Kjetil Kringlebotten «Do this in remembrance of me…» e sacrificial aspect of the Eucharist in the systematic theology of Wolart Pannenberg and Joseph Ratzinger Master’s esis in Christian Studies (40 ECTS) NLA University College, Bergen, fall 2012 Supervisor: prof. dr. theol. Svein Rise 2 FOREWORD Working with any subject is not something done in isolation, and here I would like to first thank God, who must always be our first priority. I would also like to thank my supervisor, Svein Rise, for words of encouragement and for valuable insights, due in part to his expertice in one of my figurants, Gunnar Innerdal for valuable feedback on my paper on method (attachement 1), and those I have not only studied with, but been good friends with over the last four to five years. A special thanks goes to Ole Christian Martinsen, who has been active in the same ecclesial milieu as me, and who has worked with similar themes as I have, and Karen Marie Hovland, who has herself worked with Pannenberg, and has helped me in my attempt at grasping his theology. A great thanks goes to my fellow ‘inmates’ at my student home Collegium Sta Sunniva, and to my parish in Sandviken. Allow me to finish with some words from Scripture: Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, a minister in the sanctuary and the true tent which is set up not by man but by the Lord. For every high priest is appointed to offer gis and sacrifices; hence it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer. (Hebrews 8:1-3, RSV) My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. (1John 2:1-2, RSV) Kjetil Kringlebotten, November 30, 2012 3 4 Contents 1 FOREWORD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Introduction 7 1.1 Problem and research questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1.2 Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1.3 2 3 4 1.2.1 e justification of my coherentist method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1.2.2 Coherence and systematic theology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1.2.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Disposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Analysis of Pannenberg’s view 13 2.1 Introductory remarks on Pannenberg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2.2 Pannenberg on the sacrificial character of the Eucharist . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 2.2.1 Pannenberg on the high-priestly role of Christ in the Eucharist . . . . . 18 2.2.2 Pannenberg on the role of the Church in the Eucharistic celebration . . 23 2.2.3 Pannenberg on the role of the priest in the Eucharistic celebration . . . 29 Analysis of Ratzinger’s view 37 3.1 Introductory remarks on Ratzinger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 3.2 Ratzinger on the sacrificial character of the Eucharist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 3.2.1 Ratzinger on the high-priestly role of Christ in the Eucharist . . . . . . 41 3.2.2 Ratzinger on the role of the Church in the Eucharistic celebration . . . 50 3.2.3 Ratzinger on the role of the priest in the Eucharistic celebration . . . . 60 Discussion of the views of Pannenberg and Ratzinger 65 4.1 Introductory remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 4.1.1 e place of the Eucharist within theology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 4.1.2 e presence of Christ in the Eucharist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 e sacrificial character of the Eucharist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 4.2.1 e high-priestly role of Christ in the Eucharist . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 4.2.2 e role of the Church in the Eucharistic celebration . . . . . . . . . . 85 4.2.3 e role of the priest in the Eucharistic celebration . . . . . . . . . . . 97 4.2 5 5 6 Summary and conclusion 113 5.1 Pannenberg on the sacrificial character of the Eucharist . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 5.2 Ratzinger on the sacrificial character of the Eucharist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 5.3 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 Bibliography and attachements 6.1 6.2 6.3 121 Primary sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 6.1.1 Works by Pannenberg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 6.1.2 Works by Ratzinger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 Secondary sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 6.2.1 Works about Pannenberg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 6.2.2 Works about Ratzinger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 6.2.3 Other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 Attachement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 General abbreviations For abbreviated works, see bibliography (section 6). Dnk: e Church of Norway (http://www.kyrkja.no/). LCMS: e Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (http://www.lcms.org/). TTK: Tidsskri for teologi og kirke. USCCB: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (http://www.usccb.org/). ZK: Zeitschri für Katholische eologie. 6 1 Introduction 1.1 Problem and research questions In an article on the Eucharistic Sacrifice, Cyril C. Richardson writes: ere is no aspect of the Christian liturgy which is more fundamental than that of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. Nor is there any point at which Christians are more sharply divided than in their formulation of this doctrine.1 is sentence articulates my own thoughts on the matter, and the importace, for good or bad, of this doctrine is one of the main reasons I have chosen to write about this particular theme. Historically, the question of the Eucharist has been one of the major differences beween Catholic and Protestant theology, and also one of the major differences within the theology of the Reformers.2 I find the field of dogmatics and fundamental thinking in theology interesting, and that I find the sacrificial character of the Eucharist a fascinating theme, both because my own spiritual life has always been more ‘sacramental’ (and has become more so in the last nine years or so), and because when I have read Church history, I have always found a ‘scent’ not just of sacramentality, but also of sacrificiality.3 e Eucharist is central both to Lutherans and Catholics,4 and it is one of the points in which we most clearly see the differences. My hope is that this thesis can can make it easier to understand what unites and what separates. In this master’s thesis, I will examine this question by analyzing and discussing the contributions of Wolart Pannenberg and Joseph Ratzinger. I will focus on how Pannenberg and Ratzinger views the Eucharist, and especially its sacrificial character. e problem is formulated as follows: A systematic critical-comparative analysis and discussion of the Eucharistic theology of Wolart Pannenberg and Joseph Ratzinger with emphasis on the sacrificial character of the Eucharistic celebration. When analyzing Eucharistic theology, some questions presents themselves as more important than others, and when you narrow the field of study by emphasizing the sacrificial character 1 2 3 4 Richardson 1950:53 Alister McGrath, Historical eology: An Introduction to the History of Christian ought (Oxford: Blackwell 1998), pp.195-200. See also CA/Apol./CP X.XXII.XXIV. See Dix 1945:238-255. See also Kelly 1978:193-199.211-216.440-455 CA/Apol. X; CCC 610-611.1322-1419 7 of the celebration, some questions are more natural to ask than others. In order to ‘arrive’ at a coherent and systematic view of the Eucharist, and specifically its sacrificial character, we need to consider as much data as possible. In this thesis, therefore, I have chosen three research questions which I maintain will be a good help in arriving at such a coherent and systematic view. ese questions are: 1. What is the high-priestly role of Christ in the Eucharist? 2. What is the role of the Church in the Eucharistic celebration? 3. What is the role of the priest in the Eucharistic celebration? e answers provided for these question determines the way in which you see the sacrificial character of the Eucharist. From these, I can analyze and discuss my figurants. By analyzing Pannenberg and Ratzinger, and by discussing them comparatively, in light of research not only on dogmatics, systematic theology, liturgy, history of theology and exegesis, but also research on liturgy and linguistics (specifically speech act theory), I try to answer this question: Is the Eucharist a sacrifice, and if so, in what sense? 1.2 Method In a paper written in connection with this thesis, I have already reflected on my method of choice. at paper can be found at the back of this thesis, as attachement 1 (A1). In A1 I utilize the coherentist method of Nicholas Rescher. Rescher is a representative of a pragmatic approach to philosophy, yet also systematic, unlike many analytic philosophers. He emphasises coherence, much because he seeks a holistic and systematic theory of truth, and because he finds the classic ‘correspondence theories’ to be lacking. I will also emphasize coherence in my thesis.5 In my thesis, I will build upon my reflection (A1), but there are a few important differences. First, let me briefly lay out my practical approach. In this thesis I will: (1) gather relevant data from relevant works on the Eucharist (and especially its sacrificial character) and from my figurants; (2) systematize my findings (focusing on the works of my figurants), reading them in relation to their whole corpus; and (3) evaluate their contribution, focusing on their coherence — not just within their individual corpus, but with each other and their field(s).6 My analysis 5 6 See Michele Marsonet, «Nicholas Rescher (1928—).» Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2009, esp. part 5. Available online: http://www.iep.utm.edu/rescher/ [retrieved Nov. 30, 2012]. A1:7, cf. Puntel 2008:41-52. 8 will focus on my research questions, and will try to find out how Pannenberg and Ratzinger would answer these. Here we need to recapture some points from my reflection. First, Rescher’s notion of coherence is not merely ‘internal.’ To be coherent, any given theory needs to be (logically) consistent with itself, but to say that a theory is consistent with itself, isn’t necessarily to say that it’s coherent. If a theory is merely ‘internally coherent’ it only appears to be coherent. A theory which doesn’t coher with any true datum is by definition incoherent.7 According to Rescher, there are three parts to coherence: consistency, cohesiveness (connectedness) and comprehensiveness.8 is coherentist method is primarily about interpreting texts. In A1, I also note that Rescher presents us with four ‘laws’ of textual interpretation:9 a. Contextual coherence. Context is crucial. It is important to point out what is meant by ‘context.’ Rescher identifies three levels of context:10 immediate, nearby or proximate and distant or peripheral. Context is then more than the work at hand and the corpus of the author. Without context, a text can be used for anthing and everything. As civil rights activist and Baptist minister Jesse Jackson put it: «Text, without context, is pretext.»11 But we need also to point out that context doesn’t merely refer to terms or ideas, it also refer to the way in which these are used, rhetorically and syntactically. In this endavour Rescher insists on the importance of making careful distinctions.12 When writing on the Eucharist, and especially its sacrificial character, in Lutheran and Catholic theology, as do, this would have to include clarifications on what it entails that Christ died ‘once for all’ (Gk. ἐ π ), what is meant by Christ’s real (sacramental) presence in the consecrated elements, what the word ‘priest’ means, etc. By making careful distinctions in these areas, the picture becomes clearer, and the real similarities and differences become more appearant. b. Comprehensiveness. Rescher points out that this helps us decide between plausible interpretations. e more data we have, the narrower the range of plausible, coherent interpretations becomes.13 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Puntel 2008:24-25.32-33.42-44 Rescher 1973:31-38.168-175; Gravem 2004:352; Søvik 2011:83-85. A1:6-7; Rescher 2001:71-76 Rescher 2001:69-70 Quoted in Sheldon R. Gawiser & G. Evans Witt, A Journalist’s Guide to Public Opinion Polls (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers 1994), p.111 Rescher 2001:116-131 Rescher 2001:73; Rescher 1998:126 9 c. Sophistication. «e more substantial an interpretation – the more extensively attuned to a larger manifold of contexts – the more elaborate and internally ramified it becomes.»14 In systematic theology, one ought to focus on truth, which might not be ‘easy’ or ‘clean cut.’ d. Imperfectability. e task I am about to embark on calls for humility, and we need to acknowledge that we do not have all knowledge. In «Truth as Ideal Coherence» Rescher points out that we cannot hope to achieve perfect knowledge of truth,15 but that we ought to strive for it. He points out that this is not a rejection of any kind of objectivity or ontological viewpoint, but a realization that we can only hope to achive a piece of the truth. ese four ‘laws’ are important, but they are more principles than ‘laws,’ and (as the fourth ‘law’ suggests) they are not meant to be followed blindly. 1.2.1 e justification of my coherentist method But some questions needs to be asked: Am I imposing systematicity on my figurants? Does my figurants agree that they can be analyzed systematically? Pannenberg points out that truth must be our focus in theology.16 He points out that something isn’t true because it’s in the Bible, but that something true in the Bible is true because it expresses someting factual. Pannenberg points to the coherence theory of truth, citing Lorenz Puntel.17 As I point out above, coherence, is a concept with three important characteristics: (logical) consistency; connectedness/cohesiveness; and comprehensiveness.18 Pannenberg says that dogmatics or systematic theology is just that: a systematic representation of Christian teaching.19 Ratzinger is not systematic in the same way as Pannenberg, or at least not as explicit on this point. Scott Hahn points out that Ratzinger20 «is less a systematic thinker than he is a symphonic thinker.»21 Hahn points out that he has more in common with the (presymably less systematic) Church Fathers than with systematic thinkers like Aquinas. Hahn writes: In the Fathers, we find the notion that truth consists of a unity of diverse elements, much as 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Rescher 2001:74 Rescher 1985:795.800-906 SysT I:18-22.159-167.189-194; Søvik 2011:101-108 SysT I:21-24. For Puntel’s philosophical program, see http://bit.ly/U6i0Ew [retrieved from philosophie.unimuenchen.de, Nov. 21, 2012]. Rescher 2001:31-38.168-175; Gravem 2004:352; Søvik 2011:83-85 SysT I:18; Søvik 2011:101-108 As he is writing about the whole of his life, he uses his papal name, Benedict. Hahn 2009:16 10 a symphony brings into a single, harmonious whole the music played on a variety of instruments. is is how it is with the biblical theology of Benedict. Even his occasional writings, which make up the bulk of his oeuvrem are usually composed like a polyphonic melody from many differentiated strains—scriptural, historical, literary, liturgical, and patristic.22 In some senses of systematicity, this could perhaps mean that Ratzinger isn’t systematic, but Ratzinger is indeed ‘systematic thinker’ if we define systematicity as Pannenberg (or Rescher). Indeed, the notion of coherent systematicity maintained by Rescher is one where systematicity could be labelled ‘symphonic,’ even if they do not use that term themselves. 1.2.2 Coherence and systematic theology Before going on it’s important to reflect more closely on the fact that my thesis belongs within systematic theology. To understand what systematic theology is, we need to ask a few very pertinent questions: What is theology? What is systematicity? I will primarily make use of the contributions of Torleiv Austad.23 Austad points out that systematic theology has five distinct tasks:24 (1) e synthetic task, to summarize or synthesize the different elements of Christianity in a holistic and comprehensive system, against the background contemporary thought and life. (2) e critical task, to analyze and discuss different traditions and beliefs. (3) e apologetic task, to defend Christianity either by refuting arguments against it or by arguing in favour of it. (4) e creative task, to reformulate the faith in terms famliar to contemporary ears. (5) e normative task, to help people seek the truth. e first, synthetic, task doesn’t merely involve a presentation of what Scripture teaches or what the Church believes, but how this teaching and these beliefs stand in relation to knowledge in general.25 is task, then, is to present a synthesis of Christianity and knowledge in general, with focus on coherence.26 Austad points out27 that the synthetic task is a process which requires a great overview and great discernment. I have no intention of doing this in my thesis. My discussion, which concerns the Eucharist, and especially its sacrificial character, will primarily focus on the second, critical, task, but this process will allow for further, and more comprehensive, studies of the Eucharist. It is also my intention that this thesis will have a normative function, 22 23 24 25 26 27 Hahn 2009:16 Austad 2008 Austad 2008:49-54 Austad 2008:50 Cf. Rescher 2001; Puntel 2008; Søvik 2011:17-19.81-94. Austad 2008:50 11 that it will help people seek the truth on this matter.28 1.2.3 Summary In sum, my approach will be divided into three, based on the research questions: 1. Gathering of data from relevant works on the Eucharist. 2. Analysis of my figurants based on the data gathered from their relevant works. 3. Comparative discussion of their views, examining how they hold up to a larger (intersubjective) context, with emphasis on developments in exegesis, modern theological developments, and considerations about the teachings of the early Church. It is my intention that the analytic part should be as descriptive as possible, but that my discussion of their views might be more normative in nature. 1.3 Disposition is thesis will be divided into three main sections. In sections 2-3 I will first analyze Pannenberg’s and Ratzinger’s views on the place of the Eucharist within theology, and furthermore analyze Pannenberg’s and Ratzinger’s views on the Eucharist, and especially its sacrificial character, based on my research questions. In section 4, I will discuss the views of Pannenberg and Ratzinger and try to develop a coherent view of the Eucharist, and especially its sacrificial character. is is based on my reading of my figurants, and on other relevant works, and it’s divided in two, with focus on my research questions. It is my intention that this part is to be more normative in nature. I section 5, I will briefly summarize my analysis and discussion, and draw some conclusions from this. 28 For a discussion on systematic theology, with emphasis on coherence, see the discussion between Niels Henrik Gregersen (2008:290-310; 2011:167-172) and Asle Eikrem (2011:152-166). 12 2 Analysis of Pannenberg’s view As pointed out above, I have identified some important research questions. In the following, I will analyze Pannenberg’s views on the Eucharist, and especially its sacrificial character, with these in mind. ere is a great deal of overlap between these, and they do not exist independent of each other. ere is, however, distinctions between the different parts. Borrowing and paraphrasing the incarnational terminology of the Council of Chalcedon, we could say that the different part and roles in the Eucharist, and in the Eucharistic celebration, are united «inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably.»29 2.1 Introductory remarks on Pannenberg In this section I will briefly present Pannenberg’s view on sacraments in general, which is found in chapter 13 of Systematic eology vol. III.30 is will present us with the background against which we must understand his view on the Eucharist.31 For Pannenberg, the sacraments, which he treats in chapter 13 of Systematic eology vol. III,32 properly belongs within ecclesiology.33 «e church,» Pannenberg writes, «mediates the fellowship of individual believers with Jesus Christ.»34 As members of the Church, the individual believers «share in “the body of Christ” and hence in Jesus Christ himself.»35 As is standard in Lutheran theology,36 Pannenberg places the Eucharist (and the sacraments) within, or at least in close proximity to, the doctrine of justification. For Pannenberg, the fellowship with Christ, mediated through the Church, dogmatically «forms a theme in the doctrine of the regeneration and justification of believers and their adoption into the filial relation of Jesus to 29 30 31 See Philip Schaff, e Creeds of Christendom with a History and Critical notes, vol. II. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House 1919, pp.62-65. Available online: http://bit.ly/PzlKQn [retrieved from ccel.org, Nov. 21, 2012]. SysT III:97-434 (‘e Messianic Community and Individuals’). For his basic theological conception, see SysT I:1-62. See also Søvik 2011:97-108 For biographical information, see Svein Rise’s biography/monography from the book Moderne teologi (ed., Ståle Johannes Kristiansen & Svein Rise. Kristiansand: Høyskoleforlaget 2008), pp.186-200 and Christoph Schwöbel’s biography/monography from the book e Modern eologians: An Introduction to Christian e- 32 33 34 35 36 ology since 1918 (ed., David F. Ford & Rachel Muers. ird Edition. Oxford: Blackwell 2005), pp.129-146. SysT III:97-434 (‘e Messianic Community and Individuals’). Schwöbel 2005:140-143; Grenz 2005:201-252 SysT III:237, cf. 97-135 SysT III:237 CA/Apol. IV-V 13 the Father.»37 For Pannenberg baptism is the primary place of regenearation, ‘performed’ in the Church, by the Church.38 e faith is mediated through «the church’s proclamation of the gospel.»39 rough baptism, Pannenberg maintains, we are made partakers of Christ, and thus members of his Church, through which we can partake of the Eucharist.40 He writes: e Lord’s Supper depicts both the common fellowship of all communicants in the one Lord Jesus Christ and the fellowship of the church on this basis. is feature of descriptive action characterizes the administration of the Supper at Christian worship, which as a whole we may call a provisional representation of the eschatological people of God in its offering of praise to God.41 Adressing the question of sacraments as such, Pannenberg ‘re-interprets’ the term ‘sacrament’ in Protestant thought. Reflecting on the traditional use of ‘sacrament,’ he points out that this term is a later, descriptive term that doesn’t ‘constitute’ the sacraments.42 With a reference to Roman Catholic sacramental theology,43 and to the content and structure of CA/Apol. IX-XIII, Pannenberg points out that «we are not to look first to the terms or concepts but to keep the things themselves in view no matter what we call them.»44 He maintains that some of the differences are mostly linguistic, and points out that «the confessional positions on the matter are not too far apart, especially as the Protestant churches also adopted the ritual actions Trent called sacraments with the partial exception of extreme unction.»45 For Pannenberg the sacraments are «significatory acts,» «signs of the nearness of God.»46 As signs, they «effect what they signify,»47 but they are also only a ‘foretaste’ of what is to come, of «the future consummation of the church’s fellowship with its Lord at his return for judgement and for the consummation of creation.»48 But Pannenberg urges for caution. He points out that the understanding of the significatory character of the sacraments «pushed into the background the thought of the sacramentality of Jesus Christ himself and his passion as the divine mystery of salvation.»49 e link between «the 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 SysT III:237, cf. 211-236. SysT III:237 SysT III:237, cf. Rom 10:14-17. SysT III:237-238 SysT III:238 SysT III:336-340, esp.336-337 R. Schulte, Mysterium Salutis, IV/2 (1973), p.95. SysT III:337 SysT III:339 SysT III:238 SysT III:238 SysT III:238 SysT III:348 14 sacraments» and «the one divine mystery of salvation» was ‘loosened,’ and the sacraments became rather abstract. Pannenberg cites Augustine as the ‘pioneer’ of this view, «with his sharp distinction between sign and thing signified,»50 and his observation that «the word is added to the element, and this becomes a sacrament.»51 If a sign is defined thus, Pannenberg maintains, it does point towards the thing signified, «but also separates us from it and keeps us distant from it.»52 Pannenberg notes that to see the sacraments as signs has merit to it, but that it — for the reason given — stands in danger of being applied too one-sidedly.53 It needs to be understood multifacetedly, in light of the eschatological nature of the sacraments.54 In the Eucharist, Pannenberg maintains, Christ himself is present, and with him (though in an anticipatory fashion) the future salvation. e sacraments do indeed «effect what they signify,» as Aquinas put it.55 Pannenberg maintains that there is a distinction between ‘sign’ and ‘thing signified,’ but that it’s not absolute. Christ is really present, though concealed.56 Pannenberg points out that the sacraments aren’t ‘effective’ in themselves, but that their effectiveness is due to presence of Christ, and to the fact that he «gives himself in the sacrament.»57 is, Pannenberg maintains, became blurred in the Scholastic tradition, which borrowed Augustine’s sharp distinction between ‘sign’ and ‘thing signified.’ e real danger was a view of the sacraments (as signs) being effective in themselves, and not due to the presence of what they signified: Christ himself.58 Let us now turn to one of Pannenberg’s main points; the personal presence of Christ in the Eucharist.59 To explain this, he points to modern developments in Catholic sacramental theology, especially Karl Rahner’s concept of transignification.60 He writes: ere is agreement that the theological core of the Roman dogma of transubstantiation, independent of the Aristotelian terminology of substance and accidents, affirms the real presence of Christ in the elements of bread and wine, which was also decisively affirmed and defended by the Lutheran Reformation. According to Karl Rahner, transubstantiation 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 SysT III:349 SysT III:349 (Augustine, In Ioann. tr. 80.3: Accedit verbum ad elementum, et fit sacramentum). SysT III:350 SysT III:350-351 SysT III:351 SysT III:352-353 SysT III:353 SysT III:354 SysT III:354 SysT III:295-304 SysT III:298, cf. n.635-637. See Rahner, eological Investigations IV (New York, NY: Crossroad), pp.301.303.306-307 15 means nothing more than that the priest, when distributing communion, does not say “this is the bread,” but “the body of Christ.”61 Pannenberg here emphasises a relational ontology, partly borrowed from Lorenz Puntel, but also from Kant and Hegel.62 Pannenberg critiques the old Aristotelian-omistic view of substance as something completely independent, as «that which remains the same beneath all change,»63 and points towards modern developments in metaphysics, specifically the idea that relations are not merely something that exists in (or between) two (or more) substances. e concept of relation is not, Pannenberg maintains, «the accident of a substance, ordered to the substance,» but «above that of substance, since we can speak meaningfully of substances only in relation to accidents.»64 Since, in Pannenberg’s view, the ‘identity’ or ‘essence’ of a thing «depends on the relations in which it stands, then its identity alters with the alteration of its system of reference or context by which its meaning is defined.»65 us, through a ‘relational’ ontology,66 Pannenberg can view transubstantiation and transignification as two sided of the same coin — not as a ‘changing’ of the substance of bread and wine (according to Aristotelian or omistic ontology), but as a change of the bread’s ‘relations.’ It is, however, important to note that Pannenberg sees this objectively. His emphasis, however, is not on the substantial presence of the body and blood of Christ in the ‘elements’ (as in medieval theology). Instead he embraces a ‘personal’ and ‘concomitarian’ view, that Christ is equally present under both species (bread and wine).67 He agrees with the doctrine, favouring the ‘personal’ presence of «the whole and undivided Christ.»68 e Christ who is present in the Eucharist is not dead but living, undivided and glorified. But he rejects the practice which derives from the doctrine; that the chalice be withheld from the congregation.69 Pannenberg cites the Lutheran Reformation’s critique of this practice, which they held was that the Supper ought to be administered properly, in light of the institution of Christ. «On this ground the Augsburg Confession called the restriction of distribution to the species of bread as 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 Pannenberg 2006:171 SysT I:365-370 (cf. 353-359); SysT III:300-304, cf. Puntel 2001:229-240; Puntel 2008:48.127-130.136138.268.395; Søvik 2011:88-89.112-116 SysT I:365 SysT I:366. SysT III:301 SysT III:300-301, cf. SysT I:353-359.365-370 SysT III:293-296 SysT III:295 SysT III:293-296. See esp. p.294, n.620. 16 a custom brought in contrary to the commandment of God.»70 He writes: But we do not have here an adequate description of what the bread saying of Jesus, “is is my body,” is stating. For the demonstrative pronoun “this” refers to the bread. It thus relates the bread to the reality of the body of Jesus that he is offering according to his saying, a relation, then to his person, since the Aramaic guph71 indicates the whole person.72 What we see in Pannenberg is that the presence of Christ is a presence that is brought about by the anamnesis, and it is not an anamnesis of the body and blood alone, but of the whole person, since in the Bible ‘body’73 can denote the whole person.74 Pannenberg’s main point is that the presence of Christ is not a descent of Christ into the ‘elements,’ but a «recollection of the eartly story of Jesus and his passion,» and the belief that he is personally present «in the signs of bread and wine.»75 And this, Pannenberg maintains, is deeply connected to the work of the Spirit.76 Pannenberg points out that the epiclesis is an important reminder that anamnesis is to be done in the Spirit.77 Citing the 1982 Lima report, Pannenberg points out that «at the eucharistic meal the Holy Spirit makes the crucified and risen Christ truly present for us by fulfilling the promise of the words of institution.»78 «Rediscovery of the epiclesis and its importance for eucharistic celebration,» writes Pannenberg, «can enrich Western eucharistic theology in many ways.»79 It is a good ‘medicine’ against a kind of ‘christmonism’ which «would run up against the trinitarian faith of the church.»80 For Pannenberg there is no ‘competition’ between focus on (the work of) the Spirit and focus on the words of institution, because the Spirit is the one «who in anamnesis calls Christ and his words to mind.»81 Pannenberg points out that he doesn’t say that the Spirit «does not just spring into action at the epiclesis,» but that he «is already at work in the whole process of liturgical thanksgiving and anamnesis.»82 e Spirit, Pannenberg maintains, is the one through whom the Church prays and celebrates the Eucharist. e presence and work of the Spirit relates not only to the elements of the Eucharist — the bread and wine — but also to 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 SysT III:294-295, cf. CA XXII:9. In CP 22, the Catholic Church criticised this. ‘Flesh,’ ‘body.’ SysT III:299 Gk. ῶ ; Aram. guph. SysT III:313 SysT III:315 SysT III:320-324 For an introduction to the epiclesis, see Fortescue 1909. SysT III:321-322, cf. BEM 2:14. SysT III:322 SysT III:322 SysT III:322, cf. n.711 SysT III:323 17 the transformation of the faithful participants.83 To sum up Pannenberg’s view on the real presence, we see that Pannenberg holds to an objective variant of consubstantiation, with nods in the direction of both transubstantiation and transignification, understood through his ‘relational’ ontology, but with emphasis not on the substantial presence of the body and blood of Christ in the ‘elements’ (as in medieval theology), but on the ‘personal’ presence of «the whole and undivided Christ.»84 2.2 Pannenberg on the sacrificial character of the Eucharist 2.2.1 Pannenberg on the high-priestly role of Christ in the Eucharist My first research question is formulated as follows: 1. What is the high-priestly role of Christ in the Eucharist? In this section I am going to analyze Pannenberg’s view on the high-priestly ministry of Christ in the Eucharist. I cannot here discuss the whole of Pannenberg’s Christology, but will focus on the high-priestly role of Christ in the Eucharist, and his role as sacrifice.85 As we see above, Pannenberg holds that Christ is really present in the Eucharist. He is concerned more with whom, and less with what, is present in the Eucharist, and focuses on the ‘personal’ presence of «the whole and undivided Christ.»86 We will now shi focus to the high-priestly role of Christ in the Eucharist. In Systematic eology vol. III, Pannenberg points out that if the crucifixion has an expiatory character, «there can be no cogent [Lutheran] objection to the idea that believing celebration and reception of the Supper give a share not only in the “fruit” of Christ’s offering but also in its enactment.»87 He then goes on to ask: «Are we really to understand the Last Supper, the origin of the church’s Lord’s Supper, as an act of self-offering on Jesus’s part? And if so, in what sense?»88 Pannenberg then points to Luther’s observation that «what is done at the Supper does 83 84 85 SysT III:324 SysT III:295 For Pannenberg’s Christology, both his current and early views, see SysT I:300-319; SysT II:277-464; Pannenberg, Jesus: God and Man (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press 1977); Rise 1997:127-187; G.G. 86 87 88 O’Collins, «e Christology of Wolart Pannenberg» (Religious Studies 3, 1967), pp.369-376. SysT III:295 SysT III:316 SysT III:317 18 not have at all the form of an offering to God; it has the form of a meal.»89 He maintains that the Eucharist grants «a share in the future saved community in God’s kingdom.»90 For Pannenberg, the focus of Christology lies in Christ’s mission. He maintains that the sacrifice of Christ weren’t (primarily) a case of Christ giving himself directly to the Father, as a sacrifice proper, but a case of obedience to the mission, an obedience to death: If, then, we call the Lord’s Supper a sacrifice, what Jesus himself did at the Last Supper must be viewed as a sign-act of sacrifice. What we have in the sacrifice of Jesus is not a direct offering to God but Jesus’ obedience to his mission to the world as witness to the presence of the salvation of the rule of God. His death was the consequence of this obedience.91 For Pannenberg, then, Christ’s sacrifice isn’t reducible to the event on the Cross, but must be seen as a complete whole, encompassing the whole of Christ: his incarnation, life, ministry, passion, death, resurrection, ascension, heavenly ministry and second coming.92 In connection to this, Pannenberg points out that the eucharistic elements are covenantal signs, signs of Christ’s obedience and sacrifice, that they provide us with «the meaning of the approaching death of Jesus on the cross.»93 Pannenberg connects this to the fact that the Eucharist are to be seen in light of the sacrificial meals of the OT: «Meal and sacrifice go together at the Lord’s Supper just as the covenant sacrifice and covenant mean did in Israel.»94 (at last point will be analyzed further in the next section.) To understand this, we need to analyze Pannenberg’s view on Christ as saviour. is is primarily found in chapter 11 of Systematic eology vol. II,95 but it cannot be separated from his trinitarian conception, especially his view of the deity of Christ.96 I cannot here discuss his entire soteriology, but I have made some choices as to what is essential for my thesis.97 In Pannenberg’s views on Christ’s high-priestly work, there are three crucial terms: reconciliation, representation and expiation. Adressing the issue of reconciliation, Pannenberg points out that Paul linked this to Christ’s death (Rom. 5:10), which «shows us why Christian theology has understood the death of Jesus 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 SysT III:317 SysT III:318 SysT III:318-319 Cf. SysT II:385-386; 389-416; 435-449 SysT III:319 SysT III:319 SysT II:397-464 (‘e Reconciliation of the World’). SysT I:259-336; SysT II:325-396. See esp. SysT II:389-396 (‘e Incarnation of the Son as God’s SelfActualization in the World’). For an overview, see Grenz 2005:147-200. See also Rise 1997:187-224. 19 in terms or recolciliation.»98 For Paul, Pannenberg maintains, «God was the subject of the event of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:19),»99 but eventually the non-Pauline idea arose that «God, having been offended by the sin of Adam, had to be reconciled to humanity by the obedience of the Son, or by the sacrificing of his life on the cross.»100 Pannenberg, rejects this,101 and points out that there is a difference between the Pauline usage of the term ‘reconciliation,’ and later usages of the term. «God did not have to be reconciled; the world is reconciled by God in Christ (2 Cor. 5:19).»102 Reconciliation, then, is primarily humanity being reconciled to God through Christ’s mission.103 Adressing the issues of representation and expiation, Pannenberg references the debate on the translation of the greek word ἱ ρ (in Rom. 3:25).104 He points out that in Paul, Christ is an expiation: «Expiation removes the offense, the guilt, and the consequences. In this sense Paul could call Christ’s death an expiation (Rom. 3:25).»105 He also makes the point that Paul added ‘faith,’ since «only by faith can we share in the expiatory effect of this event.»106 Pannenberg avoids using the term propitiation, or any of its derivates — propitiate, propitiatory, etc.107 While there are a number of etymological similarities between propitiation and expiation,108 the former is commonly used to denote atonement in the sense of appeasing God, because he has been offended, while the latter is commonly used to denote atonement in the sense of healing, making whole and reconciling, with emphasis on man (who needs to be healed and reconciled). In propitiation, then, the primary object is God, while in expiation the primary object is man.109 But although Pannenberg holds that the death of Christ is expiatory, he points out that in the early Christian traditions, not all of whom «[viewed] the death of Jesus as a salvation event,»110 a 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 SysT II:403 SysT II:403 SysT II:403, cf. 403-404.405-406 for a brief historical survey. SysT II:403-416 SysT II:407 Cf. SysT II:403-416 SysT II:411, n.46, cf. Heb. 9:5. SysT II:411 SysT II:411, n.46 Cf. Grenz 2005:225-226 See http://bit.ly/WzEOkc and http://bit.ly/TGV78M [both retrieved from etymonline.com, Nov. 21, 2010]. See Derek Kidner, «Sacrifice – Metaphors and meaning.» (Tyndale Bulletin 33, 1982), pp.119-13. See also J.E. Frame, «Paul’s Idea of Deliverance» (Journal of Biblical Literature 49:1, 1930), pp.8-9 (1-12); Joseph A. Fitzmyer, «e Aramaic Language and the Study of the New Testament» (Journal of Biblical Literature 99:1, 1980), pp.16- 110 18 (5-21). SysT II:416 20 special attention was given to the idea «that the death of Jesus was expiatory, though not primarily as an expiatory sacrifice.»111 Pannenberg thus makes a distinction between something having an expiatory character and something being an expiatory sacrifice. He maintains that we cannot, on the basis of Christ dying ‘for’ us, assume that Christ saw himself as an expiatory sacrifice.112 is could be a dedication to his mission coupled with knowledge of the fact that actions have consequences, and that his actions would get him killed, and he point out that when we read in Mark’s version of the institution narrative that the cup is given «for many,» this «is linked more to the idea of a covenant sacrifice than to that of an expiatory offering.»113 He points out, however, that this idea of Christ dying ‘for us’ «could easily come to be linked with the motif of expiation.»114 He goes on: «If Christ died for our sins, as in the traditional formula in Paul (1 Cor. 15:3), then that undoubtedly means that he made expiation for our sins.»115 e main point I want to emphasize, however, is Pannenberg’s view on the relationship between the Father and the Son in relation to the sacrifice, and the continuing priestly office of Christ. Pannenberg writes: e whole sending of the Son by the Father aims … at the vicarious expiatory death on the cross. We may say this on the basis of modern historical and exegetical research into the tradition relating to Jesus insofar as the death of Jesus follows from his proclamation of the imminence of the rule of God and its drawing in his own work. Greater difficulties arise, however, when we speak of the Son instead of the Father as the subject of this loving giving up to death (Gal. 2:20). Ephesians enlarges this thesis into one of self-sacrifice: “Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God” (5:2, cf. v. 25).116 Pannenberg notes a tension here, between the action of the Father and the Son, and asks: «Who is the subject of the giving up?»117 He maintains that if we are to avoid contradiction, «we must suppose that they are saying the same thing in different ways.»118 He continues: But this is possible only if the action of the Father in giving up the Son does not make the Son a mere object but implies his active cooperation, and again if the action of the Son does not rule out the fact that the initiative in the event lies with the Father.119 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 SysT II:416, cf. n.66. SysT II:417, cf. Matt. 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24 SysT II:417, cf. n.70. SysT II:418 SysT II:418, cf. 418-437 SysT II:438. Emphasis added SysT II:439 SysT II:439 SysT II:439 21 Pannenberg emphasizes the obedience of Christ, and point out that this «corresponds to the giving up by the Father.»120 He points out that Christ offered himself to God in obedience to the mission, for the salvation of the world.121 As we see above,122 the main point for Pannenberg is not that Christ gave himself to the Father as a sacrifice, but that he offered himself to us, to reconcile us with God, to bring us back to God. And this bringing back was in the form of a sacrifice. To explain this further, Pannenberg turns to the reconciling office of Christ,123 where he emphasizes the dialectic between the Father’s sending of the Son, his being active «in Christ’s death for the reconciliation of the world (2 Cor. 5:18),» and the Son’s obedience in «[offering] himself up in this event (Gal. 2:20).»124 Pannenberg here references the point from Hebrews, that «Christ “offered up himself ” as the high priest who makes atonement for the people’s sins (Heb. 7:27; cf. 9:26ff).»125 is, Pannenberg points out, goes beyond the death of Christ and extends into eternity, into heaven: Hebrews … stresses not merely the once-for-allness and definitiveness of the sacrificial death of Jesus (9:26) but also the ongoing intercession of the risen Lord before God (v. 24). It thus gives us occasion to develop a view of his saving work or reconciling office that extends beyond the once-for-all event of the crucifixion.126 But Pannenberg also maintains that there is a difficulty in reconciling this ‘theological’ view of Christ’s priestly work, and the testimony of the Gospels: If we measure the statements of the theological tradition regarding the saving work or mediatorial office of the incarnate Son of God directly by the measure of the history of Jesus, we reach the overwhelmingly negative result that in all probability the earthly Jesus suffered crucifixion as his fate without himself bringing it about as an act of self-offering. In his earthly existence he was not a priest, nor was he a king.127 Pannenberg therefore points out that the so-called ‘threefold office of Christ’ (priest, kind, prophet) is problematic,128 and maintans that it can only be held typologically.129 He points out we cannot justify this view, of the ‘threefold office of Christ,’ merely by pointing out that Christ died 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 SysT II:439, cf. n.118. SysT II:440 Cf. SysT III:318-319 SysT II:441-449 SysT II:443 SysT II:443 SysT II:443 SysT II:445 SysT II:445-447 SysT II:446 22 ‘for us.’ is, he maintains is rooted in expiation, but not necessarily in sacrifice as such. Christ was our expiation, but not necessarily our priest, where ‘priest’ is understood in a propitiatory way.130 To understand the direct relation from this to the work of Christ in the Eucharist, it is important to point to Pannenberg’s ‘concomitarian’ view of Christ’s presence in the sacrament. Since he focuses on the high priestly work of Christ in heaven, and since he emphasizes the personal presence of Christ in the Eucharist,131 the assumption can be made that on Pannenberg’s view, the heavenly liturgy is made present in the Eucharistic liturgy. To sum up, we can say that for Pannenberg Christ gives himself to the Church as an expiation, in obedience to the Father, as a way of cleansing, of atoninig for sin, and he gives himself to the Father in love, taking the Church with him. 2.2.2 Pannenberg on the role of the Church in the Eucharistic celebration My second research question is formulated as follows: 2. What is the role of the Church in the Eucharistic celebration? To understand Pannenberg’s view on the role of the Church in the Eucharistic celebration, we first need to make some general ecclesiological remarks, since he deals with the sacraments within ecclesiology.132 As we see above, Ratzinger sees the Church as she who «mediates the fellowship of individual believers with Jesus Christ.»133 Pannenberg’s ecclesiology, and his Eucharistic theology, is then ultimately a participation in Christ. Aer adressing the question of the real presence, Pannenberg starts analyzing the meaning behind the concept of ‘anamnesis’ and the offering of Christ: «e significance of the celebrating of the Supper as anamnesis for an understanding of Christ’s Presence in the bread and wine has been a theme of intensive discussion from the time of O. Casel’s work on the Christian mystery cult.»134 Pannenberg starts with the Scriptural witness and with Christ’s command to «do this in remembrance of me.»135 Pannenberg leaves aside «the question whether what the apostle has in view relates to recitation of the words of institution at the celebration, or finally to an added act of proclamation, i.e., the preaching of the gospel message that became a constituent part of 130 131 132 133 134 135 Cf. Rise 1997:187-193; Grenz 2005:225-226 SysT III:293-304 SysT III:97-434, cf. Schwöbel 2005:140-143; Grenz 2005:201-252. SysT III:237 SysT III:305-306 (cf. 305-311). See SysT III:306, n.657. Luke 22:19; 1Cor 11:24 ( ῦ π ῖ ἰς ἐ ἀ ). 23 the Christian worship.»136 He rather connects this («the recollection linked to the Supper») to «Christ’s atoning death.»137 He then goes on to analyze what is meant by ‘anamnesis’ or ‘remembering’ (Gk. ἀ ς). Anamnesis, Pannenberg maintains, is not merely a «recollection of a past event, which, being past, is remote from those present who are now alive.»138 He points out that «the power of cultic recollection to re-present was deeply rooted already in Jewish tradition, particularily in connection with remembrance of the Passover.»139 Pannenberg then connects this to the view of Christian worship and the Church Fathers, that we have «a presentation and re-presentation of the paschal mystery of the death and resurrection of Jesus.»140 But this, Pannenberg maintains, is not «merely an act of human remembering of which we are still the subjects but the self-representing of Jesus Christ by his Spirit.»141 Pannenberg cites Gottlieb Söhngen, who developed further the view of Casel, emphasizing that Christ is actually present through a remembrance of the Passion of Christ (memoria passionis), mediated by the Spirit.142 «anksgiving,» Pannenberg writes, «leads on to recollection of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, at which bread and wine become the medium of Christ’s presence.»143 e words of institution are an integral part of this, but «within the framework of anamnesis and as its climax.»144 But the whole celebration «has the character of anamnesis,» and ‘recollection’ is a «cultic re-presentation in the form of celebration.»145 But it is important to note that while partly agreeing with the Catholic Church on re-presentation, Pannenberg rejects it if understood in its entirety. It is important to note that Pannenberg follows Luther in emphasizing faith as participation in Christ.146 Discussing the Offering and Presence of Christ, Pannenberg maintains that those who participate in the eucharistic liturgy «share in Jesus’ path to martyrdom and all that involves.»147 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 SysT III:306 SysT III:306 SysT III:306 SysT III:306 SysT III:306 SysT III:306, cf. 320-324 SysT III:306-307, cf. Söhngen, Christi Gegenwart in Glaube und Sakrament (1967); Ulrich Kühn, TRE I:168. SysT III:308 SysT III:308 SysT III:308 Cf. Luther’s comments on Gal. 2:19-20 (LW 26:155-179). For a recent take on the early Lutheran views on justification and participation, see Olli-Pekka Vainio, Justification and Participation in Christ: e Development of the Lutheran Doctrine of Justification from Luther to the Formula of Concord, (1580). Studies in Medieval and 147 Reformation Traditions (Leiden: Brill 2008). SysT III:315 24 Because this involves the death of Christ, which «has the character of an expiatory offering, the community shares in this as it recalls it at celebrations of the supper.»148 He maintains that this does not violate «Melanchthon’s distinction between the offering of thanksgiving and praise on the one hand and the sin offering on the other,»149 because Melanchthon, unlike Luther, didn’t adress the question of our participation in Christ. Pannenberg points out that this participation permeates Luther’s definition of faith, and his view of the Eucharist.150 He even goes as far as pointing out that if the crucifixion is expiatory, «there can be no cogent [Lutheran] objection to the idea that believing celebration and reception of the Supper give a share not only in the “fruit” of Christ’s offering but also in its enactment,» interpreted in a participatory fashion.151 As is the Lutheran norm,152 Pannenberg relates the means of salvation to the issue of Justification,153 and for him Justification is a declaration by God as righteous the persons who believe in Christ, which in reality means those who participate in Christ.154 But it is important to note that Pannenberg maintains that the Eucharist isn’t an actual offering, but a participation in Christ: «Faith’s offering of praise and thanksgiving is then a letting oneself be taken up into the actual sacrifice of Jesus Christ, not an additional offering to God.»155 Pannenberg points out that «the notion of such an additional offering» was one of the objects of critique in the Reformation.156 is, he maintains, was not merely the point of a proper distinction between thank offering and sin offering, but a recognition that if the congregation’s sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving «is viewed as an independent subject of sacrifice alongside Jesus Christ,» this becomes «an additional work.»157 e Church’s thank offering, Pannenberg maintains, is a participation in Christ, and the Church (and the Christian’s) thank offering «finds acceptance with the Father only as faith’s offering of praise, i.e. as participation in the praise Jesus Christ offered to God.»158 He writes: e celebration of the Lord’s Supper cannot be the church’s sacrifice in the sense of the offering to God on the altar, by the hands of the human priest, of a holy gi different from 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 SysT III:315 SysT III:315 SysT III:315-316 SysT III:316 Cf. CA IV-V SysT III:237, cf. 211-236. SysT III:211-236 SysT III:316 SysT III:316 SysT III:316, cf. n.694. SysT III:316 25 ourselves. It can be only the entry of the church into the self-giving of Christ, i.e., the offering of ourselves, by, with and in Jesus Christ, as a loving sacrifice in the signs of bread and wine. For nothing effects participation in the body and blood of Christ but entering into that which we receive.159 Here Pannenberg points to Luther’s understanding (derived from Paul’s letter to the Romans) that we cannot offer ourselves but through Christ, and that …we do not offer Christ but (…) he offers us, and in this manner it is acceptable and even useful that we should call the mass a sacrifice, not for its own sake, but because we offer ourselves with Christ, that is, we entrust ourselves to Christ with firm faith in his testament, and only thus, through him and his means, come before God with our prayers and praise and offerings not doubting that he will be our pastor or priest before the face of God in heaven.160 It is not another work, but the believer’s participation in Christ’s offering, as he stands before God. Pannenberg’s view of the presence of Christ in relation to sacrifice is deeply connected to his views of Justification and his focus on the participation in Christ. As we see above, Pannenberg points out that the Eucharist are to be seen in light of the sacrificial meals of the OT: «Meal and sacrifice go together at the Lord’s Supper just as the covenant sacrifice and covenant mean did in Israel.»161 rough participating in the covenantal meal, Pannenberg maintains, you participate in Christ, in God’s salvation and in God himself. And then «the participants also receive forgiveness of sins.»162 Pannenberg connects this to the various table fellowships of Christ, but points out that Christ gave it a «deeper meaning» through linking this to his death.163 Pannenberg points to the fact that the eucharistic elements are given ‘for you’ (us), and that this act of giving has a expiatory character. We are granted fellowship with and salvation through Christ and this grants us forgiveness of sins, which he defines as a «removal of the barrier that separates sinners from that salvation.»164 But this, he points out, is not the core. e core is the participation: e motif of forgiveness is implied by [the fellowship with Jesus] and has its basis here. But this motif does not exhaust the meaning of fellowship with Jesus and with the salvation of God’s reign. Forgiveness of sins means removal of the barrier that separates sinners from that salvation. But beyone that those to whom Jesus’ mission was directed are drawn into 159 160 161 162 163 164 SysT III:316, cf. n.696-697 SysT III:317, cf. WA 6, 379, 3ff, cf. Rom 12:1-2 SysT III:319 SysT III:319 SysT III:319 SysT III:319 26 his sacrifice by participation in the Supper, namely, into his serving of others as witness to the divine lordship, and in this way they are together linked to the “body of Christ.” e divine lordship, then, is itself a living reality among them.165 Pannenberg maintains a middle ground between Trent and the early Lutherans. He points out that Trent «rightly opposed restricting the eucharistic gi to forgiveness of sins (DS, 1655).»166 He points out that Luther and the Lutheran reformation «was inclined one-sidedly to focus the gi and power of the Lord’s Supper on forgiveness of sins.»167 But he points out that Luther also spoke, in the Large Catechism, of «the nourishing and strenghtening of the new man as the power and usefulness of this sacrament.»168 In a open discussion of my thesis, my supervisor pointed out that Pannenberg has a different emphasis than Luther had in the Small Catechism.169 In his commentary on the Eucharist, specifically on Christ’s words about the eucharistic elements, that they are «[given], and shed for you, for the remission of sins,» Luther points out that «forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation are given us through these words. For where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation.» (VI, emphasis added) But Pannenberg makes a different case, and can be said to turn this on its head, saying not that «where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation» but, rather, «where there is life and salvation, there is also forgiveness of sins.» Pannenberg’s question — «Are we really to understand the Last Supper, the origin of the church’s Lord’s Supper, as an act of self-offering on Jesus’s part? And if so, in what sense?»170 — is answered in a way that is in line with classical Lutheran theology in some regards but not all. His view of the sacrifice of Christ is essential here. In conformity to classical Lutheran theology Pannenberg notes that Christ is (by virtue of his body and blood) personally, sacrificially and sacramentally present in the Eucharist, as both offering and gi, «given for us.» But his notion of sacrifice focuses primarily on Christ’s giving of himself to us, and secondarily and derivately on the offering to God. e sacrifice to God, Pannenberg points out, was not something given directly to God, but his obedience to the mission, his doing the will of the Father. Above we see that Pannenberg cites Gottlieb Söhngen, who emphasized that Christ is actually present through a remembrance of the Passion of Christ (memoria passionis), mediated by the 165 166 167 168 169 170 SysT III:319-320 SysT III:319, n.702 (CofT 13, can.5) SysT III:319, n.702, cf. WA 6, 513, 34-35; 6, 517, 34-35. SysT III:319, n.702 is is found in the Triglot Concordia, which is available online: http://bookofconcord.org/. SysT III:317 27 Spirit.171 For Pannenberg, the work of the Spirit constitutes a major importance in his view of the Eucharist.172 rough the Spirit, the Church can give thanks to God. As we see above (section 3.2.1, on the real presence), Pannenberg puts much focus on the work of the Spirit and on the epiclesis.173 And this is very important in his view of the role of the Church in the Eucharistic celebation. Pannenberg maintans that it is through the Spirit that the Church is able to pray and celebrate the Eucharist.174 He writes: As they [Christians] thank God that the Son gave up his life in faithfulness to the mission he had received from the Father, and as they themselves are drawn into this his sacrifice, believers offer God thanks for their own lives and for the gis of his creation. For Jesus’ giving of himself for fellowship with himself, with his filial relation to the Father, was related in the blessing of the bread and wine to the thanksgiving that by Jewish custom always went along with the breaking of bread and the blessing of the cup. anks for the gis of creation and for personal life involve dedication to the calling received from God in glorification of the deity of God. Hence there can be sharing in the offering of Christ only in the form of thanksgiving related to the salvation received from God and to the gis of his creation. Believers are hereby enabled to dedicate their own bodily lives as living and holy sacrifices that are pleasing to God in the service of God and of the future of his kingdom (Rom. 12:1).175 And this, Pannenberg maintains, the believers do in the Spirit and are thus transformed by him.176 We see here a strong connection between the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Church, where she offers praise and thanksgiving, and the sacrifice of Christ. As we see above, the sacrifice of Christ, while complete, is everlasting, perpetual, and it’s presented in heaven by Christ.177 Since Christ is personally present, and his sacrifice is Christ personally, this heavenly liturgy of Christ is made present in the Eucharistic celebration. To sum up Pannenberg’s view on the role of the Church in the Eucharistic celebration, the Church is taken up in the self-offering of Christ, in his heavenly liturgy, and through him the Church offers up her Eucharistic sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving in the Spirit. 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 SysT III:306-307, cf. Söhngen, Christi Gegenwart in Glaube und Sakrament (1967); Ulrich Kühn, TRE I:168. SysT III:306-208, cf. 320-324 SysT III:320-324 SysT III:324 SysT III:324 SysT III:324 SysT II:443 28 2.2.3 Pannenberg on the role of the priest in the Eucharistic celebration My third research question is formulated as follows: 3. What is the role of the priest in the Eucharistic celebration? In this section I am going to analyze Pannenberg’s view on the role of the priest in the Eucharistic celebration. Before I go on, I must remark that Pannenberg mostly avoids the term ‘priest,’ preferring to use ‘pastor’ or ‘minister.’178 I use ‘priest’ because that is normal usage in my Norwegian context, and because ‘priest’ is (ultimately) derived from πρ ύ ρ ς, as Pannenberg also acknowledges.179 It’s interesting to note that ‘priest’ was eventually found to be an appropriate translation of ‫ כֹּהֵן‬and ἱ ρ ύς. is suggests that at the time of this choice, the Church believed that the new covenant elders ( ἱ πρ ύ ρ ) had a significant sacrificial character. According to Pannenberg, the priest has a double representative role in the Eucharistic celebration. He maintains that «the minister who with the whole congregation makes anamnesis of Christ’s crucifixion for us, inasmuch as he repeats the words of institution that Jesus spoke, acts in the persona of Christ.»180 Pannenberg maintains that the priest acts on behalf of Christ by doing what Christ did, by repeating the words of institution. His view of the priest as representative of Christ is connected to the preaching of the Gospel. Reflecting on the acclamations around the Scripture readings at Mass and other utterances of worship, Pannenberg notes that «the consitutive significance of the words of institution for the sacraments» answers to these acclamations, and that «God himself is the subject of, respectively, the speech and the effect, while the servant of the Word stands, speaks and acts in the place of Christ.»181 We see from this that Pannenberg claims that to utter the words of institution is to act in persona Christi. Pannenberg also notes that the priest is acting in persona Christi as a representative of the Church, who acts on behalf of Christ (primarily in relation to humans). erefore, by acting in persona Christi, the priest acts in persona Ecclesiæ, since the Church (whom he represents) acts in persona Christi. But as Pannenberg presents this, this is a representation before the Church, not before God. When the priests administer the gis and sacraments to the faithful — when he preaches the Word of God, when he baptizes, when he distributes the Eucharist182 — he is acting in persona Christi, before 178 179 180 181 182 SysT III:126-128, esp. n.90 SysT III:128, n.90 SysT III:106 Pannenberg 2002:25. Tranlated from Norwegian. is is not to be taken exhaustively. Pannenberg has a wider definition of the sacraments, whioch includes matrimony (Cf. SysT III:336-369). 29 the Church. Pannenberg maintain that while he (and the reformers) rejects the Roman Catholic view of Christological re-presentation in the Eucharist,183 it is not because this represents a ‘re-sacrificing’ of Christ. Discussing the issue of anamnesis, Pannenberg points towards the Catholic counterreformatorical idea of re-presentation. «Trent interpreted [the Eucharistic sacrifice] as a representation of the offering that Christ made once and for all on the cross (DS, 1740)184 and linked this view to the making of anamnesis in the eucharistic liturgy.»185 is, Pannenberg maintains, was in contrast to the medieval approach: When Trent stressed the once-for-allness of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross (DS, 1740),186 it set aside even the appearance of a symbolical repetition on the plane of sacramental offering by treating anamnesis as an appropriating rather than a repeating of the sacrifice on the cross. is was all the plainer the more strongly the thought of sacramental “representation” was related to the Supper itself as a celebration of the institution and subordinated to an approach in terms of anamnesis.187 Pannenberg points out that Luther (citing John Chrysostom188 ) emphasized that the Eucharist had a clear sacrificial aspect, but as a recollection of Christ’s sacrifice once for all.189 Luther criticized his Catholic opponents because they maintained, in the words of Pannenberg, «that sacrifice was added to recollection as an offering of Christ, who is really present aer consecration.»190 More ‘diplomatic’ replies were given by Kaspar Schatzgeyer and Cardinal Cajetan, who connected the sacrifice more closely to the concept of ‘eucharistic recollection.’ Pannenberg writes:191 e priest [accoring to Schatzgeyer and Cajetan] does not act in his own name but in the persona Christi when he speaks Christ’s words, and the offering itself is not different from Christ’s unique offering but simply makes this one offering present in the repeated celebration of the Eucharist.192 Trent descibed the matter similarly. At the mass we have a presentation and application of the one sacrifice of Christ and its efficacy.193 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 SysT III:308-311 CofT 22, chap.1 SysT III:308 CofT 22, chap.1 SysT III:308. See 308-311 for a discussions of the debates of the early Reformation period. WA 57, 218, 1; Chrysostom, Hebr. comm. 17.3 (Heb. 9:25), PG, 63, 131. SysT III:309 SysT III:309 SysT III:309-310 Cf. Erwin Iserloh, TRE I:125-126; ST 3a, 83.1, ad 1. Cf. DS, 1740 (CofT 22, chap.1) 30 Pannenberg identifies some problems with this approach, pointing out that since «the offering of the sacrifice in its sacramental form (ratio offerendi) still differs here from the sacrifice made once and for all on the cross,» the sacramental offering seems to be «something additional to the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ.»194 e reformators, Pannenberg points out, saw the liturgy (and the Christian life as a whole) «as a thank offering to God along the lines of Rom. 12:1 but could not accept it as a sin offering. Modern ecumenical discussion has confirmed that here was the real point at issue.»195 Pannenberg maintains that the whole of anamnesis is important, but he still puts emphasis on the words of institution. ey ‘effect’ the presence, in relation to the anamnesis: «In this regard the words of institution are still decisive. ese words, however, have their place within anamnesis, indeed, at its center.»196 is, however, does not constitute a ‘magical’ view of the Eucharist, with emphasis on the «priestly power to effect change. Only in relation to believing recollection in which congregation and celebrant are one is Jesus Christ present to his people in the bread and wine according to his promise.»197 We see that Pannenberg maintains that by partaking of the Eucharist, the recipients are partaking of the sacrifice of the Cross, «not only in the “fruit” of Christ’s offering but also in its enactment.»198 But he also rejects the classical Roman Catholic conception that the priest is instituted to make sacrifices,199 and the specific Roman Catholic view that the Eucharist is «offered in reparation for the sins of the living and the dead and to obtain spiritual or temporal benefits from God.»200 To understand Pannenberg’s view of the role of the priest in the Eucharistic celebration, we need to recall his view of Christ and of Christ’s high-priestly ministry. He writes: e self-offering of Jesus is a sacrifice to the Father only inasmuch as it expresses his obedience to the mission he received from the Father… If, then, we call the Lord’s Supper a sacrifice, what Jesus himself did at the Last Supper must be viewed as a sign-act of sacrifice. What we have in the sacrifice of Jesus is not a direct offering to God but Jesus’ obedience to his mission to the world as witness to the presence of salvation of the rule of God. His death was the consequence of this obedience. Because the goal of his mission, the presence of his rule, to significatory form in what he did at the supper, the bread distributed at the 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 SysT III:310 SysT III:310 SysT III:311 SysT III:311 SysT III:316 SysT III:316-318, cf. 392-399 CCC 1414 31 supper could become a sign of his dedication to his mission to make the divine lordship present among us, and the cup that was handed around could become a sign of the sealing of this dedication by his death and of the new covenant of God with us that has its basis in that death. Hence the Lord’s Supper, especially by the cup saying, gives us the meaning of the approaching death of Jesus on the cross. Meal and sacrifice go together at the Lord’s Supper just as the covenant sacrifice and covenant meal did in Israel.201 Pannenberg maintain that when we say that Christ offered himself, we must say that he offered himself to and for the Church, and that it was only secondarily an offering to God (the Father). is is a very important point, and has consequences for his view of the ‘special’ or ‘ordained’ priesthood. We see above that Pannenberg maintains that «[only] in relation to believing recollection in which congregation and celebrant are one is Jesus Christ present to his people in the bread and wine according to his promise.»202 And this, Pannenberg maintains, is deeply connected to the work of the Spirit.203 Pannenberg puts much focus on the work of the Spirit and on the epiclesis. He maintains that this «can enrich Western eucharistic theology in many ways.»204 Pannenberg rejects, or is highly skeptical of, the view that the priest, acting in persona Christi, has the power to make Christ present by the words of institution. is is the work of the Spirit, and the anamnesis of the priest is a prayer or a petition. He writes: Primarily it resists the restricting of the idea of Christ being made present in bread and wine to recitation of the words of institution by the celebrant and the related notion that the priest has special power to effect tha change. Human action does not bring about Christ’s presence, not even in the sense that Jesus Christ has tied himself to what the celebrant does. Similarly, we have to see that epiclesis means prayer. As such it does not itself effect Christ’s presence in bread and wine. Only the Spirit himself to whom prayer is made can do that. is is precisely what is expressed by prayer for the Spirit.205 When the priest, during the Eucharistic celebration, is acting in persona Christi, he is not (according to Pannenberg) offering Christ. He is giving the Church a share in Christ, through pronouncing the words of institution. He understands these words, in their liturgical setting, to be uttered to the Church, like Christ uttered them to the Apostles.206 Adressing the public pastoral ministry of the Church, in which the pastor or minister is ‘regularly called,’207 Pannenberg points out that what «makes the official ministry distinctive is that it discharges [its] function 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 SysT III:318-319 SysT III:311 SysT III:320-324 SysT III:322 SysT III:322 SysT III:329, cf. 106.386-392. Cf. CA/Apol. XIV 32 publicly.»208 We see here first that he characterizes this as a ‘ministry,’ something which suggests that it is not directed towards God, but towards the Church. Pannenberg doesn’t think that acting in persona Christi is the most important part of the public ministry: e basis of the distinctiveness is not that office bearers act in the stead of Christ (in persona Christi), as the bull of union for the Armenians stated at Florence in 1439 with reference to priests administering the sacrament (DS, 1321; cf. LG 21 and 10).209 If it is true that in virtue of their participation in Jesus Christ on the basis of faith all Christians share also in his ministry and mission, then it follows, as Luther wrote in 1520, that each is a Christ to the others.210 Sharing in the mission of Christ, especially in his priestly ministry, implies interceding for others as Christ’s representatives.211 But he points out that this is important in regards to the Eucharist: As regards the church’s ministry in particular, however, here again the only unique point is that this activity in persona Christi is a public activity in the name of the whole church. We see this especially in the presiding of church leaders at celebrations of the Eucharist212 when they celebrate the eucharistic anamnesis on behalf of the whole congregation, so that all the members share in their action when in persona Christi they pronounce the words of Jesus over the bread and wine. e public discharge in Christ’s name of the commission given to the whole church takes place also in proclamation of the Word as the Word is heard and accepted, not just as that of the pastor but as that of Christ himself, and therefore as the Word of God, the same applying to the pronouncing of forgiveness of sins that ministers proclaim and pronounce in virtue of the authority of Jesus Christ that is given to the whole church, and therefore in Christ’s stead.213 We see from this that in one sense, the priest is interceding before God on behalf of the Church, in persona Christi, but not as in offering Christ, but as in giving the Church, the congregation, a share in the salvation given by Christ in the sacraments. When officiating in the Eucharistic celebration, the priest acts in persona Christi primarily before (and on behalf of) the Church. Commenting on the link between sacramentality and priestly ordination,214 Pannenberg points out that Luther’s rejection of the medieval Catholic ordination practice was rooted in its sacrificial nature. Catholic ordination, Pannenberg points out, consisted of …the handing over of the chalice and paten with the words: “Take authority to offer in the church the sacrifice for the living and the dead.”215 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 SysT III:388 See SysT III:388, n.875 Cf. De lib. chr. 27; WA 7, 66, 3ff. SysT III:388-389 Cf. BEM 2:14 (with commentary) SysT III:389 SysT III:393-397 SysT III:393 33 Pannenberg maintains that Luther rightly rejected that, and he points out that this has been reformed somewhat in the Catholic Church. In 1947, Pannenberg notes, Pius XII [concluded] from liturgical inquires into the history of ordination that laying on of hands is the proper sign (or matter, materia) of ordination (DS, 3859)216 and state expressly that the handing over of the chalice and paten (traditio instrumentorum) is not to be seen as an essential part of the sacrament according to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ (DS, 3858).217 is declaration created a new situation in ecumenical discussions of ordination.218 Pannenberg’s main point is that, as we see above, the sacrifice consists of Christ giving himself for and to his people. His sacrifice is basically being true to the mission — that he became one with us in order to drag ourselves to himself. Pannenberg holds that Christ drags us to himself by means of certain significatory acts (or ‘sign-acts’) — primarily baptism and the Eucharist. us, on Pannenberg’s definition of (the) sacrifice (of Christ), the Eucharist is a sacrifice, or at least sacrificial. If the sacrifice of Christ is his mission, and his mission involves dragging us to himself in baptism and sustaining us through the Eucharist, it follows that the Eucharist is sacrificial; part of the sacrifice of Christ. But this is not something which is primarily directed towards God, but towards the Church. To sum up Pannenberg’s view on the role of the priest in the Eucharistic celebration, with some reservations we can say that the actions of the priest are deeply connected to Pannenberg’s views of the role of Christ and of the Church. When the priest, as pastor or minister, celebrates the Eucharist, he acts in persona Ecclesiæ before God, offering the sacrifice of the Church, and in persona Christi before the Church, administering the gis and sacraments to the faithful. And although Pannenberg rejects part of the Catholic position on the priestly authority to sacrifice, he understands his position on anamnesis as partly compatible with the Catholic position: e second, more significant difference in eucharistie understanding has to do with the Roman Catholic position that views that which is brought to God as a sacrifice—a view that, according to the judgment of Reformation critics, is an unacceptable competition to the all-sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. Yet, ecumenical discussion has even reached understanding on this topic. e Eucharist is to be celebrated as a remembrance of the unique sacrifice of Christ on the cross, and, through that remembering, the celebrants allow themselves to be drawn into Christ’s giving of his life. is new interpretation of the sacrificial character of the Eucharist, as well as the agreement concerning the meaning of transubstantiation, however, needs to be given expression in a joint declaration analogous 216 217 218 Apostolic Constitution, «Sacramentum Ordinis,» 4 (November 30, 1947). «Sacramentum Ordinis,» op.cit., 3 SysT III:393 34 to the one on justification (1999). at said, the basic lines of an understanding on these topics have already been won in ecumenical discussion.219 219 Pannenberg 2006:171 35 36 3 Analysis of Ratzinger’s view As pointed out above, I have identified some important research questions. In the following, I will analyze Ratzinger’s views on the Eucharist, and especially its sacrificial character, with these in mind. 3.1 Introductory remarks on Ratzinger In this section I will briefly present Ratzinger’s view on sacraments in general, which is found particularly in e Feast Of Faith (esp. part 1:2),220 and his view on the real presence, which is primarily found in chapter 5 of God Is Near Us, and chapter 4 of e Spirit of the Liturgy.221 is will present us with the background against which we must understand his view of the sacrificial aspect of the Eucharist.222 Ratzinger defines the Eucharist as a part of systematic theology, but he points out that this placement haven’t been so obvious in liturgist circles. In e Feast of Faith, Ratzinger refers to the liturgical debates from the interwar and postwar periods, where one started talking about the distinction between the content (Ger. Gehalt) and the form (Ger. Gestalt) of the Eucharistic celebration.223 e ‘form’ or ‘structure’ of Mass was no longer uninteresting, but was conceived of as a ‘living form’ or an ‘inner expression’ of the spiritual content of Mass.224 «ey found that this form, or structure, was a theological and spiritual entity with an integrity of its own.»225 «Now the structure of the Mass, the form in which it manifests itself, … was seen as the inner expression of the spiritual reality which takes place within the Mass.»226 is category of ‘form’ (which was close to unknown before this time) entered the debate and «gave birth to liturgical scholarship in the modern sense.»227 It became important to get ‘behind’ the individual rites, to find the ‘basic form’ which ‘in220 Feast 33-60. For his basic theological conception, see Principles 15-190. See also Hahn (2006:97-140; 2009:13- 221 24). GINU 74-93; SofL 85-91 For biographical information, see Gösta Hallonsten’s biography/monography from the book Moderne teologi 222 (ed., Ståle Johannes Kristiansen & Svein Rise. Kristiansand: Høyskoleforlaget 2008), pp.324-337. See also 223 224 225 226 227 Rowland 2008; Hahn 2006; Hahn 2009. Feast 33-50. For a good introduction to the debate and to Ratzinger’s points, see Hauke 2011:2-3. Feast 33-60 Feast 33 Feast 34 Feast 34 37 forms’ these, and acts as a ‘key’ to understand the content of the Eucharist. is ‘key’ could then be used in a ‘reformatory’ way: one could use it to identify the ‘essential’ and ‘non-essential’ prayers and gestures, and reform the liturgy in light of this. us liturgics became a stand alone discipline, alongside dogmatics and Canon Law. is ‘form’ was (commonly) indentified as a meal. Very oen, and especially in evangelical and in German (and Norwegian) Lutheran theology, the Eucharist is called ‘the Supper’228 or ‘the Lord’s Supper.’229 «e determining structure is that of the meal,» said German Catholic liturgist Joseph Pascher.230 For Ratzinger, this is basically a (catholic) return to Luther’s view on the Eucharist as a meal. Ratzinger points out that in answer to this objection, it was said that the form of the Eucharist (a meal) was not an obstacle to an understanding of the content of the Eucharist (a sacrifice).231 «What was presented liturgically in the structure of the meal could without difficulty mediate what, dogmatically speaking, was a sacrifice.»232 e Eucharist was thus (partially) removed from dogmatics, something Ratzinger holds was a wrong move. He questions this sharp distinction between ‘form’ and ‘content.’ «Particularly if the structure is not merely a ceremonial form, but at its core an indespensable manifestation of its essential content, it makes no sense absolutely to separate the one from the other.»233 is confusion on the relationshop between dogmatics and liturgics is «the central problem of the liturgical reform. Failure to deal with it has resulted in a great many of the individual problems which have since preoccupied us.»234 Above I point out that Ratzinger’s theology is decisively Christological. He presents us with four Christological theses in relation to dogma and preaching,235 the third of which represents a good starting point for an analysis of his view concerning (the sacrificial aspect of) the Eucharist: «Christian preaching is not the presentation of a doctrinal system but, rather, training in Christian reality, the crystallization point of which is the eucharistic celebration.»236 When it comes to the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Ratzinger asks some important questions:237 (1) «Does the Bible actually say anything like that? Does it present us with this, or 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 Ger. das Abendmahl; no. nattverden. Ger. das Herrenmahl; no. Herrens nattverd. Eucharistia. Gestalt und Vollzug (Münster-Krailing 1947), p.27. Quoted in Feast 35. Feast 35-36 Feast 35 Feast 35-36 Feast 36. For more on Ratzinger’s critique of the (both Catholic and Protestant) calling into question of the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist, and sacrifice in general, see BXVI 142-144. See D/P 40-55 D/P 51 GINU 76 38 is it just the naïve misunderstanding of a later age, which transposed the exalted and spiritual reality of Christianity down to a lesser ecclestiastical version?» (2) «Is it truly possible for a body to share itself out into all places and all times? Does this not simply contradict the limitations that are of the essence of a body?» (3) «Hasn’t modern science, with everything it says about “substance” and material being, so obviously rendered obsolete those dogmas of the Church that relate to this that in the world of science we just finally have to throw them on the scrap heap, since we are unable to reconcile them with contemporary thought?» He points out that the debates in the sixteenth century had to much emphasis on the meaning of ‘is’ (Gk. ἰ ; Lt. est), because such a dispute, over a single word «can only lead up a blind alley.»238 What is needed, he maintains, is a more thorough look at the context.239 And by ‘context’ Ratzinger doesn’t merely refer to the immediate contxt of the Last Supper, but to the whole of Christ’s ministry, as recorded in Scripture, in particular John 6: «Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. … My flesh is food indeed.» (John 6:53.55) He reads this literally, and maintains that in Scripture the real presence of Christ has both an objective and a subjective sense. Christ is really, substantially present. But our participation is also important. Ratzinger points out that we are taken up into Christ, citing Augustine’s analogy of food, where the things are turned around: Instead of us taking up into ourselves the food we eat, we are taken up into Christ by partaking of the Eucharist.240 To explain this, Ratzinger first points out that in Scripture ‘body’ (as in «this is my body») does not merely denote physicality, in «contradistinction to the spirit,» but «rather the whole person, in whom body and spirit are indivisibly one.»241 is body of Christ, Ratzinger points out,242 is «given up for you.» It is «existing-for-others» and can therefore, on a personal level, «be shared out.» e body, he points out, is both that which separates us from others, which mark our personal existence, and a ‘bridge,’ that through which we express ourselves and through which other persons meet us.243 «[It] is both boundary and means of communiuon in one.»244 Because of this, Ratzinger poins out, we can either be «more inclined toward shutting off or more inclined toward communion.»245 Christ inclined fully towards communion, especially through 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 GINU 76 GINU 76-77 GINU 77-78, cf. 77, n.2. GINU 79 GINU 79 GINU 79-80 GINU 80 GINU 80, cf. 80-81 39 his resurrection which «means quite simply that the body ceases to be a limit and that its capacity for communion remains.»246 He explains this through transubstantiation,247 by pointing out that ‘substance’ was used as a counterweight to the ‘naïve’ view of reality as merely ‘physical’ or ‘empirical.’248 He makes three important points: a. ere is a «real transformation» taking place in the Eucharist.249 is means that «it cannot be the case that the Body of Christ comes to add itself to the bread, as if bread and Body were two similar things that could exist as two “substances”, in the same way, side by side.»250 e body of Christ is «greater than bread» which means that in the transformation the gis (bread and wine) are taken «up into a higher order» and is changed «even if we cannot measure what happens.»251 Ratzinger explains this by pointing out that when a thing is taken up into a higher order, like food taken up into the body or when a material thing is taken up into a living organism, «it remains the same, and yet as part of a new whole it is itself changed.»252 us, when Christ takes up into himself the bread and wine they are transformed, «even if, from a purely physical point of view, they remain the same.»253 From this Ratzinger makes a more general point: «Wherever Christ has been present, aerward it cannot be just as if nothing had happened. ere, where he has laid his hand, something new has come to be.»254 Ratzinger connects this explicitly to the transformation of the Christian person (and, finally, of the world). is doesn’t merely imply an argument against consubstantiation,255 but also against the soteriological and anthropological views concerning mankinds twofold nature as sinner and just (Lt. simul iustis et peccator). b. e transformation of the elements are objective, not merely something subjective we ‘project’ unto them.256 It is reality, not a game. If it were a game, the gis of bread and wine would, in the Eucharistic celebration, «be only temporarily, for cultic purposes subject to a “change of use”.»257 Ratzinger rejects this idea of transignification, and points out that the reality is that 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 GINU 81, cf. SofL 86-91 GINU 83-93 GINU 84-85 GINU 85, cf. 85-87 GINU 86 GINU 86 GINU 86, cf. n.8 GINU 86 GINU 86 Luther rejected the term, but I fail to see the major difference between consubstantiation and Luther’s view (‘sacramental union’). GINU 87-88 GINU 87 40 of a genuine transformation which the Catholic Church calls ‘transubstantiation.’258 Ratzinger laments the modern reduction of everything from being to ‘function.’259 «e significance of the Eucharist as a sacrament of faith,» he points out, «consists precisely in that it takes us out of functionality and reaches the basis of reality.»260 c. Ratzinger points out that from the fact of transubstantiation (and not merely transignification), it follows that the presence of Christ remains.261 And because of this enduring presence, Christ is adored in the Host.262 Ratzinger presents arguments in favor of Eucharistic adoration, but I will not deal with them here.263 In sum, Ratzinger maintains and defends the doctrine of transubstantiation, contrasting it particlarly with consubstantiation and with the modern concepts of transignification and transfinaliztion, and he maintains that it is the whole person of Christ who is present, alongside His redemptive work.264 3.2 Ratzinger on the sacrificial character of the Eucharist 3.2.1 Ratzinger on the high-priestly role of Christ in the Eucharist My first research question is formulated as follows: 1. What is the high-priestly role of Christ in the Eucharist? In this section I am going to analyze Ratzinger’s view on the high-priestly ministry of Christ. I cannot here discuss the whole of Ratzinger’s Christology, but will focus on the high-priestly role of Christ in the Eucharist, and his role as sacrifice.265 258 259 260 261 262 263 GINU 87-88, cf. 87, n.9 GINU 88 GINU 88 GINU 88-93 GINU 88 For a brief Aristotelian-omistic treatment of transubstantiation, see Peter A. Kwasniewski, «Substance, Accident, and Transubstantiation» (Latin Mass: A Journal of Catholic Culture and Tradition 18:1, 2009), pp.8-13. 264 265 Available online: http://bit.ly/LmgAF7 [retrieved from catholictradition.blogspot.com, Nov. 21, 2012]. Feast 90-96; GINU 87-88; DCE 12-13 For Ratzinger’s Christology, see D/P 40-51.117-120; Jesus I-II; Ratzinger, Behold e Pierced One: An Approach to a Spiritual Christology (Kindle Edition. Translated by Graham Harrison. San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press 2011), pp.13-46. See also Hahn 2009:143-146. 41 As we see above, for Ratzinger the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is the sacramental, substantial and personal presence of Christ.266 For him, it is important to point out that it is the entire Christ who is present, and therefore also all that he does.267 As pope, in Deus Caritas Est, Ratzinger adresses the loving sacrifice of Christ,268 and maintains that «Jesus gave this act of oblation an enduring presence through his institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper.»269 To understand Ratzinger’s view on how the sacrifice of Christ is given «an enduring presence,» we need not only understand his view on the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, as we have analyzed above, but also his view on the high-priestly ministry, and his work in the liturgy. In a lecture on the theology of the liturgy (delivered in a conference July 22-24, 2001),270 Ratzinger starts by citing Vatican II’s definition of the liturgy, in Sacrosanctum Concilium, as «the work of Christ the Priest and of His Body which is the Church.»271 He sees in this use of the ‘work’ of Christ a double meaning: “By this Mystery, in dying He has destroyed our death, and in rising He has restored life.” At first sight, in these two sentences, the phrase “the work of Christ” seems to have been used in two different senses. “e work of Christ” refers first of all to the historical, redemptive actions of Jesus, his death and his Resurrection; at the same time, the celebration of the liturgy is called “the work of Christ.”272 Ratzinger point out that these to different usages «are inseparably linked,» that they have both interior and exterior qualities, and that this ‘paschal mystery’ is both historical and eternal, transcendent.273 Ratzinger goes on critiquing the (both Catholic and Protestant) calling into question of the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist, and sacrifice in general.274 He quotes Sacrosanctum Concilium: «In the liturgy, through which, especially in the divine Sacrifice of the Eucharist, ‘the work of Redemption is carried on,’ the faithful are most fully led to express and show to others the mystery of Christ and the real nature of the true Church.»275 Aer adressing the principled 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 Cf. GINU 74-93 GINU 76-83; SofL 88 DCE 12 DCE 13 BXVI 141-154 BXVI 141, cf. SaCo 7. (e official text of Sacrosanctum Concilium, found at the Vatican website, uses ‘action,’ while Ratzinger quotes it as ‘work.’) BXVI 141, cf. SaCo 5-7. BXVI 141, cf. 141-142 BXVI 142-144. I have treated this briefly in section 3.1. BXVI 142, cf. SaCo 2. 42 of theological research,276 Ratzinger adresses Easter and sacrifice.277 Here Ratzinger makes the point that the self-offering of Christ didn’t merely happen on the Cross; it started in the Upper Room. And without the Last Supper, the Cross is nothing but an execution. Ratzinger sees the Last Supper and the Cross as a single event, and maintains that the Romans didn’t take his life on the Cross, because he gave at in the Last Supper: Jesus transforms death into the spiritual act of affirmation, into the act of self-sharing love; into the act of adoration, which is offered to God, then from God is made available to men. Both are essentially interdependent: the words at the Last Supper without the death would be, so to speak, an issue of unsecured currency; and again, the death without these words would be a mere execution without any discernable point to it. Yet the two together constitute this new event, in which the senselessness of death is given meaning; in which what is irrational is transformed and made rational and articulate; in which the destruction of love, which is what death means in itself, becomes in fact the means of verifying and establishing it, of its enduring constancy.278 We also see this elswhere, where points out that the early Church, «on the basis of the words of the Last Supper,» knew that Christ’s death was a sacrifice «because the Last Supper would be an empty gesture without the reality of the cross and the Resurrection, which is anticipated in it and made accessible for all time in its interior content.»279 To explain this further, we must take a look at Ratzinger’s view on the high-priestly prayer of Christ.280 In volum II of his book on Christ, Ratzinger, aer being consecrated Pope,281 adresses the high-priestly prayer of Christ.282 Ratzinger starts by pointing out that while the term for this prayer — the high-priestly prayer of Christ — is somewhat new, being introduced by Lutheran theologian David Chytraeus,283 it captures the essence of this prayer, an essence that had been alluded to by the Church Fathers.284 Ratzinger also points to André Feuillet’s monograph on John 17, in which is found a saying of medieval Benedictine theologian Rupert of Deutz: «e High Priest who was himself the one 276 277 278 279 280 281 BXVI 145-146 BXVI 146-148, cf. Feast 60, n.1. See also Hahn 2009:137-161. GINU 29-30 BXVI 147, cf. Hahn 2009:157-162 Jesus II:76-102 In these books on Christ he uses both Jospeh Ratzinger and Benedict XVI, because these are his personal reflections, and not any official papal teaching. See Jesus I:xi-xxiv. «Everyone is free, then, to contradict me. I 282 283 would only ask my readers for that initial goodwill without which there can be no understanding.» (xxiv) Jesus II:76-102 Chytraeus was born on February 26, 1530 and died on June 25, 1600. See the entrance on him in the SchaffHerzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. III (Ed., Samuel M. Jackson. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book 284 House), pp.116-117. Available online: http://bit.ly/Oaaidf [pdf-file, retrieved from ccel.org, Nov. 21, 2012]. For instance Cyril of Alexandria, cf. Jesus II:76. 43 making atonement as well as the expiatory offering, both priest and sacrifice, implored this for us.»285 For Ratzinger, Yom Kippur is the background of the high-priestly prayer.286 On Yom Kippur, Ratzinger points out,287 the High Priest «is required, through the appropriate sacrifice (two male goats for a sin offering and one ram for a burnt offering, a young animal: cf. 16:5-6), to make atonement, first for himself, then for “his house”, in other words for the priestly clan of Israel in general, and finally for the whole commnity of Israel (cf. 16:17).»288 Ratzinger points out that this is to be done in order to restore Israel as the holy people of God, «in the midst of the world.»289 is idea of God’s covenant is integral to biblical thought, and Ratzinger points out that rabbinic theology maintains that this idea «is prior to the idea of the creation of the world and supplies its inner motive.»290 e whole cosmos was a means for this covenant between God and man, and Yom Kippur marked its restoration.291 Ratzinger points out that we find the structure of Yom Kippur in the high-priestly prayer of Christ: [Just] as the high priest makes atonement for himself, for the priestly clan, and for the whole community of Israel, so Jesus prays for himself, for the Apostles, and finally for all who will come to believe in him through their word—for the Church of all times (cf. Jn 17:20). He sanctifies «himself,» and he obtains the sanctification of those who are his.292 Ratzinger points out that the high-priestly prayer of Christ «is the consummation of the Day of Atonement, the eternally accesible feast, as it were, of God’s reconciliation with men.»293 He goes on to explore the relationship between this offering and the Eucharist,294 and points out that this isn’t John’s original account of the institution, but that there exists a connection «on a deeper level.»295 Ratzinger maintains that through the self-offering of Christ, through his sanctifying of himself in his prayer, «the ritual of the Day of Atonement is transformed into 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 Jesus II:76. In latin: Haec pontifex summus propitiator ipse et propitiatorium, sacerdos et sacrificium pro nobis oravit. Jesus II:77-82 Cf. Lev. 16; 23:26-32 Jesus II:77 Jesus II:78 Jesus II:78 Jesus II:78 Jesus II:78 Jesus II:79 Jesus II:79-80 Jesus II:80 44 prayer.»296 Ratzinger connects this to the Greek concept of reasonable or spiritual sacrifices, , and what Paul (in Romans 12:1) called ς ρ , ‘reasonable worship,’ i.e. «worship shaped by the word, structured on reason.»297 «I am persuaded that the Roman Canon has in its petition hit upon the real intention of Paul in his exhortation in Romans 12.»298 In Roman Catholic liturgy, the Roman Canon is the Eucharistic prayer of the Extaordinary Form, and it is continued in a reformed manner in the first Eucharistic prayer of the Ordinary Form.299 As backgrounds for that, he points to influences from both Hebrew and Hellenistic sources.300 Ratzinger writes points out that as Israel progressed through salvation history, they was beginning to grasp that the sacrifice pleasing to God is a man pleasing to God and that prayer, the grateful praise of God, is thus the true sacrifice in which we give ourselves back to him, thereby renewing ourselves and the world. e heart of Israel’s worship had always been what we express in the Latin word memoriale: remembrance.301 e Hebrew examples he points to is the Paschal liturgy, with its blessing, the Berakah, and the late Hebrew concept of ‘the sacrifice of praise.’ He also points out that the Eucharistic liturgy have as its background «the mature religion of the Hellenistic world, which was increasingly close to Judaism.»302 e most significant of theseinfluences is the late Hellenistic concept of verbal sacrifice.303 is verbal sacrifice, Ratzinger maintains, is made complete in Christ’s high-priestly prayer. He points out that in the case of Christ, this is no «ordinary word,» but «the word of him who is “the Word”.»304 Referencing the biblical concept of spiritual self-offering, Ratzinger points out that Christ offers himself by giving himself in prayer: With the institution of the Eucharist, Jesus transforms his cruel death into “word”, into the radical expression of his love, his self-giving to the point of death. So he himself becomes the “Temple”. Insofar as the high-priestly prayer forms the consummation of Jesus’ self-gi, it represents the new worship and has a deep inner connection with the Eucharist.305 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 Jesus II:80 Jesus II:80 Pilgrim 116-117, cf. Hahn 2009:179, n.48 See omas E. Woods Jr., «Extraordinary Form 101: A Beginner’s Guide to the Old Latin Mass.» is Rock Magazine 19:9, pp.6-11. Feast 36-39.46-50; GINU 48-51; Pilgrim 115; Hahn 2009:154-157; 177-181 GINU 48 GINU 51, cf. 47-51; Pilgrim 115; Hahn 2009:177-181. Feast 37, cf. GINU 51 Jesus II:80 Jesus II:80, cf. Ps. 40:6; Heb. 10:5. See Jesus II:1-23 for Ratzinger’s treatment of Christ’s entrance into Jerusalem and the cleansing of the Temple. 45 For Ratzinger the sacrifice of Christ is the logical end of the late Hebrew notion of self-sacrifice; that God doesn’t demand the blood (death) of animals, but the lives of his people.306 Here Ratzinger references the four songs of Isaiah on the Suffering Servant,307 focusing on Isaiah 53. ere we find a person who is both priest, sacrifice and temple.308 Ratzinger goes on to treat four major themes in the high-priestly prayer:309 (1) «is is eternal life …» (2) «Sanctify them in the truth …» (3) «I have made your name known to them …» (4) «at they may all be one …» I will focus on the second.310 is theme of sanctification and sanctifying, Ratzinger maintains, «points strongly toward the connection with the event of atonement and with the high priesthood.»311 He starts by quoting part of Christ’s prayer to the Father: «Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. … For their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth.»312 Ratzinger connects this to the Father’s sanctifucation and sending of the Son (John 10:36), and postulates a triple ‘sanctification’: [e] Father has sanctified the Son and sent him onto the world; the Son sanctifies himself; and he asks, on the basis of his own sanctification, that the disciples be sanctified in the truth.313 Ratzinger explores what is meant by «sanctifying in truth.» ‘Sanctifying,’ Ratzinger maintains, «means handing over a reality—a person or even a thing—to God, especially through appropriation for worship.»314 is can either be «consecration for sacrifice» or «priestly consecration,» i.e. «the designation of a man for God and for divine worship.»315 Ratzinger points out that ‘consecration’ or ‘sanctification’ «includes two apparently opposed, but in reality deeply conjoined, aspects.»316 ese aspects are, on the one hand, ‘consecration’ or ‘sanctification’ in the sense of dedicating something to God, taking something out of everyday use, and, on the other hand, that what is ‘consecrated’ or ‘sanctified’ is ‘existing for’ the world. Ratzinger sums it up by noting that «setting apart and mission form a single whole.»317 Ratzinger points out that while 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 SofL 46-50 Cf. Isa 42:1-4; 49:1-6; 50:4-9; 52:13-53:12. Jesus II:81-82 Jesus II:82-102 Jesus II:85-90 Jesus II:85 Jesus II:85, cf. John 17:17.19. e greek verb ἁ Jesus II:85-86 Jesus II:86 Jesus II:86, cf. Ex. 13:2; Ex. 28:41; Deut. 15:19. Jesus II:86 Jesus II:86 ω is here translated as both ‘sanctifying’ and ‘consecrating.’ 