News & Messages

Ask a Theologian: Real Presence

Dear Theologian,

What does The Episcopal Church teach about the “real presence” of Christ in the sacrament of Holy Communion? When I was growing up in the Roman Catholic Church, I was taught that the bread and wine were changed into the actual body and blood of Christ. Now, as an Episcopalian, I am told that we reject this idea of “transubstantiation” (so-called). But how do we understand the Lord’s presence in the sacrament?

Doubtful Communicant

Dear Communicant,

In thinking about the Holy Eucharist, we are attempting to think about “Mystery” in the strict theological sense—that is, a reality that is forever beyond our full comprehension, even though we can get some partial understanding. Therefore our thinking and speaking must be done with great reverence and humility.

The Church’s faith in the “real presence” of Christ in the sacrament of Holy Communion is grounded in Scripture and attested by many patristic writers of the early centuries. In a famous passage, St. Paul writes (sometime in the decade of the 50’s AD):

“The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.” (1 Cor 10:16-17) 

A little further on in the same letter he writes:

“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord.” (1 Cor 11:27) 

The vivid sense of the “objective” reality of Christ himself in the eating and drinking of the consecrated elements has persisted down through all the centuries. In the medieval period, however, an extreme literal understanding of this presence became fixed in the popular mind, so that the consecrated bread itself was sometimes imagined to be the actual body of Christ in a physical sense.

Beginning in the eleventh century, the doctrine of “transubstantiation” was formulated as a way of affirming the real presence. Using philosophical concepts that were current at the time, this doctrine affirmed that the “substance” of the bread and wine was, by the power of God, converted or changed into the “substance” of Christ Himself, even though the “accidents” (appearance, taste, etc.) of bread and wine remained.

This theology was accompanied by a popular piety which was focused on the consecrated bread as object of devotion. People longed to gaze upon the elevated Host when it was lifted up by the priest after the words of consecration in the Mass. The Host was also put on display for adoration at certain times, and was even carried in procession. On the other hand, the people rarely if ever received Holy Communion; only the priest consumed the consecrated elements.

It is generally recognized today that this medieval Eucharistic piety was a distortion of the sacrament. Part of the program of the Reformers in the sixteenth century was to restore the integrity of the Eucharist by encouraging the people to receive Communion and to understand the liturgy as a sacred meal (the Lord’s Supper).

Why did the Church of England reject the concept of “transubstantiation”? Article XXVIII of the Articles of Religion (as reaffirmed by the Episcopal Church in 1801) says: “Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.” [1]

The words singled out above for emphasis get at the heart of the matter for Anglicans. It is in “the nature of a sacrament” that the natural or physical reality remains itself, while at the same time making present the spiritual reality. The bread is still bread, after the prayer of consecration, but now it is also a sacrament in the sense that it makes present a spiritual reality.

“The outward and visible sign in the Eucharist is bread and wine, given and received according to Christ’s command. The inward and spiritual grace in the Holy Communion is the Body and Blood of Christ given to his people, and received by faith.” [2]

This statement of the Eucharistic faith of The Episcopal Church clearly affirms the spiritual reality of Christ’s self-gift to his people when the sacrament is received in the attitude of faith. But it also makes clear that the bread and wine function sacramentally as “the outward and visible sign.”

The Anglican perspective on the Eucharist can be appreciated better by looking at the theology of Richard Hooker (1554-1600).

“Like Cranmer, Hooker’s doctrine can be described as a doctrine of the real partaking of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, rather than a doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This doctrine of the Eucharist, which became characteristic of Anglican theology, is often referred to as ‘receptionism.’ Hooker does not deny the real presence, but he relates it primarily to the faithful communicant rather than to the elements of bread and wine... On the question of the relation of the presence to the elements of bread and wine he adopts a position of deliberate agnosticism: ‘...what these elements are in themselves it skilleth not, it is enough that to me which take them they are the body and blood of Christ.’” [3]

This understanding of the Eucharist shifts the emphasis away from the elements in themselves (as a possible object of devotion) and views them rather in their sacramental function as communicating the presence of Christ to the one who receives them in the attitude of faith. This is in accord with Cranmer’s effort “to reorient Eucharistic doctrine around the act of Communion, rather than around a change in the nature of the elements.” [4]

What Anglican and Roman Catholic Christians have in common, despite differences in terminology, is the centrality of the Holy Eucharist in their life of faith. Christ’s presence in this sacrament remains a great Mystery—to be entered into, but not to be explained.

