The presence of Christ in the Eucharist An irenic reading of Luther, Calvin and the Council of Trent

Transcription

1 The presence of Christ in the Eucharist An irenic reading of Luther, Calvin and the Council of Trent by Knox College Toronto School of Theology December 2002

2 Since the sixteenth century reformations, the church has been divided. As disagreements and differences have emerged, the church has been divided and sub-divided, breaking into more and more denominations with different theological perspectives and emphases. This situation has created, within the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, an emphasis within the church on finding ways to come together again as the universal Christian church. Ecumenical councils, ecumenical commissions, and local ecumenical events such as special worship services or peace and justice projects are becoming prevalent. At the same time, theologians from many Christian traditions are coming together in bilateral and multilateral dialogues in an attempt to find convergence and to work towards Christian unity. One of the most important issues for discussion (along with ecclesiology, ordination, and others) is the sacrament of the eucharist. Protestant, Reformed, and Roman Catholic churches have been in disagreement over the eucharistic celebration since the sixteenth century, and in particular they have disagreed about the presence of Christ in the eucharist. This is an important topic for dialogue not only because we have not yet reached consensus, but more importantly because disagreement on this particular issue keeps the churches divided from one another. As long as we have serious disagreements about the presence of Christ in the eucharist we are not able to stand around the Lord s table together and share in the eucharistic feast. This paper will compare three perspectives on the presence of Christ in the eucharist from the original sixteenth century debate. The perspectives will be those of Martin Luther, Jean Calvin, and the Council of Trent. The paper will show that while the leading reformers and the Council had some serious disagreements, they also shared some common concerns that the people of God experience Christ in the eucharistic celebration and that the Christian church may be unified in the body and blood of Christ. Martin Luther always held to the belief that Christ s body and blood are really present in the bread and wine of the eucharist. He is considered to be the most conservative among the

3 December 3, 2002 Page 2 of 16 reformers, preserving the Catholic heritage as far as possible. 1 At the same time, he held scripture in very high regard, rejected everything that he believed to contradict scripture or anything that was based on tradition alone, even the most ancient and venerable tradition. 2 Although Luther does not swing wildly between different understandings of Christ s presence in the eucharist, one author suggests that there was a development in Luther s attitude to several questions of the sacrament of the altar. Although there was never a time that he did not believe in the real presence, he may have at least gone through a short period of inner struggle over the issue, even if his writings show that he was never convinced to reject the real presence completely. 3 Up to about 1519, Luther may have understood the real presence in the sense of transubstantiation. 4 It is likely that he would have agreed with what would later become the official doctrine of the Catholic church regarding the real presence of Christ in the eucharist. At the Council of Trent, transubstantiation is described as the change of the whole substance of bread (totius substantiae panis) into the body of Christ, and of the whole substance of wine (totius substantiae vini) into the blood of Christ, the species of bread and wine remaining unchanged. 5 However, if Luther agreed with this definition, or something like it, until 1519 that was the point at which he changed his mind. In his paper The Blessed Sacrament of the Holy and True Body of Christ, and the Brotherhoods 6 he makes it clear that the method of the change of the bread and wine into the body and blood are unimportant. Luther argues that the Holy Sacrament of the Altar has three parts. 1) the sacrament or sign which is the form or appearance of bread and wine which must be received, or at least desired, if it is to work a blessing. 2) the significance or effect which is the fellowship of all the 1 Hermann Sasse, This is my Body: Luther s contention for the real presence in the sacrament of the altar. (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing, 1959), 83 2 Ibid., 83 3 Ibid., Ibid., Council of Trent, Decree concerning the most holy sacrament of the eucharist, canon II in J. Waterworth, ed. The canons and decrees of the sacred and oecumenical Council of Trent. (London: Burns and Oates, 1888), 82 6 Martin Luther, The blessed sacrament of the holy and true body and blood of Christ, and the brotherhoods, in Martin Luther s basic theological writings. Ed. by Timothy F. Lull. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989),

