Article XI: Concerning Confession
Concerning confession they teach that private absolution should be retained in the churches, although an enumeration of all faults in confession is not necessary. For this is impossible according to the psalm [19:12]: "But who can detect their errors?"
Understanding this article requires the observation on our side of history. Very few congregations have retained private absolution. It shows up now and again and I cannot account for its dissolution. Perhaps my commentary partner could enlighten us on this problem?
As such, my contribution to this article must reside in systematic-theological imperatives and anecdotes. My father tells stories of private confession on the prairie in a small German-speaking LC-MS congregation. It's a rare business. I took a course in it at Seminary and was fortunate enough to be friends with some guys preparing for the priesthood and, boy, was their training serious. They would joke about general confessions, like the LBW has as an optional entry rite at the beginning of the service, as being suitable only on the border line cases, like when a plane is going down and the priest would yell out a general absolution before the final destination (pun intended).
The imperatives must aim for the recovery of this practice and will await another entry.
Saturday, June 21, 2003
Wednesday, June 11, 2003
IS
Traditionally when I hear arguments for maintaining the doctrine of Christ’s real presence in the Lord’s Supper, the foundational argument is based on the promise, the direct testimony of Christ that “this IS my body”, “this IS my blood.” In effect, to say that Christ is not present bodily in, with, and under the bread and the wine is to call Christ a liar. The little word “is” wins the day, because if Christ had wanted to say “symbolized” or “represents” he could have done so. Instead, Christ distributes the bread and the wine to his disciples and says, “This is my body, given for you.” He then goes on to say, “This do in remembrance of me.” Another inescapable commission, that we are to do what he does, that is, to distribute bread and wine while saying and believing it is truly his body and blood. All because of the testimony of Christ.
Interestingly, Melanchthon in the Apology takes a slightly different tack. First, he argues from tradition. The Roman church as well as the Greek church have always maintained the same position, namely, the bodily presence of Christ in the the Supper. But then he continues the argument in a way that is profound and challenging. He admits, of course, that we have a close spiritual connection to Christ by true faith and sincere love (who’s, his or ours, is not mentioned). But he goes on to indicate the importance of the bodily presence because we are all one body in Christ because we partake of the one bread. Or later, citing approvingly Cyril of Alexandria, “Since this is in us, does it not also, by the communication of Christ’s flesh, cause Christ to dwell in us bodily?”
So the truth of the real presence is not just one of words and promises, which themselves are bodily and mighty and essential to our faith, but also because in our reception of Christ’s body, we participate in his body, that is, the body of Christ, which is not a spiritual body but a resurrected and living body. That is to say, our confession of the real presence of Christ in the Supper is connected to our confession that Christ came “in the flesh”, that Christ truly had a body, and if we are members of that body, we are partakers not just of a spiritual unity, but of an actual body. The doctrine of the real presence of Christ is connected in a profound way with our belief that Christ came in human form, that Christ is the body over which death has no dominion.
Traditionally when I hear arguments for maintaining the doctrine of Christ’s real presence in the Lord’s Supper, the foundational argument is based on the promise, the direct testimony of Christ that “this IS my body”, “this IS my blood.” In effect, to say that Christ is not present bodily in, with, and under the bread and the wine is to call Christ a liar. The little word “is” wins the day, because if Christ had wanted to say “symbolized” or “represents” he could have done so. Instead, Christ distributes the bread and the wine to his disciples and says, “This is my body, given for you.” He then goes on to say, “This do in remembrance of me.” Another inescapable commission, that we are to do what he does, that is, to distribute bread and wine while saying and believing it is truly his body and blood. All because of the testimony of Christ.
Interestingly, Melanchthon in the Apology takes a slightly different tack. First, he argues from tradition. The Roman church as well as the Greek church have always maintained the same position, namely, the bodily presence of Christ in the the Supper. But then he continues the argument in a way that is profound and challenging. He admits, of course, that we have a close spiritual connection to Christ by true faith and sincere love (who’s, his or ours, is not mentioned). But he goes on to indicate the importance of the bodily presence because we are all one body in Christ because we partake of the one bread. Or later, citing approvingly Cyril of Alexandria, “Since this is in us, does it not also, by the communication of Christ’s flesh, cause Christ to dwell in us bodily?”
So the truth of the real presence is not just one of words and promises, which themselves are bodily and mighty and essential to our faith, but also because in our reception of Christ’s body, we participate in his body, that is, the body of Christ, which is not a spiritual body but a resurrected and living body. That is to say, our confession of the real presence of Christ in the Supper is connected to our confession that Christ came “in the flesh”, that Christ truly had a body, and if we are members of that body, we are partakers not just of a spiritual unity, but of an actual body. The doctrine of the real presence of Christ is connected in a profound way with our belief that Christ came in human form, that Christ is the body over which death has no dominion.
