Basic HTML Version
634
unanimous opinion as to the relation of the sign to the thing signified, that is to say, as to the
nature of the presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. There are especially four views that come
into consideration here.
1. THE VIEW OF ROME.
The Church of Rome conceives of the sacramental union in a physical
sense. It is hardly justified, however, in speaking of any sacramental union at all, for according
to its representation there is no union in the proper sense of the word. The sign is not joined to
the thing signified, but makes way for it, since the former passes into the latter. When the
priest utters the formula, “hoc est corpus meum”, bread and wine change into the body and
blood of Christ. It is admitted that even after the change the elements look and taste like bread
and wine. While the substance of both is changed, their properties remain the same. In the
form of bread and wine the physical body and blood of Christ are present. The supposed
Scriptural ground for this is found in the words of the institution, “this is my body”, and in John
6:50 ff. But the former passage is clearly tropical, like those in John 14:6; 15:1; 10:9, and others;
and the latter, literally understood, would teach more than the Roman Catholic himself would
be ready to grant, namely, that every one who eats the Lord’s Supper goes to heaven, while no
one who fails to eat it will obtain eternal life (cf. verses 53,54). Moreover, verse 63 clearly
points to a spiritual interpretation. Furthermore, it is quite impossible to conceive of the bread
which Jesus broke as being the body which was handling it; and it should be noted that
Scripture calls it bread even after it is supposed to have been trans-substantiated, I Cor. 10:17;
11:26,27,28. This view of Rome also violates the human senses, where it asks us to believe that
what tastes and looks like bread and wine, is really flesh and blood; and human reason, where
it requires belief in the separation of a substance and its properties and in the presence of a
material body in several places at the same time, both of which are contrary to reason.
Consequently, the elevation and adoration of the host is also without any proper foundation.
2. THE LUTHERAN VIEW.
Luther rejected the doctrine of transubstantiation and substituted for
it the related doctrine of consubstantiation. According to him bread and wine remain what they
are, but there is in the Lord’s Supper nevertheless a mysterious and miraculous real presence of
the whole person of Christ, body and blood, in, under, and along with, the elements. He and his
followers maintain the local presence of the physical body and blood of Christ in the sacrament.
Lutherans sometimes deny that they teach the local presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper, but
then they ascribe to the word ‘local’ a meaning not intended by those who ascribe this teaching
to them. When it is said that they teach the local presence of the physical nature of Christ, this
does not imply that all other bodies are excluded from the same portion of space, nor that the
human nature of Christ is nowhere else, as, for instance, in heaven; but it does mean that the
physical nature of Christ is locally present in the Lord’s Supper, as magnetism is locally present
in the magnet, and as the soul is locally present in the body. Consequently, they also teach the