What's the difference between a "heretic" and a "reformer"?

[ToxicFemininitySucks]

This is a spin off question from another thread, but didn't want to threeadjack

And, in my personal opinion, the fact that the reformation age men are called "reformers" but pre-reformation age men are "heretics" is suspicious in it's own right. But that's probably a discussion suited better for another thread...

This came up in the other thread because of the allegation that before the protestant reformation all there was as far as Christianity was roman catholicism. Now only is this factually incorrect - there was also eastern orthodoxy since the schism in the 1000s - but if we look at the beliefs of some of the men considered to be "heretics" in the pre-reformation age we can see some "protestant" beliefs.

(I apologize if my sources for now are wikipedia articles, i plan on going through the online primary sources referenced as i get a chance)

For example, we have peter of bruys

Peter of Bruys - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Peter of Bruys (also known as Pierre De Bruys or Peter de Bruis; fl. 1117 – c.1131) was a medieval French religious teacher. He was called a heresiarch (leader of a heretical movement) by the Roman Catholic Church because he opposed infant baptism, the erecting of churches and the veneration of crosses, the doctrine of transubstantiation and prayers for the dead.[1][2] An angry Roman Catholic mob murdered him in or around 1131.

...
The first "error" was their denial "that children, before the age of understanding, can be saved by the baptism... According to the Petrobrusians, not another's, but one's own faith, together with baptism, saves, as the Lord says, 'He who will believe and be baptized will be saved, but he who will not believe will be condemned.'"[6] That idea ran counter to the medieval Church's teaching, particularly in the Latin West, following the theology of Augustine, in which the baptism of infants and children played an essential role in their salvation from the ancestral guilt of original sin.[7][8]

...
The Petrobrusians are quoted as saying, 'It is unnecessary to build temples, since the church of God does not consist in a multitude of stones joined together, but in the unity of the believers assembled.'"

...
The third error enumerated by Peter the Venerable was that the Petrobrusians "command the sacred crosses to be broken in pieces and burned, because that form or instrument by which Christ was so dreadfully tortured, so cruelly slain, is not worthy of any adoration, or veneration or supplication, but for the avenging of his torments and death it should be treated with unseemly dishonor, cut in pieces with swords, burnt in fire."[6] That was seen as an iconoclastic heresy and as acts of sacrilege by the medieval Church and still is by Catholics today.

...
Petrobrusians denied sacramental grace, rejecting the rite of Communion entirely, let alone the doctrine of the Real Presence or the nascent Scholastic account of transubstantiation: "They deny, not only the truth of the body and blood of the Lord, daily and constantly offered in the church through the sacrament, but declare that it is nothing at all, and ought not to be offered to God. They say, 'Oh, people, do not believe the bishops, priests, or clergy who seduce you; who, as in many things, so in the office of the altar, deceive you when they falsely profess to make the body of Christ and give it to you for the salvation of your souls.'"[6] The term, transubstantiation, used to describe the transformation of the consecrated bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, was first used by Hildebert de Lavardin in about 1079.

...

they deride sacrifices, prayers, alms, and other good works by the faithful living for the faithful dead, and say that these things cannot aid any of the dead even in the least... The good deeds of the living cannot profit the dead, because transferred from this life their merits cannot be increased or diminished, because beyond this life, there is no longer place for merits, only for retribution. Nor can a dead man hope to gain from anybody that which he did not obtain while alive in the world. Therefore those things are pointless that are done by the living for the dead, because they are mortal and have passed by death beyond the way for all flesh, into the state of the future world, and took with them all their merit, to which nothing can be added

This man preached believer's baptism instead of infant baptism; that the church is composed of the believers, not a magnificent building; that crosses (as icons) are not to be venerated; that transubstantiation does not occur and is unecessary for salvation; and that prayers for the dead do nothing.

Are these not doctrines that are found in some protestant/evangelical churches today?

True, there are some errors, such as the fact that the Bible doesn't say that believer's baptism saves either (and he had a generally unfavorable view of the old testament and the epistles). But i think this serves as proof that these doctrines were around before the reformation.

 

[ToxicFemininitySucks]

Splitting it up into another post because quoting feature didnt want to work...

Another "heretic" is nestorius

Nestorius - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Nestorius (/ˌnɛsˈtɔːriəs/; in Ancient Greek: Νεστόριος; c. 386 – c. 451) was the Archbishop of Constantinople from 10 April 428 to August 431. A Christian theologian from the Catechetical School of Antioch, several of his teachings in the fields of Christology and Mariology were seen as controversial and caused major disputes. He was condemned and deposed from his see by the Council of Ephesus, the third Ecumenical Council, in 431.[1]

His teachings included rejection of the title Theotokos ( God – Bearer), used for Mary, mother of Jesus, which indicated his preference for the concept of a loose prosopic union of two natures (divine and human) of Christ, over the concept of their full hypostatic union. That brought him into conflict with Cyril of Alexandria and other prominent churchmen of the time, who accused him of heresy.[2]

Nestorius sought to defend himself at the Council of Ephesus in 431, but instead found himself formally condemned for heresy by a majority of the bishops and was subsequently removed from his see. On his own request, he retired to his former monastery, in or near Antioch. In 435, Theodosius II sent him into exile in Upper Egypt, where he lived on until about 451, strenuously defending his views. His last major defender within the Roman Empire, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, finally agreed to anathematize him in 451 during the Council of Chalcedon.
...
Nestorius tried to find a middle ground between those that emphasized the fact that in Christ, God had been born as a man and insisted on calling the Virgin Mary Theotokos (Greek: Θεοτόκος, "God-bearer") and those that rejected that title because God, as an eternal being, could not have been born. Nestorius suggested the title Christotokos (Χριστοτόκος, "Christ-bearer"), but he did not find acceptance on either side.

I first started researching nestorius when i was trying to get to the bottom of how and why catholics justify their worship/veneration of Mary. How did they make the leap from the Biblical account of a humble Jewish mortal woman to the "mother of God" who was herself conceived immaculately and taken to heaven without facing death?

Also suspicious that this was decided at the council of ephesus, when we see the account in the book of Acts (Acts 19:23-37) about the ephesians' devotion to their goddess diana...


Why is nestorius relevant to the discussion on heretics vs reformers? Mostly because i've seen that when trying to explain why the veneration of Mary is wrong to catholics or orthodox, Christians get accused of being "nestorians".

 

[ToxicFemininitySucks]

Getting back to the title topic question, i've been wondering this for a couple of years now, and am not any closer to finding the answer. The internet hasn't been particularly helpful...

Perhaps i'm terrible at searching, or is there no clear answer?

This article says the difference lies in how successful the heretic/reformer was.

Heretic vs Reformer — Brave Church

I read recently that the difference between a heretic and a reformer is how successful they were. The word “heretic” is a loaded term that I understand a lot of people will have difficulty with. Maybe through Church/people conflict or trauma but for those who are unsure what it means, it's simply to

www.bravechurch.co.uk

I read recently that the difference between a heretic and a reformer is how successful they were. The word “heretic” is a loaded term that I understand a lot of people will have difficulty with. Maybe through Church/people conflict or trauma but for those who are unsure what it means, it's simply to have a controversial opinion or doctrine. The meaning has changed and continues to change over time as it once meant nonconformist, however some simply mean it as “You have a different opinion on me and I don’t like it”.

But that just seems oversimplified, and potentially dangerous. This would mean, for example, that if a proponent of the new age movement convinces many people that Jesus Christ is an "ascended master", then that person is a reformer.

This view that "history is written by the victor" seems to be common belief among those that have pondered the question, however.

From a woke "Christian" reddit

Depends on how popular said reform is.

The victor writes the history books.
...
The reformer is celebrated and the heretic is publicly shunned or worse.

Any thoughts?

 

[Lyfe]

I believe allot of incredible insight and teachings came out of the reformation, but to insist everything prior was heresy doesn't make sense to me.

There is so much division nowadays it's rather bewildering. One day I'm called a works teacher and the next a greasy grace guy. One day I'm called a Calvinist and the next an Arminian.

Everyone is a false teacher in the eyes of someone. I was commanded the other day to get water baptized by a younger brother in Christ. I did not accept his words, of course. He said my prior baptism didn't count despite getting a pool and having a pastor drive out to my house and baptize me some years ago.

It really is a sad state of affairs. Its hard to find someone who is mostly in agreement with you.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

Everyone is a false teacher in the eyes of someone. I was commanded the other day to get water baptized by a younger brother in Christ. I did not accept his words, of course. He said my prior baptism didn't count despite getting a pool and having a pastor drive out to my house and baptize me some years ago.

It really is a sad state of affairs. Its hard to find someone who is mostly in agreement with you.

I agree with you!!

 

[ToxicFemininitySucks]

I believe allot of incredible insight and teachings came out of the reformation, but to insist everything prior was heresy doesn't make sense to me.

I agree.

There is so much division nowadays it's rather bewildering. One day I'm called a works teacher and the next a greasy grace guy. One day I'm called a Calvinist and the next an Arminian.

Also agree. I admit that i fall into this trap sometimes myself. Thinking about others, oh he's a charismatic or he's a calvinist, etc.

Probably comes from a human desire to categorize everyone in a neat little box.

Everyone is a false teacher in the eyes of someone.
...
It really is a sad state of affairs. Its hard to find someone who is mostly in agreement with you.

True.
I've found so much truth in different pastor's sermons, but I'm skeptical of anyone who would claim to have a monopoly on the truth.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

I think part of the problem is that “Catholic” is such a monolithic term. I suspect that early, post Constantine Christianity was very similar in character to that of the early church.

Over the centuries, bad pope after bad pope diluted and confused the message till Luther (and others) saw that enough was enough! Just because people begin to realise they should base their understanding of God on the Bible, not just the Pope doesn’t mean they get it all right or all agree.

p.s. the history of the church in a tongue in cheek song from my childhood…

p.p.s. “Heretic” or “reformer” only makes sense in the light of the centrality of scripture. You are either departing from something or moving closer to something. Once you put the Word at the centre, heretics are easy to spot and genuine reforms welcome.

 

[Lyfe]

This is just my opinion, but I think a church burdened with evangelism and the lost is your best bet. God's heart is for people to come to Christ and be saved. Doctrine is important, but so are churches close to the heart of God. Any church that grieves and stirs people to witness is a church that reflects the heart of Jesus. It consists of people who's hearts are being touched and continually changed by Jesus. The holy spirit will lead people to make God known, strongly if you let him kindle that fire!

I mean there are exceptions because for some very bizarre reason the Mormons and JWs send people out and make it a priority, but aside from that a church or gathering that encourages you to share Christ as a priority is where I would want to be!

 

[JoChris]

This is a spin off question from another thread, but didn't want to threeadjack



This came up in the other thread because of the allegation that before the protestant reformation all there was as far as Christianity was roman catholicism. Now only is this factually incorrect - there was also eastern orthodoxy since the schism in the 1000s - but if we look at the beliefs of some of the men considered to be "heretics" in the pre-reformation age we can see some "protestant" beliefs.

(I apologize if my sources for now are wikipedia articles, i plan on going through the online primary sources referenced as i get a chance)

For example, we have peter of bruys

Peter of Bruys - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

This man preached believer's baptism instead of infant baptism; that the church is composed of the believers, not a magnificent building; that crosses (as icons) are not to be venerated; that transubstantiation does not occur and is unecessary for salvation; and that prayers for the dead do nothing.

Are these not doctrines that are found in some protestant/evangelical churches today?

True, there are some errors, such as the fact that the Bible doesn't say that believer's baptism saves either (and he had a generally unfavorable view of the old testament and the epistles). But i think this serves as proof that these doctrines were around before the reformation.

I have heard someone say that a reformer is a person who is seeking to return the church back to the original doctrines/ practices of the early church. Protestant protested against the extra-biblical/ non-biblical doctrines and practices that the Roman Catholic church developed over the centuries.

Some Christian apologists say those who agree with the Nicene Creed are automatically Christian, therefore anyone who disagrees with it is a heretic. That is way too oversimplified and very dangerous.

e.g. The Nicene Creed says nothing about salvation = Faith alone versus salvation = faith + good works".
Works righteousness was the first heresy though, the claim by some in the Galatian church that salvation = faith + circumcision.

 

[Wigi]

This article says the difference lies in how successful the heretic/reformer was.

Heretic vs Reformer — Brave Church

I read recently that the difference between a heretic and a reformer is how successful they were. The word “heretic” is a loaded term that I understand a lot of people will have difficulty with. Maybe through Church/people conflict or trauma but for those who are unsure what it means, it's simply to

www.bravechurch.co.uk

I read recently that the difference between a heretic and a reformer is how successful they were. The word “heretic” is a loaded term that I understand a lot of people will have difficulty with. Maybe through Church/people conflict or trauma but for those who are unsure what it means, it's simply to have a controversial opinion or doctrine. The meaning has changed and continues to change over time as it once meant nonconformist, however some simply mean it as “You have a different opinion on me and I don’t like it”.

But that just seems oversimplified, and potentially dangerous. This would mean, for example, that if a proponent of the new age movement convinces many people that Jesus Christ is an "ascended master", then that person is a reformer.

This view that "history is written by the victor" seems to be common belief among those that have pondered the question, however.

From a woke "Christian" reddit

Depends on how popular said reform is.

The victor writes the history books.
...
The reformer is celebrated and the heretic is publicly shunned or worse.

Any thoughts?

Unfortunately the reason some come to this conclusion is because it appears few people actually understand how their Christianity works.
Jesus never argued we had to follow one particular movement, He said the time is coming where God's children will worship in spirit and truth.

In the NT we all can agree that there is one universal Church made of multiple local churches named Corinthians, Ephesians, ect. that have different characteristics and clearly, that diversity in the church was something God allowed to be just like there is a diversity of spiritual gifts and a diversity of human groups. I don't imagine Corinthians going at Galatians to yell 'heresy! heresy!' simply because the latter chose to conform to the OT's Commandments neither I imagine Ephesians slandering Corinthians because the former congregation doesn't have the same openly charismatic experience.
Of course heresies exist but those who say popularity contests decide what's heresy and what isn't heresy in the Christian context have a odd and dangerous take because like that we could go as far as arguing the antichrist church is to be obeyed and everything opposing it is heresy the day it succesfully impose its reform and from now on we're told to worship the beast.

In the Bible, we find the characteristics of the sects and heresies we had to be careful because they already existed since the beginning

1.
Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.
1 John 2:22‭-‬23

2.
"Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth."
1 Timothy 4:1‭-‬3

3.
"For there are many insubordinate, both idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole households, teaching things which they ought not, for the sake of dishonest gain."
Titus 1:10‭-‬11

4.
And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some. Nevertheless the solid foundation of God stands, having this seal: “The Lord knows those who are His,” and, “Let everyone who names the name of Christ depart from iniquity.”
2 Timothy 2:17‭-‬19

5.
"Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you."
1 Corinthians 11:17‭-‬19

6.
"who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting"
Romans 1:25‭-‬28

7.
"But I have a few things against you, because you have there those who hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit sexual immorality. Thus you also have those who hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate. Repent, or else I will come to you quickly and will fight against them with the sword of My mouth."
Revelation 2:14‭-‬16

One could be worried when we list all these paths leading to heresies but we're not alone, the Holy Spirit of truth leads us the right way and gives us the ability to discern these things when we fellowship with God daily.
My understanding of the issue we face currently it's that instead of worshiping God in Spirit and Truth we have :

- Those who worship in flesh and truth : They believe God, believe the Bible but in reality it is outward appearance in the sense that they have God's word in their mind but the scriptures aren't written on their hearts, their inner self and behavior hasn't been transformed. Those types often have a dry heart and can't welcome nor accept to be with anybody lacking the exact same understanding of scriptures as them.

- Those who worship in spirit and confusion : They believe in God but have fallen into a mystic/spiritualistic understanding and often are looking for an extravagant/emotional display of their faith not rooted on any sound doctrine.

- Those who worship in flesh and confusion : They believe in God yet rely on commandments of men, traditions and superstitions.

- Those merely adhering in spirit : They're fine with the Christian revelation of God but are mostly relying on extra biblical experiences and do not conform their lives to the biblical truth.

- Those merely adhering in flesh : They're fine with the 'philosophy' of Christianity and look for a group they can belong to, knowing and serving God isn't their motivation though.

-Those who adhere with hypocrisy : They came because of what they could gain from it, they adhere to foster their own ego or for political motives.

