The Lord's Supper in the Theology of Martin Chemnitz Bjarne - Logia

The Consecration |
eat and drink it, and therewith proclaim the Lord’s death), must be
kept integrally and inviolately, just as St. Paul sets the whole action of
the breaking of bread, or of the distribution and reception, before our
eyes in 1 Cor. 10:16” (SD VII, 84). Both Chemnitz and the Formula
believe that Jesus Christ is present according to both natures with His
body and blood in the consecrated elements because, as Chemnitz on
many occasions has said, we have an express promise “that He wills to
be present with His body and blood in the observance of His Supper
as it is celebrated in the gathering of the church here on earth in accord
with His institution” (TNC 432; see p. 36–45).
258 Keeping in mind this precisely defined concept of the prescribed
action of the Lord’s Supper, one can better understand Chemnitz’s
examination of Chapter V and Canon VI of the Tridentine Decree
Concerning the Sacrament of the Eucharist (Third Session, Oct. 11,
1551). They deal with the cult and the veneration of the sacrament
(Ex. 2, 276 f.). The striking thing for a modern Lutheran is that at
the very outset Chemnitz insists that we must know what has been
placed in controversy, for he acknowledges that “a number of things
are not in controversy; these I willingly concede” (Ex. 2, 277).
259 In a brilliantly conceived presentation that sets Chemnitz apart
from the Sacramentarians and the Philippists who denied the possibility
of the veneration of the sacrament, Chemnitz makes three
points:
1. That Christ, God and Man, is to be worshiped, no one but an Arian
denies (Ex. 2, 277).
2. That also His human nature, because of its union with the divinity, is to
be worshiped, no one but a Nestorian calls into question (Ex. 2, 277).
3. That no one therefore denies that Christ, God and Man, truly and
substantially present in His divine and human nature in the action of
the Lord’s Supper, should be worshiped in spirit and in truth, except
someone who, with the Sacramentarians, either denies or harbors
doubt concerning the presence of Christ in the Supper. Neither can the
anamneesis and proclamation of the death of Christ in the Supper be
rightly done without that worship which is done in spirit and in truth
(Ex. 2, 279; emphasis added).
260 Chemnitz concedes that it is a permissible practice to worship Jesus
Christ who is present in the definitive mode in the prescribed
action of the Supper. Of course, Chemnitz also confesses that the
final purpose of this sacrament is the oral reception of the body and