No protestant rejects "the Eucharist," which only means thanksgiving. Not even all protestants reject the "real presence," which, as Daniel can show, is itself even a Lutheran term. What Protestants universally reject is Transubstantiation and that it is through "teeth and stomach" that we procure salvation. And it is not only Protestants who reject this, but Church Fathers too who also reject transubstantiation and its related doctrines.
For example, Augustine on John 6:
“They said therefore unto Him, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” For He had said to them, “Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto eternal life.” “What shall we do?” they ask; by observing what, shall we be able to fulfill this precept? “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He has sent.” This is then to eat the meat, not that which perisheth, but that which endureth unto eternal life. To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already. (Augustine, Tractate 25)
Greetings:
No, I don’t think the Fathers reject it, it is a term that was developed many years later to explain why Christ is truly present in the Eucharist. It wasn’t unitl the Council of Nicea in 325 that Homoousious was used, but once the theological term was explained to those Fathers that came well before Nicea, They would have said, OK, that is a theological term that does in an orthodox fashion describe Christ being of the same substance as God the Father, not a different one, etc.
And months ago, you and I went over the Eucharist and its meaning. I am not going to get into that here, as you and I have already been down that road. And Augustine’s Tractate 25 does not reject the Eucharist or real presence.
Well, actually i know i said "The term "Real Presence" is said to not originally be a Catholic term at all, but that it history is mostly Anglican. (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/what-do-we-mean-by-the-real-presence)
And i think Augustine seems to have said things that supported both, while Catholic author William A. Jurgenes comments on Justin Martyr, “The change referred to here is the change which takes place when the food we eat is assimilated and becomes part of our own body” (Jurgens W, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume I, p. 57).
But neither are what matters to me. Scripture is the wholly inspired word, not these CFs, which themselves can be open to interpretation.
That (Tractate 25) isn’t even discussing the portion of the Bread of Life discourse in John 6 where the concept of Transubstantiation is derived. So it’s disingenuous to apply it to the Dogma of Transubstantiation.
You should read from paragraph 15 of Tractate 26 onward. That would then truly be comparing apples to apples so to speak.