Tags
Catholic Church, Christianity, controversy, Eucharist, history, Luther, Papacy, Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Salvation, sin, Zwingli
Phillip mentioned yesterday that Lutherans have a very clear doctrine of the Eucharist, which is certainly true, and that the controversy between Luther and Zwingli highlighted the differences. That too is true. I didn’t want to go into it on his post, it is a bit far off topic. It is interesting, though, and last night I found a concise summary of the differences by Trevin Wax. It also highlights how it differed from Luther’s contemporary Catholic experience.
Luther’s view
In the medieval period before the Reformation, the mass formed the centerpiece of Christian worship and devotion. Three centuries before Luther began teaching in Wittenberg, the fourth Lateran council of 1215 established the doctrine of transubstantiation, which holds that upon the priest’s consecration of the bread and wine, the accidents (according to the senses) remain the same, but the substance (the internal “essence”) is miraculously transformed into the physical body and blood of Christ.
The implications of this doctrine were widespread. Laypeople began to adore the bread and wine from afar or superstitiously carry pieces of bread back home to plant in the garden for good crops or to give to an ailing animal for good health. To avoid an accidental spilling of the wine, the priests began giving only the bread to parishioners, keeping the cup for themselves. By the 1500’s, even the bread was withheld in most churches.
The mass had turned into a show instead of a sacrament. Some parishioners feverishly hurried from church to church to obtain the blessing of seeing more than one host in a given day.
Luther objected to the extreme practices brought by medieval superstition, but he continued to regard the “images, bells, Eucharistic vestments, church ornaments, altar lights and the like” as “indifferent.”
Two things in particular bothered Luther about the Roman Catholic view of the Lord’s Supper. First, he disagreed sharply with the practice of withholding the cup from the laity. So strongly did Luther believe in the laity’s participation in the mass that he condemned the Roman Catholic practice as one way that “Babylon” holds the church “captive.” (It should be noted however that Luther did not believe that withholding the cup necessarily invalidated the sacrament or that the Christians who were denied the cup during the previous centuries had not received sacramental benefits.)
Secondly, Luther believed that the Roman Catholic understanding of the sacrament as a “good work and a sacrifice” was the “most wicked abuse of all.” Luther argued forcefully that the mass must be seen as a testament – something to receive, not a good work to perform. The only sacrifice at the Lord’s Table is the sacrifice of ourselves. The idea that a priest could sacrifice the body and blood of the Lord was especially appalling to Luther and he considered this belief the most abominable of Roman errors. […]
Another area in which Luther remained close to Roman doctrine is in the doctrine of the “real presence.” Up until 1519, it appears Luther agreed with the official doctrine of transubstantiation. In 1520, he criticized the idea quite forcefully, painting it as needless speculation based on Aristotelian thought.
A popular misconception among Reformation students is that Luther affirmed and promoted “consubstantiation,” but neither Luther nor the Lutheran church ever accepted that term. Luther simply refused to speculate on how Christ is present and instead settled for affirming that he is there. The presence of Christ in the Supper is miraculous and thus defies explanation.
Roman Catholic theologians strongly emphasized the moment of consecration, when the priest would lift the bread and say “Hoc est corpus meum.” At that moment, bells would be rung and all eyes would be on the elevated host, which had magically been transformed into Christ’s body.
Luther similarly emphasized the words of institution, but only because Christ’s command leads to the change, not because the priest has made a special utterance. In this and other practices, Luther was content to alter the understanding behind Roman Catholic practice without feeling the need to actually change the tradition itself.
Luther believed that the fruit of the Lord’s Supper is the forgiveness of sins. Roman doctrine held that Communion was for the righteous, those who have confessed their sins to the priest. Luther believed Communion was for sinners, those who needed Christ’s incarnation the most.
Zwingli’s view
Zwingli did not see the need for a “sacramental union” in the Lord’s Supper because of his modified understanding of sacraments.
