Ecclesiology > Means of Grace > Sacraments > Lord's Supper

[John Bauer]

Transignification and Reformed Sacramentology​

Transignification is a twentieth-century Roman Catholic proposal that sought to reframe the mystery of Christ’s presence in the Supper. Instead of explaining the Eucharist in terms of transubstantiation—a metaphysical change of substance—it argues that the bread and wine retain their natural properties while undergoing a change in meaning or signification. The elements no longer function merely as ordinary food but as consecrated signs of Christ’s body and blood. In this view, Christ is not locally or physically present in the elements, but personally and relationally present to the faithful who receive them in faith.

While Rome ultimately reaffirmed transubstantiation as dogma, the idea of transignification carries conceptual overlap with Reformed sacramentology. The Reformed tradition denies that the elements change in substance; they remain bread and wine. Yet through the Spirit’s action and Christ’s promise, the signs truly communicate what they signify. Calvin, for instance, taught that believers are lifted by the Spirit into communion with the risen Christ, who remains bodily in heaven but is genuinely present to faith. Thus, Christ is not locally in the bread, but he is personally present to nourish his people by the Spirit.

Seen this way, transignification parallels the Reformed emphasis on the sacrament as a divinely appointed sign that effects what it signifies, not by ontological mutation but by covenantal promise. The bread and wine signify—and therefore really communicate—the body and blood of Christ, so that through them believers partake of Christ himself, spiritually and personally, unto life eternal.

Question: Could Reformed sacramentology sharpen itself by engaging this discarded Catholic category, or does it muddy the waters? Does the language of "personal presence" help clarify the Reformed position, or does it risk confusion with Rome’s categories?

 

[Hazelelponi]

Question: Could Reformed sacramentology sharpen itself by engaging this discarded Catholic category, or does it muddy the waters? Does the language of "personal presence" help clarify the Reformed position, or does it risk confusion with Rome’s categories?

The one thing I have been very clear about is that I can never take their communion. This category distinction between us is clear and very real.

When speaking to Catholics you might point out that there might be some Catholics who do agree with our position on the bread and wine but I'm not sure if I understand what you mean by the questions you're asking here.

 

[Eleanor]

Transignification and Reformed Sacramentology​

Transignification is a twentieth-century Roman Catholic proposal that sought to reframe the mystery of Christ’s presence in the Supper. Instead of explaining the Eucharist in terms of transubstantiation—a metaphysical change of substance—it argues that the bread and wine retain their natural properties while undergoing a change in meaning or signification. The elements no longer function merely as ordinary food but as consecrated signs of Christ’s body and blood. In this view, Christ is not locally or physically present in the elements, but personally and relationally present to the faithful who receive them in faith.

While Rome ultimately reaffirmed transubstantiation as dogma, the idea of transignification carries conceptual overlap with Reformed sacramentology. The Reformed tradition denies that the elements change in substance; they remain bread and wine. Yet through the Spirit’s action and Christ’s promise, the signs truly communicate what they signify. Calvin, for instance, taught that believers are lifted by the Spirit into communion with the risen Christ, who remains bodily in heaven but is genuinely present to faith. Thus, Christ is not locally in the bread, but he is personally present to nourish his people by the Spirit.

Seen this way, transignification parallels the Reformed emphasis on the sacrament as a divinely appointed sign that effects what it signifies, not by ontological mutation but by covenantal promise. The bread and wine signify—and therefore really communicate—the body and blood of Christ, so that through them believers partake of Christ himself, spiritually and personally, unto life eternal.

Question: Could Reformed sacramentology sharpen itself by engaging this discarded Catholic category, or does it muddy the waters? Does the language of "personal presence" help clarify the Reformed position, or does it risk confusion with Rome’s categories?

Or. . .is Jesus, in light of the OT sacrifice of Lev 3, simply stating that the NT Lord's Supper is the meal on the sacrifice itself wherein we receive into ourselves (participate in, 1 Co 10:16) the benefits of Christ's sacrifice--peace and fellowship with God and the Priest (Christ) who offered it (Lev 3:15, 7:15-18, 19:5-8)?