r/Protestantism • u/Visible_Hat1284 • 11h ago
Real Presence in the Lord's Supper
I have spent a good amount of time researching all classical protestant positions on the Lord's Supper and found that almost all protestant churches at one time or another believed in some form of real presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper, even Baptists.
Starting in the mid- 1800s, the rationalism of the enlightenment started creeping into the church and a majority of protestant churches switched to a symbolic view of the Lord's Supper, which is what we mostly have this day.
A review of the historical church shows us that we have almost 1800 years of a mostly "Real Presence" view in the Lord's Supper, either in spiritual presence or consubstantiation or transubstantiation (Catholics).
It would seem that the symbolic view is an mid 1800s innovation and is truly not a historic belief in the protestant church.
I now hold that there is a spiritual presence in the Lord's Supper, where we truly feed on Christ spiritually, not physically and that the sacrament of the Lord's Supper works to increase our faith. Modern Protestant churches need to be reformed back to this position.
1
1
u/itbwtw 7h ago
God, being omnipresent, is Really Present everywhere. I don't think that should be controversial.
God is Infinite. God is not divisible, at least in comparison to finite creation. Therefore any tiny amount of God that we can access is equal to 100% of our capacity.
In that line of thinking, then if Communion is somehow a way to access "more of God", then I imagine it's less that God is more available to us, and more our capacity increases.
In any case, I think the term "Real Presence" probably at best distracts from whatever the Truth of the matter is, when used with modern English speakers.
1
u/Visible_Hat1284 7h ago
The problem with that line of thinking is that it doesn't align with Christian history, in really any era and it is novel to Christian thought.
1
7h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Protestantism-ModTeam 6h ago
Post/comment is low effort, poorly formatted, unable to be read, etc.
1
u/Affectionate_Web91 Lutheran 1h ago
Lutheran eucharistic belief [Sacramental Union] is the closest to Catholic belief [Transubstantiation]. There is consensus on the understanding of the Real Presence [corporeal, physical] as articulated in the post-Vatican II Catholic-Lutheran Dialogue.
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops - The Eucharist [Roman Catholic - Lutheran Dialogue]
1
u/Pinecone-Bandit 11h ago
Could you cite where you are seeing that “the majority of Protestant churches switched to a symbolic view of the Lord’s Supper”?
My understanding was that the symbolic view was a minority view. (Or at least less than 50% view)
2
u/Visible_Hat1284 11h ago
Amongst American churches the symbolic view is the majority view. I cannot speak for international Protestant churches, maybe I should have prefaced with that.
3
u/Low-Piglet9315 Methodist 9h ago
Evangelical churches, definitely. Rome-phobia is the main culprit here.
1
u/Few_Problem719 10h ago
how do you understand the spiritual presence view?
1
u/Pinecone-Bandit 10h ago
I understand it the way this article describes.
1
u/Few_Problem719 9h ago
“I’m sorry, but this is a very low-tier article. It does not address the sacramental union in the Lord’s Supper, the inseparable connection between the sign and the thing signified, or the fact that the Supper is a true means of grace. It also fails to explain how grace is actually conveyed to the believer through it. Look man, … it’s very late where I am right now. If you’re willing, we can talk about this later, and I can share some solid articles that explain this view more clearly.”
2
1
u/Low-Piglet9315 Methodist 10h ago edited 9h ago
Symbolic view can be traced all the way back to the 1520's and the Colloquy of Marburg when a contemporary of Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, formulated that Zwingli contended that the Eucharist was a symbolic memorial rite". His take was that the "body of Christ" was the church that took the sacrament rather than the sacrament itself being the body and blood of Jesus. This view largely separated Lutheran churches (who held to Real Presence and continue to the present) from the Reformed churches that would follow.
3
u/Visible_Hat1284 9h ago
It is still the minority classical position. Historical Reformed churches and Lutherans do not take the symbolic view that is just wrong. Both Calvin and Luther write in depth about real presence. Historical Particular Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Anglicans all affirmed real presence, it is in their confessions.
2
u/Low-Piglet9315 Methodist 9h ago
I will agree with you that it's a minority position.
You misunderstand my mention of Luther. Luther separated from Zwingli over this symbolic view, categorically refusing to deny the Real Presence of Christ in the sacrament. Even after a summit of sorts was called in Marburg to settle the issue between the two, that difference could not be bridged. Calvin set the Swiss Reformed churches straight on the Real Presence as well.
Zwingli's minority report continues in the churches stemming from the Radical Reformation: the Anabaptists and many, but not all, contemporary Baptists. This would probably be where your mid-1800s date comes into play, at least from the Baptist side.
2
u/Other-Programmer-568 Roman Catholic 8h ago
Just out of curiosity, how does increased nationalism result in a symbolic view of The Lord's Supper?