According to Zwingli, the sacraments serve as a public testimony of a previous grace. Therefore, the sacrament is “a sign of a sacred thing, i.e. of a grace that has been given.” For Zwingli, the idea that the sacraments carry any salvific efficacy in themselves is a return to Judaism’s ceremonial washings that lead to the purchase of salvation.
Whereas Luther sought to prune the bad branches off the tree of Roman Catholic sacramentalism, Zwingli believed the problem to be rooted at least partly in sacramentalism itself. […]
What Zwingli could not accept was a “real presence” that claimed Christ was present in his physical body with no visible bodily boundaries.
“I have no use for that notion of a real and true body that does not exist physically, definitely and distinctly in some place, and that sort of nonsense got up by word triflers.”
Zwingli’s theology of the Lord’s Supper should not be viewed as an innovation without precedent in church history. Zwingli claimed that his doubts about transubstantiation were shared by many of his day, leading him to claim that priests did not ever believe such a thing, even though “most all have taught this or at least pretended to believe it.”
Had Zwingli’s modified doctrine of the “real presence” been an innovation, it would probably not have been so eagerly accepted by his parishioners. The symbolic view spread rapidly because Zwingli had given voice and legitimacy to an opinion that was already widespread.
In Zurich, the mass was abolished in 1525. The Lord’s Supper was celebrated with a new liturgy that replaced the altar with a table and tablecloth.
The striking feature of the Zwinglian observance of the sacrament was its simplicity. Because the bread and wine were not physically transformed into Christ’s body and blood, there was no need for spurious ceremonies and pompous rituals. The occasion was marked by simplicity and reverence, with an emphasis on its nature as a memorial.
Zwingli’s denial of the “real presence” did not result in the neglecting of the sacrament that would characterize many of his followers in centuries to come. He saw seven virtues in the Lord’s Supper that proved its importance for the Christian life.
Do read the articles linked above. While what he says on Lutheran doctrine is in accordance with what I know and believe, and what I know of how it was derived, and I am sort of assuming that as an Evangelical he knows a fair amount about Zwingli, I don’t know enough to comment intelligently about it. My original church had a fair amount of Reformed in it, but it was long ago, and I’ve long since come to believe in The Real Presence myself, actually before I became a Lutheran. It is just more consonant with the Lord’s words and the disciples’ reaction to them.
Ps, the short form
All Along the Watchtower 
I want to first note that transubstiantion derives much from the theology of St. Thomas Aquinas, which he never uses the word accidents to describe the bread and wine from my understanding. I think its more related to the word species, which theologians indicate does matter when describing it.
You said, “First, he disagreed sharply with the practice of withholding the cup from the laity. So strongly did Luther believe in the laity’s participation in the mass that he condemned the Roman Catholic practice as one way that “Babylon” holds the church “captive.” (It should be noted however that Luther did not believe that withholding the cup necessarily invalidated the sacrament or that the Christians who were denied the cup during the previous centuries had not received sacramental benefits.)”
I just wanted to note that much of this from my understanding originated from Jan Hus, which ultimately led him to being burned at the stake.
Furthermore, you also say, “Luther believed Communion was for sinners, those who needed Christ’s incarnation the most.” This for the most part seems to be what Pope Francis wishes to move towards with the Eucharist in regards to his comments made in both his Exhortations that the Eucharist is medicine for the sinner. My argument in my previous posts is that this can only be possible according to Catholic doctrine if one does not meet the requirements from sin, otherwise according to said doctrine one would be cut off from God’s grace.
You also note, “What Zwingli could not accept was a “real presence” that claimed Christ was present in his physical body with no visible bodily boundaries.
“I have no use for that notion of a real and true body that does not exist physically, definitely and distinctly in some place, and that sort of nonsense got up by word triflers.”
