Sasse, 1977. Chapter 7, “The Sacrament of the Altar and the Lutheran Church Today”

Chapter 7, “The Sacrament of the Altar and the Lutheran Church Today” pp. 280-327

In this final chapter Sasse observes that through about 400 years since the Formula of Concord the Lutheran church has seen changes in views of communion. In recent years there has been a renewal of interest in communion. Though the dogmas have not changed, Sasse thinks they bear evaluation in light of further articulation of dogma in the various other church bodies. He also says, since there have been developments in biblical research, the question bears ongoing evaluation. Sasse gives several areas where questions could be asked, though he declines to answer.

Final Observations:

This is among the best books I’ve read in the past year, not primarily due to content or writing style, but because of the depth of Sasse’s research. From beginning to end he shows a willingness to cite sources both supportive of and hostile to his point of view. He summarizes arguments and quotes sources frequently. Especially his work with the Marburg Colloquy shows his careful gathering of source material. This is research writing at its best.

Sasse, 1977. Chapter 6, "The Aftermath"

Chapter 6, “The Aftermath”

In the generations after Marburg the debate about the nature of Jesus’ presence in communion continued. It often takes several generations for a doctrinal dispute to be clarified and settled. However, in this case, Sasse finds the differences have not found resolution. The aftermath of the Marburg Colloquy largely expressed itself in three streams of thought, each associated with an important theologian.

First, Martin Bucer, who represented neither Lutheran nor Zwinglian doctrine, pursued mediation of doctrine through negotiation. He, with Zwingli, did not think the body of Christ could literally and physically be given in communion, but that it was of relatively small importance, as the spiritual nourishment was primary. Bucer was unable to convince Lutherans of this view, as it negated the sacramental union and also failed to deal with the manducatio impiorum which would condemn those who did not rightly accept the true bodily presence of Christ.

Second, Melanchthon departed from Luther’s doctrine of the Real Presence insofar as he looked to Church Fathers for a solid precedent but found disagreement in early Christianity. He adopted a view that the Sacraments were primarily signs of God’s grace rather than that which imparts grace. Melanchthon is sharply criticized for an edition of the Augsburg Confession which altered some language in such a way as to make it acceptable to Calvinists. Though Melanchthon did not consider his alteration to have changed the meaning, many Lutherans have considered it a betrayal.

Third, Calvin made attempts to explain the Lord’s Supper. As a Lutheran he wished to defend Luther’s view. He was, however, influenced heavily bu Bucer, moving away from Jesus’ bodily presence other than in heaven and toward a spiritualized view of the eating and drinking. He finally denies that the unbeliever receives anything but bread and wine. Further he makes the Sacrament a sign, rather than a means of grace.

By 1580 the Formula of Concord emerged, restating and clarifying many of the doctrines of the Augsburg Confession. This document has not been accepted by all Lutherans, in large part due to its strong stand anathematizing those who believe otherwise. Yet it stands calling churches to accept unity which can be found by pursuit of biblical truth.

Sasse leaves us in this chapter with these four patterns, Bucer, Melanchthon, Calvin, and Luther. The four continue to have a strong influence to the present time.

Sasse, 1977. Chapter 5, “The Marburg Colloquy”

Chapter 5, “The Marburg Colloquy” pp. 151-238

Sasse moves on to his detail of the Marburg Colloquy. This chapter in the text is quite long, in large part because of Sasse’s thorough and scholarly work. He discusses the background and arrangement of the colloquy, then gives a collation of accounts and transcripts of it, then concludes with observations about the outcomes.

Shortly before the colloquy, in 1528, Luther had written his Large Confession based on the articles of the Apostles’ Creed. In the Second Article he discusses Pelagianism and in the Third Article he discusses the Sacraments, tying these topics to historic confessions. He also made connections between the Papacy, Enthusiasm, and Islam, as they all depend on something other than adherence to the external Word of God.

This strong conviction on Luther’s part led him to avoid gatherings like that of Marburg. The difference between the parties’ understanding of the function of God’s Word was great enough that he thought agreement impossible, so the conference would be to no effect.

On the part of Zwingli and his party, the colloquy was desirable in part because of their need to make public statements and reinforce alliance. Sasse reminds us that Zwingli largely had a political view of the Church so would tend to gather alliances as a statesman. Between 1524 and 1528 Zwingli was active in coalition building.

Beginning on p. 162, Sasse also reminds us of the reality of a religious war in the area. The papal forces, the supporters of some sort of Reformation, and the Muslim empire were coming into active conflict with one another in Germanic territory. Zwingli and his followers considered alliances natural. Luther and his supporters distinguished between political and theological alliance. The relation of church and politics, then, was very significant.

Finally all parties agreed to meet, with Zwingli and others arriving in Marburg on Monday, September 27, 1528, Luther and others on Thursday the 30th, and a few others on Saturday, October 1. Friday was devoted to personal discussion, while there was more formal debate on Saturday and Sunday. Some final statements were made on Monday before a hasty departure on Tuesday when concern about a plague outbreak caused flight.

On page 178 Sasse moves into his work with the colloquy itself. He identifies the primary sources in detail, along with the language and theological alignment of the documents. Then, on pp. 180-220 he presents his collation of those documents, including extensive footnotes of explanation.

The discussions of the Marburg Colloquy as preserved for us were largely congenial and primarily focused on whether or not Jesus was bodily present in the elements of communion. Neither side was able to convince the other to change views. Frequently Zwingli and his supporters seem to concede points to Luther, but never without reservation. The discussion was lengthy and, at times, we have record of one speaker or another deferring due to fatigue. This would indicate that a good deal of the discussion was not recorded and that the level of tension was high.

By Monday, October 4, since the discussion did not seem to be going toward a substantive level of agreement, the landgrave, who had called and hosted the colloquy, asked if some articles of agreement could be written up. This was done largely by Luther and signed off on by the participants.

Beginning on p. 220 Sasse discusses the results of the colloquy. Supported by extensive quotations from various sources he observes that the people on both sides of the issue were able to claim success. This is, at least in part, because the articles were somewhat vaguely defined. Sasse also adduces quotes fom Zwingli after the fact which contradict much of the content of the articles. The Marburg Articles, then, do not stand as a clear indicator of unity among different parties in the Reformation. The disunity remained as to the nature of a Sacrament, the presence of Jesus, and thus the way we should interpret the Scriptures and the Son of God.

Sasse closes the chapter by observing that in his day the importance of source documents and investigation of the root causes of disagreements has continued to decline so most students of theology are unaware of the significance of their belief.

Sasse, 1977. Chapter 4, “The Great Controversy”

Chapter 4, “The Great Controversy” pp. 107-150

Doctrinal controversies were nothing new to the Church of the 16th century. Ye they have always been disappointing and hurtful. The dispute between Luther and Zwingli was a very serious one with far-reaching consequences. In this chapter, Sasse considers the dispute over communion and its conclusion. Sasse emphasizes on p. 108 that sinful hatred and arrogance, as well as more overt sins, have no place in disputes among Christians.

In 1524 Zwingli accepted Honius’ doctrine of communion. Carlstadt wrote five treatises on it. The debate was clearly public. Luther weighed in as well. On p. 110 Sasse divides the dispute into three groups of combatants. First there were faithful Roman Catholics who denied transubstantiation. Second, there were those who, like Zwingli, accepted some sacramental grace but considered the words to be figurative. Finally, the Anabaptists considered the words figurative and denied sacramental grace.

Because the controversy took such varied forms it was a confusing battlefield. For some time Luther tried to avoid a conflict with Zwingli. He would discuss the Sacrament but never mention Zwingli by name. Finally in 1527 Zwingli wrote a treatise specifically aimed against Luther, to which Luther responded clearly and directly. Sasse (p. 115) considers that the exegetical debate which followed indicates there was no room for compromise, but that one would either have to side with Luther or Zwingli. Luther insisted on the Word of God as the authority, while Zwingli considered the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit as paramount. Because of this, Luther would insist on a real bodily presence of Christ in the Sacrament while Zwingli would insist that a spiritual perception was greater.

Sasse further observes that Luther held to an interpretation of the natures of Christ as explained in the Athanasian Creed, while Zwingli would try to assign some acts of Christ to the human nature and some to the divine nature. This distinction would lead Luther to a view of ubiquity, that Christ is present everywhere, while Zwingli would hold to a view of Christ being localized in heaven. With no resolution to this dispute, Luther and Zwingli could not view the Sacrament in the same way.

On p. 131 Sasse begins to discuss consecration, another issue stemming from the dispute above. What effect does the consecration have? What changes, when, and how? Zwingli and all the Reformed churches after him considered the Words of Institution as an historical narrative, explaining what Jesus did. Luther saw the Words of Institution as a sacramental blessing, releasing the grace of forgiveness. Sasse discusses the implications of this sacramental view in some detail, including an explanation of the Lutheran view of the proper use of the elements - for consumption on the spot. While Zwingli would argue from a standpoint of logic about Jesus’ presence, Luther would argue that the Word of God asserts a real, bodily presence so it must be accepted. The Sacrament thus becomes food and drink which brings life.

Sasse, 1977. Chapter 3, "Zwingli"

Chapter 3, “Zwingli” pp. 92-106

Sasse turns his attention to the fundamental differences between Luther and Zwingli. Since they viewed life through very different lenses they had differences in their understanding of events. On p. 92 Sasse points out Zwingli as a politician. This would color his thinking. Luther, on the other hand (p. 93), was primarily an exegete and professor of theology. Luther was very anti-Aristotelian. Zwingli was “a Thomist for whom revelation can never contradict reason” (p. 93). As a result of this fundamental difference, Luther and Zwingli would necessarily understand theology differently.

How then did Zwingli view the Sacraments? Sasse follows Walter Koehler in asserting that Zwingli did not always hold the same view of the Sacraments. As late as 1523 (p. 95) he held, at least theoretically, to transubstantiation. In June 1523 (p. 96) he does accept some sort of real presence, though it appears to be operating spiritually and not entirely as Lutherans would confess, bodily and substantially. Key to Sasse’s interpretation of Zwingli is his statement on p. 97, “A spiritual understanding of the Lord’s Supper does not necessarily include a figurative interpretation of the sacramental words.” While accepting the Words of Institution it is still quite possible to assert a spiritual or allegorical presence. This is what Zwingli did. He then continued in the same vein as he decided to assert the faithful partaking as the most important part of communion, as opposed to the divine gift.

In this, Sasse says, Zwingli was influenced by Honius, who understood communion as our opportunity to receive Jesus’ pledge and remember his promises. Honius also developed the argument which said “is” meant “signifies” based on other uses of the copula in Scripture. These arguments were promptly rejected by Luther, but took firm root in the work of Zwingli and the other radical Reformers.

These moves of Zwingli associated him more closely with the revolutionary Anabaptists rather than with the conservative Reformation. At last, he reached a view of the Sacrament which was purely symbolic, containing no divine activity. From this point, Zwingli and his followers began to revise the liturgy, replacing the idea of communion as reception of the true body and blood of Jesus with an idea of communion as our expression of faith in the Jesus who makes us one. This set the stage for a great distinction between the conservative and radical branches of the Reformation.

Sasse, 1977. Chapter 2, Part 5 - The Fruits of the Sacrament

Chapter 2, Part 5 - The Fruits of the Sacrament (p. 87).

Luther always viewed the Sacrament as of great importance, granting God’s forgiveness to all who believe that Jesus gave himself, body and blood, for us. This sacrament gathers us into unity with one another and unity with God. The literal physicality brought Luther into conflict with Zwingli and other more radical reformers. Sasse will continue his dicussion in that vein as he moves into a much briefer chapter 3.

Sasse, 1977. Chapter 2, Part 4 - The Real Presence (p. 79)

Chapter 2, Part 4 - The Real Presence (p. 79)

Throughout his adult life Luther always held to the Real Presence. With no biblical argument for a symbolic view he would not change his position. However, he did begin to refuse transubstantiation. The Bible refers to the consecrated bread as bread. Yet Luther did not use the term consubstantiation and it has only been applied to Lutheran doctrine by a few authors. Sasse spends several pages detailing Luther’s arguments for a real, bodily, substantial presence of Jesus’ body and blood in communion.

