The body and the blood

No theological question is more divisive among Christians than the question of Holy Communion. It is celebrated in different ways and explained in different ways. I would like to show that there is a viewpoint from which three different views of the rite are compatible. I explain this in terms of subsets. The simpler views of Protestants are included within the higher understanding claimed by the Catholic. Thus the Catholic cannot say the Protestants are altogether wrong, only that their views are incomplete. The Protestants, for their part, can say that they agree with much of what the Catholic believes, but find the doctrine of transubstantiation a bridge too far for their own way of understanding things.

The Orthodox churches are similarly in the position of believing much of what the Catholics believe, but not all of it. They stop short of endorsing the Catholic view of transubstantiation, saying that at some point the question disappears into the realm of holy mystery, where mere human reason cannot follow. The spiritual reality of what is happening is separate from claims about material reality. If I have understood the Orthodox position correctly, they see it as something like a false dichotomy to call something spiritual on the one hand and real on the other, when talking about sacred things; what is spiritual is what is most truly real: it is reality of a higher order. I see that as somewhat similar (though not identical) to some versions of the Protestant "spiritual" view of communion as I discuss it below. It seems to me more similar to some Protestant views than it does to Catholicism, but I will leave that question alone for lack of space.

Among the churches of Western Christianity, then, there are three principal views of the Eucharist. From simplest to most complex they are:

• The "memorial" view 
• The "spiritual" view. It includes the memorial view.
• The "transubstantial" view includes both the memorial and spiritual views.

Let me talk a little about these views and show something of how they relate to one another.

The memorial view is supported in bedrock Holy Scripture. Jesus said, "Do this for the remembrance of me." The apostle Paul said that when we partake we proclaim the Lord's death until he returns. The essence of the rite is to memorialize Christ's death and put us in remembrance of it. We are to consider the gravity of what is represented and draw spiritual strength and comfort from Christ's death for us. Christ is present in the sense that he is present wherever believers gather in his name. By implication, what Christ did among the apostles at the Last Supper he accomplishes among us today. This view inherently treats the Eucharist as symbolic of Christ's death and our unity.

All of that is included in the spiritual view of the rite. On the spiritual view, a definite imparting of grace happens simultaneously with partaking. In some sense (wordings vary among Protestant sects) we receive Christ's body and blood with or as the elements, not only the bread and wine we see, though the means of this grace from God to us is unseen, or else unknown.  As some churches put it, the bread and wine are outward and visible signs of an inward and spiritual grace. The outward signs are bread and wine; the inward grace is the body and blood, imparted to us in the same sense Christ intended in instituting the sacrament. There is some uncertainty and some debate among Protestants over just what that intent is and entails. However, we are better after we partake, and our ignorance does not diminish God's grace.

None of that fundamentally conflicts with the Catholic view of transubstantiation. A Catholic would never deny that the mass recalls the Lord's sacrifice, or that it symbolizes unity. He would not deny that grace is imparted, or that the body and blood are somehow present. His only possible objection is that Protestants and Orthodox do not go far enough in understanding the matter. Likewise, Protestants and Orthodox can only say that the Catholic goes too far.

Viewed in that way, our division on the issue of what really happens at communion, and the historical animosities that arose around it, are overwrought and faintly ridiculous. All Christians everywhere agree that Christ said "Do this in remembrance of me." What is ridiculous is that we all know that we are united with Christ in this act, just as if we had ourselves been present at the Last Supper, and yet we find in it occasion for disunity among ourselves.

If I agree with you about one point out of three, that is partial agreement. If I agree on two points out of three, that is substantial agreement. But if you say I am a heretic because I do not agree on three out of three, as Catholicism has done since Trent, it rather puts a damper on the discussion, because it denies non-Catholics standing in the conversation, and impugns what they believe, which is either one or two things which the Catholic himself knows to be true.




Addendum: This Wikipedia article gives considerable detail in how various churches understand Christ to be really present in the Eucharist. Some readers will be surprised at how far Protestant "spiritual" views go in affirming the real presence.