Between Luther, Calvin and Zwingli, which of the Reformers do you agree with about 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 Christian worship where the corporeal Christ is present according to His words, ”this is my body, this is my blood”.

Even though many attribute Luther as the first Reformer, Luther was actually teaching a very similar theology to Jan Huss who preceded Luther by a century although Luther claimed not to know of the teaching of Huss. But even among his contemporaries Ulrich Zwingli was teaching reform in Zurich in 1522. His doctrine was the most radical of any of the Reformers when He forbade the.........

http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-S6YMuFYyaa9ESBoW5DFwEjL_HhqA?p=135

PeacebyJesus,

thanks, from your answer it would seem that you follow the heretical teaching of Ulrich Zwingli who threw Jesus out of worship in Protestant churches. You obviously believe the same way as the proto Protestants that left Jesus after the soliloquy at Capernaum. It amazes me that people can ignore the plainest of all biblical teaching of Jesus and deny His miracle that He clearly states is to be discerned upon faith in Him. St. Paul confirmed the same in His pastoral letter.

Answer 1

Zwingli would be the most distant from st Paul 1 Cor 11 and John 6 since for him"the whole thing' of the Eucharist was only a provoking of the memory of Jesus and what he did for us
Calvin had "a Spiritual Real Presence" in which Christ was actually present in spirit in the soul of the elect at Communion time but not literally and actually and I find this position incomplete at best.

Luther was the closest to the biblical,traditional and historic teaching of the 16th cent Reformers on the Real presence given by all the Catholic and Orthodox Churches and Church Fathers but Luther seemed to approve a temporary Presence during Mass and the continued substance of the bread and wine.( Consubstantiation or Invination and Impanation which many Lutherans say is really not the Lutheran position of the true and Real Presence) which the Catholic Church rejected

Wicliffe rejected Transubstantiation but Huss did not.

I have not come against a "biblical and rationalist" rejection of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist that cannot as logically be used against the real presence of God in Christ.
I find all the attempts to interpret away the Real Presence from the New testament real fancy footwork but unhistorical and inconsistent.

Answer 2

i understand a considerable distinction between Calvin, Zwingli, and Luther is on their perspectives of the Eucharist. Luther believes in consubstantiation it is the have self assurance that Jesus is "in, with, and below" the bread. that may not transubstantiation, it is what the Roman Catholic Church believes. Transubstantiation is the theory that the bread and the wine fairly exchange into the physique and blood of Christ. Calvin believes that there is purely a non secular presence on the Eucharist. Calvin believes which you would be able to no longer pin-factor Christ's area, yet that the holy spirit is latest on the Eucharist. Zwingli purely believes that the Eucharist are purely symbols of Christ.

Answer 3

Luther was the only one among the Reformers who still clung to the old Catholic doctrine, and, though subjecting it to manifold misrepresentations, defended it most tenaciously.

He was diametrically opposed by Zwingli of Zurich, who, reduced the Eucharist to an empty, meaningless symbol. Having gained over to his views such friendly contemporary partisans as Carlstadt, Bucer, and Œcolampadius, he later on secured influential allies in the Arminians, Mennonites, Socinians, and Anglicans, and even today the rationalistic conception of the doctrine of the Lord's Supper does not differ substantially from that of the Zwinglians.

Calvin was cleverly seeking to bring about a compromise between the extremes of the Lutheran literal and the Zwinglian figurative interpretations, by suggesting instead of the substantial presence in one case or the merely symbolical in the other, a certain mean, "dynamic", presence, which consists essentially in this, that at the moment of reception, the efficacy of Christ's Body and Blood is communicated from heaven to the souls of the predestined and spiritually nourishes them.




Luther arbitrarily restricted Real Presence to the moment of reception , the Council of Trent by a special canon emphasized the fact, that after the Consecration Christ is truly present and, consequently, does not make His Presence dependent upon the act of eating or drinking. On the contrary, He continues His Eucharistic Presence even in the consecrated Hosts and Sacred particles that remain on the altar or in the ciborium after the distribution of Holy Communion.

Answer 4

I will have to go with Luther. And I won't even bother restating all that Mark has said, because he has it all right! Oh, except he forgot the Evangelical Lutheran Church of England as one of the confessional Lutheran bodies!