Faithfully,
The Theologian

[1] BCP, p. 873, emphasis added.
[2] In the Catechism of the Book of Common Prayer, BCP, p. 859.
[3] W. R. Crockett, in The Study of Anglicanism, revised ed., pp. 309-310.
[4] Ibid., p. 309.

The Rev. Wayne L. Fehr writes a monthly column for the diocesan newsletter called "Ask a Theologian," answering questions from ordinary Christians trying to make sense of their faith. You can find and purchase his book "Tracing the Contours of Faith: Christian Theology for Questioners" here. 

Ask a Theologian: Holy Communion

Dear Theologian,

When I was growing up in The Episcopal Church, the Book of Common Prayer contained an order of service for “the Lord’s Supper or Holy Communion,” although some parishes preferred to call it “the Mass.” At present, the prayer book calls it “the Holy Eucharist.”

Is there some important spiritual or theological meaning in this variety of names? How are they related to one another?

Bewildered by All the Changes

Dear Bewildered,

What we do with bread and wine on Sunday morning is the heart and center of Christian existence. That it should be called by several different names is perhaps not so surprising, when one considers the long and varied history of Christianity. Each of the names highlights a somewhat different aspect of an infinitely rich mystery.

Although this central ritual of Christian faith has taken on many different cultural forms—some quite elaborate—its essential structure is actually simple. The celebrant takes bread and wine, says the great blessing prayer, breaks the bread, and distributes the bread and wine to all the participants.

We might characterize this simple sequence of actions as a symbolic meal, with the elements of food and drink reduced to a small, token amount for each person. But what does it mean?

Its meaning is to be found in its origins. When the first Christian believers began gathering in the name of the crucified and risen Jesus, they would share meals together in the Jewish way. At the beginning, they would say a blessing over the bread, then break and share it. At the end of the meal, they would bless a cup of wine and share it. In this familiar pattern of interaction, they were remembering Jesus and relating to him as present in the power of the Spirit.

In one of the earliest New Testament texts we have (Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians, written perhaps around 54 ad), we find a precious interpretation of what was then being called “the Lord’s supper.” Paul attributes the origin of this ritual to Jesus himself “on the night when he was betrayed” (1 Cor 11:23-26) in a passage which is strikingly paralleled in the later writings that we call the Gospels (Lk 22:14-20, Mt 26:26-28, Mk 14:22-25).

According to this account, Jesus took the traditional Jewish table ritual and gave it a new, unexpected meaning. As they ate the one bread that he blessed and broke (and later, as they drank from the one cup of wine that he blessed), they were given a share in his self-giving sacrifice that was about to be made (“my body given for you ... my blood poured out for many”). The basic meaning of this symbolic action, therefore, was about his disciples participating in the great mystery of his sacrificial death.

Those who participate in the Church’s ongoing celebration of this mystery are opening themselves to being united with the crucified and risen Jesus. Eating the consecrated bread and drinking the consecrated wine in the attitude of reverent faith is an act of intimate communion with the Lord. It is rightly called Holy Communion.

But there is another reason for using the word “communion” for this ritual of sharing together in the great mystery of Christ. The New Testament word koinonía, often translated as “communion” or “fellowship,” means precisely “having something in common, sharing in something.” It is by sharing together in the Christ mystery that many human beings, in all their diversity, are gathered into communion with one another.

This is celebrated and, indeed, enacted again and again, whenever believers gather for the symbolic meal of bread and wine, blessed and shared in Christ’s name. The “communion” of the Church is continually created anew when this happens. The ritual thus has a “Church-forming” function.

