Metaphors of Eucharistic Presence

Stephen R. Shaver

Working Draft: Introduction and Contents

Graduate Theological Union/Church Divinity School of the Pacific

Berkeley, California

Chapter 1. Introduction

The precise genius of metaphorical language is to hold in dynamic tension several levels of meaning simultaneously. . . . It is not the multiplicity of meanings but the attempt to parcel them out that can lead to an artificial literalism destructive of symbol and metaphor.

Robert F. Taft[footnoteRef:1] [1: The Liturgy of the Great Church: An Initial Synthesis of Structure and Interpretation on the Eve of Iconoclasm, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 34/35 (1982): 74.]

On October 5, 1529, two groups left Marburg Castle in disagreement. After a lengthy and sometimes heated debate, the parties led by Martin Luther and HuldrychZwingli had failed to arrive at the accord their host, Philip of Hesse, had hoped would unite the reform movement sweeping across Europe. Instead the Marburg Colloquy would mark the formalization of a clear division. At Philips insistence, the two parties had managed to cobble together a shared statement outlining many points of agreement: the Trinity, original sin, salvation through faith, and so on. Yet the document ended with an admission that the parties had not been able to reach consensus on one critical issue: At this time, we have not reached an agreement as to whether the true body and blood of Christ are bodily present in the bread and wine.[footnoteRef:2] [2: Das Marburger Gesprch und die Marburger Artikel (1529), in WA 30/3:170; ET The Marburg Colloquy and the Marburg Articles, in LW 38:88.]

The question of how the presence of Jesus Christs body and blood relates to the eucharistic elements of bread and wine remains a church-dividing issue to this day. Like Luther, many Christians assert that the consecrated elements truly are Christs body and blood: the Roman Catholic Church speaks of transubstantiation, Eastern Orthodox theologians prefer less precise terminology of change (), and Lutherans speak of a sacramental union between bread and wine and Christs body and blood. Others, like Zwingli, reject such a direct identification. John Calvin took something of a middle course between Zwingli and Luther, insisting that Christs body remained in heaven but that the elements were efficacious signs communicating what they signified. Some Reformed churches today follow Calvins lead; others, along with many free churches, tend toward a memorialist view more like that of Zwingli that distinguishes strictly between sign and signified.

Since the bitter days of the Reformation, significant convergences have taken place. The vituperative mutual condemnations of the sixteenth century are no longer in vogue, and the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries have seen a number of bilateral and multilateral agreements exploring the potential for common ground. The most important of these is surely the 1982 Lima document Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry, which asserts that the eucharistic meal is the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, the sacrament of his real presence and that the Church confesses Christs real, living and active presence in the eucharist.[footnoteRef:3] However, the document goes on to recognize that there remain important differences with regard to the elements themselves: [3: Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry, Faith and Order Paper 111 (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1982), Eucharist II.B.13.]

Many churches believe that by the words of Jesus and by the power of the Holy Spirit, the bread and wine of the eucharist become, in a real though mysterious manner, the body and blood of the risen Christ. . . . Some other churches, while affirming a real presence of Christ at the eucharist, do not link that presence so definitely with the signs of bread and wine. The decision remains for the churches whether this difference can be accommodated within the convergence formulated in the text itself.[footnoteRef:4] [4: BEM, Eucharist II.B.13.Comm.]

In practice, Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry has not led to mutual recognition of a shared understanding of eucharistic presence. While there is indeed widespread agreement that Christ is present, and uniquely present, in the eucharistic celebration, the specific question of the elements themselves remains a church-dividing issue.[footnoteRef:5] [5: Compare, for example, the Roman Catholic response to BEMs treatment of the elements with that of the Presbyterian Church of Wales. The former reads, For Catholic doctrine, the conversion of the elements is a matter of faith and is only open to possible new theological explanations as to the how of the intrinsic change. The content of the word transubstantiation ought to be expressed without ambiguity. For Catholics this is a central mystery of faith, and they cannot accept expressions that are ambiguous. Thus it would seem that the differences as explained here cannot be accommodated within the convergence formulated in the text itself: Max Thurian, ed., Churches Respond to BEM, vol. 6, Faith and Order, Paper 144 (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1988), 22. The latter reads, The NT reading on the continuous communion of Christ with the believer effectively precludes the claim that the presence of Christ in the eucharist is unique. Here Reformed suspicions about the false understanding of symbolism and material mediation of the divine are pertinent. . . . We would resist firmly any suggestion of a change in the essential nature of the elements of bread and wine after consecration: Max Thurian, ed., Churches Respond to BEM, vol. 2, Faith and Order, Paper 132 (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1986), 169, 171.]

