Purely Symbolic Eucharist Apologetics from Church Fathers

[Tomyris]

Where Calvin went further than Luther was in that he completely denied the presence of God of in the Sacrament. To say God is present spiritually for the believer who lift themselves up to heaven where Jesus is to partake of his body there is to deify man and commit the heresy of Nestorianism. Specifically that the two persons and natures of Christ were so separate that they could not ever touch each other. So when Christ hungered or slept or died that was his humanity, and when Christ walked on water, raised the dead, and saved men from their sins then he was being God.

The Church condemned this as heresy and Calvin indoctrinated it as orthodoxy. To this day you will hear those that follow in his footsteps (Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc) all speaking of a paradox of Christ by saying this was, “touching his humanity.” This is heresy from a long time gone but no one calls anyone else on it today because it sounds scholarly or something.

Furthermore Calvin denied the salvation of baptism, the forgiveness of priests, the means of grace, any icons in the Churches changed the wording of the Ten Commandments disbanded the priesthood and taught double predestination as the means of salvation declaring the holiness of God to be greater than any other attribute including love, mercy, grace, knowledge or forgiveness. In doing this he set aside the teaching of St Thomas Aquinas who taught that no single attribute of God could ever be higher than any other because to do so was to create idols.

I think that’s enough.

God Bless

Yes, that’s enough. I am not even sure where to start with this. Calvin affirmed that Christ is spiritually present in the Eucharist, not that he was absent. I think you are severely misunderstanding or misrepresenting Calvin, and certainly the Reformed, on much of what you are saying there. People will read what you wrote and think you are representing Calvin accurately, when you don’t. The “touching his humanity” description I believe started with Augustine: if you want to consider him heretical, that is up to you. And Calvinists are not Nestorians. Here you are just being silly. Personally, I am often at my best when I am silly, so it is not pejorative. But you are in error.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Where Calvin went further than Luther was in that he completely denied the presence of God of in the Sacrament. To say God is present spiritually for the believer who lift themselves up to heaven where Jesus is to partake of his body there is to deify man and commit the heresy of Nestorianism.

Right, boogey. But I was responding to manualman’s comments, which shifted away from the Eucharist and to the topic of sola fide.

 

[Tomyris]

OP, when you say “purely symbolic”, what do you mean? You might mean ‘anything short of transubstantiation’.

I believe, by the way, that Christ IS really and truly spiritually present in the elements. In the Scriptures they are spoken of postconsecration both as Body and Blood and as Bread and Wine, so it is fair to say it is still bread and wine, yet also is Body and Blood. I don’t think the ECFs had an issue with this, as they were still working on things like survival, fighting gnosticism, the nature of the Incarnation and the Trinity, so I don’t think it really hit as an issue until later.

IMHO I don’t think we should go past a certain point with this mystery, and I like the restraint the Orthodox have shown here instead of the insistence on transubstantiation the Catholics require.

 

[bogeydogg]

Yes, that’s enough. I am not even sure where to start with this. Calvin affirmed that Christ is spiritually present in the Eucharist, not that he was absent. I think you are severely misunderstanding or misrepresenting Calvin, and certainly the Reformed, on much of what you are saying there. People will read what you wrote and think you are representing Calvin accurately, when you don’t. The “touching his humanity” description I believe started with Augustine: if you want to consider him heretical, that is up to you. And Calvinists are not Nestorians. Here you are just being silly. Personally, I am often at my best when I am silly, so it is not pejorative. But you are in error.

To say that christ is only spiritually present (which Calvin did) because his body was located in heaven (which Calvin did) and therefore his body could not be present in more than one place at one time because to affirm this would be to blend the two natures of Christ (which Calvin did) is to commit the Nestorian heresy and confuse Chalcedon (which Calvin did).

Calvin insisted that nothing divine could be communicated the humanity of christ and that his humanity’s location would limit the presence of divinity thus the language that Christ used in the Supper was figurative not literal and so the Christian that communes with Christ must spiritually raise himself up to heaven where Christ is.

All these things Calvin did teach they are not misrepresentations in the least.

The problem with them is that Calvin ignores Augustine teaching on the divine fiat, as I already said, and by his insistence that nothing divine could ever be committed to Christ’s humanity he effectively divides the person of Christ into two which is the Nestorian heresy. Calvin’s error, and the Lutheran’s saw it clearly, was his refusal to accept that when Christ hungered, God hungered; when Christ slept, God slept, when Christ wept, God wept, and when Christ paid for the sins of the world, God paid for the sins of the world. Calvin’s defense for this refusal was that God’s holiness was such that he was transcendent of such mundane things and to affirm that when Christ says he does not know something God does not know would be to make Christ less than God, instead of simply accepting Christ at his word. Because Calvin was a rationalist to the bone even going so far as to deny that Christ could pass through locked doors in his resurrected body even going so far as to assert that somehow Christ unlocked the doors to the upper room and somehow rolled away the stone (Institutes IV:17) because his body being like ours could not pass through solid walls.

And that is the Nestorian heresy in spirit if not in exact word.

So how have I misrepresented his view?

 

[bogeydogg]

Concerning the deification of man if Christ cannot come down but man can come up to where Christ is then who is limited and who is not. And since the Scripture declares that no can ascend except for him who has descended then clearly Calvin must think in some fashion that all those go up to Christ must have first come down from the Father.

How am I wrong?

Concerning the icons, baptism, and priestly absolution the Calvinist churches continue in this teaching to our day so how can you possibly complain about that?

Double predestination is the acid test of orthodoxy in any Calvinist church and you need only listen to the likes of Sproul or MacArthur or Leutzer to hear it.

And when Augustine speaks in terms of touching Christ’s humanity or his divinity, I am not familiar with this particular Augustinian passage, but I have read him extensively and with Augustine you have to always remember that he was rhetorician by training and very often he was more concerned with winning his cause than always sounding like the paragon of balanced orthodoxy, which is why he had so many retractions. That is why at equal turns Augustine will sound like a hardened Calvinist, a semi-pelagian, a full-blown high Church bishop and a modern sceptic about the efficacy of the Sacraments. I love Augustine but it is helpful to realize that he was very new to the faith when he was made a priest and was still young in it when he became a bishop and his thought clearly evolved over time. So I tend to take him with a grain of salt because nearly everyone can find an Augustinian quote that supports their position.

And considering that the rest of calvin’s words condemn him so clearly finding a place where Augustine seems to agree with him I consider to be a little unimpressive.

 

[petra22]

It seems really obvious to me that the answer to this question is best handled by St Augustine and his notion of the divine fiat. Namely that whatsoever The Lord speaks he also creates. So when Jesus says, “if any believes and is baptized he will be saved,” his word also creates the faith to believe, and creates the forgiving grace of baptism. When Jesus says, “if any man would be saved let him take up his cross and follow me,” that word likewise creates the faith to do just that in the hearts of the saved. So also when The Lord said, “let there be light!” There was light.

Augustine argues that nothing God speaks is accidental and so when Jesus sat with the 12 and said, “this is my body,” at that moment even though Jesus body was locally in the room with the Apostles, the bread that he handed them was also his body because he had said it was so.

And God does not ever lie.

God Bless

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Concerning the deification of man if Christ cannot come down but man can come up to where Christ is then who is limited and who is not. And since the Scripture declares that no can ascend except for him who has descended then clearly Calvin must think in some fashion that all those go up to Christ must have first come down from the Father.

How am I wrong?

Concerning the icons, baptism, and priestly absolution the Calvinist churches continue in this teaching to our day so how can you possibly complain about that?

Double predestination is the acid test of orthodoxy in any Calvinist church and you need only listen to the likes of Sproul or MacArthur or Leutzer to hear it.

And when Augustine speaks in terms of touching Christ’s humanity or his divinity, I am not familiar with this particular Augustinian passage, but I have read him extensively and with Augustine you have to always remember that he was rhetorician by training and very often he was more concerned with winning his cause than always sounding like the paragon of balanced orthodoxy, which is why he had so many retractions. That is why at equal turns Augustine will sound like a hardened Calvinist, a semi-pelagian, a full-blown high Church bishop and a modern sceptic about the efficacy of the Sacraments. I love Augustine but it is helpful to realize that he was very new to the faith when he was made a priest and was still young in it when he became a bishop and his thought clearly evolved over time. So I tend to take him with a grain of salt because nearly everyone can find an Augustinian quote that supports their position.

And considering that the rest of calvin’s words condemn him so clearly finding a place where Augustine seems to agree with him I consider to be a little unimpressive.

Bogeydogg, those joint Presbyterian-Lutheran congregations look very Lutheran and celebrate the Eucharist weekly.

Theological questions, including the nuanced differences in the way they view the Eucharist, have not really been an issue.
jsonline.com/news/religion/lutheran-presbyterian-congregations-find-new-life-as-one-5u9abb7-200736291.html

Couple that with Tomyris comments and belief in literal Real Presence is recommended but not church-dividing.

 

[bogeydogg]

Bogeydogg, those joint Presbyterian-Lutheran congregations look very Lutheran and celebrate the Eucharist weekly.

Couple that with Tomyris comments and belief in literal Real Presence is recommended but not church-dividing.

I would agree that it could be said that the difference between the Lutheran and Catholic Churches is one of degree and nuance, but I truly think that is not true of the Presbyterian church. The reason why is simple. Once you have made Christ to say what he has not said and removed from the Church his promise to be with us always in this supper then you have also seriously undercut the foundations of the church’s faith in Christ, namely the trustworthiness of Christ’s spoken word. Furthermore Calvin’s issues went far beyond nuance as I have tried show and these severe problems have been glossed because of the silliness that is common in so many religious groups today and so it lends to Calvinism a waft of orthodoxy that it should not have. Calvin absolutely denied the change in Christ’s resurrected body and his theology which focuses on God’s glory while all the playing disrepute to God’s mercy and love are not nuances, they are gross redefinitons of what it means to be a Christian.

And there was a time that Lutherans understood this. Remember that when Melancthon revised the Formula of Concord to make it more palatable for the Calvinists he was severely reprimanded and the document was returned to its original form. Lutheran thinkers such as Chemnitz clearly understood the vast gulf between the teachings of Luther and Calvin and for that matter so did Calvin. Remember it was Calvin that called Luther’s teaching on the Lord’s Supper “superstitious popery” and said that “Luther had slid backward into the clutches of the bishop of Rome.”

Calvin understood he was deliberately taking a stand far afield of Luther and Luther understood Zwingli was far afield of himself as well. So while modern day Lutheran and Presbyterian churches may define themselves along doctrinal lines as being different by nuance simply by virtue of be non-catholic, the fact is if you look at the history such a statement does not actually hold water.

God bless

 

[JonNC]

I would agree that it could be said that the difference between the Lutheran and Catholic Churches is one of degree and nuance, but I truly think that is not true of the Presbyterian church. The reason why is simple. Once you have made Christ to say what he has not said and removed from the Church his promise to be with us always in this supper then you have also seriously undercut the foundations of the church’s faith in Christ, namely the trustworthiness of Christ’s spoken word. Furthermore Calvin’s issues went far beyond nuance as I have tried show and these severe problems have been glossed because of the silliness that is common in so many religious groups today and so it lends to Calvinism a waft of orthodoxy that it should not have. Calvin absolutely denied the change in Christ’s resurrected body and his theology which focuses on God’s glory while all the playing disrepute to God’s mercy and love are not nuances, they are gross redefinitons of what it means to be a Christian.

And there was a time that Lutherans understood this. Remember that when Melancthon revised the Formula of Concord to make it more palatable for the Calvinists he was severely reprimanded and the document was returned to its original form. Lutheran thinkers such as Chemnitz clearly understood the vast gulf between the teachings of Luther and Calvin and for that matter so did Calvin. Remember it was Calvin that called Luther’s teaching on the Lord’s Supper “superstitious popery” and said that “Luther had slid backward into the clutches of the bishop of Rome.”

Calvin understood he was deliberately taking a stand far afield of Luther and Luther understood Zwingli was far afield of himself as well. So while modern day Lutheran and Presbyterian churches may define themselves along doctrinal lines as being different by nuance simply by virtue of be non-catholic, the fact is if you look at the history such a statement does not actually hold water.

God bless

Some Lutherans still understand this.

“Before I drink mere wine with the Swiss, I shall drink blood with the pope.” :yup:

Jon

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

General notice:
Hot Topic for the week of 3/17.
Please remain on topic.

 

[manualman]

Right, boogey. But I was responding to manualman’s comments, which shifted away from the Eucharist and to the topic of sola fide.

I think the two issues are totally tied together. Many of Luther’s teachings at least seem to introduce the idea that salvation has nothing whatever to do with one’s actions in life. It’s a very short hop from that idea to the idea that nothing with a physical manifestation can have any spiritual efficacy. The implications for sacraments in general and the Eucharist in particular are, at that point, obvious.

One can argue that Luther himself didn’t make that hop. But Calvin sure did and Luther’s ideas (I’d argue), made it a short hop rather than a long jump.

 

[rcwitness]

OP, when you say “purely symbolic”, what do you mean? You might mean ‘anything short of transubstantiation’.

I believe, by the way, that Christ IS really and truly spiritually present in the elements. In the Scriptures they are spoken of postconsecration both as Body and Blood and as Bread and Wine, so it is fair to say it is still bread and wine, yet also is Body and Blood. I don’t think the ECFs had an issue with this, as they were still working on things like survival, fighting gnosticism, the nature of the Incarnation and the Trinity, so I don’t think it really hit as an issue until later.

IMHO I don’t think we should go past a certain point with this mystery, and I like the restraint the Orthodox have shown here instead of the insistence on transubstantiation the Catholics require.

When I say ‘purely symbolic’ I mean a Communion that believes the bread and mine are NOT the body and blood of Jesus, but only symbolize what the body and blood of Jesus did. Or that there is no grace given through the actual bread and wine after consecration, that we are merely expressing a belief in accepting Jesus.

This week, we read the story of the Transfiguration. Jesus ‘showed’ them His heavenly glory. God the Father was there giving witness to His Son. If at the Last Supper, we were to see things in the manner of the Transfiguration, we would see the bread and wine be transfigured at the Words of Jesus, “This is my body…” The power of this ‘Transfer’ would come from His body, just as His Word came from His lips.

The purpose of this thread, for me, was to respond to the demand from the symbolist camp apologetics supporting Transubstantiation. I wanted to ask the same for symbolism. This may only bring to light the fact that the body of believers are separated by interpretation. Yet, the words from the ECF’s are far more heavily supporting what the Catholic Church has delivered from the beginning.

In John 6 Jesus used His profound Eucharist to separate the insencere followers from the genuine believers. The crowd was seeking miracles and signs to confirm an earthly king mold from their own image. Jesus was revealing to them the principle Sacrament of the New Covanent. That which required belief and participation. That which brings together and feeds His people. That which fulfills and redeems all men who receive.

Peace
Michael

 

[Per_Crucem]

I would agree that it could be said that the difference between the Lutheran and Catholic Churches is one of degree and nuance, but I truly think that is not true of the Presbyterian church. The reason why is simple. Once you have made Christ to say what he has not said and removed from the Church his promise to be with us always in this supper then you have also seriously undercut the foundations of the church’s faith in Christ, namely the trustworthiness of Christ’s spoken word. Furthermore Calvin’s issues went far beyond nuance as I have tried show and these severe problems have been glossed because of the silliness that is common in so many religious groups today and so it lends to Calvinism a waft of orthodoxy that it should not have. Calvin absolutely denied the change in Christ’s resurrected body and his theology which focuses on God’s glory while all the playing disrepute to God’s mercy and love are not nuances, they are gross redefinitons of what it means to be a Christian.

And there was a time that Lutherans understood this. Remember that when Melancthon revised the Formula of Concord to make it more palatable for the Calvinists he was severely reprimanded and the document was returned to its original form. Lutheran thinkers such as Chemnitz clearly understood the vast gulf between the teachings of Luther and Calvin and for that matter so did Calvin. Remember it was Calvin that called Luther’s teaching on the Lord’s Supper “superstitious popery” and said that “Luther had slid backward into the clutches of the bishop of Rome.”

Calvin understood he was deliberately taking a stand far afield of Luther and Luther understood Zwingli was far afield of himself as well. So while modern day Lutheran and Presbyterian churches may define themselves along doctrinal lines as being different by nuance simply by virtue of be non-catholic, the fact is if you look at the history such a statement does not actually hold water.

God bless

 

[HB11]

I’m confused. Does this mean that a Lutheran can receive Communion at a Roman Catholic Mass?

 

[stepahead]

interesting quotes – on this topic

Originally Posted by bogeydogg View Post
It seems really obvious to me that the answer to this question is best handled by St Augustine and his notion of the divine fiat. Namely that whatsoever The Lord speaks he also creates. So when Jesus says, “if any believes and is baptized he will be saved,” his word also creates the faith to believe, and creates the forgiving grace of baptism. When Jesus says, “if any man would be saved let him take up his cross and follow me,” that word likewise creates the faith to do just that in the hearts of the saved. So also when The Lord said, “let there be light!” There was light.