4 December 3, 2002 Page 3 of 16 saints, communion, and incorporation into Christ s spiritual body. Luther also says that this sacrament is a strength and comfort for those who are troubled and distressed by sin and evil. 7 3) the faith on which everything depends. It is not enough to know the first two points. You must also desire it and firmly believe that you have received it. 8 Luther certainly affirms very strongly the point that the bread and wine are changed into Christ s body and blood. He even acknowledges the doubts people may have about how his flesh and blood could be encompassed in so small a portion of bread and wine. However, he scolds those who doubt, saying: It does not matter if you do not see it. It is enough to know that it is a divine sign in which Christ s flesh and blood are truly present. The how and the where, we leave to him. 9 Luther is clearly not willingly to put forward any arguments in favour of transubstantiation, but he also does not argue against it at this point. He is content to leave to God the details of how the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood. The important thing for him is that the faithful believe that the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood. By the next year however, Luther seems to be arguing more strongly against transubstantiation. Instead of just saying that we leave up to God the mode by which the elements are changed, Luther is now putting forward his own opinion that transubstantiation is not necessary. 10 At this point Luther is departing from the Catholic Church in significant ways. He denies that there are seven sacraments, arguing that only baptism, penance, and the bread are true sacraments, or even that Christ is the single sacrament with three sacramental signs. 11 He also argues strongly in favour of communion in both kinds for the laity as well as priests which was not the norm in the church at that time. In The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, Luther s journey in his understanding of the real presence is demonstrated when he 7 Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Martin Luther, The Babylonian captivity of the church, Part 1 in Martin Luther s basic theological writings. Ed. by Timothy F. Lull. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989), Ibid., 274

5 December 3, 2002 Page 4 of 16 talks about having doubts about how it takes place. Apparently he read a comment of Cardinal Cambrai arguing that real bread and real wine instead of merely accidents would require fewer superfluous miracles. He seems to rest on the belief that it is real bread and real wine, in which Christ s real flesh and real blood are present 12 thereby accepting the real presence of Christ in the bread and wine, but rejecting the notion that the bread and wine are no longer present in the substance, but only in their accidents. Although Luther discusses the mode of the change at this point and shows that his opinion is against transubstantiation, he nonetheless minimises the importance of how the elements are changed. He permit[s] every man to hold either of these opinions, as he chooses 13 so that no one can be called a heretic for believing that it remains real bread and wine. He emphasises this point, noting that it is not important for salvation. This is my Body summarises Luther s approach to the question of how Christ becomes present in the bread and wine in this way: Luther believes in the Real Presence without trying to build up a theory comparable to the theories of impanation, transubstantiation, consubstantiation, or whatever the subtle minds of the philosophers and theologians may have devised in order to answer the question: How could the Real Presence be possible? 14 However, by 1520, it is clear that Luther has rejected the notion of transubstantiation in favour of an opinion that is closer to consubstantiation (although he never uses this term). If he had had to choose between the various scholastic theories, he might have chosen consubstantiation since he did not deny the existence of the substance of the bread and wine after the consecration: It is not necessary in the sacrament that the bread and wine be transubstantiated and that Christ be contained under the accidents in order that the real body and real blood may be present. But both remain there at the same time, and it is truly said: This bread is my body; this wine is my blood, and vice versa Ibid., Ibid., Sasse, Babylonian Captivity, 291

6 December 3, 2002 Page 5 of 16 Luther is not concerned about whether everyone agrees with him on this point or not since he does not believe that it is important for salvation. However, he does worry about whether those who promote the notion of transubstantiation might force people to agree with them. 16 In fact, this does become the case some years later when the Council of Trent confirms transubstantiation as the true doctrine of the Catholic Church, declaring those who disagree with it to be anathema. In a document from 1523, Luther shows that he wishes to reject both the extremes of transubstantiation and the denial of the true substantial presence of the body and blood of Christ. 17 He delineates four errors that he says must be rejected: 1) to assume there is nothing but bread and wine in the sacrament that signify the body and blood of Christ, 2) to attempt to give to the words of institution a different meaning, 3) to believe that the bread does not remain in the sacrament, but only the species of bread (this error Luther says is not as important), 4) to make the sacrament a sacrifice and good work (the most injurious and heretical error according to Luther). In response to people who are saying that Christ s body and blood are not present in the bread and wine, Luther calls those who do not believe in the real presence fanatics. 18 Luther s main contention with theologians like Zwingli who did not believe in the real presence was that they have not adhered to the words. 19 Luther had a very high view of scripture, interpreting Jesus words This is my body quite literally and claiming that the words are really quite simple and straightforward. He says that the fanatics twist the words making them mean something else from what they quite obviously say: If I should now make this word obscure and invent some subtlety concerning it, I would only be confusing myself The fanatics really knock themselves out struggling with these words. 20 Luther says 16 Ibid., Sasse, Martin Luther, The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ Against the fanatics, in Martin Luther s basic theological writings. Ed. by Timothy F. Lull. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989), Ibid., Ibid., 316-7

