On this day in 1525 the Eucharist became a symbol
…or, at least Huldrych Zwingli claimed it was.
On August 17, 1525, Zwingli, a leader in the Swiss Protestant Reformation, published the book “Subsidium sive coronis de eucharistia” in which he defended his novel belief that the bread and wine of the Eucharist were only symbols. He also rejected the idea that the Eucharistic liturgy was a sacrifice, relegating it to merely a “remembrance.” The reverberations of this book cannot be underestimated: today, the vast majority of Protestants accept Zwingli’s view, often not even realizing that it was not the view of Luther or even Calvin.
Reducing the Eucharist to a mere symbol has had profound effects, but the greatest is the disunity that has prevailed in Western Christendom since the Reformation. As I wrote in Who is Jesus Christ? Unlocking the Mystery in the Gospel of Matthew in the chapter entitled “Shepherd”:
[U]nity in the Church is not the result of theological conformity; rather, theological agreement is the result of a preexisting unity founded upon the Eucharist. It is not coincidental that the greatest case of disunity in the Church — the sixteenth-century Protestant Reformation — included a denigration of the Eucharist to merely a symbol of Christ rather than His real Presence. No longer bound by the Eucharist, the leaders of the Reformation began a never-ending proliferation of new denominations and Christian bodies.
The Church is not united based on the desires and strengths of men, but because of the unifying grace of the Eucharist. Without it, our fallen race is guaranteed to be divided. Thus, those who are still united through the Eucharist should not look upon these sad events in a spirit of pride or triumphalism; it is not of man’s power that the Church remains united. Only — only — by the presence of the Shepherd in the Eucharist can it hope to remain one flock. Without Him as the source of unity, his followers will truly be a flock that is scattered.
Let us pray that one day all Christians will be united in the one Eucharistic Body of the Lord, which is no mere symbol, but is truly the Real Presence of Christ among us.
In my own journey to the Catholic Church I was stunned to learn that Luther believed in the Real Presence….this was one of many historical facts which led me from the Epsicopal Church to the RCC…DDD
What a happy coincidence that I get to teach on the Eucharist tonight.
[...] On this day in 1525 the Eucharist became a symbol [...]
Pingback by Today in 1525 A Protestant Denies the Jesus « Jesus, I trust in You — August 17, 2010 @ 1:26 pmWe may not believe it.. we may not understand it.. but the Eucharist is the Source, Center and Summit, not just of every catholic christian’s life but of all mankind. Many of us still live in the symbolism of the old covenant when the realization is right before our very eyes.. May God enlighten our minds with the light of His Truth and enflame our hearts with the fire of his Love that we may see the true, real and substantial presence of our Lord in every Eucharist celebrated.
Thanks for the apt review! It’s truly amazing how many Christians these days are Zwinglians yet have never heard of Ulrich Zwingli. I say this as a former Dispensationalist, i.e., Zwinglian Darbyite.
We know Him in the blessed sacrament as the source & summit of our faith, and that He is there in the consecrated host in His conception, birth on Christmas,to His ascension, but above all in all His glory on the cross. We have an alter, not a table. Our mass remembers His last supper, but above all, His sacrifice that followed. Most masses I’ve assisted at recently accentuate the celebration of the last supper. May we always see His sacrifice too.
I am about to undergo RCIA and I still find the “realness” of the Eucharist a mystery. I don’t quite understand it and hope to learn more.
@Demrie
I can only add that He gave Himself to us in the Holy Eucharist so we would have Him in a physical, material way, and not only an invisible, spiritual way, no doubt for people like me who greatly needed this. The Holy Eucharist, to my knowledge, is the only material thing/being in the world that is not what it/He appears to be.
I’m sorry I’m not more help in explaining this mystery.
My brother, who grew up as a Roman Catholic is now an mega-church non-denominational denomination adherent, not only rejects the Real Presence but is very hostile to the very concept. I have often wondered why, and will probably never know the answer. For such a Bible thumper you’d think that Jesus’ words “This is my Body” would be enough! Oh well by my daily Rosary for him the Blessed Virgin will expedite his return to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Martin, your brother likely has the attitude, “Don’t expect me to believe that God comes to us in a biscuit”. I’ve heard this “argument” several times before from Zwinglites.
I would respond in this way. Yes, it does seem illogical….but which is more illogical, that God comes to us “in a biscuit” (not even all of God since there are many “biscuits” all over the world and over time) or that the creator of this http://dstopsky.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/spaceb.jpg (earth compared to the universe) came to us in an insignificantly tiny man and we as beings smaller than an amoeba in God’s eyes have any hope of having any sort of relationship with God. Most Pagan religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, etc) of the world would have no problem with the first (they are pantheistic after all). Even Muslims, Stoics, and Confucians can be able to believe this is possible, though would demand for proof that it is actually the case. But the latter is a stumbling block to all non-Christians since it seems so absurd. How can you believe the absurd, but be disbelieve the possible?
