Looks like I’m a little late getting into the discussion and you have plenty of answers so I’ll add just a little. I’ll answer as a Reformed Baptist, not just a Calvinist, but a fella who takes the Reformed Confessions and Calvin pretty seriously. I must recommend you read The Institutes of the Christian Religion Book Fourth chapter 17;
9. This confirmed from Cyril, and by a familiar example. How the flesh of Christ gives life, and what the nature of our communion with Christ.
19. The nature of the true presence of Christ in the Supper. The true and substantial communion of the body and blood of the Lord. This orthodox view assailed by turbulent spirits.
28. The authority of the fathers not in favor of these errors as to Christ’s (physical) presence (in the elements). Augustine opposed to them.
29. Refutation of the invisible presence maintained by opponents. Refutation from Tertullian, from a saying of Christ after his resurrection, from the definition of a true body, and from different passages of Scripture.
Etc.
(1) Does "Reformed" Protestantism (Calvinism, Evangelicals, etc.) have a real basis in early Christian traditions and writings to claim that the Communion meal is "only" a symbol and to reject Jesus' real presence in it?
Calvin’s Eucharistic theology does indeed deny the physical presence of Christ but not the real presence of Christ. In The Institutes of the Christian Religion (ICR from now on) Calvin argues from the church fathers and scripture for the real presence and warns that Christ’s body is not invisible, or hidden in the elements. By faith we partake of Christ’s body and blood, feed in a very real sense upon Christ’s flesh and are spiritually nourished. Calvin denies the memorial view held by Bullinger and the Anabaptists. (Modern American Baptists also hold to the this view.)
My emphasis in bold.
Quotes from BK 4, CH. 17. PAR. 16:
Some, who see that the analogy between the sign and the thing signified cannot be destroyed without destroying the truth of the sacrament,
admit that the bread of the Supper is truly the substance of an earthly and corruptible element, and cannot suffer any change in itself, but must have the body of Christ included under it. If they would explain this to mean, that when the bread is held forth in the sacrament, an exhibition of the body is annexed, because the truth is inseparable from its sign, I would not greatly object. But because fixing the body itself in the bread, they attach to it an ubiquity contrary to its nature, and by adding
under the bread, will have it that it lies hid under it, I must employ a short time in exposing their craft, and dragging them forth from their concealments. Here, however, it is not my intention professedly to discuss the whole case; I mean only to lay the foundations of a discussion which will afterwards follow in its own place.
They insist, then, that the body of Christ is invisible and immense, so that it may be hid under bread, because they think that there is no other way by which they can communicate with him than by his descending into the bread, though they do not comprehend the mode of descent by which he raises us up to himself. They employ all the colours they possibly can, but after they have said all, it is sufficiently apparent that they insist on the local presence of Christ. How so? Because they cannot conceive any other participation of flesh and blood than that which consists either in local conjunction and contact, or in some gross method of enclosing.
17. Some, in order obstinately to maintain the error which they have once rashly adopted, hesitate not to assert that the dimensions of Christ’s flesh are not more circumscribed than those of heaven and earth. His birth as an infant, his growth, his extension on the cross, his confinement in the sepulchre, were effected, they say, by a kind of dispensation, that he might perform the offices of being born, of dying, and of other human acts: his being seen with his wonted bodily appearance after the resurrection, his ascension into heaven, his appearance, after his ascension, to Stephen and Paul, were the effect of the same dispensation, that it might be made apparent to the eye of man that he was constituted King in heaven. What is this but to call forth Marcion from his grave?
For there cannot be a doubt that the body of Christ, if so constituted, was a phantasm, or was phantastical. Some employ a rather more subtle evasion, That the body which is given in the sacrament is glorious and immortal, and that, therefore, there is no absurdity in its being contained under the sacrament in various places, or in no place, and in no form. But,
I ask, what did Christ give to his disciples the day before he suffered? Do not the words say that he gave the mortal body, which was to be delivered shortly after? But, say they, he had previously manifested his glory to the three disciples on the mount (
Mt. 17:2). This is true; but his purpose was to give them for the time a taste of immortality.
Still they cannot find there a twofold body, but only the one which he had assumed, arrayed in new glory. When he distributed his body in the first Supper, the hour was at hand in which he was “stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted” (
Isa. 53:4). So far was he from intending at that time to exhibit the glory of his resurrection. And here what a door is opened to Marcion, if the body of Christ was seen humble and mortal in one place, glorious and immortal in another! And yet, if their opinion is well-founded, the same thing happens every day, because they are forced to admit that the body of Christ, which is in itself visible, lurks invisibly under the symbol of bread. And yet those who send forth such monstrous dogmas, so far from being ashamed at the disgrace, assail us with virulent invectives for not subscribing to them.
