The Lord’s Supper, also known as Communion or the Eucharist, is one of two sacraments instituted by Jesus Christ himself for the church. It involves partaking of bread and wine (or grape juice) as symbols of Christ’s broken body and shed blood. Christians have differed on the meaning and significance of this sacrament throughout church history. The real presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper – that is, whether the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ or remain symbols – has been particularly controversial.
There are several key reasons why views on the real presence stir such debate:
1. It relates to core Christian beliefs about Christ and salvation
What Christians believe about Christ’s presence in the Lord’s Supper is closely tied to their core beliefs about the nature of Christ and how salvation is received. For Catholics and some other Christian traditions, salvation comes through actually partaking of Christ’s body and blood. The bread and wine becoming Christ’s literal body and blood (transubstantiation) serves this salvific purpose. But for Protestants, who emphasize salvation through faith alone, the bread and wine as symbols point to Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice without needing to become his actual body and blood.
2. There are differing biblical interpretations
When Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper, he said of the bread, “This is my body” and of the wine, “This is my blood” (Matt. 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20). How to interpret these words divides Christians. Those who believe in transubstantiation point to Jesus’ literal words, “This is my body.” But others say Jesus was speaking figuratively, as he often did in using metaphors. Both camps try to support their views through Scripture, but there are differing conclusions.
3. Historical debates and councils addressed it
In church history, several significant debates and councils focused on the meaning of the Lord’s Supper. Disagreements arose early on between figures such as Ratramnus and Radbertus in the 9th century. Later in the 11th century, Berengar of Tours was pressured to recant his symbolic view. The Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 declared transubstantiation as official Roman Catholic teaching. The Reformation raised the issue again, as Protestant reformers like Zwingli, Luther, and Calvin all held to more symbolic understandings. The Council of Trent reaffirmed transubstantiation in response. This history shows the deeply contested nature of this doctrine.
4. It relates to authority in the church
Differing views on Christ’s real presence also tie into issues of church authority. For Catholics, the doctrine of transubstantiation depends largely on the authority of papal and church council pronouncements over the centuries. But for Protestants who uphold sola Scriptura, Scripture alone is the authority, not church decree. This affects how each side approaches biblical interpretation on this issue. The role of church authority versus individual interpretation continues to divide views.
5. It’s mysterious and metaphysical
The notion of the bread and wine becoming Christ’s actual body and blood in essence, while still appearing as bread and wine, is metaphysically mysterious. Transubstantiation requires accepting that the “substance” changes while the “accidents” (appearances) remain the same. Not all are willing to grant such mysterious metaphysical assumptions. Symbolic views seem simpler. Yet even these deal with spiritual/physical realities interacting in the sacrament. The metaphysical nature provokes debate.
6. It bears on worship and practice
For traditions that hold to Christ’s true bodily presence in the Supper, this is a vital aspect of worship and devotion. Traditional Catholic and Lutheran piety centers on the Eucharist as a place of encountering Christ in a unique way. Thus reservations about transubstantiation can seem to undermine profound spiritual experiences. But for those with more symbolic views, guarding against perceived excesses may be a concern. Worship practices reflect these perspectives.
7. It involves church unity and division
Historically this issue has been tied to church unity and division. Division occurred early between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. The Reformation split over it between Lutherans and other Protestants. Today, it still prevents Protestants and Catholics from coming to one table. For many, unity in understanding Christ’s presence in the Supper is tied to unity in Christ’s church. Differences here reflect deeper rifts in the body of Christ.
8. Philosophical influences shape theology
Philosophical paradigms current when doctrinal formulations took place tended to influence theologians. Aristotelian thought during the medieval era impacted transubstantiation views. More empiricist Enlightenment thinking moved many Protestant traditions to symbolic memorial understandings. Existential and phenomenological frameworks recently may open new possibilities. As philosophy interacts with theology, it shapes Lord’s Supper views.
9. It impacts ecumenism
In recent centuries, increased ecumenical openness between Protestants, Catholics, and other traditions moves views on the Lord’s Supper toward a middle ground understanding neither fully transubstantiationalist nor merely symbolic. Documents from Vatican II, Anglican-Roman Catholic dialogues, and Lutheran-Catholic agreements reflect this. But debates continue on just how Christ is present in the Eucharist. The search for unity in Christian faith affects discussion of this historically divisive issue.
In summary, the real presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper remains hotly debated because it touches on personal piety, church doctrine, biblical interpretation, ecclesial authority, worship practices, ecumenism, and philosophical paradigms. It is core to how Christians understand their faith and practice it together. Disagreement does not seem likely to disappear soon. Yet continued dialogue may deepen understanding across traditions.