It’s saying is that the Mass is offered in an unbloody manner, and it uses the utterly Catholic word “sign.” The “but” I suppose is problematic, but considering a 19th c. Jesuit penned it, I rather doubt the doctrinal error.

I mean... Being from Kentucky, it is a good thing they changed the lyrics.


My interpretation of the “but” rests on the contrast to the appearence with the accidents of bread and wine instead of his physical form in which he underwent suffering. When Mass is offered, he does not suffer in that offering, though it is the same sacrifice since God sees all in a single glance.

It seems to me that “wheat and grape” and “food and drink” are not saying there is no conversion of substance but are in reference to what we see and to the nourishment we receive spiritually and also physically, since the properties remain with the accidents.

The presence is abiding, which isn't the Lutheran doctrine (they believe he is present only for the believer to receive Communion), and it would make many Anglicans uncomfortable (they may reserve the sacrament, but there are significant Calvinist and even Lutheran pockets of the Anglican Communion who would discourage praying there). The objection would be that Christ promised to remain with us until the end of the ages, but this is a eucharistic hymn, so naturally his presence takes on the eucharistic mode.

Those praying also truly receive his eternal word in the eucharist, which is connected to his mystical body in the expression of the church.

No part points to a specific Protestant view of substantial change (sacramental union or consubstantiation), the real but spiritual presence (Cranmer's view), or it being a symbol of his presence (almost everyone else would agree).

It is a terrible text, but it as a whole doesn’t teach against transubstantiation and I think presupposes it. The same cannot be said for most texts written in the last fifty years, even if the error was due solely to poor catechesis.

Yes, well, as I said, it wasn’t written recently, and even then, I don’t think catechesis was great. It just...wasn’t as abysmal.

(The form of bread and wine is a visible sign but it is not the reality.)

That would be my objection, yes, that the Sacrifice is just a sign. "Now His form is but a sign." Not reality anymore, merely a symbol. To me, it implies that the Eucharist is not the body and blood of Christ, but is just a symbol of it. This notion is explicitly condemned by the Council of Trent.

The form is not the Sacrifice. The form is the visible appearance. No wonder CGZ was confused.

Now the form is a sacrament --- merely a sacrament? Yeah, I'm having trouble with that. What's mere about a sacrament?

I don't think the passage was referring to Sacraments in general, though, I think it was referring specifically to the Eucharist, which is not merely a sign or symbol, but the real presence of Christ. It's the fourth line that is problematic: the first three are fine: 1. There truly was blood and water on Calvary that day, 2. We do only see the bread and wine, 3. Christ did actually suffer in human form, but 4. The Eucharist is not a sign or symbol.

The notion of the Eucharist only being a sign or symbol was explicitly condemned by the Council of Trent. The ambiguity of the text seems to suggest this. I don't know enough about the song, but the fourth line of the text seems to be an appeal to Protestants, as the Eucharist being simply a sign or symbol of Christ is a Protestant view.

Alas, I have to agree that this hymn text is not usable.

On one hand, it's consistent with orthodox doctrine. But that is not enough. The line "Now his form is but a sign", although it is precise and correct, lends itself to misunderstandings, which generate unnecessary tsuris.

Somebody, please rewrite the verse to correct the problem.

I think we can all agree it's confusing. But it isn’t heterodox In itself.

I have a soft spot in my heart for “See Us, Lord, About Your Altar” since it was one of the hymns that I learned in my youth. Perhaps the hymn became somewhat widely known in the United States through the efforts of Omer Westendorf, founder of the World Library of Sacred Music (now World Library Publications), as it appears in every edition of his “Peoples Mass Book,” beginning in 1964. The hymn has continued to be included in most (if not all) standard hymnals published by World Library Publications up until the present time.

However, it is interesting to note that the stanza in question in this thread (“Once were seen the blood and water…”) has been omitted from World Library hymnals for a number of years. I presume that was an editorial decision by the good folks at World Library some time ago, perhaps due to some of the same issues mentioned in this thread.

To the best of my knowledge, the hymn has never appeared in a GIA hymnal, at least since 1971 when the first edition of the “Worship” hymnal was published. However, as member of the committee for the “Worship IV” hymnal, I proposed the hymn for inclusion in that hymnal. The committee discussed the hymn text, and decided not to include it. We did try to include the tune, DRAKES BROUGHTON, by pairing it with another text, but that didn’t happen.

The old penny catechism (do you have that in the US? latest edition 1971) stated that:
'A Sacrament is an outward sign of inward grace, ordained by Jesus Christ, by which grace is given to our souls.' Could that justify/explain the use of the word 'sign' in this hymn? This statement in the catechism was the same in earlier editions, as my father remembered from his childhood, so isn't some post-Vat II dumbing down.
I didn't realise that this hymn would cause so much comment. Fascinating stuff! I will approach it with new respect but probably not use it again.

Noel quoted:

Once were seen the blood and water:
Now are seen but bread and wine;
Once in human form he suffered,
Now his form is but a sign.

Wheat and grape contain the meaning:
Food and drink he is to all;
One in him, we kneel adoring,
Gathered by his loving call.

What if one were to swap the two verses?

Wheat and grape contain the meaning:
Food and drink he is to all;
One in him, we kneel adoring,
Gathered by his loving call.

Once were seen the blood and water:
Now are seen but bread and wine;
Once in human form he suffered,
Now his form is but a sign.

Yes; the idea of swapping them around is just to reduce possible misunderstandings, jumpings to conclusionings, etc.