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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

| The Lord’s Supper adesse corpore et sanguine sua. Quare nec inter recitationem verborum statuitur aliqua fieri unio panis et Corporis Christi, ante quam in ipsa actione manducetur panis: sed quemadmodum panis est Koinonia Corporis Christi in ipso demum manducationis actu, et non prius: sic idem panis tum demum sacramentalitur unitur corpori, quando fit illa Koinonia atque sumptio; imo vino sacramentalis nihil est aliud, quam quod Christi Corpus non sine pane, ut nec panis sine corpore, sed pane inteveniente Corpus Christi manducatur unacum illo iunctim ac sine distractione. Haec, quae dicimus, illustrari proposito quod am casu possunt. Etenim si accideret, ut recitatis iam A Ministro verbis institutionis, fact at que, ut vocant, consecratione, exoriretur incendium aut alius quispiam tumultus priusquam ad mensam Domini accessisset; atque sic casu isto impediretur sacra actio: quaeritur, anne vi facta recitationis unitum quodam Arcano modo sit Christi Corpus pani, etiam extra panis usum in manducatione positum, et improviso casu impeditum? Hic certe quisque non stupidus negative respondere mallet, quam affirmative. Unde iudicium facere promptum est, quid de Consecratione habendum, videlicet non tribuendam ei quandam vim magicam sive transsubstantiandi panem in Corpus, sive uniendi sacramentalitur panem corpori, vinum sanguini. Cur ista recitatio vocatur consecratio, si eam omni virtute privas? et cur Apostolus vocat benedictionem, inquiene: Poculum, cui benedicimus, etc.? Nequaquam vero sua sua illam privo aut spolio virtute. Nam ut recitatio ista refertur tota ad actionem subsecuturam manducationis et bibitionis: sic per eam segregatur panis et vinum e communi vulgo aliarum eiusdem generis creaturarum, ad singularem hunc usum sacrum, quo Dispensationi potiarum bonorum, nempe corporis et sanguinis Dominici subserviunt. Praeterea benedictionis voce apud Paulum, et consecrationis, ut vulgo appellat, non sola institutae coenae recitatio historic a notatur; sed etiam adiuncta intelligtur praecatio, qua precamur Dominum, ut nos sibi paret dignos et acceptos hospites huius sacrosancti convivium, ut ips ius corporis et sanguinis in coenae mysterio ad nostram consolationem fideique confirmationem participes efficiamur. Quemadmodum vero in Consecratione cibi vulgaris, qua is sanctificari scribitur per sermonem Dei ac precationem, sanctificatio illa praecatioque tot a hunc tendit, ut cibus ille, quando a nobis sumitur et manducatur, nobis sit utilis ad hanc vita et valetudinem temporalem alendam et conservandam: Sic quoque benedictionis vox apud Apostolum 1 Cor. 10. utque consecrationis vox, in consueta ratione loquendi ipsummet usum, ut nobis corpus et sanguis Christi, quae una cum symbolis sumuntur, sint in usu Sacramenti huius cibus et potus salutaris ad alendam vitam spiritualem in nobis. 65. Rosamond Kent Sprague in her essay, “The Four Causes: Aristotle’s Exposition and Ours” (The Monist, 1968, 52: 298–300) categorically states “that the time honored method of expounding Aristotle’s doctrine of the four causes . . . is non-Aristotelian.” And she suggests that “the method should be dropped.” Examining in detail an exposition of Aristotle’s Physics II, 3 and II, 7, she notes that” Aristotle changes his example each time.” “whereas the traditional method involves choosing a single example, almost always an artifact and following this example through all four causes.” She finds that the price to be paid for this in order that the“dimmest student in the class” can grasp the statue analysis, is extremely high, because it produces four “resulting misconceptions.“ Later, Robert B. Todd picked up her analysis for further study in his "The Four Causes: Aristotle's Exposition and the Ancients" (The Journal of the History of Ideas, 1976, 37: 319– 322). After examining Aristotle even more closely, he concluded that "the only problem with this illustration [the sculptor at work on the statue to show the four causes] is that it does not appear in any Aristotelian text; in fact, Aristotle varies his illustrations of each of the four
