Real Presence of Christ

[abacabb3]

I wonder what many of you here believe about the Real Presence of Christ in the elements. I have always found that the historical teaching of the Church upholds the doctrine, but without reference to transubstantiation and turning the Lord's Supper into a literal sacrifice.

In the words of Augustine:

In like manner, on Easter Sunday, we say, This day the Lord rose from the dead, although so many years have passed since His resurrection. But no one is so foolish as to accuse us of falsehood when we use these phrases, for this reason, that we give such names to these days on the ground of a likeness between them and the days on which the events referred to actually transpired, the day being called the day of that event, although it is not the very day on which the event took place, but one corresponding to it by the revolution of the same time of the year, and the event itself being said to take place on that day, because, although it really took place long before, it is on that day sacramentally celebrated. Was not Christ once for all offered up in His own person as a sacrifice? And yet, is He not likewise offered up in the sacrament as a sacrifice, not only in the special solemnities of Easter, but also daily among our congregations; so that the man who, being questioned, answers that He is offered as a sacrifice in that ordinance, declares what is strictly true? (Letters 98:9).

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

I wonder what many of you here believe about the Real Presence of Christ in the elements. I have always found that the historical teaching of the Church upholds the doctrine, but without reference to transubstantiation and turning the Lord's Supper into a literal sacrifice.

In the words of Augustine:

In like manner, on Easter Sunday, we say, This day the Lord rose from the dead, although so many years have passed since His resurrection. But no one is so foolish as to accuse us of falsehood when we use these phrases, for this reason, that we give such names to these days on the ground of a likeness between them and the days on which the events referred to actually transpired, the day being called the day of that event, although it is not the very day on which the event took place, but one corresponding to it by the revolution of the same time of the year, and the event itself being said to take place on that day, because, although it really took place long before, it is on that day sacramentally celebrated. Was not Christ once for all offered up in His own person as a sacrifice? And yet, is He not likewise offered up in the sacrament as a sacrifice, not only in the special solemnities of Easter, but also daily among our congregations; so that the man who, being questioned, answers that He is offered as a sacrifice in that ordinance, declares what is strictly true? (Letters 98:9).

Ok, first define "real presence" then we can talk.

 

[hedrick]

Dark Lord is right. It's a matter of definition. For many, "real presence" is pretty literal, so that Christ's physical body is locally present. Reformed don't generally agree with that. I think Christ is really there for us, and that as we eat and drink we feed on Christ's body and blood. But Catholics and some Lutherans will say that that's not real presence.

 

[abacabb3]

The way I would define real presence is that Christ is spiritually present in the elements, though not physically present as he is fully man and fully God, and Christ's flesh belongly to His human nature cannot act contrary to the rest of humanity's flesh which finds itself unable to communicate itself in multiple locations at once.

 

[JM]

The way I would define real presence is that Christ is spiritually present in the elements, though not physically present as he is fully man and fully God, and Christ's flesh belongly to His human nature cannot act contrary to the rest of humanity's flesh which finds itself unable to communicate itself in multiple locations at once.

How is Christ "spiritually present in the elements?"

 

[abacabb3]

How is Christ "spiritually present in the elements?"

I believe, and am wiling to change my mind about, that in some sort of way the bread and the wine really are Christ's body and blood.

To quote Liogner:

His human nature is no longer present with us. It is in heaven at the right hand of God. We still are able to commune with the human nature of Christ by means of our communion with the divine nature, which does indeed remain united to the human nature. But that human nature remains localized in heaven.

It isn't really a crazy idea. Christ said He would be with us until the end of the ages, yet He is not bodily present. So, Christ can really be present without literally changing molecules over into human flesh and blood.

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

Dark Lord is right. It's a matter of definition. For many, "real presence" is pretty literal, so that Christ's physical body is locally present. Reformed don't generally agree with that. I think Christ is really there for us, and that as we eat and drink we feed on Christ's body and blood. But Catholics and some Lutherans will say that that's not real presence.

Just a bit of a correction: My point was actually that some regard the spiritual presence as less 'real' than the physical presence. This can lead to all sorts of issues with gnostic thought.

The truth is that humans --and Christ was and is fully human as well as fully divine-- have a physical nature and a non physical nature (spirit, soul). To maintain one nature is less 'real' than the other is to navigate into the part of the map that is labled "Here Be Dragons."

 

[stenerson]

on that day sacramentally celebrated. Was not Christ once for all offered up in His own person as a sacrifice? And yet, is He not likewise offered up in the sacrament as a sacrifice, not only in the special solemnities of Easter, but also daily among our congregations; so that the man who, being questioned, answers that He is offered as a sacrifice in that ordinance, declares what is strictly true?

I believe that Augustine is very wrong here. That is Christ or the Apostles never represented the Lord's supper as a re-offering of a sacrifice.

 

[abacabb3]

I agree Stenerson, though I do think that it is important for us in the modern day not to read Augustine anachronistically. We read things like what you quoted in a loaded way, because of how modern RCCers will present their case.

Augustine clearly differentiates between His once and for all sacrifice on the cross and the sacrement of the Lord's Supper which in Christ's own language mimics that of a sacrifice. "This is my body given for you...this is the new covenant in my blood, shed for you..." The fact that Christ is spiritually present in the elements does not turn the ordinance into a literal sacrifice, but I think Augustine's point is that as being a pseud-sacrifice it points to the spiritual reality inherent in the real, once and for all one.

In the same chapter he writes of baptism:

In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble...Thus the apostle says, in regard to this sacrament of Baptism: We are buried with Christ by baptism into death. He does not say, We have signified our being buried with Him, but We have been buried with Him. He has therefore given to the sacrament pertaining to so great a transaction no other name than the word describing the transaction itself.

So, the sacrament portrays a reality in Augustine's view, not merely signifying something. This is consistent with Augustine's, very wrong views, of baptismal regeneration. However, he does not claim that a literal death in baptism is taking place either. It is almost as Augustine is saying that the sacrament exists as a reality somewhere above signifying and somewhere below the reality of what it represents, as a sort of middle ground. The fact that Christ is present in the elements would fulfill this criteria.