7 December 3, 2002 Page 6 of 16 here that there are two main things to be believed about the sacrament: 1) that Christ s body and blood are truly present, and 2) that it is given to us as a gift. 21 The fanatics will not believe in the real presence because they try to bind God to their laws instead of trusting in God s Word. 22 It is worth noting that Luther names a few reformers that he categorises as fanatics. These include Karlstadt, Zwingli, and Oecolampidius, but not Calvin. 23 This is my Body suggests that there was no personal contact between Luther and Calvin. Calvin had the friendship and influence of Bucer and Melanchthon, but despite the fact that Calvin was originally a follower of Luther (being converted from Catholic humanism to Lutheranism ) he only knew Luther s works that had been translated into Latin. 24 We do not know how much Luther knew of Calvin, nor do we know whether Luther would have approved of him or considered him to be a fanatic like Zwingli and the others. While Luther may be said to have tried to find a middle ground between Catholic transubstantiation and the fanatical reformers rejection of the real presence, Calvin attempted to find the middle ground between Luther and Zwingli, rejecting both their positions as too extreme. 25 He even criticises the two parties in the controversy for having failed to have the patience to listen to each other. He sounds very hopeful that they will be able to come to agreement and achieve unity between the evangelical churches and he looks forward to an agreement in the near future. 26 In fact, he purports to have figured out the solution to this theological dispute, but he is unfortunately unable to convince his opponents to agree with him. In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin elaborates his theology of the Lord s Supper at great length and explains his notion of the presence of Christ s body in the meal. 21 Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Sasse, Ibid., Ibid., 324

8 December 3, 2002 Page 7 of 16 He says that our souls are fed by the flesh and blood of Christ in the same way that bread and wine keep and sustain physical life. 27 Although he maintains that the breaking of the bread is a symbol, he says that by the showing of the symbol the thing itself is also shown. In other words, the bread and wine do not substantially become the body and blood of Christ. However, when the people eat the bread and drink the wine, just as they receive the physical nourishment from the elements, they are also fed spiritually by the body and blood of Christ. He refutes any Zwinglian understanding of the sacrament by noting that they may be understood not to receive it solely by imagination or understanding of mind, but to enjoy the thing itself as nourishment of eternal life. 28 Calvin says that bread is given as a symbol of Christ s body and that we are led by a sort of analogy to spiritual things. 29 By true partaking of him, his life passes into us and is made ours just as bread when taken as food imparts vigor to the body. 30 In 4,XVII, 11, Calvin summarises the two essential pieces of the Lord s Supper: 1) the physical signs that represent things that are invisible, and 2) the spiritual truth that is represented by the symbols. Calvin shares with Luther the ability to accept the sacrament without a full explanation of what exactly God is doing with the bread and wine. As we saw earlier, Luther is content to leave to God the details of how the bread and wine are changed. Similarly, Calvin notes that St. Paul himself preferred to marvel at the communion of believers with the flesh and blood of the Lord than to explain it (Eph 5:32). 31 However, despite the fact that he is hesitant to delineate a detailed explanation of what happens in the sacrament, Calvin will not accept the notion of the real presence. He asserts that Christ s body cannot exist in the elements because the body is in heaven and cannot exist in two places at one time. Instead of believing that Christ s body is drawn down from heaven 27 Jean Calvin, Institutes of the Christian religion. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), IV:XVII, Ibid., IV:XVII, Ibid., IV:XVII, 3 30 Ibid., IV:XVII, 5 31 Ibid., IV:XVII, 9

9 December 3, 2002 Page 8 of 16 to be present for us in the bread and wine, Calvin argues that we are spiritually lifted up to Christ when we share in the meal. 32 The Holy Spirit is an essential part of Calvin s theology of the Lord s Supper, for it is the Spirit that bridges the immense gap between the sacrament on earth and the body of Christ in heaven the Spirit becomes the transporteur who brings the body of Christ to us. 33 The spiritual feeding that takes place when we eat the bread and drink the wine of the Lord s Supper is made possible by the working of the Holy Spirit. Calvin vehemently rejects the notion of transubstantiation. In agreement with Luther s later opinion against transubstantiation, Calvin is especially concerned by the idea that the substance of the bread and wine is annihilated. However, unlike Luther who thought the mode of the change was relatively unimportant and not critical for salvation, Calvin is much more deeply disturbed by the belief in transubstantiation. He argues at length against the Catholic doctrine, and in good lawyer fashion suggests that the tradition of the Church Fathers (on which the Catholics base their position) does not support it. 34 Calvin continues his argument from the grammar in Jesus words This is my body, saying that est does not mean to be converted into something else. 35 He also points out that there are many figurative statements in scripture. He says that, This is my body is a metonymy - a figure of speech used when mysteries are under discussion. He contradicts Luther s notion that the words are straightforward and simple to understand, explaining that a faithful reading of the Word requires understanding and interpretation. One cannot simply take everything literally. 36 Summarising his discussion of the real presence and particularly of his rejection of transubstantiation, Calvin answers the question How is the presence of Christ in the Lord s Supper to be thought of? with two points: 32 Ibid., IV:XVII, Sasse, 323, Institutes, IV:XVII, Ibid., IV:XVII, Ibid., IV:XVII, 21-25