As for the aspect of cannabalism and the Jewish laws of cleanliness, that was why quite a few disciples left upon this teaching. They couldn't deal with the truth. See John 6, beginning around vs. 60, although you can go all the way back to verse 35. When Jesus asked the remaining 12 why they didn't leave, Simon Peter responded, "Lord, to who shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God." John 6:68-69, NIV

Even today, in Lutheran liturgy, this verse is still used.

Answer 5

True Christians do not look to men as ultimately determinative of truth, but the Bible (Acts 17:11). which is the only class of revelation declared by God to be fully inspired (2Tim. 3:16), the inspiration of which is not proven because of church decree, but by it's power and life in them that are born again by it (not infants), whch only the 66 books have, while the rest are obcure.

The R.C. Eucharist is not the Biblical remembrance of the Lord's supper, but is a misrepresentation of it, as they teach a form of cannibalism, that the wafer is really Jesus corporeal flesh and blood, which is NOT what the disciples believed, or practiced.

Grammatically, that the bread was Jesus actual body is no more literal than the cup was actually the New testament in His blood (Lk, 22:20), rather it clearly represented it. Such allegories are very typical of Jewish typology. David once longed for a drink of the water of the well of Bethlehem, which mighty men of valor obtained at the risk of their own lives. “nevertheless he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto the LORD. And he said, Be it far from me, O LORD, that I should do this: is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives?” (2Sam. 23:15-17). David thus equated the water obtained at the risk of the men's blood with that of their blood itself.

The disciples were Jewish, with Peter being kosher as far late as Acts 10, and as such they were strictly enjoined never to eat blood (Lev. 17:11). And there is no way they would simply submit to eating Jesus blood, especially Peter who even protested Jesus attempt to wash his feet (Jn. 13:6). How much more would he question eating His body! Nor would Jesus be allowing the disciples to eat something as important as this, unawares of what it really was.

Moreover Jesus was never in two places at once in his earthy ministry, and would not be sitting before the apostles and in their stomachs at the same time. And whenever Jesus did a miracle, it actually changed things, but a scientific examination of a consecrated host will show it to be bread, not flesh.

Neither does the heavily metaphorical gospel of John teach in chapter 6 that eating Jesus corporeally was necessary to have life in them (v. 53) as Rome supposes, as if it did then no one could have life in them unless they ate the Lord's supper, but the apostles never taught that this was how one became born again, which is how you get “life in you” (Eph. 2:1, 5), but by believing the word of the gospel, that of Christ crucified and risen again (Eph. 1:13; Acts 10:43-47). For Jesus said, “It is written, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Mt. 4:4). Moreover, the analogy Jesus gave in Jn. 6 as to how we are to “eat His flesh” was that of how Jesus lived by the Father" (John 6:57), which was not by physically consuming Him, but by doing His will in believing and obeying Him, as Jesus said that was “meat and drink” (Jn. 4:34). Thus the interpretation of Jesus words requiring us to eat His flesh and drink his blood, was “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. But there are some of you that believe not” (Jn. 6:63, 64). For as He said before, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life" (John 6:47).

Those who are deceived into believing the carnal interpretation of Rome (which the lost souls in Jn. 6:66 did) have “eaten the fruit of lies” (Hos. 6:13), and which is another example of the abundant use of metaphors regarding eating.
Such is one of the many perversions of God's word by an organization that took upon the form and much of the means of the Roman empire in which it was found, replete with it's own autocratic Caesario-papacy. It thus debases Scripture as a 2nd class authority at best, and exalts itself above all, promulgating multiple unBiblical doctrines from it's Roman perpetuated Petrine papacy to paedo-baptism to prayer to and for the dead.

Finally, the ultimate error of Rome is that of fostering dependence upon her supposed powers, as well as one's own merits, for salvation, rather than convicting souls to come before God as sinners, destitute of any merit whereby they may escape Hell and gain Heaven, and thus cast all their faith upon Christ and His blood for justification by imputed righteousness and regeneration (Rm. 3:9 - 5:8; Eph. 1:13; Titus 3:5).

And having turned from sin to Him, be baptized under water (Acts 8:37) and walk in newness of life (Rm. 6). To God be the glory alone!!

