Protestant arguments against the Eucharist
Calvin, Zwingli and Luther on the Eucharist and why Catholics believe in the real presence
The Eucharist, which is the source and summit of our Church, contains the real presence of Jesus, the same Jesus who died on the cross and ascended into Heaven. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) says “The Eucharist is ‘the source and summit of the Christian life.’ ‘The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it. For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself, our Pasch’" CCC 1324.
The Eucharist is the source and summit of the Christian life
Our Pasch which is to mean this is our Paschal banquet and is likened to the Passover meal of the Israelites as it was celebrated by Jesus with the Apostles when He instituted the Eucharist and “By celebrating the Last Supper with his apostles in the course of the Passover meal, Jesus gave the Jewish Passover its definitive meaning. Jesus' passing over to his father by his death and Resurrection, the new Passover, is anticipated in the Supper and celebrated in the Eucharist, which fulfills the Jewish Passover and anticipates the final Passover of the Church in the glory of the kingdom” (CCC 1340). Jesus instituted the Eucharist when He said to them “do this in memory of Me” (1 Cor 23-26).
For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.
The protestant denominations still do practice communion but not all of them believe communion contains the real presence of our Lord. The Lutherans and Anglicans do believe this in a manner close to Catholic teaching but most other denominations do not. So, what do they actually believe? One thing to note is there is no one accepted belief among non-Catholics concerning the real presence. Luther himself condemned those who didn’t believe in the real presence of our Lord to be heretics.
Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.
Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.”
—Luther’s Collected Works, Wittenburg Edition, no. 7 p, 391 (downloaded from: https://bfhu.wordpress.com/2011/05/13/martin-luther-on-the-real-presence/)
The thing that stands out is Luther’s testimony that none of the church Fathers ever denied the body and blood of Christ being present in the Eucharist. Luther denied that the bread and wine become the body and blood of our Lord but instead said the bread and wine remain bread and wine but that Jesus is also present within It. Luther took the words “this is my body” literally and believed that while the bread and wine remain that Jesus’ omnipotence can be physically present within the substance of the bread and wine. The “is” is to be taken literally which is called by some consubstantiation as opposed to transubstantiation. The difference being in the former that the bread and wine remain bread and wine but in the latter that the bread and wine are transformed into Christ’s body.
So how did modern protestants get to the point they are now in which they believe they should still practice communion from time to time but they deny the real presence of our Lord? One of the first major proponents who said that communion is only symbolic was Huldrych Zwingli. Unlike Martin Luther who said that when Jesus said “this is my body” He literally meant “this IS my body,” Zwingli believed that the word "is" should be understood as "signifies," indicating that he did not uphold a literal presence. He rather emphasized Christ's divine presence or his presence to the believer through the Holy Spirit, symbolized by the elements. In other words Jesus said “this signifies my body.” Zwingli wrote tracts on the subject, one called, "On the Lord’s Supper" in the year 1526. Still today, you will hear people say that Jesus also said He was a door are we to literally believe He is a door? Jesus said He was a vine, are we to believe He is a literal vine? Zwingli makes the case that Jesus did not mean what He said to be taken literally but only figuratively. This was the main contention of Luther that Jesus meant it literally and that there were no church Fathers who disagreed. It would be much easier to believe the symbolic view than the literal view and if there were church fathers who said it was only symbolic I think we would have heard of them.
The third major protestant reformer was John Calvin. He contended that Jesus' presence held “significance” in the Eucharist, yet he denied a physical presence. This stance contrasts with the Catholic belief, which asserts the real presence of Jesus' body, blood, soul, and divinity in the Eucharist but also contradicts those who say it is only symbolic. Calvin maintained that Christ was indeed present in the Lord's Supper, albeit not in a physical manner. Calvin did believe Christ is present in the Eucharist more that just symbolically. He contended that while Christ’s physical body resides in Heaven that God is omnipotent and through His power He becomes present during the Lord’s supper or Communion in a significant manner.
So, to sum up briefly the three different Protestant viewpoints we have Luther who believed in consubstantial communion; Zwingli who believed in a symbolic communion and Calvin who believed in a real presence but not a physical presence. If I were to choose one of the three I would choose Calvin’s viewpoint as it makes the most sense however I think all three are incorrect. In today’s protestant churches most attendees are unaware of Luther, Calvin or Zwingli and I know this because I attended their services for over ten years. Their pastors know about these three but the protestant “laity” do not and most do not know what the Catholic teaching is either.
If pressed, modern protestants would say Jesus was speaking symbolically when He said “this is my body” or that he was speaking in parables; that Catholics falsely believe they re-sacrifice Jesus over and over through the sacrifice of the Mass; that the Apostles wouldn’t have believed that Jesus was both present with them and in the bread He offered; that salvation doesn’t come from communion but from faith alone; the words Jesus used when He said you must eat my flesh were by design meant to scare away half-hearted followers; the bread of life means that we seek Christ to feed our spiritual life instead of seeking the food they were giving at the miracle of the feeding of the 5,000. These are a few of the things I have heard others say. Let’s examine some of the things being said today in their own words.
