Elena 
Todd, St. Blog’s favorite “progressive” Catholic blogs about Eucharistic terminology.
Some people tend to get bothered about the language we use in connection with the Mass. (And no, I don’t mean the language used in the parking lot after Mass.)
Every so often, I find corrections in the printed Eucharistic Minister sign-in list in my parish. “Bread” and “Cup” have been crossed out and penciled in are “Body of Christ” and “Blood of Christ.” Being a generally cheerful person, I don’t let it spoil my day. Lacking any concrete request to alter my practice, I don’t change it, but I also leave the edit in place.
Language is important: this I will not deny. But a scrupulosity of words may not be productive, nor might it point us in the ideal direction.
Which of course begs a couple of questions. If you’re not being scrupulous about the words, then why are we posting about it? And what is the “ideal direction.”
Todd answers:
The ideal direction is to maintain perspective.
Um… OK, but who’s perspective?
That Christ is present in the appearance of bread and wine denigrates Christ’s divinity no more than his historical presence as a human man did.
Well who said the consecrated host denigrated anything? But the point is, it’s not JUST bread, it’s not JUST wine. Isn’t that the true perspective?
As a practical matter, when a person speaks of “bread” and “wine” in a pragmatic way (i.e. giving directions, making a schedule) and not in a theological way (accepting or denying Christ’s real presence) cutting slack is appropriate.
Ah, so it really is a bit about being scrupulous as in wanting to continue to use the vulgar (i.e. common) terminology as opposed to terminology more sacred, more Eucharistic? If it’s not scrupulosity, then why not just use terminology suggested by a gentleman in the comment section “Plate (or Ciborium) and Chalice”
Todd replies:
Actually, I’m not as scrupulous about my terminology. The beauty of English is that I can use various terms depending on what the situation calls for. If I’m making out a schedule, the purpose is to get people informed on what they are to do and when.
It takes only two more key strokes to type PLATE and CHALICE, than it does BREAD and BLOOD. If it’s really not scrupulosity why not go for more correct language? What’s the big deal?
Then I weighed in with this:
Actually, I’m not as scrupulous about my terminology – sure you are Todd, which is why it irritates you just a bit when someone doesn’t go along with your “happy meal” approach to the Eucharist.
Ah the happy meal. The quintessential symbol of feel-good America. For one low price one gets a nourishing burger, drink, and a little prize that makes the children happy. It is the common meal for the common child and frankly, I think it is a wonderful analogy for the over emphasis on the “vulgar” aspect of the Eucharistic meal with the children of God.
Now where am I off base here? Some prefer the terms “bread and wine” over Body of Christ and Precious Blood or Ciborium and Chalice because these terms emphasize the simplicity of the Eucharist over the sacred and the divine. And to my mind, this over emphasize on the physical nature of the Eucharistic accidents is what also leads to a misunderstanding of the worthiness to receive holy communion. Anyone should be able to share our bread and wine right? Isn’t that the “nice” thing to do? Shouldn’t we share, be nice and happy?
Sorry my use of the term “happy meal” offended some of the Catholic Sensibility readers, but I stand by it. We need to get back to what the Eucharist really is, the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ under the appearance of bread and wine. It’s time to revere the mystery IMO.
Please feel free to leave a comment under the posting, or sign my Spiritbook (guestbook) and chat on the tag board at the bottom of the page.
