Martin Luthers Eucharist and Sola Scriptura - Research Paper Example

Jessica Wijaya THST 398 Prof. Matthew Pereira May 7, Research Paper Martin Luther’s Eucharist and Sola Scriptura I. Introduction The Babylonian Captivity of the Church has been described as the most crucial work of Martin Luther concerning Church doctrine. This treatise developed into what came to be the foundation for Protestant devotion since it set out the basis upon which the Protestant movement breaks away from the Catholic Church. This treatise is a direct criticism from Luther to Pope Leo X, whom Luther refers to as the head of the sovereignty of the Antichrist since his authority was one based on secular power rather than upon the Christian faith.1 In promoting this strident view, Martin Luther came to put forward an method that was predicated upon a sola scriptura approach to doctrine. This essay will argue that Luther’s adherence to sola scriptura shaped his sacramental theology of the Eucharist in The Babylonian Captivity of the Church. This paper will demonstrate Luther’s dependence on the Bible for his theology of the Eucharist by exploring the way he employs the Scriptures to do three things. First, Luther argues that the Eucharist is one of the three sacraments of the Church. Second, he declares that the bread and wine should both be made available to the congregation. Thirdly, he advances an argument against transubstation. All three of these arguments, as will be demonstrated, are rooted in Luther’s interpretation of the Scriptures. II. Background of The Babylonian Captivity of the Church Criticizing the adoption of pagan practices by the Church, Martin Luther’s the Babylonian Captivity attempts to point to the pagan practices that Luther denoted were not founded on scripture. Some of these included the way in which indulgences were sold and/or the way in which the Pope was understood as the vicar of the Son of God; elements that were clearly not founded on scripture and the earthly teachings of Christ or His disciples.2 This particular treatise was published in 1520 after a period earlier in that year when Pope Leo X had published a bull that expressed disapproval of his teachings against the corruption that had become rampant in the Church. The papal bull also gave Luther some sixty days to repudiate what were alleged to be his heresies, and if he did not do as the pope demanded, he would be excommunicated.3 Historians have widely speculated concerning whether Luther saw the actual bull, but the fact that he mentions it in the later parts of the Babylonian Captivity means that he may have had some knowledge of and most likely ignored it. What followed was that the pope officially excommunicated Luther and the possible reason behind his excommunication was not only because he had refused to recant the statements that he had made against the Church hierarchy, but also because he was against the sale of indulgences, which were a major source of the wealth of the Church.4 At the time when Luther wrote the Babylonian Captivity, he was under the shelter of Frederick III, the elector of Saxony, and it is the latter that facilitated Luther’s continued ministry that would eventually lead to the conversion of a large number of German princes to his teachings. It was while he was under Frederick III’s shelter that he wrote a treatise encouraging other German princes to follow his patron’s example and take personal responsibility over the transformation of the Church so that there could be genuine reform. III.1 Luther’s Three Sacraments Within The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, Luther begins by reiterating his previous stance against the practices of the Church, which were opposed to Biblical authority.5 Additionally, Luther made a direct criticism of the Church’s teachings of the seven sacraments, Luther states that there are three legitimate sacraments. The other four sacraments of the Church, he argues, are not really sacraments but rituals, which have been adopted by the Church. He further argues that all of the sacraments have to contain proof of the Word. To justify this statement, Luther further argues that all the promises given by God are accompanied by the word and the sign, with the former being understood as the testament, while the latter is the sacrament.6 Thus, without there being the word and a sign, the sacrament cannot be genuine since it does not have the blessing from God. Once again, by relying upon the examples that are presented throughout the New Testament, Luther uses sola scriptura approach to show how the sacraments can and should be understood in Christian doctrine and theology. From the Babylonian Captivity, one gets the impression that sacraments cannot exist if there is no direct authority for them from Jesus Himself, and this is the reason why Luther disputed the four other sacraments that were practiced as part of Church doctrine. The first three, which include baptism, communion, and penance, were all events that Jesus himself participated in as a sign to his followers that they had his authority to do as he did. Thus, the other four sacraments that were practiced by the Church were not based on the teachings of