The views of the Lords supper
1 Corinthians 11:27-28 “Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.” (NKJV)
There are five predominate views of the Lords supper and all of them differ greatly on what is believed to be going on while we take communion. The words Eucharist, Communion, or Lord’s Supper all refer to the same thing.
Transubstantiation- This view is held within the Roman Catholic Church and some Anglo-Catholic churches. This view was developed over the 13th and 15th centuries and was finally made church dogma in the council of
Some of the Scriptures they use to defend this view point are:
(1 Corinthians 11:23 sqq and John 6:26 sqq). The big point on this is that of the words this is my body and this is my blood and those who believe in this take it as meaning that the elements must change as Christ had said and why else would the people leave him in the sixth chapter of John unless it was to be taken literally. There are more area of defense that can be brought up but this is just introduction to the different view points of believers. (Pohle)
Some of the church fathers they will use to defend this stance are Ignatius, Justin martyr, Cyprian, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, Hilary, Ambrose, and Lamy. (Pohle)
Church father Justin Martyr said this:
“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body; "and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood; "and gave it to them alone.” (Of the Eucharist)
I find this view to define a mystery to much and take away the mystical elements that have been place in Christendom. So we don’t think we can know everything on this side of heaven. One point can be made of the trinity we don’t know everything about it but yet we still believe it and uphold it as something that must be believed to be an orthodox Christian. So I feel that in trying to explain a mystery we have robbed an element of faith within the church. I believe this comes from the Aristotelian categorical system of logic we in the west hold to in many ways and the view of Transubstantiation is one of the end results of understanding.
Objective reality- the Eastern Orthodox Church and some Anglo-Catholics hold this view. This is very similar to the view of Transubstantiation but it hold that those thing which are explain in that view have gone to far and should not have done that. They still use the same scriptural evidence as those of Transubstantiation. Just as the view of Transubstantiation believes only the clergy with the rank of priest of higher can do this it is believe the same for Objective reality.
“In the history of Christian thought, various ways were developed to try to explain how the bread and the wine become the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharistic liturgy. Quite unfortunately, these explanations often became too rationalistic and too closely connected with certain human philosophies.” (Holy Eucharist)
So as we can see from the quote from the Orthodox church in
“The Orthodox Church denies the doctrine that the Body and the Blood of the Eucharist are merely intellectual or psychological symbols of Christ's Body and Blood. If this doctrine were true, when the liturgy is celebrated and Holy Communion is given, the people would be called merely to think about Jesus and to commune with him "in their hearts." In this way, the Eucharist would be reduced to a simple memorial meal of the Lord's last supper, and the union with God through its reception would come only on the level of thought or psychological recollection.” (Holy Eucharist)
So it can’t be denied that those who hold the view of objective reality hold the Eucharist in high regard but just explain it or should be said lack of explaining it as others do. I think it is a view that is seldom heard of and because of that it is paid little attention to. I think it can give those who don’t want to accept transubstantiation but don’t want to bring communion down to a more early thing can find peace here.
Here is something’s from a church fathers:
“[Christ] has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own Blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own Body, from which he gives increase to our bodies." (Against Heresies)
"We have been instructed in these matters and filled with an unshakable faith, that that which seems to be bread, is not bread, though it tastes like it, but the Body of Christ, and that which seems to be wine, is not wine, though it too tastes as such, but the Blood of Christ … draw inner strength by receiving this bread as spiritual food and your soul will rejoice." ("Catecheses," 22, 9; "Myst." 4)
Consubstantiation- This view says that when a ministry consecrates the elements the bread and wine stay what they are but it is spiritual the body and blood of Christ within the elements. Those who believe in this view think that this happens when the words of institution ( Matthew 26:26-28) are said over the elements. Unlike the other two previous views this one hold that there is no need to be in apostolic succession and be an ordained priest to consecrate the elements. This is because it is believed that it is the words that change the elements not the person and words. (What is consubstantiation? )
“The change from Trans- to Con- is the key to seeing the bread and wine as the body and blood of Jesus. The prefix Trans- says that a change took place, the bread actually became the body of Jesus and the wine actually became the blood of Jesus. The prefix Con- says that the bread does not become the body of Jesus but co-exists with the physical bread so that the bread is both a bread and the body of Jesus. The same thing is true of the wine. It does not become the blood of Jesus, but co-exists with the wine so that the wine is both wine and the blood of Jesus.” (What is consubstantiation?)