46 Israel, as a ‘holy people,’ was «set apart from all other peoples,» they were so «for a particular reason—in order to carry out a commision for all peoples, for the whole world.»318 Ratzinger then asks, concerning the Gospel of John: «What is the meaning of the three sanctifications (consecrations) that are spoken of there?» First, Ratzinger points out, the Father consecrated the Son and sent him out (Joh 10:36), as he did with the prophet Jeremiah. God is «exercising a total claim over this man, “setting him apart” for himself, yet at the same time sending him out for the nations.»319 Here the focus is primarily on the Incarnation. Second, Christ consecrates himself (Joh 17:19), which Ratzinger (citing Rudolf Bultmann) maintains means that Christ consecrated himself as a sacrifice. Bultmann, Ratzinger adds, quotes John Chrysostom in support of this claim: «I sanctify myself—I present myself as a sacrifice.»320 Here the focus is primarily «on the Passion as sacrifice.»321 e relationship between the first two consecrations is expressed in that Christ, through his consecration by the Father and through his self-consecration, is existing ‘for’ the world, and gives himself.322 In this we find «the new atonement liturgy of Jesus Christ, the liturgy of the New Covenant, in its entire grandeur and purity. Jesus himself is the priest sent into the world by the Father; he himself is the sacrifice that is made present in the Eucharist of all times.»323 Ratzinger points to Philo of Alexandria, who spoke of the Logos as priest and high priest, and he adds that the Yom Kippur is fulfilled in Christ, the Logos made flesh.324 ird, Christ consecrates his disciples, in himself (Joh 17:19). Ratzinger maintains that Christ is drawing his disciples into his own self-offering, so that they might participate «in his state of sanctification.»325 Being sanctified in ‘truth,’ Ratzinger points out, means being sanctified in Christ. Here the focus is primarily on our participation. In e Spirit of the Liturgy, Ratzinger makes a points which is related to the significance of this ‘dialectic’ between the Father’s consecation of the Son, and the Son’s consecation of himself, and his self-offering, his giving himself back to the Father. Ratzinger makes an important distinction between being a ‘representative,’ and being a ‘replacement.’326 Ratzinger makes the point that the 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 Jesus II:86 Jesus II:87, cf. Jer. 1:5. Jesus II:87-88 Jesus II:88 Jesus II:88 Jesus II:88 Jesus II:88-89 Jesus II:89 SofL 35-38.47-48.57-61, cf. 36, n.1 47 sacrifice which Abraham offers back to God, the lamb, and all the sacrifices of the old covenant, is a reminder that God wants us, wants our love and adoration. He writes: Somehow there always has to be a stinging reminder of this story, an expectation of the true Lamb, who comes from God and is for that very reason not a replacement but a true representative, in whom we ourselves are taken to God. e Christian theology of worship—beginning with St. John the Baptist—sees in Christ the Lamb given by God. e Apocalypse presents this sacrificed Lamb, who lives as sacrificed, as the center of the heavenly liturgy, a liturgy that, through Christ’s Sacrifice, is now present in the midst of the world and makes replacement liturgies superfluous (see Rev 5).327 For Ratzinger, then, the liturgy on earth is a participation in the heavenly liturgy, a participation in this work of Christ.328 And this sacrifice, while complete and perfect, has not ceased. Ratzinger writes: St. Bernard of Clairvaux has this in mind when he says that the true semel (“once”) bears within itself the semper (“always”). What is perpetual takes place in what happens only once. In the Bible the Once for All is emphasized most vigorously in the epistle to the Hebrews, but the careful reader will discover that the point made by St. Bernard expresses its true meaning. e ephapax (“Once For All”) is bound up with the aiōnios (“everlasting”). … In the Eucharist we are caught up and made contemporary with the Paschal Mystery of Christ, in his passing from the tabernacle of the transitory to the presence and sight of God.329 e Church’s liturgy — Christ’s liturgy — «is … not about replacement, but about representation, vicarious sacrifice.»330 In Ratzinger’s view Christ gives himself, his whole life, back to God, as our representative, not to ‘appease’ God’s ‘wrath,’ but to adore God, and to secure mankind’s expiation and their reconciliation to God. He continues: e liturgy is not about the sacrificing of animals, of a “something” that is ultimately alien to me. e liturgy is founded on the Passion endured by a man who with his “I” reaches into the mystery of the living God himself, by the man who is the Son. So it can never be a mere actio liturgica. Its origin also bears within it its future in the sense that representation, vicarious sacrifice, takes up into itself those whom it represents; it is not external to them, but a shaping influence on them. Becoming contemporary with the Pasch of Christ in the liturgy of the Church is also, in fact, an anthropological reality. e celebration is not just a rite, not justa a liturgical “game”. It is meant to be indeed a logikē latreia,331 the “logicizing” of my existence, my interior contemporaneity with the self-giving of Christ. His self-giving is meant to become mine, so that I become contemporary with the Pasch of Christ and assimilated unto God.332 327 328 329 330 331 332 SofL 38 BXVI 141, cf. SaCo 7 SofL 56-57 SofL 57 Cf. Rom. 12:1 SofL 57-58, cf. Jesus II:38-41 48 Ratzinger points out that while «Christ’s Sacrifice was accepted long ago,» it has, «in the form of representation … not come to an end.»333 It is perpetual, everlasting.334 We see above that Ratzinger quotes medieval Benedictine theologian Rupert of Deutz: «e High Priest who was himself the one making atonement as well as the expiatory offering, both priest and sacrifice, implored this for us.»335 One important point than needs to be commented is that Ratzinger uses «the one making making atonement» and «expiatory offering» as a translation of, respectively, propitiator and propitiatorium. He sees, then, a clear connection between propitiation and expiation, but puts emphasis on on the latter. In his view, the self-sacrifice of Christ is primarily an «act of adoration, which is offered to God.»336 It is the offering of himself, as our representative, and therefore of ourselves, not because God demands blood, but because he wants our love and adoration. Ratzinger sees, then, the propitiatory character of Christ’s self-sacrifice more as an expiation, more as a reconciling of man to God, than a propitiation, a reconciling of God, an ‘appeasing’ of God’s ‘wrath.’337 Before going on to the next section, I will try to summarize Ratzinger approach to the highpriestly role of Christ in the Eucharist by pointing to what he writes at the beginning of the first chapter of Jesus of Nazareth, vol. II. Here Ratzinger compares the Johannine and Synoptic accounts of Christ’s mission, and points out that while John postulates that Christ celebrated three distinct Passovers (2:13-25; 6:4; 12-19), the Synoptics only explicitly mentions one Passover, the Passover of Christ’s Passion.338 He points in Luke, «Jesus’ path is presented as a single pilgrim ascent from Galilee to Jerusalem.»339 is ascent, he points out, is first ‘geographical.’340 Christ begins at the Sea of Galilee, «situated about 690 feet below sea level,» and ascends to Jerusalem, which «is on avarage 2500 feet above.»341 But this outwardly ascension, Ratzinger points out, has an ‘inner’ meaning: e ultimate goal of Jesus’ “ascent” is his self-offering on the Cross, which supplants the old sacrifices; it is the ascent that the Letter to the Hebrews describes as going up, not to a sanctuary made of human hands, but to heaven itself, into the presence of God (9:24). is 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 SofL 58 SofL 58-61 Jesus II:76. In latin: Haec pontifex summus propitiator ipse et propitiatorium, sacerdos et sacrificium pro nobis oravit. GINU 29 Cf. Jesus II:38-41.186-188.229-240.251-253 Jesus II:1-2 Jesus II:1 Jesus II:1-2 Jesus II:1 49 ascent into God’s presence leads via the Cross—it is the ascent toward “loving to the end” (cf. Jn 13:1), which is the real mountain of God.342 is perpetual self-offering is made present in the Eucharist, those who partake participate in the Eucharistic celebration are drawn «into Jesus’ act of self-oblation,» drawn «into the very dynamic of his self-giving.»343 3.2.2 Ratzinger on the role of the Church in the Eucharistic celebration My second research question is formulated as follows: 2. What is the role of the Church in the Eucharistic celebration? In a lecture on the theology of the liturgy which is mentioned above,344 Ratzinger starts by citing Vatican II’s definition of the liturgy as «the work of Christ the Priest and of His Body which is the Church.»345 Above, I have analyzed Ratzinger’s view on the high-priestly role of Christ in the Eucharist, and in this section and later (section 3.2.3), I will look at the action or work of the Church and the priest, which in essence is Christ’s work.346 According to Ratzinger, there is a clear connection between the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, his sacrifice and the Eucharistic sacrifices of the Church. As pope, in Deus Caritas Est, Ratzinger addresses the sacrifice of Christ,347 and considers its relationship to the Eucharist: Jesus gave this act of oblation an enduring presence through his institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper. He anticipated his death and resurrection by giving his disciples, in the bread and wine, his very self, his body and blood as the new manna (cf. Jn 6:31-33). e ancient world had dimly perceived that man’s real food—what truly nourishes him as man—is ultimately the Logos, eternal wisdom: this same Logos now truly becomes food for us—as love. e Eucharist draws us into Jesus’ act of self-oblation. More than just statically receiving the incarnate Logos, we enter into the very dynamic of his self-giving. e imagery of marriage between God and Israel is now realized in a way previously inconceivable: it had meant standing in God’s presence, but now it becomes union with God through sharing in Jesus’ self-gi, sharing in his body and blood. e sacramental “mysticism”, grounded in God’s condescension towards us, operates at a radically different level and lis us to far greater heights than anything that any human mystical elevation could ever accomplish.348 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 Jesus II:2, cf. Heb. 8:1-3; 9:11-12 DCE 13 BXVI 141-154 BXVI 141, cf. SaCo 7. Cf. Feast 51-60 DCE 12 DCE 13 50 As a starting point of my analysis here, I will consider some important and relevant points from this text. First, in the Eucharist the sacrifice of Christ is made present. It is not merely the sacrificial matter (the sacrificed body and blood of Christ, under the species of bread ans wine) or the fruits or effects of the sacrifice (forgiveness, peace, salvation, etc.) that is made present, but its enactment. e «act of oblation» itself is given «an enduring presence» in the Eucharist. is relies upon Ratzinger’s view of the Real Presence, where he emphasizes the personal presence of the whole Christ, and his view on the high-priestly ministry of Christ, both of which I have analyzed above. Second, the Eucharist, as ‘spiritual manna,’ is a gi given for our consumption through which we participate in Christ, in the Logos. ird, through the Eucharist we are drawn «into Jesus’ act of self-oblation» and are allowed to «enter into the very dynamic of his selfgiving.» In this section the two last parts are the important points. ese two points illustrate two important points for Ratzinger: that the Eucharist is both a (Eucharistic) sacrifice in which the Church offers up praise and thanksgiving, through Christ, and a sacred meal in which the Church partakes of Christ for spiritual nourishment. In Dogma and Preaching, Ratzinger points out that the center of liturgy is «table fellowship with the glorified Lord in the Holy Sacrifice and Meal.»349 But, as we see above, this doesn’t mean that it’s only a meal.350 Above I quote a thesis of Ratzinger which can here be a summary of Ratzinger’s view on the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Church: «Christian preaching is not the presentation of a doctrinal system but, rather, training in Christian reality, the crystallization point of which is the eucharistic celebration.»351 Ratzinger points out that through the Eucharist we are drawn «into Jesus’ act of self-oblation» and are allowed to «enter into the very dynamic of his self-giving.»352 To understand this, we need to recall Ratzinger’s views concerning what he calls the ‘form’ or ‘structure’ (Ger. Gestalt, Grundgestalt) of the Eucharistic liturgy (see above, section 3.1). We see that Pannenberg rejects that the ‘structure’ or ‘form’ of the Eucharistic celebration is a meal and nothing else. He agrees that there is a meal aspect, but he points out that even if those who focused on the meal allowed for it it be dogmatically understood as a sacrifice,353 the separation of form and content disentangled the Eucharistic celebration (and the Eucharist) from dogmatics. Ratzinger questions this sharp distinction between ‘form’ and ‘content.’ «Particularly if the structure is not merely a ceremonial form, but at its core an indespensable manifestation of its essential content, it makes no 349 350 351 352 353 D/P 51 Feast 35-37 D/P 51 DCE 13 Feast 35-36 51 sense absolutely to separate the one from the other.»354 Ratzinger points out that one eventually tried to reconcile the two: We find a first attempt at reconcoliation in Joseph Pascher, who speaks of sacrificial symbolism being introduced into the meal structure. e separation of the gis of bread and wine, symbolically indicating the fatal spilling of Jesus’ blood, introduces the mark into the basic structure of the meal.355 Ratzinger finds that this doesn’t go far enough, pointing to the research of J.A. Jungmann.356 Contrary to the belief of many modern liturgists,357 and from «the liturgical texts themselves,» Jungmann points out that even in the most ancient forms the eucharistia—the prayer of anamnesis in the shape of a thanksgiving—is more prominent than the meal aspect. According to Jungmann, the basic structure, at least from the end of the first century, is not the meal but the eucharistia; even in Ignatius of Antioch this is the term given to the whole action.358 Ratzinger also points out that Jungmann has shown that «linguistically speaking, Luther’s use of the word “Supper” [Abendmahl] was a complete innovation.»359 Citing the research of H. Schürmann,360 Quoting Schürmann, Ratzinger points out that the context of the institution was undoubtedly a meal but that the Eucharistic action «had a relatively autonomous existence and significance in contrast to the meal event.»361 Its preliminary context was a meal, but it had an existence outside of that. Ratzinger connects this to salvation history, pointing out that when the Eucharist was instituted, Christ hadn’t yet been crucified, and «Jesus had not yet become separated from the Jewish community, i.e., the Church as Church has not yet come into being.»362 e Eucharist hadn’t yet gotten its definitive form. Ratzinger writes: e real mistake of those who attempt uncritically to deduce the Christian liturgy directly from the Last Supper lies in their failing to see this fundamental point: the Last Supper of Jesus is certainly the basis of all Christian liturgy, but in itself it is not yet Christian. e act 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 Feast 35-36 Feast 36, cf. Joseph Pascher, Eucharistia. Gestalt und Vollzug (Münster-Krailing 1947) Missarum sollemnia, 2 vols. (Freiburg 1948); e Mass of the Roman Rite, 2 vols. (New York 1951, 1955); «‘Abendmahl’ als Name der Eucharistie,» ZK 93 (1971), 91-94. Cf. Feast 33-36 Feast 36-37 Feast 37. For suggestions for further study, see n. 8. «Die Gestalt der urchristlichen Eucharistiefeier,» Ursprung und Gestalt. Erörterungen und Besinnungen zum Neuen Testament (Düsseldorf 1970), pp.77-99. Schürmann, op.cit., 83-84. Quoted in Feast 40. Feast 41 52 constituting the Christian reality takes place within the Jewish framework, but it has not yet atteined a form, a structure [Gestalt] of its own as Christian liturgy. Salvation history is stil open-ended; no definitive decision has been made as to whether the Christian phenomenon will or will not have to separate itself from its Jewish matrix as a distinct reality.363 To explain the relationship between form and content,364 Ratzinger turns to the concept of ὐ ρ , which brings liturgy and dogmatics together.365 e greek noun ὐ ρ ally ‘thanksgiving.’366 Ratzinger makes the point that the ὐ ρ means liter- of the Church is a «partic- ipation in the thanksgiving of Jesus, which includes the prayer of gratitude for the gis of the earth.»367 He continues: us eucharistia is the gi of communio in which the Lord becomes our food; it also signifies the self-offering of Jesus Christ, perfecting his trinitarian Yes to the Father by his consent to the Cross, and reconciling us all to the Father in this “sacrifice”. ere is no opposition between “meal” and “sacrifice”; they belong inseparably together in the new sacrifice of the Lord.368 Ratzinger points to Paul’s notion of a ‘reasonable worship’ (Gk. ς ρ ) in Romans 12. As I’ve pointed out above (see section 3.2.1), we find here a coming together of Hellenistic and Hebrew concepts of worship and sacrifice. To expound on this view, Ratzinger analyzes the research of two German theologians, one Catholic, liturgist Lothar Lies,369 and one Lutheran, OT scholar Hartmut Gese.370 In connection to his discussion on the form or structure of the Eucharist,371 Ratzinger analyzes Lies’ distinction between the ‘material structure’ (Ger. Materialgestalt) and the ‘formal structure’ (Ger. Formalgestalt) of the liturgy.372 He quotes Lies, who defines the ‘formal structure’ as «that structure which is able to embrace the ideas of anamnesis, sacramental Real Presence, sacrifice and meal, imparting to all aspects of the Eucharist their formal meaning.»373 Lies finds this ‘formal structure’ in the concept of ὐ 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 (‘blessing, praise, consecration’). Christ, Feast 41 For Ratzinger’s discussion on the structure of the Eucharist and its connection to the meal, see Feast 39-50. Feast 37.48-49 BDAG 37.48-49 Feast 49 Feast 49-50 Feast 50-51 (postscript 1) Feast 51-60 Feast 33-50 Feast 50-51; L. Lies, «Eulogia—Überlegungen zur formalen Sinngestalt der Eucharistie,» ZK 100 (1978), pp.69-126. Lies, op.cit., 69. Quoted in Feast 50. 53 says Lies, is «the auto-eulogia of God,» and this concept of ὐ is able to embrace both Chris- tology and sacrifice.374 On the basis of his own and Lies’s study, Ratzinger rejects the view of the Eucharist which solely focuses on meal, in opposition to sacrifice.375 As we see above, Ratzinger points out that the Eucharist «draws us into Jesus’ act of self-oblation. More than just statically receiving the incarnate Logos, we enter into the very dynamic of his self-giving.»376 Seen in light of Lies’s focus, we can say that for Ratzinger the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Church is being drawn into «the auto-eulogia of God,»377 where the Church offers up praise and thanksgiving in and through Christ. As we see above, having analyzed Hebrew and Hellenistic influences on New Testament worship, and having analyzed the approaches of Pascher, Jungmann and Lies, Ratzinger turns to the perspective of German OT scholar Hartmut Gese.378 He makes the point that the sacrifice of Christ is best ‘illustrated’ by looking to the Old Testament Sacrfice of praise and thanksgiving, the Todah.379 In an article on the origin of the Lord’s Supper,380 (In e Feast of Faith, Ratzinger uses ‘toda’ and ‘tōda.’ In the engish translation of Gese’s article,381 ‘Todah’ is used. In the following, outside of direct quotations, I will use ‘Todah,’ since this is normal usage this english translation, and in the other English sources I have read.382 ) Gese examines many of the claims concerning the Eucharist. He starts by rejecting the idea that there were two ‘Eucharists’; «a sacramental, Hellenistic form and a non-sacramental, Jewish form associated with Jerusalem.»383 is, Ratzinger and Gese points out, is based on the idea that «the sacramental view cannot have evolved from the Jewish view.»384 Ratzinger points out that this polarization between the ‘Hellenistic’ and ‘Jewish’ forms «causes Gese to take up the question of origins again, as a result of which he comes down in favor of the eucharistic view.»385 Ratzinger first points out that Gese goes on to examine, and reject, that the Eucharist has its origin in «the Jewish meal, the Passover, the Qumran meals, Jesus’ meals, the miraculous feedings, the meals of 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 Lies, op.cit., 69; Feast 50-51 Feast 33-51 DCE 13 Feast 50 Feast 51-60. See Wikipedia [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartmut Gese]. Feast 51-60 (postscript 2) Cf. Gese 1977; Gese 1981. Gese 1981 See Hahn 2009:171-172; Gray 2004:65-76; Lindsay 1997:83-100. Feast 52 Feast 52 Feast 52 54 the Risen Jesus.»386 Ratzinger points out that Gese shows that «none of these proposed solutions does justice to the evidence of the New Testament.»387 e approach of Gese, which Ratzinger borrows, combines the meal and sacrifice aspects. And the origin of this, according to Ratzinger (and Gese), is found in the relationship between the zēbah and selamin offerings of the OT.388 e zēbah is the primary offering which involves meat and slaugther. e selamin offerings are connected to them, as a subcategory.389 e shelamin offerings involves bread and wine, and does not necessarily involve an altar and a slaugthering. Ratzinger quotes Gese: e sacrificial character of this meal has a twofold significance: it expresses communion with God, in whose sacrifice people are permitted to share, and communion among the participants; these two things correspond to the saving fact that shalom reigns among those who share in the sacrificial meal (which is why these sacrifices, celebrated as a public, liturgical feast, are called šelamim, “peace offerings”).390 Ratzinger makes a point of the fact that the ancient Church designation of the Eucharist as pax, ‘peace,’ which was a continuation of «the tradition of Israel, which itself reflects a fundamental human tradition.»391 Her we see Ratzinger’s focus on the double influence from Hebrew and Hellenistic religion. Ratzinger points out with Gese that the ancient Hebrew ritual meal, beginning with the Berakah, «the blessing pronounced over bread and wine,» opens up to «a being-inpeace.»392 e question Ratzinger then asks, is: «what was the special meal which was able to develop into the Lord’s Eucharist?»393 Gese, Ratzinger explains, points to a «particular form of the ritual meal which is deeply rooted in the Old Testament and which also played a prominent part in Judaism at the time of Jesus (according to the Mishnah).»394 is sacrifice, which «has been neglected by scholars,» is «the toda, ‘thanksgiving sacrifice’.»395 e Todah was offered to God and involved not only a sacrificial animal, but also bread (and, some maintain, wine).396 is sacrifice «formed the cultic basis of the major part of the Psalter.»397 Gese analyzes four Psalms (22; 40:1-12; 51; 69), all four of which have their Sitz im Leben in the celebration of the 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 Feast 52 Feast 52 Feast 52-53 e primitive root of zēbah means ‘to kill, slaugther.’ e primitive root of selamin (or shelamin) means ‘peace.’ Feast 53 Feast 53 Feast 53 Feast 54 Feast 54 Feast 54 Lev. 7:12-15; Ps. 116, cf. Feast 53-56; Hahn 2009:171 Feast 54 55 Todah, and which are also «the great christological psalms of the New Testament.»398 Ratzinger points out that what we can deduce from the research of Gese is that this is not a «retrospective application of Old Testament words to an event, transforming and “theologizing” it.»399 No, what we can deduce is that «the Passion and Resurrection of Jesus is tōda.»400 To explain the Todah, Ratzinger quotes Gese: e thanksgiving sacrifice presupposes a particular situation. If a man is saved from death, from fatal illness or from those who seek his life, he celebrates this divine deliverance in a service of thanksgiving which marks an existential new start in his life. In it, he “confesses” (jd[h]) God to be his deliverer by celebrating a thank offering (tōda). He invites his friends and associates, provides the sacrificial animal … and celebrates … together with his invited guests, the inauguration of his new existence… In order to recall God’s deliverance and give thanks for it, it is necessary to reflect on one’s pilgrimage through suffering, to bring to mind the process of redemption… It is not a mere sacrificial rite; it is a sacrifice in which one professes one’s involvement… Here we have a unity which embraces a service of the word and ritual, praise and sacrifice. e sacrifice cannot be misunderstood as a ‘gi’ to God; rather it is a way of ‘honoring’ the Deliverer. And the fact that the rescued man is able to celebrate ‘life restored’ in the sacred meal is itself the gi of God.401 Ratzinger identifies two important factors in this sacrifice: (1) the Todah is a «confession of thanksgiving»;402 and (2) the Todah, unlike other sacrifices, is not restricted to bloody sacrifices.403 In regards to the first factor Ratzinger points out that this has roots not only in the ancient Hebrew sacrifices, but also in «the Hellenistic idea of verbal sacrifice.»404 Ratzinger writes: It is bridge, already in existence, linking the Old Testament and Jesus to the “nations”, to the Greek world. Here distinct developments of the human mind are in touch with one another; it is as if both the Jewish and the Hellenistic traditions are awaiting him who is himself the Word, the crucified Logos, and the Righteous One who has been rescued from the abyss of death.405 In regards to the second factor Ratzinger, following Gese, makes a point that the Todah is both sacrifice and praise. Ratzinger quotes Gese: e tōda is not restricted to a bloody sacrifice of flesh but also embraces the unbloody offering of bread; tōda is the only form of sacrifice which is concerned with unleavened bread. 