The Sacraments and Ecumenical Possibilities: We Stand Together on Uncommon Ground
Paul Lehninger
Yesterday at a conference of the Association of Confessional Lutherans I presented almost the same paper I am presenting here today, but under a different title. The title of that paper, “The Difference between the Lutheran and the Roman Catholic Doctrine of the Sacraments,” was exactly the wording of the topic I was asked to write on. The organizers of the Festival of the Resurrection graciously permitted me to get a “twofer” out of my paper presentation, but suggested that I re-title the paper, so as not to give the impression that I would be rehashing the same old polemics.
I’m no nominalist, and I’ve never agreed with Juliet; I think there’s a lot in a name, and merely slapping a different title on the same paper won’t do. So I’ve solved my dilemma by adding a subtitle to this paper: “We Stand Together on Uncommon Ground.” Please permit me to unpack this.
“We stand” refers both
to the fact that after close to five hundred years of division, the Roman
Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church, in its various bodies, are both still
standing, are both still going propositions, and to the fact that each one
takes a distinctive stand on the issue of the sacraments. In what way do we stand together? The schisms of 1054 and of 1530 both occurred
in the context of largely Christian cultures, but in the post-Christian West of
the third millennium, we find ourselves sharing more similarities with one
another, especially in contrast to the neo-paganism that surrounds us, than we
have for a long time.
And yet, we stand
together on uncommon ground, in two senses.
First, from a negative perspective, with the passing of time we have
become grounded in differing approaches to Scripture, dissimilar traditions, divergent
histories, and dissonant practice. But
second, from a positive perspective the ground we stand on is uncommon because
it is holy, the holy ground of the sacramental life of the Church.
In this paper I intend
to compare the Lutheran and Roman Catholic doctrine of the sacraments, pointing
out both differences and similarities, following for the most part a historical
approach. At the outset, a consideration
of basic information from Scripture and the early Church will prove
helpful. For practical purposes, the
historical overview must be sketchy. It
will culminate with current Roman Catholic teaching regarding the
sacraments.
Because of the shared
pre-Reformation heritage of the Roman Catholic Church and confessional
Lutheranism, and because of the resourcement and re-evaluation of
Reformation-era condemnations on the part of the Roman Catholic Church,
contemporary confessional Lutheranism has been presented with an opportunity
for making progress in healing the division with the Roman Catholic Church over
the matter of the sacraments as has not existed since the de facto
division of the Western Church at the time of the Reformation.
Concepts from Scripture
The New Testament uses the Greek word musthvrion to signify something previously unknown that could only be known by revelation, such as the gospel, antichrist (2 Thess. 2:7), or more generally, a “hidden meaning” (Rev. 1:20; 17:5-7) or “secrets” (1 Cor. 13:2; 14:2). Although the New Testament mentions various customs and ceremonies, and two rites instituted by Christ, Holy Baptism and Holy Communion, stand out from the rest and form a class by themselves, these are never designated by the term musthvrion. In Eph. 5:32, St. Paul uses this term not to refer to Holy Matrimony as a sacrament, but to indicate that the union of man and wife as an illustration of the relationship between Christ and the Church was not recognized previously, but now had been revealed. The New Testament never defines, classifies, or numbers sacraments. It does describe manifold ways in which the Father through the Son in the Spirit reveals his saving grace to mankind.
Sacramental Theology of the Early Church
The early Church also was slow to formulate definitions of sacraments or develop a sacramental theology. Rather, sacramental theology developed from the sacramental life and practice of the Church.1 This was especially true of divine worship; the worship of the early Church was saturated with Scripture, and its confession regarding the sacraments was formed as much by this lived experience of the gospel in worship as by rational considerations.2 Clement and Origen appear to be the first to use the term musthvrion to apply to the rites practiced by Christians. Both use the term to refer to something visible that represents something else, especially something sacred. Origen first applies this to baptism and eucharist.3
The Latin word sacramentum had a variety of
meanings in secular context; for purposes of this paper, it is only significant
that this was the word used to translate the Greek musthvrion of the New Testament. Tertullian is the first to apply this word to
both baptism and eucharist. In addition,
he does so in a double sense: a sacramentum is both the sign of a
greater reality, and something that sanctifies by virtue of that reality. This use was continued by Cyprian and laid
the groundwork for Augustine’s sacramental theology.4
Augustine uses both sacramentum and mysterium very
broadly, but his major contribution to sacramental theology is his definition
of a sacrament as a sacred sign,5
as the visible Word, 6 and his
formula, accedit verbum ad elementum et fit sacramentum.7
Early Middle Ages and Hugh of St. Victor
Augustine’s sacramental
theology was developed further beginning in the early middle ages.
