Alternative Eucharistic Theologies


#1

I am aware of at least four Eucharistic theological principles, which I will very briefly summarize (with no effort to fully describe) here:
[list]
*]Real Absence: the bread/wine are purely symbolic (or Jesus is present in the “gathering” but not the elements).
*]Consubstantiation (per Luther) - bread/wine remain bread/wine, but Jesus is “attached.”
*]Transubstantiation (Catholic per Lateran IV): Substance changes but accidents remain.
*]Carnalism: Substance AND accidents change, but our senses are miraculously masked.
[/list]
Can anyone add other Eucharistic theological principles to this list?


#2

[quote=DavidFilmer]I am aware of at least four Eucharistic theological principles, which I will very briefly summarize (with no effort to fully describe) here:
[list]
*]Real Absence: the bread/wine are purely symbolic (or Jesus is present in the “gathering” but not the elements).
*]Consubstantiation (per Luther) - bread/wine remain bread/wine, but Jesus is “attached.”
*]Transubstantiation (Catholic per Lateran IV): Substance changes but accidents remain.
*]Carnalism: Substance AND accidents change, but our senses are miraculously masked.
[/list]Can anyone add other Eucharistic theological principles to this list?
[/quote]

I should think the first one could be nuanced a bit. There might be a variety of ways of looking at symbolism: re-enacting (like a play) the Last Supper (but not in any sense consuming Our Lord) to symbolically consuming Christ (and achieving spiritual communion). I could not tell you who might believe any of the possible variations.

I’ve heard it said that a book was published within Luther’s lifetime listing an incredible number (scores) of interpretations for the words “This is my body” but I (rather sloppily, I know) do not know any of the details.

Also, who believes the last, Carnalism? God deceives us, so we won’t squirm at the sight of his flesh? Then, you have the problem of the whole Christ being present – or does Carnalism entail receiving only bits of Jesus’ body (miraculously multiplied, perhaps)?


#3

I have heard of a fifth, which I guess you would call “nonsubstantiation”. It’s really the body of Christ, but the substance was not changed by consecration. God rather fore-ordained that any bread which would be used in a eucharistic celebration was the body of Christ from the beginning.


#4

Yes, there are many different Eucharistic theologies. Here is a good page that describes them:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist


#5

Well this isn’t a theology really, but you can’t forget about:

[list=1]
*]Confusion
[/list] - what alot of protestants I have talked to have. They believe Christ is truly present, even though nothing has been consecrated…and even their pastor doesn’t believe it. They just believed it was…but no one told them that it wasn’t.

Have you guys had this happen before? You are talking to a protestant that believes in the real presense. And you have to try to explain to them that only Catholics have it…and that their denomination doesn’t believe it, much less their pastor/leader. It is a weird/hard debate.


#6

I’ve heard of some Protestants who seems to think that the bread and wine “become” the Body and Blood by virtue of being ingested into the congregation-- the Body of Christ. Sort of a reverse of “you are what you eat.”


#7

There’s always
transfinalization
transsignification


#8

Your list of four omits the view held by Calvin, which can claim to be the mainstream Protestant view, though in practice a purely symbolic view has probably been more common. This is the “spiritual presence” view, in which believers truly receive the glorified Body of Christ as they receive the bread and wine. You can’t lump this under the “real absence” category, although it does have trouble maintaining itself and often winds up shading into “real absence,” as the history of Presbyterianism and Methodism has shown.

In Christ,

Edwin


#9

And you have to try to explain to them that only Catholics have it…

I think this is the catholic answer to this. The consecration is dependent on the power that comes from the metaphysical change that occurs to the soul of those who have recieved the Sacrament of Orders through the laying on of hands. Without the laying on of hands that has faithfully been passed down in an unbroken chain the consecration can’t happen. The power of the Holy Spririt works through the physical conduit, as it were, established by the laying on of hands that only exists within the apostolic succession. It can be seen as a conduit because the Sacrament of orders is imparted by the hands of a bishop who was touched by the laying on of hands of a bishop who was touched by the hands of a man etc… .who had the hands of an apostle layed on him who was given the gift by Jesus.

[quote=Seven Sorrows]Well this isn’t a theology really, but you can’t forget about:
[list=1]
*]Confusion
[/list]- what alot of protestants I have talked to have. They believe Christ is truly present, even though nothing has been consecrated…and even their pastor doesn’t believe it. They just believed it was…but no one told them that it wasn’t.

Have you guys had this happen before? You are talking to a protestant that believes in the real presense. And you have to try to explain to them that only Catholics have it…and that their denomination doesn’t believe it, much less their pastor/leader. It is a weird/hard debate.
[/quote]


#10

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.