Answer 6

Good information as always. Thanks

Answer 7

Dear Christoiglesia,

So few outside the Seminaries know of Huss. Fewer still know of Huss's prophesy regarding Luther. The name Huss means Goose. Before his burning at the stake, Huss stated that "this goose is cooked, but a swan shall follow who shall not burn!" The Luther family crest is a swan. The swan is often seen in Lutheran ecclesiastical art and iconography, and sometimes on weather vanes on Church spires to this day.

I am with Scripture, Luther, the Orthodox and Catholic (Roman and otherwise) Fathers and Doctors of the Church. The body and blood of Christ are truly present and received by both believers and non believers in the Sacrament of Holy Communion.

I must admit that I do tend to lean towards the RC doctrine of Transubstantiation, rather than our Lutheran interpretation of the "supernatural presence in, with, and under the bread and wine." (most Lutherans do; in our Church the remaining consecrated bread and wine is consumed by the Pastor and Deacon (or Elder) before the vessels are purified).

This is why:

Scripture says in the Gospels and elsewhere "this IS My body... this IS My blood." John Chapter 6 is also clear.

The Calvinists (Zwingli included) put great emphasis on Scripture and held it in high regard. The insisted on the literal interpretation on virtually ALL points of doctrine except regarding the sacraments. Instead they applied "reason" and argued that since Christ ascended bodily into heaven, and sits at Gods right hand, his physical body can not be present in two places at once. By holding fast to some, and denying other parts of Scripture they negate it all.

When Luther argued with Zwingli regarding the nature of the Sacrament of Holy Communion he got hoarse. He wrote in chalk on the top of the table where he sat "hoc est corpus meum"(this is My body)". Every time Zwingli went into a rant Luther would pull back the table cloth in rebuttal. Luther said regarding the Eucharist "it IS what it IS".

Interesting to note the term "Hoccus Poccus" was a Calvinist bastardization of "hoc est corpus meum" used to ridicule the Lutheran (Catholic) belief in what Christ,Scripture, and the Fathers, and Doctors of the Church have taught right from the start Christs Church.

Your friend in Christ,

Mark

Addendum:

Cashelma's answer about the "restricted real presence" is correct regarding the NON Confessional Lutheran Synods, but certainly is not applicable to to Confessional Lutheran Synods such as Lutheran Chruch Missouri Synod, Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, Lutheran Church Canada, State Church of Norway, Australian Lutheran Chruch etc.

This does however apply to Churches such as Evangelical Lutheran Chruch in America, and the German State Chruch, and many others who still hold Philipist doctrine (this also includes the Anglican Communion; Elizabeth I imported a bunch of Philipist Lutherans to assist the English Bishops, the result was the 39 Articles.

This doctrinal line procedes from the so-called "Crypto-Calvinist Controversy". Calvinists began to inflitrate key Lutheran cities. The center of the Crypto-Calvinist heresy was Wittenberg. Philip Melangthon actually revised the "Formula of Concord" to accomodate the Calvinists in the interest of "haromony". Some years later the Kaiser forced a union between the Lutheran and Reformed Churches becaust the state wanted to fund only one Protestant Chruch and one Catholic Church; these now are the "State Evangelical Church". This is why leaders such as C. W. F. Walther brought people such as my ancestors out of Germany, to restore orthodoxy to Lutheranism. These ex-migrations were a result of what we now refer to as the "Restoration" and "The age of Orthodoxy".

Luther himself NEVER held any of these "Sacramentarian" doctrines.

From the Small Catechism:

What is the Sacrament of the Altar?
It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself.
What is the benefit of such eating and drinking?

That is shown us in these words: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins; namely, that in the Sacrament forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation are given us through these words. For where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation.

How can bodily eating and drinking do such great things?
It is not the eating and drinking, indeed, that does them, but the words which stand here, namely: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins. Which words are, beside the bodily eating and drinking, as the chief thing in the Sacrament; and he that believes these words has what they say and express, namely, the forgiveness of sins.

Who, then, receives such Sacrament worthily?
Fasting and bodily preparation is, indeed, a fine outward training; but he is truly worthy and well prepared who has faith in these words: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins.
But he that does not believe these words, or doubts, is unworthy and unfit; for the words For you require altogether believing hearts.

From the Augsburg Confession:

Article X: Of the Lord's Supper.
1] Of the Supper of the Lord they teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed 2] to those who eat the Supper of the Lord; and they reject those that teach otherwise.