Each of these different approaches represent as many Christians and as many denominations potentially arguing with each other on who is living in Spirit and Truth and I believe these things lead to heresies. Reformers on the other hand attempted to fix their own churches to restore them to their original states of divine worship in spirit and truth although they weren't seeing the whole picture to do that properly.
What's dramatic though it's to see how ego, pride and envy led church leaders to oppose those things and to see how the making of labels was a weapon of choice for slanderers aiming to demonize reformers while making sure their speech would be largely overlooked resulting in all these conflicts and persecutions.
Even to this day, fervent Catholics still believe Protestants (as if protestantism was one uniform movement) have an 'illegally' printed Bible with edited verses and they believe such things with zero proof. It's very interesting to see how some historical events had a religious dispute at its origin that ended up influencing politics.

 

[ToxicFemininitySucks]

those who say popularity contests decide what's heresy and what isn't heresy in the Christian context have a odd and dangerous take because like that we could go as far as arguing the antichrist church is to be obeyed and everything opposing it is heresy the day it succesfully impose its reform and from now on we're told to worship the beast.

I definitely agree.
It seemed like a dangerous and misinformed take, for sure.

My understanding of the issue we face currently it's that instead of worshiping God in Spirit and Truth we have :

- Those who worship in flesh and truth : They believe God, believe the Bible but in reality it is outward appearance in the sense that they have God's word in their mind but the scriptures aren't written on their hearts, their inner self and behavior hasn't been transformed. Those types often have a dry heart and can't welcome nor accept to be with anybody lacking the exact same understanding of scriptures as them.

- Those who worship in spirit and confusion : They believe in God but have fallen into a mystic/spiritualistic understanding and often are looking for an extravagant/emotional display of their faith not rooted on any sound doctrine.

- Those who worship in flesh and confusion : They believe in God yet rely on commandments of men, traditions and superstitions.

- Those merely adhering in spirit : They're fine with the Christian revelation of God but are mostly relying on extra biblical experiences and do not conform their lives to the biblical truth.

- Those merely adhering in flesh : They're fine with the 'philosophy' of Christianity and look for a group they can belong to, knowing and serving God isn't their motivation though.

-Those who adhere with hypocrisy : They came because of what they could gain from it, they adhere to foster their own ego or for political motives.

Each of these different approaches represent as many Christians and as many denominations potentially arguing with each other on who is living in Spirit and Truth and I believe these things lead to heresies.

Wow, thank you for this breakdown of the different categories, gave me a lot to think about. Unfortunately i can see how one of the churches my family was attending in the past fits clearly into one of these categories.

 

[ToxicFemininitySucks]

Some Christian apologists say those who agree with the Nicene Creed are automatically Christian, therefore anyone who disagrees with it is a heretic. That is way too oversimplified and very dangerous

Yeah, i read the Nicene creed and was in agreement up until the part about believing in "one holy apostolic catholic church". To me that seemed to assert the authority of the catholic church.

Also, i was baptized as a baby, and then got baptized at a baptist church as a believing adult. So that would mean i don't believe in "one baptism", or rather, the first baptism was not valid, as a baby doesn't have the capacity to believe.

The Nicene Creed says nothing about salvation = Faith alone versus salvation = faith + good works".
Works righteousness was the first heresy though, the claim by some in the Galatian church that salvation = faith + circumcision.

A thought I've had about the faith alone vs faith +works debate is that i think both sides might mean different things by "works".

From my understanding (could be mistaken, corrections welcome), to catholics "works" mean things such as a sunday obligation to go to the mass, going to confession, fasting during lent, that kind of thing.

But to non-catholics, "works" means things such as doing acts of charity for our fellow man in order to attempt to earn salvation, as opposed to it coming from a place of true charity.

 

[Infinityloop]

Even though I'm not a Christian (the horror!) and reject a lot of your doctrines, I will say (and it may be a hot take for the Protestants here - but I don't know the specifies of what denominations you all are):

If we look at it through a historical lens, then in the Catholic and Orthodox sense, a heretic would be someone in one way or another denies the sacrament of the Eucharist.
And in many Protestant Churches the Eucharist (called there "Communion") is reduced down to metaphor or symbolism. For Catholic and Orthodox Christians, the Eucharist itself is the raison de etre of Christianity - as it literally embodies the soteriology of Christianity (being the crucifixion) experientially and is inextricably linked to Trinitarian theology.
If you believe that Jesus died for the atonement of your sins and that God is three persons but one essence, then it rolls of the tounge that the Eucharist is literally the body and blood of Jesus and the presence of the Holy Spirit.