Omnis mundi creatura
Quasi liber et pictura
Nobis est, et speculum8
“Every creature in the
world is, for us, like a book and a picture, and a mirror as well;” a mirror or
sign, of course, of divine truths. Alain
of Lille stated it in poetic, euphonious Latin, but before him, Hugh of St.
Victor had said, “The entire sense-perceptible world is like a sort of book
written by the finger of God,” an idea he borrowed from Augustine, who of
course was vividly aware from Scripture that Christ is the Word of God, by whom
and for whom all things were made.9 Hugh of St.
Victor masterfully developed the biblical, patristic, and Augustinian broad
definition of sacramentum. In his
De tribus diebus he presents the reader with a meditation on created
nature that is also an interpretation of Romans 1:20, “For since the creation
of the world his invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the
things that have been made . . . .” This
text is Hugh’s underlying principle for his subsequent meditation on the
visible things of creation, through which he arrives at a fully instructed
perception of the invisible things of the Creator.10
Hugh develops these
ideas further in De sacramentis christianae fidei. Despite the title, the book is what is
usually considered a Summa. After
a brief discourse on the Scriptures and revelation, Hugh lingers on the six
days of creation. Here he continues in
the patristic tradition of lengthy commentaries on the hexaemeron. From the medieval perspective, those things
that can be known of God from his creation, the vestigia Dei, are all
contained as in a nutshell in these six days.
The whole created order is, in this sense, sacramental. As he proceeds through creation, fall, and restoration,
he arrives at the specific topic of the sacraments, and states that he is
content with the traditional definition of sacrament: “A sacrament is the sign
of a sacred thing.” He then defines
“more fully and more perfectly” what a sacrament is: “A sacrament is a
corporeal or material element set before the senses without, representing by
similitude and signifying by institution and containing by sanctification some
invisible and spiritual graces.”11 So, for example,
the wine of Holy Communion resembles blood; Christ in the upper room called
it his blood, and he said it was the new testament in his blood for the
forgiveness of sins.
Although from a
post-medieval viewpoint this may seem to severely limit what can be considered
a sacrament, Hugh’s perspective is still broad and inclusive. Along with the sacrament of baptism in water,
unction in oil, and the body and blood of Christ in bread and wine, he includes
making the sign of the cross (whether in opposition to evil or to bless and
sanctify), stretching out hands in prayer, bending, standing erect, or any
other action, posture, or spoken word used to express something sacred.12 Apparently an action or gesture can
constitute the materia of the sacrament.
Lest this be too confusing, Hugh then classifies sacraments in three
categories. First are those by which
salvation is principally accomplished, for example, the water of baptism and
receiving the body and blood of Christ.
Here it is significant both that Hugh recognizes, as did patristic authors,
the pre-eminence of baptism and Eucharist, and that he says, “for example;”
there is no attempt to limit the sacraments to these two, or, indeed, to
number them at all. The next group
consists of those things which, although not necessary for salvation, are of
benefit to sanctification, because through them virtue can be exercised and a
fuller grace acquired. His examples are
the water of aspersion and the reception of ashes. Although Hugh says that grace can be acquired
through these, he is not thinking in terms of what later confessional
Lutheranism defined as “means of grace,” but more along the lines of what are
sometimes called sacramentals, those things that stir up remembrance of the
gospel and are handmaidens, as it were, to the gospel, the means of grace
properly so called. Hugh’s third
classification consists of those things that appear to have been instituted
only to make preparation for the other sacraments, for example, the vestments
of the ministers.13
This third category is an important reminder that Hugh, like the fathers, was not unconcerned about the relationship between the lex orandi and the lex credendi of the Church. The postures of worship, the balance between voices excited to devotion in song and the silence which composes hearts for rest, the interplay of readings from Scripture with hymns and songs, exist in great variety so that faith “may find perfect matter for exercise and a cause for restoration. For thus the faithful mind, while it is being led without to various pursuits of holy exercise, is ever renewed more and more within from its own devotion unto sanctity.”14 Rites and ceremonies appropriate for the Word and the sacraments are themselves sacraments in the broad sense, signs that foster contemplation first of the visible and audible, the Word and the sacraments, and through them what is invisible, the grace of God and God himself. In other words, the worship surrounding the sacraments, while not legislated, is also not arbitrary, because it is a mirror of divine realities and both exercises and affects faith.
