Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox believe in the REAL (NOT symbolic) presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. Lutherans also maintain this, but also admit that the bread and wine still maintain their physical qualities.
All other Christian denominations view the eucharist as purely symbolic, ie NOT the body and blood and Christ.
Hope that helps.
You beat me to it. I was going to recommend Aquinas or Augustine.
Well, thanks, I understand some of the basic differences, as do all Christians, but what I was really looking for was something to discuss how Christianity devolved into so many different sects - I was looking for something both historical and doctrinal...and not just merely basic differences or another recitation of the Protestant Reformation - that’s only part of the pie.
p.s nice handle, Clemenza, haha
Not all. I’ve met several, particularly in the prophetic/apostolic movement, (not all by any means) who regard communion as a supernatural prophetic act. Miracles, dreams and visions are accepted as a lower level of revelation than the scriptures, but still a legitimate communication from God. The idea of a supernatural presence in communion, then, isn’t so far fetched.
As for an official doctrinal stance, though, I think you’re right.
Not accurate.
"Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament,do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death: the body and blood of Christ being then , not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses."
Westminster Confession of Faith. See also the Baptist Confession of Faith.