If you look at the Gnostics and any of the other "heretics" you find the exact same trait with the Eucharist and as a result the Trinity as well (and to you reading this, you may take it as a solid refutation of my own religion of Islam too lol though that'd be an oversimplification by a wide margin). Given that this is the thing that mainstream forms of Christianity (Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant) dig their heels in about, I'd expect to see less differing of views about it from the Protestant side. *
Though I again, I'm not assuming whatever denomination of Protestantism you may be, however I know that a lot of the Protestant denominations from the middle phase onwards tend to have taken on Calvinist kind of views, and it's obvious the guy had the biggest impact in Protestantism after Luther. Calvin really started and popularized the notion of the turning this central sacrament and ritual of Christianity into a symbolic or metaphorical one rather than literal, his his mention is very much required.
Calvin in many other matters though was really the one who started the stone rolling down the hill into more liberal ideas to find themselves popping up in Protestant denominations and discourse later on.



( * yet even that fell away in many forms of Protestantism as a result.)

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

Yeah, i read the Nicene creed and was in agreement up until the part about believing in "one holy apostolic catholic church". To me that seemed to assert the authority of the catholic church.

Also, i was baptized as a baby, and then got baptized at a baptist church as a believing adult. So that would mean i don't believe in "one baptism", or rather, the first baptism was not valid, as a baby doesn't have the capacity to believe.

A thought I've had about the faith alone vs faith +works debate is that i think both sides might mean different things by "works".

From my understanding (could be mistaken, corrections welcome), to catholics "works" mean things such as a sunday obligation to go to the mass, going to confession, fasting during lent, that kind of thing.

But to non-catholics, "works" means things such as doing acts of charity for our fellow man in order to attempt to earn salvation, as opposed to it coming from a place of true charity.

I struggled with that “catholic” word till it was pointed out that the etymology of the word just means “faithful, true, authentic” etc. that fact that a progressively corrupt Italian based branch adopted the word to describe itself doesn’t backdate its meaning to Nicea.

 

[ToxicFemininitySucks]

Even though I'm not a Christian (the horror!) and reject a lot of your doctrines, I will say (and it may be a hot take for the Protestants here - but I don't know the specifies of what denominations you all are):

If we look at it through a historical lens, then in the Catholic and Orthodox sense, a heretic would be someone in one way or another denies the sacrament of the Eucharist.
And in many Protestant Churches the Eucharist (called there "Communion") is reduced down to metaphor or symbolism. For Catholic and Orthodox Christians, the Eucharist itself is the raison de etre of Christianity - as it literally embodies the soteriology of Christianity (being the crucifixion) experientially and is inextricably linked to Trinitarian theology.
If you believe that Jesus died for the atonement of your sins and that God is three persons but one essence, then it rolls of the tounge that the Eucharist is literally the body and blood of Jesus and the presence of the Holy Spirit.

If you look at the Gnostics and any of the other "heretics" you find the exact same trait with the Eucharist and as a result the Trinity as well (and to you reading this, you may take it as a solid refutation of my own religion of Islam too lol though that'd be an oversimplification by a wide margin). Given that this is the thing that mainstream forms of Christianity (Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant) dig their heels in about, I'd expect to see less differing of views about it from the Protestant side. *
Though I again, I'm not assuming whatever denomination of Protestantism you may be, however I know that a lot of the Protestant denominations from the middle phase onwards tend to have taken on Calvinist kind of views, and it's obvious the guy had the biggest impact in Protestantism after Luther. Calvin really started and popularized the notion of the turning this central sacrament and ritual of Christianity into a symbolic or metaphorical one rather than literal, his his mention is very much required.
Calvin in many other matters though was really the one who started the stone rolling down the hill into more liberal ideas to find themselves popping up in Protestant denominations and discourse later on.



( * yet even that fell away in many forms of Protestantism as a result.)

While you're not a Christian, i found your thoughts on this matter interesting.

- your explanation of a heretic - as defined by catholic or orthodox - as someone who denies the real presence /transubstantiation seems accurate.

However, i would disagree that calvin was the first to oppose this, though earlier men (like the one mentioned in my op) were more of the view that it was unnecessary, not symbolic.

- regarding the eucharist, it was explained to me that Christ died (served as the perfect sacrifice) ONCE and is now in heaven, and there is no need to sacrifice Him repeatedly and consume His literal flesh (not to mention drinking His blood, as the drinking of blood is forbidden in the Bible). The commemorative aspect would come from how Christ and His disciples celebrated the passover at the last supper. Some churches even believe that the congregation should share an actual meal.

