I should note
first that we aren't allowed to complete essay assignments for students. However, I can give you
some thoughts to help you with this question.
There are a variety of
Eucharistic theologies that take positions between transubstantiation and the position that the
Eucharist is merely symbolic. The exact differences between these perspectives can be rather
specific, so it's helpful to begin by outlining what sets transubstantiation apart.
Transubstantiation holds that the real substance / essence of the bread and wine used
in the Eucharist become, in reality, the body and blood of Christ. While the
"accidents" of the elements (their taste, texture, chemical properties, etc.) remain
unchanged.
While some Eastern Orthodox Christians believe in
transubstantiation, it is not a universal belief. Rather, Eastern Orthodox Christians are united
by a non-specific belief that the elements undergo a "definitive change" which may or
may not be understood as equivalent to transubstantiation.
Consubstantiation,
a belief held by early Christian writer John Martyr, the Lollards, and others holds that the
elements maintain their physical substances while the presence of Christ comes down and also
dwells in the bread and wine.
The Lutheran Church holds a believe in
sacramental union in which Christ's body and blood are present in consecrated bread and wine,
but they contrast this view with consubstantiation because the view of sacramental emphasizes
that it is not the power of a priest or of human words that enacts the change, but the words of
initiation spoken by Christ which, once and for all, allowed his substance to be present in all
consecrated bread and wine.
Similar to the Eastern belief in "definitive
change," Anglicans and Methodists generally assert that a real change takes place, but that
they should hold a "pious silence about technicalities" and avoid metaphysical
speculation.
The Reformed Church holds to a view of "real spiritual
presence" in which faithful partakers, through the power of the Holy Spirit, experience the
body, blood, and spirit of Christ in their taking of the Eucharist. This view is also unspecific
as to the metaphysical nature of this change, but explicitly excludes explanations of
transubstantiation, consubstantiation, and pure symbolism.
This survey shows
that many Christians have held views across the centuries that stand apart from pure symbolism
and from transubstantiation. However, it can be hard to get a handle on the exact nature of
these distinctions. Because of the way in which transubstantiation often functions as a vague
metaphysical model for what takes place during the Eucharist and because of the intentionally
and explicitly non-specific nature of many alternative models, discussing the nature of these
differences gets hairy.
Some reject the rigidity and specificity of
transubstantiation. Others argue that such metaphysical speculation is unnecessary for Christian
faith and that making doctrine out of it is unnecessarily divisive. Others feel that
transubstantiation grants too much mystical power to the role played by the priest and which to
emphasize the faith of the believer, the role of the Holy Spirit, or that of Christ's words of
initiation. Others simply think it is crucial to recognize the physicality of the bread and wine
as bread and wine, not just empty elements converted into the body and blood of
Christ.
It is also worth noting that many who would generally be categorized
as holding that the Eucharist is "purely symbolic" will still hold that Christ is
present in a real and meaningful way among those taking part in the rite, citing the idea that
Christ is present any time that two or more Christians gather in worship.
In
many ways, the distinctions between these doctrines seem to have less to do with real,
substantial differences in how Christians understand the Eucharist and more with building up a
theological justification for the divides between different denominations of Christians. Most
Christians do not employ the kinds of metaphysical frameworks used to distinguish
transubstantiation from other Eucharistic theologies except around these specific questions, and
thus it is easy for distinctions to become mere dogma rather than substantial differences in
belief.
Returning to your original question of how to appreciate the
Eucharist, I would argue that one can recognize the way in which Christians have meaningful
experiences of the presence of Christ in their taking of the Eucharist without committing to a
specific metaphysical model of what happens to "the substance" of the bread and
wine.
To call the rite "mere symbolism" can function to deny its
power to faithful partakers and to commit to a rigid doctrine of transubstantiation centers
questions of "substance" that are otherwise foreign to most Christians. Simply
recognizing what believers can experience and maintaining that Christ/God/the Holy Spirit can be
present and work through the mystery of the Eucharist is a flexible framework that recognizes
the experience of worshipers as central.
No comments:
Post a Comment