10 December 3, 2002 Page 9 of 16 1) Let nothing be withdrawn from Christ s heavenly glory as happens when he is brought under the corruptible elements of this world, or bound to any earthly creatures. 2) Let nothing inappropriate to human nature be ascribed to his body, as happens when it is said either to be infinite or to be put in a number of places at once. Calvin wants to retain the incarnational notion of Christ as fully human and fully divine, and he believes that endorsement of the real presence in the sacramental elements would be inconsistent with both Christ s divinity and his humanity. As the first major figure of the 16 th century reformation, Luther had a significant influence especially since he was the first to write and publish statements about many reformation issues including the presence of Christ in the eucharist. Nearly a generation later, Calvin s Institutes responded to Lutheran ideas as well as to other prominent theological perspectives of the day. It was not until the middle of the century however, that the Mother Church was able to make a response to the new theological perspectives that were being proposed and lived out in churches all over Europe. The Council of Trent was called in In 1547 it began to address the subject of the sacraments. Finally, in 1551 reports on the session concerning the eucharist and canons on the same subject were published. The intention of the Council was not to provide a full and exhaustive exposition of the whole of the church s sacramental doctrine. 37 Instead, their aim was to note the heresies of the Protestants and to put up a dividing wall between heresy and true doctrine. This particular aim of the Council did influence their method of study and deliberation, and it will certainly influence the possibilities for comparing the Tridentine understanding of the presence of Christ in the eucharist to the perspectives of Luther and Calvin. Before the Council met on the subject of the sacraments, Cardinal Cervini had ordered that some Catholic theologians extract from the reformers writings and professions of faith, a number of propositions which conflicted with Catholic sacramental teaching. The purpose 37 Hubert Jedin, A history of the Council of Trent. (London: Thomas Nelson, 1961), 2:386

11 December 3, 2002 Page 10 of 16 of extracting these propositions was so that they could be examined and the teaching authority of the Catholic Church could define its attitude towards them. 38 In other words, the purpose of the project was to identify things that the Church did not agree with and to lay down the law concerning these issues. Thirty-five errors about the sacraments were identified and these were mostly accompanied by an indication of their sources. Sources included Luther s writings, Melanchthon, and others. 39 After this list of errors was compiled, the theologians of the Council were given several questions to use in evaluating the thirty-five errors: 1) Which of the propositions submitted are heretical and which are merely erroneous? 2) Are there any among them that need not be condemned? and if the answer is in the affirmative, on what evidence and by what reasons are they supported? 3) Which propositions have already been condemned by earlier Councils or by the Fathers of the Church? 4) Is the list exhaustive? Most of the propositions were unanimously condemned. Some required further explanation or reformulation, a few were omitted, and sixteen additional theses were added by the theologians. One of the main points on the sacraments in general received complete unanimity: The council agreed that the sacraments are efficacious signs, that is, signs that effect grace. 40 Although the Council condemned certain doctrines and made a very clear differentiation between the Catholic and Protestant positions, it did so without openly condemning by name the Protestant authors. 41 It delimited the Catholic doctrine of the sacraments from Protestant ideas by using canons anathematising (a formula of excommunication) specific propositions. The propositions contained Protestant teaching that was formally rejected as contrary to the Catholic faith Ibid., 2: Ibid., 2: Ibid., 2:375 Note that Luther would agree with this statement, while Calvin would not. 41 Ibid., 2: Ibid., 2:381

