Article X: 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.
In the case of Calvin and his intellectual lineage, it was because he thought that the real presence implied that Jesus’ human body was in a bunch of places at once, meaning that Jesus was not fully human, and that therefore the real presence suggested a sort of gnosticism.
Protestants receive communion with utmost reverence. More so than you could imagine. When I received communion in a “non-denominational church” I believed the Lord was very much there with me. No, I wasn’t taught the beauty of the REAL PRESENCE but it still was a very sacred event event to receive communion. Pray for Protestant Christians. Love them. Christ died for them.
This really depends on the Protestants in question. Some are as you describe. But I have found that the Methodist churches I’ve been to don’t particularly reverence it, and the Presbyterians I know, even the conservative wing, view it as purely symbolic.
Again, Article X: 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.
“It is not the doctrine of transubstantiation which is to be believed, but simply that Christ really is present at the Eucharist”
Luther believed that the bread and wine do not become the body and blood of Christ, but rather they are mystically united with it – that when we receive the host we are receiving both bread and the body, and when we receive the chalice we are receiving both wine and the blood.
No, Martin Luther recognized that Paul himself calls it both the bread and wine in his writings, as well as the body and blood. Luther didn’t presume to speculate about how the body and blood of Christ are delivered to us, he simply accepted that it is by faith in God’s word.
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.
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. 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.
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 thing you just posted says that the bread remains bread and the wine remains wine. So the bread does not become the physical body of Christ, and the wine does not become the physical blood of Christ.
So they become without becoming, they transform without transforming. I don’t see how it’s the Catholics who are the sophists in this argument.
No it does not. It says that we don’t attempt to answer how the bread becomes the body, and how the wine becomes the blood, and that it is perfectly scriptural to say that we receive both the body and the blood with the bread and the wine. Take it up with Paul.
That would be because they are using Platonic and Aristotelian logic (sophistry) to explain the mysterion of God rather than just taking it on faith.
The simple reason why Protestants deny it is that if they believed in it, they would have to become Catholics. They would realize what they are missing and would have to go the the Catholic Church to have it.
Most Protestants have no idea what such a Father of the Church says.
Unfortunately, a lot of the non-Catholic and non-Orthodox Christians don’t read the fathers of the Church. From the New Testament they jump to their founders writings and are then missing between 1400 to some 1900 years of teachings.
A lot of converts to the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are protestants who studied history and found that there was only one Church for the first millennia. Or they heard of one of the early fathers of the Church and realised that there was a lot of truth in their writings.