Is there an issue with this song text?
  • cmbearer
    Posts: 75
    My new parish has been singing this communion song during Advent for quite some time. And of course, it has come up in discussion to use it once again this year. I was not familiar with it until now.

    After having read through the text, I noticed (what I think is) a problematic, or at lease a confusing phrase. Am I reading too much into this? Am I way off base, and should I not care about little prepositions this much?

    The refrain:

    Jesus, hope of the world, Jesus, light in our darkness,
    Here we await you, O Master Divine.
    Here we receive you in Bread and in Wine;
    Jesus, hope of the world.

    from the song "Jesus, Hope of the World" by Deanna Light and Paul A. Tate from WLP.

    Does the use of the preposition 'in' from the 3rd line suggest consubstantiation rather than transubstantiation?

    Thanked by 3CCooze M. Jackson Osborn eft94530
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,510
    Yes it does.

    Thanked by 3Adam Wood cmbearer eft94530
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,912
    Kathy is right. The song "The Supper of the Lord" was suppressed at my old parish for exactly the same reason: it refers to the Eucharist as just "bread and wine" instead of emphasizing the Real Presence.
    Thanked by 2francis cmbearer
  • francis
    Posts: 10,825
    Also, we don't 'own' the darkness. Bad theology. We are children of light.

    "For all you are the children of light, and children of the
    day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness."

    1 Thessalonians 5:5 (DR)

    That is how we thought before we were redeemed.
    Thanked by 2cmbearer Gavin
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Cmbearer,

    Short answer: you're right to be cautious, whether it turns out to be heretical or not. We don't receive Jesus in Bread and Wine, but under the appearances of Bread and Wine.

    Now, is it possible to refer to the Sacred Host using the term "bread"? Panis angelicus fit panis hominum suggests something here. Trustworthy Catholic sources can use the term "bread".

    Is WLP a trustworthy Catholic resource?

    Thanked by 2cmbearer Gavin
  • RomanticStringsRomanticStrings
    Posts: 339
    In general, how do we explain the distinction between songs like this and Communion antiphons, esp. Panem de caelo or the RM antiphon, "I am the living bread..."?

    The one that is especially challenging for me to imagine how to explain is the RM antiphon (27th Sun OT B), "Though many, we are one bread, one body, for we partake of the one Bread and one Chalice." I know it is Scripture, and is an element of our understanding of Communion, but it seems to lend itself to "One Bread, One Body," which I think is a questionable song.
    Thanked by 1PaxMelodious
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    "Bread" can be shorthand. The brethren were in common in the breaking of the bread...... I am the bread of life.... and such.

    Remember: even the devil can quote Scripture. On Eagles' Wings, even though it quotes Scripture is considered by some to be utterly unsuited for Mass, and a wholly unsuitable musical treatment of this otherwise wonderful Biblical text.

  • fcbfcb
    Posts: 338
    I know it is Scripture...but it seems to lend itself to "One Bread, One Body," which I think is a questionable song.


    Really? So now we're treating the words of Scripture as if they are second best, and should be accepted or rejected based on something else? Both Scripture and tradition refer to what we receive in communion as "bread." The Catholic tradition has made abundantly clear that this in no way derogates from our claim that what is on the altar after the consecration and received in communion is the body and blood of Christ.

    Whether or not one judges OBOB a good song or not, its words are a pretty close paraphrase of Paul and the Didache, both of which should serve as standards by which we judge orthodoxy.
    Thanked by 3Gavin jeffinpa PaxMelodious
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,980
    Really? So now we're treating the words of Scripture as if they are second best, and should be accepted or rejected based on something else? Both Scripture and tradition refer to what we receive in communion as "bread."