18.
But assuming that the body and blood of Christ are attached to the bread and wine, then the one must necessarily be dissevered from the other. For as the bread is given separately from the cup, so the body, united to the bread, must be separated from the blood, included in the cup. For since they affirm that the body is in the bread, and the blood is in the cup, while the bread and wine are, in regard to space, at some distance from each other, they cannot, by any quibble, evade the conclusion that the body must be separated from the blood. Their usual pretence—viz. that the blood is in the body, and the body again in the blood, by what they call concomitance, is more than frivolous, since the symbols in which they are included are thus distinguished.
But if we are carried to heaven with our eyes and minds, that we may there behold Christ in the glory of his kingdom, as the symbols invite us to him in his integrity, so, under the symbol of bread, we must feed on his body, and, under the symbol of wine, drink separately of his blood, and thereby have the full enjoyment of him. For though he withdrew his flesh from us, and with his body ascended to heaven, he, however, sits at the right hand of the Father; that is, he reigns in power and majesty, and the glory of the Father. This kingdom is not limited by any intervals of space, nor circumscribed by any dimensions.
Christ can exert his energy wherever he pleases, in earth and heaven, can manifest his presence by the exercise of his power, can always be present with his people, breathing into them his own life, can live in them, sustain, confirm, and invigorate them, and preserve them safe, just as if he were with them in the body; in fine, can feed them with his own body, communion with which he transfuses into them. After this manner, the body and blood of Christ are exhibited to us in the sacrament.
19: The presence of Christ in the Supper
we must hold to be such as neither affixes him to the element of bread, nor encloses him in bread, nor circumscribes him in any way (this would obviously detract from his celestial glory); and it must, moreover, be such as neither divests him of his just dimensions, nor dissevers him by differences of place, nor assigns to him a body of boundless dimensions, diffused through heaven and earth.
But when these absurdities are discarded,
I willingly admit anything which helps to express the true and substantial communication of the body and blood of the Lord, as exhibited to believers under the sacred symbols of the Supper, understanding that they are received not by the imagination or intellect merely, but are enjoyed in reality as the food of eternal life.
So, I think we can say that Calvin rejected the idea that Christ was found physically in the elements but confirmed the real presence of Christ at the Lord’s Supper and this is consistent with the Church Fathers. At this point I would recommend reading through Book Four, Chapter 17 to get a better idea of Reformed Eucharist theology.
Link provided:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.vi.xviii.html
Albi, I believe Cranmer and Calvin held to almost identical doctrines concerning the Lord’s Supper? I haven’t read up on Cranmer of late but I do recall some 39 Article fellas telling me as much.
Reformed Baptists are in agreement with Calvin. From the Baptist Catechism;
Q. How do baptism and the Lords supper become effectual means of salvation?
A. Baptism and the Lords supper become effectual means of salvation, not for any virtue in them, or in him that doth administer them, but only by the blessing of Christ (1 Pet. 3:21; Mt. 3:11; 1 Cor. 3:6, 7), and the working of the Spirit in those that by faith receive them (1 Cor. 12:3; Mt. 28:19).
A portion of Benjamin Beddome Exposition of the Catechism follows;
Doth the efficacy of the sacraments depend upon the blessing and presence of Christ? Yes. Lo I am with you always. Matthew 28:20
And upon the cooperating influences of the Spirit? Yes. By one Spirit we are all baptized. 1 Cor. 12:13
And are they only effectual to those who by faith receive them? Yes. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be damned. Mark 16:16
Q. 102. What is the Lord’s Supper?
A. The Lord’s Supper is an ordnance of the New Testament, instituted by Jesus Christ; wherein by giving and receiving bread and wine, according to his appointment his death is shown fourth, and the worthy receivers are, not after a corporal and carnal manner, but by faith made partakers of his body and blood, with his benefits, to their spiritual nourishment and growth in grace.
A portion of Benjamin Beddome Exposition of the Catechism follows;
Doth the bread signify the body of Christ? Yes. This is my body. 1 Cor. 11:24
Doth the wine signify the blood of Christ? Yes. This is cup is the New Testament in my blood. Luke 22:20
Is the doctrine then of Christ crucified meat and drink to a believing soul? Yes. My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. John 6:55
And are we to feed upon that doctrine? Yes. He that eateth me, even he shall live by me. John 6:57
As you can see the Reformed voice is united. We view the
real presence of Christ at the Lord’s Supper but deny the
physical presence.
Now, I would be interested in seeing some quotations from the church fathers that affirm the Eastern Orthodox denominational view. That would be a good discussion.
Yours in the Lord,
Jm
