The Church and the sacraments

The Eucharist

Why the bread and wine are never merely a reminder, and how the four traditions explain what they will not deny.

You are reading the brief version. Switch the depth control to Complete for the full treatment.

On the night before He died, Jesus took bread, gave thanks, broke it and said this is my body. He took the cup and said this is my blood of the new testament. And He said do this in remembrance of me.

All four traditions hold that what the faithful receive is truly the body and blood of Christ. They explain it differently and sometimes decline to explain it at all. But none of them holds that the bread and wine merely remind us of an absent Saviour.

That is the line. On one side stand Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran and Anglican teaching, with Christ genuinely given. On the other stands the memorialist view which Zwingli introduced in the 1520s and which most Baptist, Pentecostal and non-denominational churches hold today.

Catholic: transubstantiation - the substance becomes Christ's body and blood while the appearances of bread and wine remain.
Orthodox: a true change effected by the Spirit, deliberately not analysed; the mystery is confessed rather than explained.
Lutheran: the true body and blood are present in, with and under the bread and wine, which remain bread and wine - the sacramental union.
Anglican: a real presence, verily and indeed received by the faithful, with the manner left undefined - and a spectrum of views within that.

The Eucharist is also a sacrifice - not a repetition of Calvary but the one sacrifice made present - in Catholic, Orthodox and much Anglican teaching. Lutherans and evangelical Anglicans resist that language while affirming that the Supper gives what Calvary won.

And it is a meal for the Church, not a private devotion. We being many are one bread, one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

What Christ said, and how His hearers took it

Four accounts of the institution survive: Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, and Paul in 1 Corinthians 11 - the last written first, in about AD 54, and introduced with the formal language of tradition received and handed on.

But the decisive passage is earlier, in John 6, and it is worth following closely because of how the conversation goes.

Jesus says He is the bread of life. The crowd is interested. Then He says: the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews strive among themselves, saying how can this man give us his flesh to eat?

At this point, a teacher using a metaphor clarifies. Jesus does the opposite. He intensifies, and switches to a blunter verb - trogo, which means to gnaw or chew: except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life... for my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

Many of His disciples say this is an hard saying; who can hear it? and they walk away. He lets them go. Then He turns to the Twelve and asks whether they will leave too.

Pause and thinkPause: Jesus elsewhere corrects people who take Him too literally - Nicodemus about being born again, the woman at the well about living water, the disciples about the leaven of the Pharisees. Why does He not correct the crowd in John 6?

What the early Church believed

This is one of the clearest cases in patristics, and it is worth knowing the citations because they are usually decisive in conversation.

Ignatius of Antioch, around 107, writes of heretics who abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. He is identifying a group by their denial of the real presence - within a decade of the apostle John's death.

Justin Martyr, around 155, explaining Christian worship to a pagan emperor: not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but... the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.

Irenaeus, around 180, argues against the Gnostics from the Eucharist: if the flesh is not saved, then the Lord did not redeem us with His blood, and the cup is not communion with His blood.

Cyril of Jerusalem, catechising the newly baptised around 350: since He Himself has declared and said of the bread, This is My Body, who shall dare to doubt any longer?

Augustine: that bread which you see on the altar, sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ.

There is no surviving early Christian writer who teaches that the Eucharist is merely a memorial. The first substantial figure to do so is Ratramnus in the ninth century, and the position becomes a movement only with Zwingli in the 1520s.

Where the four traditions stand

Catholic

The Church teaches transubstantiation: by the consecration, the whole substance of the bread is changed into the substance of Christ's body and the whole substance of the wine into His blood, while the accidents - the appearances, taste, chemistry and physical properties - remain. The vocabulary is Aristotelian and the Church has been clear that the philosophy is a tool for stating the mystery, not the mystery itself; Trent defined the fact and called transubstantiation a most fitting name for it. Christ is present whole and entire under either species, which is why communion under one kind is sufficient, though both are now common. The presence persists after the liturgy, which is the basis for reservation of the Blessed Sacrament, Benediction and eucharistic adoration - practices unique to the West. The Mass is a true sacrifice: not a new immolation but the one sacrifice of the cross made sacramentally present, offered for the living and the dead. The Catechism calls the Eucharist the source and summit of the Christian life. Communion is ordinarily restricted to Catholics in a state of grace who have observed the eucharistic fast.

Orthodox

Orthodoxy confesses that the bread and wine truly become the body and blood of Christ, and deliberately declines to explain the mechanism. The Greek term metousiosis appears in seventeenth-century confessions responding to Western controversies, but Orthodox theology generally treats scholastic analysis as an intrusion: the change is real, and it is a mystery - which is the ordinary Eastern word for sacrament. The consecration is associated above all with the epiclesis, the invocation of the Holy Spirit upon the gifts, rather than with the words of institution alone; the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom asks the Father to send down His Holy Spirit and make this bread the precious body of Christ. Communion is given in both kinds together, by spoon, from a common chalice, to all the baptised and chrismated including infants. The Divine Liturgy is understood as participation in the one eternal offering of Christ and as the Church's entry into the heavenly worship - which is why Orthodox architecture, music and ceremonial aim at heaven rather than at instruction. Reservation is for communion of the sick; there is no tradition of adoration outside the Liturgy.