One clue to a potential way forward lies in BEMs reference to the convergence formulated in the text itself. Here is a brief acknowledgment of a truth often taken for granted: theology relies on words. When it comes to formulating doctrine, language occupies a privileged role among human media. It is difficult to imagine an ecumenical council declaring unity on the basis of a mutually endorsed image, piece of music, or evocative gesture: councils and synods do their work primarily by endorsing texts. Sometimes those texts are carefully crafted to be precise and detailed enough to exclude adversaries. At other times they are written broadly or vaguely enough to include formerly separated fellow believers. In either case, however, it is agreement on language that is generally taken to constitute agreement on truth.

Doubtless this is due to the remarkable and unique precision language affords. Although painting, humming, and dance can certainly convey ideas, these modes of expression are typically open to much wider interpretation than words, particularly when those words are fixed on a page. Language is the most sophisticated and nuanced means human beings have to communicate ideas and differentiate concepts from one another. That sophistication makes language a powerful tool indeed. However, it can also be seductive. Taking it for granted can lead to forgetting that language is a tool in the first place. It is a short step from attempting to use language as precisely as possible to assuming that the words we use are capable of bearing truth in an exact way.

At Marburg in 1529, Zwinglis ally Oecolampadius argued that The Holy Scriptures frequently employ figurative speech, metaphors, metonymies, and the like. In such cases words have a meaning different from what they say. To this Luther rejoined, There are indeed many metaphors in Holy Scripture. But you have to prove that here, in the words This is my body, a metaphor is contained.[footnoteRef:6] Despite their differences, Luther and the Swiss Reformers shared a common assumption: to agree that the words of institution contained a metaphor would be to agree that they were not, strictly speaking, true. Both parties assumed that there was a clear distinction between literal and figurative language, and that, while figurative language might be useful as a rhetorical adornment or teaching tool, only literal language was appropriate for proper claims to theological truth. [6: Hermann Sasse, This Is My Body: Luthers Contention for the Real Presence in the Sacrament of the Altar (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1959), 232. Sasses reconstruction is based on a synthesis of several accounts of the colloquy. Here Oecolampadius statement (in scriptura sacra figuratas alicubi locutiones esse, ut methaphoras, metonymias et id genus alias, in quibus voces aliud significarent quam sonarent) comes from the report of Anonymous, while Luthers retort (concedit multas esse metaphoras, sed ibi esse hoc probent) comes from that of Hedio. Marburger Gesprch, in WA 30/3:8; ET Marburg Colloquy, in LW 38:16-17, 37.]

This assumption was in fact shared by all the major parties to the eucharistic controversies of the West. Like Luther, the prelates at the Council of Trent rejected the idea that the words of institution contained figurative language (tropes):

He testified in clear and definite words that He gives them His own body and His own blood. Since these words . . . embody that proper and clearest meaning in which they were understood by the Fathers, it is a most contemptible action on the part of some contentious and wicked men to twist them into fictitious and imaginary tropes (fictitios et imaginarios tropos) by which the truth of the flesh and blood of Christ is denied.[footnoteRef:7] [7: Council of Trent, Session 13, October 11, 1551, Decretum de sanctissimo Eucharistiae sacramento, Decree Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, chap. 1, in H. J. Schroeder, ed., Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent (St. Louis, MO: B. Herder, 1950), 350; ET 73.]

For his part, while John Calvin would develop a much