What did Zwingli, Calvin and Luther teach on the Eucharist?

Question

There can be no doubt from history, Scripture and the writings of the fathers that the belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist was a universal belief from the earliest Church. From the beginning the Eucharist was the focus of all..........http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-S6YMuFYyaa9ESBoW5DFwEjL_HhqA?p=135

Orange Rev's,

The Church always taught the miracle of the Eucharist and the Didache is evidence for this belief and not evidence against it. You will notice that the Didache calls the elements of the Eucharist "Holy"; to be "Holy" one would think that it is more than mere bread and wine. It also teaches not to give it to non believers which St. Paul confirms in Scriptures which tells us that it is more than bread and wine, otherwise why forbid it from others.

We also know that only Bishops could confect the elements in the first century and only baptized believers could be present when this was done which would also indicate that it was more than bread and wine.

What about the teaching by St. Paul that if one receives unworthily that they may die and bring condemnation on themselves or Jesus' teaching recorded in John 6 saying that unless one eats His Body and drinks His Blood they have no life in them. This teaching sounds exactly like the body, soul and divinity of Christ is believed to be present

Answer 1

I believe you know that these men did not teach transubstantiation.

However, it is quite interesting that the Didache (dated 70-120 AD .... long lost, but rediscovered in 1873) has a description of the Eucharist. Outside of the scriptures (which are vague on this point), the Didache is our earliest description of Christian worship ... it is also the earliest church writing we have about the Eucharist, AND it is accepted by the Catholic Church as a valid church document.

In the Didache's description of the Eucharist, there is no mention of transubstantiation, or anything closely resembling transubstantiation. The Eucharist description does not describe a "real presence or Christ" ... or the "blood" ... or the "flesh". It is merely a praise and thanksgiving to God, just like the Passover meal that it emerged from. That's all.

Whereas I would agree that by the second century (Ignatius in about 106 and Justin Martyr, First Apology in 150) the Eucharist had taken on a transubstantiation doctrine... the Didache suggests that this was not necessarily the case in the earliest church ... it casts doubt.

In fact, the Didache seems to be more in line with Zwingli, Calvin and Luther ...

Follow-up in response to your Additional Details:
I am not attempting to infer that the Eucharist is unimportant or un-Holy. Simply,.I'm pointing out that the Didache does not communicate a transubstantiation doctrine. If it did, you would have obviously included it in your blog as evidence (assuming you knew about it) since it is our earliest description of Christian worship.

Granted, perhaps the earliest Church indeed held a transubstantiation doctrine - I'm not debating that. I'm merely pointing out that your statement "no doubt from history" is refuted by the Didache. The Didache does not articulate transubstantiation doctrine - which it should have if this were so central to the Eucharist - thus it introduces significant doubt to the unbiased reviewer ....

Answer 2

you sound like you already know