Hey Cosmos, I guess you`re referring to John 6. Christians who do not adhere to transubstantiation have long provided explanations of what is happening there, although that is not really the purpose of the conversation here. I could refer you to a round table on communion here: conciliarpost.com/christian-traditions/eastern-orthodox/round-table-communion/ OR my own two-part communion story (Part 1: conciliarpost.com/theology-spirituality/communion/brief-history-communion-part/). This was originally written for a graduate seminar, so the referenced pages are for an internal source document booklet. JJP Luther and Zwingli, as well as the different reformers who surrounded each of these men, differed markedly in theological and ecclesiastical questions. Differences in the interpretation of traditional ecclesiastical writings and materials, such as the writings of the fathers and historical beliefs, also characterized the respective conceptions and traditions of Luther and Zwingli. In the two works summarized above, however, the main divergence between Luther and Zwingli seems to be rooted in philosophical differences of opinion. Philosophically, it is clear that Luther and Zwingli did not agree on the possible locations of the physical body of Christ. Luther argued that the body of Christ could be omnipresent by virtue of his divinity and the “type” of incarnation. Zwingli argued that Christ`s physical body is human enough to leave him in one place, while the spiritual presence remains omnipresent. Space does not allow us to examine the Christological implications of this divergence (although it should be noted that Luther`s and Zwingli`s camps elsewhere refer to each other as heretics). The philosophical differences between a conception that allows the physical to shelter the spiritual, the possibility that the spiritual can allow the physical to become omnipresent (at least in a sense), and the form of spiritual naturalism are staggering.
Toward the end of the colloquium, when it was clear that no agreement would be reached, Philip asked Luther to draw up a list of lessons on which both sides agreed. [1] Marburg`s papers, based on what Schwabach`s papers would become, had 15 points, and each person in the colloquium could agree on the first 14. [1] On the 15th. The article in the Marburg articles reads as follows:[5] For Zwingli, the main thing in the Eucharist was not the subject he discussed with Luther – especially the elements of communion and their relationship to the true body and blood of Christ. Zwingli`s main concern in the Eucharist was that it was a meal eaten for celebration, remembrance and thanksgiving for what God did in Christ, but also to show the transformed communion of believers. This point is often overlooked. Perhaps Zwingli was distracted by the debate with Luther over Zwingli`s central views on the Eucharist. “Spiritual,” as Luther says. “Is nothing but that which is done in us and by us by the Spirit and faith, whether the object we are dealing with is physical or spiritual.
If Zwingli`s view that “the flesh is useless,” that is, physical objects are useless to faith, was true, then it undermines the incarnation and its necessity for our salvation. Based on this understanding of flesh and spirit, Luther flips the table on Zwingli`s favorite argument: “Our fanatics, however, are full of deception and bedbugs. They think that nothing spiritual can be present where there is something material and physical, and claim that meat is of no use. In fact, the opposite is true. The Spirit can only be with us in material and physical things such as the Word, water, and body of Christ and his saints on earth. In the Eucharist, God provided for the redemption not only of the soul of man, but of the whole person, soul and body. “. The mouth eats physically for the heart and the heart eats spiritually for the mouth, and therefore both are satisfied and saved by one and the same food. This disagreement was based on their theology of Christ. Luther believed that the human body of Christ was omnipresent (present in all places) and therefore present in bread and wine.
This was possible because God`s attributes permeated the human nature of Christ. Luther emphasized the unity of the person of Christ. Zwingli, who emphasized the discernment of natures, believed that if Christ was omnipresent in his divinity, the human body of Christ could only be present in one place, which was at the right hand of the Father. [3] The editor-in-chief of Christianity Today magazine carefully explained the two views that would forever separate the Lutheran and Reformed views from the Lord`s Supper: The Marburg Colloquium only proved, as was already clear from the previous written debate, that for two theologians with such different interpretations of Scripture, no meeting of minds on this central subject was possible. Christ and the Lord`s Supper. At the end of the Marburg colloquium, fourteen articles of faith were quickly agreed upon, but not the fifteenth. Luther understood that the Lord`s Supper contained the real presence of Christ in bread and wine. Zwingli understood the Lord`s Supper as a spiritual representation of Christ, whose physical presence would be preserved until his return to heaven. As has been shown, these divergent positions ultimately stem from philosophical differences between Luther and Zwingli regarding the philosophical possibilities of omnipresence and the location of the Body of Christ in relation to the Lord`s Supper. After examining the respective positions of Luther and Zwingli on the Lord`s Supper, it became clear that the philosophical differences between these two reformers were the main reason why they could not agree on the doctrine of communion at the Marburg Colloquium. Although the two eminent reformers, Luther and Zwingli, found a consensus on fourteen theological points[1], they could not agree on the fifteenth point of the Eucharist.
Timothy George, author and professor of Church history, summed up the incompatible views: “On this issue, they separated without reaching an agreement. Luther and Zwingli agreed that the bread in the Lord`s Supper was a sign. For Luther, however, what bread meant, namely the body of Christ, was present “in, with and under” the sign itself. For Zwingli, however, signs and things were separated by a distance – the width between heaven and earth. [2] Philip, himself a Lutheran, was very keen on a political and military alliance between the Lutherans of northern Germany and the Zwingliaers of Switzerland and southern Germany, for in the late 1520s all Protestantism was destroyed by the powerful forces of the Catholic Emperor Charles V. Who, having freed himself from the wars entangled with the French and the Turks, was now able to face the Protestant heresy in his empire. Philip was determined to reunite Luther and Zwingli with their fellow theologians to forge a theological union that could be the basis of an alliance. Subsequently, Zwingli and Luther were invited to participate in a discussion on teaching in Marburg.
Zwingli eagerly agreed; Luther, only reluctantly. They agreed on fourteen of the fifteen articles of faith presented, but vehemently opposed each other on the Eucharist. Marburg Colloquium, in Christian History, an important debate on the Lord`s Supper, which took place on October 1 and 4, 1529 in Marburg, Germany, between the reformers of Germany and Switzerland. He was called due to a political situation. In response to a majority decision of the Second Diet of Speyer against the Reformation (April 1529), Landgrave Philip of Hesse suspected that Roman Catholic leaders could subjugate Protestants by force and was convinced that a political alliance was the solution. As the Lutherans insisted on a common confession as the basis for Confederation, Philip convened the colloquium to settle the dispute over the Eucharist that had divided the reformers since 1524. In his reaction against the symbolic vision, Luther found two major flaws in Zwingli`s thought of the Lord`s Supper. First, Luther placed great emphasis on Christ`s words at the Last Supper, namely, “This is my body,” which indicated for him the need to understand a real physical presence. .
Recent Comments