In the rich tapestry of Christian worship, the practice of Communion stands out as a profound ritual, yet it is approached differently by various denominations, notably between Catholicism and Traditional Protestantism. Here, we delve into these distinctions, focusing on the terminology, theological underpinnings, and the contentious doctrine of transubstantiation.
Catholic Approach: “Receiving Communion” and Transubstantiation
In Catholicism, the act of partaking in Communion is described as “Receiving Communion.” This term reflects the belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The cornerstone of this belief is the doctrine of transubstantiation, which posits that during the Mass, the bread and wine literally transform into the Body and Blood of Christ while retaining their outward appearance.
Biblical Support: Catholics often cite Jesus’ words during the Last Supper as recorded in the Gospels:
Matthew 26:26-28: “Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, ‘Take, eat; this is my body.’ And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.'”
John 6:53-56: Jesus says, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
The Catholic Church interprets these passages as literal, leading to the belief in the real physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This has been a point of contention since the Reformation, with critics arguing it veers into what they might consider idolatry or misunderstanding of metaphor.
Traditional Protestant Approach: “Participating in Communion” – A Symbolic Remembrance
On the other hand, many traditional Protestant denominations, including Lutherans, Baptists, and Evangelicals, view Communion as “participating in communion.” Here, the emphasis is on remembrance and symbolism:
Symbolic Act: Communion is seen as a memorial act, symbolizing Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. The bread and wine are considered symbols that represent Jesus’ body and blood but do not undergo any metaphysical change.
Biblical Reference: Protestants lean on the same passages but interpret them symbolically:
1 Corinthians 11:23-26: Paul writes, “For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, ‘This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” This passage is pivotal for Protestants, emphasizing “remembrance” and communion as an act of proclamation about Christ’s death, not a transformation of substance.
The Controversy of Transubstantiation
The doctrine of transubstantiation has been one of the most debated aspects in Christian theology since it was formally defined at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 and further clarified at the Council of Trent in the 16th century. Critics from Protestant traditions argue that this interpretation oversteps the symbolic language of the Bible, potentially leading to what they see as worship of the elements themselves, which they believe detracts from the worship of Jesus.
The doctrine of transubstantiation, which posits that the bread and wine used in the Eucharist become the literal Body and Blood of Christ while retaining their outward appearances, became a formal tenet of Catholic orthodoxy through a process of theological development and ecclesiastical affirmation. Early hints of this belief can be traced back to the writings of Church Fathers like Ignatius of Antioch in the 2nd century and Justin Martyr in the 2nd century, who spoke of the Eucharist in terms that suggest a real, not just symbolic, presence.
However, the term “transubstantiation” itself and its precise definition didn’t emerge until the Middle Ages. It was first used by Hildebert of Lavardin in the 11th century, but it was at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 that the doctrine was officially declared, stating that “His body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread being transubstantiated into the body, and the wine into the blood by the power of God.” This was further elucidated by theologians like Thomas Aquinas, whose work on Eucharistic theology helped to solidify the doctrine. The Council of Trent in the 16th century, responding to Protestant critiques, reaffirmed and expanded upon this teaching, making transubstantiation a central and non-negotiable aspect of Catholic Eucharistic doctrine, thereby cementing its place in Catholic orthodoxy.
A Protestant Perspective on Communion
The practice of Holy Communion, or the Lord’s Supper, within Protestant Christianity is widely understood as a symbolic act meant to commemorate Jesus Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. This interpretation diverges from the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, where bread and wine are believed to become the literal Body and Blood of Christ. Here, we methodically explore this Protestant view, supported by authoritative sources, recent theological research, and logical reasoning.
Step 1: Scriptural Foundation
1 Corinthians 11:23-26 is pivotal in Protestant theology regarding Communion: “For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, ‘This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.”
Source: This passage is directly from the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible, a commonly used translation in Protestant churches.
Luke 22:19-20 also supports this view: “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.'”
Step 2: Historical Protestant Interpretations
Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531), a key figure in the Reformation, argued for a strictly symbolic interpretation of Communion. His view, known as Memorialism, posits that the elements are merely symbols to remind believers of Christ’s death. This is documented in:
Source: Zwingli and the Reformation by G.R. Potter, where Zwingli’s teachings are clearly outlined.
John Calvin (1509-1564) advocated for a more nuanced view than Zwingli but still emphasized symbolism. His interpretation suggests that while Christ is spiritually present, the bread and wine remain symbols:
Source: Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion (Book IV, Chapter XVII, Section 11), where he describes the elements as signs and seals of the spiritual presence of Christ.
Step 3: Contemporary Protestant Scholarship
Recent theological works and studies affirm this symbolic understanding:
Source: Holy Communion: Different Views From Different Denominations by Richard J. Mouw (2018) discusses how many Protestant denominations view Communion as a symbolic act of remembrance rather than a literal transformation.
The Westminster Confession of Faith, a foundational document for Presbyterian and Reformed churches, states in Chapter XXIX, “Of the Lord’s Supper,” that the bread and wine are not changed into the body and blood of Christ but are symbols:
Source: The Westminster Confession of Faith, which has been a guiding document since 1646 and is still authoritative in many Protestant circles.
Step 4: Logical Conclusion from Premises
Premise 1: The scriptural basis for Communion explicitly uses the term “remembrance,” indicating a symbolic act rather than a literal transformation.
Premise 2: Historical Protestant reformers like Zwingli and Calvin, whose writings have shaped much of Protestant theology, advocated for a symbolic interpretation.
Premise 3: Contemporary Protestant scholarship and confessional documents continue to uphold this view, emphasizing the symbolic nature of Communion.
Conclusion:
The divergence between “Receiving Communion” in Catholicism with its belief in transubstantiation and “Participating in Communion” in Protestantism, where the act is symbolic, reflects deep theological differences about the nature of Christ’s presence and the purpose of the sacrament.
From the clear biblical injunctions to “do this in remembrance of me,” through the theological frameworks established by Reformation leaders, to the current doctrinal statements of various Protestant denominations, the overwhelming evidence supports the conclusion that Holy Communion in Protestant Christianity is a symbolic act commemorating Christ’s sacrificial death on the cross. The bread and wine do not undergo a change in substance but serve as tangible reminders of Jesus’ body and blood, offered for the forgiveness of sins. This symbolic remembrance fosters unity among believers, reinforces the gospel message, and fulfills Christ’s command to remember Him until He returns.
Thus, based on authoritative Protestant sources, recent theological research, and a logical sequence from scripture to contemporary practice, Communion is understood as a symbolic remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice.