 |
 |
medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture One could come at this from several angles. Since you want a relatively general explanation appropriate to a general course, let me start things off by mentioning what I think are the two most important areas. Others who know more than I can correct or complete what I offer. (1) Idolatrous: if one does not believe that Christ is truly present after the Consecration, then to adore as God that which is merely bread and wine would be idolatry. All the Reformers challenged in one way or another the Catholic belief that the bread and wine cease to be, in reality (substantially) bread and wine, although Luther did insist that they truly, really, substantially became the Body and Blood of Christ. Even he, unless I am mistaken, would have objected to adoration of Blessed Sacrament outside of Mass. (If anyone can correct me here, please do). "Sacramentarian" criticism of real presence and assertion of merely symbolic presence is found in the MIddle Ages (Berengar in the 11thc, though some insist he did not believe in mere symbolic presence would be an example, but not Ratramnus in the 9thc, despite Zwingli's claiming that Ratramnus anticipated his position) but picked up steam in the century or two before the Reformation--it was very strong in the Low Countries and taken up the Rhine River where Zwingli and the Anabaptists adopted it--for them, the entire Catholic approach to the Eucharist was idolatrous. (2) More significant, in my view, was the rejection--shared without exception by the Protestant Reformers--of the Catholic understanding of the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice for sin. This is not a claim to repeat Christ's sacrifice once for all on the Cross, but to re-present it. The key point is that the once-for-all sacrifice is somehow made present and efficacious, objectively, ex opere operato, at each Eucharistic celebration. This has some ramifications: receiving Communion is not necessary for the Mass to accomplish its sacramental efficacy--what counts is the celebration, the actions of taking, offering, consecrating and the priest's consuming of the elements. Therefore, being present, observing devoutly, this great drama itself is salvific. Receiving Communion is even better, of course, but the power of the sacrament does not depend on reception. Christ himself is both the offerer (of himself) and the offering (victim), with the priest acting in the person of Christ. All the Reformers rejected belief in the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice (a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, yes, but not as an actual propitiation for sin--a _memorial_ of the propitiation on the Cross, yes--but now they are using "memorial" in a very historicized way, not in the original sense of _anamnesis_ in which, the very night thousands of years ago in Egypt is in fact present each year at Passover--that's the New Testament sense of memorial, modern liturgists agree). Most of them in one way or another believed the power of the sacrament was in some sense brought into being by the community's reception and faith, but they disagreed over the details. Unless I am mistaken, the Reformers disagreed about a lot of things but were united in (1) their rejection of episcopacy as apostolic succession (Church of Sweden, later Church of England, but not the mid-16thc C of E) and (2) the doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass. From a Catholic perspetive there's a very thorough book on the sacrifice issue in the Reformatoin by Francis Clark, S.J. How does this differ from contemporary Episcopalian practice? Well, that's another topic, but the main point is that Cranmer rejected the sacrifice of the Mass and real presence, though (cognoscenti please correct me if I'm wrong here), Henry VIII and others held on to largely Catholic views on this. With Edward VI Cranmer and the radicals gained the upper hand so that the mid-century settlement (Thirty-Nine Articles) would seem, prima facie, to reject both sacrifice and Real Presence. WIth the early 17thc Laudian re-catholicization and then again with the 19thc Tractarians, an effort was made to read the Thirty-NIne Articles relatively Protestant statements in a Catholic way. As a result, many Anglicans (but not the Low Church or Evangelical Anglicans) warmed up to Real Presence (without necessarily specifying transubstantiation) but not to the sacrifice of the Mass, though there were always some HIgh HIgh Church Anglicans who did accept all of the Catholic doctrines, sacrifice and transubstantiation included. Thus many Episcopalians today would say they accept Real Presence but avoid being more specific (no transubstantiation) and often exactly what they mean by it is hard to say. There have always been strong pockets of Evangelical or Low Church Episcopalians in the South, but what you have in Mississippi, I don't know. Often a single parish will have members all across the spectrum on these matters. I welcome corrections and expansions to this admittedly very generalized treatment. Dennis Martin >>> [log in to unmask] 05/24/04 5:50 PM >>> medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture Dear listmembers: I'm frantically cramming Reformation history to teach a class on the subject for the first time this summer (!) Much is illuminating, some things are just downright confusing. This afternoon (for the 30th time or so) I've come across sixteenth-century reformers denouncing the medieval mass as heretical/blasphemous/sacrilegious or words to that effect. And I don't understand why. I know that something about the mass as "sacrifice" (a re-enactment of Christ's sacrifice on the cross?) is involved in this denunciation. But I don't really have any sense of how the late medieval mass was different theologically or ecclesiologically from the Episcopalian eucharist I go to on Sundays---and none of the standard books on the Reformation are explaining this in terms that make sense to me. I'd appreciate any help in understanding this, either on- or offlist. Phyllis ********************************************************************** 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 ********************************************************************** 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