Thomas Aquinas
Without doubt, the
theologian of the middle ages who had the greatest and most enduring impact on
sacramental theology was Thomas Aquinas.
Thomas accepts the traditional definition of a sacrament and quotes
Augustine’s words that it is a “sacred sign.”15 He emphasizes the necessity of the use of the
word in the sacrament (again quoting Augustine), affirming that the word joined
to the sensible sign is analogous to the Word of God being united to sensible
flesh in the incarnation and to the union of body and soul in the human person.16 Moreover, it is necessary to use specific
words, the words of institution, in consecrating Holy Communion and in
baptizing. According to Thomas, a
sacrament, like all things, is composed of form and matter, and for something
to exist the determinate form is necessary before the determinate matter. Since in the sacraments determinate matter
(water, bread, wine) is required, much more do they need a determinate form
(the words of institution).17
Although not the first
to propose seven as the specific number of those rites of the Church which can
be considered most fully sacramental in character, Aquinas established the
argumentation that would most frequently be repeated in affirming the position
of the Roman Catholic Church. His
argumentation is eminently reasonable, given the assumptions of the symbolist
mentality of the middle ages.18 For example:
We may likewise gather the number of the sacraments from their being instituted as a remedy against the defect caused by sin. For Baptism is intended as a remedy against the absence of spiritual life; Confirmation, against the infirmity of soul found in those of recent birth; the Eucharist, against the soul’s proneness to sin; Penance, against actual sin committed after baptism; Extreme Unction, against the remainders of sins—of those sins, namely, which are not sufficiently removed by Penance, whether through negligence or through ignorance; Order, against divisions in the community; Matrimony, as a remedy against concup-iscence in the individual, and against the decrease in numbers that results from death.19
Another example is the analogous relationships that can be determined between the three theological and four cardinal virtues, and each of the seven sacraments. Although Thomas can provide no clear support in Scripture or the fathers for specifically limiting—or expanding—the number of the sacraments to seven, his approach is clear, reasonable, and satisfying. It also will lead to confusion and dissension from the time of the Reformation to the present.
Melanchthon and the
The
In the Apology, Melanchthon’s chief concern is with the Confutators’ insistence that there are seven sacraments—no more, no fewer. In discussing this matter, he makes several important points. First, he refuses to be straightjacketed by a specific enumeration of sacraments, acknowledging that the enumeration varied among the fathers. Second, he suggests a simple definition, “rites which have the command of God and to which the promise of grace has been added.”21 “Command of God” (the institution) and “promise of grace” (the invisible reality) are two of the characteristics of a sacrament that were firmly established as part of the Christian tradition. Melanchthon’s use of the term “rites” is significant. Whereas Luther speaks of “our two sacraments, instituted by Christ” in the Large Catechism,22 Melanchthon considers act as well as matter validly to constitute the materia of a sacrament, and accordingly can state, “The genuine sacraments, therefore, are Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and absolution (which is the sacrament of penitence), for these rites have the commandment of God and the promise of grace, which is the heart of the New Testament.”23 These are sacraments “in the strict sense.”
But there appears to be
still more flexibility in the list; Melanchthon meant what he said when he
refused to accept a specific enumeration.
Since the Roman Catholic party did not understand the priesthood in
reference to the ministry of the Word and administration of the sacraments, but
in reference to sacrifice, such priesthood could not be accepted as a
sacrament. However, if ordination is
understood in reference to the ministry of the Word, there was no objection to
calling it a sacrament, because “God approves of this ministry and is present
in it.”24 Matrimony, although it was instituted by God,
is not a “sign of the New Testament” because it does not offer grace and the
forgiveness of sins. Confirmation and
extreme unction, as practiced in the Church at the time of the Reformation and
as understood by Melanchthon, do not have a straightforward command of God and
a clear promise of grace. Here again, as
was the case with the fathers and many of the scholastics, the question is not
so much how many sacraments there are, as acknowledging that certain New
Testament rites that have God’s command and the promise of grace are
preeminent.
