So I was actually thinking of a lot of Heidegger and Ricouer here. But got trapped in the mythology of etymology. But if the origin is “memorai” or mindfulness then would the “re” prefix be a bringing back to mind?

Interesting looking at a Hebrew theological dictionary, the Hebrew for remember has a root of zkr which means to mention or make known. So that does get better at the notion that in the sacrament as we remember him we’re simultaneously making that known. So it’s a kind of presence.

Fundamentally what I am after is re-member as re-constitute. So even if the body part of the etymology is off, I think that still functions. Ricouer uses the idea in a few places (although he’d be speaking French) of as we remember or re-constitute we also re-shape it. For example in forgiving as we remember the original traumatic events through forgiveness that remembering reshapes them so as to change their significance.

What I’m more or less saying is that when we come together and remember we’re remaking that body of Christ. It’s repeated as a continual act of creation or re-creation that makes the body a live one.

Sadly, this is an accurate assessment; though evocative it is, the “re-member” interpretation of the word is based on a folk etymology. While the word “member” descends from Latin “membrum,” the word “remember” comes from Latin “memorari,” meaning “to be mindful.” The b gets inserted in Old French.

I love how you’ve brought out the communal nature of the sacrament, though; it’s something we ignore amid talk of remission of (personal) sins, and something I hadn’t explored sufficiently. Another place it’s ignored: if “you and each of you” in another ordinance isn’t simply redundancy for emphasis, the “each of you” addresses the individual in contradistinction to the (apparently plural!) “you.”