Do all of the Christians who account themselves "Traditional" in their theology accept that the real presence is a physical reality?

FireDragon76 · Mar 14, 2023

Ain't Zwinglian said:
Receptionism can lead to a dark place. Unbelief=non presence. Belief=actual presence.

The question is begged: Are the words of Jesus true regardless of faith?

Receptionism is actually a valid historic Lutheran opinion, not just a Reformed opinion. Consecrationism was mostly a 16th and 19th-20th century opinion, although it is also considered consistent with Lutheran confessions; but that doesn't necessarily make Receptionism un-Lutheran.

The Liturgist · Mar 19, 2023

ViaCrucis said:
I was listening to Pastor Jordan Cooper's podcast "Just and Sinner" the other day in which he was speaking about one of the hallmarks of Lutheran Orthodoxy in our affirmation of the Communicatio Idiomatum, the Communication of Attributes between the two natures of Christ; whereby by the union of humanity to Christ's divinity in His Incarnation we affirm and believe that the Divinity communicates attributes with the humanity.

This rejection of Nestorianism is a hallmark of Orthodoxy generally, and also applies in Oriental Orthodoxy, since the doctrine of Hypostatic Union predates the Chalcedonian Schism and is shared by the Oriental Orthodox and the Chalcedonians. Thus, the principle of communicatio idiomatum is equally applicable.

What had largely been forgotten in the Renaissance, but which is now plain to see since we have easy access to the historical records, is that the concept of Communicatio Idiomatum, including Theopaschitism, was advanced with particular urgency by the Oriental Orthodox. Thus, it was actually an intended insult that could have been taken as a compliment when some Reformed Christians accused Lutherans of Monophysitism, while inaccurate, both because Lutherans are Chalcedonians, and because the Oriental Orthodox are Miaphysites,mnot the same as the Monophysites lead by Eutyches.

The Liturgist · Mar 20, 2023

hedrick said:
If Christ is physically present and reception is limited to physically eating him, then I suppose non-believers receive him.

Firstly, I don’t think anyone believes that reception is merely limited to physically consuming the Body and Blood of our Lord, since we are partakers of the Divine Nature, and the Eucharist, the medicine of immortality, is held in Orthodox and Patristic thought to nourish us spiritually, noetically and physically.

Now, moving on to your main point, I believe that the shared tradition of the sacramental Christians would assert that If it is a valid Eucharist, unbelievers do partake of the body and blood of our Lord* but partake unto their destruction, as we find in 1 Corinthians 11:27-34, not discerning the Body of our Lord.

This is why I am aghast at proposals in the Episcopal Church and elsewhere to allow the unbaptized to receive the Eucharist, since while catechumens are Christians, the full initiation into the faith through Baptism has always been a prerequisite.

*This Patristic/Orthodox/Catholic/Lutheran/Assyrian perspective is fully compatible with Calvinist Eucharist theology by virtue of the fact that the Calvinist interpretation is that the Body and Blood are spiritually present in the Bread and Wine. It is of course incompatible with Memorialism, and obviously, Receptionism.

hedrick · Mar 20, 2023

The Liturgist said:
Now, moving on to your main point, I believe that the shared tradition of the sacramental Christians would assert that If it is a valid Eucharist, unbelievers do partake of the body and blood of our Lord* but partake unto their destruction, as we find in 1 Corinthians 11:27-34, not discerning the Body of our Lord.

At least my part of the Reformed tradition disagrees. I've previously posted more extensively, including from Calvin, but here's what Westminster says:

8. Although ignorant and wicked men receive the outward elements in this sacrament; yet, they receive not the thing signified thereby; but, by their unworthy coming thereunto, are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, to their own damnation. Wherefore, all ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with him, so are they unworthy of the Lord’s table; and cannot, without great sin against Christ, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries, or be admitted thereunto.

The Liturgist said:
This is why I am aghast at proposals in the Episcopal Church and elsewhere to allow the unbaptized to receive the Eucharist, since while catechumens are Christians, the full initiation into the faith through Baptism has always been a prerequisite.

I don't think the PCUSA is proposing to change this formally, but there are situations where I would favor unbaptized people receiving, and I suspect in practice they do. The most common in unbaptized children of members from a Baptist background. Often, particularly with older children, parents will choose to hold off on baptism until confirmation. Such children shouldn't be excommunicated. I would guess in most congregations they aren't.

The Liturgist · Mar 20, 2023

hedrick said:
At least my part of the Reformed tradition disagrees. I've previously posted more extensively, including from Calvin, but here's what Westminster says:

8. Although ignorant and wicked men receive the outward elements in this sacrament; yet, they receive not the thing signified thereby; but, by their unworthy coming thereunto, are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, to their own damnation. Wherefore, all ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with him, so are they unworthy of the Lord’s table; and cannot, without great sin against Christ, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries, or be admitted thereunto.

