Christ In The Eucharist

The reformation’s revolt against the Catholic Church’s theology, practices, and hierarchy climax in a disagreement with the sacramental system which was categorized by these things. Quarreling among reformation leaders was initiated through disagreement about the understanding of Sacraments especially the Lord’s Supper. The leading disagreement of the Lord’s Supper between Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli is Christ’s materiality and presence during the Eucharist. In order to understand the stances of these reformation leaders we will discuss their views on Christology purpose of the sacrament, meaning of key Scriptural terms and the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Since many of the reformations conceptions of the Eucharist were formed in …show more content…
In order to prove his point Luther points to an incarnational Christology. The fact that God chose to become flesh shows that grace is mediated through material. Luther states that the flesh of Christ both accomplished Christ’s work in heaven and is still relevant in the Eucharist.
If the reasoning is correct and adequate, that because Christ's flesh is not spirit it must be of no avail, then it can be of no avail on the cross or in heaven either! For it is quite as far from being spirit on the cross and in heaven as in the Supper. But since no spirit was crucified for us, therefore Christ's flesh was crucified for us to no avail. Calvin focuses on the substance of Christ as the sacrament. This allows the Supper to serve as both a participation of enjoyment and remembrance. It does not only symbolize or represent Christ’s already completed work, but it testifies what is still achieved through participation in Christ. Calvin explains: “It follows that in order to have our life in Christ our soul must feed on his body and blood as their proper food. This, then, is expressly attested in the …show more content…
Zwingli explains that “is” cannot simply mean “is.” Instead “is” can be better interpreted as “symbolizes.” Although this translation is not the most likely result, Zwingli ensures that it is true. “This verb ‘is,’ then, is in my judgment used here for ‘signifies.’ Yet this is not my judgment, but that of eternal God” This interpretation allows Zwingli to explain that the bread and cup represent the remembrance of Christ and New Testament, not Christ himself. Luther simply translates “is” to mean “is.” Luther’s simply interpretation allows Him to interpret that Scripture to point toward His belief of Christ presence in the elements. Although Calvin agrees with Luther’s interpretation, he explains that the elements are signs that represent the body and blood of