The eucharist is a re-enactment of the last supper which Jesus had with his people
The eucharist reminds people that Christ saved them through the resurrection, there is a future with christ and it deepends faith
"he broke the bread and said this is my body"
Transubstantiation is put forward by Aquinas, and it means a change in substance which happens after consecration and it miracuously changes. This has the real presence of Christ which is a similar view to the orthodox church
Protestant Reformers challenged this view but it was reaffirmed by the Council of Trent
Edward Schillebeeckx says this is a change in significance to the bread and wine but it doesnt chemically transform but it gains significance after consecration, in this christ is spiritually present
Paul VI
Karl Rahner says its a change in purpose and gains christs love after consecration so it has spiritual nourishment
Paul VI
"harms the eucharist"
They reject transubstantiation and they disagree over the presence of christ. They believe the eucharist provides spiritual nourishment
this is a challenge the transubstantiation and in this they say the bread and wine doesnt miracuously transform and the real presence of christ exists after consecration like when jesus took a human form and the bread and wine coexist with christ. The eucharist isnt a symbol but its the real presence of christ
a hot poker in fire doesnt become fire but the fire coexists with the poker
Zwingli, conflicts with luther over the presence with christ and says salvation can only be given by god not by the eucharist and the eucharist is testifying to the grace god gives. The eucharist is commemorative to remember the resurrection
John Calvin, "the elect" christs body cant be present in the eucharist as he ascended to heaven and only the elect can receive salvation despite there being power present
Transubstantiation
Transignification
Transfinalisation
Consubstantiation
virtualism
memorialism