According to Protestants who believe in the Real Presence, what makes for a valid Eucharist?

[RealisticCatholic]

If I was a Protestant Christian who believes in the Real Presence, I would want to make sure I’m actually “doing” the Eucharist correctly, so that what I believe is the Eucharist is actually the Eucharist.

For example, can the Eucharist be celebrated with grape juice? Who can preside at the Eucharist? What qualifications must a presider have – ordination? What must be said in order for the Real Presence to take place?

So basically, if you are Protestant and accept the Real Presence, what is required for the Real Presence to occur? And how do we know?

 

[RealisticCatholic]

I’m asking the Protestant perspective.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

It is my understanding that several Protestant traditions profess some version of the Real Presence.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

@(name removed by moderator)
Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut. I am in the Non-Catholic Religions forum asking for the Protestant perspective, whether provided by fellow Protestants or others who may know the answers.

I know what the Catholic belief is. I am Catholic. The Real Presence is only found in apostolic churches who have valid apostolic succession. But I’m not here to debate this with fellow Protestants.

 

[ltwin]

Incorrect. There are some Protestants that do believe it is a symbol. Other Protestants believe in some form of Real Presence. Lutherans, for example, believe in Sacramental Union.

The reason for this goes back to the Middle Ages, when in Communion was offered at every Mass in the Catholic Church but no one except the priest regularly partook. This was because the laity in general only took Holy Communion once a year at Easter because they would be concerned about being spiritually prepared.

When the Reformers began reforming, it was very hard to have weekly Communion because large numbers of people were still concerned about partaking unworthy. Therefore, traditions such as monthly or quarterly communion service developed.

 

[ltwin]

It is my understanding that several Protestant traditions profess some version of the Real Presence.

Lutherans have Sacramental Union. Anglicans are all over the place. Presbyterians have Real Spiritual Presence.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

@ltwin

Do you believe in some kind of Real Presence? All I mean by this is anything beyond symbolic, whereby when the Eucharist is celebrated, it really IS what Jesus intended. I.e., a “sacrament” occurs.

What is required, and how do you know? Thanks.

For others who may read: For example, I have a non-Catholic friend who believes in a “real presence” who would say all you need is a group of Christians who commemorate the Last Supper in some way.
That’s all that’s required for her, for example.

 

[ltwin]

Catholics do have a version of the Real Presence belief. It’s called Transubstantiation. Lutherans, for example, believe the Lord’ Supper is 100% the body of Christ as well, they just explain differently by means of Sacramental Union. They don’t believe in Transubstantiation. It’s a matter of how the Real Presence is explained and defined.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

FYI The purpose of this thread isn’t to debate the nature of the Real Presence itself, but what is required from the Protestant perspective for a valid Eucharist to occur. Whether this is merely a spiritual presence or as literal as the Lutheran one.

 

[ltwin]

Do you believe in some kind of Real Presence?

I tend to fall in the Real Spiritual Presence category. I believe that if you have faith in Christ, then yes you are receiving spiritual nourishment and that by the Spirit, Christ is present in a special way.

What is required, and how do you know? Thanks.

I believe you need to have faith in Christ and examine your conscience prior to partaking. I believe any Christian can bless and administer Holy Communion, though as a matter of good order in a church context it should be done by an ordained minister. I’ve only ever used grape juice, and I don’t think that has any effect on the authenticity of the sacrament.

I’m from a non-liturgical tradition though.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

Ok thank you!

A few follow-ups:

1. By spiritual presence, is there an objective presence? Or is it only dependent on the recpient’s faith? In other words, it’s not the Eucharistic elements, but rather the ritual itself?
2. How does one come to the conclusion that anyone can administer communion?
3. How do you know grape juice is legitimate?

 

[ltwin]

• By spiritual presence, is there an objective presence? Or is it only dependent on the recpient’s faith? In other words, it’s not the Eucharistic elements, but rather the ritual itself?

The elements themselves do not become Christ’s body. We feed on him by faith in the Lord’s Supper. That is what I believe.

• How does one come to the conclusion that anyone can administer communion?

Because any Christian can pray over bread and wine and then consume those in faith. A priest or minister does not have a greater measure of the Spirit than any other Christian.

1. How do you know grape juice is legitimate?

It’s not a concern of my tradition. We don’t really worry about legitimacy of the elements.

 

[Hodos]

If I was a Protestant Christian who believes in the Real Presence, I would want to make sure I’m actually “doing” the Eucharist correctly, so that what I believe is the Eucharist is actually the Eucharist.

