The Eucharist as a propitiatory sacrifice offered by the priest on behalf of the living and the dead was at the center of medieval ecclesial life.[i] The biblical scholar and later evangelical reformer will sharply critique the mass as a sacrifice and ex opere operato work in light of the doctrine of justification by faith alone and his corresponding contention that the sacrament is a gift or testament bequeathed by Christ to the church.[ii] His insistence that the mass is a gift and not a work offered to God will be met with condemnation by the medieval Roman Catholic theologians in the increasingly polemical environment of the Reformation conflict.[iii] Ultimately in its official response to the Protestant Reformers the Council of Trent will reaffirm the notion that the mass is a sacrifice for the living and the dead at its twenty-second session in 1562 in canons one and three of its decrees.[iv] In the post Reformation post Trent ecclesial environment the question of the mass as sacrifice has remained a contentious and difficult one in the dialogues between Roman Catholics and Lutherans.[v] Despite the continued ecumenical impasse a careful nuanced reading of the reformation sources and the widespread ecumenical recovery of the eucharistic prayer among Lutherans might reveal that the question of eucharistic sacrifice is not as deadlocked as was once thought.[vi]
Before attempting to reconsider the historic Lutheran polemic on the mass sacrifice an examination of Luther’s evangelical critique of the late medieval eucharistic cultus is necessary to fully understand his pastoral and theological context. In the medieval church the sacrament of penance had attained a centrality and pre-eminence of place in the sacramental system. On this issue the liturgical historian Frank Senn observes,
Even though masses were being celebrated virtually every hour of every day, the faithful were no longer receiving communion. Various ascetical practices, such as fating and abstinence, and disciplinary fencing of the table by means of the requirement of confession and absolution, had so discouraged the faithful from receiving communion that the fourth Lateran Council (1215) had to decree that the faithful must receive communion at least once a year at Easter, after first going to confession. In this same period eucharistic devotion spawned the development of a eucharistic cult outside of the mass. Nathan Mitchell delineates its four principal categories as follows: Devotional visits to the reserved sacrament: Processions in which the sacrament, concealed in a container or exposed to public view was carried about: Exposition of the sacrament to the gaze of the faithful: Benediction, in which a solemn blessing with the eucharistic bread was imparted to the people, often at the conclusion of procession or a period of exposition.[vii]
The strict penitential requirement and its emphasis on proper disposition pushed sacramental reception to the margins of the assembly. This marginalization required a pastoral response that allowed the faithful to receive the fruits of the sacrament and the merits of the priestly sacrifice of the mass.[viii] Furthermore, since Lateran IV had also decreed that through the ministry of the priest the bread and wine is transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ and only the accidents of bread and wine remain it was widely held in popular piety and official church practice that simply by viewing body and blood of Christ one could attain merit and achieve a kind of spiritual communion with God.[ix] The importance of viewing the sacramental elements (ocular communion), especially at the elevation of the host during the mass cannot be overstated. Regarding its ritual centrality, the medieval historian Miri Rubin notes,
Proper humility was recommended at this moment, when people were to kneel and gaze at the body and blood. This is the attitude most commonly shown in visual representations of the elevation, a group of men and women with clasped hands, and sometimes holding their hands to their mouths in a gesture of awe, kneeling behind the servers and priest. They are most frequently shown to be clasping their hands in a gesture which becomes increasingly common in thirteenth century representations, one which we nowadays think of as natural for private prayer. At this moment of arrival, people were encouraged to express themselves in salutations and addresses and a whole genre of eucharistic salutations in the Latin and the vernacular developed producing hundreds of suitable prayers.[x]
The mass in the Middle Ages then was understood as a transaction between God and humanity, the chief actor in this transaction was the priest (assisted by the servers) who transformed the bread and wine of the sacrament into the body and blood of Jesus Christ, thereby making it possible for the gathered faithful to encounter God and obtain graces. This transaction was at the heart of religious and spiritual life.[xi]