Augustine argues that nothing God speaks is accidental and so when Jesus sat with the 12 and said, “this is my body,” at that moment even though Jesus body was locally in the room with the Apostles, the bread that he handed them was also his body because he had said it was so.

And God does not ever lie.

My boyfriend is Lutheran and recently we were having a discussion about faith. He told me that the Lutheran church believes in transubstantiation and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. My understanding of the prohibition against receiving communion at other churches is a difference of opinion on the Real Presence. So, since Lutherans believe in the Real Presence, shouldn’t I be able to receive communion if I go to their services?

No. **Simply because they believe **that they have the real presence doesn’t mean that they do. The Catholic Church does not recognize the validity of their ordinations and therefore their eucharist.

And they do not believe in transubstantiation. They believe in CONsubstantiation whereby the bread and wine remain bread and wine while the Lord is somehow attatached.

The Catholic Church DOES recognize the validity of the sacraments in the Eastern Orthodox Churches, but we are not allowed to partake of their sacraments unless we are in a place where there are no Catholic churches available.

The Eucharist is a sacrament of union and presuposes that those who partake are completely united.

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.

so i guess faith – or some version of scrip tora – is not real–

one does wonder-- on what people believe by faith-- based on what they are “taught”

“vs” what the 1st century church experienced

 

[Tomyris]

When I say ‘purely symbolic’ I mean a Communion that believes the bread and mine are NOT the body and blood of Jesus, but only symbolize what the body and blood of Jesus did. Or that there is no grace given through the actual bread and wine after consecration, that we are merely expressing a belief in accepting Jesus. l

The word ‘symbol’ is tricky, as is saying the bread represents the body. A symbol can be construed as the actual item it refers to as being present, and represent is, well, re-present. The Body and Blood are being re-presented. A symbol can contain the essence of what it re-presents, whether a flag or a coin.

When I go up for Communion, I never know what will be said: some servers say “this is the Body and Blood of our Lord,” others that it represents it. I have actually had some in-depth discussions with people whom you would call ‘purely symbolic’ - they would affirm that Christ is truly present and that there is grace in and through the Sacrament. I affirm both. I have a real encounter with Him every time I go up for Communion. My husband’s response is typically along the lines of “why, I am still alive” with relief and amazement. People are visibly moved and touched.

I think you may be looking for someone who denies that Christ is present at all in the Eucharist, and that there is not grace in the sacrament at all. Since at a minimum Christ is everywhere, perhaps someone who believes in the Real Absence is what you are looking for, someone who insists that Christ is present everywhere EXCEPT in the Eucharist. I understand 3rd-hand there are people who approach this absurd position, but I have yet to talk to them.

 

[manualman]

The word ‘symbol’ is tricky, as is saying the bread represents the body. A symbol can be construed as the actual item it refers to as being present, and represent is, well, re-present.

A nice attempt to try to bridge the gap between Calvin-influenced protestant theology and Catholicism and it contains some merit, but can only go so far. As an analogy, many Americans consider the American flag a symbol of America. In a certain limited sense, that flag not only represents America, but makes America present by its presence. Thus, people get upset and insulted when a group of protestors in, say, Saudi Arabia burn that flag in anger.

But I’m pretty sure you’d agree that there’s a pretty big difference in substance between one group of Saudis that attacks America by burning a flag and another group of Saudis that attacks America by hijacking a jetliner and flying it into a New York skyscraper!

In short, symbols fall far short of physical presence and reality, even if said symbols are highly meaningful for the people who view them as such.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Is this accurate? Calvin did not believe in the Real Presence but did acknowledge the benefits of holy Communion [forgiveness of sins/ eternal life].

 

[bogeydogg]

Is this accurate? Calvin did not believe in the Real Presence but did acknowledge the benefits of holy Communion [forgiveness of sins/ eternal life].

Not exactly. Calvin taught that the believer raised himself up to Christ, who was bodily in Heaven, by his faith, and so received grace based on the faith and forgiveness of sin that he already possessed by faith because of his election. Furthermore Calvin taught that forgiveness was not a grace administered by the Church but rather an assurance of faith based on election since it would stand to reason that (if Christ had only died for the elect) that of course all of the elect must also have their sins forgiven by accident of salvation.