causes and uses the case of the sculptor to demonstrate only the relation between the efficient and the material causes." He traces the history of the use of the four-cause illustration as developed after Aristotle through the Middle Ages down to the present. He then agrees that this "over-extended sculptor" should be retired "on the philosophical grounds presented by Prof. Sprague." Prof. W. T. Jones in A History of Western Philosophy (New York: Harcourt Brace) concludes that“the analysis [The Fourfold Cause] requires considerable modification when it is applied to natural objects” (Vol. I, p. 188). And, finally, Roy Bashkar has recently stated that “the system lacked a clear criterion for intellectual intuition, which facilitated its dogmatic degeneration in the Middle Ages” (Dictionary of the History of Science, W. F. Bynum, E. J. Browne, R. Porter, eds., Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 27). 66. One of the most recent is the statement of Pastor Kenneth Miller in the Christian News Encyclopedia, Washington, MO: 1982, p. 489: “Since Holy Writ nowhere teaches that the Real Presence begins at the moment of the blessing, the Lutheran Church has never taught it either . . . . If you will say that Luther taught the Real Presence existed prior to the distribution, then you must also acknowledge that he had no Biblical basis for it.” 67. In a communion hymn written by the Danish theologian and hymn writer, Thomas Kingo, late in the seventeenth century, one finds these words in stanza 13:“O Jesus, lad mig aldrig gaa Fra dette bord, hvo du est paa.” This hymn with its stanza 13 was taken into the Norwegian Synod’s Salmebok (revised edition, 1903) as hymn #25. This hymnbook is chiefly the work of Pastors Ulrik Vilhelm Koren and Markus Fredrik Wiese. Prof. Juul Madson has translated it into English. Stanza 13 reads as follows: O Jesus, let me ne’er depart This table whereon real Thou art. Indeed, I cast the world aside And pray that only Thou abide. (Lutheran Sentinel, June 23, 1977) The Consecration | 68. See Sasse, This is My Body (Note #1), pp. 83–85 for a summary of the contents of Luther’s essay. Sasse gives the title as “Of the Adoration of the Sacrament of the Blessed Body of Christ.” 69. Historie, etc., pp. 539–546. Pastor Kenneth Miller (see note #59) has argued that George of Anhalt could not have written that he had seen Luther fall down and reverently adore Christ when the Sacrament was elevated. He bases his argument on the fact that the Weimar edition of Luther’s Works has a “non” (not) instead of a “nos” (we) in a statement of the Prince, namely,“We have not (non) seen Luther,” etc. Pastor Miller refuses to accept the possibility that there could have been a misprint perpetuated in the Weimar edition, since the Weimar editors do not” even make a note of it” [i.e., that it could be “nos” instead of “non”] (The Christian News Encyclopedia, p. 489). Certainly if Pastor Miller would have had the opportunity of studying George of Anhalt’s Fourth Sermon on the Sacrament, he would not have been so sure that Prince George did not write, “We have seen Luther,” etc. Besides this, Pastor Miller could have read Luther’s letter to Prince George ( June 26, 1542) who had inquired about the propriety of dropping the elevation from the service. Luther, after telling him that it is permissible but not a necessary part of the service, is quite explicit in stating that if in the future there might be reasons for restoring the elevation, then it is free so that one can again practice the elevation without danger (St. L. XIX, 1340 f.). This letter together with Prince George’s Fourth Sermon renders it impossible to accept Pastor Miller’s thesis that Prince George wrote, “We have not seen Luther,” etc., instead of “We have seen Luther,” etc.
Page 2 and 3:
Links in the eLectionic version Tab
Page 4 and 5:
Published by Trinity Lutheran Press
Page 7 and 8:
Contents Forewords to Electronic Ed
Page 9 and 10:
Foreword to the electronic edition
Page 11 and 12:
Why the Doctrine of the Lord’s Su
Page 13 and 14:
Author’s Foreword In submitting t
Page 15 and 16:
Chapter I Introduction Introduction
Page 17 and 18:
Introduction | votes the largest pa
Page 19 and 20:
Introduction | could bring it about
Page 21 and 22:
Introduction | do point out that Lu
Page 23 and 24:
Chapter II sacrament and sacramenta
Page 25 and 26:
Sacrament | 3. “That it be instit
Page 27 and 28:
Sacrament | habet rationem sacramen
Page 29 and 30:
Sacrament | Supper, but there was a
Page 31 and 32:
The Biblical Foundation | Chapter I
Page 33 and 34:
The Biblical Foundation | certainty
Page 35 and 36:
never forget that “the dogma of t
Page 37 and 38:
As a matter of fact, Chemnitz remar
Page 39 and 40:
The Biblical Foundation | Concord,
Page 41 and 42:
The Biblical Foundation | nicht uns
Page 43 and 44:
The Sacramental Union | ine meaning
Page 45 and 46:
The Sacramental Union | ing Christ,
