Let’s move forward @Corlove13 ( I have highlighted some questions for you to give your thoughts on)
Just to clarify, what ur writing, from the Reformed books, is it Zwinglian Reformed?
Then lets talk abt Zwinglian Reformed
Zwingli’s view, articulated in works like On the Lord’s supper, holds that the Eucharist is a memorial of Christ’s sacrifice, where “is” in “This is my body” in Luke 22:19 means “signifies” (note this point, @Corlove13). Bread and wine are symbols and the act of communion is a communal remembrance, not participation in Christ’s actual Body and Blood. Now Zwingly’s approach is heavily influenced by a rationalistic hermeneutic and a rejection of sacramental realism.
First Point
Zwingli’s symbolic interpretation hinges on reading “is” as “signifies” in the Words of Institution. However, when we read, we see something else which Zwingli missed
Greek:
The Greek verb estin (“is”) in Luke 22:19 is a straightforward copula, implying identity, not representation. In biblical Greek, when a symbolic meaning is intended, additional qualifiers like “hos” "as, and “eikon” “image” are typically used. Christ’s unqualified “This is my body” suggest a literal ontological reality, @Corlove13 note the Greek grammar and context.
Context of Passover:
The Last Supper occurs in the context of passover, where the lamb was not merely a symbol but a real, efficacious sacrifice as in Exodus 12. Christ, as the true Paschal Lamb in 1 Cor 5:7, institutes a new covenant, where His Body and Blood are the real means of salvation, not mere signs.
John 6: In John 6:53-56, Jesus says “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have not life in you”. The Greek sarx (flesh) and aima (blood) are starkly realisitc terms, and the disciples’ shock indicates they understood Him literally, not symbolically.
If “is” means “signifies”, why does Christ not clarify this when His disciples are scandalised in John 6? A symbolic reading requires imposing an external hermeneutic on the text.
Memorialism
Zwingli’s view reduces the Eucharist to a mental act of remembrance.
Soteriological weakness: If the Eucharist is only a symbol, it lacks the capacity to effect theosis, the Orthodox doctrine of deification. St. Athanasius famously said “God became man so that man might become god”. The Eucharist, as the real Body and Blood, is the primary means of participating in Christ’s deified humanity. A symbolic Eucharist cannot.
Undermining divine grace: Zwingli’s memorialism implies that human recollection, not divine action is the locus of Eucharistic efficacy. This aligns with a Pelagian tendency, where human effort (remembering) overshadows divine grace.
If the Eucharist is merely a symbol, how does it differ from any other act of remebrance, like reading Scripture or praying? Why institute a specific rite if it offers no unique grace?
Metaphysical incoherence
Sacramental Realism: Drawing from St. Maximus the Confessor, Orthodoxy sees the cosmos as permeated by the divine logoi, the principles of God’s creative and redemptive purpose. The Eucharist is the pinnacle of this sacramental reality, where material elements (bread and wine) becomes vehicles of divine presence without ceasing to be material. Zwingli’s dualism, separating sign from reality fails to accut for this integrated worldview. Note this @Corlove13, u can think abt this.
@Corlove13, we come to the most imp point.
Chalcedonian logic: The Real Presence mirrors the hypostatic union. Just as Christ is fully God and fully man without confusion or division, the Eucharist is fully bread and fully Christ’s body. Zwingli’s insistence on a symbolic interpretation implicitly denies the possibility of divine-human synergy, echoing Nestorian tendencies.
Palamite Distinction:
St. Gregory Palamas’ distinction between God’s essence and energies provides a framework for the Real Presence. The Eucharist communicates Christ’s uncreated energies, not His incomprehensible essence, allowing believers to participate in divine life without violating divine transcendence.
If Zwingli rejects the Real Presence due to its metaphysical complexity, does he also reject the Incarnation or the Trinity, which are equally mysterious
Ecclesiastical and Historical Continuity
Liturgical Evidence:
The Earliest Eucharistic liturgies such as the Liturgy of St. James and the Anaphora of St. Basil treat the Eucharist as Christ’s real Body and Blood, with prayers invoking the Holy Spirit to effect transformation.
Conciliar Affirmation:
If Christ’s material presence is real in the Incarnation, it is real in the Eucharist.
Apostolic Sucession:
Orthodoxy maintains the Eucharist’s efficacy depends on the apostolic succession of bishops and priests, who act in persona Christi.
At last I would like to bring this up @Corlove13
How can the Zwinglian view account for the transformative power of the Eucharist in salvation, given that Scripture and tradition link it to eternal life in John 6:54? If it is merely a symbol, why does Paul warn that unworthy reception brings judgement ( 1 Cor 11:27-29) implying a real, objective presence?