    I don't have a problem with scripture, but some often heretical interpretations have occurred since scripture was written - especially after dear demented Luther muddied the waters. I understand what is meant by "bread." Unfortunately, due to culture and/or poor Catholic education, many seem not to understand. One has to be careful to not overemphasize the "bread" concept without clearly presenting the Church's teachings on transubstantiation. Fortunately or unfortunately, I have never heard or seen the referenced song.
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,415
    Deacon Fritz makes a potent observation.
    There is this to consider, though -
    in a society in which fewer and fewer Catholic people have a very sophisticated understanding of the Objective Presence of our Lord in the sacrament, one should not but err on the side of safety and assured orthodoxy by rejecting the language of songs such as these. I have read of polls which reveal that shocking numbers of Catholics do not believe in the objective presence of Jesus in the sacrament and consider it to be a mere memorial, or, at best, sort of a Lutheran 'consubstantiation'. Songs such as this one do not help. (Nor, I suspect, are they meant to!)
    Thanked by 2Gavin eft94530
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,510
    As mentioned above, the problem isn't actually with the word "bread," but with the word "in."

    The Blessed Sacrament is the bread of heaven, the bread of angels, the bread of life, the one bread. But it is not in the bread. The bread is not a container for the Blessed Sacrament.
    Thanked by 10ClergetKubisz CharlesW Adam Wood M. Jackson Osborn canadash CHGiffen cmbearer Gavin eft94530 Pax
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,912
    So now we're treating the words of Scripture as if they are second best, and should be accepted or rejected based on something else?


    Isn't this what happens when we replace Propers with hymns?
    Thanked by 1eft94530
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,482
    Kathy demonstrates why clarity of thinking, and not guilt-by-association thinking, is important.
    Thanked by 3Kathy canadash CHGiffen
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,510
    Adam, can you please say that better?

    j/k
    Thanked by 1Adam Wood
  • canadashcanadash
    Posts: 1,501
    I know I thanked you Kathy, but I want to say it again, "Thank you." Now this all makes sense.
    Thanked by 1Kathy
  • RomanticStringsRomanticStrings
    Posts: 339
    fcb, I didn't mean to imply I am questioning or rejecting the Scripture. I simply want to be able to explain the difference between official antiphons that refer to the Eucharist as bread and songs that do so. In the case of OBOB, perhaps the judgement is completely musical, a different discussion than Scriptural/theological judgement.

    In the case of the OP, it seems that a person might point out that certain antiphons refer to bread, and use that as an excuse to have songs that refer to bread, ignoring the important theological differences of quoting Scripture versus newly composing texts referring to bread. If I were to get in to a discussion such as this, what might I present as a way to distinguish the two? (OBOB was thus perhaps a bad example.)
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    The song "The Supper of the Lord" was suppressed at my old parish for exactly the same reason: it refers to the Eucharist as just "bread and wine"

    A point of departure, ClergetK...- you didn't quote Rosania's actual text which should obviously mitigate to some extent, your comment as incomplete. The verbatim under question:
    "Precious body, precious blood, SEEN as bread and wine...." "seen" being the modifier that is consistent with Chris GZ's "under the appearances of..." qualifier. As deacon points out, we don't have to hammer didactics to drive home the Real Presence to PIPs. "The Supper of the Lord" is hardly vox dei, or fatally ambiguous as "I myself, am the Bread of Life."


  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Charles,

    The text must have been edited since the last time I set eyes upon it. "Seen" wasn't in the text I remembered.

    Still, the weakness of "seen" isn't that it might be consistent with Thomism, but that in our modern, tone-deaf society, "seen" will be equated with "appears, because is".

    There is such rich poetry about Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. Why must one settle for the sing-songy, b-grade of "The Supper of the Lord"?
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,980
    The text must have been edited since the last time I set eyes upon it. "Seen" wasn't in the text I remembered.


    I believe it was edited. The copy I saw said "in," not "seen." That is why SOTL is banned in my place. Aside from that, the music is too sugary for even Mrs. Butterworth.
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    Well, gentlemen, I will take your remarks as validating the notion that Rosania's text as currently proffered, passes the heresy litmus, even if weak on text and taste. CDub, the change wasn't "in," as you'd have to sing the adverb twice, but "here." But I do also advocate that we check the source of discomfort thoroughly before dismissing it as deficient. (Alliteration alert, darn did it again.) Personally, I don't think Rosania's ditty is the worst of sacropop lot.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,980
    Personally, I don't think Rosania's ditty is the worst of sacropop lot.