The scriptural proof for this belief is basically what the other two have said but change the literal Into a spiritual aspect so there isn’t much inside this view that would have much changed. Mostly Lutherans hold this view but some Anglican and even Eastern orthodox churches will hold it.
Pneumatic or real presence – This view states that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ; this is a spiritual thing and only applies to those who have faith. This view and the Objective reality view are similar but the objective reality view says it is the true body and blood where as this one leaves it in a bigger mystery (Communion/Eucharist). This view was started by John Calvin and keeps moving through today in the reformed communities.
John Calvin said this about it
“But those who partake by faith receive benefit from Christ, and the unbelieving are condemned by partaking. By faith , and in the Holy Spirit, the partaker beholds God incarnate, and in the same sense touches him with hands, so that by eating and drinking of bread and wine Christ's presence penetrates to the heart of the believer more nearly than food swallowed with the mouth can enter in.” (Real Presence)
Most reformed churches and low Anglican churches hold this view. Because it comes from their great teachers beliefs, so they are just following suit.
I find this view to be left to be too open and needing to explain a bit more of what it is trying to say. I think we need mystery but to much just leave us with nothing to really say. I think many people hold this view with out knowing it.
Memorialism- This view says that the bread and wine stay what they are that is to say the bread is bread and the wine is wine nothing is changed or going on. These items only bring to remembrance the death of Christ and His sacrifice for us.
The defense for this view comes from the words in 1 Cor 11:24 when they say do this in remembrance so those who believe in this view say that if this is the case then nothing is going on at all but a simple remembrance of Christ’s death.
This shows when Zwingli was coming from in this view:
“Zwingli interpreted the words of Jesus, "This is my body," in harmony with John 6, where Jesus spoke of eating and drinking his body and blood, especially vs. 63: "It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail." Therefore, he reasoned, not only is transubstantiation, that somehow Christ is corporeally in, under, and with the elements. The doctrine of physical eating is absurd and repugnant to common sense. Moreover, God does not ask us to believe that which is contrary to sense experience. The word "is" in the words of institution means "signifies," or "represents," and must be interpreted figuratively, as is done in other "I am" passages in the Bible. Christ's ascension means that he took his body from earth to heaven.” (Last Supper, Lord's Supper )
This was problematic for Zwingli and Luther because this differing view on the Lords supper caused the great split between the two men that never was fixed and the battles still are waged today between the two beliefs children of today.
This view I find to rob the sanctity of communion because it destroys the worth of it and I think that you need to read into the scriptures to see this view because if we look at that the Holy Writ says it plainly says that it is His body and blood so we take this at face value it mean what it says or we play word games then come up with it meaning nothing beyond what we make it.
I do feel strongly that my convictions about objective reality are correct but I don’t want to just write off those who hold to something different. I think that by talking about out different view we will eventually figure out who is right in their views and come to the same place. This takes time as we can see that for over five hundred years we have been debating and no one agrees yet but we can keep going till we do.
Works cited:
Fouts, Ryan. "Last Supper, Lord's Supper." 11/12/2008 16 Nov 2008
Holy Bible NKJV.
"Holy Eucharist." 1996-2008 10 Nov 2008
Justin Martyr, "Of the Eucharist." Christian classics ethereal library. 16 Nov 2008
legna, michael. "Communion/Eucharist." 09/02/2007 16 Nov 2008
Pohle, Joseph. "The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 5.
"Real Presence." 2008 16 Nov 2008
St. Cyril of
St. Irenaeus, "Against Heresies." THE REAL PRESENCE The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist CHRIST IN THE EUCHARIST. 16 Nov 2008
"transubstantiation." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2008. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 10 Nov. 2008
"What is consubstantiation?." 2002-2008 15 Nov 2008 http://www.gotquestions.org/
. http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-46.htm Justin's 1st Apology, LXVI
