medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
Dear Phyllis,
You wrote:
>
> 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.
Actually, to add to Dennis's fine remarks, I'm not sure that
those who spoke of the mass as an "abomination" centered
their objections on the "sacrifice" idea.
A couple references that might assist you are:
Seeberg, Reinhold. TEXT-BOOK IN THE HISTORY OF
DOCTRINES, vol. ii, section 73. There are a lot of
versions of this old clinker running around out there.
In my Baker 2 v. in 1 reprint, we're talking about ii:318ff.
Hägglund, Bengt. HISTORY OF THEOLOGY (St. Louis:
Concordia, 1968), 242ff.
This is not so much a liturgical or sacramental problem as it is
a christological one. I shall deal with Zwingli, but you know by
now he was not alone in applying these names to the mass.
Zwingli was much influenced by the humanists and was Platonic
in his philosophical leanings. Thus he drew a very sharp
distinction between the physical and the spiritual. For Zwingli,
John 6:63, coupled with the Ascension of Christ, Acts 1,
Mark 16, Luke 24, meant that Christ's body was located
in heaven and therefore could NOT be in the bread in any
way, shape, manner, or fashion. By the same argument,
neither could the blood of Christ be in the wine. Thus, it
was the idea of Christ's real presence in the elements that
made the mass an abomination, for the mass necessarily
included the idea of the real presence of Christ in the
earthly elements of bread and wine. To Zwingli, this was
blasphemous idolatry.
I say the problem was christological because it stems from
how one understands the nature of Christ. Is Christ's body
ensconced in heaven? Then it cannot be in a wafer, and it
is idolatrous to say so. On the other hand, is Christ, as God,
able to be ubiquitous in both body and soul? Then His body
can be sacramentally present in a wafer.
These different ideas concerning the nature of Christ were
what caused Luther and Zwingli to disagree at Marburg in
1529. Zwingli held the first view set forth in the preceding
paragraph, Luther the second.
In general, as you've figured out by now, the followers of
Zwingli as well as the radical reformers were inclined to
speak of the mass as an abomination. Lutherans, on the
other hand, confess to this day, "Falsely are our churches
accused of abolishing the Mass . . . ." (Augsburg Confession,
Article 24, para. 1, of 25 June 1530). Of the presence of
Christ in the Mass, they taught "Of the supper of the Lord
they [the Lutheran churches] teach that the Body and
Blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed to
those who eat in the Supper of the Lord; and they reject
those that teach otherwise," (Augsburg Confession,
Article 10).
You are digging deeply into some tough subject matter
when you deal with this issue. I hope Dennis's remarks
and mine have been of some help. Don't hesitate to
ask for clarification if I've been more obscure than
usual.
Regards,
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
|