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

The Consecration |
from the first letter (July 4, 1543) that this practice has caused Luther
great grief. He writes that it is a “scandal” that Wolferinus was mixing
the remains of the consecrated wine and bread with the unconsecrated
bread and wine (nempe quod religium vini vel pan is misces priori pani et
vino). Because of this practice of not having the consecrated elements
consumed, Luther asked him if he wants to be considered a Zwinglian
and that he is perhaps afflicted with the insanity of Zwingli. To avoid
the offense of this evil appearance of mixing consecrated and unconsecrated
elements, Wolferinus could easily follow the usage in the other
churches, namely, eat and drink the remains of the sacrament with the
communicants. By not making a distinction between consecrated and
unconsecrated elements Luther insists that he is “abolishing the whole
sacrament.” Such a point of view at best would lead to the “absurdity”
that “time and moment will be the causes of the sacrament.” Luther declares
that here he will oppose Wolferinus’ “scandalous and offensive
peculiarity with all his strength”; and that “the Lord whom you oppose
will oppose you in turn.”
345 It is evident that Luther believed that the consecration effects the
Real Presence and that the “This do” means not only to consecrate
the elements to be the body and blood of Christ but also to distribute
them, receive them, eat and drink them (SD VII, 84). For Chemnitz,
too, this mandatum means that everything that has been consecrated
in the service is to be consumed, since he has confessed that “it conflicts
with the Words of Institution when the bread which has been
blessed is not distributed, not received, not eaten” (Ex. 2, 281). The
fact that the other formulators of the Formula agreed to insert the
reference to the Wolferinus correspondence in SD VII, 87, shows
that they agreed with Chemnitz that SD VII, 83, 84, are to be understood
as consuming all that came under the consecration in that
Christian assembly.
346 Apparently the controversy between the two pastors continued,
with Wolferinus defending his position with some theses. This resulted
in Luther writing a second letter (July 20, 1543). Here the word
“action” comes into consideration and it is evident that the term has
not been clearly defined so that the participants are at times talking
past each other. Luther acknowledges that Melanchthon wrote correctly
when he stated that there is “no sacrament outside of the sacramental
action.” Luther is thinking of the truth that Christ’s command