It might be worth citing from the Smaller Catechism:
VI. The Sacrament of the Altar
As the head of the family should teach it in a simple way to his household.
What is the Sacrament of the Altar?
It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself.
Where is this written?
The holy Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and St. Paul, write thus:
Our Lord Jesus Christ, the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread: and when He had given thanks, He brake it, and gave it to His disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is My body, which is given for you. This do in remembrance of Me.
After the same manner also He took the cup, when He had supped, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Take, drink ye all of it. This cup is the new testament in My blood, which is shed for you for the remission of sins. This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me.
What is the benefit of such eating and drinking?
That is shown us in these words: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins; namely, that in the Sacrament forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation are given us through these words. For where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation.
How can bodily eating and drinking do such great things?
It is not the eating and drinking, indeed, that does them, but the words which stand here, namely: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins. Which words are, beside the bodily eating and drinking, as the chief thing in the Sacrament; and he that believes these words has what they say and express, namely, the forgiveness of sins.
Who, then, receives such Sacrament worthily?
Fasting and bodily preparation is, indeed, a fine outward training; but he is truly worthy and well prepared who has faith in these words: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins.But he that does not believe these words, or doubts, is unworthy and unfit; for the words 'For you' require altogether believing hearts.
Luther had made a strong attack on the Catholic understanding of the sacraments in The Babylonian Captivity of the Church. He was appalled by the pratice of communion in one kind, which he viewed as unscriptural. The doctrine of transubstantion was an absurd - an attempt to explain a mystery. To know that Christ is present - isn't that enough? Furthermore, the idea that the priest made a sacrifice on our behalf was equally unscriptural. Sacraments were for the nourishment and growth in faith of the people of God, not for accruing merit.
But Luther held onto the view that bread and wine really did become the body and blood of Christ. He did so not because it was traditional, but because it was (as he saw it) scriptural. This IS my body! The principle of the clarity of scripture seemed to be at stake here.
The controversy between the Reformers over this matter dominated the late 1520s. For Luther, the Word of God and the sacrament were inseparably linked. Both serve to mediate the power and presence of Christ. The sacraments, just like the word, could generate and support saving faith.
Furthermore, Luther asserted that Christ was 'ubiquitous': that is, the ascension of Christ 'to the right hand of God' did not mean that his presence was limited by space or time. Thus, he could be present in the sacrament in a saving way.
10 comments:
Just as well Zwingli came along...
"Just as well", that is some provocation! :)
Calvin agreed that Luther was trying to say what the Bible said and thought that he simply stumbled because “it is difficult to give an explanation of so high a matter, without using some impropriety of speech” (Short Treatise on the Lord’s Supper).
He like Luther thought that Word and Sacraments work together and offer the same relationship with the same Lord. He thought that the Sacraments depended on the Word, and offered something that the Word did not offer. (The "something" needs to be defined carefully).
Calvin also suggested that Zwingli and Œcolampadius simply “forgot to define what is the presence of Christ in the supper”. That I think was a bit optimistic!
It seems to me that if you take Calvin's Christology seriously, and his view of revelation and his teaching on the work of the Spirit, then you have to agree with his view of the Lord's Supper as well.
Plenty more about that at the Moore College Calvin conference in September.
Personally, I rather like Melancthon's tragically unsuccessful efforts at composing their differences.
Hi
It's the Jordan/Leithart fan again.
These gentleman believe there is an element of 'Covenant renewal' in the memorial supper. Basically, like the rainbow, and other Old Covenant memorials, the bread and wine are not so much a reminder to us of Christ's sacrifice, but a reminder to God.
Which puts a different spin on things.
Hello Michael,
I just thought I'd add my 2 cents to this post on Luther. It should be noted that Luther was relatively slow in coming to his position of real presence. Initially he adamently rejected Roman transubstantiation, withholding the elements in both kinds, and mediating grace. However, as the reformation began to grow legs he realized that in order for him to come out of the reforming process with a church he had to grant some compromises to the Romanists. Although he did in fact see Zwingli's attempt at the Marburg Colloquy to reinstitute the idea that the words of institution were metaphoric, a trope,just as Berengar in 1059. At that Council of Rome, Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida forced Berengar to reword his treatis to one of supporting transubstantiation on pain of death and thus Pope Nicholas II published the the text enthusiastically ("Ergo Berengarius",H. Chadwick, Journal of Theological studies, Oxford Oct.1989). Berengar disavowed his assent thereafter and the cogency of his argument was considered by his critics as valid which forced them to "surrender to the force of his argument" while upholding the the papal council's decision. In 1521 a Dutch theologian, Cornelius Hoen, had raised the Berengar incident in letters to both Zwingli and Luther prior to Marburg. Whereas Zwingli embraced it, Luther said he wished all popes would act like Nicholas II had. Luther would not entertain any theory that diminished the idea of sola scriptura thus threatening his whole theology of Christianity. He thought that that was exactly what would happen if Zwingli's trope theory were to be accepted. However, there is another varible in Luther's thought process in accepting real presence. By this time Luther was also preparing for the Augsburg Diet of 1530 and there is evidence to should be examined further which would indicate that Luther's careful consideration of how to convince Charles V and the Romans to come to some sort of agreement wherein his new church could exist in peace at least in Germany was no small factor.
Hi Michael,
This is a bit of an aside from the topic, but maybe you could consider the following issues in a future post.
Lay presidency at the Lord's supper (I think your principal tried to pass this some years ago at Synod - did it every get through).
Celebrating the Lord's supper over a real meal. What do we lose when we just have a wafer and minute cups?
Rich
--What do we lose when we just have a wafer and minute cups?--
While I'm not MPJ and am given to understand that our rubrics from the 1662 BCP don't mandate (while nonetheless allowing) the use of wafers at HC, the explanation I've most often heard for the general practice of issuing minute portions of the Communion elements was that it arose as a safeguard against the haste, inequity and gluttony decried in 1 Cor. 11.
Dear Michael C,
Thanks for background to this. I'm not sure what BCP stands for but I'm guessing some council of sorts? I guess to me that seems to be throwing the baby out with the bath water. I would thought that the intention of Paul was for the Corinthinian church to repent of the haste, inequity and gluttony rather than to safeguard against this by removing the meal and thereby losing the fellowship and unity signified in sharing a meal together. I've just been thinking lately that we are so in fear of lay Christians falling into error that we make rules and regulations which patronise them and rob them of working of for themselves what the Bible says. I think we should be training lay Christians to be able read the scriptures for themselves and to spot error rather than doing it all for them. The greater danger I feel is a congregation which blindly follows their pastor/minister, because if the pastor/minister is in error the whole congregation is lead astray.
Richard
BCP = Book of Common Prayer
As I read back through the posts I can see that this blog is getting better and better!
As a Lutheran pastor, I'm delighted to see that you basically got Luther! Of course, even his doctrine of 'ubiquity' is not particularly important, from a Lutheran point of view - especially if it's taken as another attempt to explain (rather than describe) a mystery.
Post a Comment