.
Let's very carefully look at the Eucharistic texts, noting carefully the words - what Jesus said and Paul penned, and equally what they did not.
Matthew 26:26-29
26. While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."
27. Then he took the cup (wine), gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you.
28. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
29. I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine (wine) from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom."
First Corinthians 11:23-29
For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread,
24. and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me."
25. In the same way, after supper he took the cup (wine), saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me."
26. For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
27. Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
28. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup.
29. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.
There are three basic "takes" on this in modern Western Christianity.....
REAL PRESENCE: Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, some Anglicans and Methodists
Real Presence is:
1. Real Presence accepts the words of Jesus and Paul. Nothing added, nothing deleted, nothing modified.
2. Real Presence accepts that the meaning of is is is. This means that we receive Christ.
Real Presence is NOT..
1. Real Presence is not a dogmatic denial of the words "bread" and "wine" AFTER the consecration as if we must take a "half real/half symbolic" interpretation of the text. It simply regards such as irrelevant. The point of Real Presence is the presence of CHRIST. It's not called, "The Denial of What Paul Wrote" because that's not what it is, it is the AFFIRMATION of what he penned and what Christ said: the body is, the blood is, CHRIST is present.
2. Real Presence is not a theory about anything or explanation regarding anything. It simply embraces EXACTLY and LITERALLY what Jesus said and Paul penned. The HOW and the physics are left entirely alone.
3. Real Presence doesn't teach or deny any "change." The word "change" never appears in any Eucharistic text and thus Real Presence has nothing whatsoever to do with that. Rather, it embraces what it IS - because that does appear in the texts and seems significant. "IS" means is - it has to do be BEING. If I say, This car is a Toyota, that doesn't imply that it was once a cow but the atoms were re-arranged so that now it is a Toyota. Accepting, "This is a Toyota" simply and only means this is a Toyota.
4. Real Presence has nothing whatsoever to do with any concept of "sacrifice."
Now, without a doubt, the faith and conviction raises some questions. But Real Presence has always regarded all this to be MYSTERY. How it happens, Why it happens, exactly What happens - it doesn't matter. The words are accepted and believed solely because of what Jesus said and Paul so penned by inspiration. That's good enough for the Orthodox and Lutherans, as well as many Anglicans and Methodist. And was for the RCC until 1551 when the RCC alone dogmatized a second view about the Eucharist.
Orthodox, Lutherans and some Anglicans and Methodist embrace Real Presense. The Catholic Church does too in a sense but it has been entirely buried under it's own unique new secondary dogma, that of Transubstantiation, so much so that many Catholics I've found don't even know what Real Presence is, only the new unique RCC second dogma.
TRANSUBSTANTIATION: Catholic Church
This is a separate Eucharistic dogma of the individual Roman Catholic Church, officially and dogmatically since 1551.
The Mystery of Real Presence does raise some questions (unanswered by Scripture or the ECF). All regarded these as just that - questions (and irrelevant ones at that), until western, medieval Roman Catholic "Scholasticism" arose. It was focused on combining Christian thought with secular philosophy and "science" of the day - in the hopes of making Christianity more intellectual and to explain away its mysteries. It eventually came up with several theories about the Eucharist. One of these was "Transubstantiation."
Although no one claims there's any biblical confirmation of this, and while all admit it lacks any ecumenical or historic embrace, it should be noted that there are a FEW snippets from RCC "Fathers" that speak of "change." But, while Orthodox, Lutherans and others are comfortable with that word, it doesn't imply any transubstantiation.
"Transubstantiation" is a very precise, technical term from alchemy. You'll recall from high school chemistry class that alchemy was the dream that, via incantations and the use of chemicals and herbs, fundamental substance (we'll call such elements) may be transformed from one to entirely others (lead to gold was the typical objective). These western, medieval, Catholic "Scholastics" theorized that the Consecration is an alchemic transubstantiation.
This, however, caused a bit of a problem! Because, in alchemy, the transubstantiated substance normally would have the properties of the NEW substance, and one of the "questions" of Real Presense is why it still has the properties of bread and wine. Here these western, medival Catholic theorists turned to another pop idea of the day: Accidents. This came hook, line and sinker from Aristotle. He theorized that substance could have properties (he called them "accidents" - it's a very precise term for his theory) that are entirely unrelated to the substance. Sometimes called "ghost physics," the one part of his theory of "accidents" seemed especially useful to these medieval Catholic theorists. He stated that properties of one thing could CONTINUE after the actual causative substannce ceased. His example was lightening. Seeing the connection between lightening and thunder, but knowing nothing of wave physics, he taught that the SOUND of lightening continues long after the lightening ceased to exist: this is an "accident." This, then , is what we have in the Eucharist: ACCIDENTS of bread and wine (since, in transubstantiation, bread and wine no longer exist in any real physics sense - it was transubstantiated). No one claims that this has any biblical confirmation or that the RCC "father" referenced Aristotle's Accidents - even as pure theoretical pious opinion.
In Catholicism, there are TWO dogmas vis-a-vis the Eucharist: Real Presence and Transubstantiation. The later was first suggested in the 9th century and made dogma in 1551 (a bit after Luther's death).
From The Catholic Encyclopedia:
The doctrine of transubstantiation was a controversial question for centuries before it received final adoption. It was Paschasius Radbertus, a Benedictine monk (786-860), who first theorized transubstantiation by the changing of the elements into the "body and blood of Christ." From the publishing of his treatise in A. D. 831 until the fourth Lateran Council in A. D. 1215, many fierce verbal battles were fought by the bishops against the teaching of Paschasius. - The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. ii, p. 518, Art. "Paschasius Radbertus;" / 6. Samuel Edgar. Tenth complete American edition, p. 405.
SYMBOLIC PRESENCE: Many "Evangelical" and some Calvinist denominations
This view was invented by Ulrich Zwingli in the 16th Century
While Real Presence was nearly universal, there have always been those few with "questions" that made this doctrine problematic for them. The mystery was difficult for them to embrace. This became far more common beginning in the late Middle Ages. Some said that Christ CANNOT be present in the Eucharist and THEREFORE what Jesus said and Paul penned CANNOT be true (in any usual sense, anyway). To them, "is" CANNOT mean "is" and THREFORE doesn't - it MUST be a metaphor, it must actually mean "symbolize." Metaphor is certainly not unknown in Scripture, the question becomes: is that the case HERE? Is metaphor common in Paul's writings?
This view stresses the "Remember me...." concept. They tend to see the Eucharist as an ordinance (something we do for God) rather than as a Sacrament (something God does for us), a matter of Law rather then Gospel.
One might summerize the 3 common views this way:
LUTHERANS: Is.... Body..... Blood..... bread..... wine....... All are true, all are affirmed. It's mystery.
ROMAN CATHOLIC: Body.... Blood..... THEY are true and affirmed, but "is" doesn't mean that and the bread and wine actually aren't, they are Aristotelian Accidents instead. It's an alchemic Transubstatiation.
EVANGELICALS: Bread.... Wine.... THEY are true and affirmed, but "is" doesn't mean that and the Body and Blood actually aren't, they are symbols instead. It's metaphor.
Pax Christi
- Josiah
.
