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)?

 

[Josheb]

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.

First thoughts: I think the RCC should be commended anytime they amend misguided positions in favor of the Protestant upstarts and Reformed tradition(s). I believe the same is applicable anytime those within the contemporary Church amend current positions to have greater consistency with whole scripture. Modern physics tells us Christ can be bodily all over creation, not solely in heaven. If Calvin understood what we now know it's likely he'd have amended his viewpoint accordingly. I am wondering how this is a matter of ecclesiology. Eucharistic ecclesiology originates from the Eastern/Greek Orthodox Church. The idea the Eucharist creates the Church is not to which I subscribe. The bread and wine remain bread and wine and what most congregations do with the ritual called the "eucharist," "communion," and/or "Lord's supper," far removed from both the scriptural precedent and its theological comport. The Passover meal was a meal. When the fledgling NT-era Church transformed the Passover into the Lord's supper the ritual remained a meal, not a thimble and wafer. The fellowship experienced passing a tray of thimbles around is much different than that experienced at a shared dish meal. Rome and Calvin have it wrong. Everyone with which I have ever discussed this understand these facts so it is curious these practices persist when change could be made readily and easily.

Question: Could Reformed sacramentology sharpen itself by engaging this discarded Catholic category[?]

Maybe, but I encourage a complete overhaul of both sacramentologies.

, or does it muddy the waters?

I'm inclined to say the waters are muddied except for the part about the euphemism requiring the obfuscation or confusion being deliberate. I do not believe either/any source is deliberately trying to make the matter of communion less clear.

Does the language of "personal presence" help clarify the Reformed position, or does it risk confusion with Rome’s categories?

Meh. Could go either way and I suspect classic Reformed believers will side with the Reformers' belief Rome was the antichrist and, therefore, see it as risking "confusion with Rome's categories," and traditional Catholics will say the language risks confusion with the Reformed position. Scripturalists, on the other hand, don't/won't find risk at all and may well appreciate the clarification, whether Reformed or RCC. Reason tells us Christ's body holding a piece of bread while saying, "Take, eat; this is My body," and later saying, "This is my blood of the covenant....," (notice the word "new" is absent) necessarily understand his body was not holding his body in one hand and they don't try to create complicated theologies to explain what does not need much explanation. There are fundamental differences between the way the RCC and the Reformed tradition define a sacrament. The RCC asserts a sacrament is dispensatory, whereas the Reformed pov is representative (figurative) and affirming, while both view the sacraments as functions of God's grace. I do not see why the Lord's supper cannot be taught as a meal, a ritual in which God's grace is dispensed AND thereby an affirmation of the covenant promises to/for/about the Church.

 

[makesends]

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?

Would it be out of order to compare this sacrament with the other sacraments to get a better view of its purpose and means? What are the sacraments for? Is this one any different?

To me, that discarded Catholic category is mostly a Catholic bow to good sense. It has a ring to it, though, in the way of our 'ontology' discussion elsewhere, that the elements are not just material, but purpose.