What happens to the bread and wine in Holy Communion? How can bread and wine be Jesus’ body and blood? What does the Episcopal Church say about how Jesus Christ is present in the eucharistic meal?
It’s a simple question: what happens to the bread and wine in our celebration of the Holy Eucharist? There’s a simple answer: in the Eucharist, the people, the priest, the bread, and the wine are all transformed by the presence of Jesus Christ.
Ok, but what does that mean exactly? Could we be more precise? Well, yes and no. ‘Yes’ because starting in the early Middle Ages the Church struggled to define what we mean when we say the the bread and wine become Jesus’ Body and Blood. In the 13th century, Sir Thomas Aquinas explained what happened as transubstantiation. He held that when the bread and wine were conscrated, their ‘accidents’ (by which he meant their outward appearance) stayed the same, but their ‘substance’ (what they really are) changed. This is still the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.
Martin Luther, the great 16th century reformer, used the term consubstantiation to explain what happened when the bread and wine were consecrated. By this Luther meant that after consecration the bread and wine AND the Body and Blood of Christ were present and coexisted.
Ulrich Zwingli, another 16th century reformer, held that there was no change in the elements (i.e., the bread and wine) at all. Instead, he believed that the Lord’s Supper (another name for Communion) was a memorial rite and that Jesus Christ was present in its celebration and in the transformed fellowship of all believers present.
Anglicans (which includes Episcopalians), on the other hand, use the phrase real presence to describe what happens to the bread and wine in the celebration of Holy Communion. That’s a way of saying we believe Christ is actually present in the bread and wine that become his Body and Blood when they are consecrated, but we stop short of defining precisely how that happens. Rather, we believe what Jesus promised—that he would really be present to the Church gathered to celebrate the Eucharist. That’s a freeing promise for a lot of reasons, including that it frees us from believing we must be able to explain this ‘mystery of faith’ in order for it to be valid. Which is another way of saying that it’s God’s work and not our understanding that cause the bread and wine to become Christ’s Body and Blood.
That said, Anglicans believe that is the action of the whole Eucharist—i.e., the entire celebration from the gathering of the people on and not just the communion—that consecrates. So the whole liturgy is what connects us to God, not just the consumption of the bread and wine. After all, ‘liturgy’ literally means ‘work of the people’ in Greek. And that’s a whole ‘nother conversation which will be well worth having.
Actually, Luther didn’t use the term “consubstantiation”–that’s a phrase that has been used to describe his position.
What are you saying? It sounds very vague….DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE PASTOR/MINISTER makes the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ or Not/ simple…pls answer it simply for a lost simple person…thanks, Jan Schklair–disillusioed cradle catholic
Hello, Edwin. I remember you saying that Jesus said: This is my body/blood and didn’t say symbol. But then he also said He was the vine, door, light. The safest way is to leave the words as they are ‘this is my body’ and keep silent about the rest, where we don’t know. I wouldn’t believe in transubstantiation, but I am for being reverent where mistery is there.
Trying to get a hold of your new email address, to discuss matters of church and not only. Currentlly going to the Anglican church Hope all is well with you and your wife and familly.
Ioana
The good Dr. Luther never used the term consubstantiation. It IS NOT a Lutheran term. It is a term used by Reformed Theologians in an attempt to define what Lutherans believe, but beginning with the Colloquy at Marburg, we Lutherans have refused to be pinned down. We say two things and two things only abou the Eucharist: 1) we believe in the “real presence” and 2) The Bread and Wine do not change but Christ is present “in, with and under” the elements.
Delmer Chilton, Divinity, ’80
Assistant to the Bishop, Southeastern Synod, ELCA
This all seems very germane given the Catholic’s church parking its tanks on the lawn at Canterbury. How can Article XXVII be reconciled with the Roman church’s belief in transubstantiation. Amazing there has been so little discussion of this wide difference.
I stumbled onto your blog and read a few post. I like your style of writing. Keep up the good work
[...] the original here: Episcopal Center at Duke » What happens to the bread and wine in … By admin | category: Martin Luther University | tags: 16th-century, after-consecration, [...]