From the Apology of the Augsburg Confession:
Article X: Of the Holy Supper.

54] The Tenth Article has been approved, in which we confess that we believe, that in the Lord's Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10, 16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord's body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord's body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but 56] is truly changed into flesh. And there is a long exposition of Cyril on John 15, in which he teaches that Christ is corporeally offered us in the Supper. For he says thus: Nevertheless, we do not deny that we are joined spiritually to Christ by true faith and sincere love. But that we have no mode of connection with Him, according to the flesh, this indeed we entirely deny. And this, we say, is altogether foreign to the divine Scriptures. For who has doubted that Christ is in this manner a vine, and we the branches, deriving thence life for ourselves? Hear Paul saying 1 Cor. 10, 17; Rom. 12, 5; Gal. 3, 28: We are all one body in Christ; although we are many, we are, nevertheless, one in Him; for we are, all partakers of that one bread. Does he perhaps think that the virtue of the mystical benediction is unknown to us? Since this is in us, does it not also, by the communication of Christ's flesh, cause Christ to dwell in us bodily? And a little after: Whence we must consider that Christ is in us not only according to the habit, which we call love, 57] but also by natural participation, etc. We have cited these testimonies, not to undertake a discussion here concerning this subject, for His Imperial Majesty does not disapprove of this article, but in order that all who may read them may the more clearly perceive that we defend the doctrine received in the entire Church, that in the Lord's Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered with those things which are seen, bread and wine. And we speak of the presence of the living Christ [living body]; for we know that death hath no more dominion over Him, Rom. 6, 9.

From the Smalcald Articles:
VI. Of the Sacrament of the Altar.

1] Of the Sacrament of the Altar we hold that bread and wine in the Supper are the true body and blood of Christ, and are given and received not only by the godly, but also by wicked Christians.

2] And that not only one form is to be given. [For] we do not need that high art [specious wisdom] which is to teach us that under the one form there is as much as under both, as the sophists and the Council of Constance teach. 3] For even if it were true that there is as much under one as under both, yet the one form only is not the entire ordinance and institution [made] ordained and commanded by Christ. 4] And we especially condemn and in God's name execrate those who not only omit both forms but also quite autocratically [tyrannically] prohibit, condemn, and blaspheme them as heresy, and so exalt themselves against and above Christ, our Lord and God [opposing and placing themselves ahead of Christ], etc.

5] As regards transubstantiation, we care nothing about the sophistical subtlety by which they teach that bread and wine leave or lose their own natural substance, and that there remain only the appearance and color of bread, and not true bread. For it is in perfect agreement with Holy Scriptures that there is, and remains, bread, as Paul himself calls it, 1 Cor. 10, 16: The bread which we break. And 1 Cor. 11, 28: Let him so eat of that bread.

The Epitomy of the Formula of Concord states:VII. The Lord's Supper.

1] Although the Zwinglian teachers are not to be reckoned among the theologians who affiliate with [acknowledge and profess] the Augsburg Confession, as they separated from them at the very time when this Confession was presented, nevertheless, since they are intruding themselves (into their assembly], and are attempting, under the name of this Christian Confession, to spread their error, we intend also to make a needful statement [we have judged that the Church of Christ should be instructed also] concerning this controversy.

STATUS CONTROVERSIAE.
Chief Controversy between Our Doctrine and That of the Sacramentarians regarding This Article.

2] Whether in the Holy Supper the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are truly and essentially present, are distributed with the bread and wine, and received with the mouth by all those who use this Sacrament, whether they be worthy or unworthy, godly or ungodly, believing or unbelieving; by the believing for consolation and life, by the unbelieving for judgment? The Sacramentarians say, No; we say, Yes.

3] For the explanation of this controversy it is to be noted in the beginning that there are two kinds of Sacramentarians. Some are gross Sacramentarians, who declare in plain (deutschen), clear words as they believe in their hearts, that in the Holy Supper nothing but bread and wine is present, and distributed and received with the mouth. 4] Others, however, are subtle Sacramentarians, and the most injurious of all, who partly speak very speciously in our own words, and pretend that they also believe a true presence of the true, essential, living body and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper, however, that 5] this occurs spiritually through faith. Nevertheless they retain under these specious words precisely the former gross opinion, namely, that in the Holy Supper nothing is present and received with the mouth except bread and wine. For with them the word spiritually means nothing else than the Spirit of Christ or the power of the absent body of Christ and His merit, which is present; but the body of Christ is in no mode or way present, except only above in the highest heaven, to which we should elevate ourselves into heaven by the thoughts of our faith, and there, not at all, however, in the bread and wine of the Holy Supper, should seek this body and blood [of Christ].

