> my denomination considered it all symbolic, Is yours a Reformed church? The anti-institutional fervor of the later (post-Luther) Protestants led to many such

> my denomination considered it all symbolic, Is yours a Reformed church? The anti-institutional fervor of the later (post-Luther) Protestants led to many such purely mundane interpretations of the host, which Luther vigorously denied [0]. > I'm not sure how foundational that distinction was when > the schism occurred. Do you know by chance? Though I do not know the relative impetus imparted to the Reformation by differences in belief about the nature of the hosts in the eucharist, it seems to have been a deeper divide within Protestantism than between P and the RC [1]. Charitably, Luther accorded the question of the metaphysical connection between bread and wine, body and blood as axiomatically resolved by accepting the Word of their identical existence as a matter of belief, independent of argumentative investigation (i.e., he "unasked" the question, or said "mu" [2]). Uncharitably, he dodged by declaring the answer uninteresting or irrelevant to Christian faith. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sacrament_of_the_Body_and_Blood_of_Christ%E2%80%94Against_the_Fanatics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sacrament_of_the_Body_and_... [1] http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/06/martin-luther-refutes-zwingli-other.html http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/06/martin-luther-refutes... Specifically: "Before I [Luther] would drink mere wine with the Enthusiasts, I would rather have pure blood with the Pope." [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_%28negative%29#.22Unasking.22_the_question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_%28negative%29#.22Unasking....