Grace to You ministries, in the article “Are We Called to Literally Eat Christ’s Flesh and Drink His Blood?”, makes the case that Catholics believe in a false gospel. Grace to You ministries says that we are not meant to literally eat the body and blood of Jesus in the Eucharist and is headed by John MacArthur. The article quotes Father John O’Brien, a Catholic priest, who writes the following in his book “The Faith of Millions”:
When the priest pronounces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man. It is a power greater than that of monarchs and emperors: it is greater than that of saints and angels, greater than that of Seraphim and Cherubim. Indeed it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary. While the Blessed Virgin was the human agency by which Christ became incarnate a single time, the priest brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal Victim for the sins of man—not once but a thousand times! The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows His head in humble obedience to the priest’s command.
This unfortunate paragraph is not in keeping with the actual teaching of the Church but because a Catholic priest said it they have cherry picked it and used it for their argument. This is not the actual Catholic belief nor is it what is taught. The CCC says “it is not man that causes the things offered to become the body and blood of Christ” which is contrary to Father O’Brien when he says “When the priest pronounces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne”. It is the Holy Spirit which does the work. Yes, the priest says the words but it is God who makes it happen, not a man.
“It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. The Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion. Thus St. John Chrysostom declares: ‘It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. The priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God's. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered’” (CCC 1375).
Grace to You’s article continues:
The repeated sacrificial process is called transubstantiation, wherein the bread and wine transform into the literal body and blood of Christ. It may sound cannibalistic and creepy, but they argue that it’s what the Bible actually teaches:
“So Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him’” (John 6:53–56).
But is that really what Jesus meant by those graphic words? Was He truly prescribing the repeated and violent sacrifice of His physical body? Is that what Christ intended when He instituted Communion?
The simple answer is, No.
The first thing to note when the author says “the repeated sacrificial process is called transubstantiation.” The Mass is not a repeated sacrificial process but it is one sacrifice re-presented to us so that all generations can experience that one sacrifice. While we do say the Eucharist is transubstantiated into the body and blood of our Lord we do not say He is sacrificed again. According to the catechism in paragraph 1363 “This is how Israel understands its liberation from Egypt: every time Passover is celebrated, the Exodus events are made present to the memory of believers so that they may conform their lives to them.” In the same manner every time we celebrate the Eucharist Jesus’ death on the cross is made present to us through the Mass but Christ is not re-sacrificed. The Mass continues the sacrifice in an unbloody manner so that all generations can participate in it and receive forgiveness for the sins we commit daily. And as the Israelites remember the Passover, the actual Passover is Christ who passed over death and so we now remember this Passover until the end of time. In this way, the Eucharist reminds of us the victory over death and unites us to those in Heaven as well.
The next section says the gospel of John bread of life discourse precedes the Passover meal where Jesus instituted the Eucharist. So, the two things can’t be connected. It continues, when Jesus says flesh in the gospel of John he uses “sarx” which means flesh but in the synoptic gospels concerning the Last Supper he uses “soma” which means body; therefore, the two things can’t be connected. We’re not sure why they can’t be connected but apparently because Jesus used two different words. The article finalizes the argument by saying that if Jesus said that one must eat the flesh of the son of man a year ahead of communion being established then no one would understand what He meant. Furthermore, the idea that salvation comes by the eating of flesh contradicts salvation by faith alone and that communion is for believers. But believers are those who are saved by faith alone not by eating communion and he uses 1 Cor 11:27-32 which says:
Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.
So, if one is already saved by faith then they are already believers and if we are saved by faith alone then how can a believer be also saved by the Eucharist?
“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast” Ephesians 2:8-9. The words “faith alone” are not there and we would agree that we are saved by grace through faith but not faith alone. John MacArthur is saying that because we are saved by faith alone then it must follow that eating the flesh of the son of man has no efficacy.
The article continues and makes the argument that Jesus died once and for all for our sins so there is no need for continued sacrifice. The sacrifice of the cross is sufficient. They make the argument that the Mass re-sacrifices Jesus each time a Mass is performed. However, the bible in the book of Hebrews says that Jesus died once and for all and so His death is sufficient. The Mass re-presents the one sacrifice of Jesus but it does not re-sacrifice Jesus over and over. It is one sacrifice re-presented in the same manner that the Israelites remembered the Passover each year but it became real to them in a way meant to transform them. In the same way the Mass through the power of God transforms us through the gift of the Eucharist.
In the book of Malachi says “Oh that there were one among you who would shut the doors, that you might not kindle fire on my altar in vain! I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord of hosts, and I will not accept an offering from your hand. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense will be offered to my name, and a pure offering. For my name will be great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts” (Mal 1:10-11). This was fulfilled in the Eucharist. Every nation will have an acceptable offering and His name will be great among the nations. This is the Eucharist. The turning away from the real presence of the Eucharist happened in stages. First, with Luther who said it is the literal body of Jesus but it also remains bread to Calvin who said there is no literal body of Jesus present but Jesus is present in a significant manner to Zwingli who said Jesus only meant it to be symbolic in the same manner as He said He was a door or a vine. Now, after many years most protestants don’t really know what the early church fathers said or what Luther said about the church fathers.
And, after Jesus died and was resurrected He travelled among two men walking along the Emmaus Road. They didn’t recognize Him until after He broke bread and gave it to them. Then, their eyes were opened. How can the Eucharist open our eyes to better understand Jesus?
When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight. They asked each other, “Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?”
(Luke 24:31-32)
Source Materials
Institution of the Mass, Catholic Answers
Blog about the blasphemy of Fr John O'Brien
The four different views from a Protestant
Are we called to literally eat the body of our Lord? Grace to You ministry
Great!
the real saucy quotes come out when you look at what the reformers say about the Mass being a sacrifice.