- it is undoubtedly true that there is a massive influence by calvin on modern protestantism. However, there are pockets of us freewill and unlimited atonement believers who reject at least some of the 5 points of calvinism (and i've also heard the argument that it is not possible to reject only some of the 5 points, as they all follow from each other).

Unsurprisingly, pastors who preach these views are often called "heretics" by other protestants, although the verses to support the views are found in the Bible.

Also, taking into account Calvin's persecution and murder of servetus for "heresy", it would appear that calvin wanted the same kind of power that the catholic church wielded at the time, seeing himself as some sort of protestant pope.

- regarding denominations, i'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you're not in the US?

I would have to recheck the statistics, but if i remember correctly the largest denomination - if it could be called that - here is nondenominational. Then there is a large amount of independent baptist Christians as well. Here nondenominational Christians are just as mainstream as what we call "mainline protestants".

In general the independent baptist and some nondenominational churches are the ones pushing back against all the liberal "culture war" stuff, while the 'liberal protestants" that catholics or orthodox often speak of tend to be lutherans. There's several lutheran churches flying rainbow flags within a few miles of where i live. On the other hand, fundamentalist baptists are some of the most conservative people i've ever met.

(Then, of course, there's the theories that the pastors of some of these churches are controlled opposition... not to mention the relatively well documented evidence of masonic infiltration)

 

[Infinityloop]

However, i would disagree that calvin was the first to oppose this, though earlier men (like the one mentioned in my op) were more of the view that it was unnecessary, not symbolic.

I am not stated he originated all of his ideas and views, but that he popularized and began the normalization of certain ideas.
The impact he had on later Protestant denominations creates a kind of grey area I feel because things are taken to the extent that it is assumed into mainstream Protestant discourse rather than simply being fringe, making things harder to criticize without 'excommunicating' the entire stream of thought (post-Calvin Protestant) in order to avoid.

As of note to one of your comments towards the end of your post mentioning liberal tendencies in older Protestant denominations these days, it's a rather shocking thing actually given that something like Lutheranism disagrees on many major points which Calvinism takes as axiomatic.
But the Protestant church name branding thing is a known controversy though (some Protestant churches call themselves X without believing the tenants of X, and later end up changing their name to something more vague)

- regarding denominations, i'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you're not in the US?

Nope I'm not.

Also, taking into account Calvin's persecution and murder of servetus for "heresy", it would appear that calvin wanted the same kind of power that the catholic church wielded at the time, seeing himself as some sort of protestant pope.

I'm not gonna get polemical here but your views here mirror my general sociological and anthropological views of Protestantism itself, though it's not always in a top-down political sense (as many times it may be just small groups, almost in the sense commonly associated with 'cults').

In general the independent baptist and some nondenominational churches are the ones pushing back against all the liberal "culture war" stuff, while the 'liberal protestants" that catholics or orthodox often speak of tend to be lutherans. There's several lutheran churches flying rainbow flags within a few miles of where i live. On the other hand, fundamentalist baptists are some of the most conservative people i've ever met.

That is a different topic but it is an interesting observation I share. I think it is mainly because Catholicism has a large institutional structure and on a cultural level has mostly shrugged it's way through the 20th/21st century with all of the major sociopolitical changes. However it is noted that Catholicism, like a giant, moves very slowly through this, in the 'plausible deniability' sense. The contrast between the mainstream (which is Catholicism) and the minority (which is Protestant, even though it's huge in some countries) does actually mirror the relation between mainstream traditional Islam (which is something I can discuss elsewhere) and the very vocal minority of Salafism (which is what most people thing about these days when they here the term "Islam, whether positively or negatively, but usually negatively).
In many Protestant denominations there is more autonomy, which means more ability of political divergence and dissidents, likewise to Salafism - both have been forces behind historical revolts/revolutions. These 'reformist' tendencies do have their cultural uses in pushing back against trends we believe and know are evil, but of course at the same time they are easily susceptible to grave distortion/perversion (such as extremism).