However since he expressly did not believe that Christ was bodily present on Earth in sacrament (and he departed wildly from the ECF, Catholics, Lutherans and Anglicans in this) then there was certainly no grace to be found in the Sacrament as the Sacrament and in fact it did not matter if people partook of the Sacrament even if they were unbelievers (non-elect) since grace only came to the elect and reprobate could not therefore damn themselves further by treating the Body of Christ in a vulgar manner and it would not matter since the reprobate could not escape God’s foreordained judgement so further sin, even grievous sin, mattered little.

And obviously none of these teachings were found in the Early Church Fathers who even when they might have spoken of the Sacraments as a symbol (I am thinking Augustine here who is not actually ECF) nevertheless they should only be thought of as symbol in the sense of what we partake of is Christ’s body but what we see is bread. There was no thought (to my knowledge) that the bread and wine were not the body and blood, only that sometimes the Fathers would use metaphors to try and explain the mystery of faith.

God Bless

 

[SyCarl]

Not exactly. Calvin taught that the believer raised himself up to Christ, who was bodily in Heaven, by his faith, and so received grace based on the faith and forgiveness of sin that he already possessed by faith because of his election. Furthermore Calvin taught that forgiveness was not a grace administered by the Church but rather an assurance of faith based on election since it would stand to reason that (if Christ had only died for the elect) that of course all of the elect must also have their sins forgiven by accident of salvation.

However since he expressly did not believe that Christ was bodily present on Earth in sacrament (and he departed wildly from the ECF, Catholics, Lutherans and Anglicans in this) then there was certainly no grace to be found in the Sacrament as the Sacrament and in fact it did not matter if people partook of the Sacrament even if they were unbelievers (non-elect) since grace only came to the elect and reprobate could not therefore damn themselves further by treating the Body of Christ in a vulgar manner and it would not matter since the reprobate could not escape God’s foreordained judgement so further sin, even grievous sin, mattered little.

God Bless

I think you are misrepresenting Calvin’s view of the Lord’s Supper as set out in his Institutes.
He admits that the mystery is one that it is beyond his mind to comprehend.

indeed, it be lawful to put this great mystery into words, a mystery which I feel, and therefore freely confess that I am unable to comprehend with my mind, so far am I from wishing any one to measure its sublimity by my feeble capacity. Nay, I rather exhort my readers not to confine their apprehension within those too narrow limits, but to attempt to rise much higher than I can guide them. For whenever this subject is considered, after I have done my utmost, I feel that I have spoken far beneath its dignity. And though the mind is more powerful in thought than the tongue in expression, it too is overcome and overwhelmed by the magnitude of the subject. All then that remains is to break forth in admiration of the mystery, which it is plain that the mind is inadequate to comprehend, or the tongue to express.

He then goes on to indicate that the things represented by the symbols are truly present.

That sacred communion of flesh and blood by which Christ transfuses his life into us, just as if it penetrated our bones and marrow, he testifies and seals in the Supper, and that not by presenting a vain or empty sign, but by there exerting an efficacy of the Spirit by which he fulfils what he promises.** And truly the thing there signified he exhibits and offers to all who sit down at that spiritual feast, although it is beneficially received by believers only who receive this great benefit with true faith and heartfelt gratitude**. For this reason the apostle said, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ”? There is no ground to object that the expression is figurative, and gives the sign the name of the thing signified.** I admit, indeed, that the breaking of bread is a symbol, not the reality. But this being admitted, we duly infer from the exhibition of the symbol that the thing itself is exhibited. For unless we would charge God with deceit, we will never presume to say that he holds forth an empty symbol. Therefore, if by the breaking of bread the Lord truly represents the partaking of his body, there ought to be no doubt whatever that he truly exhibits and performs it.** The rule which the pious ought always to observe is,** whenever they see the symbols instituted by the Lord, to think and feel surely persuaded that the truth of the thing signified is also present. For why does the Lord put the symbol of his body into your hands, but just to assure you that you truly partake of him?**

I say then, that in the mystery of the Supper, by the symbols of bread and wine, Christ, his body and his blood, are truly exhibited to us, that in them he fulfilled all obedience, in order to procure righteousness for us— first that we might become one body with him; and, secondly, that being made partakers of his substance, we might feel the result of this fact in the participation of all his blessings.

The quotes are taken from Chapter 17 of Book 4 of Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion.
ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.vi.xviii.html
The Westminster Confession of Faith says

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 and blood 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.

opc.org/wcf.html#Chapter_29