“And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you’ ” (Luke 22:19 – 20).
Anyone who has attended a Christian church for a length of time has encountered Holy Communion, also called Eucharist. In the Catholic Church, Holy Communion falls in as one of the seven sacraments [1]. Wine and unleavened bread are the traditional elements, but many churches also use grape juice [2] and plain bread, unleavened or not. Taking communion is one of those practices that you follow and whose significance you recognize, and which I didn’t think could be cause for denominational division until a few years ago.
In fact, the issue of communion was one fierce criticism Martin Luther, so-called Father of the Reformation, had against the Catholic Church. Martin Luther dedicated his life to the Lord early in his life, foregoing his father’s dream for him to become a lawyer and instead entering a monastery. He taught theology at the Univeristy of Witenberg and, in this dual position of professor and monk, began to question some of the practices then common in the Catholic Church.
In 1517 Luther penned a list of propositions, called the Ninety-five Theses [3], against the selling of indulgences. (Indulgences, according to Part 2 Section X of the Catholic catechism [4], are “remission[s] before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven.”) From there he wrote numerous other pamphlets decrying the abuses of the church, including the 1526 Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper.
At the Fourth Lateran Council [5] in 1215, the Church established the doctrine of transubstantiation concerning Holy Communion. By this view, bread and wine during communion literally transforms into the body and blood of Christ. While seemingly harmless, the transubstantiation doctrine bred superstition [6]. The laity came to view the bread and wine itself as holy and priests began to withhold both from the congregation, so that Holy Communion morphed from sacrament to spectacle.
Martin Luther proposed a new interpretation of Luke 22:19 – 20 and the meaning of communion: consubstantiation. According to the consubstantiation view, the bread and wine maintain their physical identities and the Real Presence of Christ’s body and blood co-exist with these elements during communion.
Luther’s Swiss contemporary Ulrich Zwingli took a different view, called memorialism. Zwingli suggested that the bread and wine are merely symbols of the body and blood, designed to commemorate His death and resurrection. Memorialism rejects the need for Christ’s presence during Holy Communion because it is just a memorial. Philip I, Landgrave of Hesse, a German ruler who supported the Protestant Reformation, brought Luther and Zwingli together to reach an agreement [7] about Holy Communion, as the question had festered into a grand controversy. The discussion failed.
Later John Calvin, the French theologian who founded Calvinism [8], promoted a view of communion that blended Luther’s and Zwingli’s. His Reformed view recognized the spiritual presence of Christ in the elements as well as the commemorative purpose of the sacrament.
Today, these four perspectives -transubstantiation, consubstantiation, memorialism and reformed – remain the main interpretations of Holy Communion among Christians. Each church differs in its treatment of it and, ultimately, each church member decides for him or herself how to interact with it.
Do you celebrate Eucharist? Which interpretation do you adhere to?
Footnotes
- “Sacraments of the Catholic Church.” Catholic Online, n.d. https://www.catholic.org/prayers/sacrament.php.
- Lovino, Joe. “Methodist history: Controversy, Communion, & Welch’s Grape Juice.” UMC.org, United Methodist Communications, 28 June 2016. http://www.umc.org/who-we-are/methodist-history-controversy-communion-and-welchs-grape-juice.
- Luther, Martin. “The 95 Theses.” Luther.de, n.d. https://www.luther.de/en/95thesen.html.
- “Catechism of the Catholic Church Part 2.” La Santa Sede, Vatican, n.d. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c2a4.htm.
- Leclercq, Henri. “Fourth Lateran Council (1215).” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 9. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. New Advent, n.d. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09018a.htm.
- Wax, Trevin. “Luther vs. Zwingli 2: Luther on the Lord’s Supper.” The Gospel Coalition, Foundation Documents Leadership Council, 11 February 2008. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevin-wax/luther-vs-zwingli-2-luther-on-the-lords-supper/.
