03-1 Pastoral Care.pdf

46 LOGIAIt is not suggested here that the written word is without effect.The point is that the Word proclaimed by the pastor is moreeffective than that read by a layperson. How could Luther (andWalther concurs) make such a contention? This statement isdifficult—if not impossible—to explain unless reading wordsabout Jesus is somehow different from hearing words fromJesus. 11 In which case, the office is once again the difference. 12The lay/pastor distinction plays most prominently in the discussionof the efficacy of the Holy Communion. In his Examinationof the Council of Trent, Chemnitz elucidated the importanceof the office in the administration of the sacrament after firstrejecting any sort of magical potency in the words of institution.The words of institution are said to beefficacious because they are the wordsof the present and powerful Christ,spoken by Christ himself through themouth of the minister.[T]he recitation of these words is not to be used in theway magicians recite their incantations in set formulas,for instance to bring down Jupiter Elicius or the moonfrom heaven, namely, by the strength and power of theletters and syllables, if they are recited and pronounceda certain way; but as Paul asserts, that in the preachingof the Gospel Christ Himself speaks through themouth of ministers (Rom 15:18, 19; 2 Cor 13:3) and thatGod is “making His appeal through us” (2 Cor 5:20).So in the action of the Eucharist the minister acts as anambassador in the place of Christ, who is Himselfthere present, and through the ministers pronouncesthese words: “This is My body; this do,” etc., and forthis reason His Word is efficacious. Therefore it is nota man, the minister, who by his consecration andblessing makes bread and wine into the body andblood of Christ, but Christ Himself, by means of HisWord, is present in this action, and by means of theWord of His institution, which is spoken through themouth of the minister, He brings it about that thebread is His body and the cup His blood. . . . 13Chemnitz would allow no incantational understanding of theconsecration; he rejected any suggestion that the sounds of thewords alone could effect a magical transformation of the elements.The words of institution are said to be efficacious becausethey are the words of the present and powerful Christ, spoken byChrist himself through the mouth of the pastor. Chemnitz continuedhis discussion of the essential relationship between theoffice and the sacrament, after spurning the notion that the consecrationhas nothing more than historical significance.Therefore the words of institution are spoken in ourLord’s Supper, not merely for the sake of history butto show to the church that Christ Himself, throughHis Word, according to His command and promise,is present in the action of the Supper and by the powerof this Word offers His body and blood to thosewho eat. For it is He who distributes, though it bethrough the pastor; it is He who says: “This is mybody.” It is He who is working through His Word, sothat the bread is His body and the wine His blood. 14Christ is said to be present not only in the words and elementsof the Supper but in the action of the Supper as well. 15The sacrament, therefore, is efficacious because Jesus personallyspeaks the words of institution. The pastor is only the instrumentthrough which Christ himself is among his people toconsecrate and distribute his own body and blood.This understanding of the consecration and distributionwas also presented in The Lord’s Supper where Chemnitz citedChrysostom to once more suggest that through the minister itis Christ himself who actually consecrates and distributes thesacrament: “When you see the hand of the priest holding outto us the body of the Lord, we must remember that it is not thehand of the priest stretching out to us but the hand of Christwho says, ‘Take and eat; this is My body’.” 16 Chemnitz wouldhave the Christian “see” Christ under both the sacramentalbread and the sacramental celebrant. The “real presence” of theLord’s Supper is here fused with the “real presence” of theLord’s office. Luther similarly emphasized the importance ofChrist’s presence in the administration of this sacrament.We hear these words, “This is my body,” not as spokenconcerning the person of the pastor or the ministerbut as coming from Christ’s own mouth who is presentand says to us: “Take, eat, this is my body.” We donot hear and understand them otherwise and knowindeed that the pastor’s or the minister’s body is not inthe bread nor is it being administered. Consequently,we also do not hear the command and ordinanceaccording to which he says, “Do this in remembranceof me,” as words spoken concerning the pastor’s person;but we hear Christ himself through the pastor’smouth speaking to us and commanding that weshould take bread and wine at his word, “This is mybody,” etc., and in them according to his commandeat his body and drink his blood [AE 38:199, 200].For Luther the elements do not encompass the pastor’s bodybecause the consecration is not spoken concerning the pastor’sperson. Through the office Christ speaks and thus offers hisown body and blood under the elements. This understandingof the consecration is also set forth in Solid Declaration VII:No man’s word or work, be it the merit or the speakingof the minister, be it the eating and drinking or