What's your eucharistic theology?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

For me, at least, sacramental union seems to make the most sense, though my opinions in the matters that make it different to consubstantiation are not particularly strong.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm sorry, you're right, jmfcst. I should have defined these terms.

Transubstantiation is the Catholic theology. The bread and wine literally become the Body and Blood. The remnants of their original physical form are, essentially, held over from the bread and wine and become the physical form of the Body and Blood. So the Body and Blood take the physical form of the bread and wine, but it is not in any sense blood and wine any more.

The second option is the Eastern Orthodox theology, which is similar to the Catholic theology and uses several different terms. TJ, I put this option in for anybody who might hold with this concept but feel more comfortable with Orthodox than Catholic language for whatever reason. We probably don't have many (or even any) of such people on the Forum, but I wanted to be completist about this. The Orthodox discuss it in markedly different terms, even when the language differences are taken into account.

Consubstantiation was originally a Lollard idea in the late Middle Ages and is believed in by some Anglicans and other 'mainline' Protestants. The Body and Blood exist alongside the physical forms of bread and wine.

Sacramental union is the theology of most Lutherans and many other mainline Protestants, including many Anglicans. It's substantially the same as consubstantiation but doesn't physically 'limit' the presence of the Body and Blood to the bread and wine, instead casting them as a general spiritual pall (this is the part that I don't have particularly strong feelings about).

Pneumatic presence is a Calvinist idea and hinges upon the idea that Jesus being 'seated at the right hand of the Father' means that His literal, physical Body and Blood are not present but that a spiritual essence of them, something like a Platonic Form, is.

Memorialism is a Baptist/charismatic/Evangelical/historically Dissenter theology that essentially has the Eucharist as a rite done in memory of Jesus' Body and Blood rather than including them in any real sense.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Memorialism

if it wasn't the literal body and blood at the last supper, it surely wasn't after the last supper

Good point, and part of why I adhere to a consubstantiationist/sacramental union theology rather than a transubstantiational one.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Transubstantiation is the Catholic theology. The bread and wine literally become the Body and Blood. The remnants of their original physical form are illusory. (If I'm describing this at all inaccurately I'm sure TJ or belgiansocialist or somebody can correct me.)

Now, I'm no theologician, but I believe the physical properties of the bread and wine after the consecration (if that's the correct term in English) aren't illusory, they just belong to another substance now. That is to say: where the qualities of whiteness/rondness/... before consecration belonged to the bread and wine, they now belong to the body and blood of christ. Very Aristotelic obviously.

Thank you! I'll correct the post.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm curious as to who voted for the Orthodox understanding.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I wonder: For what fraction of those who believe in memorialism does communion typicaly consist of grapefruit juice and graham crackers?

My church uses wine and crushed saltines.

That's ghetto. You could at least spring for pita or something.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I can't vouch for this as it's anecdotal, but I've heard of very, very, VERY poor churches doing things like using Wonderbread and Zima. That doesn't seem to be the situation that your church is in, but considering the ethos of your church I probably shouldn't be surprised regardless.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I guess part of the idea of sacramental union is what Al said--that symbolism itself has a reality to it, that can transcend the brute fact of the matter. 'This is my Body and Blood', yet also 'Do this for the remembrance of me'.

My church uses traditional Catholic/Anglican wafers and tawny port, which can be got cheaper and at a higher quality than most wines, at least in my area.