3/21/23
Scholarly Reflections
Mazza, Enrico. "Chapter Fourteen: The Reformation and the Council of Trent." The Celebration of the Eucharist: The Origin of the Rite and the Development of Its Interpretation. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press/Pueblo, 1999, 237-250.
Mazza notes three complaints about eucharistic practice, listed in Luther's The Babylonian Captivity (1520). In this work, Luther rejects reception of communion in one kind, transubstantiation, and the idea that the eucharist is a "good work" (Mazza 1999, 237). Mazza does mischaracterize Luther as embracing consubstantiation, then Mazza defines it as similar in nature to the hypostatic union, with two natures (bread and body) co-existing in one item. This, in my understanding, differs from the classic definition of consubstantiation, in which the two substances form a third substance. Mazza does observe correctly that Zwingli's objection to the real presence concept of Luther was based on an insistence on Christ's bodily local presence at the right hand of the Father (Mazza 1999, 238). Luther further rejected the sacrificial character of the Eucharist as a good work as it was not scriptural to consider a celebration of the eucharist as a work which could forgive sins.
Luther's revision of the Roman canon removed the sacrificial language. The prayers were also mostly rejected, in Mazza's view, leaving only the Words of Institution, though he does acknowledge the presence of "the offertory, the dialogue before the Preface and the Preface itself, and the account of Last Supper, which was followed by the singing of the Sanctus and the Benedictus, while the bread and wine were to be elevated" (Mazza 1999, 239). In other words, while the preface was retained, the other prayers were mostly removed.
The effect of Luther's changes was to put much of the celebration into the realm of active congregational participation. The prayers which were seen as akin to the prayers of Jesus at the Last Supper are gone, but there is a great deal of praise to God, coming from the congregation rather than the celebrant (Mazza 1999, 240-241).
Mazza finds Calvin difficult to interpret largely because his use of the Scriptures and the Fathers is theological rather than historical in outlook. It therefore becomes difficult to place the evidence Calvin uses into its proper historical or theological context (Mazza 1999, 241). Calvin rejects transubstantiation and instead holds to a "sacramental realism which he thinks of as half-way between Lutherand Zwingli" (Mazza 1999, 242). He will not accept a local presence of Christ in the bread nd wine, yet he will not consider it merely a symbol. Calvin will accept a "sacrifice of thanksgiving in the eucharist, but does not accept it as a sacrifice which forgives sins" (Mazza 1999, 243). The liturgy ws greatly reduced, to reading of Scripture and a sermon, with the eucharist, only four times a year, and introduced by a prayer and the Words of Institution (Mazza 1999, 244).
In the same period, the Council of Trent assembled to respond to the alterations of the Reformers (Mazza 1999, 244). Mazza does not consider the council's treatment to provide a complete picture of eucharistic practice. It deals rather with the issue of both kinds, communion of children, and the Roman Canon. The council defended reception in one kind because both kinds were not specifically required by divine precept and because one kind had been allowed in practice for some time (Mazza 1999, 246). It was therefore to be held as the normal practice. Mazza notes that the interpretive method was dependent on the theological practices developed during the Medieval period, including many elements of Aristotelian philosophy (Mazza 1999, 247). The connection of the theology of th Middle Ages to Aristotle was significant. Particularly concepts of truth and the validity of symobols or figures were front and center in the discussions.
Scholarly Reflections
Mazza, Enrico. "Chapter Fourteen: The Reformation and the Council of Trent." The Celebration of the Eucharist: The Origin of the Rite and the Development of Its Interpretation. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press/Pueblo, 1999, 237-250.
Mazza notes three complaints about eucharistic practice, listed in Luther's The Babylonian Captivity (1520). In this work, Luther rejects reception of communion in one kind, transubstantiation, and the idea that the eucharist is a "good work" (Mazza 1999, 237). Mazza does mischaracterize Luther as embracing consubstantiation, then Mazza defines it as similar in nature to the hypostatic union, with two natures (bread and body) co-existing in one item. This, in my understanding, differs from the classic definition of consubstantiation, in which the two substances form a third substance. Mazza does observe correctly that Zwingli's objection to the real presence concept of Luther was based on an insistence on Christ's bodily local presence at the right hand of the Father (Mazza 1999, 238). Luther further rejected the sacrificial character of the Eucharist as a good work as it was not scriptural to consider a celebration of the eucharist as a work which could forgive sins.
Luther's revision of the Roman canon removed the sacrificial language. The prayers were also mostly rejected, in Mazza's view, leaving only the Words of Institution, though he does acknowledge the presence of "the offertory, the dialogue before the Preface and the Preface itself, and the account of Last Supper, which was followed by the singing of the Sanctus and the Benedictus, while the bread and wine were to be elevated" (Mazza 1999, 239). In other words, while the preface was retained, the other prayers were mostly removed.
The effect of Luther's changes was to put much of the celebration into the realm of active congregational participation. The prayers which were seen as akin to the prayers of Jesus at the Last Supper are gone, but there is a great deal of praise to God, coming from the congregation rather than the celebrant (Mazza 1999, 240-241).
Mazza finds Calvin difficult to interpret largely because his use of the Scriptures and the Fathers is theological rather than historical in outlook. It therefore becomes difficult to place the evidence Calvin uses into its proper historical or theological context (Mazza 1999, 241). Calvin rejects transubstantiation and instead holds to a "sacramental realism which he thinks of as half-way between Lutherand Zwingli" (Mazza 1999, 242). He will not accept a local presence of Christ in the bread nd wine, yet he will not consider it merely a symbol. Calvin will accept a "sacrifice of thanksgiving in the eucharist, but does not accept it as a sacrifice which forgives sins" (Mazza 1999, 243). The liturgy ws greatly reduced, to reading of Scripture and a sermon, with the eucharist, only four times a year, and introduced by a prayer and the Words of Institution (Mazza 1999, 244).
In the same period, the Council of Trent assembled to respond to the alterations of the Reformers (Mazza 1999, 244). Mazza does not consider the council's treatment to provide a complete picture of eucharistic practice. It deals rather with the issue of both kinds, communion of children, and the Roman Canon. The council defended reception in one kind because both kinds were not specifically required by divine precept and because one kind had been allowed in practice for some time (Mazza 1999, 246). It was therefore to be held as the normal practice. Mazza notes that the interpretive method was dependent on the theological practices developed during the Medieval period, including many elements of Aristotelian philosophy (Mazza 1999, 247). The connection of the theology of th Middle Ages to Aristotle was significant. Particularly concepts of truth and the validity of symobols or figures were front and center in the discussions.
RSS Feed