Wow, I had no idea the Westminster Confession was Zwinglian. That is disappointing. I had assumed that the Calvinist view that our Lord is spiritually present in the Eucharist would be present in all the major Reformed confessions.

I don't think the PCUSA is proposing to change this formally, but there are situations where I would favor unbaptized people receiving, and I suspect in practice they do. The most common in unbaptized children of members from a Baptist background. Often, particularly with older children, parents will choose to hold off on baptism until confirmation. Such children shouldn't be excommunicated. I would guess in most congregations they aren't.

I do understand where you are coming from, and if I subscribed to a Western sacramental model, I might even agree, but since I do not, my view is that such children should be baptized and chrismated and receive the Eucharist for the first time as infants.

“Suffer the little ones to come to me.” A friend of mine who is an Orthodox priest recently expressed to me his distaste for the Western practice of delaying First Communion until the age of seven or thereabouts, since there is no reason why infants and toddlers should be excommunicated.

hedrick · Mar 20, 2023

The Liturgist said:
Wow, I had no idea the Westminster Confession was Zwinglian. That is disappointing. I had assumed that the Calvinist view that our Lord is spiritually present in the Eucharist would be present in all the major Reformed confessions.

It's not. Calvin:

"“I deny that men carry away more from the sacrament than they collect in the vessel of faith. Thus nothing is detracted from the sacrament, nay, its reality and efficacy remain unimpaired, although the wicked, after externally partaking of it, go away empty. "

My interpretation of Calvin is that Christ is really present, but our contact with him is mediated by the Holy Spirit. For an unbeliever that doesn't happen. It's not that Christ is absent, but that he doesn't receive Christ. I doubt that Westminster means anything different. Spiritual presence, spiritual eating.

FireDragon76 · Mar 20, 2023

hedrick said:
The posting to which I responded says you judge whether someone believes in the objective presence of Christ by asking whether nonbelievers receive him. I pointed out that one can believe that Christ is objective present but still think that non-believers don't receive him.

If Christ is physically present and reception is limited to physically eating him, then I suppose non-believers receive him. But not everyone believes both of those things.

I think it depends on what one means by "received". The sacrament has no grace if the person receiving Christ rejects him: it's possible to receive the sacrament unworthily, that's basic Lutheran theology. Lutherans do not believe the sacrament has efficacy outside of faith. Nonetheless, Christ's body and blood are offered to everyone to eat and drink. The Reformed sacramentology, OTOH, is still colored by Zwingli's axiom, "the finite is not capable of the infinite".

The Liturgist · Mar 20, 2023

hedrick said:
It's not. Calvin:

"“I deny that men carry away more from the sacrament than they collect in the vessel of faith. Thus nothing is detracted from the sacrament, nay, its reality and efficacy remain unimpaired, although the wicked, after externally partaking of it, go away empty. "

My interpretation of Calvin is that Christ is really present, but our contact with him is mediated by the Holy Spirit. For an unbeliever that doesn't happen. It's not that Christ is absent, but that he doesn't receive Christ. I doubt that Westminster means anything different. Spiritual presence, spiritual eating.

You misunderstood what made me call it Zwinglian. It’s not the idea that wicked go away empty, but rather the phrase “they receive not the thing signified thereby.” The idea that the outward elements of bread and wine are symbols that signify the body and blood of Jesus Christ, and that baptism likewise signifies conversion, is Zwinglian sacramental theology, whereas Calvin expresses a belief in the spiritual presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

I would also observe that Zwinglian sacramentality would not be incompatible with an alternate view, that they receive it but to their destruction.

hedrick · Mar 20, 2023

The Liturgist said:
You misunderstood what made me call it Zwinglian. It’s not the idea that wicked go away empty, but rather the phrase “they receive not the thing signified thereby.” The idea that the outward elements of bread and wine are symbols that signify the body and blood of Jesus Christ, and that baptism likewise signifies conversion, Zwinglian sacramental theology, whereas Calvin expresses a belief in the spiritual presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

I would also observe that Zwinglian sacramentality would not be incompatible with an alternate view, that they receive it but to their destruction.

I just looked at that section of the Institutes again. I don’t think Calvin speaks of spiritual presence, but of spiritual eating. He explains how it is that Christ could say this is my body. But when giving his own explanation, Christ’s body is in heaven, and those who eat in faith are united with him by the Holy Spirit. For him the bread, properly speaking, is not a sign of Chrit’s body, but of our communion with Christ’s body. He wuotes “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10:16.) When we are offered the bread, we are truly offered union with him. “I admit, indeed, that the breaking of bread is a symbol, not the reality. But this being admitted, we duly infer from the exhibition of the symbol that the thing itself is exhibited. … Therefore, if by the breaking of bread the Lord truly represents the partaking of his body, there ought to be no doubt whatever that he truly exhibits and performs it. The rule which the pious ought always to observe is, whenever they see the symbols instituted by the Lord, to think and feel surely persuaded that the truth of the thing signified is also present. For why does the Lord put the symbol of his body into your hands, but just to assure you that you truly partake of him? If this is true, let us feel as much assured that the visible sign is given us in seal of an invisible gift as that his body itself is given to us.”