12 December 3, 2002 Page 11 of 16 The Council of Trent made a decree on the sacraments in general as well as more specific decrees on the particular sacraments. Within the Decree Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist chapter I On the real presence of our Lord Jesus in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist and chapter IV On Transubstantiation are of particular interest for this paper. In chapter I, the Council states that Jesus Christ (fully human and fully divine) is truly, really, and substantially contained under the species of those sensible things [the sacramental bread and wine.] 43 It is worth noting that neither Calvin nor Luther would likely agree with this statement. Calvin would strongly disagree with it, while Luther would have trouble with the presence being contained under the species. However, the Council does not make an argument to back up its position. It neither quotes from scripture, nor does it look to the writings of the Church Fathers or appeal to the tradition of the Catholic Church. Instead, the chapters simply declare the official position of the Church and the canons warn all to adhere to these doctrines and beliefs. For example, the first canon on the eucharist declares the following: If anyone denieth that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema. Chapter IV explains the Catholic Church s position on how the bread and wine are changed, and the second canon upholds the belief in transubstantiation with the whole substance of the bread and wine converted into the body and blood of Christ and with only the species of the bread and wine remaining. If one has in mind the task of looking for convergence among the churches on the notion of the presence of Christ in the eucharist, reading the decrees of the Council of Trent is somewhat discouraging. While it was possible to see some similarities between Luther and Calvin, or at least some common concerns, the Catholic perspective seems to be set in stone 43 Council of Trent, Eucharist, ch. I, 76

13 December 3, 2002 Page 12 of 16 and in contradiction to the reformers views. In fact, despite this discouragement there is a glimmer of hope found in the opening statement of the decree on the eucharist. It says that the purpose of the council was to: set forth the true and ancient doctrine touching faith and the sacraments, and apply a remedy to all the heresies, and the other most grievous troubles with which the Church of God is now miserably agitated, and rent into many and various parts; yet, even from the outset, this especially has been the object of Its desires, that it might pluck up by the roots those tares of execrable errors and schisms, with which the enemy hath, in these our calamitous times, oversown the doctrine of the faith, in the use and worship of the sacred and holy Eucharist, which our Saviour, notwithstanding, left in His Church as a symbol of that unity and charity with which He would fain have all Christians be mutually joined and united together. 44 In that terribly long sentence, the Council expresses the grave concern that the universal church is divided. Although the method by which the Council attempts to bring the church back together may seem inappropriate (by excommunicating the heretics) the intention of the Council was to have all Christians be mutually joined and united together. This concern for unity is comparable to Calvin s concern that the evangelical churches at least should be able to come to an agreement on the eucharist. However, the major difference is that Calvin, Luther, and the Council of Trent each go about the theological task in their own unique way. As mentioned earlier, the Council used the method of identifying heresies and marking out what is right doctrine versus what is in error. In this way, the Church is instructed in right doctrine so that it may be unified in belief, and those who cannot agree are identified as anathema excommunicated from the Catholic Church. In contrast, Calvin with his legal background makes deliberate arguments based on scripture and tradition to make his case. He is attempting to find a middle ground between two perspectives and trying to convince these two parties that it is possible to find agreement somewhere in the middle. Luther s writings also use scripture and tradition to explain his theological perspective. However, Luther s tone 44 Ibid., 75

14 December 3, 2002 Page 13 of 16 is much more pastoral and less legal. He is very concerned with being faithful to the words of Jesus at the last supper, and he is willing to accept some disagreement on matters that are not essential for salvation. Despite their different approaches and perspectives, what remains clear is that all three parties were concerned that the people experience Christ in the sacrament of the eucharist. Whether that experience of Christ was substantially in the transubstantiated elements, in the real presence of Christ in the bread and wine, or through the spiritual feeding made possible by the Holy Spirit, all three perspectives affirm that we experience Christ when we gather around the table and receive the sacrament. In addition, Luther, Calvin, and the Council of Trent each want to take steps towards the unity of the Christian church around the sacrament of the eucharist. Luther expresses it by making room for disagreement over issues that he feels are unimportant for salvation. Calvin emphasises it in that he is attempting to create a doctrine that is acceptable to people with currently divergent views. Finally, the Council shows that it also desires unity by calling all Christians to adhere to a common doctrine of the eucharist. Despite the fact that Luther, Calvin, and the Council of Trent do not agree on how Christ is present in the sacrament of the eucharist, the few areas of convergence that they do share may give us hope as we continue our ecumenical dialogues and work towards the full communion with Christ and one another that God intends for us.

15 December 3, 2002 Page 14 of 16 BIBLIOGRAPHY Calvin, Jean. Institutes of the Christian religion. 2 vols. Ed. by John T. McNeill. Trans. by Ford Lewis Battles. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, Jedin, Hubert. A history of the Council of Trent. 2 vols. London: Thomas Nelson, Luther, Martin. Martin Luther s basic theological writings. Ed. by Timothy F. Lull. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, Sasse, Hermann. This is my body: Luther s contention for the real presence in the sacrament of the altar. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing, Waterworth, J., ed. The canons and decrees of the sacred and oecumenical Council of Trent. London: Burns and Oates, 1888.