four major views of holy communion
May 19th, 2008
In an earlier post someone asked about the different views of holy communion in the Church. Here is a brief explanation of four major views in the spectrum:
Transubstantiation is one of these major views. In this view, when the properly ordained priest consecrates the elements of bread and wine, it an actual transformation takes place, though unseen by human eye, and the bread and wine, in essence, becomes changed into the Lord’s flesh and blood respectively. It still looks and tastes like bread and wine, but essentially, it has changed, and the participant then literally take the physical body and blood of Christ into themselves. In addition the eucharist is a real sacrifice offered by Christ (in the same sense the crucifixion was) on behalf of the worshipers. It atones for venial sins but not for mortal sins. This is the view held by the Roman Catholics.
The Lutheran view has been termed as consubstantiation. Luther believed that the body and blood of Christ are somehow concurrently present “in, with, and under” the consecrated bread and wine. The bread and wine are not transformed into the body and blood of Christ, but the body and blood of Christ is somehow present in the bread and wine. Luther believed there were real benefits of forgiveness of sins and strengthening of faith that the participant experiences.
The third major view of holy communion is the Reformed view. They too reject the Catholic notion of a physical or bodily presence in the bread and wine. Their view is not far from the Lutheran view. They regard the presence of Christ in the bread and wine as spiritual and dynamic. Calvin uses the analogy of the sun to explain this. The sun remains in the heavens, but yet it’s light and warmth is present on earth. Similarly, the Lord Jesus is physically present at the right hand of God, but it is by the Holy Spirit on earth that Christ dwells in us by faith (Romans 8:9-11), and by the same Spirit participants are brought into communion with the living Christ, and into appropriation of the benefits of Christ’s death. They are spiritually nourished and vitalized because the Spirit mediates the benefits to them as they take the bread and wine.
On the opposite end of the spectrum from the Catholic view, there are those who hold that the holy communion is just a commemoration or remembrance of Christ’s death and its efficacy on our behalf. There is no special presence of Christ; as he is present everywhere and his presence in the elements is no greater than his presence among the worshipers. It’s benefits is similar to the benefits one gains from listening to a sermon: it blesses you if you receive the message by faith. So the participant who receives the bread and wine by faith receives its benefits. The holy communion is seen as another form of proclamation, though one that can be seen, touched and smelt and tasted. Those with an Anabaptist background hold to this view.
Where does your church stand with respect to these views?
(source: Christian Theology by Millard J. Erikson pgs 1109 -1127)
Entry Filed under: Church
My present brethren congregation takes on the last view you mentioned. I am not sure if my presby church in KL takes the reformed view.
Sometime last year, I wrote a little reflection on the Lord’s supper begining frm Passover. I call it Passover 2.0;
http://www.stevensim.org/2007/05/passover-20/
Oh ya, a year before that, I also wrote a reflection in form of poem:
http://www.stevensim.org/2006/08/the-strange-rite-at-the-lords-table/
Thank God we have passed over the “Christian” era of torturing and killing “heretics” who has politically disagreeable rituals that seem to undermine those of our own ’sects.”
The Muslims are still at it after 700 years, the Sunnis and Shiaties.
We pray to the same God and behave in very similar ways!!
God or man to be blamed for such rabid intolerence?
Do such rituals matter when they cause us to break His comandments of loving Him with all our might and our neighbour as ourselves.
Religious zeal does not made one holier!
in tems of practice anabaptists use Holy Communion as a means to verify the purity of one’s faith and morals BEFORE the communicant partakes of the elements. Hence their love for Paul’s teaching in 1Corinthians where the emphasis is on the believer participating in a worthy manner.
On the other end of the spectrum are the historical mainline churches. We would view the HC as a means of grace. The emphasis here is on the sinner who recieves nourishment and strength from the HC in his or her battle against sin and personal fleshly habits, without a strong summons to fulfill preconditions except for the confession of sins, before recieving the elements. Hence our emphasis on Jesus instituting the HC and sharing the elements of bread and wine to those who would abandon him. Even Judas was invited to partake of the elements.
I think Calvin captures best the biblical teaching of the HC, which is a combination of the core beliefs from both the anabaptist and the mainline positions.