Melanchthon states that
he is more concerned with the proper use of the sacraments. He insists on the centrality of faith, and
the relationship of faith and promise.
The sacraments are signs of God’s gospel promises. But a promise is useless unless faith accepts
it. So in order for the sacraments to
have their intended effect, the recipient must have faith “which believes these
promises and accepts that which is promised and offered in the sacrament.”25 At the same time, he rejects in the strongest
terms the idea that unless there is some obstacle (non ponere obicem),
the sacraments confer grace ex opere operato, without a good disposition
(sine bono motu). It is worth
considering these three Latin terms.
The term “without a good
disposition” appears to have entered general usage with Duns Scotus and Gabriel
Biel. Their purpose in using this term
was to emphasize that the sacraments were effective without any preceding
meritorious act of the will on the part of the recipients.26 Apparently, this was meant to safeguard the
sacraments as efficacious means of grace, and not make them dependent on human
merit for their effectiveness.
Melanchthon, however, appears to understand it as referring to an
automatic or mechanical view of the sacraments, that they justify by virtue of
the ceremony alone, without the necessity of the hand of faith receiving the
promised mercy.
“Unless there is some
obstacle” was used by the scholastics to affirm that the sacraments could not
be used beneficially—their grace could not be received—if one lived in
conscious, unrepentant sin. Although it
is not entirely clear how the reformers interpreted this phrase, Holsten
Fagerberg refers to Ap XXIV, 63 and 96, where the mass is criticized because it
provides benefits even for wicked people, if they do not put an obstacle in its
way.27 Apparently, the reformers understood the
meaning of the phrase to be that as long as one was not living in mortal sin,
one received the benefit of the sacrament, whether or not one had faith in the
gospel promise connected to the sacrament.
The greatest misunderstanding resulted from the use of the phrase ex opere operato. Originally it was used to safeguard the objective nature of the sacraments as means of grace.28 Since God’s command and promise are connected with the sign whenever the sacraments are used according to their institution, God’s promise of grace is always present, regardless of the disposition of the recipient or the worthiness of the officient. The reformers, however, always interpreted this phrase as an affirmation of the automatic, quasi-magical working of the sacrament, and regarded it as an extreme example of works righteousness.
Council of
One would hope, and
expect, that the Council of Trent would clear up this confusion. In fact, the opposite was the case. Session VII, On the Sacraments in General,
Canon VI states:
If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace which they signify; or, that they do not confer that grace on those who do not place an obstacle thereunto; as though they were merely outward signs of grace or justice received through faith, and certain marks of the Christian profession, whereby believers are distinguished amongst men from unbelievers; let him be anathema.29
This canon confuses the
position of the enthusiasts and fanatics, which the Lutheran reformers
expressly rejected, with the Lutheran reformers’ rejection of the phrase non
ponere obicem in the Apology. This
was pointed out by Martin Chemnitz.30 Canon VIII is
more clearly directed to the objections stated by Melanchthon:
If anyone saith, that by the said sacraments of the New Law grace is not conferred through the act performed (ex opere operato), but that faith alone in the divine promises suffices for the obtaining of grace; let him be anathema.31
Nevertheless, it is
clear that the Catholic theologians regarded the objection to ex opere
operato in the Apology as an attack on the objective nature of the
sacrament, and did not recognize the true nature of the reformers’
objection. Finally, in the first canon
of this section, the theologians at
It is important to note
that theologians inclined toward nominalism constituted a majority at the
Council of Trent.33 Nominalism did, indeed, interpret the
language of earlier scholastics, including Aquinas, in the mechanical sense that
resulted in the objections of the reformers.
That Aquinas used the term opus operatum in his Commentary on
the Sentences but never in the Summa may indicate that he did not
regard the use of the term as necessary for expressing genuine sacramental doctrine. His use of the term in the Commentary
is meant to stress the objective nature of the sacrament: the justifying grace
of the sacrament is God’s work, not man’s work; its effect does not depend on
the merits of the recipient, but on the merits of Christ. The benefit of the sacrament, however, does
depend on the faith of the recipient.34
Although this faith may
be regarded as a “contribution” by Aquinas, nevertheless what he understood by ex
opere operato and opus operatum was not what the later nominalists
taught, not what Melanchthon understood, and not what was affirmed at
It is worth noting that the Lutheran view of the
enumeration of the sacraments did not remain as open as Melanchthon presented
it in the Apology. Melanchthon’s Locus
on this topic in his Loci communes is in full accord with what he states
in the Apology.