Jesus but on questionable sources.7 Luther provides the example of the sacrament of extreme unction, where he points out that the blessing of the sick, despite being an exemplary Church practice, did not originate with Jesus.8 Instead, its origins are from the writer of the letter of James, whom Luther does not believe is the real James but one who wrote many years after the latter’s death. Moreover, Luther argues that even if it was the real apostle James who wrote concerning the sacrament of extreme unction, he did not have the authority to issue such a promise since he was usurping the authority of Jesus, who alone can give such promises. Although a thorough discussion of sola scriptura and the means through which it has impacted upon Luther’s interpretation of the sacraments would require a dissertation length response, the following section will seek to engage a discussion and analysis on how the same method of sola scriptura impacts Luther’s understanding concerning the sacrament of communion.9 III.2 Both Kinds (Bread and Wine) according to Sola Scriptura It is through Luther’s remarks on communion that two additional aspects of his teachings come to light. The first of these is that he stresses that both the bread and the wine be distributed among all the people who have attended Mass, since at this time, the wine was held in reserve for the priest in charge of the mass.10 In The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, Luther states that the sacrament of communion, which is first described by Paul in the First Letter to the Corinthians, is a gift given directly to him by Jesus. Since this is an instruction that comes directly from Christ, Luther believes that it is an indisputable sacrament of the Church, which should be practiced by all Christians. Throughout the treatise, Luther works towards making counterarguments concerning the arguments of the senior leaders of the Church against his stand on matters of doctrine. His stand that the cup should be shared during communion was virulently opposed by the top clergy of the Church. Luther’s counterargument on this matter is that just because the comments made by Jesus on the first Eucharist may have some validity does not mean that they have any weight in decisions concerning communion.11 [What comments by Jesus? STATE COMMENTS IN FOOT NOTES] Drawing upon the other representations of communion that are exemplified within the New Testament, the word of Christ stands supported by the examples that the disciples witnessed as they taught further believers how the memory of the Eucharist should be exemplified. Furthermore, Luther states that the priesthood should not have a monopoly over the cup due to the fact that it is an essential part of communion and that all the people who attend should have the opportunity to partake from the cup. After making his arguments against his rivals, Luther then elaborates on his stance that the cup had to be shared amongst the congregation. He argues that the writings from the Bible that talk directly of the communion, namely the Last Supper sections in the first three books of the New Testament as well as the First Letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 11:1) displays the importance of engaging in the process of the sacrament of the Eucharist in the same way as Christ exemplified. The apostle Paul instructs, “Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ”.12 Therefore, the commonness of the cup and the need for it to be shared in the same way that Christ shared it with the disciples is underscored by Luther as a fundamental point of contention against the Roman Catholic Church.13 Utilizing 1 Corinthians 11:1, and the need to perform the sacrament in the same way that Christ did, Paul exhorts believers to not deviate from this custom. In much the same way, this “deviation” is the fundamental point of contention that Luther has with the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church; as Luther points out the fact that during the last supper, all of the disciples present not only shared the loaf of bread but they all also partook from the cup and this.14 As such, Luther understands this to be a clear sign that not only the bread but also the cup have to be shared during communion. Without the sharing of the cup within the congregation, the communion cannot be complete. The withholding of the cup is a direct failure of the Church in the implementation of the sacrament. This view seems to magnify Luther’s belief that the Church had significantly moved away from the scriptures in its attempts to impose its doctrines on its members. Furthermore, Luther asserts that the right course of its leadership would be to follow the scriptures strictly so that its true intentions could be revealed. According to the Babylonian Captivity, most of the Catholic Church’s seven sacrements were not based on conclusions from the scriptures but on the attempt by the leadership of the Church to bend the scriptures to conform to the enhancement of its authority over Christendom.15 As denoted earlier, outside influences had melded with established doctrine and created an approach to theology and religious practice that became increasingly