28 visitors participated in the most recent poll that asked about your Eucharistic theology. Before I play with the results, here is the breakdown:

68% (19 votes) agreed that the elements become the “real presence” of Christ at the consecration.

25% (7 votes) of those participating believe in transubstantiation.

7% (2 votes) said that the Eucharist is merely a potent symbol of our Christian identity.

In this poll I am more aware than previously of the question of how many participants were OC/IC folk vs. readers from other traditions. Assume for the purpose of this reflection that all 28 participants were OC/IC folk the numbers are rather interesting. For example, that there is a small percentage of our community that is self identified as “independent sacramental” but simultaneously rejects a concept most sacramentalists view as central to the idea of the Eucharist; that is the mystery of Christ’s real presence (never mind the mechanics of that for a moment). What is more the number of participants saying that they believe in transubstantiation is actually lower than I thought it would be when I devised the poll.

I posed the question for this poll wanting to find out more about the sacramental theology of our community. Again, assuming that all 28 participants were OC/IC folk the number of those responding in favour of “real presence” was much higher than I had thought it would be. I expected that “real presence” and transubstantiation would be almost equal. The question now is, why? Is it purely a rejection of a very Roman doctrine? Is it based on reflection and concensus? Is it grounded in a rejection of what might be roughly called medieval magic?

The other question raised here is, in the view of those voting for real presence, what is the mechanics of how it works in the liturgical setting? I’ve seen more than one “theory” of real presence, so now I’m curious, is one of these preferred in our context over the others, and why? Or is there an un-explored consensus of a uniquely OC/IC model?