For myself this completely ignores John Chapter 6, the argument I hear against “real presence” doctrine is that Jesus was using symbolism or metaphor like in John Chapter 4 with “living water.” However, this doesn’t fit the context of the rest of Chapter 6 because Jesus reiterates after challenged that this is a “hard teaching,” and then lets decibels leave because they cannot accept his teaching on the matter. In fact, I have never heard a remotely good argument against the “real presence” doctrine found in Chapter 6
You also say, “Zwingli’s theology of the Lord’s Supper should not be viewed as an innovation without precedent in church history. Zwingli claimed that his doubts about transubstantiation were shared by many of his day, leading him to claim that priests did not ever believe such a thing, even though “most all have taught this or at least pretended to believe it.”
Although Luther and Zwingli could be argued to better theologians than any of us, one fact remains, we just have more historical knowledge than either of those two men. If Luther possessed the letter of Clement to the Corinthians would he have made some of his bold decrees against the hierarchy of the Church/Pope and the councils? After all, the letter it appears to reject such action in the very early years of the church. Furthermore, both the letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch and Apologies of Justin Martyr seem to contradict Zwingli’s theology on the Eucharist completely.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I don’t have much knowledge of where it came from, Huss is certainly possible, but the withholding of the wine was common, withholding the bread was new to me in this article – but I’m no scholar.
“Luther believed Communion was for sinners, those who needed Christ’s incarnation the most.” That is almost a somewhat shortened quote from the Small Catechism. I’m a Lutheran – that is what I believe. It’s a place where our churches disagree and always have. It’s also why I avoided yesterday’s discussion, mostly.
On the Real Presence, I completely agree with you, and for the same reasons. Your argument is the same we use, and the same that many Anglicans use. Likely because it is true. For me Jesus’ acknowledgement that it is “a hard teaching” was key. So was the fact that he lost many followers because of it.
I’m not about to defend Zwingli, we need someone who understands him (perhaps agrees with him) if that’s going to happen. For me, the word ‘apostasy’ comes to mind
Sure, the Theses were posted 500 years ago, much has been worked through, and knowledge is much more widespread these days. It is remarkable that we still reach much the same conclusions as they did, not that we have quibbles based on more information.
LikeLike
I tend to view these issues through the modern scholarly paradigm of putting them in their Second Temple, Greco-Roman context. Luther et al had limited access to that context, so their reasoning will not always line up with it because sometimes the starting presuppositions are wrong. Although, they were in a position to reach some conclusions by a careful overview of the usage of words in similar contexts.
A good example, not related to the question of transubstantiation, is the use of the word “all”. A literalist will tell you, “all means all”, but the conviction that literalism is correct is an a priori presupposition imposed on the text by the reader (this is why Kant is quite helpful). It would have been very foreign to people in Jesus’ day as a principle for reading every verse of Scripture. But the Reformers were in a position to know that “all” doesn’t literally mean all when used in Daniel to describe the extent of Nebuchadnezzar’s empire. They knew enough history to know it didn’t extent, for example, to Greece.
LikeLike
I think you probably have much right in that thinking. The whole Transubstantiation thing kind of bugs me. Actually, it highlights something about the Catholic Church that bugs me, its compulsion to spell out every tittle and jot about everything. I agree with Luther, He is in the Bread and Wine, we don’t know how it works, but we don’t have too. All we need to know is that He is. But I’m a simple old lineman, I still can’t see electrons going about their work either, but I know they are there.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I think what is missing in this converstion is that almost all defined dogma in the Roman Catholic Church came from attacks or poor theology that could lead to problems further down the road if people were to embrace their teaching. It is a defense mechanism that prevented the essence of Church teaching from mutating to a form which would be unrecognizable and a faith that might no longer reflect the Faith as given. It sometimes is in response to ill-conceived practices that spring up in various communities that we see as harmful and indeed need to eliminated quickly. As to not receiving the Precious Blood, Luther failed to mention that in earlier times men were passing around jugs of the Consecrated wine and drinking it as if they were in a bar. Others were taking the Precious Blood and pouring it on their bodies. It became a sacrilege that needed to be corrected and we needed to flesh out the theology in a way that our laity and everyone else would give the sacred respect to the Eucharist that is needed and which it demands. It may look funny from afar but the Church has made it her business to guard these Sacraments and to correct theologians, liturgists and other folks who are introducing novel ideas to explain things in ways that ultimately lead to error . . . and from error, as we know, also follows at time apostasy of the entire faith.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I doubt either of us are likely to disagree with that, Scoop. But I still say, sometimes the perhaps over regulation and over definition of things makes things worse rather than better.
There is a reason why we start with the Small Catechism even if many of us do go on and study the Large Catechism, not to mention the Book of Concord as well.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I think, in this case, transubstantiation has done a remarkable job in keeping the faithful reverent and engaged with awe and respect. It was only when the teaching was all but ignored since the Second Vatican Council that we have degraded our liturgy and many Catholics, including clergy, no longer believe in the real presence. I just posted a piece at my website that relates the sad statistic that 84% of Catholics no longer believe in the devil or satan . . . and he goes on to show how that impacts everything that we believe: the sacraments, all the way to the having a need for a savior at all. We now find ourselves in the position where sin is discounted and we no longer believe that justice will be exacted due to sin. No hell . . . therefore no heaven. No heaven . . . then what is left other than annihilation of the soul. What then is the point of religion and more important, what is this life for if not to aim for a moral purpose that far exceeds any purpose we might serve during in our lives. And of course those worldly purposes have no staying power. They come and they go and then they turn back to dust. Another words . . . the new religion is akin to nihilism.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Neo, the Piggybackers were great!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I dearly love Lutheran Satire. Bet he’s a great pastor.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I asked nicely where is good brother chalcedon. How do I make a post? Doesn’t he OK them? I want to do a real post. Real story. Real problems. Not about who shot John and other madness.How do I go about it? I want am answer and I want it now.
LikeLike
Every man is a liar, so the playing field is level. All religions are false. But theres one that stinks the most.Theres one that still worships Diana, the goddess of heaven. I cant think of one other religion that does this. Oh, there are a few variants of Roman Babylonian religion, Lutherans and Anglicans. Theres no real difference between them except their priests sex activities are more or less examined different. They give Semiramis, oh, I think they renamed her Mary, all the attributes of god and then they have the nerve to say they don’t worship her. I mean, really, I don’t care. But what gives me a chuckle is that rational thinking men buy into this obvious sham. That’s what I don’t get. I thought Diana worship ended with the modern era. But, Satan has his ways and he still gets people to bow to him.
LikeLike
Good post, Neo. For what my two cents are worth about the true presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.
It is not to me what the Bible says but what it does not say. When the scoffers turned to leave Jesus on this teaching, there is no way to my way of thinking He would have let them leave, if He felt He had taught them something they totally misunderstood???
In other words, if He had meant the Eucharist was a “symbolic gesture,” Jesus would have called them back and told them that exact thing. To me Jesus would have said Himself, “No you misunderstood Me, I meant it is as “symbol” only, and you took it that I meant it “literally.”
This was too important of a teaching, to let it go misunderstood.
Another thing that got me is when He asked the twelve “if they were going to leave Him also,” in their disbelief, as the other disciples had.
To me Jesus was saying, “If you do not believe me, then go.” He never once tried to clarify anything to anyone on what He had taught, regarding the Eucharist.
He simply said more or less, “I am in the Bread and Wine./You either believe it or you do not?”
That is where He left it.
We believe God parted a sea, that He created all of creation by speaking it into existence, that He created man from dust, and woman from a rib, that Jesus healed the sick and raised the dead, that He performed the miracle at the wedding of Cana, that He died and rose from His grave.
People believe all of these miracles, but when it comes to this one, many will say, “That is impossible?”
To me, that makes no sense at all????
We truly have no understanding of how it was all done, the how’s and the why’s. All we know is that it was God, and He can do the impossible. The incomprehensible.
How can one believe in one miracle and not the other? God Bless, SR
LikeLiked by 2 people
Very well said, in my opinion,
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you. God Bless, SR
LikeLiked by 1 person
And you, a well! 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person