The Liturgist · Mar 20, 2023

hedrick said:
I just looked at that section of the Institutes again. I don’t think Calvin speaks of spiritual presence, but of spiritual eating. He explains how it is that Christ could say this is my body. But when giving his own explanation, Christ’s body is in heaven, and those who eat in faith are united with him by the Holy Spirit. For him the bread, properly speaking, is not a sign of Chrit’s body, but of our communion with Christ’s body. He wuotes “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10:16.) When we are offered the bread, we are truly offered union with him. “I admit, indeed, that the breaking of bread is a symbol, not the reality. But this being admitted, we duly infer from the exhibition of the symbol that the thing itself is exhibited. … Therefore, if by the breaking of bread the Lord truly represents the partaking of his body, there ought to be no doubt whatever that he truly exhibits and performs it. The rule which the pious ought always to observe is, whenever they see the symbols instituted by the Lord, to think and feel surely persuaded that the truth of the thing signified is also present. For why does the Lord put the symbol of his body into your hands, but just to assure you that you truly partake of him? If this is true, let us feel as much assured that the visible sign is given us in seal of an invisible gift as that his body itself is given to us.”

I had interpreted that to mean a real spiritual presence, but if Calvinism teaches other than that, well, it would tend to accelerate my movement away from it as a Eucharistic system. I agree as our mutual friend @MarkRohfrietsch can attest very strongly with Martin Luther carving “Hoc est corpus meum” into the table. Any Eucharistic theology in which his words are not taken literally, where it would have made more sense had He said “this bread is a symbol of my body” I have a problem with, moreso than with Memorialists, because they are at least trying to interpret the Institution Narrative literally (what is tripping them up is a combination of anti-Catholic thought with a lack of understanding of the meaning of the word “anamnesis”, which is a rich Greek theological term like Logos or Prosopon, which does mean remembrance, but it also means recapitulation, and putting oneself in that moment).

Andrewn · Mar 28, 2023

The Liturgist said:
I had interpreted that to mean a real spiritual presence, but if Calvinism teaches other than that, well, it would tend to accelerate my movement away from it as a Eucharistic system.

According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, "During the Protestant Reformation, Swiss Christian leaders Huldrych Zwingli and John Calvin rejected the role of the sacraments in obtaining grace." This seems similar to memorialists.

As you know, Wikipedia states, "Lutherans believe that the body and blood of Christ are "truly and substantially present in, with, and under the forms" of the consecrated bread and wine (the elements), so that communicants eat and drink the body and blood of Christ himself as well as the bread and wine in the Eucharistic sacrament. The Lutheran doctrine of the Real Presence is more accurately and formally known as the 'sacramental union.'"

Regarding Methodists, Wikipedia states, "The British Catechism for the use of the people called Methodists states that, '[in the Eucharist] Jesus Christ is present with his worshipping people and gives himself to them as their Lord and Saviour.'"

I'm not sure how different the Methodist position is from the Lutheran position. One position seems to be that Christ is present in the elements and the other position is that Christ is communicated in the elements. (Is this "receptionism"?) If my understanding is correct then both positions are quite similar.

Anglican beliefs seem to vary between these two positions.

PsaltiChrysostom · Mar 28, 2023

Andrewn said:
I'm not sure how different the Methodist position is from the Lutheran position. One position seems to be that Christ is present in the elements and the other position is that Christ is communicated in the elements. (Is this "receptionism"?) If my understanding is correct then both positions are quite similar.

Receptionism is the belief that the Body and Blood of Christ are received only by believers upon consuming the bread and the wine. I believe that this was partially a response to any number of questions:

Is the Body and Blood of Christ present in the bread and wine after the consecration?
Does the Body and Blood leave the elements and if so when?
Does an unbeliever receive the Body and Blood of Christ?
If a mouse consumes the elements after the consecration, does it receive the Body and Blood of Christ?
What happens if there are left over elements? Should they be consecrated again with another liturgy?
What happens if the bread gets moldy?
What happens if the wine or bread spill onto the floor?

We might consider some of these questions to be silly, but these were important philosophical question that came up during the Scholastic era.

There was an event where Luther was distributing the wine and due to the shaking of his hands (there is a question if Luther had Parkinson's disease towards the end of his life), he spilled the wine onto the floor. He set the chalice aside and got on his knees to lick up the wine from the floor due to the reverence he had for the communion elements.