What about “the Mass”? This name, used by Roman Catholics as well as many Anglo-Catholics, is derived from the Latin word missa in the ancient words of dismissal or “sending forth” at the end of the celebration. (“Ite, missa est!”) In traditional Roman Catholic doctrine, the word occurs typically in the phrase, “the holy sacrifice of the Mass.”

In this Catholic understanding, the mystery of Christ’s death is interpreted as the perfect sacrifice (of himself) by which he reconciles sinful humanity with God. Offered once and for all on Calvary, this same eternal sacrifice is made present sacramentally in every celebration of the Mass—so that the participants can share in its benefits and unite themselves to Christ in their own self-offering. Rightly understood, this Catholic doctrine is quite compatible with the Anglican understanding. [1]

What about the name “Holy Eucharist,” which is used widely today by Anglicans and others? “Eucharist” is from the Greek word that means “giving thanks,” a word still used in modern Greek as the everyday expression for “thank you!” When addressed to God, the word expresses the glad recognition that everything is grace (sheer, unmerited gift from God).

When the Christian community gathers in the name and power of Jesus, its fundamental stance is this joyous, deeply grateful praise of God. It is expressed richly in the blessing prayer chanted or recited by the celebrant of the Eucharist, which is called “The Great Thanksgiving.” We praise and thank God for creating the entire universe, including ourselves, and above all for redeeming us through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

Our gratitude and praise pass over naturally into the humble offering of ourselves—our life, our energy, our talents—to be spent for God’s purposes. And we do all this consciously in union with Christ our brother and Lord. It is summed up in the final words of the great prayer: “By him, and with him, and in him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all honor and glory is yours, Almighty Father, now and for ever. AMEN.” [2]

All this meaning is included in the sacramental event which then follows. Uniting ourselves with Christ as we eat the one bread and drink from the one cup, we are also united with one another, to be Christ’s Body in this world. What we are doing is, at the same time, “Holy Communion,” “Sacrifice” and “Holy Eucharist.”

Faithfully,
The Theologian

[1] Cf. Rite I: “Accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, whereby we offer and present unto thee, O Lord, our selves, our souls and bodies.” BCP, p. 342.

[2] BCP, p. 369.

The Rev. Wayne L. Fehr writes a monthly column for the diocesan newsletter called "Ask a Theologian," answering questions from ordinary Christians trying to make sense of their faith. You can find and purchase his book "Tracing the Contours of Faith: Christian Theology for Questioners" here. 

Ask a Theologian: Confirmation

Dear Theologian,

Can you help me understand what our sacrament of Confirmation is really all about? When I was a Roman Catholic, I was taught that Confirmation confers the Holy Spirit upon a person. But now, in the Anglican communion, I’m told that it is the rite by which a person, originally baptized as an infant, publicly renews and re-affirms the Baptismal Covenant in a personally responsible way. Which explanation is (more) correct?

Somewhat Confused

Dear Confused,

Let me approach this question by putting it into a larger theological context. There are much deeper mysteries involved in this discussion than the history or theory of ritual.

Most basic of all is the Mystery of God, as known in Jesus of Nazareth (together with all that led up to him and all that has followed from him). In our cultural world, this Mystery must never be trivialized by taking it for granted while we argue about ritual and Church arrangements.

Rather, the question of God is the burning issue for all human beings today who seek meaning and purpose for their existence. How, many ask, is it still possible to believe in God, or to speak of God plausibly?

The question about God can never be answered theoretically in a satisfying way. Only people who bear witness to the divine Goodness by their values and behavior can make belief in God plausible to others.

The Church of Jesus is called to do this, to speak of God by its very existence, and to allow the reality of Jesus to continue to reverberate in history. As he was the supreme witness to the divine Goodness, even and especially in his helplessness and suffering, so also those who bear his name are to continue the witness.

Church, therefore, must be seen as implicated in the ultimate Mystery of God and the manifestation of that Mystery in Jesus the Christ. The Church can and must be understood as “the Body” (in Paul’s sense), the corporate mystery of human beings who are being gathered, transformed, and re-created by the Holy Spirit, to be—as a community— the visible sign of Christ’s presence to the world.