Twentieth Century Developments
The twentieth century witnessed a dramatic increase in creative study of the sacraments in the Roman Catholic Church. Historical study of the sacraments clarified that only baptism and Eucharist were clearly instituted by Christ and universally acknowledged by the early Church as uniquely conveying grace. The remaining five sacraments were only recognized gradually, over a period of centuries, and even then the enumeration of the sacraments differed among theologians. As noted earlier, until Augustine there was no attempt to formulate an overarching doctrine of the sacraments. The sacraments were not defined, they were celebrated. The encouraging implication of this return to concern for understanding the historical development of theology is that it is not limited to a single faith tradition. This is not the study of the development of sacramental theology in the Roman Catholic Church, in Eastern Orthodoxy, in Lutheranism, in Anglicanism, etc.; it is the study of this theology in the history of the Church.
Another significant
development in Roman Catholicism, associated primarily with Karl Rahner and
Edward Schillebeeckx, was the idea of Jesus as primordial sacrament and the
church as a basic sacrament. The concept
is based upon the human nature of Christ being the sign of his invisible divine
nature. Schillebeeckx’s Christology is
thoroughly Chalcedonian:
Because the saving acts of the man Jesus are performed by a divine person, they have a divine power to save, but because this divine power to save appears to us in visible form, the saving activity of Jesus is sacramental. For a sacrament is a divine bestowal of salvation in an outwardly perceptible form which makes the bestowal manifest; a bestowal of salvation in historical visibility.39
Schillebeeckx argues
that Christ as primordial sacrament establishes the basis for all other
sacraments. Although the glorification of
Christ’s body [following his ascension] has made him invisible to us, and he
does not show himself to us in his own flesh, he does make himself visibly
present by taking up earthly realities into his saving activity. These are the sacraments, in which we truly
encounter the living Christ. “The
heavenly saving activity, invisible to us, becomes visible in the sacraments.”40 Carl Rahner similarly emphasizes that the
human nature of Christ is the sign, or visible, perceptible reality of the
sacrament. In this sacramental presence,
Jesus is also the res sacramenti, the reality to which the visible sign
refers; in this case, the divine nature.41
This concept of Christ
as primordial sacrament leads logically to the concept of the Church as a basic
sacrament. The divine life of Christ is
offered to, and through, the Church. The
Church is a visible assembly of people, but the life of grace in which those
people share is hidden and intangible.
They are a dwelling of God in the Spirit, but this is manifest only
through word and embodied action. The
Second Vatican Council referred to this “mystery of the Church” in numerous
official documents.42 Perhaps the most striking is Lumen Gentium. Although this document is the constitution on
the Church, the title refers to Christ, the Light of the World. If it is not understood that Jesus is the
Light of the World, and the Church is the messenger of that Light, then neither
Jesus nor the Church can be understood correctly.43 Or, as Kenan Osborne states, “The Church as a
basic sacrament, in many ways, sacramentalizes each and every aspect of Church
life, since Church itself can only exist when it sacramentalizes the primordial
sacrament, Jesus.”44 Christ as primordial sacrament is affirmed,
at least implicitly, by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1088,
1115. Although John Paul II makes
little, if any, reference to Christ as primordial sacrament, he clearly accepts
the teaching of the Church as basic sacrament, and has referred to the Church
as the sacrament of salvation and the sacrament of unity in a recent
encyclical.45
The understanding of
Christ as primordial sacrament resonates with currents in Eastern Orthodox
theology. This is immediately obvious
from the title of Nicholas Cabasilas’ study of the sacramental life of the
Church, The Life in Christ.
According to Nicholas:
. . . righteousness stooped down from heaven and, for the first time, appeared to men in its reality and perfection. We were justified, first by being set free from bonds and condemnation, in that He who had done no evil pleaded for us by dying on the cross. By this He paid the penalty for the sins which we had audaciously committed; then, because of that death, we were made friends of God and righteous. By his death the Saviour not only released us and reconciled us to the Father, but also “gave us power to become children of God” (John 1:12), in that He both united our nature to Himself through the flesh, which he assumed, and also united each one of us to His own flesh by the power of the Mysteries [sacraments].