Interesting observation and insight. Never saw that.
Doesn’t the Anglicans also forbid unbaptized believers to partake of communion, just like the Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Lutheran, and Presbyterian churches?
Yes, ONLY baptized believers are allowed to partake of the Holy Communion in the Anglican Church.
There is a difference however between the mainline churches and the anabaptists in terms of those allowed to particpate in the HC. Anabaptists practice the closed table; only members of their local communities are allowed to participate in the HC. Christians from other churches are not allowed eat the bread and drink the wine. This is beginning to change in some “believer-baptism” churches, especially the ones which have taken the charismatic path.
Mainline churches on the other hand generally allow all christians, including other churches to participate, the exception being the Roman Catholics and the more ancient orthodox groups (Coptic Church). Roman canonical law forbids non Roman christians from participating in the Eucharist.
Hi BP,
Understood that Jesus embraced all sinners.
However mainline churches have members and membership have privilages of communion?
Sounds like a credit card organization!
Hey Journeyman.
Great to bump into one of my favorite dialogue partners.
Ha ha ha…like the bit about the church as a credit card organisation.
Hmmm….I don’t understand why some churches, be they mainline or independant, don’t allow baptized believers from othe churches to participate in the Holy Communion. Does not sound very biblical.
The other big contentious issue is the use of Holy Communion as a means of disicplining erant christians. In church history those who denied Christ in times of persecution who not allowed to receive HC until they showed genuine commitment. I know of churches who refuse the Holy Communion to those who co habit with their girlfriends etc…
Hi BB,
Great to have u around for next 1-2 years as part of my own journey. Good to be able to challenge, hone and develop new directions.
I think orthodox christianity is getting increasing irrelevant - perhaps loving truth seekers will be the way forward.
Troubled that the proccesses and practices of our ‘churches’ are not that different from the usual institutions of the world, like banks, retail lifestyle stores - you name it, tsome church will emulate it. Meantime some of these “CEOs” have forgotten about the original commission about GOD and LOVE.
Sad that my preliminary research into origins and practice of Christian religious rituals often find a political nucleating point - the development of tool to justify and differentiate and diminish whoever the enemy is at that point in time.
Using the primary Islamic schism at 700AD creating Shiities and Sunnis as a prototypical model for originating new festivals, rituals, customs or practices. Christiandom has thousands of ’sects” indendents as compared to the tens and hundreds in Islam.
Another interesting projection is that Islam will surpass Christians in numbers sometie in the next 20-50 years of this century.
Dear Journeyman,
Can we really have churches without any boundaries? if one scratches the surface of your comments above, you seem to be advocating this. Hey amigo even the unitarians have boundaries!
You’re right about some churches being like retail stores!!!
The biblical idea of love is rooted in God’s character and His love is Holy. Emil Brunner coined the phrase God’s Holy Love. God’s Holy Love therefore sends His son to the Cross in our place. We are guilty as judged. But it is Christ who bears our sentence and judgment. That’s Holy Love at work!! True love hurts and is painful.
BB
Hi BB,
Did not realize my view would imply a boundariless Church - I guess trying to fathom God’s vast universe would be difficult to imagine with boundaries!
Why did God sacrifice His only Son?
For the successful leaders and elites of human society OR
the nameless, disenfranchised hordes of sinners who were not coping with the challenges of existence.
Find it interesting that in a “global open market economy” like Singapore, Christianity has not managed to appeal to anymore than 10% of the population - this is the about the same percentage since the revivalist movement of the 1970s.
Some of those fervent evangelist have even become magicians.
Find it sad and lamentable that in this type of competitive environment like Singapore, Christians have not made following the Lord compellingly attractive verses the numerous availlable distractions.
Is there “something rotten in the State of Denmark” or are we still smug in our rituals that prevents us reaching out to the world at large?
[…] some time back. There is a sense of more than physical in the eucharist. To be frank, there are a lot of different views of the eucharist which evolved from the first breaking of the bread. But these views refer backwards to memories of […]
My new reflection on the Lord’s Supper:
http://www.stevensim.org/2008/06/where-is-jesus-christ/