The great and stubborn push for ecumenical sameness tries to fit Calvin into either an Arminian mold, a Romanist mold or even, as we've seen today, a Platonic mold. From my reading, he is devoutly none of these.
The Lord's Supper became a "bludgeon in men's hands" because Rome turned it into something to be bartered, a commodity to dispense at the whim and will of men and magisteriums.
The error of the mass is also due to the fact that it asserts the body and blood of Christ are being sacrificed anew to God every time the mass is performed, which of course is a lie since this contradicts much of Hebrews, John and Romans.
Because the church of Rome needs to have its adherents believe it is the gatekeeper, the distributor of God's grace, it follows that Rome formulated a concept of the Lord's Supper that is outside the grasp of laymen and can only be experienced via the wizardly incantations of its clergy.
Now if it were true, as Scripture says, that Christ's sacrifice was made once for all the sins of the elect, then it would not be necesssary for Rome to insist that Christ's actual body and blood are again being sacrificed for the believer with each performance.
And Rome would be out of business.
Luther was 3/4 correct. It took the next generation of men like Calvin to fully return to the clear and simple Scriptural understanding of the Lord's Supper. Regardless of how men hope to muddy the waters with their own prejudices, it is just not that difficult to understand Calvin. He was not obtuse. From Scripture he recognized that nothing a priest does or says can change bread and wine into body and blood. From Scripture he knew the singular and perfect sacrifice of Christ had already been accomplished, once for all time. From Scripture he knew Christ Himself told us the Lord's Supper was a meal of remembrance among believers who would gather and receive true sustenance from the memory of Christ's one-time sacrifice on Calvary.
To say we need a tangible sign, as if the elements of the Last Supper could actually change materialistically, is to distrust God and commit the same error as the Jews who "required a sign."
The truth is not found in matter. The truth is in the spirit.
Grace is real in the Lord's Supper. Christ is real in the Lord's Supper. And neither of those statements requires alchemy or priviledged invocation. Grace and Christ are spiritually discerned.
The Westminster Confession is a clear and concise description of the Lord's Supper, according to Scripture...
1. Our Lord Jesus, in the night wherein He was betrayed, instituted the sacrament of His body and blood, called the Lord's Supper, to be observed in His Church, unto the end of the world, for the perpetual remembrance of the sacrifice of Himself in His death; the sealing all benefits thereof unto true believers, their spiritual nourishment and growth in Him, their further engagement in and to all duties which they owe unto Him; and, to be a bond and pledge of their communion with Him, and with each other, as members of His mystical body. 2. In this sacrament, Christ is not offered up to His Father; nor any real sacrifice made at all, for remission of sins of the quick or dead; but only a commemoration of that one offering up of Himself, by Himself, upon the cross, once for all: and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God, for the same: so that the popish sacrifice of the mass (as they call it) is most abominably injurious to Christ's one, only sacrifice, the only propitiation for all the sins of His elect. 3. The Lord Jesus hath, in this ordinance, appointed His ministers to declare His word of institution to the people; to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to an holy use; and to take and break the bread, to take the cup, and (they communicating also themselves) to give both to the communicants; but to none who are not then present in the congregation. 4. Private masses, or receiving this sacrament by a priest, or any other alone; as likewise, the denial of the cup to the people, worshipping the elements, the lifting them up, or carrying them about, for adoration, and the reserving them for any pretended religious use; are all contrary to the nature of this sacrament, and to the institution of Christ. 5. The outward elements in this sacrament, duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ, have such relation to Him crucified, as that, truly, yet sacramentally only, they are sometimes called by the name of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ; albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before. 6. That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine, into the substance of Christ's body and blood (commonly called transubstantiation) by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant, not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense, and reason; overthroweth the nature of the sacrament, and hath been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions; yea, of gross idolatries. 7. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament, do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive, and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses. 8. Although ignorant and wicked men receive the outward elements in this sacrament; yet, they receive not the thing signified thereby; but, by their unworthy coming thereunto, are guilty of the body of the Lord, to their own damnation. Wherefore, all ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with Him, so are they unworthy of the Lord's table; and cannot, without great sin against Christ, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries, or be admitted thereunto. "
Of the Lord's Supper.
And your posts are always welcome, AlbionGirl. I learn from every one of them. 8~)
Because the church of Rome needs to have its adherents believe it is the gatekeeper, the distributor of God's grace, it follows that Rome formulated a concept of the Lord's Supper that is outside the grasp of laymen and can only be experienced via the wizardly incantations of its clergy.
AMEN! Dr. E. That is EXACTLY how I see it too. The only way for the men of the Church to be raised up is to bring Jesus down. This fully matches, and is related to, their salvation model (as you point out). Jesus must be reduced to having actually "accomplished" little on the cross, only that man now has a "chance" to be saved by the men of the Church through the sacraments. Gratitude and honor go to men, not God. As you have said before, it is a perfect expression of the human instinct.
Thanks for posting the Westminster Confession on this. It says it all.