Page 47 and 48:
The Sacramental Union | We should n
Page 49 and 50:
The Sacramental Union | for in Chap
Page 51 and 52:
The Sacramental Union | hypostatic
Page 53 and 54:
of Christ has been exalted through
Page 55 and 56:
The Sacramental Union | 1. The seco
Page 57 and 58:
The Sacramental Union | delimited b
Page 59 and 60:
The Sacramental Union | And this ta
Page 61 and 62:
The Sacramental Union | 114 The ans
Page 63 and 64:
The Sacramental Union | simple and
Page 65 and 66:
The Sacramental Union | Mary, and n
Page 67 and 68:
The Sacramental Union | two in one
Page 69 and 70:
The Sacramental Union | likeness re
Page 71 and 72:
The Sacramental Union | “bread,
Page 73 and 74:
The Sacramental Union | distributed
Page 75 and 76:
The Sacramental Union | 153 The rea
Page 77 and 78:
The Sacramental Union | (cf. Ex. 25
Page 79 and 80:
The Sacramental Union | 164 Since t
Page 81 and 82:
The Sacramental Union | are in a wa
Page 83 and 84:
The Sacramental Union | 173 Chemnit
Page 85 and 86:
The Sacramental Union | solche Mitt
Page 87 and 88:
The Sacramental Union | of transubs
Page 89 and 90:
The Sacramental Union | 42. Grammat
Page 91 and 92:
The Consecration | two natures in t
Page 93 and 94:
The Consecration | 184 It is furthe
Page 95 and 96:
The Consecration | consecration in
Page 97 and 98:
The Consecration | of the Council t
Page 99 and 100:
The Consecration | mand and bidding
Page 101 and 102:
The Consecration | tion must be tak
Page 103 and 104:
The Consecration | thing in the Gos
Page 105 and 106:
The Consecration | himself who bapt
Page 107 and 108:
The Consecration | so that the comm
Page 109 and 110:
The Consecration | As far as the si
Page 111 and 112:
The Consecration | This is a charge
Page 113 and 114:
The Consecration | they serve a hig
Page 115 and 116:
The Consecration | 0 Sacrament is R
Page 117 and 118: The Consecration | 0 Lutheran. The
Page 119 and 120: The Consecration | 0 by an enduring
Page 121 and 122: The Consecration | 0 248 In Chapter
Page 123 and 124: The Consecration | 0 253 This doctr
Page 125 and 126: The Consecration | eat and drink it
Page 127 and 128: The Consecration | everywhere, and
Page 129 and 130: The Consecration | called for true
Page 131 and 132: The Consecration | nitz directs chi
Page 133 and 134: The Consecration | Again: We must j
Page 135 and 136: The Consecration | has confessed th
Page 137 and 138: The Consecration | way He might app
Page 139 and 140: The Consecration | churches as adhe
Page 141 and 142: The Consecration | formulated, for
Page 143 and 144: without blessing and distribution,
Page 145 and 146: The Consecration | out that “we l
Page 147 and 148: will do what Christ did before and
Page 149 and 150: The Consecration | was not reserved
Page 151 and 152: The Consecration | “epempon—the
Page 153 and 154: The Consecration | some small part
Page 155 and 156: The Consecration | taken place, who
Page 157 and 158: The Consecration | been consecrated
Page 159 and 160: The Consecration | from the first l
Page 161 and 162: The Consecration | 348 Luther next
Page 163 and 164: The Consecration | actione accipimu
Page 165 and 166: The Consecration | Green calls it a
Page 167: The Consecration | of the consecrat
Page 171 and 172: The Consecration | sondern viel meh
Page 173 and 174: The Consecration | Verba. Chemnitz,
Page 175 and 176: The Consecration | Prof. Becker bel
Page 177 and 178: The Consecration | traditional term
Page 179 and 180: The Effects of Sacramental Eating |
Page 199 and 200: Summary and Conclusions | Chapter v
Page 201 and 202: Summary and Conclusions | that it i
Page 203 and 204: Summary and Conclusions | qualities
Page 205 and 206: Summary and Conclusions | times”
Page 207 and 208: Summary and Conclusions | 421 No te
Page 209 and 210: Summary and Conclusions | 427 It is
Page 211 and 212: Summary and Conclusions | nothing i
Page 213 and 214: Summary and Conclusions | tion is t
Page 215 and 216: Summary and Conclusions | 0 Luther
Page 217 and 218: Summary and Conclusions | 0 does no
Page 219 and 220:
Summary and Conclusions | 0 standin
Page 221 and 222:
Summary and Conclusions | 0 with Hi
Page 223 and 224:
Summary and Conclusions | 0 God and
Page 225 and 226:
Summary and Conclusions | 468 Many
Page 227 and 228:
sacraments the institution itself i
Page 229 and 230:
Abraham, took his reason captive 53
Page 231 and 232:
Epistemological question, how does
Page 233 and 234:
on “synecdoche” 130, 131, 161 o
Page 235 and 236:
Sacrifice of the Mass destroys the
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?