Have you ever tried to explain the Lord’s Supper, the Eucharist, to someone? It is difficult is it not? There are Scriptural references that say it is Body and Blood, and yet when we partake of the Lord’s Supper, it is rather obvious that we are eating bread and wine. So, how do we resolve the apparent discrepancy between what Scripture says and what we experience?
The Gospel of John quotes Jesus as saying:
I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.”
The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?”
Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.
Well, that certainly sounds like Our Lord Jesus Christ expected us to eat his Body and Blood. And, if one reads the Gospels, it is clear that he called the bread and wine his Body and Blood. But, how do we explain that bread and wine is the same as Body and Blood?
Well, there have been various explanations. The Roman Catholics tried by adopting Aristotelian philosophy and using concepts such as the idea that the “accidents” of bread and wine remain the same while the substance changes each time the Eucharist is celebrated. Unfortunately, once Aristotelian philosophy passed from the scene, it left the Roman explanation hanging in a limbo–pun intended–as an explanation with no philosophical support other than a dogmatic declaration by the Church.
Protestants by and large said that the language was purely symbolic–Lutherans and some, but not all, Anglicans excepted. This is interesting because Protestants were the group who, by and large, claimed that both Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox did not take the Scripture literally enough and seriously enough. That is, except when taking the Scripture literally might make it very difficult to support one’s theology. In this case, I need to commend the Lutherans who openly stated that the Lord’s Supper is really Body and Blood. They say that Scripture said precisely what it meant without the need for symbolic interpretations.
So, how do Orthodox explain that bread and wine is the same as Body and Blood? Well let me phrase it as follows:
Can you describe the hypostatic union? Jesus is fully God. Jesus is fully man. The Church Fathers were never able to describe the union. They were only able to say what it was not. The Reformers agreed with the Church Fathers. And, so, to this day the description of Jesus being both God and man is, “We confess that one and the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division, or separation. The distinction between natures was never abolished by their union, but rather the character proper to each of the two natures was preserved as they came together in one person (prosopon) and one hypostasis.” Our entire description of the hypostatic union is four negatives and one positive. The positive is that Jesus is both fully God and fully man.
In the same way, the Lord’s Supper is the presence of the Son of God in an earthly vessel. But, in this case it is not a hypostatic union of divine nature and human nature. Yet, it is, similar in the sense that it is equally hard to describe. And, so, the Orthodox critique of the West is that they tried to describe in “positive” words what is only describable in “negative” words. That is, an Orthodox can tell you that Jesus is both God and man. An Orthodox can tell you that the bread and wine are Body and Blood. And, after that, an Orthodox can only tell you what the hypostatic union is not. An Orthodox can only tell you what the Eucharist is not.
This is one Anglican who has a traditional Eucharistic theology!
After giving out communion one Sunday I said to my priest, “When I hold up the bread and say, ‘Lizzie, the Body of Christ’, am I saying something about Lizzie or the Bread?” The priest replied, “Yes.” I want to hold on to both ends of that.
My main concern with non-traditional (Low-Protestant) eucharistic theology is that once you take away the body and blood from the elements on the altar, the Church, herself, as the “Body of Christ” only becomes a symbol too.
My main concern with traditional (High-Catholic) eucharistic theology is that *sometimes* an over-tight focus on the elements on the altar seem to remove the idea of the Church being the Body of Christ present in the world.
What the Bread is so is the Church, so are we to be…
Lutherans take Christ at his Word when He said “This is My Body….”, Lutherans don’t explain it, we just believe that when we receive the bread and wine that we are eating Christ’s Very Body and we are drinking Christ’s Blood for the forgiveness of sins.
…im slowly starting to wonder if i have been missing out on something important….