 

[Padre_Neo]

There seems to be an erroneous conflation that early church fathers believed this so that makes it true. Unfortunately the irony is the concept of Roman pontifus maximus was already seeping into certain church fathers mindsets hence why we don’t get these Eucharistic views from people other than Roman central bishops of the early church. Iraeneus for example seems to do exactly what Rome does today gatekeeps on heresies while reinventing what are orthodox views and accepted creeds. Seemingly certain church fathers like Tertullian already recognised the somewhat idolatry of Rome and that centralisation of the church. I don’t think you find this kind of thinking in Polycarp. So yes the corruption of the church goes all the way back.

 

[Padre_Neo]

In my opinion one thing very hard to reconcile is if there is real presence in the Eucharist, The Jews that were the apostles would have found it to be non kosher cannibalism… I don’t think they’d have went for it. It’s clearly a metaphor. And it’s more clear when you consider the substitutive behaviour of the “sacraments” as opposed to true heartfelt relationship with a risen saviour not eating a wafer.

 

[Lyfe]

In my opinion one thing very hard to reconcile is if there is real presence in the Eucharist, The Jews that were the apostles would have found it to be non kosher cannibalism… I don’t think they’d have went for it. It’s clearly a metaphor. And it’s more clear when you consider the substitutive behaviour of the “sacraments” as opposed to true heartfelt relationship with a risen saviour not eating a wafer.

Sadly I think people prefer religion and man made tradition nowadays. It's more appealing than to be an actual disciple of Jesus Christ who denies himself and picks up his cross.

It's all a work that God does in us through relationship though. If God doesn't build the house then the labor is in vain. The more time one spends with him in prayer the more he will change and sanctify your heart.

God's intent through Christ was to create a new man. Not bind us to an endless list of traditions and rituals.

 

[Infinityloop]

(I've already prefaced earlier in this thread and it's evident in my 'signature' that I am not a Christian, so I am not defending Catholicism, Orthodoxy or Protestantism, but I'll just restate that)

In my opinion one thing very hard to reconcile is if there is real presence in the Eucharist, The Jews that were the apostles would have found it to be non kosher cannibalism… I don’t think they’d have went for it. It’s clearly a metaphor.

Well to quote the New Testament:

John 6 -
Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”
52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.” 59 This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper′na-um.
60 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him. 65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
66 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. 67 Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life

So the disciples certainly took it very literally.

Paul says:

- 1 Corinthians 11:23-26
For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

Even the early Protestant reformers (yes even Calvin who I mentioned earlier, even though he started the popular movement of metaphoricalizing it) saw it as the defining thing in Christianity separating heaven from hell, the ritual of the Eucharist as the salvific participatory act. But through all of "Christian" (from the point that there was a "Christianity" in contrast to a Jewish Jesus-movement) history, it has been unanimously held as binding dogma that it is the literal body and blood,
Not to get polemical (because it's not worth the time) but when I see Protestants on one hand attack Islam for denying the divinity of Jesus (and the Trinity), as someone who is exChristian and very familiar with the Bible and Church history, I can't help see theological hypocrisy on their part. If a Catholic attacked me in the same manner, I'd see less hypocrisy theologically because their conclusions follow from their assumptions, even though I too view them as incredibly misguided and following false teachings likewise.

In terms of Trinitarian theology, I think from a historical POV that it is accurate to say that the literalism of the transubstantiation in the Eucharist is the bread and butter (pun unintended) of Christian soteriology and practice. This is also something that the Orthodox Church never disputed about when they split with the Catholics either. It was only much later that after Calvin, this reductionist sentiment started gaining traction and being normalized in certain countries.

And it’s more clear when you consider the substitutive behaviour of the “sacraments” as opposed to true heartfelt relationship with a risen saviour not eating a wafer.

But what is not a 'true heartfelt relationship' about the Eucharist? it is considered to be "the source and summit of Christian life", the central sacrament and literal presence of the Holy Spirit.

In this I find it noteworthy that there is a strange contradiction between the way that later forms of Protestantism are dismissive of these mystical elements of traditional Christian belief and practice (not solely Catholic) while claiming to have a superior 'relationship' with Jesus. I'm not quite sure how that could be, when it comes to Christian practice.
Catholics and Orthodox have the Mass, daily Prayer, contemplative prayer and many other things which they practically express their relationship with Jesus, as well as all the typical community things (including charity etc).
In what way is your 'relationship' superior to theirs? ( @Lyfe too)