We believe that the sacraments are the combination of God’s promise with an earthly element, and provide the promise of the forgiveness of sins. So the minimum is the earthly element established by Christ, and the promise of Christ in that sacrament. Christ instituted the Eucharist with wine (some might argue fruit of the vine, I would take issue with this interpretation from a grammatical and historical standpoint, and say wine would be the faithful element), and bread, combined with the promise of Christ. We use the words of institution as communicated by Paul as a faithful transmission of that promise. There is no requirement for the presider given in scripture. So generally, any person trained on presiding over the sacraments could faithfully administer them. That being said, we generally use ordained pastors to administer the Eucharist (for reasons of good order) or a deacon/elder/Eucharistic minister, operating under the authority of a pastor or other person bearing ecclesiastical oversight.

With regard to how we know, we look at the synoptic gospel accounts and 1 Corinthians for the sources that describe how the Holy Supper was instituted and performed.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

Again, thanks.

I don’t want this thread to be about debating any of these particulars. And I hope other users don’t get into the weeds of that either.

My point may not be as relevant to you. But let me explain where I’m coming from. As a Catholic, the Eucharist is very important to my faith and spiritual life. Not only in the Sacrifice of the Mass, but in in reception of communion, and then in private prayer before Christ’s continual presence in the elements themselves (Eucharistic adoration, etc.)

I would think any Christian with a heightened Eucharistic spirituality would want to make sure that he or she is truly participating in the Eucharist correctly, or else risk not having a valid Eucharist at all!

While Catholics know how to proceed, one could argue that most Protestants don’t have this issue, since most don’t have as heightened a Eucharistic spirituality as do Catholics.

Still, there are Protestants who accept the Real Presence, and I would sure want to make sure it is done correctly.

It’s not a concern of my tradition. We don’t really worry about legitimacy of the elements.

But I will comment here. So what if a church wanted to use pizza and Coke as more acceptable substitutes? I don’t mean to be silly. I’m just trying to get to the heart of it. Thanks.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

There is no requirement for the presider given in scripture. So generally, any person trained on presiding over the sacraments could faithfully administer them. That being said, we generally use ordained pastors to administer the Eucharist (for reasons of good order) or a deacon/elder/Eucharistic minister, operating under the authority of a pastor or other person bearing ecclesiastical oversight.

But seemingly, it is VERY important we have the means to discern the requirement for the presider. Is it any Christian like my friend or @ltwin describes? Is it an ordained minister? Or is is a priest that participates in Apostolic Succession, like Catholics and Orthodox say?

If any Christian believes in the Real Presence, we better be careful to discover the requirements, right?

 

[ltwin]

But I will comment here. So what if a church wanted to use pizza and Coke as more acceptable substitutes?

I think that would be going too far, but in general, as long as it’s bread and something from grapes then Pentecostals are satisfied. And I should clarify lest anyone gets the wrong idea, many Pentecostals would describe themselves as not believing in a Real Presence, but my views have been shaped by a particular Pentecostal theological tradition.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

But shouldn’t we know for sure, if it is indeed a Christ-given mandate?

Otherwise, what’s the difference between Christ’s presence here and in any meal that we pray over?

 

[HopkinsReb]

Lutherans, for example, believe in Sacramental Union.

And many Anglicans, such as myself, believe in the Real Presence and, in some cases, transubstantiation.

 

[Hodos]

But seemingly, it is VERY important we have the means to discern the requirement for the pastor. Is it any Christian like my friend or @ltwin describes? Is it an ordained minister? Or is is a priest that participates in Apostolic Succession, like Catholics and Orthodox say?

If any Christian believes in the Real Presence, we better be careful to discover the requirements, right?

I myself could administer the Eucharist in a pinch, just as I could perform a baptism in a pinch. Again, there is no scriptural requirement for who may administer the Holy Supper. That being said, for reasons of making sure they are faithfully administered, and also to allow for the proper administration of Church discipline, this would not be normative. Keep in mind that during the time of the Donatists, the Church confirmed that it is not the faithfulness of the minister that makes the sacraments efficacious, but the trustworthiness of God who is the one through whom the sacrament is offered are received in faith by the recipient.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

Sure, Scripture is not a liturgical manual.

That doesn’t mean we weren’t supposed to have the answer.

So goes for any sacrament or mandate by Christ. We don’t have much instruction on Baptism (Infant baptism? Trinitarian formula?), either, but the Church still passed down the requirements in other ways (Didache, for example, expresses first century Tradition).

To say Scripture is sufficient for these questions is a big assumption.