Sounds like 'mass' confusion then about it-Neto wrote:I wasn't looking at it that way, actually. Just that at that point in his life, Zwingli was still uncertain regarding this doctrine (according to what I read), and the men considered the "beginning" of the "anabaptist movement" were still his students, or in his circle of influence. It may be that his understanding of the nature of the presence of Christ in the "communion elements" was influenced by Hoen's view, and that his considerations on the matter may have in turn influenced the Swiss anabaptists. (I mentioned this in respect to the possibility of at least some early Dutch influence on the formation of the anabaptist beliefs, through interaction with Zwingli during this early period.)Valerie wrote:Interesting how this whole period became a time of following different people's personal views about everything- so in this case, Zwingli would be seen with favor?Neto wrote:Cornelius Hendrickz Hoen. Anyone know of any translation of his writings? His view of "Holy Communion" was rejected by Luther as too symbolic (no physical presence of Christ in the elements), but was of interest to Zwingli. He was Dutch, and died in 1524. (Early Dutch Anabaptist?)
http://gameo.org/index.php?title=Hoen,_ ... ._1523/24)
I found the following comments, probably from a Calvinist point of view (at https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc7.ii.vii.xi.html):
II. The Zwinglian Theory.—The Lord’s Supper is a solemn commemoration of the atoning death of Christ, according to his own command: "Do this in remembrance of me," and the words of Paul: "As often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord’s death till he come."928 Zwingli emphasized this primitive character of the institution as a gift of God to man, in opposition to the Roman mass as a work or offering which man makes to God.929 He compares the sacrament to a wedding-ring which seals the marriage union between Christ and the believer. He denied the corporal presence, because Christ ascended to heaven, and because a body cannot be present in more than one place at once, also because two substances cannot occupy the same space at the same time; but he admitted his spiritual presence, for Christ is eternal God, and his death is forever fruitful and efficacious.930 He denied the corporal eating as Capernaitic and useless, but he admitted a spiritual participation in the crucified body and blood by faith. Christ is both "host and feast" in the holy communion.
His last word on the subject of the eucharist (in the Confession to King Francis I.) is this: —
"We believe that Christ is truly present in the Lord’s Supper; yea, that there is no communion without such presence .... We believe that the true body of Christ is eaten in the communion, not in a gross and carnal manner, but in a sacramental and spiritual manner by the religious, believing and pious heart."931
This passage comes so near the Calvinistic view that it can hardly be distinguished from it. Calvin did injustice to Zwingli, when once in a confidential letter he called his earlier eucharistic doctrine, profane."932 But Zwingli in his polemic writings laid so much stress upon the absence of Christ’s body, that the positive truth of His spiritual presence was not sufficiently emphasized. Undoubtedly the Lord’s Supper is a commemoration of the historic Christ of the past, but it is also a vital communion with the ever-living Christ who is both in heaven and in his church on earth.
Zwingli’s theory did not pass into any of the leading Reformed confessions; but it was adopted by the Arminians, Socinians, Unitarians, and Rationalists, and obtained for a time a wide currency in all Protestant churches, even the Lutheran. But the Rationalists deny what Zwingli strongly believed, the divinity of Christ, and thus deprive the Lord’s Supper of its deeper significance and power.
So what do we know? We know that what Jesus said really offended people about it, to the point that many left following Him because they couldn't handle what He said. I think if it was 'symbol ONLY' not only would He have clarified that, so that they wouldn't walk away-but He would have explained it that way later to His own. I think this is another one of those mysteries-we cannot explain how it happens, but by faith, it does- I was convinced of it by the early Church writings actually my readings are limited to David Bercot's Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs quotes by those in the faith/Church, and that remains today all through this Church age) who all seemed to be on the same page with believing in the real presence-by faith, by prayer, by the Holy Spirit- so many things of the faith, when involving the Holy Spirit, cannot be explained 'logically'- ie. the Holy Spirit causeing Mary to be pregnant, the presence of Christ in the wine & bread- as a mystery- some things we accept by faith. Most of the Gospel takes faith! The carnal mind cannot understand it-
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
Now if you read the beginning of this chapter- you read the miracle 5 loaves & 2 fish feeding a multitude to the point where they gathered the leftovers- we cannot explain this either- these are mysteries, these are miracles- it takes faith.
Interestingly enough, one miracle there, leads into another miracle He conveys about what He says that made many upset and walk away- truly a 'symbol only' understanding would not have caused that.