In this way, then, He makes His own righteousness and life to rise, like the sun, in our souls. Thus it became possible for men, by means of the sacred Mysteries, both to know true righteousness and themselves to practice it.46
Being united to the
flesh of Jesus by participation in the sacraments, and through this flesh which
he assumed being also united to his divine nature, is in clear agreement with
Schillebeeckx and Rahner.
It is also in agreement with Luther. David Yeago writes of Luther’s struggle with sacramental theology in 1517-18, and his final conclusion that every sacramental act in the Church is the act of Jesus Christ in the Church; when we come to the sacrament, we encounter Christ.47 Luther states this in stronger and more concrete terms when, quoting Hilary of Poitiers, he says that the Word became flesh, and the Church receives this same incarnate Word in the sacrament. As a result, Christ dwells in believers by nature. Luther cites this statement of Hilary against his opponents—the “fanatics”—who insisted that Christ was only received spiritually in Holy Communion. Since the nature of Christ’s flesh is “mingled” with the nature of his divinity in the sacrament, we must also receive both. He wants no one to be mistaken about the nature and effects of this sacrament: “God is in this flesh, it is a ‘flesh of God,’ it is a spiritual flesh, it is in God and God is in it. Therefore it is living and gives life to all who eat it, both to their bodies and to to their souls.”48
Common Ground
At the beginning of this
paper I claimed that confessional Lutheranism has been presented with a unique
opportunity to make progress toward healing its longstanding division with the
Roman Catholic Church. We appear to
share, or at least to be conscious of sharing, more common ground than ever
before. Although the Catechism of the
Catholic Church, 1113, 117, continues to define dogmatically the number of
the sacraments, “in the strict sense of the term,”as seven, and much of
Lutheranism continues to insist, “as we define and understand the term, there
are but two sacraments,”49 there is widespread awareness among Catholic theologians that if
Christ is the primordial sacrament, and the Church is the basic sacrament, then
at least nine sacraments must be dealt with.
Some Lutherans are paying more direct attention to Melanchthon’s
rationale in the Apology rather than viewing it exclusively through the lens of
later Lutheran Orthodoxy. Roman
Catholicism especially appears to be open to the early and high medieval
perspective of the entire created order as sacramental in character.50 This has long been an emphasis of Eastern
Orthodox theology:
Between the wider and the narrower sense of the term “sacrament” there is no rigid division: the whole Christian life must be seen as a unity, as a single mystery or one great sacrament, whose different aspects are expressed in a great variety of acts, some performed but once in our life, others perhaps daily.51
It appears that this
perspective has not borne much fruit in Lutheranism.
At any rate, it is
essential that any reconsideration of the definition or enumeration of the
sacraments be done for sound theological reasons, not merely on the basis of
“agreeing to disagree.” Common ground
which denies the truth soon becomes sinking sand. On the other hand, stubbornly returning to
misunderstandings of the past while refusing to examine them in the light of
contemporary definitions may leave one with a foundation of solid rock, but it
will be a solitary rock. For example,
the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1128, says this of ex opere
operato:
This is the meaning of the Church’s affirmation that the sacraments act ex opere operato (literally: “by the very fact of the action’s being performed”), i.e., by virtue of the saving work of Christ, accomplished once for all. It follows that “the sacrament is not wrought by the righteousness of either the celebrant or the recipient, but by the power of God.” From the moment that a sacrament is celebrated in accordance with the intention of the Church, the power of Christ and his Spirit acts in and through it, independently of the personal holiness of the minister. Nevertheless, the fruits of the sacraments also depend on the disposition of the one who receives them.
Surely there is fertile
ground here for substantive reconsideration of the understanding of ex opere
operato expressed in the Lutheran confessions, and of the condemnations made
at
Confessional Lutherans
who read the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox literature on the sacraments
will note the absence of the Worttheologie of Luther and the
confessions. That this is central to a
Lutheran approach to theology is evidenced by the Lutheran World Federation
response to the document of the World Council of Churches, “Baptism, Eucharist,
and Ministry.”53 But Lutherans should also note that both
Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism have a high view of Scripture and
affirm its authority and inspiration.