Lutheran

Lutherans confess the real presence in the strongest terms and reject both transubstantiation and memorialism. Article 10 of the Augsburg Confession states that the body and blood of Christ are truly present and distributed to those who eat in the Supper, and condemns those who teach otherwise. The Formula of Concord speaks of a sacramental union: the body and blood are present in, with and under the bread and wine, which remain genuinely bread and wine. Lutherans deliberately refuse to say how, calling it a mystery, and object to transubstantiation not because it claims too much presence but because it claims too much explanation and denies that the bread remains. Luther's ground is the plain words this is my body, which he refused to soften at Marburg in 1529 - he chalked hoc est corpus meum on the table and would not move. The presence extends to all who receive, believers and unbelievers alike - manducatio indignorum - because it depends on Christ's word and not on the recipient's faith, though only faith receives it to blessing. Lutherans resist calling the Supper a sacrifice offered by the Church, since the Apology attacks the medieval Mass at length on this point; they affirm it as testament and gift, from God to us.

Anglican

Anglicanism affirms a real presence while declining to define its manner, and holds a genuine internal range. Article 28 states that to such as rightly, worthily and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ; that the body of Christ is given, taken and eaten in the Supper only after a heavenly and spiritual manner, and that the mean whereby it is received is faith. The same Article rejects transubstantiation as repugnant to the plain words of Scripture and as overthrowing the nature of a sacrament, and Article 29 denies that the wicked are partakers of Christ - against the Lutheran position. Article 31 insists that the sacrifices of Masses were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits, aimed at the medieval doctrine that the Mass was a further propitiation. The Catechism's formula is the classic Anglican statement: the body and blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper. Within that, the Anglo-Catholic wing holds a view close to the Catholic one and practises reservation and adoration; the evangelical wing holds a receptionist or virtualist view closer to Calvin; the central tradition follows Hooker, who said that the real presence is to be sought not in the sacrament but in the worthy receiver, and who counselled that the manner is best left unexamined.

The Eucharist as sacrifice

This was among the hottest questions of the Reformation and it remains live.

All four agree that Christ's sacrifice on the cross was once for all and cannot be repeated. Hebrews is explicit and none of them disputes it.

The Catholic and Orthodox position is that the Eucharist is the same sacrifice, made present - not another one. The offering on the altar and the offering on Calvary are numerically one act, entering our time. Trent's language is that the manner of offering differs - bloody then, unbloody now - while the victim and the priest are the same.

The Lutheran objection is directed at what the late-medieval Mass had become in practice: a work performed by the priest, offered to God to obtain benefits, sold for money, multiplied for the dead. The Apology of the Augsburg Confession argues that this reverses the direction of the sacrament, which is God's gift to us rather than our offering to Him. Lutherans will speak of a sacrifice of thanksgiving in response.

Anglicanism's Article 31 makes the same protest, and the Prayer Book's language threads a careful needle: the consecration prayer calls Calvary a full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction, and then the post-communion prayer offers ourselves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy and lively sacrifice. The offering is real; its content is the Church.

Where modern denominations differ

Who differs: Baptist, Pentecostal, non-denominational and most independent churches hold the memorialist view - the bread and wine are symbols that help us remember Christ's death, and nothing is conveyed. Many use grape juice and individual cups, and celebrate monthly or quarterly rather than weekly, which is itself a statement about what they think is happening. Reformed and Presbyterian churches hold a higher view than this and should not be lumped in: Calvin taught a true spiritual presence in which the believer is lifted by the Spirit to feed on Christ in heaven - a real communion, though not a presence in the elements. Methodists inherited a high Wesleyan sacramentalism that has often thinned in practice.

What they hold: That do this in remembrance of me settles the matter; that John 6:63 - the flesh profiteth nothing - shows the discourse was spiritual; that Jesus used metaphors constantly (I am the door, I am the vine); that a physical presence would be cannibalism; and that Christ's body is in heaven and a body cannot be in many places at once.

How to answer:

On remembrance. The Greek anamnesis is not the English reminiscing. It is the word used in the Septuagint for the memorial offerings of Israel and in the Passover, where the participant is not recalling a distant event but entering it - this is the bread of affliction which our fathers ate, said by people who were not there. A biblical memorial makes the past event present to those keeping it. And note that Paul, immediately after quoting in remembrance of me, warns that whoever eats unworthily is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord and that some have died for it. Nobody incurs that by mishandling a symbol.

On John 6:63. Grant that it is the best text they have. Then note that the flesh profiteth nothing uses flesh in Paul's habitual sense - human nature relying on itself - and that Jesus says it after letting disciples leave rather than to stop them leaving. If He meant to correct a misunderstanding, He chose the least effective moment and the most obscure wording in the Gospels.

On the metaphors. I am the door and I am the vine are exactly the right comparison to make, and they help the traditions' case rather than hurting it. When Jesus says He is the door, nobody argues. Nobody walks away. There is no dispute in the text, because everyone present understands it as a figure. In John 6, the hearers say out loud that they are taking Him literally, they object, they leave - and He repeats it more strongly. The difference between the two situations is the whole point.

