is why the people have absolutely no need to hear it at all.

I knew I’d convince you sooner or later. :tiphat:
[/quote]

Wrong!

God doesn’t need anything. The Mass, even the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, is not needed by God. WE need it and it was instituted by God because WE need it, not Him. It propitiates OUR sins. It is entirely and wholly appropriate that we hear what’s going on, WHAT was spent on us for our salvation, what it cost the Ancient of Days. It might make us less apt to sin and thus further offend His Divine Majesty. If it doesn’t matter that we hear it, why does it matter if we’re there at all? We could simply establish priests in chantries to continuously offer the Holy Sacrifice. We wouldn’t have to taint the holy spaces with our uncleaness at all.

I realize we can make (and it places this is certainly evident) the Mass far too horizontal, but I see an equal danger in making it too vertical. It is for us that it exists.

But good try, Doc. Still faithfully shouldering my portion of your sedia gestoria and grumbling quietly to myself.

[quote=kleary]I do not believe that Trent said that. You will have to find that for us.

[/quote]

PS: I’ve emailed a reputable apologist with the question.

[quote=JKirkLVNV]Wrong!

God doesn’t need anything. The Mass, even the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, is not needed by God. WE need it and it was instituted by God because WE need it, not Him. It propitiates OUR sins. It is entirely and wholly appropriate that we hear what’s going on, WHAT was spent on us for our salvation, what it cost the Ancient of Days. It might make us less apt to sin and thus further offend His Divine Majesty. If it doesn’t matter that we hear it, why does it matter if we’re there at all? We could simply establish priests in chantries to continuously offer the Holy Sacrifice. We wouldn’t have to taint the holy spaces with our uncleaness at all.

I realize we can make (and it places this is certainly evident) the Mass far too horizontal, but I see an equal danger in making it too vertical. It is for us that it exists.

But good try, Doc. Still faithfully shouldering my portion of your sedia gestoria and grumbling quietly to myself.
[/quote]

I was going to take you to task here but I don’t want to get off topic.

[quote=kleary]Another example - “Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again” can be taken as as denial of the Real Presence.
[/quote]

This is actually a very poor translation of the latin text. The latin does a much better job of keeping your concern from being a problem. Unfortunatelly ICEL as always thinks people are stupid and thus gives stupid translations - with the aprobation of the Bishops none-the-less.

[quote=JKirkLVNV]Wrong!

God doesn’t need anything. The Mass, even the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, is not needed by God. WE need it and it was instituted by God because WE need it, not Him. It propitiates OUR sins. It is entirely and wholly appropriate that we hear what’s going on, WHAT was spent on us for our salvation, what it cost the Ancient of Days. It might make us less apt to sin and thus further offend His Divine Majesty. If it doesn’t matter that we hear it, why does it matter if we’re there at all? We could simply establish priests in chantries to continuously offer the Holy Sacrifice. We wouldn’t have to taint the holy spaces with our uncleaness at all.
[/quote]

How dare you. I’ll have you know I shower every day.

How many people, after years of attending Mass, actually hear the words? Or are actually conscious of what they are saying in response? Outside of the people on this board, how many Catholics have given any thought at all to “When we eat this bread…?”

I’m not saying it’s any better with a silent Canon. The mind can wander there too. But the priest does not impose his own inflection and interpretation on the text. You are able to have a more intimate dialogue with your Creator without external distractions.

Or that’s how I see it. Your experience may vary. :smiley:

[quote=JKirkLVNV] I realize we can make (and it places this is certainly evident) the Mass far too horizontal, but I see an equal danger in making it too vertical. It is for us that it exists.
[/quote]

Reminds me of that country song from a few years ago: "Too much fun…whats that mean? It’s like too much money, there’s no such thing. It’s a girl too pretty, a car too fast, being
too lucky with too much cash…
" Too vertical? Surely you jest. :frowning:

[quote=JKirkLVNV] But good try, Doc. Still faithfully shouldering my portion of your sedia gestoria and grumbling quietly to myself.
[/quote]

Keep the flax burning, too.

[quote=mosher]I was going to take you to task here but I don’t want to get off topic.

This is actually a very poor translation of the latin text. The latin does a much better job of keeping your concern from being a problem. Unfortunatelly ICEL as always thinks people are stupid and thus gives stupid translations - with the aprobation of the Bishops none-the-less.
[/quote]

It is said that this isn’t going to be among the choices in the new translation (the mythic, elusive new translation) anyway.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.