If Church is understood in this dimension, and not merely in its institutional and organizational features, then one can appreciate why initiation into it could be of enormous human significance. And only then can the discussion of Confirmation be appreciated properly as the effort to understand how each member is to enter more deeply and authentically into the fellowship of the Crucified and Risen One.

Christian Initiation is the process by which an individual is brought into the corporate mystery of the Church. It is important to distinguish at least two aspects of this: (1) the actual process of instruction and formation by which a person gradually takes on the vision, values, and behavior of the Christian “Way” (2) the sacramental ritual of Initiation whereby the entry of a person into full communion with the Body is symbolized, enacted, and celebrated.

In the early Church, Initiation was celebrated sacramentally in one unified rite (water Baptism, followed immediately by laying on of hands, with or without anointing, and admission to the Table of the Eucharist). The symbolic force of the laying on of hands (sometimes with anointing) immediately after Baptism was to impart the “seal of the Spirit.”

A distinct rite, believed to impart the Holy Spirit at some time later than Baptism, came into being gradually, as a kind of accidental development in the Western Church. This happened because of the insistence that only the Bishop could perform that part of the original unified baptismal rite. This led to postponement of the concluding ceremony of Baptism for ever-increasing periods of time—ultimately, for years.

Consequently, what had originally been an intrinsic moment in the entire baptismal liturgy now came to be felt as a separate and distinct rite. Because the ritual of laying on of hands, often with anointing, had originally symbolized the gift of the Holy Spirit within the unified initiation liturgy, theologians tended to attribute to the separated ritual the efficacy of conferring the Holy Spirit.

Hence the medieval “sacrament” of Confirmation was believed to impart the Holy Spirit in a new way, beyond the efficacy of Baptism, conferring upon a person at the threshold of adulthood special gifts and “strength for the battle” (robur ad pugnam) of Christian life. This continues to be the Roman Catholic understanding of the sacrament of Confirmation.

The distinctive Anglican conception and practice of Confirmation came into being in the 16th century, influenced by the continental Reformers.

A close examination of the rite of Confirmation in the Prayer Books of 1549, 1552 and 1662 shows the attempt to combine a new function of Confirmation (the reaffirmation of baptismal vows at a mature age by a person baptized as an infant) with the old liturgical form of the medieval sacrament of Confirmation (which signified the imparting of the Holy Spirit).

Thus, two quite different and unrelated functions of “Confirmation” were combined uneasily in one ritual. This is the ambivalent heritage with which Anglican theologians, liturgists, and pastors have had to wrestle in modern times.

From our present vantage point, the effort of medieval theologians to attribute to Confirmation a new gift of the Spirit (beyond the bestowal of the Spirit in Baptism) seems to be simply a misunderstanding.

On the other hand, the ritual of laying on of hands with anointing really does have baptismal meaning (as it did originally, when it was not yet removed from its full liturgical context). That is, it is an extension of one very important meaning of Baptism: the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Not all the meanings of Baptism are symbolized by the Confirmation ritual, of course. But the meaning of being given the Holy Spirit is clearly expressed, and offers the possibility of saying Yes in freedom to this gift once given, of receiving it actively in a stance of faith which really affirms the entire commitment of a Christian.

Rightly understood, therefore, the apparent anomaly of Confirmation (as an accidentally detached symbolic fragment of the baptismal liturgy) can serve to confront a mature person with the reality of his/her Baptism.

This “extension” of Baptism into a time when the baptized is capable of an act of faith really allows him/her to relate with deliberate choice to a sacrament celebrated originally without his/her personal participation.

Faithfully,

The Theologian

The Rev. Wayne L. Fehr writes a monthly column for the diocesan newsletter called "Ask a Theologian," answering questions from ordinary Christians trying to make sense of their faith. You can find and purchase his book "Tracing the Contours of Faith: Christian Theology for Questioners" here.