On cannibalism. No tradition claims we consume the natural, physical flesh as one would meat. The presence is sacramental - real but not according to the manner of ordinary bodies. The accidents remain bread and wine precisely so that this is not what happens. The early Christians faced this exact charge from pagans and answered it the same way.

On the body being in one place. This is the Reformed objection, and Lutherans have the sharpest answer: it reasons about Christ from general principles about bodies rather than from the incarnation. The ascended humanity of Christ shares in the divine reign - sitting at the right hand of God is not occupying a chair - and a God who could be contained in a womb is not obviously prevented from being present in bread.

And the historical point, which is the strongest single move. Ask what the Christians closest to the apostles believed. Ignatius, who probably knew John, marks out heretics by their refusal to confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of Christ. Justin tells a pagan emperor it is not common bread. Irenaeus argues from it against the Gnostics. Cyril tells catechumens not to doubt. There is no early writer on the other side. A doctrine that first appears clearly in the sixteenth century, and claims to restore the apostolic practice, has a great deal of silence to explain.

Work with it

Check yourself

Why is John 6 considered the strongest scriptural case for the real presence?

Check yourself

What does the Lutheran phrase "in, with and under" mean, and how does it differ from transubstantiation?

Check yourself

What does the Greek word anamnesis ("remembrance") mean in its biblical usage?

Objection drill

Jesus said "do this in remembrance of me". Remembrance means remembering. He also said "I am the door" and "I am the vine", and nobody thinks he was made of wood. Communion is a beautiful memorial of what he did, and turning bread into God is superstition that the Reformation rightly swept away.

Write your answer first. You will remember it far better than one you only read.

A model answer

Three arguments here. Take them in order, because the third is the real one.

On remembrance. The word Jesus uses, anamnesis, is not the English word reminisce. It is the technical vocabulary of Israel's memorial offerings, and above all of the Passover. At a Passover meal the participant says this is the bread of affliction which our fathers ate when they came out of Egypt - and the rabbinic instruction is that each person should regard himself as though he personally came out of Egypt. A biblical memorial does not merely recall a past event; it brings the participants into it. Jesus is instituting the Supper at a Passover meal, using that vocabulary, to people who had kept Passover every year of their lives.

And notice what Paul says four verses after quoting in remembrance of me: whoever eats and drinks unworthily is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, and for this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. People are dying of this. Nobody incurs guilt against a person by mishandling a symbol of him, and no one falls ill from misusing a visual aid.

On the metaphors. This comparison is the right one to make, and it settles the matter in the opposite direction. When Jesus says I am the door, there is no dispute in the text. Nobody objects. Nobody asks how he can be made of wood. Nobody leaves. Everyone present understands a figure of speech, and John records no argument.

Now look at John 6. The hearers state their literal understanding out loud - how can this man give us his flesh to eat? This is precisely the moment when a teacher using a metaphor clarifies, and it is precisely what Jesus does elsewhere in this Gospel: with Nicodemus about the second birth, with the Samaritan woman about living water. Instead He repeats the claim four more times and switches from the ordinary verb for eating to trogo, which means to gnaw or chew. Many disciples leave. He watches them go and asks the Twelve if they want to follow. This is the only place in the Gospels where Jesus loses followers over a misunderstanding He refuses to correct - and the memorialist reading requires that it was a misunderstanding.

On the Reformation sweeping away superstition. This is the argument that carries the emotional weight, and it deserves care, because there really were abuses. Masses sold, multiplied for money, treated as a work performed on God's behalf - the Reformers were attacking something genuine, and Trent itself reformed much of it.

But the historical claim embedded here does not survive contact with the sources. Ask what the Christians closest to the apostles believed. Ignatius of Antioch, writing around 107, identifies heretics by the fact that they abstain from the Eucharist, because they confess not that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ. Justin Martyr, explaining the faith to a pagan emperor around 155, says not as common bread and common drink do we receive these. Irenaeus argues against the Gnostics from the reality of the presence. Cyril of Jerusalem tells the newly baptised not to dare to doubt.

There is no surviving Christian writer of the first eight centuries who teaches that the Supper is only a memorial. Not one. The position appears in a limited form with Ratramnus in the ninth century and becomes a movement with Zwingli in the 1520s - and Luther, who had every reason to break with Rome, would not go with him. At Marburg in 1529, with Protestant unity against the Empire hanging on agreement, Luther chalked hoc est corpus meum on the table and refused to move. He regarded the plain words as binding even at the cost of the alliance.

What the four traditions actually claim is worth stating precisely, because turning bread into God is not it. They claim that Christ gives Himself through material means, which is the same logic as the incarnation itself. A God who was willing to be a foetus in a womb and a corpse in a tomb is not standing on His dignity about bread. The sacramental principle - that God uses matter to give grace

is either right or wrong across the board, and the Christian who accepts that God

became flesh has already conceded the principle.

Memory work

Turn each card over, then say honestly whether you knew it. Cards you miss come back sooner.

I have worked through this section