Memorialism asserts that the bread and wine are merely symbols and tangible reminders of Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice. Nothing changes in their substance, and Christ is not present in or with the elements. The Supper is a covenant meal of remembrance, where believers reflect on Christ’s death, proclaim His gospel, and express gratitude by faith.

This view was first argued for by Swiss Reformer Huldrych Zwingli (1484-1531) at the Marburg Colloquy (1529) against Luther’s literalism and Transubstantiation. When Luther wrote "This is my body" on the table, Zwingli countered with "Do this in remembrance of me" (Latin: Hoc facite in meam commemorationem) insisting the Supper is a memorial ordinance, not a mystical union. Zwingli pointed out that Christ’s risen body is in heaven, not in the sacrament. For him and his followers, the Supper is simply a human act of faith and obedience, not a "means of grace".

Scriptural Support

• Luke 22:19 and 1 Corinthians 11:24-25 contain the foundational phrase: "Do this in remembrance of me." Memorialism take this at face value; Jesus institutes a meal to commemorate His death, not mystically transform elements.
• Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 11:26 reinforces this: "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes." The emphasis is on proclamation, not presence.
• Zwingli interpreted "This is my body" symbolically, pointing to how Scripture uses metaphor elsewhere (e.g. "I am the vine," Jn 15:5; "You are the light of the world," Mt 5:14). The word "is" is taken to mean "represents" or "signifies."
• In John 6, where Jesus says, "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man…" (Jn 6:53), memorialists often respond that this refers to faith in Christ, not the Supper. Verse 63 is crucial: "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail." This supports their spiritualising, anti-material reading.
• The covenantal nature of the meal (Lk 22:20: "This cup is the new covenant in my blood") is also invoked. As with Old Testament covenant meals (e.g. Passover), the focus is on remembrance and promise, not mystical transformation.

Memorialists see the Lord’s Supper as a communal remembrance and gospel proclamation, echoing 1 Corinthians 15:3-"Christ died for our sins." The Supper is not a channel of grace, but a visible word: a symbol that stirs up faith and thanksgiving.

Historical Witness

• Zwingli was the first person to completely reject the idea of Christ’s presence in the elements. In his 1525 treatise, he wrote: "Faith is spiritual eating… this external eating is but symbol and shadow."
• Heinrich Bullinger, his successor in Zurich, carried on this theology. The Consensus of Zurich (1536) denied any local presence of Christ in the Supper, focusing instead on the believer’s internal faith.
• The 39 Articles of the Church of England (1563) also leaned toward this view, saying that Christ’s body is received "only after a heavenly and spiritual manner," and "the wicked… eat not the Body of Christ." While not purely Zwinglian, it moved away from any idea of local physical presence.

It’s worth noting that Memorialism was always a minority. Even Calvin, who denied a local or physical presence, insisted on a real spiritual communion through the Holy Spirit. Memorialism, by contrast, sees no such communion in the act itself-only in the faith of the participant.

The Problem with Memorialism

Over-Symbolising the Supper

Memorialism reduces the Lord’s Supper to mere symbolism. If Christ is not present in any way, then the sacrament becomes no different from a dramatic object lesson or spiritual prompt. Luther scoffed that if all we do is remember, then "we may as well eat cake!"

This view divorces the sign from the thing signified, a sacrament that neither conveys nor participates in the grace it commemorates. Critics argue that this undermines the seriousness of Paul’s warnings in 1 Corinthians 11:27-29, where eating "unworthily" brings judgment. If the bread is only bread, what makes the act so spiritually serious?

Making the Presence of Christ Subjective

Memorialism places all the spiritual benefit in the mind and heart of the believer. There is no objective presence of Christ and no divine action in the Supper itself. If Christ is not present in or with the elements, but only in the believer’s faith, then the Supper becomes an entirely subjective exercise. This approach can fail to account for the means of grace or the covenantal gift God gives in the sacraments.

Lacking Historical Continuity

Critics also argue that Memorialism has little support in the early Church. Church Fathers such as Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and Cyril of Jerusalem affirmed Christ’s real presence in the Supper. The Council of Trent (1545-63) anathematised anyone who claimed the Eucharist is "only a sign or figure"-a direct rebuttal to Zwingli’s theology.

Neglecting Divine Action

Finally, Memorialism may give insufficient weight to God’s role in the sacrament. If the Supper is simply a human act of remembering, where is God’s gift to the Church? In Luke 22:19, Jesus "took bread… gave thanks… broke it… and gave it to them" as a divine act of giving. A sacrament should convey what it signifies, not merely point to it.

Memorialism risks making the Supper an empty ritual, absent of grace, presence, or power-more a photograph of Christ than a meeting with Him.

Other Communion Views: Transubstantiation | Consubstantiation or Sacramental Union | Spiritual Presence