Perhaps during what is (or was?) the Octave of the Assumption it would not be inappropriate to pass on something I ran into in the Orthodox wikipedia article on the Theotokos:
Huldrych Zwingli:
I give an example: taught by the light of faith the Christ was born of a virgin, we know that it is so, that we have no doubt that those who have been unambiguously in error have tried to make a figure of speech of a real virgin, and we pronounce absurd the things that Helvidius and others have invented about perpetual virginity. – Huldrych Zwingli. “Friendly Exegesis, that is, Exposition of the Matter of the Eucharist to Martin Luther, February 1527,” in Selected Writings of Huldrych Zwingli, Volume Two, trans. and ed. by H. Wayne Pipkin, Pickwick Publications, 1984 p.275.
Then the pious mind finds wonderful delights in searching for the reasons why the lamb chose to be born of a perpetual virgin, but in this other case it finds nothing but a hopeless horror. [The other case that Zwingli here refers to is the Real Presence] – Huldrych Zwingli. “Subsidiary Essay on the Eucharist, August 1525,” in Selected Writings of Huldrych Zwingli, Volume Two, trans. and ed. by H. Wayne Pipkin, Pickwick Publications, 1984 p.217.
———————————————————–
Somewhere along the way, most ‘Zwinglians’ seem somehow to have lost sight of his belief in the Perpetual Virginity of the Theotokos (as Biblically obvious), even, for example, where the ‘Second Helvetic Confession’, in which his successor, Bullinger, speaks of her as “Ever-Virgin”, is among the official ‘Confessions’.
D, it actually goes much further. Try to do a bible study on Ephesians 4-6 in a Reformed church and watch the fireworks. You will hear every heresy that exists, trying to justify personal opinion including “Paul was a man of his time, so he had the prejudices of his time” to “The Apostles were just common folk like us, and an common folk can be wrong. If Paul were born today, he’d think like we do.” to “Scholars doubt Ephesians was ever written by Paul so why should I believe it?” to “Society back then was different, so what Paul said was right at the time, but conditions have changed for slaves, women, and children so it doesn’t apply now.” The official Reformed tradition is closer to the Catholic position and if you have an old timer in the group, you’ll hear that position, but it’ll be drowned out by the re-interpreters since most Protestants don’t know even the history of their own traditions beyond the last decade, so one opinion is as good as another. To the typical Protestant, history consists of the events of Jesus and the Apostles life, captured and divinely preserved in a book that all Christians had access to (since the printing press existed back then) and read and followed. Somewhere along the way the Catholic Church got of track but the Reformers returned to the original, and any decisions made in the last 10 years have always been the way the Christians thought and if they thought different, well they didn’t know what we do now.
Beautifully written Eric. I cannot wait to read the book.
The reason some people don’t believe in transubstantiation is because the people who do behave so badly and then just shrug and excuse their bad behavior with the tired and trite “well, I’m a sinner just like everyone else”.
If you expect other people to believe the bread and wine truly become Christ, then act like it.
Just don’t expect me to believe you’ve got Jesus Christ physically inside your own body when you’re sneering at other people, or gossiping about them, or being a bigot, or stealing, or cheating, or running around thinking you’re better than other people.
If those who say they believe it don’t act like they believe it, why should I believe it?
And Christ SAID “remembrance”, so it is a remembrance, not another killing of Christ over and over again. That’s just ridiculous and reduces Christ to a thing, an object.
Hi Sabra
You are absolutely correct that those of us who consume Christ, Body Blood Soul and Divinity are supposed to ‘become what we consume’…in other words strive for the perfection of Christ.
The Catholic Mass is not a repetition of the event of Calvary. The Mass (and there is only one) is a participation in the event…the one time event… of Christ’s crucifixion.
We are in God’s kairos time, not our chronos time. And all members of heaven, as well as participant on earth are part of that one Mass.
Christ said “This is my Body”…and we believe that.
jp for president!
The Eucharist is what we Catholics say it is because Christ said it is what it is at the last supper. Else He is a liar.
The non-believers selectively choose what parts of the bible they need to support their distorted version of Christianity.
As Flannery O’Connor said, “If it’s only a symbol, then to Hell with it.”
For a separated brother or sister to admit and believe in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist would mean to believe in the ordination of priests, and in the chain of ordinations from Christ down the centuries.And from there to believe in the fact that Christ founded a church and finally to arrive to the conclusion of which one is that church founded by Jesus. Certainly they could not believe in the real presence of Jesus in the eucharist without converting to be Catholic.
[...] Posted by lozeerose on August 17, 2010 · Leave a Comment On this day in 1525 the Eucharist became a symbol [...]
Pingback by Today in 1525 A Protestant Denies the Jesus « Jesus, I Trust In You. — December 2, 2010 @ 12:42 pm