Perhaps each faith tradition can make an important contribution in this
area: Lutheranism with its emphasis on the centrality of the Word, Roman
Catholicism with its developing theology of Christ, the Word made flesh, as
primordial sacrament, and Eastern Orthodoxy with its Logos theology. We could each do so independently,
romantically freezing ourselves in a point in our respective histories that we
identify as a golden age. We could do
so by blending—and blanding—our distinctive characteristics until they become
unrecognizable, which seems to have been the goal of much of the ecumenical
movement in the twentieth century. Or we
could remember that in a theology we all share, there is a pattern for mutual
interpenetration, perichoresis, and circumincessio, distinct, yet
acknowledging a common ground of unity.
Surely our life in the sacraments, our life in Christ, would be deepened
and enriched, whether or not such discussions would lead to ecumenical rapprochement.
For the most part,
sacramental theology as it relates to individual sacraments has not been dealt
with in this paper. How sacrifice is
understood in the Eucharist remains problematic. Mention the historic episcopate, the doctrine
of the ministry, and ordination, and a roomful of Lutherans becomes instantly
polarized. And what exactly is
confirmation, anyway? In addition, the
relationship between sacrament and worship lies at the heart of Roman Catholic
and Eastern Orthodox sacramental theology; Lutheranism could only profit from
an in-depth study of this perspective.
Further comparative
study of sacramental theology will at times be disappointing, at times
rewarding, and always challenging. When
Jesus—whom we recognized in the breaking of the bread, and who made us glad
when we saw him in the upper room—is on the shore preparing our feast, some of
us will rush headlong and cloakless into the water; others will slowly and
carefully make progress in our boats with our almost-bursting nets intact. But we all must head in the same direction
and stand on common ground. It is the
Lord. And we have sheep to feed.
1 Kenan B. Osborne, Sacramental Theology (New
York: Paulist, 1988), 6.
2 “The Gospel and dogma are expressions of the same
Spirit of the Church. The Church is not
producing literature when it writes the Gospel nor engaging in philosophy when
it formulates dogma, but in both cases it is expressing the fullness of the new
life hidden within it. For this reason,
the Gospel cannot be understood outside the Church nor dogma outside
worship.” Archimandrite Vasileios, Hymn
of Entry (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1984), 18.
3 Michael G. Lawler, Symbol and Sacrament
(Omaha: Creighton University Press, 1995), 30.
4 Lawler, 31.
5 “A sacrifice, therefore, is the visible sacrament or
sacred sign of an invisible sacrifice.” De
civ. Dei 10,5.
6 Tractate 80 on John 3.
7 Ibid.
8 Alain of Lille, De planctu naturae, in
Th. Wright, The Anglo-Latin Satirical Poets and Epigrammists of the Twefth
Century (London, 1872), n.p.
9 Marie-Dominique Chenu, Nature, Man, and Society in
the Twelfth Century (Toronto: Medieval Academy of America, 1997), 117.
10 Wanda Cizewski, “Reading the World as Scripture: Hugh
of St. Victor’s De tribus diebus,” Florilegium 9 (1987): 67.
11 De sacramentis I, 9, 2 in Roy J. Deferrari, Hugh
of St. Victor: On the Sacraments of the Christian Faith (Cambridge, MA: The
Medieval Academy of America, 1951), 155.
12 De sacramentis I, 9, 6, Deferrari 164.
13 De sacramentis I, 9, 7, Deferrari 164.
14 De sacramentis I, 9, 3, Deferrari 158-59.
15 Summa theologica, quaes. 60, 1.
16 Summa theologica, quaes. 60, 6.
17 Summa
theologica, quaes. 60, 7.
18 For a discussion of the symbolist mentality see
Chenu, 99-145.
19 Summa theologica, quaes. 65, 1.
20 AC/Ap 13.
21 Ap 13, 3.
22 LC 4. 1.
23 Ap 13, 4.
24 Ap 13, 12.
25 Ap 13, 20.
26 Holsten Fagerberg, trans. Gene J. Lund, A New Look
at the Lutheran Confessions (St. Louis: Concordia, 1972) 168.
27 Fagerberg, 169.
28 Ibid.
29 J. Waterworth, trans., The Canons and Decrees of
the Council of
30 Martin Chemnitz, trans. Fred Kramer, Examination
of the Council of Trent (St. Louis: Concordia, 1978), 71.