Becoming the Body and Blood
We have not noted it much in our analysis of the Lutheran Confessions, but there are significant differences sometimes between the German and Latin versions of the Augsburg Confession. The Latin version is what was read at the Diet of Augsburg. The differences matter in Article X because the German utilizes the language that the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) to define the sort of presence the body and blood of Christ enjoin in the Supper. This language is "the true body and blood of Christ are truly present under the form of the bread and wine." This deserves consideration.
The Reformers took many different paths to the practice and understanding of the Supper, paths that differed so much that there was no way in which the Lutherans and others could confess together on this view. The Marburg articles, for instance, lie in the history before the Augsburg Confession, and there was attempted a meeting to reconcile all the parties and concerns. We will have to wait until we get to the Formula of Concord to discuss inter-Reformation disputes and the way in which a consensus has been formed since the time of the Reformation.
Luther's most notorious statements (and probably his most fair statements) on Transsubstantiation occur in the Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1521). There are three forms of captivity facing the Sacrament of the Altar and one of them is the dogmatic necessity of a) the theory of transsubstantiation and b) calling it that. Luther at that time understood the main offense to be the necessity of believing one particular theory over all the rest. Later, he would find other objections to add.
Transsubstantiation sometimes is understood as a crude set of beliefs. Rather, it was a very sophisticated response developed to counter very crass sorts of language about the Supper that were popular and widespread in the church. This view was expressed by a confession known as I, Berengar. Berengar was a monk who was investigating theories of presence and countered the common belief. He was forced to recant his views and instead express that "...the body of Christ is truly crushed by the teeth [of the communicant]... ." A few generations later, theologians saw much danger in these views and their work helped to convene the Fourth Lateran Council at which transsubstantiation was defined. However, at this time, transsubstantiation was understood in a variety of ways. The view known as conssubstantiation, that the bread and wine coextend with Christ's body and blood, also was a legitimate interpretation of the dogma.
That all changed when Thomas Aquinas came onto the scene. His polemics worked to delimite the scope of legitimate understandings of the dogma and thereby secured the theory that we know as transsubstantiation. He considers other theories heretical.
It is the great merit of Article X of the Augsburg Confession that it can contain within it interpretation of Christ's presence such as that of Thomas' or the variety of views that existed at the time of the Fourth Lateran Council. This article remains silent about the true 'how' of it all, namely the manner of the change. It is to be lamented that Trent asserts the necessity of an understanding of this change with the force of an anathema.
We have not noted it much in our analysis of the Lutheran Confessions, but there are significant differences sometimes between the German and Latin versions of the Augsburg Confession. The Latin version is what was read at the Diet of Augsburg. The differences matter in Article X because the German utilizes the language that the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) to define the sort of presence the body and blood of Christ enjoin in the Supper. This language is "the true body and blood of Christ are truly present under the form of the bread and wine." This deserves consideration.
The Reformers took many different paths to the practice and understanding of the Supper, paths that differed so much that there was no way in which the Lutherans and others could confess together on this view. The Marburg articles, for instance, lie in the history before the Augsburg Confession, and there was attempted a meeting to reconcile all the parties and concerns. We will have to wait until we get to the Formula of Concord to discuss inter-Reformation disputes and the way in which a consensus has been formed since the time of the Reformation.
Luther's most notorious statements (and probably his most fair statements) on Transsubstantiation occur in the Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1521). There are three forms of captivity facing the Sacrament of the Altar and one of them is the dogmatic necessity of a) the theory of transsubstantiation and b) calling it that. Luther at that time understood the main offense to be the necessity of believing one particular theory over all the rest. Later, he would find other objections to add.
Transsubstantiation sometimes is understood as a crude set of beliefs. Rather, it was a very sophisticated response developed to counter very crass sorts of language about the Supper that were popular and widespread in the church. This view was expressed by a confession known as I, Berengar. Berengar was a monk who was investigating theories of presence and countered the common belief. He was forced to recant his views and instead express that "...the body of Christ is truly crushed by the teeth [of the communicant]... ." A few generations later, theologians saw much danger in these views and their work helped to convene the Fourth Lateran Council at which transsubstantiation was defined. However, at this time, transsubstantiation was understood in a variety of ways. The view known as conssubstantiation, that the bread and wine coextend with Christ's body and blood, also was a legitimate interpretation of the dogma.
That all changed when Thomas Aquinas came onto the scene. His polemics worked to delimite the scope of legitimate understandings of the dogma and thereby secured the theory that we know as transsubstantiation. He considers other theories heretical.
It is the great merit of Article X of the Augsburg Confession that it can contain within it interpretation of Christ's presence such as that of Thomas' or the variety of views that existed at the time of the Fourth Lateran Council. This article remains silent about the true 'how' of it all, namely the manner of the change. It is to be lamented that Trent asserts the necessity of an understanding of this change with the force of an anathema.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)