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 Feast 54 Feast 54 Feast 54 Feast 55 Feast 55-56 Feast 56 Feast 55 Feast 56 56 us in the context of tōda, bread and wine acquire a special significance; the one becomes part of the sacrifice itself, the other plays a constitutive role in proclamation.406 Ratzinger goes on by pointing out two important points from Gese’s analyze of the Todah psalms:407 1. In Psalms 51 and 40, we see an ‘interiorizing’ of the Todah sacrifice and the Torah, a total involvement in «the very nature of sacrifice» where, through thanksgiving, sacrifice and life has become one.408 2. In Psalms 22 and 69, we see a elevation of the suffering of the one who prays, and a making absolute of death and redemption.409 From these points Ratzinger comments: Anyone who takes account of these factors will not find it difficult to understand the origins of the Eucharist of Jesus Christ. Structurally speaking, the whole of Christology, indeed the whole of eucharistic Christology, is present in the tōda spirituality of the Old Testament. As Gese sums it up: “e Lord’s Supper is the tōda of the Risen One.”410 Ratzinger, following Gese, continues by making the point that the man who (within in the Old Testament Todah spirituality)411 celebrated the Todah on account of deliverance «provided a sacrificial animal as a sacrifice for himself and the community.»412 Christ, however, gave himself, his total life. And within the sacrifice, the Eucharistic bread is Christ himself. Ratzinger quotes Gese: e bread does not signify the body of Jesus in a metaphorical sense; in its very nature, as the substance of the meal eaten in tōda sacrifice, it is the sacrifice of Jesus.413 Ratzinger end his analysis of Gese by quoting a Rabbinic dictum: «In the coming (Messianic) time, all sacrifices will cease expect the tōda sacrifice. is will never cease in all eternity. All (religious) song will cease too, but the songs of tōda will never cease in all eternity.»414 Ratzinger 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 Feast 56 Feast 56-57, cf. Psalms 51; 40:1-12; 22; 69. Feast 56-57 Feast 57 Feast 57 is, of course, wasn’t restricted to the time of the Old Testament, but was very prominent at the time of Christ. (See Feast 54.) Feast 57 Feast 57-58 Feast 58. See Pesikta De-Rab Kahana. R. Kahana’s Compilation of Discourses for Sabbaths and Festal Days. Translated from Hebrew and Arameic by William G. Braude and Israel J. Kapstein (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul 1975), pp.183-184 57 makes the point that he has reproduced the study of Gese in «some detail» because in his estimation «its importance cannot be overestimated.»415 He maintains that it moves the dispute of the sacrificial character of the Eucharist in a way that presents us with «new possibilities» for ecumenical dialogue416 because it «gives us a genuinely New Testament concept of sacrifice that both preserves the complete Catholic inheritance (and imparts to it a new profundity) and, on the other hand, is receptive to Luther’s central intentions.»417 Ratzinger concluded his points by joining together the approaches of Lies and Gese by pointing out that Lies’ emphasis on ὐ , and Ratzinger’s focus on ὐ ρ finds its confirmation and completion in Gese’s study.418 He offers some critique of Gese, though not specifically of his focus on the Todah sacrifice: If I were to question Gese, I should do so on the following lines: the tōda sacrifice is the thanksgiving of the man who has already been delivered; in a real sense, surely, it cannot take place until aer the Resurrection. is would fit perfectly with the thesis I have presented, namely, that Eucharist is only possible at the Last Supper in an anticipatory form, and that therefore it cannot be a simple development of the Last Supper alone. e Last Supper looks to the Cross, where Jesus’ words of self-offering will be fulfilled, and to the hope of Resurrection. Apart from them it would be incomplete and, indeed, unreal. Again, this means that the form of the Last Supper is not complete in itself. If we trace the Eucharist back to the institution of tōda, it becomes impossible to see it as a development of the Last Supper alone. In view of tōda, the form of the Last Supper must be an “open” form, since tōda does not become a reality until it is complemented by Cross and Resurrection.419 When the Church offers her Eucharistic sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, Ratzinger maintains, she is praising God, and «this praise returns as blessing over the gi.»420 He cites 1. Timothy 4:4-5 as support for this: «For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving;421 for then it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.» (RSV) For Ratzinger, then, «the thanksgiving leeds to blessing and transformation.»422 In light of this, Ratzinger points out that the Church, from «her earliest days,» has understood the Eucharistic words «not simply as a kind of quasi-magical command, but as part of her praying in and with Jesus; as a central part of the praise and thanksgiving through which God’s earthly 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 Feast 58 Feast 58 Feast 58 Feast 60 Feast 60, n.1 Jesus II:128 Gk. ὐ ρ Jesus II:128 . 58 gi is given to us anew in the form of Jesus’s body and blood, as God’s gi of himself in his Son’s self-emptying love.»423 But this isn’t primarily about the meal, or the fellowship of the congregation. For Ratzinger, the Church’s focus must be on God. He makes the point that the sacrifice offered up by the Church, her praise and thanksgiving, is essentially a participation in the sacrifice of Christ, in his obidient, thankful adoration of God.424 We see above that Ratzinger makes a distinction between replacement sacrifices and representative sacrifices. Christ is «the true Lamb, who comes from God and is for that very reason not a replacement but a true representative, in whom we ourselves are taken to God.»425 Liturgy is a participation in Christ’s work,426 and the Church’s liturgy, Christ’s liturgy, «is … not about replacement, but about representation, vicarious sacrifice.»427 We see, then, that the Church’s liturgy is essentially orientated towards God (the Father). According to Ratzinger, this orientation should be manifested concretely in our physical liturgical orientation. He maintains that the Church’s adoration should be oriented towards God, towards the east, and that the priest should be facing the altar (ad orientem).428 He makes the point429 that the modern insistence on the priest celebrating ‘towards the people’ (versus populum), and the accompanying characterization of the older orientation (ad orientem) as the priest ‘celebrating toward the wall’ or ‘turning his back on the people,’ represents «an unprecedented clericalization.»430 rough this, the priest «becomes the real point of reference for the whole liturgy.»431 e main point is the turning towards the Lord. Ratzinger writes: [We] obey the ancient call to prayer: οConversi ad Dominum”, Turn toward the Lord! In this way we look together at the One whose death tore the veil of the Temple—the One who stands before the Father for us and encloses us in his arms in order to make us the new and living Temple. Moving the altar cross to the side to give an uninterrupted view of the priest is something I regard as one of the truly absurd phenomena of recent decades. Is the cross disruptive during Mass? Is the priest more important than the Lord? (…) e Lord is the point of reference. He is the rising sun of history.432 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 Jesus II:128 Feast 50-60; GINU 29-30 SofL 38 BXVI 141, cf. SaCo 7 SofL 57 SofL 74-84; Feast 139-146, cf. Rowland 2008:135-137. SofL 78-84 SofL 79-80 SofL 80 SofL 83-84 59 is view of orientation is also important in regards to the role of the priest. Before I go on to that subject, we can summarize Ratzinger’s view on the role of the Church in the Eucharistic celebration by saying that we find in his writings both an emphasis on meal and sacrifice, seen in light of the Todah. e Church is nourished by participating in the Lord, and she offers her Eucharistic sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, in and through Christ, by participating in his Todah, by being drawn into his sacrifice.433 As Ratzinger puts it: «ere is no opposition between “meal” and “sacrifice”; they belong inseparably together in the new sacrifice of the Lord.»434 3.2.3 Ratzinger on the role of the priest in the Eucharistic celebration My third research question is formulated as follows: 3. What is the role of the priest in the Eucharistic celebration? As we see above, Ratzinger maintains that the role of the Church in the Eucharist is to offer a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, through Christ. He relates it to the late Hellenistic concept of verbal sacrifice,435 and Hebrew influences like the Paschal liturgy, with its blessing (the Berakah), the late Hebrew concept of ‘the sacrifice of praise,’436 and the Todah sacrifice.437 And this aspect is also present in his teaching on the role of the priest. In Dogma and Preaching, Ratzinger points to the beatuty and the elevatory character of the Eucharistic celebration, but makes one important comment: «e feast is produced by the sacrifice.»438 Before going on, I would like to point out that we can say that ‘feast’ is here used not only to denote beauty or splendor, but that it is used in its proper sense, as «an elaborate and usually abundant meal oen accompanied by a ceremony or entertainment,» to borrow the primary definition of Merriam-Webster.439 us we see that Ratzinger makes a similar point here as he does in e Feast of Faith; that liturgy and dogmatics belong together, that there isn’t any sharp distinction between ‘form’ and ‘content’ in the Eucharistic celebration, and that meal and sacrifice belong together.440 Ratzinger continues: «Only the grain of wheat that has died produces fruit. e center of a priest’s life, therefore, is the 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 DCE 13 Feast 50 Feast 37; GINU 51; Hahn 2009:154-157; 177-181 Feast 37-38; GINU 47-51; Hahn 2009:178 Feast 51-60; Hahn 2009:171-172 D/P 373 See http://http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feast. Feast 33-60 60 sacrifice of Jesus Christ. But it is a sacrifice that cannot be celebrated without our participation, without our sacrificing together with Christ.»441 is, that the priest, as the Church, sacrifices «together with Christ,» is at the core of Ratzinger’s view of the Eucharist. Again we need to go back to Ratzinger’s thought on the high-priestly ministry of Christ. We see that Ratzinger, when analyzing the relationship between the sacrificial system of the Old Testament and the sacrificial high-priestly ministry of Christ, points out that the sacrifice of Christ, like the sacrifices of old, is a representative sacrifice, but not a replacement sacrifice.442 Unlike the sacrifices of old, however, it is complete, perfect and efficacious.443 Because it is a representative sacrifice, it allows the priest and the people to worship God by means of this sacrifice. We must see this in light of Ratzinger’s view concerning the Todah. Ratzinger finds a double role for the priest: One the one hand, the priest is presiding as the Church offers up her Eucharistic sacrifice, her sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, her Todah. One the other hand, in offering this Eucharistic sacrifice, this Todah, the Church is participating in the Todah of Christ. In this action, the priest represents Christ, both before God and before the Church. Following the norm in Catholic theology,444 Ratzinger holds that in the Eucharistic Celebration, the priest qua priest acts in persona Christi.445 He points out446 that the notion of representation present in this idea is not that of «being delegated by someone to be present in his place, to speak and act in his stead because the person he represents is absent from the practical action,» since «in the Church Christ is never absent, the Church is his living Body and he is the Head of the Church, present and active within her.» When a priest acts in persona Christi, then, he «never acts in the name of someone who is absent but, rather, in the very Person of the Risen Christ, who makes himself present with his truly effective action. He really acts today and brings about what the priest would be incapable of: the consecration of the wine and the bread so that they may really be the Lord’s presence, the absolution of sins. e Lord makes his own action present in the person who carries out these gestures.» 441 442 443 D/P 373-374 SofL 35-38.47-48.57-61, cf. 36, n.1 SofL 58; Jesus II:229-240, cf. Heb. 7:26-27: «For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners, exalted above the heavens. He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people; he did this once for all 444 445 446 when he offered up himself.» Cf. CCC 1548-1551; LG 10, 28; SaCo 33; CD 11; PO 2, 6; ST 3a, 22.4 MD; SofL 171–177 MD 61 Ratzinger maintains that this representation is not merely before the Church (providing the gi of forgiveness, salvation, etc.) but also before God. e priest acts in persona Christi, as a representative of Christ the High Priest. e priest doesn’t merely hand over the gis, he makes them present in the concecration. By means of the sacrament of ordination, the priest participates to a certain degree in the creativity of God, in the creative word of God. In e Spirit of the Liturgy, Ratzinger references the ancient, inter-wordly concept of the oratio.447 is, he says, does not denote ‘prayer’ as such (which Ratzinger notes is prex in Latin), but «solemn public speech,»448 which is fulfilled and made perfect in God. To explain this, Ratzinger makes reference not only to the Bible, but also to ancient pagan religions, utilizing modern research. Scott Hahn points out that in this context Ratzinger «easily integrates modern rhetorical insights into Scripture, especially speech-act theories, with the perspectives of liturgical theology and metaphysics in order to articulate a compelling, biblically grounded understanding of what happens in the divine liturgy.»449 Ratzinger writes: is oratio—the Eucharistic Prayer, the “Canon”—is really more than speech; it is actio in the highest sense of the word. For what happens in it is that the human actio (as performed hitherto by the priests in the various religions of the world) steps back and makes way for the actio divina, the action of God. In this oratio, the priest speaks with the I of the Lord—“is is my body,” “is is my blood.” He knows that he is not now speaking from his own resources but in virtue of the Sacrament that he has received, he has become the voice of Someone Else, who is now speaking and acting. is action of God, which takes place through human speech, is the real “action” for which all of creation is an expectation. e elements of the earth are transubstantiated, pulled, so to speak, from their creaturely anchorage, grasped at the deepest ground of their being, and changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord. e new heaven and new earth are anticipated.450 Ratzinger holds that when the priest celebrates the Eucharist, when he offers the Eucharistic sacrifice, he is acting in persona Christi, being a ‘mouthpiece’ of Christ. In the Eucharistic celebration, then, Christ offers up his Todah, offers up Himself, through the priest.451 To understand this, we need to first understand the Catholic context into which Ratzinger is writing. In Catholic theology, the words of institution are primarily directed towards God the Father. We see this in all four Eucharistic prayers of the Ordinary Form. One example suffices, the first (emphasis 447 448 449 450 451 For some discussions of this in Ratzinger’s theology, see Hahn 2009:145-146.172-181. For a general discussion of this in regards to the Eucharistic celebration, see Dix 1945:473.489. SofL 172 Hahn 2006:135 SofL 172-173, cf. 171–177. See also Hahn 2006:134-136 Cf. CCC 1407.1409-1411; CCC 1548-1551 62 added): «On the day before he was to suffer, he took break in his holy and venerable hands, and with eyes raised to heaven to you, O God, his almighty Father, giving you thanks, he said the blessing…»452 e crucial words of the narrative, «this is my body,» «this is my blood,» «take,» «do this…,» etc., are of course directed towards the Apostles. But in the Catholic tradition, this narrative functions as a (or the most important) part of the whole Eucharistic prayer. e narrative is an integral part of the Canon itself, and this Canon is directed towards God the Father. us, when Ratzinger maintains that the priest acts in persona Christi as he (sacrificially) offers the Eucharist and «speaks with the I of the Lord,»453 he is saying that he offers it to God, that he offers Christ. As I’ve pointed out above, Ratzinger sees a clear connection the priest acts in persona Ecclesiæ, even though Ratzinger doesn’t use this phrase himself in the works I have dealt with. We see this especially in Ratzinger’s insistence that the interpretive lense of the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Church is Paul’s notion of a ‘reasonable worship’ (Gk. ς ρ ) in Romans 12. «I am persuaded that the Roman Canon has in its petition hit upon the real intention of Paul in his exhortation in Romans 12.»454 452 453 454 MassEng 35 SofL 172 Pilgrim 116-117, cf. Hahn 2009:179, n.48. 63 64 4 Discussion of the views of Pannenberg and Ratzinger In this thesis I have asked three research questions. e answer we give to my research questions ‘determines’ (at least logically, if we emphasize coherence) our view of the Eucharistic sacrifice. In the following I will, on the basis of these questions, compare and discuss Pannenberg and Ratzinger, and try to develop a view of my own. My intention here is to discuss the answers to these questions I have deduced from the theology of Pannenberg and Ratzinger, respectively. I will compare them critically and evaluate their views by use of coherence as a criterion of truth. Both of these are fairly systematic, and most of their arguments are based upon research within the field of dogmatics, systematic theology, liturgy, history of theology and exegesis.455 To understand better the subject I am examinging, however, I intend in this discussion not only to make use of research within those fields, but also research on liturgy, ritual theory and linguistics (specifically speech act theory). rough discussing Pannenberg and Ratzinger comparatively, I try to answer this question: Is the Eucharist a sacrifice, and if so, in what sense? 4.1 Introductory remarks Before I go into the discussion of Pannenberg’s and Ratzinger’s views of the sacrificial character of the Eucharist, I need to consider two issues: (1) what place the Eucharist has within systematic theology; and (2) how Christ is present in the Eucharist. e first is important for the understanding of the Eucharist in general, and the second is crucial for how you view the sacrificial character of the Eucharist. is will not constitute a major part of this thesis, but these issues are important, and this will provide the background against which my discussion can be read. ough I will reference my figurants in this introductory section, I will not discuss them here. 4.1.1 e place of the Eucharist within theology Before I go into the discussion of Pannenberg’s and Ratzinger’s views of the sacrificial character of the Eucharist, I need to consider the question of what place the Eucharist has within theology. is mean that we first need to consider systematic theology as such. I cannot discuss this here, but wil make a few remarks. Pannenberg makes a point out of the fact that his field is called systematic theology. He maintains that theology is a systematic representation of Christian teach455 Søvik 2011:98-106; Hahn 2006:97; Hahn 2009:15-19.92-95 65 ing, with emphasis on coherence.456 On the other hand we have Ratzinger, who also emphasises systematicity, but differently from Pannenberg. Scott Hahn points out that Ratzinger «is less a systematic thinker than he is a symphonic thinker.»457 Hahn points out that he has more in common with the (presymably less systematic) Church Fathers than with systematic thinkers like Aquinas. Hahn writes: In the Fathers, we find the notion that truth consists of a unity of diverse elements, much as a symphony brings into a single, harmonious whole the music played on a variety of instruments. is is how it is with the biblical theology of Benedict. Even his occasional writings, which make up the bulk of his oeuvrem are usually composed like a polyphonic melody from many differentiated strains—scriptural, historical, literary, liturgical, and patristic. We see this in the way he sees the relationship between the different sources of dogma, Scripture, the Creeds, the Magisterium and the (concrete) faith of faithful.458 In some sense we might say that Ratzinger doesn’t exemplify the same level of systematicity as Pannenberg. But if we simply see systematicity as coherence, Ratzinger’s ‘symphonic’ theology is systematic. As we see above (section 1.2.2), systematic theology has essentially five distinct, yet not separated, tasks:459 the synthetic, critical, apologetic, creative and normative tasks. is discussion will focus on the second, critical, task.460 is task is important in paving the way of the subsequent tasks. Pannenberg and Ratzinger has attempted at the first, synthetic, task. ey present a holistic picture of faith, and I will here discuss this critically. e subsequent tasks, the apologetic, creative and normative tasks need to take this critical point into consideration. is is important for several reasons, two of which I will emphasize here. First, by critically analyzing and discussing different Christian systems of thoughts, we can come closer to truth, which must be the end, the goal, of theology. We might not succeed in creating some kind of theological ‘grand unifying theory,’ but we must try to get closer to truth.461 In Lutheran theology, the question of the Eucharist, and of other doctrines, has always been seen in light of the issue of justification by faith alone.462 In Catholic theology, it has always been 456 457 458 459 460 461 SysT I:17-26; Søvik 2011:95-111 Hahn 2009:16 D/P 26-27 Austad 2008:49-54 To shed some more light on this, I recommend reading the discussion between Niels Henrik Gregersen (2008:290-310; 2011:167-172) and Asle Eikrem (Eikrem 2011:152-166). It’s important here to remind ourselves of Rescher’s (1985:795, cf. 800-806) distinction between ideal and manifest/factual coherence. See also Niels Henrik Gregersen, Rethinking eology and Science (Grand Rapids, 462 MI: Eerdmans 1998), pp.181-182. CA IV, cf. CA V-XIV. 66 seen as something distinct, part of the inner center of theology. In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Eucharist is characterized as «the source and summit of the Christian life.»463 Where people, by baptism, are «raised to the dignity of the royal priesthood,» and «configured more deeply to Christ by Confirmation,» in the Eucharist they «participate with the whole community in the Lord’s own sacrifice,» which means that the Eucharist «completes Christian initiation.»464 ere are important differences here. Where Lutheran theology has traditionally put much, perhaps too much emphasis, on justification, while this is not the case with Catholic theology. I find the Catholic method better, and I maintain that if we let the doctrine of justification become the absolute foundation, we can loose sight of other important strands of theology. And if this, like the teachings of the Reformation, grows out of a polemic background, the issue can become still more polariszed. Frank C. Senn makes the point that «[the] pressure of polemics prohibited … a positive patristic conception of the Eucharistic sacrifice from being integrated by Luther into his Eucharistic formularies.»465 One question that is important here, is what is Eucharistic theology. Is it ‘systematic,’ ‘dogmatic,’ ‘practical,’ or what? In my thesis I will treat both (‘purely’) systematic subjects like the sacrifice of Christ and ecclesiology, and (‘purely’) liturgical subjects like the purpose and function of Eucharistic liturgy as such. In academia, the former is oen separated from the latter (as systematic theology and liturgical studies, respectively). Both Pannenberg and Ratzinger is critical of this. Pannenberg doesn’t treat this subject directly, but in his systematic treatment of the Eucharist he makes use not only of sources from what is commonly called systematic theology, but also sources from liturgical studies.466 Ratzinger treats this directly, and explicitly criticizes the separation in Eucharistic theology of liturgical studies (‘form’) and systematic theology (‘content’).467 We can express this by the early ecclesial dictum lex orandi est lex credendi. is can be loosely translated «the law of prayer is the law of faith.» I would add that it works both way, and thus also lex credendi est lex orandi, «the law of faith is the law of prayer.» Alexander Schmemann, one of the great Orthodox liturgical theologians of the 20th century, holds that «the “essence” of the liturgy or lex orandi is ultimately nothing else but the Church’s faith itself or better to say, the manifestation, communication and fulfillment of that faith. It is in this sense 463 464 465 466 467 CCC 1324 CCC 1322 Senn 1973:105 See for example SysT III:283-284, n.591-592; SysT III:296, n.626, etc. Feast 33-50. For a good introduction to the debate and to Ratzinger’s points, see Hauke 2011:2-3. 