One of the most powerful Bible passages about the Eucharist may be found in chapter 6 of John's Gospel. In verse 48 Jesus states "I am the bread of life," and in verse 53 Jesus says, "Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."
Shortly after he made these statements the people began to start grumbling as they tried to make sense out of what he said. Like many of the bystanders in the Gospels they are portrayed as hostile to Jesus' message, but should we be quick to judge them? One can hardly blame these grumblers since the controversy over the meaning of these words continues to this day across the Christian spectrum. Even within the Anglican Communion there is a wide range of opinion on what the Eucharist actually means.
I believe that after the bread and wine are consecrated during the Eucharistic liturgy Jesus is truly present in these elements. What actually happens goes beyond mere symbolism. This is what is called the Real Presence. It is important to make the distinction that by asserting the Real Presence I am not talking about a fleshy body but rather the post-Resurrection body of Jesus which is not bound by the normal human limits of space or time.
How this happens remains a mystery, but theories abound as to ways in which God accomplishes this task. As an Anglo-Catholic I lean towards transubstantiation as opposed to the other forms of explanation, but I do not believe that we have to fully understand the Eucharist in order to benefit from it. In any case it is a mystery that we will not fully understand until after death we come to know God as He really is.
I believe in the Real Presence for various reasons. One of my reasons is that the early Church strongly supports this interpretation. The notion of a purely symbolic Eucharist did not exist prior to Zwingli.
Another reason is that since I have come to believe in the Real Presence I have detected a change in my own life. It has been very gradual but I can sense a spiritual benefit from receiving the Eucharist, and I do not believe that mere symbolism could achieve this. I have also heard similar testimony from other people. The Eucharist is God's way of drawing near to us in table fellowship in a way that defies human description. St. Ignatius of Antioch said the Eucharist is the 'medicine of immortality,' and I heartily agree with him.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Very good posting! Yes I truly belive there is a spiritual benefit from receiving the Eucharist. I also agree that Christ is Present, and He infuses our lives with His Presence during the Sacrament.
I am also of the opinion that the point during the Eucharistic prayer (called the Epiclesis), in which the Celebrant invokes the Holy Spirit to bless the bread and wine so that it may be to us the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, is what effects the consubstational change in the elements of bread and wine.
However that being said, the real point is that we are invited by Christ Himself to touch and be touched by the Holy. We take Christ Himself into our bodies, and our lives, leaving that place and being sent into the world, carrying Christ within us.
Do you believe anyone can repeat the words of Jesus and that transubstantiation takes place? Does ordination matter? Does who ordains whom matter? Or is transubstantiation effected by the faith of the believer?
J.M.'s mom
J.M.'s mom,
Thank you so much for visiting! J.M. and I have some very interesting discussions from time to time. You have raised some very thought-provoking questions.
I believe first of all that a particular community of faith must assert the possibility of the Real Presence in order for it to exist in the Eucharist. I do not believe that the words of consecration do anything in and of themselves if the Eucharist is celebrated in a merely symbolic fashion. God is present in these symbolic Eucharists via the Holy Spirit, but I would not conclude that it has the same efficacy as what is conveyed in the Real Presence unless God wills it so without our knowledge.
I also believe that not just anyone can celebrate the Eucharist. Only people ordained in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church should be able to do this, and these celebrants should be either bishops or priests/presbyters/elders. A deacon or a member of the laity should not do it as the priesthood has been specifically set aside by the early Church for the celebration of the sacraments.
The mechanics of ordination are where it gets a little sticky. I believe that a priest needs to be ordained by a bishop in apostolic succession, but I realize that there is a significant amount of disagreement on what constitutes apostolic succession and what is required for its validity. Ordinations done in churches with a historic episcopate should be considered normative, but I think that adaptations of the three-tier system to meet the particular needs of a given communion are reasonable as long as the episcopate remains in some form.
This solution is not applicable to churches that deny the existence of the episcopate altogether, but since most of those churches are not sacramental it is a moot point. That being said I do not want to imply there are limits on God in regards to the evangelical churches. The vitality of these churches indicates to me that God is mediating a special kind of grace to them, but that grace is of a different character than what is manifested in the Real Presence.
Post a Comment