Andrewn · Mar 28, 2023

PsaltiChrysostom said:
There was an event where Luther was distributing the wine and due to the shaking of his hands (there is a question if Luther had Parkinson's disease towards the end of his life), he spilled the wine onto the floor. He set the chalice aside and got on his knees to lick up the wine from the floor due to the reverence he had for the communion elements.

These are important questions. The answer would distinguish believers in the real presence in the elements. How would EO priests deal with a similar situation?

PsaltiChrysostom · Mar 28, 2023

Andrewn said:
These are important questions. The answer would distinguish believers in the real presence in the elements. How would EO priests deal with a similar situation?

We minimize that possibility first. So we have altar boys hold a communion cloth like this to catch accidental small drops.

As for a priest or deacon spilling the chalice due to a misstep, if it is on a hard floor, clean it up with towels and then burn the towels afterwards. Carpeting would be more complicated but most likely the patch would need to be cut out and then burned.

hedrick · Mar 28, 2023

Andrewn said:
According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, "During the Protestant Reformation, Swiss Christian leaders Huldrych Zwingli and John Calvin rejected the role of the sacraments in obtaining grace." This seems similar to memorialists.

As you know, Wikipedia states, "Lutherans believe that the body and blood of Christ are "truly and substantially present in, with, and under the forms" of the consecrated bread and wine (the elements), so that communicants eat and drink the body and blood of Christ himself as well as the bread and wine in the Eucharistic sacrament. The Lutheran doctrine of the Real Presence is more accurately and formally known as the 'sacramental union.'"

Regarding Methodists, Wikipedia states, "The British Catechism for the use of the people called Methodists states that, '[in the Eucharist] Jesus Christ is present with his worshipping people and gives himself to them as their Lord and Saviour.'"

I'm not sure how different the Methodist position is from the Lutheran position. One position seems to be that Christ is present in the elements and the other position is that Christ is communicated in the elements. (Is this "receptionism"?) If my understanding is correct then both positions are quite similar.

Anglican beliefs seem to vary between these two positions.

Like everything else this depends upon definitions. Calvin rejects the idea that sacraments bring grace independent of faith. He believes that the water and elements are visible signs of the action of the Holy Spirit, operating through faith. The grace is truly offered by the signs, but it comes from the activity of the Holy Spirit.

The Liturgist · Apr 1, 2023

hedrick said:
Like everything else this depends upon definitions. Calvin rejects the idea that sacraments bring grace independent of faith. He believes that the water and elements are visible signs of the action of the Holy Spirit, operating through faith. The grace is truly offered by the signs, but it comes from the activity of the Holy Spirit.

Thank you for the clarification. Now I was under the impression that Calvin believed in the spiritual presence of our Lord but not their physical presence, as opposed to Zwingli who rejected any presence and held the bread and wine to be symbols of an inward grace. Was I incorrect?

hedrick · Apr 2, 2023

The Liturgist said:
Thank you for the clarification. Now I was under the impression that Calvin believed in the spiritual presence of our Lord but not their physical presence, as opposed to Zwingli who rejected any presence and held the bread and wine to be symbols of an inward grace. Was I incorrect?

Again. Calvin speaks of spiritual eating, not spiritual presence. The signs truly offer Christ. When we eat them in faith we partake of Christ, but we partake of him through the action of the Holy Spirit, which unites us with him. I can’t compare with Zwingli, because I dont know him.

The Liturgist · Apr 2, 2023

hedrick said:
Again. Calvin speaks of spiritual eating, not spiritual presence. The signs truly offer Christ. When we eat them in faith we partake of Christ, but we partake of him through the action of the Holy Spirit, which unites us with him. I can’t compare with Zwingli, because I dont know him.

Ok, that really clarifies it and at the same time offers a clear differentiation for me from what I recall about Zwinglianism. Since at a minimum Calvin seems to have believed in a spiritual receptionism.

MarkRohfrietsch · Jun 16, 2023

As a confessional Lutheran, I know it is what it is, but also know that I am incapable of defining or describing how that it occurs. It is truly the very body and blood of our Lord.

FireDragon76 · Jun 16, 2023

The Liturgist said:
Ok, that really clarifies it and at the same time offers a clear differentiation for me from what I recall about Zwinglianism. Since at a minimum Calvin seems to have believed in a spiritual receptionism.

Receptionism is also potentially compatible with the Lutheran confessions. But there are also Lutherans that are Consecrationists, particularly in the 16th and 19th centuries.

Do all of the Christians who account themselves "Traditional" in their theology accept that the real presence is a physical reality?

Well-Known Member

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Senior Veteran

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Senior Veteran

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Senior Veteran

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Unapologetic Apologist

Well-Known Member

Similar threads