05 November 2009
New Lutheran Quote of the Day
If one asks for the secret of the vitality of the Catholic Church even in our time, one would have to admit that it is not its hierarchical organization, not its cult of saints and relics, not even, as many suppose, its traditional political astuteness that gives it its inner strength and predominance, but the fact that it celebrates the Sacrament of the Altar uninterruptedly throughout the world. This determines its whole life, even its whole theology. -- Hermann Sasse, *We Confess: The Sacraments* p. 99
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
If one were to divide the question, as logic teaches us, then we would address the first part of the first sentence as follows, “Does the Catholic Church have vitality?” I have an opinion on this matter, but it is derived from the larger question posed by the Smalcald Article’s view of the Catholic Churche’s “Sacrament of the Altar”:
“Part II, Article II: Of the Mass.
1] That the Mass in the Papacy must be the greatest and most horrible abomination, as it directly and powerfully conflicts with this chief article (Part II, Article I, GAM), and yet above and before all other popish idolatries it has been the chief and most specious. For it has been held that this sacrifice or work of the Mass, even though it be rendered by a wicked [and abandoned] scoundrel, frees men from sins, both in this life and also in purgatory, while only the Lamb of God shall and must do this, as has been said above. Of this article nothing is to be surrendered or conceded, because the first article does not allow it.”
So then, can “the greatest and most horrible abomination” create vitality, first of all, and, secondly, is the vitality created in this way one which is desirable? Or is what Luther writes on this matter no longer true, because the Roman Catholic Church has changed its practice?
In another place in the “Anthology” which I cannot find at the moment, but remember reading many years ago, Sasse says something to the effect that the entire world is saved from destruction by the celebration of the Eucharist. As much as I respect the man (I really do, this is not just lip service (or typing service, for the purists)), I feel strongly that Sasse got carried away by his love for the Eucharist. At this point it behooves one to ask the question, “what is the source of the Church’s vitality, and what are the signs that it is one that is pleasing to the Lord of the Church?” Finally, and very earnestly, not facetiously, “Can we live in a world in which Hermann Sasse can be wrong?”
Peace and Joy,
George A. Marquart
George, you must distinguish between the Supper and the sacrifice of the Mass; Luther was specifically abominating the notion of sacrifice as he had been taught it, whereas Sasse is noting that that the Lord's Supper - the Real Presence of Christ's true body and blood for our forgiveness - is the great strength of Rome. And it truly is.
But as a Roman Christian one cannot distinguish between the Sacrifice and the Supper. It wouldn't make a bit of sense in the Roman context. So the question becomes, because Rome gets it "half right" is that pleasing to the Lord?
Further, if Sasse's estimation were true the many thousands who bailed out of the Church of Rome after Vatican II would still be there.
There are still very distinct differences in the Eucharistic spirituality of Lutherans and Roman Catholics. If I felt for one minute that the Roman way was more Scriptural I would never have left.
Christine
Dear Rev. Weedon: I was distressed when I saw your words last Friday night. In the morning, I checked the web page again, hoping that, as the owner of the web page, you had found a way to make them disappear. I waited, hoping that some of the learned men of our Church would see what you had written and contribute their opinions, be they for or against. Finally there was comment, to date the only one, by Christl, a woman, who may not teach in the Church, and whose participation in the service as a distributor of communion is “not recommended.” Servus, Christl, thank you, you have it right! Did nobody else read this post, or, if they did, did they deem it insignificant, or where they concerned about dealing with the person of Hermann Sasse?
Rev. Weedon, you stand under the anathema of the Council of Trent, which, in its Canons on the Sacrifice of the Mass clearly states: “CANON I.--If any one saith, that in the mass a true and proper sacriflce is not offered to God; or, that to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema.” In the Roman Catholic Church, the bloodless sacrifice is inseparable from the Supper. I know you did not separate them, you merely distinguished between them, as if the “sacrifice,” or the “abomination” is irrelevant as long as they believe in the Real Presence. That is the accidens, if you forgive me, of the matter.
The substantia is whether the belief in the Real Presence is the litmus test of the true Church, regardless of any other false teaching? Is this the Rock on which our Lord has built His Church and continues to give it vitality? That is obviously a rhetorical question, as none of us would answer it in the affirmative. But I submit to you that in the answer to this question lies the truth of what St. Paul means in 1 Cor. 11:29 by eating and drinking “without discerning the body.” You can believe in the Real Presence and not discern the Body.
Peace and Joy,
George A. Marquart
Dear George,
I am sorry to distress you, but I quite disagree with you on this.
Dr. Luther never denied that Rome had the true sacrament. He famously said that he'd sooner have only the body with Rome than mere bread and wine with Zwingli. Thus too Dr. Krauth noted that the points at which we disagree with Rome are not nearly so vital as the points in which we agree.
The true presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist is faithfully taught in Rome, and it's something that we give thanks to God for. The place of the Eucharist in her ecclesial life is certainly to be commended (it's nearer to our own Symbol's description than the practice that tends to obtain in Lutheranism these days!).
Dr. Sasse was not blind by any stretch to the Eucharist's distortion in Rome. He wrote vociferously against the sacrifice of the mass; he wrote against transubstantiation and concomitance (though, with Luther, he judged these less dangerous than the sacrifice). He certainly disapproved of consecration for the purposes of veneration of the Eucharist outside of the Divine Service.
But he accurately perceived that Rome's great strength is in the truth she still has and holds about the Eucharist (not the falsehoods she puts forth about it). Despite all the distortions, when the words of our Lord ring forth (words Luther called the pure gospel) and the body and blood are taken as what those words declare them to be: His body and blood for our forgiveness, then one can discover the thing that makes Rome strong to this day (again, despite the errors and false teachings attendant).
If Luther is right and this sacrament IS the Gospel (and I think he is) then we may say with Krauth that of the fundamental doctrines, the doctrine of the Supper is the most fundamental.
Post a Comment