Safest thing to do is to draw on existing imagery- either scriptural or in the hymns of the great writers of the past.

The assertion made earlier:

saying bread becomes Christ's "flesh" is not a correct statement of the Church's doctrine.

baffles me.

It might not be a "complete" statement, but how can it be untrue, exactly? It's the language Jesus uses in John ("whoever eats my flesh").

Perhaps the problem is an American English problem of specificity? Flesh for us might mean specifically skin or meat. I think it can safely be understood (and is so, by the vast majority of Catholics) as "body" - hence, "the flesh is weak," does not mean "my skin breaks open easily" or "the food tastes bad."

As far as referring to the Blessed Sacrament as "bread" or "wine," this (to me) seems primarily an issue of emphasis. It can't be that it is never appropriate to do so, for scripture talks about "the breaking of the bread" and "the cup."

Again, here, we have a problem with American English and our modern insistence on things being specific things. "Bread" is the cooked preparation of wheat flour and other products (and therefore it is not anything else). But do we really think "our daily bread" refers to a loaf of crusty goodness we consume every 24 hours? Do we always mean the literal consumption of glutenous material when we say that we "broke bread" with our friends? Of course not.

We mean food. Bread is food. Flesh is meat, which is also food. And flesh is also the body- the earthly, real, physical essence of Christ. "My flesh is true food," the Lord says- not "my flesh is present where true food used to be present."

This whole thing goes back to the discussion of biblical imagery. If we draw from the Psalms and the Old Testament, we can't help but talk and sing about bread. And a meal. And actual wine. The Lord has "spread a banquet before me, in the sight of my enemies." And Wisdom has "mixed her wine" and "set her table."

And are we to suppose that we shouldn't sing or pray about how the bread of the angels has become the bread of humans? Are we to suppose that the Israelites were confused when they called the manna "bread from heaven?" Are we to divorce the whole point of why our Lord chose bread and wine, of all earthly things, as the sign and symbol of His greatest sacrament?

Of course not.

The problem isn't referring to it as "bread," the problem is referring to it only as bread. (Or wine, or a meal, or whatever).

The examples you cite above are all (to my mind) fine in and of themselves. They become problematic in a context where the language about the True Presence is diminished or absent.

"One bread, one body" is probably not expressly heretical, but it is hardly a complete statement of doctrine. The problem isn't singing this song (and others like it), but ONLY singing this song and others like it.

(You know... in my opinion.)

Safest thing to do is to draw on existing imagery- either scriptural or in the hymns of the great writers of the past.

Great hymn writers from the past did not write that many hymns intended for use during the reception of holy communion.

How do you justify including a text like Come and Eat this living bread (where bread and wine are not capitalized in Gather III, I might add) and omit the hymn Adoro Te Devote in either Latin or English.

I had nothing to do either with choosing the contents of or, oftentimes, the text editing of items in Gather 3.

Adoro Te Devote is contained in Worship IV, 556.

I agree with your statement about the need for balance in choosing the hymns used at Mass. I don't believe any hymn can contain the totality of Catholic belief.

I also don't see why "flesh" is inconsistent with the Church's definition...maybe Trent did not use the word, but Jesus did, as Adam mentions. The current Catechism also uses it in the Eucharist section.

[St. Thomas indicates his opinion of the proper and improper ways to refer to the consecrated species as "bread" in Summa III.75.8.
According to that, he would agree with the statement

saying bread becomes Christ's "flesh" is not a correct statement of the Church's doctrine

although not for the same reason!]

I don't know that "complete statement of doctrine" is a good test, because who decides what "complete" means? I think the present congregation has to be considered -- is there mostly an accurate understanding of the Eucharist, is there much misunderstanding or blatant denial, or somewhere in between? Whoever is choosing the music must make the judgement.

We don't sing "One Bread, One Body" in my parish since it is not in our hymnal, but if we did sing it, I would be confident that most people would take for granted a proper understanding of the Eucharist, since our priests and catechists do a good job teaching it, and since we are gaining a healthy repertoire of texts that Adam might describe as "complete." However, if your repertoire consists only (or mostly) of texts that a non-liturgical Protestant church would be comfortable with, then you should probably reevaluate.

On the whole I'd say it would be better not to sing about the Eucharistic itself during the Communion rite. Better to sing about the great deeds or mercy of God, or the words of Christ. That's what I find in the tradition anyway. Like this Sunday, Let us praise the God of Heaven and acknowledge him before all the living.

On the rare occasions when we do sing about the Communion at communion time, it seems we sing about His Flesh and Blood, as next Thursday or Sunday, Who chews on my Flesh and drinks my Blood, remains in me, and I in him, the Lord says.

Quod laudabilis et gloriosus et superexaltatus in saecula, propter misericordiam.

Hmm. I rather think that "taste and see that the Lord is good" speaks of the Real Presence in a pre-eminent way.

I rather think that "taste and see that the Lord is good" speaks of the Real Presence in a pre-eminent way.

It does, but in an indirect way. My point is that it does not speak of the Eucharist as such (bread and wine, Body and Blood) like so many modern Communion hymns.

.