divorced from scripture. It was this focus on tradition for tradition’s sake that Luther fought so vehemently against in his treatise. In the treatise, Martin Luther makes the argument that to withhold the cup from the congregation during communion means that the entire sacrament is made invalid. In addition, the fact that the Church withholds a part of the communion from its congregation also means that it has appropriated to itself the power to withhold other sacraments from the congregation as well. The ability of the Church to withhold a part of the sacrament, according to Luther, is tantamount to taking over the authority of God and using it for its own benefit. Not handing the cup to the entire congregation means that a part of a crucial gift from God is denied to the entire congregation and as a result, the sacrament is wasted.16 In doing this, the Church does not follow the example laid down by Christ, since it is acting impiously and in contradiction to the scriptures. One of the arguments that Luther makes concerning the Church’s administration of the communion is that while the Church accepts that it is through the words of the sacrament that the congregation receives the grace of God, it withholds from the congregation the full grace of God by denying them the cup, which is the sign of God. Thus, while the Church gives the congregation the gift of the Word, it denies the parishioners the gift of the Sign, which should also be an integral part of the sacrament of communion. The result of this is that the Church keeps to itself, through its priests, the gift of the sign, which should be shared by all of the people that believe in Christ. Thus, a major part of the treatise questions the Church not giving to the congregation all of the gifts from God that are included in the sacrament of communion, he suggests that it is a consequence of the paganism that has become prevalent within the Church hierarchy.17 III.3 Luther and Transubstatiation: According to Sola Scriptura Similar to the way in which Luther systematically and logically attacked the prior definitions of the other sacraments that the Catholic Church sought to provide, a very similar approached is employed with regards to the doctrine of transubstantiation. Furthermore, a key point within this treatise is where it deals with the Sacrament of the Altar in relation to transubstantiation. The teaching of transubstantiation by the Church, according to Luther, is an abhorrent practice which should be stopped because it has no basis in the scriptures.18 Once again, relying upon sola scriptura as a means of weighing and determining whether or not a given tradition, doctrine, or practice was worthy of continuance, Luther dismantles the doctrine of transubstantiation because he believed it was not supported by the New Testament.19 As such, Luther argues that transubstantiation is a false doctrine that was propagated by the Church long after the scriptures were written and its key practices put in place. Luther states that the Church survived its first 1200 years without the doctrine of transubstantiation and that its propagation was based on falsehoods that were not connected with the teachings of Christ.20 Instead, Luther suggests that the Church should teach that the bread and the wine are indeed real, and that while the real flesh and blood of Christ might be present in them, they cannot be substituted for the actual flesh and blood of Christ.21 Luther declared, “Therefore it is an absurd and unheard-of juggling with words, to understand ‘bread’ to mean ‘the form, or accidents of bread,’ and ‘wine’ to mean ‘the form, or accidents of wine.’ Why do they not also understand all other things to mean their forms, or accidents? Even if this might be done with all other things, it would yet not be right thus to emasculate the words of God and arbitrarily to empty them of their meaning”.22 He further denoted that the idea of transubstantiation has no basis in the scriptures and that if Jesus had wanted his flesh and blood to become the bread and wine of the communion, he would have clearly said so to the apostles.23 IV: Conclusion In the Babylonia Captivity, Luther provides various descriptions of the sacraments and his views concerning them. He makes arguments concerning the ideal of transubstantiation, stating that the doctrine behind it was false. Finally, this treatise is one of many upon which Protestant worship from Luther’s time onward has been shaped. However, not content to dismantle the logical inconsistencies that the Roman Catholic Church exhibited within its doctrines, Luther painstakingly catalogued the lack of scripture that constituted so many of these traditions and doctrines. By approaching the subject in such a way, Luther was able to garner a wider and wider audience of early Protestants that were willing and able to logically question the authority upon which the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church determined religious observance for all of Christendom. Moreover, by arguing a logical position from the framework of sola scriptura, Luther ushered in a new level of rhetoric from which the Protestant movement would substantially draw. Read More