Affirmative Theses.
Confession of the Pure Doctrine concerning the Holy Supper against the Sacramentarians.

6] 1. We believe, teach, and confess that in the Holy Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and essentially present, and are truly distributed and received with the bread and wine.

7] 2. We believe, teach, and confess that the words of the testament of Christ are not to be understood otherwise than as they read, according to the letter, so that the bread does not signify the absent body and the wine the absent blood of Christ, but that, on account of the sacramental union, they [the bread and wine] are truly the body and blood of Christ.

8] 3. Now, as to the consecration, we believe, teach, and confess that no work of man or recitation of the minister [of the church] produces this presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper, but that this is to be ascribed only and alone to the almighty power of our Lord Jesus Christ.

9] 4. But at the same time we also believe, teach, and confess unanimously that in the use of the Holy Supper the words of the institution of Christ should in no way be omitted, but should be publicly recited, as it is written 1 Cor. 10, 16: The cup of blessing which we bless, etc. This blessing occurs through the recitation of the words of Christ.

10] 5. The grounds, however, on which we stand against the Sacramentarians in this matter are those which Dr. Luther has laid down in his Large Confession concerning the Lord's Supper.

The first is this article 11] of our Christian faith: Jesus Christ is true, essential, natural, perfect God and man in one person, undivided and inseparable.

12] The second: That God's right hand is everywhere; at which Christ is placed in deed and in truth according to His human nature, [and therefore] being present, rules, and has in His hands and beneath His feet everything that is in heaven and on earth [as Scripture says, Eph. 1, 22], where no man else, nor angel, but only the Son of Mary is placed; hence He can do this [those things which we have said].

13] The third: That God's Word is not false, and does not deceive.

14] The fourth: That God has and knows of various modes of being in any place, and not only the one [is not bound to the one] which philosophers call localis (local) for circumscribed].

15] 6. We believe, teach, and confess that the body and blood of Christ are received with the bread and wine, not only spiritually by faith, but also orally; yet not in a Capernaitic, but in a supernatural, heavenly mode, because of the sacramental union; as the words of Christ clearly show, when Christ gives direction to take, eat, and drink, as was also done by the apostles; for it is written Mark 14, 23: And they all drank of it. St. Paul likewise says, 1 Cor. 10, 16: The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? that is: He who eats this bread eats the body of Christ, which also the chief ancient teachers of the Church, Chrysostom, Cyprian, Leo I, Gregory, Ambrose, Augustine, unanimously testify.

16] 7. We believe, teach, and confess that not only the true believers [in Christ] and the worthy, but also the unworthy and unbelievers, receive the true body and blood of Christ; however, not for life and consolation, but for judgment and condemnation, if they are not converted and do not repent, 1 Cor. 11, 27. 29.

17] For although they thrust Christ from themselves as a Savior, yet they must admit Him even against their will as a strict Judge, who is just as present also to exercise and render judgment upon impenitent guests as He is present to work life and consolation in the hearts of the true believers and worthy guests.

18] 8. We believe, teach, and confess also that there is only one kind of unworthy guests, namely, those who do not believe, concerning whom it is written John 3, 18: He that believeth not is condemned already. And this judgment becomes greater and more grievous, being aggravated, by the unworthy use of the Holy Supper, 1 Cor. 11, 29.

19] 9. We believe, teach, and confess that no true believer, as long as he retains living faith, however weak he may be, receives the Holy Supper to his judgment, which was instituted especially for Christians weak in faith, yet penitent, for the consolation and strengthening of their weak faith [Matt. 9, 12; 11, 5. 28].

20] 10. We believe, teach, and confess that all the worthiness of the guests of this heavenly feast is and consists in the most holy obedience and perfect merit of Christ alone, which we appropriate to ourselves by true faith, and whereof [of the application of this merit] we are assured by the Sacrament, and not at all in [but in nowise does this worthiness depend upon] our virtues or inward and outward preparations.

If you want more, I have more.

Your firend in Christ,

Mark