The mass sacrifice (in which the priest was the primary actor) and its related benefits were not simply limited to the faithful who were living and could observe the elevation. In late medieval Christendom the fruits of the mass were extended to the faithful who had died and were in need of prayer and supplication in purgatory.[xii] The practice of a priest offering the mass for a special intention (votive mass) at the request of the faithful upon a donation goes back to the fourth century.[xiii] However, in the late Medieval Christendom the number of votive masses being offered for special intentions and the souls of the departed had drastically increased in comparison to prior centuries and this increase led to the emergence of the private mass. Regarding the impact of the private mass on liturgical life and spirituality Maxwell Johnson observes,
The emergence of the private Mass led to other substantial changes in the ceremonial that had been used hitherto. Since there were no other ministers present to read the readings or choir to sing the chants, the priests read all the texts himself. Because there was no congregation, it was pointless for the priest to move away from the altar to proclaim the readings, although a token change in position was retained, with epistle being read on the right side of the altar and the gospel on the left. Similarly, because there was no solemn procession bringing the eucharistic elements to the altar, they were simply taken from a small table beside the altar when needed. In the course of time the need to have various books containing the parts of the mass originally assigned to different ministers became inconvenient in such a celebration, and so embryonic forms of the missal-a book containing all the texts in one volume-began to emerge from the ninth century onward and came into common use everywhere from the thirteenth century. These were not the only changes that resulted from the development. Because of the need for multiple celebrations of the Eucharist on the same day in order that each priest could fulfill what was seen as his primary function, it was often necessary to allow for a number of secondary altars in a church building in addition to the principal one. Because these altars were commonly situated quite close to one another, the Masses were said rather than sung, usually in a low voice so as not to disturb others celebrating nearby. And because eventually an altar might be used several times a day, it became customary for the priest himself to carry in at the beginning the vessels he was to use and to carry them out afterward rather than their being at the altar in advance. Later, the wealthy would endow special “chantry chapels” in churches, just large enough for a priest and a small altar, together with a regular stipend for the priest to say mass each day after the donor’s death and thus seek forgiveness for sins committed in her or his lifetime. Because by the later Middle Ages some priests ended up with the obligation to say a number of Masses each day for different people, a strange custom that used the missa sicca or “dry mass” emerged. This was a rite in which all mass texts were said, except for what one might think were the vital parts: the offertory, consecration, and communion. Although a priest was ordinarily forbidden to say more than one mass a day, this restriction did not apply to the missa sicca, and so the priest might repeat that part of the right numerous times for different intentions (receiving a stipend each time), while completing it with the rest of the Mass only once-which gives a whole new meaning to the expression “Mass production!”[xiv]
The increasing prominence of the sacrament of penance, the separation of the cross and the altar in theological discourse, the pre-eminence of the priest as consecratory actor, and the emergence of the private mass led to a robust consumer religious marketplace whereby the faithful could attain God’s merit and favor through the work of the priestly class and be certain not only of their own salvation but also the salvation of their loved ones. The so-called “dry mass” is an indication of the quantification that was taking place in the liturgical theology and pastoral praxis of this period. The lay faithful had become so marginalized from the sacramental celebration and counted themselves so unworthy to receive the body and blood of Christ, that they no longer even needed to be present to hear the mass or view the elevation to receive its constituent benefits, the priest could simply accomplish the work for them.[xv]
