The Supper Held Captive
What had the church done to the meal Christ left behind? Luther counts three chains on the Lord's Supper, and says Scripture forged none of them.
Withholding the cup from lay people, Luther argues, is godless and tyrannical, beyond the power of any pope or council. The second chain is transubstantiation, the doctrine that bread and wine stop being bread and wine, which he traces to Aristotle's rise in the schools, not to the Fathers: in red-hot iron, iron and fire coexist, so why not bread and Christ's body? The worst chain is the mass treated as a sacrifice and a good work. Christ instituted a testament, a promise made to us, to be received by faith.
- eucharist
- transubstantiation
- sacraments
- sacramental theology
- church authority
- religious authority
- priesthood
- ritual
- scriptural authority
- theology
Enter a dialogue
- You find the Lord's Supper held captive three times: the cup withheld, transubstantiation imposed, and the mass made a sacrifice. Which chain did the most harm?
- In red-hot iron, you point out, iron and fire mingle so that every part is both. Why can't bread and Christ's body be present together like that?
- The mass, you argue, is a testament, a promise God makes to us, and not a sacrifice we offer him. What changes for the person at the altar?
- Denying lay people the cup, you write, is godless and tyrannical, beyond the power of any pope or council. Why does a cup of wine matter so much?
- Two years on, you say you wish every booklet you wrote about indulgences were burned. What had you failed to see when you wrote them?