Huldrich Zwingli Argument Analysis

The articles labeled “Huldrich Zwubgli” and “Edward Schillebeeckx On The Real Prescense” both state the writers’’ views on the issue of whether we should consider the Lord’s supper to be “sacraments” or “ordinances.” A sacrament is a religious ceremony or act that symbolizes spiritual reality through a visible sign. An ordinance is a practice that merely demonstrates the participant’s faith. The views in this article are different, but in some ways they are similar. The first article is about Zwingli’s stance on the issue. It speaks about the views of a Swiss reformer named Huldrich Zwubgli. Through excerpts from The Christian Theology Reader, Second Edition by Alister McGrath, we come to discover that Huldrich Zwubgli considers baptism …show more content…
He believes that when the Jesus stated, “This is my body”, figurative speech is being used. He brings light to the fact that Jesus has used figurative speech on other occasions. For example, when Jesus said “I am the vine”, He was not being literal, rather He was using figurative language to show He provides nourishment and believers can do nothing without Him, just as a vine does to the branches. Huldrich Zwubgli also points out what he believes to be two obvious mistakes that make baptism and the Lord’s supper ordinances rather than sacraments. He believes the first mistake is, if it is true that the Eucharist is truly the body of Christ, then when we humans receive it and take it into our bodies, then we are actually tearing apart and mutilating Jesus’ body with our teeth. Huldrich Zwubgli believes it to be evident that during the celebration of the Lord’s supper that the flesh of Jesus is not literally and corporally present. In a sense, rather than being a literal presence he believes it to be a …show more content…
The biggest difference between the two articles is that the first article by Zwubgli sees Holy Communion as an ordinance, while the second article by Schillebeeckx sees Holy Communion as a sacrament. Zwubgli argued that due to the fact that that the bread and wine is not physically changed into the flesh and blood, that the Eucharist is purely symbolic. On the other hand, Schillebeeckx’s article states the changing from bread and wine to body and blood is given a new meaning even though not physically or chemically changed, therefore it is not purely symbolic. They also differ in the belief of the power of God. Zwubgli states that we can’t get around the issue that the bread and wine do not physically turn into the body and blood by saying, “With God all things are possible”, while Schillebeeckx’s article states the exact opposite. Schillebeeckx’s article describes that through God anything can be done when he states that “Christ’s power as Lord makes all things be done for Him.” These two articles are not purely different, rather they agree in ways. The main similarity is that they both recognize that the bread and body do not physically or chemically change form into the body and blood. Even though, they differ on whether they believe it is symbolic or not, the similarity remains that the physical and chemical appearance does not