Why Do People Argue About Communion?

Are you up for a short theology lesson? On a fairly regular basis I receive questions about the difference between the Roman Catholic and the Protestant views of the Eucharist, Communion. Roman Catholics sometimes accuse Protestants of a kind of lifeless "symbolism" in the Eucharist. Protestants sometimes misunderstand Roman Catholic ideas and assume more unity than there really is between these two huge groups of Christians. The Reformer Martin Luther usually takes something of a beating at the hands of Roman Catholic writers for his departure from official Papal dogma on this and other issues. So I thought I'd broach the subject here, just in case you have wondered. In order to get a good picture, we must broaden our scope beyond simply the Eucharist.

There is a huge difference between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism on two crucial subjects: How a Christian gets and stays saved (Is it by grace through personal faith in Christ apart from works, or is it partly by grace and partly by our continued connection to the Church, the sacraments, and to our own obedience?); and what constitutes the ultimate spiritual authority over the believer in Christ (Is it the Church tradition and magisterium or is it the Scripture, the Bible?) Protestants hold that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone. They base these teachings on Paul's clear statement in Romans 3:21-4:8 as well as Paul's other letters. Protestants have also maintained that the ultimate authority over the believer for faith and practice must be Scripture alone rather than Church tradition. Roman Catholic theology states clearly that people are not saved by grace alone through faith alone, but rather are saved by a combination of infused grace, sacramental participation (through one of their priests), and personal obedience. It also teaches that the authority over the believer is essentially the Church because only the Church (the magisterium) has the right to interpret and apply the Scripture and dispense the "grace" to the believing community. Church tradition thus becomes the de facto supreme authority over the believer.

Part of the RC doctrine of salvation involves receiving grace through the sacrament of Holy Communion or Eucharist at the Mass. They believe that grace comes directly through the elements by way of "transubstantiation" (a term not used in the Bible) that occurs in the communion elements when the duly ordained priest pronounces the words of consecration. Invisible to the human eye, but nevertheless real in the spiritual realm, the bread and wine receive a "changed substance" even though they still look and taste like bread and wine. And the process is irreversible! When it happens the elements remain the actual body and blood of Christ as long as they exist, which means that if any consecrated bread or wine are left over after the Mass, they must be kept in a special place (a beautifully decorated box located in the church where people may venerate it). The practical upshot of this doctrine however, is that only a Catholic priest has the authority to "transubstantiate" the elements, and therefore grace is limited to members of the RC Church. It is partly this proprietary element in the RC view of the Eucharist that troubled the reformers.

Martin Luther was a Catholic priest, an Augustinian monk, and a Professor of Theology at the University of Wittenberg in the early 16th century. In his theological work, studying and teaching Romans and Galatians particularly, he noticed how different the biblical view of salvation was compared to his own Roman Catholic interpretation. Luther was by no means the only theologian pointing these things out. And he did not just "start the Lutheran church" after he was excommunicated from Rome. What he tried to do was get the Roman hierarchy to see its problems and start a debate on the right way to view salvation, especially in light of severe abuses within Catholicism of that day (the selling of indulgences for instance). He was eventually excommunicated (they tried to kill him actually) not simply for disagreeing on transubstantiation (though he did disagree), but for stating clearly that, among other things, 1) Christians are saved by grace alone through faith alone; 2) the Church could make mistakes in its pronouncements and should be humble enough to admit it; and 3) that the ultimate authority over the conscience of every Christian must be God's Word, the Scripture. All the Protestant reformers agreed on these issues. This is how the Reformation slogans Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, and Sola Scriptura came about. The Roman Catholic Church responded at the Council of Trent (1545-1563) by condemning these doctrines and consigning to hellfire all those who believe in them and who disagree with RC dogmatic traditions.

Luther's view of the Eucharist (sometimes called "consubstantiation") rightly tries to emphasize the powerful and real presence of Christ in the communion elements, but stops short of the Roman claim that the actual substances change. Luther certainly did not view the elements as "mere symbols." Neither did Calvin, though he differed some with Luther. Other Protestant reformers also insisted that there is a more or less "real presence" of Christ in the elements received by faith and mediated by the Holy Spirit. Some took a more "symbolic" view, but even they affirmed Christ was in some way present when the Eucharist is received (Matt.18:20). Paul did say in 1 Corinthians 10:16 that we all participate in the blood and body of Christ. To this day there are variations in the views between Protestant groups on the subject, but most of them agree that eating and drinking are metaphors for believing/faith (Jn.6:47), and that Communion is crucial as an ongoing rite among genuine believers in Christ.

Jesus in all the gospels (particularly John's gospel) says that the bread and the wine are his body and blood. The question is, did he mean for us to postulate a "magical" transubstantiation of the "substances" while leaving the "accidents" (what they look, feel, and taste like) alone? (The substance/accidents distinction is from Aristotle, not the Bible). Or did the Lord intend us to see these elements as somehow representing his actual body and blood as the slain lamb in the Passover represented the coming Messianic sacrifice for sins? Remember that the elements of the Eucharist came directly out of the Passover meal where the symbolism clearly points to Christ (Luke 22:14-20; Jn.1:29-30). Protestants insist that it makes more sense for the elements to be representative in some way (spiritually powerful and real nonetheless) than to resort to the Aristotelian metaphysic of "changed substances." For one thing, Jesus never did explain any of the involved metaphysical dynamics later developed in Roman theology. Can't we just take his word for it without trying to explain it all the way down? And for another, the Lord simply must have been speaking symbolically at the time he said these things because he was standing there, flesh and blood, while he held the bread and cup in his hand. So the symbolic idea is in some way present in the first words that Jesus spoke on the subject. Add to that the historic fact that it was not until the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, that the Church got around to affirming transubstantiation officially and then went on to proclaim it as a dogma at the Council of Trent in 1551. It seems strange that something so important that our very salvation rests on believing it (the RC position) should take so long for the Church to figure out and result in such division among Christians.

So, the Protestant views of the Eucharist are better than the Roman Catholic one in my opinion. Yet this does not mean that the Lord's Table can be taken lightly! Is there symbolism? Of course, but it is symbolism of spiritual reality that is experienced as grace by Christ's people when they gather in his name. Does the grace rely on a Roman Catholic priest's magical words? No. Nevertheless, as Paul insists in 1 Cor.10:16, it truly is a participation in the body and blood of Christ. Let it be a mystery, but a mystery that we enter into regularly, knowing that we are tasting the true Grace of the Lord every time.

Grace and Peace,  

Pastor Rick