Sasse, 1977. Chapter 2, Part 3 - Communio sub una and sub utraque (p. 71)

Chapter 2, Part 3 - Communio sub una and sub utraque (p. 71)

There was disagreement between Luther and the Bohemians as regards offering the cup to the laity. For some time, while the Bohemians insisted on both, Luther accepted the communion in one species as valid communion. By 1522 Luther was more interested in requiring that the chalice be available to all the congregation.

Sasse, 1977. Chapter 2, Part 2 - Criticism of the Roman Mass: Opus Operatum (p. 65).

Chapter 2, Part 2 - Criticism of the Roman Mass: Opus Operatum (p. 65).

Luther was likely one of the most conservative Reformers. His development of ideas was slow and appeared piecemeal. On p. 66 Sasse says that Luther gave up opus operatum, then the sacrifice element of the mass, then communion in only one kind (element), then transubstantiation. Whenever possible, he kept what he could unless Scripture demanded otherwise. As an example of Luther’s development, Sasse traces his statements on the Mass as our offering a sacrifice to God. He is careful to discuss the practice and its implications. In the end, he concludes that we are unable to and unworthy of offering any acceptable sacrifice to God, but that God gives us every good gift. This is a more clear and focused rejection than we see in the more radical Reformers.

Sasse, 1977. Chapter 2, “Luther in His Early Period (1517-1524)” - Part 1 - The Source of Luther’s Doctrine on the Lord’s Supper (p. 62).

Chapter 2, “Luther in His Early Period (1517-1524)” - Part 1 - The Source of Luther’s Doctrine on the Lord’s Supper (p. 62).

Sasse observes (p. 62) that the Lutheran Reformation and its work with the Lord’s supper sprang from Medieval discussions. Possibly even without knowing it, the Reformers are influenced by their backdrop. Luther arose as the great theologian and liturgist of his time.

While Luther didn’t deny the real Presence, he did say that celebrating a Mass without communicants, as was the Roman custom, was not appropriate. As early as 1519 he was writing about communion and, even in that early time, affirmed the Real Presence and that the body and blood of Christ was distributed to communicants.

Sasse, 1977. Chapter 1, Part 7 - The Great Struggle of the Late Middle Ages (p. 56).

Chapter 1, Part 7 - The Great Struggle of the Late Middle Ages (p. 56).

It became clear by the late Middle Ages that the Sacrament was controversial. Especially in Bohemia a desire for more frequent communion arose. At the same time there were moves to reject the explanation of transubstantiation and replace it with another explanation, that of symbolic presence. Divisions increased and the theological landscape was clouded by the piety which had not yet begun to distinguish Law and Gospel (p. 60). The stage was thus set for Luther’s Reformation.

Sasse, 1977. Chapter 1, Part 6 - Eucharistic Piety, Devotion, and Practice (p. 48)

Chapter 1, Part 6 - Eucharistic Piety, Devotion, and Practice (p. 48)

Sasse pauses to point out the importance attached to the doctrine of the Eucharist. While we may spend much time in analysis, we need to realize the doctrines arose from real concerns of real people struggling with real problems. The liturgy and the practice of the Sacrament was heart and center of the life of the Church. In the Early Church all the saints would gather and receive communion in a closed environment. It was integral to receiving God’s mercy. As the Middle Ages began, communion became less private and more a matter of corporate piety. Eventually, to protect against disrespect to the present Lord, it became generally an event that only the priesthood would participate in. Yet it remained the center of worship. the host becomes an article of veneration rather than God’s gift of food (p. 54).

Sasse, 1977. Chapter 1, Part 5 - Medieval Criticism of Transubstantiation (p. 43)

Chapter 1, Part 5 - Medieval Criticism of Transubstantiation (p. 43)

Sasse contends that the biggest problem with transubstantiation is that it requires a substance to be separated from its “accidents,” or appearance. This was an idea foreign to philosophy and dedicated to explaining a dogma which could not be found explained in Scripture. Therefore, theologians had to engage in additional layers of explanation to make the doctrine plausible. Wyclif countered the idea with a mystical presence, following Berengar. His views were taken over extensively by Zwingli, through acquaintance with Bohemian and Netherlandic influence.

Sasse, 1977. Chapter 1, Part 4 - The Real Presence as Transubstantiation and Concomitance (p. 28)

Chapter 1, Part 4 - The Real Presence as Transubstantiation and Concomitance (p. 28)

In response to Berengar the Church tried to define terms. In what way is Jesus present in communion? Yet on p. 29 Sasse observes that the question of whether a change occurs did not come up. Rather, the conversation was about what kind of change happened. The explanation required theologians to go beyond Scripture. By the 13th century the explanation of transubstantiation was emerging. Sasse discusses the implications of the wording of the dogma, especially as articulated by Thomas Aquinas.

Sasse, 1977. Chapter 1, Part 3 - The Real Presence as Conversion (p. 17)

Chapter 1, Part 3 - The Real Presence as Conversion (p. 17)

The dogma of the Real Presence received much more discussion. Beginning with Paschasius Radbertus writing in 831 (p. 18) discussion about the nature of Christ’s presence began. While Radbertus suggested real physical presence of the very body and blood of Jesus as born of Mary, Ratramnus and others would affirm that the change was specifically to the post-resurrection body and blood. Ratramnus also affirmed that the elements remained bread and wine but became the “image” of the body and blood. There is some lack of clarity in the discussion, but it did serve, if not to define the doctrine, to start the process of definition.

In hindsight, Sasse says (p. 19), Ambrose seemed to advocate a physical change while Augustine had more of an inclination toward a symbolic change. Yet the idea Augustine had of a symbol’s change is not akin to Zwingli’s view. To the ancients, a symbol is “filled with reality” (p. 23).

Sasse points out (p. 25) that while we might like to leave the issue by saying that Christ is really present, the contention is whether he is really present in his body and blood. This is an area which Lutheran and Reformed churches do not agree on. The debate is important and stems from the 11th century and Berengar, who advocated a spiritual view of Christ’s presence. He rejected the bodily presence as a logical impossibility and was (p. 26) the first to interpret the “is” in the consecration as “signifies.” This drove the Church to define the Real Presence.

Sasse, 1977. Chapter 1, Part 2 - The Eucharistic Sacrifice (p. 14)

Chapter 1, Part 2 - The Eucharistic Sacrifice (p. 14)

In the Middle Ages, until the early 13th century, the idea of the mass as a sacrifice was only rejected by those who rejected the entire mass. This view of the priesthood and sacrifice was handed down from the earliest period of Christianity and was readily understood by people from either a pagan or Jewish background. The people would bring offerings which were then presented to the Lord. Where Sasse views the Church going wrong is in laying the gifts, including bread and wine, on the altar, suggesting to some that the church is offering the body and blood of Christ to God. This view has taken root in the Roman Liturgical Movement (p. 16) and has not basis in Scripture. This serves as an important part of the background of the Reformation.

Sasse, 1977. The Medieval Origin of the Eucharistic Dogma

Introduction

Sasse sets out to analyze Luther’s view of the real presence of Christ in communion. He does this because of the Lutheran confession that both Gospel and Sacrament deliver forgiveness. To a greater or lesser extent Lutherans have attempted to recapture the vitality of communion. Sasse begins his analysis by drawing a picture of the Medieval background, then discussing Luther’s development of the doctrine and finally visiting the life of Lutherans since the 16th century.

The chapters in this book are often broken into substantial segments. In making blog posts I will favor smaller units.

Chapter 1, “The Medieval Background” pp. 10-61

Part 1 - The Medieval Origin of the Eucharistic Dogma (p. 10).

From the earliest days, Christians have celebrated the Eucharist. It did not become a matter of official dogma or contention for a very long time. On p. 10 in a footnote Sasse reminds us that doctrines are regularly reflected in practice within the liturgy before they are defined as dogmas. The dogmatic definitions arise when there are times of dispute. The first record of controversy appears in the 8th century, when it was implied (Nicaea II, 787, Sasse p. 11) that the elements in communion were not images or symbols, therefore were not potentially icons. This view of Real Presence was retained in the East, affirming that Jesus is bodily present. The view remained as well in the West without dogmatic statement until the 11th century, when Real Presence was firmly established.

Sasse, 1967

Sasse, Hermann. This Is My Body: Luther's Contention for the Real Presence in the Sacrament of the Altar (Revised edition). Adelaide: Lutheran Publishing House, 1977.