    Probably not. There is always worse out there somewhere. A friend has the sheet music so I will check it this weekend. I don't own a copy so I will have to examine his.
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,912
    From the Catechism of Trent:

    Here pastors should observe that we should not at all be surprised, if, even after consecration, the Eucharist is sometimes called bread. It is so called, first because it retains the appearance of bread, and secondly because it keeps the natural quality of bread, which is to support and nourish the body.

    Moreover, such phraseology is in perfect accordance with the usage of the Holy Scriptures, which call things by what they appear to be, as may be seen from the words of Genesis which say that Abraham saw three men, when in reality he saw three Angels. In like manner the two Angels who appeared to the Apostles after the Ascension of Christ the Lord into heaven, are called not Angels, but men.
    Thanked by 1Gavin
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,510
    Fine. Sure.

    But Genesis does not say the angels were "in" the men.

    That would be weird.
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Clerget,

    Trent isn't mistaken.

    It should be noted, however, that in our own day, the clear intent of the Church is being obscured even by the hierarchs.

    See Abp Cupich's presser.

    Thanked by 3M. Jackson Osborn eft94530 francis
  • cmbearer
    Posts: 75
    The Blessed Sacrament is the bread of heaven, the bread of angels, the bread of life, the one bread. But it is not in the bread. The bread is not a container for the Blessed Sacrament.


    Thank you Kathy. This is what I was thinking also. As you stated, I was not taking exception to the word "Bread" but what is implied with receiving Jesus IN bread and wine.

    Isn't there a fundamental difference between something being in something and something becoming something else?

    Isn't the vocabulary we choose to use important in the teaching of the faith?

    I think that I will begin the conversation with the Pastor and the "liturgy committee" and see if they have given it much thought. At the very least, it may get some people thinking even if we are stuck using it again this Advent.
    Thanked by 2eft94530 francis
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,980
    Trent isn't mistaken.


    Trent was always mistaken. LOL.

    My carefulness in using "bread" comes from not wanting to cross that fine line that distinguishes Catholicism from Lutheranism. Lutherans use the term "bread" as well, but they mean something entirely different. The word should be further explained when used, with attached Catholic definitions of bread attached.
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,912
    It should be noted, however, that in our own day, the clear intent of the Church is being obscured even by the hierarchs.


    Oh, absolutely. I agree completely. I was just looking for Canons or documentation that discussed the matter. I thought Trent might have something relevant, so I posted what I found.
  • fcbfcb
    Posts: 338
    The Blessed Sacrament is the bread of heaven, the bread of angels, the bread of life, the one bread. But it is not in the bread. The bread is not a container for the Blessed Sacrament.


    OK, but Paul says that God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, and I don't think we want to say that Paul was a Nestorian; likewise, I don't think we want to say that every text that speaks of the body of Christ being present "in" bread and wine is teaching consubstantiation. I don't want to beat a dead horse, but I do think that charity requires us to read poetic texts as poetic and not as scholastic treatises.

    [On a side note: a few years back two of my children observed to our music director that "The Supper of the Lord" sounded like something from Aladdin; we haven't sung it since. It's nice to have your children do your dirty work for you.]
    Thanked by 2cmbearer chonak
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,510
    Fritz, my Greek is a bit rusty.

    Is it clear to you that the "in Christ" is not a dative of means?
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    FCB,

    Charity requires us to read it not as scholarly treatises unless it is one. As I said earlier, the question of how to understand something partly depends on the a priori reliability of the source. I'll read St. Francis de Sales and see that mere observance of the rules isn't evidence of holiness -- and acknowledge the sure-footed truth he proclaims. When I hear -- on the other hand --- that we need to not use doctrine as dead stones to throw at each other from His Holiness I find myself asking: "Who uses doctrine as a dead stone?"
  • fcbfcb
    Posts: 338
    Is it clear to you that the "in Christ" is not a dative of means?


    I'm sure that my Greek is even rustier than yours, but I would think that a dative of means would still easily lend itself to a Nestorian interpretation, right? It certainly doesn't express the hypostatic union (a little insider Thomist baseball just for you: I tend to think that the notion of Christ's humanity as an organ of his divinity needs the prior presumption of the hypostatic union not to have Nestorian implications; its part of Thomas's genius (borrowing, of course from Damascene) that he can use the notion within the context of a Cyrillian Christology).
Add a Comment