31 Ibid.
32 Trent, 54.
33 Lawler, 37.
34 Lawler, 38.
35 Lawler, 40.
36 Martin Chemnitz, trans. J. A. O. Preus, Loci
Theologici II (St. Louis: Concordia, 1989), 721-22.
37 Examination 35.
38 Examination, 38-39.39 Edward Schillebeeckx, Christ the Sacrament of the Encounter
with God (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1963), 15.
40 Schillebeeckx, 43-44.
41 Osborne, Theology, 71.
42 Kenan Osborne, Christian Sacraments in a
Postmodern World (New York/Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1999), 21.
43 Osborne, Theology, 88.
44 Osborne, Theology, 97.
45 John Paul II, Ecclesia de eucharistia, 35; 41.
46 Nicholas Cabasilas, trans. Carmino J. deCatanzaro, The
Life in Christ (New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1974), 53-54.
47 WA 23:237.8-32.
48 “Es ist Gott in diesem fleisch, Ein Gotts fleisch,
Ein geistfleisch ists, Es ist ynn Gott und Gott ynn yhm drumb ists lebendig und
gibt leben allen die es essen, beyde leib und seelen.” WA 23:243.35-245.2.
49 E. W. A. Koehler, A Summary of Christian Doctrine
(St. Louis: Concordia, 1939, 1952), 200.
Koehler has enjoyed great longevity as a standard textbook for doctrine
classes in the
50 Osborne, Sacraments, 50-53.
51 Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church (London:
Penguin, 1997), 276.
52 Gerhard O. Forde, “Lutheran Ecumenism: With Whom and
How Much?” Lutheran Quarterly
XVII, 4 (2003): 438-39.
53 Michael Seils, Lutheran Convergence? LWF
Report 25 (Rolle, Switzerland: Imprimerie La Colombiere, 1988), 146-47.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alain of Lille, De
planctu naturae, in Th. Wright, The Anglo-Latin Satirical Poets and
Epigrammists of the Twefth Century. n.p.,
Archimandrite Vasileios.
Hymn of Entry.
Augustine. Tractate 80 on John 3.
Augustine. De civitate Dei.
Braaten, Carl E. and Robert
W. Jenson. The Catholicity of the Reformation.
________, eds. Christian
Dogmatics.
Chemnitz, Martin.
Examination of the Council of Trent, trans. Fred Kramer.
Chemnitz, Martin. Loci
Theologici II, trans. J. A. O. Preus.
Chenu, Marie-Dominique.
Nature, Man, and Society in the Twelfth Century.
*Cizewski, Wanda. “Reading the World as Scripture: Hugh of St. Victor’s De tribus diebus,” Florilegium 9 (1987): 67.
Deferrari, Roy J. Hugh of
St. Victor: On the Sacraments of the Christian Faith.
Fagerberg, Holsten. A New
Look at the Lutheran Confessions, trans. Gene J. Lund.
Forde, Gerhard O. “Lutheran Ecumenism: With Whom and How Much?” Lutheran Quarterly XVII, 4 (2003): 436-55.
Ignatius Press, ed.
Companion to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
John Paul II. Ecclesia de eucharistia. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/special_features/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_20030417_ecclesia_eucharistia_ en.html
Koehler, E. W. A. A Summary
of Christian Doctrine.
Lawler , Michael G, Symbol
and Sacrament.
Luther, Martin. “That These
Words of Christ, ‘This Is My Body,’ Still Stand Firm against the Fanatics,” in
Luther’s Works 37.
Meyendorff, John. Byzantine
Theology.
Nicholas Cabasilas. The Life
in Christ, trans. Carmino J. deCatanzaro.
Nichols, Aidan. Discovering
Aquinas.
Osborne, Kenan B.
Sacramental Theology.
Osborne, Kenan. Christian Sacraments in a Postmodern World. New York/Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1999.
Ratzinger, Joseph, ed. The
Catechism of the Catholic Church, trans. United States Catholic Conference,
Inc.
Schillebeeckx, Edward.
Christ the Sacrament of the Encounter with God.
Seils, Michael. Lutheran
Convergence? LWF Report 25.
Tappert, Theodore, ed. and
trans. The Book of Concord.
Thomas Aquinas. Summa
theologica.
Ware, Kallistos. The Orthodox Church.
________. The Orthodox Way.
Waterworth, J., trans. The
Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent.