|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Christians hold four views
The four primary views of Communion (or the Eucharist) in Christian theology, particularly regarding the nature of the bread and wine, are:
- Transubstantiation: Held primarily by the Roman Catholic Church. The bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ in substance, though their appearance (accidents) remains unchanged. Based on a literal interpretation of John 6:53-56 and the Last Supper accounts (e.g., Matthew 26:26-28).
- Consubstantiation: Associated with Lutheran theology. The body and blood of Christ are present "in, with, and under" the bread and wine, which remain bread and wine. Christ’s presence is real but coexists with the elements, not replacing them.
- Memorialism: Held by many Protestant denominations (e.g., Baptists, some Evangelicals). The bread and wine are purely symbolic, serving as a memorial of Christ’s sacrifice. Communion is an act of remembrance, not a transformation or real presence (based on 1 Corinthians 11:23-25).
- Spiritual Presence: Held by Reformed traditions (e.g., Presbyterians, some Anglicans). Christ is spiritually present in the elements, but they remain bread and wine. Believers partake in Christ’s presence through faith during Communion, without a physical transformation.
What the Bible tells us
There are two times Jesus talks about his body being bread and his blood being drink. They are found in the following passages: John 6:53-56, Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19-20, 1 Corinthians 11:23-25.
The matter of whether or not He is speaking literally or spiritually is settled in John 6 if you continue to read past verse 56.
John 6:60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
The other passages all refer to the Last Supper or Communion.. John, in chapter 6, is referring to the day after Jesus fed the multitude. Therefore, this was explained before the Last Supper. You do not find the disciples questioning what Jesus meant at the Last Supper like you do in John chapter 6. There was no need to explain that He was speaking spiritually a second time.
Transubstantiation
Transubstantiation – the idea that during Mass, the bread and wine used for Communion become the body and blood of Jesus Christ – is central to the Roman Catholic faith. Indeed, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that “the Eucharist is ‘the source and summit of the Christian life.’”
The doctrine of transubstantiation was formally defined by the Catholic Church at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, under Pope Innocent III. The Council of Trent (1545–1563) later reaffirmed and clarified transubstantiation in response to Protestant Reformation challenges.
While the Apostolic Fathers did not use the term "transubstantiation" or its Aristotelian framework, their writings—particularly Ignatius, Justin, and Irenaeus—demonstrate a belief in the Eucharist as truly Christ’s body and blood, beyond mere symbolism. Other Apostolic Fathers, like Clement of Rome or Polycarp, focus less explicitly on the Eucharist, so their views are less clear. The absence of precise terminology reflects the early Church’s emphasis on mystery over metaphysical definition.
Interestingly, a recent Pew Research Center survey reveals that most self-identified Catholics reject this fundamental doctrine. Nearly seven out of ten Catholics (69%) believe that during Catholic Mass, the bread and wine used in Communion are merely symbols of Jesus Christ’s body and blood. This was pointed out to me by my dear friend and brother in Christ, who happens to be Roman Catholic. He also points out that those who do not believe the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church have "essentially" excommunicated themselves from the RCC.
The Orthodox Church generally avoids the specific term transubstantiation. Instead, Orthodoxy emphasizes the mystery of the transformation without adopting the philosophical framework of transubstantiation, which relies on Aristotelian concepts of substance and accidents. The Orthodox view, often described as "mystical realism," holds that the bread and wine are truly Christ's body and blood, but the precise mechanism is left as a divine mystery, not defined in scholastic terms.
Consubstantiation, Memorialism, and Spiritual Presence Summary
Consubstantiation (Lutheran) holds that Christ’s body and blood are present “in, with, and under” the bread and wine, coexisting with their physical substances without transforming them. Memorialism (Zwinglian) views the Eucharist as purely symbolic, a remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice with no real presence. Spiritual Presence (Calvinist) asserts that Christ is spiritually present to believers through faith during the Eucharist, without physical transformation of the elements, emphasizing a dynamic communion via the Holy Spirit.
My View - for what it is worth
Why Spiritual Presence is Likely the Best Understanding
Spiritual Presence offers a balanced approach, avoiding the metaphysical complexities of consubstantiation and the Catholic transubstantiation, which rely on Aristotelian philosophy to explain Christ’s presence. It also sidesteps Memorialism’s reduction of the Eucharist to mere symbolism, which may diminish its spiritual significance. By focusing on Christ’s spiritual presence through faith, this view aligns closely with biblical texts like John 6:63, which emphasizes the Spirit’s role in worship, and 1 Corinthians 10:16-17, which highlights spiritual participation in Christ. It respects the mystery of the sacrament as some Apostolic Fathers seem to, fosters personal faith, and bridges diverse Christian perspectives without requiring speculative metaphysics or denying the Eucharist’s profound spiritual reality.