67 that one must understand, it seems to me, the fameous dictum lex orandi est lex credendi.»468 He rejects any polarization between the two, and makes the point that we need to rethink the «separation of faith and liturgy into two distinct “essences” whose content and meaning are to be grasped by two different means of investigation.»469 is is simply the deployment of the method of coherence. Coherence dictates that there needs to be a connection between the ‘form’ of an action and its ‘content,’ that which it aims at or tries to express. 4.1.2 e presence of Christ in the Eucharist Both Pannenberg and Ratzinger holds to the belief that Christ is really present in the Eucharist.470 ough they have different approaches and different methods, the main point for both of them is that Christ is personally present. I will not deal directly with them here, and will not discuss this questio at length, but I will present some points and arguments. When approaching the question of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, two questions are especially important: (1) What does Scripture teach? (2) If Scripture teaches that Christ is really present in the Eucharist, how can we explain this presence? Scripture on Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. Allow me to quote Mark 14:22-24: 22 And as they were eating, he took bread, and blessed,471 and broke it, and gave it to them, and said, «Take; this is my body.» 23 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. 24 And he said to them, «is is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.»472 e question we need to ask, is: What does ‘is’ (Gk. ἰ ) mean in this text? It has been said that ἰ doesn’t have to refer to something that really, ontologically is what it says it is. An example from the english language can be a person laughing, and saying, «this is literally killing me.» We know perfectly well that this is to be understood figuratively. And we also have an example from the NT. In Philemon 12, Paul writes about Onesimus: «He is my heart.»473 Here ῦ ᾽ἔ is used to refer to Onesimus, whom Paul is calling his ‘heart’ in an obviously metaphorical fasion. e conclusion is that one cannot, by this phrase alone, come to the conclusion that the elements 468 469 470 471 472 473 Schmemann, Liturgy and Tradition: eological Reflections of Alexander Schmemann (ed., omas Fisch. New York, NY: SVS Press 1990), pp.38-39 (38-47). Ibid., p.39 SysT III:295-311; GINU 74-93 e object of blessing is probably God, and not the bread (iselton 2000:870-871). If not otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations is from the Revised Standard Version (RSV). My trans. Gk. ῦ ᾿ ἔ ἐ π . 68 of the Eucharist really is the body and blood of Christ, and that one therefore has to ground that somewhere else. at may be true, but if it is, we need to ask one question: What is the metaphor? In Philemon 12, the metaphor is obviously the heart, and ῦ ᾽ἔ has nothing directly to do with that. Figuratively speaking, Onesimus is Paul’s heart. e question, then, becomes: If ‘body’ ( ῶ ) and ‘blood’ ( ἷ ) is used metaphorically in Mark 14:22-24, what are they metaphors for? If we are to claim that they are indeed metaphors, we also need to articulate what they are metaphors for. I can easily see bread being a metaphor for a body, or wine being a metaphor for blood, but what would body and blood be metaphors for? One solution could be to say that they act as metaphors for the person as a whole, and his life. Pannenberg seems to take this approach.474 But if that is so, the meaning would remain virtually identical. It would still mean that Christ was present. Furthermore, it is not incoherent to assume that Christ is speaking literally in Mark 14, and that Christ is speaking figuratively (or, rather, phenomenologically) when he refers to himself as «the bread of life» in John 6:35, or that Paul is likewise using phenomenological language when he refers to the elements of the Eucharist as ‘cup’ and ‘bread’ in 1Cor. 10:16-17. Furthermore, the biblical basis of the real presence becomes more appearent in John 6:48-58, as Ratzinger points out.475 ree verses are essential here: «I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.» (v.51) «Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.» (v.53) «For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.» (v.55) If Christ is speaking figuratively here, it seems to me that we would have to become docetists. It is common in all textual interpretation to assume that, unless otherwise noted, a author uses a term in the same way throughout a text. erefore it is safe to assume that Christ uses ‘flesh’ in the same way in vv.51, 53 and 55. If this text is to be read literally, Christ, from a pre-crucifixion point of view, is then telling us that he will give his flesh for the world (v.51), and that we must eat this flesh and drink this blood to have life in us (v.53.55). But if we are to read this figuratively, what does that make of v.51? Let me restate: «I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.» To read this figuratively, would then be very close to, if not an actual instance of, docetism in regards to Christ’s crucifixion (that Christ’s flesh may have been 474 475 SysT III:299 GINU 76-77 69 real, but that his crucifixion and death was only figurative), or perhaps even a fully docetic view of Christ’s humanity (that Christ’s flesh was only figurative).476 Seen in light of John 6, I maintain that the most coherent reading of the institution narratives is to read them literally. But how do we explain this? Explaining Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. ere has been different approaches to ex- plaining Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. In Lutheran theology, the view has historically been Luther’s sacramental union.477 Given a ‘substantial’ view of reality, which I will briefly consider below, there seems to be little difference between this and what has been called consubstantiation. I will therefore refer to this as consubstantiation, with the qualification that Luther didn’t employ this term himself. In Catholic theology, the view has generally been that of transubstantiation.478 (Since the Catholic Church has a defined teaching authority, the status of a given teaching is clearer than in Lutheran churches.) e first that needs to be adressed, is the use of philosophical language. A belief in some kind of ‘substantial’ world view is in any case part of the Lutheran heritage. Confessio Augustana employs the categories of the Nicene Creed,479 and this creed is part of the doctrinal background of Lutheranism. is creed makes use of the Platonic concept of ὐ ,480 when it states that Christ is «of one substance [essence] with the Father.»481 is same category, seen not through Platonic, but Aristotelian eyes, is found later, at the fourth Lateran council in 1215, which used the categoriy of substantia in defining transubstantiation.482 If some Lutherans protest this (transubstantiation) as ‘philosophying,’ I want to point out that allowing for philosophical concepts in one area of theology (Christology), and deny the use in others (such as sacramental theology) is incoherent. 476 For a brief introduction to Docetism, see Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docetism, retrieved Nov. 21, 477 2012]. LW 37:295-303; Sol. Dec. VII:14-15.64 CCC 1373-1377.1413; Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds 478 in the Dioceses of the United States of America 8, n.19. 479 480 481 482 (USCCB, June 14, 2001). Available online: http://bit.ly/UXHAgI [retrieved from old.usccb.org, Nov. 21, 2012]. CA I.II Cf. Lt. substantia. See Philip Schaff, e Creeds of Christendom, vol. 2. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House 1919), pp.57-61. Available online: http://bit.ly/PzlKQn [retrieved Nov. 21, 2012]. See Henri Leclercq, «Fourth Lateran Council (1215)» (e Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 9. New York, NY: Robert Appleton Company 1910). Available online: http://bit.ly/hGnFvT [retrieved from newadvent.org, Nov. 21, 2012]. 70 e question now turns to consubstantiation or transubstantiation. To explain his teaching on the real presence, Luther developed his view of Christ’s ‘ubiquity.’483 e problem with this view is that it’s metaphysically incoherent. Even if the body of Christ has «personal union with the omnipresent God,» it is still a body, and cannot be omnipresent. We must surrender our intellect to God,484 but that doesn’t mean that God acts irrationally or that he can do that which is logically contradictory. God cannot, for instance, create a circular square or a married bachelor.485 But isn’t this also a problem for transubstantiation? Here we need to examine the metaphysical basis of the real presence. e first we need to adress is the question of substance. Pannenberg makes the point that there is virtual agreement between Protestants and Catholics «that the theological core of the Roman dogma of transubstantiation, independent of the Aristotelian terminology of substance and accidents, affirms the real presence of Christ in the elements of bread and wine, which was also decisively affirmed and defended by the Lutheran Reformation.»486 Pannenberg argues for a kind of ‘objective’ view of transignification, buildt upon a ‘relational’ ontology, not unlike Lorenz Puntel’s.487 Given a kind of ‘relational’ (or ‘contextual’/‘configurative’) ontology, there wouldn’t be much of a difference between transignification and transubstantiation/consubstantiation, since (in Pannenberg’s view) the ‘identity’ or ‘essence’ of a thing «depends on the relations in which it stands» and thus «its identity alters with the alteration of its system of reference or context by which its meaning is defined.»488 Ratzinger, on the other hand, affirms the classical view of transubstantiation.489 I find Ratzinger’s arguments persuasive, but he can be a little vague. Pannenberg’s approch, on the other hand, has a few problems: Pannenberg assumes that the concept transubstantiation can be divorced from its metaphysical presuppositions, a claim which I find implausible. I find Pannenberg’s relational ontology incoherent. While it is true that we don’t experience substances directly, on an ‘empirical’ level, it is incoherent to say that relations are more basic than substance, that a being, as Pannenberg says, «depends on the relations in 483 LW 37:222-224, cf. 295-303. See Alexander Balmain Bruce, e Humiliation of Christ in its Physical, Ethical, 484 and Official Aspects (Second ed. revised and enlarged. New York, NY: A.C. Armstrong & Son 1889, p.91, n.2) LW 37:296, cf. 2Cor. 10:5 Cf. ST 1a, 25.3-4. For a summary and analysis of Luther’s view of ubiquity, see Oddvar Johan Jensen, Kristi 485 person: Til betydningen av læren om Kristi person i Martin Luthers teolog 1520-1546 (Doctoral thesis. Bergen 486 487 488 489 1987), pp.157-179. Pannenberg 2006:171 SysT I:365-370 (cf. 353-359); SysT III:300-304, cf. Puntel 2001:229-240; Søvik 2011:88-89.112-116 SysT III:301 GINU 83-93 71 which it stands.»490 If he merely says that a substance is ‘influenced’ by its relations, Pannenberg is right, but the fact remains that even if this is so, a relation presupposes something to be related. ere are furthermore good arguments in favour of an Aristotelian-omistic conception of metaphysics.491 And last, but not least, the concept of an ‘objective’ view of transignification is incoherent. It’s the objectivization of something which is by definition subjective. e choice, it seems to me, is in reality between transubstantiation and consubstantiation. Both transubstantiation and consubstantiation assumes a sort of Aristotelian belief in form, matter, substance and accidents. Before I go on, some remarks are in order. When it comes to transubstantiation, ‘Aristotelian’ is used in a somewhat loose fasion. For Aristotle an accident without its proper substance was inconceivable, and Aquinas held it on faith, saying that we believe that God keeps them in existence miracolously. But he also pointed out that this doesn’t involve a (logical) self-contradiction, something God cannot do.492 It would, however, be more correct to say that transubstantiation is omistic than to say that it’s ‘Aristotelian.’ In the case of transubstantiation, the whole substance of bread is changed (transformed) into the whole substance of Christ’s body, and the whole substance of wine is changed into the whole substance of Christ’s blood.493 In the case of consubstantiation, the substance of bread and wine remains, while the substance of Christ’s body and blood is present alongside the bread and wine.494 To explain transubstantiation, the Catholic Church has generally said that it’s not that Christ is present on multiple locations, but that through the symbols, though the accidents/species of bread and wine, we participate in the heavenly liturgy, we are taken up to heaven. e reason for this is that the Christ who is substantially or sacramentally present in the Eucharist has the accident of being placed in heaven. erefore it is more accurate to say that we are taken up to him.495 We also see this reflected in the Roman Canon of the Ordinary Form: In humble prayer we ask you, almighty God: command that these gis be borne by the 490 491 492 493 SysT III:301 See Norris Clarke 1994:102-122 and Oderberg 2011:85-111, especially, as they adress the question of relation. See also Tahko 2012:26-44; Feser 2009, 2010. ST 3a, 77.1, cf. ST 1a, 25.3-4; ST 3a, 74-76 Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America 8, n.19. (USCCB, June 14, 2001). Available online: http://bit.ly/UXHAgI [retrieved from 494 495 old.usccb.org, Nov. 21, 2012]. CA X Jimmy Akin has, in a slightly ‘un-scholarly’ way, explained this by reference to science and/or science fiction. See Akin, «Space Warp To Heaven.» JimmyAkin.Com, May 2005. Available online: http://bit.ly/VPoGGz [retrieved from http://jimmyakin.com, Nov. 21, 2012]. 72 hands of your holy Angel to your altar on high in the sight of your divine majesty, so that all of us, who through the participation at the altar receive the most holy Body and Blood of your Son, may be filled with every grce and heavenly blessing. (rough Christ our Lord. Amen.)496 is can also be held under consubstantiation, but there are some problems with this approach. While it affirms an Aristotelian-omistic conception of metaphysics to a certain degree, it is ultimately incompatible with it. Under an Aristotelian-omistic conception of metaphysics, higher substances take lower substances up in themselves. at two substances exist ‘side by side’ in the way assumed by consubstantiation is incompatible with Aristotelian-omistic ontology. Furthermore, there needs to be said that there is an important difference between Aristotelianomistic and modern philosophy that may shed some light on this. Aristotelian-omistic philosophy distinguishes between essence and properties, while the latter doesn’t (neccesarily) do that.497 In modern philosophy, many hold to the so-called ‘bundle theory,’ saying that a thing has a certain collection of properties which together form a sort of ‘essence,’ ‘essential character’ or ‘essential structure,’ making that thing an instance of its kind.498 Puntel is among those who hold that properties and (their) relations constitute a thing’s ‘essential structure.’499 is, then, means that what an Aristotelian or a omist would, for example in the case of bread, call an accident (essential or non-essential), a modern philosopher might call a property, claiming that it forms a part of the ‘essential structure’ of bread. is means that a modern philosopher might say that transubstantiation is wrong because it is quite clear that the properties of bread remain. e problem, of course, is that the omist would agree that aer consecration there remains in the host accidents (what a modern philosopher might call ‘physical properties’) that to a scientist would indicate that what we see is bread. But this is a case where we have two different philosophical and metaphysical conceptions, and where one is criticizing the other by assuming their own view. With this I go on to my main discussion. 496 497 498 MassEng 41 Oderberg 2011:85-111 See Henry Laycock, «Object» (e Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Winter 2011), section 2.6. Available online: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/object/ [retrieved Nov. 21, 2012]. See also Howard Robinson, «Substance» (e Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Winter 2009), section 3.2. Available online: 499 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/ [retrieved Nov. 21, 2012]. Puntel 2001:229-240 73 4.2 e sacrificial character of the Eucharist Before I go on with my discussion, allow me to restate the problem and research questions: A systematic critical-comparative analysis and discussion of the Eucharistic theology of Wolart Pannenberg and Joseph Ratzinger with emphasis on the sacrificial character of the Eucharistic celebration. My three research questions is as follows: 1. What is the high-priestly role of Christ in the Eucharist? 2. What is the role of the Church in the Eucharistic celebration? 3. What is the role of the priest in the Eucharistic celebration? In the following I will discuss Pannenberg’s and Ratzinger’s views on the Eucharist, and especially its sacrificial character, through my research questions. I will primarily focus on Austad’s second (critical) task.500 4.2.1 e high-priestly role of Christ in the Eucharist My first research question is formulated as follows: 1. What is the high-priestly role of Christ in the Eucharist? Both Pannenberg and Ratzinger starts with revelation, and primarily with Scripture.501 Both points towards the high-priestly ministry of Christ, and both points out that through the Eucharist, the communicants are partaking of the sacrifice of Christ, not merely in its fruits or effects (forgiveness, peace, salvation, etc.), but in its enactment.502 ey have both adressed the question of Christ’s high-priestly role. erefore it is appropriate to examine their Christological views (primarily as it refers to Christ’s high-priestly ministry) in light of what Scripture has to say about Christ as High Priest. Both Pannenberg and Ratzinger maintain that the Eucharist is an anamnesis of Christ, a liturgical commemoration. Pannenberg points out that the early Church «related the understanding of the Eucharist as a sacrifice to the fact that in celebrating the Lord’s Supper we re500 501 502 Austad 2008:50-52 Pannenberg 2002:25-33; D/P 26-27 SysT III:316; DCE 12-13 74 call Christ’s sacrifice on the cross.»503 He points out that Luther, citing John Chrysostom, followed this, but that this was not «an independent offering but recollection of Christ’s offering.»504 Luther, Pannenberg points out, could call the Eucharistic celebration the signum memoriale of the promises given at the institution of the sacrament,505 but with a clear distinction between recollection and sacrifice. Pannenberg’s view of the significatory nature of the Eucharist (as a ‘sign-act’) is connected to his view of the sacrifice of Christ: e self-offering of Jesus is a sacrifice to the Father only inasmuch as it expresses his obedience to the mission he received from the Father… If, then, we call the Lord’s Supper a sacrifice, what Jesus himself did at the Last Supper must be viewed as a sign-act of sacrifice. What we have in the sacrifice of Jesus is not a direct offering to God but Jesus’ obedience to his mission to the world as witness to the presence of salvation of the rule of God. His death was the consequence of this obedience. Because the goal of his mission, the presence of his rule, to significatory form in what he did at the supper, the bread distributed at the supper could become a sign of his dedication to his mission to make the divine lordship present among us, and the cup that was handed around could become a sign of the sealing of this dedication by his death and of the new covenant of God with us that has its basis in that death. Hence the Lord’s Supper, especially by the cup saying, gives us the meaning of the approaching death of Jesus on the cross. Meal and sacrifice go together at the Lord’s Supper just as the covenant sacrifice and covenant meal did in Israel.506 Pannenberg maintain that when we say that Christ offered himself, we must say that he offered himself to and for the Church, and that it was only secondarily an offering to God (the Father). Ratzinger, on the other hand, emphasizes Christ’s self-offering to God (the Father). is did not start on the Cross, but in the Upper Room. He points out that Christ «transforms death into the spiritual act of affirmation, into the act of self-sharing love; into the act of adoration, which is offered to God, then from God is made available to men.»507 is self-offering unites the highpriestly prayer and the institution of the Eucharist on the one hand, and the expiatory death on the other. Both these strands «are essentially interdependent: the words at the Last Supper without the death would be, so to speak, an issue of unsecured currency; and again, the death without these words would be a mere execution without any discernable point to it.»508 e highpriestly prayer becomes the starting point through which we must understand the sacrifice of Christ: 503 504 505 506 507 508 SysT III:309 SysT III:309, cf. WA 57, 218, 1; Chrysostom, Hebr. comm. 17.3 (Heb 9:25), PG, 63, 131. SysT III:309, cf. WA 6, 518, 10-11. SysT III:318-319 GINU 29 GINU 29, cf. BXVI 147; Hahn 2009:157-162 75 [Just] as the high priest makes atonement for himself, for the priestly clan, and for the whole community of Israel, so Jesus prays for himself, for the Apostles, and finally for all who will come to believe in him through their word—for the Church of all times (cf. Jn 17:20). He sanctifies «himself,» and he obtains the sanctification of those who are his.509 Ratzinger points out that the high-priestly prayer of Christ «is the consummation of the Day of Atonement, the eternally accesible feast, as it were, of God’s reconciliation with men.»510 Ratzinger maintains that through the self-offering of Christ, through his sanctifying of himself in his prayer, «the ritual of the Day of Atonement is transformed into prayer.»511 ere is much agreement between Pannenberg and Ratzinger, but there is also disagreements which, it seems to me, hinges on how they understand the role of the Trinitarian persons, and our role in relation to this. Pannenberg emphasizes the dimension of ‘gi,’ where Christ primarily gives himself to the Church, in obedience to the Father. Pannenberg connects this primarily to the Incarnation, which he sees as «the means of actualizing the royal rule of the Father in the world.»512 e emphasis is on the Church’s participation in the Trinity, which they can become partakers of through the Son, through his self-gi. Ratzinger, on the other hand, emphasizes Christ the priest, though he sees the expiatory and propiatory sacrifice not as an appeasing of an ‘angy deity,’ but as the adoration, the love, we owe to God. To discuss this further, we first need to recapture the points of the traditional LutheranCatholic debates. As a background for this, we can take a look at what Melanchthon writes, in the Apology, concerning the concept of sacrifice: Moreover, the proximate species of sacrifice are two, and there are no more. One is the propitiatory sacrifice, i.e., a work which makes satisfaction for guilt and punishment, i.e., one that reconciles God, or appeases God’s wrath, or which merits the remission of sins for others. e other species is the eucharistic sacrifice, which does not merit the remission of sins or reconciliation, but is rendered by those who have been reconciled, in order that we may give thanks or return gratitude for the remission of sins that has been received, or for other benefits received.513 Melanchthon maintains that that there is a separation between the two concepts of sacrifice, that this separation is absolute, and that both cannot be part of the same sacrament. e propitiatory sacrifices are offered for sins. And therefore the Eucharist cannot be propitiatory sacrifice. One 509 510 511 512 513 Jesus II:78, cf. 76-102 Jesus II:79 Jesus II:80 SysT III:389-390 Apol. XXIV:19 76 problem here is the unspoken assumption that sacrifice always means sacrificial event. So, when Catholics say that the sacrifice of Calvary is present in the Eucharist, Melanchthon sees this as a re-sacrificing of Christ. is unspoken assumption, however, is not obvious. If we rather saw ‘sacrifice’ as that which is sacrificed (the animal, Christ, etc.), and not as the sacrificial event (slaugther, crucifixion, etc.), the picture changes. With this perspective, we can say that the sacrifice of Calvary is present in the Eucharist, because Christ, who is the sacrifice, is present personally. To understand this better, we need to consider one of the key texts in the disputes on the sacrificial character of the Eucharist; Hebrews chapters 5-10, especially 7:26-27: For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners, exalted above the heavens. He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people; he did this once for all when he offered up himself. A reading of Hebrews 5-10 reveals that the sacrifice of Christ is perpetual and complete, and cannot be repeated (7:27; 9:12; 10:10). But what does this mean? In Hebrews 7:23-25 we read: e former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office; but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues for ever. Consequently he is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them. e priesthod of Christ, it says, is permanent, and on that basis Christ performes his heavenly ministry. We see that in Hebrews, the sacrifice of Christ isn’t reducible to the Cross. e selfoffering on the Cross is foreshadowed in Yom