to open Krauth when you have other work to do...
The Altar was the Table of the Lord, and the whole conception of sacrifice runs into this, that it is covenanting Supper between God and man.
The sacrifice, through the portion burnt, is received of God by the element of fire; the portion received is partken by men, is communicated to them, and received by them. The eating of one portion of the sacrifice, by the offerer, is as real a part of the whole sacred act as the burning of the other part is. Man offers to God: this is sacrifice. God gives back to man: this is sacrament. The oblation, or thing offered, supplies both sacrifice and sacrament, but with this difference, that under the Old Dispensation God received part and man received part; but under the New, God receives all and gives back all: Jesus Christ, in His own divine person, makes that complete which was narrowed under the Old Covenant by the necessary limitations of mere matter. (p. 591)
11 comments:
Pr. Weedon,
Some other thought about the sacrifices of the OT and NT.
Klenig in the Leviticus commentary would say that the sacrifices of the OT were always received back completely by the Israelites since they were sacraments revealing God's favor. God is the one specifies the sacrifice and that he will be pleased with it. Consequently, it is purely a medium of his giving humanity a share in his grace and Holiness.
On the Lutheran sacrifice of the Mass:
Scaer suggests that the Sacrament is a sacrifice from God's perspective and a sacrament from ours. The atonement is an eternal event from God's perspective. The sacrament is being the presence of Christ's sacrificed body and blood (a sacrifice always means draining blood in Leviticus, therefore separated body and blood would be sacrificed body and blood!) means that not only is forgiveness and new life proclaimed to us, but Christ enters into his mediatorial position and places his sacfice before the eyes of the Father in effect reminding him of his promises.
Great thoughts, Jack! Thanks.
Pr. Weedon,
Your post of Krauth's words got me thinking...
I was interested in the discussion a while back on ad orientem liturgical orientation. I can't say that I know a lot about it, but I tend to think that eastward liturgical orientation is better suited, if only because I'm suspicious of Lutheran repristinatory aping of Vatican II. Do you think Krauth's comments and the ideas raised by the commenter above can shed any light on the ad orientem / versus populum question?
I think it probably sheds light on the Elevation, too (whether eastward or westward)--elevation as unbloody offering of sacrifice vs. elevation as exposition and adoration of sacrifice offered once for all by Christ forever in the sight of the Father.
(Dr.? Rev.? forgive me) Kilcrease,
I like to play games with words, probably too much, but...
Would it be better for Lutherans to talk about the Mass of The Sacrifice as opposed to the Sacrifice of the Mass?
Phil,
I think Krauth's words are very helpful in that regard. They keep us from dividing the two aspects of what is going on, and your words about the elevation nail it exactly. The way my good friend, Pr. Stuckwisch, expressed it so beautifully was that when we rule out the sacrifice of the mass, we're ruling out sacrifice as a verb; certainly sacrifice as a noun - WHAT was offered upon Calvary and in His most holy obedience from His conception forward - THAT is most certainly what is given us in the Sacrament, and what faith discerns in the elevation!
It's Dr., soon Rev. if the they let me into the SMP program.
Probably you're correct. I just think it's important to recognize that the Lord's Supper is enable by the fact of the eternal sacrifice of the Son to the Father. The problem with many liberal Lutherans is that they want to reject Christ's death as a Sacrifice for sins (for example,Carl Braaten or Gerhard Forde), but then somehow don't seem to get that this contradicts the separation of Body and Blood that is present in the Sacrament, as well as the words of institution themselves!!
Dr. Kilcrease,
I expected Braaten to be in that camp, but I didn't realize that Forde is there too, though I haven't read him yet. Do they just ignore Hebrews? I suppose higher criticism can get you wherever you want to go, but doesn't that end up denying the basis of the priestly office of Christ?
Phil,
You're in luck because I just finished writing and defending a dissertation on Forde. Forde is quite explicit in believing that all the authors of the NT got it wrong (Paul didn't, but he quoted atonement formulas taken from Hellenistic Judaism and gave everyone a false impression that he believed that Christ's death was atoning, when he really didn't) and that Jesus just came to forgive everyone and not atone. Atonement for Forde then is our having faith in this word of forgiveness and realizing that we're sinners. When we have faith, we fulfill the law and then God is satisfied. Most of this he takes from a 19th century Pietist theologian named Johannes von Hofmann.
Wow. So Forde would actually say that we atone for our own sins? That has to be an awkward thing for a Lutheran to say.
Those Pietists... I'm reading Loescher's book right now. Fascinatingly weird stuff.
Elevation is nothing more and nothing less than the dramatic proclamation of the Cross in the Lord's Supper as the extension of in time and space of the Sacrifice of the God-Man. As such, the elevation is not so much to be adored but serves as a vivid and living reminder of the passion and crucifixion of Jesus.
'This do in remembrance of me ...'
Of course, to regard the Mass of the Sacrifice as a sacrifice in itself is problematic since it presupposes that there is such an Offering or Oblation occuring at the Lord's Supper when there is none. The Lord's Supper is nothing else and nothing more that the Last Will and Testament of the Jesus, not a Covenant which is normally understood as contracting two parties. That is Reformed; the other Lutheran.
The Lord's Supper then is the giving of the Body and Blood of Jesus. This is 'sacrifice,' for in a short while, this same Jesus will be crucified, to be sacrificed for the sins of the world. The Lord's Supper then 'informs' the Cross, not the other way round as per the Roman Church. The temporal sequence in which the Lord's Supper is instituted serves as a guide. On the other hand, it tells of the eschatological nature of the Lord's Supper. This is why we do not go back in time to the Cross through the medium of the Lord's Supper. But the Cross comes to us in the Lord's Supper. As Sasse has said, the Lord's Supper is simply the Gospel.
Post a Comment