Would you say then that difference in “any matter” and the elements in communion is that God has promised to always come to us in communion? Whereas that’s not so with other things?

I realize this my seem plainly stated above but sometimes I need to clarify for my own benefit.

I come from a memorialist background that would seriously balk at this kind of language. But the reason it appeals to me is that it seems so much less me-centered. With the memorial view, it’s up to me to come to God – remembering with enough force what has happened in the past. But what you’re talking about seems like an invitation to participate in what’s happening right now. And in that right now God is coming among us. I like that.

I may have this totally whacked so correct where you see fit.

While the exact word ’sacrament’ doesn’t necessarily appear in the bible, in the sense that a sacrament is “Sacrament is any matter that mediates God.”, the bible is full of them. That afterall is the original understanding of the commandments in the Torah. In fact, the word ‘mitzveh’ which we translate commandment has its root in a term meaning ‘to draw near’ – thus each commandment was a way of drawing near to God, of being mindful of ’sacramental reality’ and seeing God’s glory in all things. (Of course, much like the Christian church has done with its sacraments, the righteous folk of Jesus’ day had reduced them to technicalities of observance).

Nicholas also said: “After all, God is not a physical being but a Spiritual one. As the church is the spiritual offspring of Abraham, it is the Spiritual body of Christ.”

But, God made us physical beings that respond and connect through physical means. Therefore He gave us ways of worshipping and connecting that are both spritual and physical. I imagine that’s a good thing since being the Designer He understands us better than we understand ourselves.

Jeremy mentioned “God’s Grandeur.” Add GMH’s “Pied Beauty” to that, Jeremy! Very much another example of Michael’s “The sacramental view of reality has the effect of making all things holy.”

Alexander Schmemann’s ‘For the Life of the World: Sacraments and Orthodoxy,’

Walker Percy’s ‘The Second Coming,’

And if you’ve only got time for a poem:
Gerard Manley Hopkins’ “God’s Grandeur.’

In one of the comments above someone speaks about the eating of the “flesh” of Christ which Protestants have removed from the Gospel, and Michael in a comment asserts that he does not accept the “transsubstantiation” view of the Presence.

A Roman Catholic friend of mine, a married deacon and professional theologian responsible for the training of permanent deacons in his diocese (thus not an uninformed layman) tells me that the term “transsubstantiation” is very commonly misunderstood by Protestants but also by many Catholics. He says the word “substance” as it appears in this term refers not to physical substance, but rather to the “essence” of the thing; thus, “transsubstantiation” means the consecrated bread becomes “essentially” the Body of Christ, not “physically” as the modern usage of the word substance suggests to many of us, and likewise of course the consecrated wine becomes essentially the Blood of Christ.

I find that an interesting explanation which totally wipes out the ludcrous “cannibalism” charge made by the former Fr. Charles Chiniquy in the classic “Fifty Years in the Church of Rome”.

But what bothers me much more about the Catholic understanding of the Real Presence is the way it is objectively tied to the consecrated elements — permanently and regardless of the actual faith of celebrant or participants.

In my own understanding, which seems pretty compatible with the Lutheran and Anglican views, the Real Presence is in the act of celebrating the Eucharist and receiving the elements in a believing manner; in keeping with the rubrics in the classic Book of Common Prayer I believe that any remaining bread and wine should be reverently consumed after the communion service to show respect for the holy use to which they have been put; but I don’t believe that somehow they are still Body and Blood of Christ once the celebration of the Eucharist is over.

I find it interesting, too, that many of the newer Eucharistic prayers in the Roman Missal seem compatible with this non-Catholic view: their epiclesis asks the Holy Spirit to let the elements become “to us” the Body and the Blood of Christ — there is that element of subjectivism in that wording which I miss in the official explanations of their view of the Presence.

Since that is my impression of it, even though I may misunderstand its actual meaning, I shy from using the term.

The LS is the Gospel and Christ is offered to us in the LS. Christ promised that this bread and cup are fellowship with him.

Christ’s presence in all the universe is not tied to the same promises, but to Christ’s lordship and God makes the universe holy through Christ, but our experience of that is a matter of the sovereignty of God.

Thanks for the response. Of course, you are correct in that Catholics do not adore mere bread…I’m sorry if I was unclear on that. I only wished to highlight the difference between how Catholics celebrate the Sacrament and how Protestants do. Catholics treat the Eucharistic Host like Christ whereas Protestants treat the bread as bread.

I think though I am understanding you better now. Is it your belief that Christ’s “real presence” in the Eucharist is the same as Christ being present in a tree, an insect, or the bread used in a protestant service? Is that the overall point you are trying to make here?