AC XXII: Reception of Christ’s Body and Blood in the Lord’s Supper
The laity are given both forms of the Lord’s Supper because this practice is the Lord’s command, “Drink of it all of you (Matthew 26:27). Christ has clearly commanded that all should drink from the cup.
So no one will quibble and say that this refers only to priests, Paul, in 1 Corinthians 11:27, cites an example from which it appears that the entire Church received both forms. This practice has remained in the Church for a long time. It is not known when, or by whom, or by whose authority, it was changed, although Cardinal Cusanus [1401-1464] mentions when it was formally approved. Cyprian [died 258] testifies in several places that the blood was given to the people. Jerome [347-420] testifies to the same thing. He says, “The priests administer the Eucharist and distribute the blood of Christ to the people.” In fact, Pope Gelasius [Pope, 492-496] commands that the Sacrament not be divided (dist. 2, Concerning Consecration, chap., “We Discover”). Only a recent custom has changed this.
Clearly, any custom introduced against God’s commands must not to be allowed, as Church law bears witness (dist. 8, chap., “Concerning the Truth,” and the following chapters). This custom has been received, not only in defiance of Scripture, but also against ancient canon law and the example of the Church. Therefore, if anyone preferred to receive both forms in the Sacrament, they should not have been compelled to do otherwise, as an offense against their conscience.
Because dividing the Sacrament does not agree with the institution of Christ, the customary procession [with the host], is also discontinued among us.
- What is our primary point of disagreement in this article against the Roman-Catholic Church?
- In what three ways do we show that the Roman-Catholic Church practice of receiving only in one kind not catholic?
Rome’s Response:
… we must reply, according to the custom of the Holy Church, that this article incorrectly lists this as an abuse. According to the sanctions and statutes of the same Church, it is instead an abuse and disobedience to administer to the laity both forms. For, under the one form of bread, the saints communed in the early Church. Luke says, “They continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread …” (Acts 2:42). Luke mentions only bread…. the custom never existed throughout the entire Church that both forms were given to the laity. It is true, however, that it perhaps existed among the Corinthians [Greece], Carthaginians [North Africa], and some other churches…
- What is the Roman-Catholic Church response as to what is the real abuse when it comes to receiving both the body and blood of Jesus in the Lord’s Supper?
- Does their support have much substance? Why or why not?
- Discuss current-day Roman-Catholic practice in distinction with their practice in the 16th century.
Commentary
The matter being discussed in this Article goes back to 1215 (and earlier), the 4th Lateran Council. This was a significant council within the Roman Catholic Church. At that council–for the first time–the doctrine of transubstantiation was declared the official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. It was also that council that decided to remove the chalice from the laity’s reception of the Lord’s Supper. Why? It was to prevent the laity from possibly spilling and, thus, desecrating Christ’s blood.
- Which words of Christ in the institution of His Supper tell use that He intends for all communicants to receive His blood as well as His body?
The last sentence of Article XXII could be easily missed. It deals with the Corpus Christi procession (Note: The Augsburg Confession was presented a week before the Corpus Christi procession). The signers of the Augsburg Confession refused to celebrate this festival when it was held at Augsburg the following week.
- Discuss.
- If one is to adore Christ being present in the bread, when should that take place?
The main disagreement that the Lutherans had with processions where a consecrated host was adored apart from receiving it in the Sacrament was that it did not follow Christ’ institution of eating and drinking. Christ commanded the bread that is His body to be eaten within the context of His Supper. Jesus never instituted His Supper to have part of it separated from the receiving of it. Processions carrying around a consecrated host did exactly that.
- Does the Church have the authority to consecrate a host (bread) for the purpose of using it in a procession instead of the Lord’s Supper?
The Church does not have the authority to change what Jesus instituted concerning His Supper. It is, after all, His Supper. The word for “testament/covenant” (diatheke) that Jesus used when He gave His Word to His Apostles for the Church also referred to a last will and testament. One does not have the authority to change what was in a someone’s will, let alone the last will and testament of Jesus for His Church.
We are to take what Jesus used (unleavened wheat bread [artos] and wine) and celebrate it according to His institution.
- Read Jesus’ words of institution and discuss any questions or coments.
AC XXIII: Marriage of Priests
There has been a public outcry concerning the bad examples of priests who have not sexually controlled themselves. [Bartolomeo] Platina writes that Pope Pius [II, Pope, 1458-1464] is reported to have said that–although there are reasons why marriage was taken away from the priests–there are far more important reasons why it should be given back. Since our priests wanted to avoid such scandal, they married wives and taught that it was lawful for them to enter into marriage. Paul says, “Because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife” and “It is better to marry than to be aflame with passion” (1 Corinthians 7:2, 9b).
Christ says, “Not everyone can accept this teaching” (Matthew 19:11), where He teaches that not everyone is fit for celibacy, because God created human beings for procreation (Genesis 1:28). It is not humanly possible to change creation without a singular gift and work of God. Those who are not suited for celibacy should marry. For no human law or vow can nullify a command or institution of God. For these reasons our priests teach that it is lawful for them to marry wives.
It is clear that in the ancient Church many priests were married men. For Paul says, “An overseer must be a one-woman man” (1 Timothy 3:2). Not until 400 years ago were priests in Germany compelled to be celibate. In fact, they offered such resistance when the Archbishop of Mainz was about to publish the Pope’s decree on celibacy, that he was almost crushed to death in an uprising by those angry priests. This matter was handled so harshly, that not only future marriages were forbidden, but existing ones were torn apart, contrary to all laws, both divine and human. This was even contrary to canon law itself, as made not only by popes, but also by the most celebrated councils.
Inasmuch as the world is growing old and human nature has become weaker, it is good to be on guard to make sure no more vices creep into Germany.
- What does this article call the pastors in the ancient church and even the current-day Lutheran pastors when this article was written?
- Are all people meant to be celibate?
- Must priests (pastors) be married?
Rome’s Response:
… it is astonishing that they call priestly celibacy an abuse! It is true, of course, because there were not enough ministers of God in the early Church that married men were admitted to the priesthood…. But by the grace of God, the Church increased so that there was no shortage of ministers in the Church. Then Pope Siricius [Pope, 384-398], eleven hundred and forty years ago–undoubtedly not without the Holy Spirit!–encouraged celibacy for priests…. In vain, do they complain that the world is growing old… The abuse of marriage and the breaking of vows in the clergy are not to be tolerated.
- What does Rome’s Confutation state why priests were allowed to marry in the early Church?
- Is that historically factual?
- Would we disagree with Rome’s statement, “The abuse of marriage and the breaking of vows in the clergy are not to be tolerated”?
- Can the Roman-Catholic Church decide to allow priests to marry (do they see celibacy of priests as Church doctrine)?
Commentary
Although many moves toward celibacy were made within Roman Catholicism, it wasn’t until the Middle Ages that those attempts were successful. 1075, Pope Gregory VII forbade married priests to carry out any sacred functions. Pope Calixtus II, about AD 1120 reenacted the decrees of Pope Gregory. In 1123, at the 1st Lateran Council, Canon 3, the Roman Catholic Church formally enforced celibacy for the clergy.
Read Matthew 19:1-12
- How does Jesus say apply to this article?
- Read 2 Timothy 2:1-7. This verse was used to help promote celibacy for the clergy.
- Does this verse apply? Can it apply?
Read 1 Timothy 4:1-5.
- Does this somehow apply to priests (pastors) not being married?
- What is the point Paul is making here?
- Does is apply in any way to the discussion of this Article?
Click here to go to the next lesson.