While the emergence of the private mass and chantry chapels are clear indications that the priestly offering of the eucharistic sacrifice was at the center of medieval ecclesial practice, we must also analyze sections of the Roman Canon because it is here where the themes of sacrifice and offering textually come to the fore.[xvi] Before the canon proper came a series of lengthy offertory prayers recited by the priest.[xvii] In the first prayer, the Eucharist is explicitly referred as an unblemished offering which the priest alone offers to God the Father for the forgiveness of sins. Thus, the faithful are immediately relegated to a passive position in the liturgy. Furthermore, the priest is placed high above the faithful because only he by virtue of the indelible character bestowed in ordination can offer the holy sacrifice for the sins of the whole world both living and dead. The second prayer uses less direct sacrificial language but leads the faithful to believe that by the offering of the sacramental elements they can share in the divinity of Christ. The third, fourth, fifth, and sixth offertory prayers denote that in the Mass there is a kind of transaction taking place between the priest and God the Father, who is a holy and righteous judge who needs to be appeased by the unbloody offering of his Son on the altar. In the prayers there is a sense that God is not seen as primarily present among the faithful but is in heaven where the offering must be brought up to him. The seventh offertory underscores the medieval notion that because God is an angry judge the saints and the Virgin Mary in their humanity and the leading of a holy life are humanity’s only recourse. In this prayer, the priest asks that the sacrifice might be offered in honor of the saints and he begs that they might intercede for him and all the faithful. The final offering prayer (before the canon proper) is unique because, while it is clearly of a sacrificial character, it includes the active response of the gathered assembly as they pray that the work of the priest might be acceptable to God the Father. The dialogue, preface, and the Sanctus follow, but it is noteworthy that none of these elements contain sacrificial undertones.[xviii]
The emphasis on the sacrificial character of the Eucharistic celebration returns in full force immediately after the Sanctus. In the Te igitur the celebrant beseeches the Father through the Son to accept the bread and wine of the sacrament as an offering on behalf of and for the sake of the whole church. The language of the Memento Domine that follows not only indicates that the sacramental act is an offertory gift to God but clearly places the medieval mass in the context of a ritual, redemptive transaction between, priest, people, and God who demands a just payment for sin. This is especially evident in the concluding passage of Memento Domine which reads, “for whom we offer to you, or who offer to you this sacrifice of praise for themselves and for all their own, for the redemption of their souls, for the hope of their salvation and safety, and pay their vows to you, the living, true, and eternal God”.[xix] There are other sections in the Roman canon that deserve mention. In the Communiicantes after the Memento Domine there is explicit supplications to the Virgin Mary and other popular saints. Their prayers and merits on behalf of Christians on Earth were essential for medieval Christian piety, and the cult of the saints was intimately connected to the Mass itself. This is because the saints especially the Virgin Mary had been faithful and obedient to the will of God and the teachings of the church. By their holy obedience they merited the beatific vision and had attained so much merit that it could be applied to the living and the dead. Since the observance of the work of the mass was the highest Christian devotion and the saints were the holiest of Christians, of course the faithful would ask for their intercession and pray that the Father would be pleased with their unending merits. In the Hanc Igitur note that the celebrant demands that the faithful be spared from damnation and numbered among the elect because of his holy offering. Finally, it is important to mention the Supra quae and the Supplices Te. The Supra quae intimately connects the priestly sacrifice of the Eucharist to the priestly sacrifices of the Old Testament. The Supplices te literally asks that the angels will take the gifts of the sacrifice at that altar to the altar of God in heaven. This prayer, too, indicates that God is not primarily understood to be amid the assembly but is primarily far off in a heavenly place and is only reachable because of the priestly class who continually offer the sacrifice of Christ and the merits of the saints up to him in heaven.
There is no need here to go through the remaining sections of the canon in detail. It is only necessary to briefly summarize the key points of the preceding. Overtime the lay faithful did not regularly receive the sacramental elements at mass because of an increasing emphasis on right preparation for communion and the sacrament of penance. This emphasis pastorally necessitated the development of increased ritual practice around the “moment of consecration” and the elevation of the by the priest celebrant which allowed the faithful to receive “ocular communion”. The communion of the faithful by a mere gaze was an indication of the theology of transaction and exchange that characterized late medieval popular piety around the mass.[xx] It is against this ecclesial culture of sacramental commodification that the Wittenberg theologian will offer his striking evangelical critique.
