Luther & Zwingli Debate the Eucharist at Marburg (1529)
In October 1529, two former Catholic priests Martin Luther from Germany & Ulrich Zwingli from Switzerland met at Marburg Castle in Hesse, Germany, at the prompting of Prince Philip I, who desired the two men reconcile their divergent beliefs about the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (their debate began in 1527) so that the Protestant revolt taking place in different countries could unify as one institution against Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, who was seen as allied with the Catholic Church.
Although Luther denied the Catholic & Biblical doctrine of transubstantiation (the appearances of bread & wine remain after consecration by a validly ordained priest but the transformed reality of the Eucharist is the whole glorified Christ: Body, Blood, Soul, & Divinity; cf. Jn. 6:51-59; 1 Co. 10:16-17), he still confessed that Christ’s words “This is body” were to be taken literally. He held a view that the Body & Blood were mysteriously “in, with, and under” the bread and wine which remained after consecration– a view sometimes called Consubstantiation or as Lutherans often call it, “Sacramental Union”.
Zwingli on the other hand bitterly rejected any form of change in the elements of bread & wine, insisting that the Lord’s Supper was simply a symbolic memorial of Jesus’ sacrifice, conceding that the Lord’s spiritual presence could be there, but not any corporeal presence hidden in mystery.
His errorneous objections to the miraculous nature of Christ’s bodily presence in Communion included:
- Denial that Christ’s glorified body could be in two or more places at once. He believed Christ’s divinity was omnipresent but his risen body was restricted to Heaven.
- He falsely charged Catholics and Lutherans with professing cannibalism, incorrectly believing that to chew the Eucharist would make Christ suffer & die once again.
- He accused Catholics & Lutherans of borrowing from pagan idolatry, claiming they bowed down to a “bread God” & “wine God” who was not really present on the altar -- a claim more blasphememous than the others.
Although Zwingli lived a carnal lifestyle, breaking his priestly vows to bed secret mistresses, he seemed to hold a puritanical view of the gospel, insisting that Jesus’ words “the Spirit gives life while the flesh profits nothing” [Jn. 6:63] meant that nothing visible or tangible was necessary to confer Christ’s saving grace and abiding presence. Thus he implicitly attacked, wether he realized it or not, the incarnation of Jesus, his bodily death & resurrection, & the Church as Body & Spouse of Christ who extends Jesus’ visible actions and presence in the sacraments. Ironically, the misinterpreted verse about the Spirit giving life is cited from the Bread of Life sermon in John's gospel where Jesus insists multiple times that his flesh given as sacrifical food will effect the salvation of the world (Jesus' reference to "flesh profits nothing" doesn't mean Jesus' flesh does us no good. It's a common figure of speech in the Bible meaning fallen humanity cannot perceive the mysteries of faith, like the Eucharist, through reason alone. The virtue of faith enabled by the Father's Spirit is required- cf. Matt. 16:17).
After much fruitless debate, a frustrated Luther wrote the words “This is my body” (hoc est corpus meum) on the table with chalk, placing a tablecloth over it. Whenever Zwingli would deny the Real Presence, Luther would simply lift the table cloth & point to Christ’s words, insisting on the plain literalness of them. Needless to say, the two departed the castle without any mutual agreement about the Sacrament of unity, even condemning one another for a while as un-Christian-- thus disappointing their political sponsors. Today, many non-Catholic ecclesial communities (whose Christian members are not guilty of past formal heresy or schism in the eyes of the Catholic Church– CCC 818-819) unfortunately still experience divergent views on the Lord’s Supper (the meaning of its sacrificial character as new Passover and Christ’s intended mode of presence) because of the unfortunate quarrel which took place half a millennium ago. Some Protestant and Evangelical groups today have open communion, while others don't. Some teach that Christ is present in a corporeal manner, others - a significant spiritual manner, while still others emphasize just the symbolic aspects. Some celebrate communion every Sunday, while others every quarter, and even some, not at all.
For this reason, a common sharing of the Eucharist between Catholics and Christians descended from the splintering of 16th century Western Christianity hasn't occured yet, not until all Christians are catechized fully in the Catholic mysteries and unified once again on what, or rather Who, a valid Eucharist is: The God of Mercy waiting to be adored as Lord in the Blessed Sacrament and received intimatley as Savior in Holy Communion by all those already justified by His Love in faith and Baptism. Catholics should witness to the truth and beauty of the Eucharistic gift through charity, patience, and compassion, not by ever belitting anyone's shared faith in Christ and love for God. The Eucharist should move us to care for our neighbors, which includes sharing the total inheritance and joy of the gospel in a kind way.
Addendum:
The Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrians are exempt from the canonical rule of closed Communion since they profess supernatural faith in the Real Presence and possess valid apostolic succession and Orders within their particular churches; however, non-Catholic Eastern Christians tend to refrain from receiving in Catholic churches in normal circumstances and do not normally allow Catholics to partake at their altars. It's more an issue of the Eucharist as a sign of visible, full unity between the Catholic and Orthodox churches which isn't fully realized yet.
The Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrians are exempt from the canonical rule of closed Communion since they profess supernatural faith in the Real Presence and possess valid apostolic succession and Orders within their particular churches; however, non-Catholic Eastern Christians tend to refrain from receiving in Catholic churches in normal circumstances and do not normally allow Catholics to partake at their altars. It's more an issue of the Eucharist as a sign of visible, full unity between the Catholic and Orthodox churches which isn't fully realized yet.
Pope St. John Paul II affirmed that while the lack of Holy Orders and a valid Eucharist prevents non-Catholic / non-Orthodox communities today from enjoying the totality of the Eucharistic mystery, nevertheless their celebration of the Lord's Supper is a form of spiritual communion for them through which they confess the power of Christ's saving sacrifice and give thanks for the gift of redemption. On this level, they are not completely at odds with the scriptural and traditonal meaning attributed to the Lord's perpetual Passover meal:
“The ecclesial communities separated from us lack that fullness of unity with us which should flow from Baptism, and we believe that especially because of the lack of the sacrament of Orders they have not preserved the genuine and total reality of the Eucharistic mystery. Nevertheless, when they commemorate the Lord's death and resurrection in the Holy Supper, they profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and they await his coming in glory.” - Pope St. John Paul II, ECCLESIA DE EUCHARISTIA 30
Joe Aboumoussa
No comments:
Post a Comment