Additionally:
The phrase where Jesus explicitly says "the flesh is nothing" is most directly tied to John 6:63, where He states, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life". This is in the context of the Bread of Life discourse (John 6:53-56), where Jesus clarifies that His words about eating His flesh and drinking His blood are spiritual, not carnal.
Other passages where Jesus and others address the concept of the flesh versus the spirit, or flesh having no value:
- Matthew 16:17: "And Jesus answered him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven’". Here, Jesus emphasizes that spiritual revelation comes from God, not human ("flesh and blood") understanding.
- John 8:15: "You judge according to the flesh; I judge no one". Jesus contrasts human judgment, based on the flesh, with His divine perspective, implying the limitations of fleshly understanding.
- Romans 8:5: "For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit"
- Colossians 2:11: For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.
There are others, but that should suffice.
Final Thoughts
As a non-denominational Christian, I hold to the core belief in the Biblical Jesus Christ, which unites us as brothers and sisters in faith, regardless of denominational differences. The topic of Communion is one reason I choose to remain non-denominational, as I seek to focus on Christ over doctrinal disputes. I humbly acknowledge that I may be mistaken in my understanding and rely on God's grace for forgiveness. If He forgives our willful sins, I trust He also extends mercy for our ignorance, misunderstandings, and shortcomings.
A reasonable summation. You may be correct, but then again, you may not.
70% of Roman Catholics have come to believe that the bread and wine, once transformed by God’s miracle is a “symbol” because their faith is wealth. Unfortunately in todays secular dominated society, weak faith is not just affecting Roman Catholics, but many Christians. Sad, but true. calling out the weak faith of Catholics does not prove “greater” faith in other denominations.
You miss the mark in your assumed definition of “flesh” (if I grasp your conclusion correctly). Jesus, Christ was 100% human, and 100% God simultaneously. Can you accurately derive the meaning of the word “flesh” in the singular “God/Man”?
The answer lies in the understanding of “spirit and life”, which you obviously interpret as “excludes” your interpretation of “flesh”.
The foundation of the Roman Catholic Church is that through a miracle performed by God, the bread and wine are transformed into the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ, (body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ) [*the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist]
No one can “see” this transformation, rather it must be accepted on faith. Much like the last supper, when Jesus himself said to his disciples as he broke the bread “take this and eat, this is my body”, likewise with the cup of wine, “take this and drink this is my blood”. The disciples saw “bread and wine”, do you doubt what Jesus stated flately, “this is my body, this is my blood”?
Do you believe Jesus is who he said he was? or not?
Is it possible for Jesus to speak a lie?
He said, “I am the way, the TRUTH, and the life” (similar to “spirit and life, yes/no?) Can you stretch you human mind to accept that God is capable of such a miracle as this?
Responding to: “70% of Roman Catholics have come to believe that the bread and wine, once transformed by God’s miracle is a “symbol” because their faith is wealth. Unfortunately in todays secular dominated society, weak faith is not just affecting Roman Catholics, but many Christians. Sad, but true. calling out the weak faith of Catholics does not prove “greater” faith in other denominations.”
Comment: I don’t believe views on this topic reflect the strength or weakness of someone’s faith. You may see it differently, but that perspective shouldn’t be imposed on my beliefs. A person can have deep faith in Christ while questioning certain denominational teachings. I included the statistic because you brought it to my attention in our earlier discussions. Without your input, I wouldn’t have known about it, and I thought it might interest others reading this post. I also see your point about “those who do not believe the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church have ‘essentially’ excommunicated themselves from the RCC.” This reminds me why I should write a post on why I am a non-denominational Christian. Many denominations, from what I’ve observed, require members to accept certain beliefs that can be considered questionable.
Responding to: “You miss the mark in your assumed definition of “flesh” (if I grasp your conclusion correctly). Jesus, Christ was 100% human, and 100% God simultaneously. Can you accurately derive the meaning of the word “flesh” in the singular “God/Man”?
The answer lies in the understanding of “spirit and life”, which you obviously interpret as “excludes” your interpretation of “flesh”.”
Comment: I don’t recall defining or interpreting ‘flesh’ or assuming a specific definition. The term ‘flesh’ in this post comes directly from Biblical passages. Other passages contrasting flesh and spirit could have been omitted, as they’re included only to highlight that Biblical teachings emphasize the spirit over the flesh. If this made it confusing, please forgive me for adding the passages.
Responding to: No one can “see” this transformation, rather it must be accepted on faith. Much like the last supper, when Jesus himself said to his disciples as he broke the bread “take this and eat, this is my body”, likewise with the cup of wine, “take this and drink this is my blood”. The disciples saw “bread and wine”, do you doubt what Jesus stated flately, “this is my body, this is my blood”?
Comment: I thought that particular point was made clearly in the post where I linked to the “Accidents” as they are called in the RCC. See number 1 next to Transubstantiation.
Yes, I believe what Jesus said and what the disciples saw at the Last Supper. There was no question because Jesus had previously told the disciples the words he had spoken were “spirit”. Pneuma, translated as spirit, carries the sense of a spiritual dimension or reality, as opposed to the physical or literal. Jesus is clarifying that His teaching about eating His flesh and drinking His blood (John 6:53-58) is not about physical consumption but a spiritual act of faith, enabled by the Spirit. That is why my position, out of the four, remains Spiritual Presence.
Responding to: Do you believe Jesus is who he said he was? or not?
Is it possible for Jesus to speak a lie?
Comment: I firmly believe that Jesus is who He claimed to be and that His words are trustworthy. I reject any suggestion that He is a liar.
Are you implying that holding a “reasonable summation” (as you first said it was) on this topic casts doubt on my faith in Christ? Does it cast doubt on the faith of 69% of Roman Catholics and 100% of Protestants and non-denominationalists? The position my brothers and sisters in Christ hold on this issue does not cause me to question their faith in Christ. I am curious about your final words.
If the Flesh of Christ is of no avail, then He was incarnated in vain, died in vain, and rose from the dead in vain. If that is the case, then “vain, too, is your faith, you are still in your sins, and those who have died in Christ have perished. And if you have a problem with the sensory evidence of the Eucharist, I ask you, when Christ walked among us, could His Divinity be seen, or did He appear to be a man like any other?
Hi Andrew, thank you for sharing this—it’s a profound argument that gets to the heart of Christ’s incarnation and our salvation, and I appreciate the passion behind it. I agree wholeheartedly that Christ’s flesh does avail for our redemption: His incarnation, atoning death, and resurrection are the very foundation of our faith (as 1 Corinthians 15:17-18 warns against denying). Without them, we’d indeed be “still in our sins.” But I believe the Catholic reading of John 6 as mandating physical consumption of Christ’s flesh in the Eucharist imports a literalism that Jesus Himself corrects in the passage. Let me explain step by step, staying close to the text.
First, on John 6:63 (“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing”) and the incarnation: You’re right that if Christ’s flesh profited nothing, the gospel would unravel. But the phrase “the flesh profits nothing” (or “my flesh” in some translations) isn’t a dismissal of Christ’s incarnate body—it’s a rebuke of a carnal, unbelieving approach to His words. The crowd in John 6:52-60 is scandalized by Jesus’ metaphor of eating His flesh and drinking His blood, taking it in a crude, physical sense (much like they grumbled about the manna in the wilderness). Jesus responds by saying His teaching isn’t about literal cannibalism or sensory rituals that “profit” apart from the Spirit—it’s about believing in Him as the Bread of Life, which the Spirit makes alive in our hearts.
Look at the immediate context: Just verses earlier, in John 6:47, Jesus says, “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.” And in 6:35, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.” The “eating” and “drinking” are parallel to “believing” and “coming”—spiritual realities received by faith, not a physical transaction. If it were about literal flesh-eating, why does Jesus pivot to “My words are spirit and life” right when the disciples are stumbling? He’s clarifying that eternal life comes through the Spirit-quickened word of faith, not unaided human (“fleshly”) efforts or misunderstandings. This echoes Paul’s point in Romans 8:3-4: The law was weak through the flesh, but God sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to condemn sin in the flesh, so the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk by the Spirit.
The incarnation absolutely avails—Christ’s flesh was crucified for us, and by the Spirit, we’re united to that victory through faith (Romans 8:10-11). But to say we must physically consume it now risks turning grace into a new “fleshly” work, which John 6:63 warns against. As Jesus prayed in John 17:19-21, our unity with Him (and one another) is through the truth of His word, sanctified by the Spirit—not a repeated ingestion of substance.
On the sensory evidence: This is a fair analogy, but it actually highlights the difference. When Christ walked among us, He was fully human flesh—tangible, touchable, and visible as a man (1 John 1:1)—yet His divinity was veiled to faith-filled eyes (like the disciples on the road to Emmaus in Luke 24). We didn’t (and don’t) see or taste His divinity; we receive it by believing the apostolic witness. The Eucharist, in the Protestant view, is a precious sign and seal of that same reality (as Calvin described it)—bread and wine that, by the Spirit, point us to Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice (Hebrews 10:10-14). It nourishes faith when we discern His body broken for us (1 Corinthians 11:23-29), but it remains bread and wine to our senses because it’s not another incarnation or transformation of substance. Requiring it to become physical flesh shifts the miracle from Christ’s finished work to our ritual, which risks the very “vain faith” Paul decries if it’s mishandled.
In short, Christ’s flesh profits eternally through the Spirit and faith—incarnation, death, and resurrection included. The Eucharist celebrates that, inviting us to “feed on Him in our hearts by faith” (as the Anglican prayer book puts it). I am not an Anglican, but all denominations say wise things.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on John 6:47’s emphasis on belief—does that fit with a physical reading? I am open to more discussion. As I said in the video, we have differing views on many things, but if we have the same view of Christ, then you are my brother or sister. I hope you can agree to that.