In his groundbreaking theological treatise, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520) the Wittenberg Professor will take on the notion of the mass as a sacrifice and work.[xxi] Luther writes,
The third captivity of this sacrament is by far the most wicked abuse of all…. The holy sacrament has been turned into mere merchandise, a market, and a profit-making business …. It is certain, therefore, that the mass is not a work which may be communicated to others, but the object of faith (as has been said), for the strengthening and nourishing of each one’s own faith. Now there is yet a second stumbling block that must be removed, and this is much greater and the most dangerous of all. It is the common belief that the mass is a sacrifice, which is offered to God. Even the words of the canon seem to imply this, when they speak of “these gifts, these presents, these holy sacrifices,” and further on “this offering.” Prayer is also made, in so many words, “that the sacrifice may be accepted even as the sacrifice of Abel,” etc. Hence Christ is termed “the sacrifice of the altar.” Added to these are the sayings of the holy fathers, the great number of examples, and the widespread practice uniformly observed throughout the world. Over against all these things, firmly entrenched as they are, we must resolutely set the words and example of Christ. For unless we firmly hold that the mass is the promise and testament of Christ, as the words clearly say: we shall lose the whole gospel and all its comfort. Let us permit nothing to prevail against these words-even though an angel from heaven should teach otherwise [Gal. 1:8]-for they contain nothing about a work or a sacrifice. Moreover, we also have the example of Christ on our side. When he instituted this sacrament, and established this testament at the Last Supper, Christ did not offer himself to God the Father, nor did he perform a good work on behalf of others, but, sitting at table, he set this same testament before each one and proffered to him the sign. Now, the more closely our mass resembles that first mass of all, which Christ performed at the Last Supper, the more Christian it will be. But Christ’s mass was most simple, without any display of vestments, gestures, chants, or other ceremonies, so that if it had been necessary to offer the mass as a sacrifice, then Christ’s institution of it was not complete.[xxii]
In these words, the evangelical reformer will overthrow the heart of the medieval sacramental system and shift the focus of the mass from our work and offering to the work and offering of Christ he gives himself as gift to the believer in the material signs of bread and wine. In his evolving understanding of sacrament as gift the notion of testament will play a central role. For Luther Christ’s body and blood are his “last will” and testament to the apostles and by extension to the whole church.[xxiii] Christ’s testament to the church (for the Wittenberg Professor) is most clearly expressed in the Words of Institution (Verba Christi) attached to the sacramental sign.
Despite his profound critique of the commodification of the mass in late medieval popular piety[xxiv] especially in the proliferation of private masses, the Wittenberg Professor will reject the notion that the mass is a eucharistia or a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. This is especially evident in the Deutsche Messe (1526) where the post-communion collect suggested by Luther is full of eucharistic language. The text reads, “We give thanks to thee, Almighty God, that thou hast refreshed us with this thy salutary gift; and we beseech thy mercy to strengthen us through the same in faith toward thee and in fervent love among us all; for the sake of Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.”[xxv] It is noteworthy that the language of thanksgiving and praise follows the Verba, which Luther suggested should be chanted to the Gospel tone. This liturgical choice by the evangelical reformer indicates his desire to emphasize the fact that our eucharistia is understood as a response to the testament-gift we have freely received from the crucified and risen Christ. Our thanksgiving-praise response to Christ’s gift does not end with the post-communion collect but instead the collect signals the beginning of our eucharistic life in the world — a life characterized by thanksgiving and praise to God in Jesus Christ and sacrificial love toward one another and the needy ones in our midst. This is precisely why in the collect the church prays for strengthening in faith toward God and “fervent love among us.” Love toward the neighbor is an act, a service that requires a self-offering to one another, an offering that we are freed and called to give because of Christ’s testament to us.
