medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
We read:
> Luther, by focusing on the Words of Institution (and through a
> different understanding of the Letter to the Hebrews), understands the
Lord's Supper to be the memorial of a sacrifice and not a sacrifice.
Luther does talk about the sacrifice of praise, which is our response of
thanks to God for Christ's sacrifice for us.
Actually, I am unaware of where Luther speaks of
the Eucharist as being a memorial.
He does say, in the Small Catechism:
Q. What is the Sacrament of the Altar?
A. It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus
Christ, under the bread and the wine, for us
Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by
Christ Himself.
In the same Catechism, Luther adds:
Q. What is the benefit of such eating and drinking?
A. 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.
In the Large Catechism, Luther writes concerning
the Eucharist:
Therefore it is given for a daily pasture and
sustenance, that faith may refresh and
strengthen itself so as not to fall back in such
a battle [against evil], but become stronger
and stronger.
Luther adds:
But here our wise spirits contort themselves
with their great art and wisdom, crying out and
bawling: How can bread and wine forgive sins
or strengthen faith? Although they hear and know
that we do not say this of bread and wine, because
in itself bread is bread, but of such bread and
wine as is the body and blood of Christ, and has
the Words attached to it. That, we say, is verily
the treasure, and nothing else, through which
such forgiveness is obtained. Now the only way
in which it is conveyed and appropriated to us
is in the Words ("given and shed for you").
Luther continues:
Therefore also it is vain talk when they say
that the body and blood of Christ are not given
and shed for us in the Lord's Supper, hence
we could not have forgiveness in the Sacrament.
For herein you have both truths, that it is the
body and blood of Christ, and that it is yours
as a treasure and a gift. Now the body of Christ
can never be an unfruitful, vain thing, that
effects or profits nothing.
Luther, in his Great Confession of 1528, wrote:
I confess and teach concerning the Sacrament
of the Altar, that in it the true Body and Blood
are orally eaten and drunk in the bread and
the wine, even if the priests who administer
it or those who receive it do not believe or
otherwise misuse it, because it does not depend
on man's faith and unbelief, but on God's Word
and institution. Unless, indeed, they first change
God's Word and institution and misinterpret it,
like present day enemies of the Sacrament,
who in truth have only bread and wine because
because they do not have the Word and instituted
order of God, but have perverted and altered
it according to their own fancies.
To my ear, these does not sound like the words of a man
who believed the Eucharist to be a memorial. Indeed,
the last sentence of the last quote sounds very much
like a condemnation of that very position. Luther did
not consider the Sacrament of the Altar to be a re-
presentation of the sacrifice of Christ. However, I do
hope the foregoing would suggest that neither did he
consider it to be a memorial. For Luther, as I hope
the foregoing illustrates, the Sacrament of the Altar
was a meal instituted by Christ Himself in which He
offers and gives His body and blood in the bread and
the wine for the forgiveness of sins and the strengthening
of the believers' faith.
I have left out most of what Luther says concerning the
Sacrament in his Small Catechism, as all the other
Lutherans on the list who also memorized it in their youth
will be very aware. I have quoted perhaps 1% of what
Luther says in his Large Catechism on this matter.
After 1522, Luther's writing on the Sacraments are
suprisingly consistent and unsuprisingly voluminous.
These publications probably total several tens of
thousands if not millions of words. I've NOT read
them all. However, I've not found anything at
variance with what I have presented here.
Sacramental theology in the early modern era is a
profoundly complex subject, as we ourselves have
demonstrated in the past 72 hours. The writings
of Luther, as well as those of Zwingli, Bucer, Karlstadt,
and Schwenkfeld, to name but a few, compelled
the fathers at Trent to clarify and state definitively
the Roman Catholic position.
Given this plethora of views, I would like to suggest
"Ad fontes!" Please do not take my word on Luther's
position. Read it for yourself. Do Zwingli, Calvin,
Bucer, Capito, Melanchthon, Karlstadt, and Schwenkfeld
(and all the writers I, in my haste and ignorance, have
omitted) that simple justice.
I have learned a great deal concerning the English
reformers from comments in this discussion, for
which I thank you most heartily. I hasten to add that
I also went back to the books to read the context,
which many of the posts illuminated for me anew.
Cordially,
Frank
**********************************************************************
To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME
to: [log in to unmask]
To send a message to the list, address it to:
[log in to unmask]
To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion
to: [log in to unmask]
In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to:
[log in to unmask]
For further information, visit our web site:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html
|