- Burns, Jesse. “Luther and Zwingli.” LutheranReformation.org, The Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod, 11 June 2017. https://lutheranreformation.org/history/luther-and-zwingli/.
- “Calvinism.” Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics, n.d. https://reformed.org/calvinism/index.html.
A Patchwork of Perceptions 
Jesus’ words, “do this in remembrance of me.” Luke 22:19, leads me to believe the memorialism is the proper view.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi, Candice! Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I’m inclined toward the memorialism view as well, though there may be some legitimacy to the Reformed view. Adherents of this argue that through the Holy Spirit Christ is present with believers as they break the bread and drink the wine.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The important thing for us to remember is that Communion is a rite not to be taken lightly. It was instituted by our Lord, and therefore, we should be mindful of the attitude of our heart when we partake. It’s not something that should cause division among believers.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I agree. So many small matters, from whether Saturday or Sunday is the Sabbath to the order of events at the end of times, divide the church so that we forget the foundational faith that binds us. I think that Paul wrote about this matter in one of his letters, but don’t remember which one. (He wrote so many!)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Like Candice, I am a Memorialist.
Theological divisions are unfortunate, but do happen, sometimes with great consequence. Imagine, for example, a Roman Catholic, who believes that the Eucharist changing from bread and wine to flesh and blood is essential to remaining in grace, taking communion at a Baptist church where the pastor doesn’t transubstantiate the bread and cup!
To those who believe that salvation is apart from any rite or ritual of the individual or the church, transubstantiation is a false gospel.
LikeLiked by 1 person
For as long as I’ve partaken in communion, I’ve been taught to recognize it as a commemoration of Christ’s sacrifice. No one ever mentioned a physical or spiritual change to the elements, and I didn’t learn about opposing views until I took a church history class in high school. Having familiarized myself with the alternate perspectives, I hold to memorialism as well.
It is incredible what divides churches and how deeply it divides them. I can understand a split because of disagreement over the veracity of a Trinity, but a split over the interpretation of communion is unexpected. Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin wrote a good many less-than-favorable scripts about one another over the matter.
As far as transubstantiation goes, I have heard that the Catholic Church regards it as a re-sacrifice of Christ, which is unbiblical, as He died once for all and doesn’t need to be offered as a sacrifice for our sins again.
Thank you for sharing, Richard!
LikeLike
Hello. This is incorrect. Catholics do not believe it to be a re-sacrifice of Jesus but rather a representation. Big difference between the two. Thank you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I appreciate your comment, Kathy! I wrote this comment about four years ago and, looking at it now, I see how the Catholic position had been misrepresented. It’s definitely a big and important difference. I’m happy to have the correction.
LikeLike
Abigail,
Thank you for the comment and kindness and I’m so happy to hear that you understand the Catholic position on this subject.
Kathy
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’d go with a memorialized or reformed view. For serious Christians, I think the reformed makes most sense. The symbolic bread and wine are just objects to remind us. But upon the reverence the objects remind us of, they are bestowed a sort of spiritual power. Only when the bread and wine are put into eucharistic context do they become substantiated.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good point, Tom. I’m inclined toward memorialism but, as I noted to Candice, adherents to Calvin’s view make a viable argument. As I recall, one reason that Calvin opposed the memorialism view was that it removed the sacredness of the sacrament. It made the bread and wine nothing more than bread and wine, when for the Christ follower they should be much more.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Calvin was French, not Swiss. But he was a pastor in Geneva Switzerland because France was militantly Catholic and would have killed him if he stayed.
LikeLike
Thanks for catching this! I’ve edited this part of the article.
LikeLike
This is amazing: “ each church member decides for him or herself how to interact with it.”
So regardless of what each church teaches, we all just have to decide for ourselves…
Churches aren’t hospitals, where you know what the various treatments are, they are more like super-markets where you just pick and mix.. i must admit .. after 67 years this is the conclusion I already came to.. I wish someone had explained that to me 60 years ago!!! It might have saved a lot if heartache…
LikeLike