The theme of eucharistic thanksgiving and praise is not only evident in Luther’s Deutsche Messe (1526) but is more clearly articulated in his important sacramental treatise, The Blessed Sacrament of the Holy and True Body of Christ and the Brotherhoods. (1519) Here the reformer will emphasize the notion that in receiving the sacramental signs, the bread and wine, the body and blood of Christ, we are made members of the body of Christ, the church. In being made members of this body we are called to live a eucharistic life with one another. Luther writes,
When you have partaken of this sacrament, therefore, or desire to partake of it, you must in turn share the misfortunes of the fellowship…. Here your heart must go out in love and learn that this is a sacrament of love. As love and support are given you, you in turn must render love and support to Christ in his needy ones. You must feel with sorrow all the dishonor done to Christ in his holy Word, all the misery of Christendom, all the unjust suffering of the innocent, with which the world is everywhere filled to overflowing. You must fight, work, pray and…have heartfelt sympathy…. Here the saying of Paul is fulfilled, “Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ” [Gal. 6:2].[xxvi]
The theme of our eucharistic response to Christ’s abundant love for us expressed in the gift of the sacrament is made explicitly clear. Since the crucified and risen one has offered himself to us we in turn offer ourselves as kind of self-offering to Christ’s needy ones. The one who receives the sacrament is called to a lifetime of sacrificial offering a giving of self to the burdens of the other as Christ first gave of himself to us. Luther’s vehement rejection of the Roman canon then is not an outright rejection of the eucharist as sacrifice but instead a fundamental shifting of its meaning. In contrast to the medieval notion that the rite of the mass is a propitiatory sacrifice offered by the priest so that the faithful can attain spiritual goods, the evangelical reformer suggests that Christ freely gives the believer spiritual goods (that is his body and blood) so that the community believers is set free to live a life of sacrificial service and be Christ to the needy ones. Commenting on Luther’s eucharistic ethic Samuel Torvend asserts,
Luther suggested that receiving bread and wine, the body and blood of Christ, signifies the creation or confirmation of a community that receives “gifts” and consequently bears responsibility to respond in mutual assistance to each other. One not only receives but shares that which has been given freely. Such mutual sharing is not an option; it is a sure sign of a lively and living faith.[xxvii]
While Martin Luther re-interprets eucharistia as our faithful response to receiving Christ’s testament and it has important ethical and ecclesiological implications he does not provide a full eucharistic prayer in the Formulae Missae (1523) or the Deutsche Messe (1526). However, his colleague Philip Melanchthon can speak approvingly of sacrifice and offering in relation to the eucharist. The lay theologian of the Lutheran Reformation can do this because he holds a broader definition of the term sacrament. On this point the liturgical historian Frank Senn observes,
Melanchthon defined the “sacrament” not in terms of the elements but as a ceremonia or opus by which God gives us what the sacrament promissio offers. “Sacrifice,” on the other hand, is a ceremonia or opus by which we render glory to God. The Praeceptor expressed his famous distinction in Article XXIV of the Apology…Melanchthon further distinguished two types of sacrifice: the propitiatory sacrifice that satisfies guilt and punishment, placates God’s wrath and merits the forgiveness of sins, which is the atoning sacrifice; and the sacrificium eucharistikon by means of which thanks and praise is rendered to God for the reconciliation and forgiveness effected by the atoning sacrifice. The mass cannot be a propitiatory sacrifice, because there has been only one true propitiatory sacrifice in the history of the world: the atoning sacrifice of Christ. The only sacrifice Christians can offer are the eucharistic sacrifices, which are called sacrificia laudis (sacrifices of praise), examples of which include: “the proclamation of the Gospel, faith, prayer, thanksgiving, confession, the affliction of the saints, yes, all the good works of the saints.” Among these sacrifices of praise is the ceremony of the mass, which is a eucharistic sacrifice if it is used ad laudem Dei (to the praise of God).[xxviii]
By making sharp distinction between what God renders to us in the sacrament and what we render in response to God’s offering Melanchthon can move somewhat beyond Luther and refer to the mass as a type of sacrifice, not propitiatory, but still a eucharistic sacrifice. This means that in the liturgy, the Gloria, the Kyrie, the collects, and the lessons could all be interpreted as our eucharistic sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving to God. In distinguishing between propitiatory sacrifice and sacrificium eucharistikon Melanchthon can hold together two distinctive aspects of Christian worship. Our sacrificial act of prayer and praise and Christ’s act of giving his testament for which we also give thanks and praise. These distinctions also mean that the recovery of a eucharistic prayer is possible despite Luther’s rejection of the Roman canon considering corruptions in late medieval piety. Indeed, the Praeceptor himself affirms the possibility of using a prayer of thanksgiving at the table.[xxix] Some of the early Lutheran church orders, in particular the Pfalz-Neuburg Church Order (1543), will heed Melanchthon’s affirmation of the use of a eucharistic prayer. The text reads,
O Lord Jesus Christ, thou only true Son of the living God, who hast given thy body unto bitter death for us all, and hast shed thy blood for the forgiveness of our sins, and hast bidden all thy disciples to eat that same thy body and to drink thy blood whereby to remember thy death ; we bring before thy divine Majesty these thy gifts of bread and wine and beseech thee to hallow and bless the same by thy divine grace, goodness and power and ordain [schaffen] that this bread and wine may be [sei] thy body and blood, even unto eternal life to all who eat and drink thereof.[xxx]
In the preceding I have attempted to situate Martin Luther’s assault on the mass sacrifice in its pastoral and theological context. In the late medieval church certain abuses arose especially in the votive masses and their corresponding system of stipends. To counteract the notion of the mass as work and propitiatory sacrifice, the evangelical reformer will repudiate the Roman Canon and emphasize the notion that the mass is a testament or gift that Christ gave to the church for the remission of sins, life, and salvation. Despite his overwhelming emphasis on sacrament as gift, the Wittenberg reformer will still affirm the notion that the mass is a eucharistia, a thanksgiving. The eucharistia is also our ethical and moral response to the gifts we have received in the sacrament. Melanchthon will expand Luther’s notion of eucharistia by using an expansive definition of the term sacrament and distinguishing between propitiatory sacrifice and our eucharistic sacrifices offered in praise and thanks to God. Considering this the author of the Augsburg Confession and its Apology can affirm that the liturgy of the mass is a type of sacrifice and affirm the use of a eucharistic prayer. Melanchthon’s affirmation of praying at the table will be taken up in at least one Lutheran church order and by some Lutheran’s outside of the German Reformation context.[xxxi]
If Lutherans re-read with ecumenical eyes the Wittenberg Reformers critique of the mass sacrifice and its context and properly situate into the broader corpus of our confessional theology, then perhaps we can arrive at a more positive view of eucharistic sacrifice within our own tradition. Coming to a more positive view from the sources of our own theology will enable us to more faithfully have a deeper dialogue with Roman Catholics and work to overcome this “stumbling block to unity”. The continued recovery of a full eucharistic prayer in our assemblies beyond simply the Verba will aid this work. On this point Frank Senn concludes,
Lutherans need to understand that sacrifice is a polysemous concept in the eucharistic tradition that refers variously to the offering of bread and wine, the self-offering of the faithful, and the saving work of Jesus Christ. Roman Catholics need to remember that sacrifice is one metaphor for the saving act of Christ along with others, such as ransom and purchase, victory over sin, death, and the devil, and the restoration of immortality through the incarnation of the Word. All of this is present in the eucharistic tradition. Study of this tradition would go a long way in helping us to overcome the ecumenical impasse on eucharistic sacrifice and on the eucharist in general.[xxxii]
Works Cited
- Aulén, Gustaf. Eucharist and Sacrifice. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1958.
- Bradshaw, Paul F., and Maxwell E. Johnson. The Eucharistic Liturgies: Their Evolution and Interpretation. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2012.
- Daly, Robert J. Sacrifice Unveiled: The True Meaning of Christian Sacrifice. London: T & T Clark, 2009.
- Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Declaration on the Way: Church, Ministry, and Eucharist, http://www.elca.org/Declaration-on-the-Way
- Jasper, R.C.D., and G.J. Cuming. Prayers of the Eucharist: Early and Reformed. Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1990
- Johnson, Maxwell. Sacraments and Worship: The Sources of Christian Theology. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2012.
- Kilmartin, Edward J., and Robert J. Daly. The Eucharist in the West: History and Theology. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998
- Kolb, Robert. Sources and Contexts of the Book of Concord. Edited by James A. Nestingen. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2001.
- Kolb, Robert, and Timothy Wengert. The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress Press, 2000
- Luther, Martin. Luther’s Works. Liturgy and Hymns. Vol. 53. Edited by Helmut T. Lehmann. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Fortress Press, 1965.
- Luther, Martin. Luther’s Works. Word and Sacrament I. Vol. 35. Edited by Helmut T. Lehmann. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1960.
- Luther, Martin. Luther’s Works. Word and Sacrament II. Vol. 36. Edited by Helmut Lehmann. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1960
- Rubin, Miri. Corpus Christi: The Eucharist in Late Medieval Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002
- Senn, Frank. Christian Liturgy: Catholic and Evangelical. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997.
- Torvend, Samuel. Luther and the Hungry Poor: Gathered Fragments. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2008.
- White, James F. Documents of Christian Worship. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992.
- Wisløff, Carl Fredrik. The Gift of Communion; Luther’s Controversy with Rome on Eucharistic Sacrifice. Minneapolis: Augsburg Pub. House, 1964.
Notes
[i] For a detailed analysis of the medieval eucharistic cultus and its theological and social implications see, Miri Rubin, Corpus Christi: The Eucharist in Late Medieval Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002).
[ii] For a detailed analysis of Luther’s understanding of sacrament as gift and testament see the classic study by Carl Wisloff, The Gift of Communion: Luther’s Controversy with Rome on Eucharistic Sacrifice (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1964).
[iii] In the Confutation to the Augsburg Confession (1559) the Roman theologians declare, “Also, their insinuation that Christ is not offered in the mass must be rejected by all, just as the faithful have always condemned this view. Augustine condemned this error in the Arians, who denied that the mass was a sacrifice for the living and the dead. This teaching is contrary to the Holy Scripture and the entire church.” Robert Kolb, Sources and Contexts of the Book of Concord (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2001), 128.
[iv] For an English translation of these canons see, James White, Documents of Christian Worship: Descriptive and Interpretive Sources (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992), 206.
[v] In fact as late as the recent joint ecumenical by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Declaration on the Way: Church, Ministry and Eucharist (2015) the question of eucharistic sacrifice as a “potential stumbling block to unity”. See especially pg. 106.
[vi] The Swedish Lutheran bishop Gustaf Aulén has argued that Luther’s evangelical critique of the late medieval mass need not be interpreted as an outright rejection of eucharistic sacrifice. See his classic study, Eucharist and Sacrifice, (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1958).
[vii] Frank Senn, Christian Liturgy: Catholic and Evangelical (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997), 223.
[viii] The late medieval theologians Duns Scotus and Gabriel Biel argued that the sacrifice of the mass cannot be of equal value or efficacy as the sacrifice of the cross. This assertion led to a “pulling apart of the cross and the Altar” and the notion of the quantitative value of masses. For example, Biel will argue that the value and fruit of a mass offered for one person greater than the value and fruit of a mass offered for multiple intentions. See Ibid., 253-263.
[ix] For a discussion of the development of the doctrine of transubstantiation and its formal articulation see Ibid., 251-53. It should be noted that Lateran IV did not use the categories of substance and accidents to describe this Eucharistic dogma that work was left to Thomas Aquinas.
[x] Rubin, Corpus Christi, 155-156.
[xi] It should be noted that church architecture in this period reflects the shift away from Holy Communion as the sacramental celebration of a gathered community to primarily the work of the priest on behalf of the laity who were often engaged in their own paraliturgical devotions. For more on this issue see, Senn, Christian Liturgy, 218-221
[xii] In late medieval Catholic theology purgatory was understood as an intermediate state whereby believers who had not lived a saintly life were prepared for heaven. For more on purgatory and its integral role in the medieval sacramental system see Samuel Torvend, Luther and the Hungry Poor: Gathered Fragment, (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2008), 14-15 and 21.
[xiii] For more on the origins of this practice see Edward Kilmartin and Robert J. Daly, The Eucharist in the West: History and Theology (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998), 109-15.
[xiv] Paul F. Bradshaw and Maxwell E. Johnson, The Eucharistic Liturgies: Their Evolution and Interpretation, (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2012), 220-221.
[xv] It should be noted that in the eleventh century the theology of the priesthood is increasingly understood in hierarchical terms and this has profound implications for the role of laity at mass. While the laity is understood to participate in the sacrifice by their prayers, it is “only the priest (who) is the active subject of the ritual offering.” See Kilmartin and Daly, The Eucharist in the West, 134-43
[xvi] According to Jasper and Cuming the oldest manuscripts which contain the Roman Canon come from the eighth century. See R.C.D. Jasper and G.J. Cuming, Prayers of the Eucharist: Early and Reformed (Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1990), 159.
[xvii] For an English translation of the complete text of the Roman canon see Ibid., 162-166.
[xviii] In fact, as we shall see later, in his Formula Missae (1523) Luther will retain the dialogue, preface, and Sanctus. See Martin Luther, Luther’s Works: Liturgy and Hymns. Volume 53, ed. Helmut T. Lehmann (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1960), 27.
[xix] Jasper and Cuming, Prayers of the Eucharist, 164.
[xx] Gazing upon the sacramental elements, especially the host was so central to medieval piety, that detailed elevation scenes were often included in the missal alongside the Mass texts. They became visible catechetical representations of the idea that, “the elevation was a token of sacramental meaning and of the exclusive priestly power in its mediation.” See Rubin, Corpus Christi, 131-34
[xxi] For more on the historical background of this text see Martin Luther, Luther’s Works: Word and Sacrament II. Volume 36, ed. Helmut T. Lehmann (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1960), 5-9.
[xxii] Maxwell Johnson, Sacraments and Worship: The Sources of Christian Theology (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Know Press, 2012), 229-30.
[xxiii] For more on Luther’s concept of the Holy Supper as testament see Martin Luther, “A Treatise on the New Testament, That is the Holy Mass” in Luther’s Works: Word and Sacrament I. Volume 35, ed. Helmut T. Lehmann (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1960), 84-88.
[xxiv] The prolific contemporary Roman Catholic theologian Robert Daly has even acknowledged that there were some profound abuses in late medieval liturgical practice, especially, the stipends associated with the votive mass. See Robert Daly, Sacrifice Unveiled: The True Meaning of Christian Sacrifice, T and T Clark, especially pgs. 141-147.
[xxv] Luther, Luther’s Works Volume 53, 84.
[xxvi] Torvend, Luther and the Hungry Poor, 94-95.
[xxvii] Ibid., 94-95.
[xxviii] Senn, Christian Liturgy, 451-452.
[xxix] For a brief discussion of this see Bradshaw and Johnson, The Eucharistic Liturgies, 250-251.
[xxx] Ibid.
[xxxi] The Swedish Lutheran Church will use a fuller eucharistic rite than those suggested by Luther’s liturgical essays and the Swedish reformers will not object to calling the mass a sacrifice. For more on this see Senn, Christian Liturgy, 467-476.
[xxxii] Ibid., 478-479