Kippur.514 If we analyze this sin offering on Yom Kippur, we find a pattern: (1) the lamb was chosen and presented to be slaughtered; (2) the lamb was slaughtered; (3) the blood of the lamb was carried into the Holy of Holies and presented as an offering to God. We find the same pattern in Hebrews, where Christ not only sacrifices himself on the Cross, but also presented his sacrifice when he entered the heavenly sanctuary (Heb. 9:11-12.24). And this presentation is perpetual (Heb. 7:24-25; 8:1-6). As I’ve pointed out,515 the methodology of contextual coherence dictates that the immediate context is the primary source of interpretation, and that, in Rescher’s words, «[the] better (the more smoothly and coherently) an interpretation fits a text into its wider context, the better it is as an interpretation.»516 e 514 515 516 Lev. 16, cf. Heb. 5:1-10; 7:20-28; 8:1-6; 9:7.11-28; 10:1-18. Section 1.2; A1:6-7 Rescher 2001:69 77 immediate context of v.27 is the discussion beginning in chapter 5, and which continues through chapter 10. Allow me to quote Hebrews 8:1-3, which comes directly aer 7:27 (emphasis added): 1 Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2 a minister in the sanctuary and the true tent which is set up not by man but by the Lord. 3 For every high priest is appointed to offer gis and sacrifices; hence it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer. One questions presents itself when we meet this text: Why, if Christ has already offered his sacrifice, would he have to have something to offer? Before I attempt to answer this question, it needs to be said that this text suggests that Christ being seated has nothing to do with him ceasing to offer his sacrifice. I have oen heard that Hebrews says that Christ no longer offers, no longer presents himself as offered because he sat down (Heb. 10:11-14). But this text states that, as Christ is seated, he is «a minister in the sanctuary and the true tent.» And he adds that, as «every high priest is appointed to offer gis and sacrifices,» Christ also needs «to have something to offer» (v.3). Commenting on Heb. 7:27, Paul Ellingworth makes the point that the sacrifice of Christ is «continuous rather than repeated.»517 And commenting on Heb. 8:3, he makes the point that «there is no question, here or elsewhere in Hebrews, of the sacrifice of Christ itself taking place continuously in heaven.»518 To understand how we can coherently hold both that Christ’s sacrifice was offered «once for all» and that Christ still needs to offer his sacrifice, we need to examine just what sacrifice is. Neither Pannenberg nor Ratzinger gives a direct definition of what a sacrifice is, but a defintion can be found through analyzing their texts. ey both focus primarily on the concept of gi, a gi given to God in love and obedience. To come to a definition myself, I have consulted a lecture on the Eucharistic sacrifice according to the Orthodox tradition, delivered by Bishop Kallistos Ware in 2002.519 Ware identifies three parts to sacrifice in general: (1) offering, that you bring along something, for example an animal, as an offering; (2) consecration, that your offering is dedicated to God by a priest; and (3) communion, that both you and God get a share in the consecrated offering, thereby gaining communion.520 Ware sees this as the ‘basic pattern,’ yet he admits, however, that this doesn’t cover every biblical sacrifice.521 He goes on to point out that «the Eucharist conforms to this pattern.»522 517 518 519 520 521 522 Ellingworth 1993:395 Ellingworth 1993:395 Ware 2002 Ware 2002 (WK-91-03, 6:37-11:44) Ware 2002 (WK-91-03, 11:44-12:10) Ware 2002 (WK-91-03, 12:16-12:20, cf. 12:09-12:55) 78 is is basically the offertory, the consecration and the communion. Because his pattern doesn’t enirely conform to the sacrifices of the Old Testament, I present a fourfold pattern that I do believe conforms to the sacrifices of the Old Testament: 1. Offering: Something is given as a gi, representing the giver. 2. Consecration: e gi is consecrated, dedicated to God by an ‘ordained’ or authorized priest. 3. Presentation: e consecrated gi is presented to God. 4. Participation: rough the presentation the consecrated gi, God participates in the sacrifice, and (in the case of certain sacrifices) the people participate in the sacrifice through communion. is fourth part is technically not part of the sacrifice, but refer to the participation in the sacrifice. Let’s examine these closer. 1. Offering. e action of offering refers to the fact that you choose (and perhaps prepare) something to offer, and bring it along to be offered, presumably in the Temple. is is an initial offering, a giving of a gi. In the case of the goat sin offering at Yom Kippur, this refers to the choosing and bringing as an offering of said goat (Lev. 16:7-9). In the case of Christ, this refers to the fact that God prepared him (Heb. 10:5-10), the fact that he became incarnate and (perhaps) to his life and ministry. In the Septuagint, this is signified by the Greek verb πρ ρω, which means to ‘offer,’ ‘present,’ or ‘bring along.’ It denotes bringing along something to offer in the Temple, and giving it to the priest.523 2. Consecration. e consecration refers to the ‘making holy’ of the thing offered, the dedication of that to God. e word ‘consecration’ is derived from the latin verb consecrare which means to dedicate something to God or to make it holy (from sacer, ‘sacred, dedicated’). In the case of the goat, this refers to its slaughtering (Lev. 16:15). In the case of Christ, this primarily refers to his Crucifixion, but it could also include his life and ministry before, culminating in his Crucifixion. In the Septuagint, this is signified by the Greek verb ἀ ρω, which means to ‘offer up,’ ‘carry up,’ or ‘li up.’ It denotes the offering up of the sacrifice on the altar.524 Before I go on, I would like to point out that while consecration oen involved the killing of an animal, it doesn’t necessarily have to include that.525 According to Ware,526 the point of the killing was not the death of the animal in itself (perhaps, I would add, with the exception of the Scapegoat527 ) 523 524 525 526 527 Cf. Lev. 1:2-3; 2:1; 2:8; 2:14, etc. See Septuaginta (ed. Alfred Rahlfs & Robert Hanhart. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellscha 2006). Cf. Lev. 2:16, 3:5.11.14-16; 7:5, etc. Cf. Lev. 6:15 where what is offered up is an offering of flour and grain. Ware 2002 (WK-91-03, 9:3-10:15; 11:11-11:44) e Scapegoat wasn’t literally slaugthered, but died as a consequence of bing sent out (Lev. 16:7-10). 79 but the dedicating of the life of the animal to God. To dedicate something to God is to take it out of the profane realm, out of everyday use, and to bring it into the sacred realm, and give it a special, deciated (or ‘religious’) purpose. 3. Presentation. e presentation refers to the presentation of what is offered to God. In the case of the goat, this refers to the sprinkling of its blood «upon the mercy seat and before the mercy seat» (Lev. 16:15). In the case of Christ, this primarily refers to his presentation of Himself (and his blood) in the heavenly sanctuary (Heb. 9:11-12.24), which he continues forever (Heb. 8:1-3). I point out above that the offering is an initial offering. We still have an offering on this third stage, but here the offering is of the consecrated gi. It is now a presentation. 4. Participation. As I’ve pointed out above, my fourfold pattern does not claim that there are exactly four parts to each sacrifice, but that we can find four distinctions in each sacrifice. I must also add that this is technically not part of the sacrifice, but refer to the participation in the sacrifice. In the case of the goat, this refers to the sprinkling of its blood «upon the mercy seat and before the mercy seat» (Lev. 16:15). By presenting the concerated animal to God, by virtue of its blood, God partakes of the sacrifice (or at least has ordained for us that he should do so).528 In the case of Christ, this refers again primarily to his presentation of Himself (and his blood) in the heavenly sanctuary by which God is made to partake of the sacrifice. In sum, we see a fourfold pattern where, in the case of the sacrifice of Christ, he offered himself as a sacrifice, consecrating himself on the cross.529 e Cross is absolutely central, and it’s the (culminating) place of consecration, but it belongs within a particular context outside of which it becomes meaningless. e cross is connected to the institution of the Eucharist where Christ consecrated himself, and prayed for the consecration of his disciples. Christ is not only both priest and sacrifice, he encompasses the whole sacrifice. First, representing humanity, he is the one who comes to offer a gi, himself, in the temple, also himself.530 Second, he is the one who, as the priest, consecrates his self-gi on behalf of humanity, in the Upper Room and on the Cross. ird, he is the one who presents himself perpetually in the heavnly sanctuary.531 Fourth, 528 We could say that, as God is not bound by the sacraments, but has bound us to them, as the Catecism of the Catholic Church states (CCC 1257), he is likewise not bound by the sacrifices, but instituted them for the sake 529 530 531 of his people (cf. Ps. 51:16-19). e cross could also bee seen as a focus point, also including his life, ministry, passion, ressurection, ascension, etc. Cf. John 2:13-22. Heb. 7:24-27; 8:1-3; 9:11-12.24 80 by his presentation of himself to God he is himself a participant in his own offering because he is himself God, one in being with the Father and the Holy Spirit. It is important to point out here that in Heb. 7:27, the word that is translated ‘offered up’ is, in its lexical form, ἀ Heb. 8:3, however, the word that is translated ‘offer’ is, in its lexical form, πρ ρω. In ρω. We see here the difference; though there can only be one consecration, the consecrated sacrifice can still be offered, presented. Pannenberg points out that the Cross is essential, yet not necessarily as a sacrifice proper. Ratzinger points out that the Cross as sacrifice is deeply connected both to the Last Supper in which Christ «actually underwent, in an inward and anticipatory manner, his death on the Cross,»532 and to the Eucharist, in which we celebrate «the tōda of the Risen One.»533 He even says that without the institution of the Last Supper, we have no way of knowing whether or not the Cross is a sacrifice.534 In Hebrews, the sacrifice of Christ is understood in light of the high-priestly sacrifice on Yom Kippur. We read in Hebrews 9:12 that Christ «entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.» (Emphasis added) He secured our redemption, not by the Cross alsone, but also by entering into ‘the holy places.’ My main point, however, is that this action is perpetual: «[Christ] holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues for ever. Consequently he is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.» (Heb. 7:24-25) «For every high priest is appointed to offer gis and sacrifices; hence it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer.» (Heb. 8:3) «For Christ has entered, not into a sanctuary made with hands, a copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.» (Heb. 9:24) e point of the author of Hebrews is that Christ, like any other priest, must offer sacrifices. But the sacrifice he offers, and offers perpetually, is Himself. is sacrifice, this heavenly ministry is, as Paul Ellingworth says, «continuous rather than repeated.»535 It’s important here that we distinguish properly between the four sacrificial elements I have outlined above. e (initial) offering and the consecration can obviously not be repeated, for both practical and theological reasons. If you give something as an offering, it is no longer yours to give. And if this offering 532 533 534 535 Feast 38 Feast 57, cf. Gese 1981:134. GINU 29-30; BXVI 147, cf. Hahn 2009:157-162 Ellingworth 1993:395 81 is perfect or complete, no more gis and consecrations are needed. But the presentation (and the partaking) can continue perpetually, in this case by Christ’s self-presentation in the Holy sanctuary,536 by God’s partaking of the sacrifice by this perpetual self-presentation, and by our partaking of the sacrifice through communion, and through our self-offering in Christ. Here it’s appropriate to ask what is meant in Hebrews 7:27 by ‘once for all’ (ἐ π ). Does it denote once in relation to time? An affirmative answer to this question would imply seeing time (as we understand it, anyhow) as a feature of heaven, since Hebrews 9:12 states that Christ «entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.» It seems then, particularily in light of Hebrews 7:24-25 and 9:24 which points out that Christ appears on our behalf in God’s presence, that ἐ π de- notes something definitive, something conclusive, but not in relation to (chronological) time. ere is no more need to consecrate, but the one sacrifice is still being offered on our behalf (Heb. 7:24-25; 8:1-3). Here is where the ‘concommitarian’ view of both Pannenberg and Ratzinger becomes important for the proper understanding of the Eucharist — especially its relation to the sacrifice of Christ and to the sacrifice of Church. We see from Hebrews that Christ is at this moment presenting his sacrifice before God in the heavenly sanctuary. Now, Pannenberg makes two relevant claims concerning the Eucharist: (1) what is present in the Eucharist is «the whole and undivided Christ,»537 and (2) that «believing celebration and reception of the Supper give a share not only in the “fruit” of Christ’s offering but also in its enactment.»538 Ratzinger makes similar claims, saying that the sacrifice of Christ is a representative sacrifice which is made available to us, and which we can participate in.539 Both Pannenberg and Ratzinger, then, says that the Eucharistic celebration is a participation in Christ’s offering of himself to God. But there are some important differences. In light of my preceding discussion I maintain that Ratzinger is more coherent, more in line no only with Scripture, but also the way the sacrifice of Christ has been understood historically. While I agree with much of what Pannenberg says, and I also agree with his critique of the ‘Anselmian’ tradition, though I cannot judge if this is a fair assessment of Anselm himself, since I haven’t read him, or have only read excerpts. I disagree, though, with Pannenberg’s interpre536 537 538 539 Cf. Heb. 7:24-25; 8:1-3, 9:11-12.24 SysT III:295 SysT III:316 SofL 38.56-61 82 tation of the intra-trinitarian roles in the sacrifice, and his insistence that the sacrifice of Christ to God (the Father) is secondary. Panneberg points out that Scripture tells us that Christ is sent by and from the Father, yet it also states that Christ offered himself to the Father. He asks: «Who is the subject of the giving up?»540 I think that a better way of looking at this is the way Ratzinger does. He points out that the lamb that Abraham offered to God, instead of Isaac, was given to him by God. God provided the offering, and Abraham offered it back, as a representative sacrifice. Ratzinger writes: Out of obedience, Abraham is willing to do something that goes against the mission given by God: to sacrifice his only son, Isaac, the bearer of the promise. In so doing, he would be giving up everything, for, without descendants, the land promised to his descendants has no meaning. At the very last moment God himself stops Abraham from offering this kind of sacrifice. He is given something else to offer instead of the son of God—a male lamb. And so representative sacrifice is established by divine command. God gives the lamb, which Abraham then offers back to him. Accordingly, we offer sacrifice, as the Roman Canon says, οde tuis donis ac datis” (from your own gracious gis).541 What we see here is that both God and Abraham were subjects. And the same is true of Christ, as our representative. He offered himself in our stead, on our behalf. is perspective manages to embrace both the intra-trinitarian points of Pannenberg and the classical notion of sacrifice. Everything we offer belongs to God. Everything in the world belongs to God. God gave the Hebrews a system of sacrifice, a way of achieving reconciliation. e problem was not that God doesn’t want sacrifice but, as Hebrews points out, that «it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins» (10:4). is was only a shadow. What God wants is not death, but life. He wants us, as Ratzinger points out, to give ourselves to him, in adoration — in praise and thanksgiving.542 And that is exactly what Christ did. Ratzinger has managed to embrace both the expiatory and propiatory character of the sacrifice by, on the one hand, avoiding and outright rejecting the image of the angry God who ‘demands’ blood, and, on the other hand, pointing out that Christ is a representative sacrifice which is given to God in adoration — in praise, thanksgiving and reparation.543 e sacrificial animals represented those who offered them, but what God demands is that we give ourselves to him, not in the sense of dying, but in the sense of recaputilating, of ‘coming home.’ 540 541 542 543 SysT II:439 SofL 37-38 GINU 29-30; Feast 50-60 GINU 29-30, cf. CCC 1407 83 God gave us this in Christ, who is forshadowed not only in the priests and the sacrifices, but also the people. Employing my four-fold sacrificial distinction, he is: (1) the one who offers the gi, (2) the one who consecrates the gi, (3) the one who presents the gi, and (4) by virtue of his divinity, the one to whom the gi is presented. Pannenberg maintains that Christ did not offer himself as a propitiatory sacrifice, and I agree to some extent. e image of the ‘angry deity,’ at least the way this is oen understood, is not Scriptural. e Bible talks about the wrath of God, but portrays it more as a wrath agaist sin, than against sinners, and it is also important to point out that God’s wrath is not human wrath. God doesn’t get ‘emotional’ or ‘capricious.’544 But my main point here is that I don see that this is a necessary property of propitiatory sacrifices. Instead of seeing it as a appeasing of God because he is angry, we can see it as a pleasing of God by doing his will, by ‘coming home.’ en propitatiation in reality becomes the equivalent of expiation, the reconciliation of man with God.545 Ratzinger avoids the image of the ‘angry deity’ and sees rather this sacrifice as a self-offering, a giving of oneself to God, through Christ, through the sacrificial gi God has provided for us. I also disagree with Pannenberg’s point that the sacrifice of Christ to God (the Father) is secondary. I maintain that it is primary; the primary means through which we can approach God, the means through which we can offer ourselves.546 I would also add that Pannenberg’s points about our self-sacrifice, our participation in Christ’s self-offering, which will be discussed in the next section, makes much more sense if the sacrifice of Christ to God is given its primary place. ere is, however, no need to choose either the gi given to us, or the gi given to God. It is the same. Christ gave himself to God, and we are made partakers in this through communion, and we can offer ourselves through this, through Christ. A good way of looking at this, which I will be coming back to in the next section, is that of Benedictine theologian Cyprian (Cipriano) Vagaggini who points out that the direction of sacrifice is alway from the Father, through the Son, in the Spirit and back again. He makes the point that «every good gi comes to us from the Father, through the medium of Jesus Christ His incarnate Son, in the presence of the Holy Spirit; and likewise, it is in the presence of the Holy Spirit, through the medium of Jesus Christ the incarnate Son, that everything must return to the Father and be reunited to its end, the most blessed Trinity.»547 With these words I go on to the next main point. 544 545 546 547 Cf. Jas. 1:17 Cf. SysT II:411.438-449 Cf. Rom. 12:1; 1Pet. 2:5; Heb. 4:14-16; 10:19-22. Vagaggini 1976:191-192 84 4.2.2 e role of the Church in the Eucharistic celebration My second research question is formulated as follows: 2. What is the role of the Church in the Eucharistic celebration? We see that for both Pannenberg and Ratzinger, the role of the Church in the Eucharistic celebration is a role that is performed in and through Christ.548 Pannenberg roots this in a discussion around the question of what, exactly, anamnesis is.549 He points out that anamnesis «a presentation and re-presentation of the paschal mystery of the death and resurrection of Jesus.»550 It’s not merely a mental recollection, but «the self-representing of Jesus Christ by his Spirit.»551 is anamnesis, Pannenberg maintains, is rooted in thanksgiving: «anksgiving leads on to recollection of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, at which bread and wine become the medium of Christ’s presence.»552 e words of institution are an integral part of this, but «within the framework of anamnesis and as its climax.»553 is offering of praise and thanksgiving, Pannenberg maintains, is «a letting oneself be taken up into the actual sacrifice of Jesus Christ, not an additional offering to God.»554 e thanksgiving sacrifice is «the entry of the church into the self-giving of Christ, i.e., the offering of ourselves, by, with and in Jesus Christ, as a loving sacrifice in the signs of bread and wine.»555 For Pannenberg, then, the sacrifice of the Church is in reality a participation in the sacrifice of Christ, in Christ himself: [We] do not offer Christ but (…) he offers us, and in this manner it is acceptable and even useful that we should call the mass a sacrifice, not for its own sake, but because we offer ourselves with Christ, that is, we entrust ourselves to Christ with firm faith in his testament, and only thus, through him and his means, come before God with our prayers and praise and offerings not doubting that he will be our pastor or priest before the face of God in heaven.556 is, I maintain, captures the essence of the Offertory, and of the whole Eucharistic celebration. Ratzinger follows a similar path, though he grounds his analysis more concretely in the 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 SysT III:316-317; BXVI 141; Feast 51-60 SysT III:305-311 SysT III:306 SysT III:306, cf. 320-324 SysT III:308 SysT III:308 SysT III:316, cf. n.694. SysT III:316, cf. n.696-697 SysT III:317, cf. WA 6, 379, 3ff, cf. Rom 12:1-2 85 Hellenistic-Hebrew concepts of ὐ (‘blessing, praise, consecration’) and ὐ ρ giving’), and explicitly in the Todah sacrifice as such.557 e ὐ ρ (‘thanks- of the Church, then, is a «participation in the thanksgiving of Jesus, which includes the prayer of gratitude for the gis of the earth.»558 He continues: us eucharistia is the gi of communio in which the Lord becomes our food; it also signifies the self-offering of Jesus Christ, perfecting his trinitarian Yes to the Father by his consent to the Cross, and reconciling us all to the Father in this “sacrifice”. ere is no opposition between “meal” and “sacrifice”; they belong inseparably together in the new sacrifice of the Lord.559 In this question we find great similarities between Pannenberg and Ratzinger. Both maintain that the Church offers up herself as a living sacrifice by participating in Christ. To shed more light on this, I will now turn to 1. Corinthians 11:23-25: 23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, «is is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.» 25 In the same way also the cup, aer supper, saying, «is cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as oen as you drink it, in remembrance of me.» Reading this text we need to ask two important questions: (1) What is it that we are supposed to do, in remembrance of Christ? (2) What is remembrance? Of these questions, the second one has gotten much attention, but we also need to answer the first. Orthodox liturgist Alexander Schmemann makes the point that Western theology oen care too much about content, to the extent that some Western approaches can discuss sacraments without taking note of their liturgical setting.560 He thus makes a similar point to Ratzinger’s.561 But before we do that, we will consider the second question: What is remembrance? Pannenberg maintains that remembrance, or anamnesis, is not «merely an act of human remembering of which we are still the subjects but the self-representing of Jesus Christ by his Spirit.»562 e anamnesis of the Church, then, is something akin to an invocation of Christ, a rerepresentation of Christ in the midst of his Church, not in the sense of something ‘magical,’ but 557 558 559 560 561 562 Feast 39-60 Feast 49 Feast 49-50 Schmemann, For the Life of the World (New York, NY: SVS Press 1973), pp.135-151. Feast 33-50, cf. Hauke 2011:2-3 SysT III:306, cf. 320-324 86 as in a participation in the prayer and offering of Christ.563 Hartmut Gese564 touches this, and points out that the Todah, which one holds together with one’s whole community, includes not only a sacrificial meal but also a confessing of God’s salvation, expressed as prayer, song and/or poetry. is prayer «refers back to the time of troubles and “thinks on” (zkr) the deliverance and the experience of death and salvation.»565 e Hebrew verb zakhar566 has the meaning of remembering or reminding, roughly the same as the Greek verb ἀ ῄ ω.567 is ‘reminder’ «can assume special importance through recitation of the song of lament which the individual sang when in trouble and which when possible concluded with the vow of a thank offering, which has now been brought.»568 is comes to expression in Psalm 50:14-15, which is not dealt with by Gese: Offer to God a sacrifice of thanksgiving, and pay your vows to the Most High; and call upon me in the day of trouble; I will deliver you, and you shall glorify me. For Gese, the Psalms of anksgiving in the OT, which oen start with lament but end with thanks and praise, have the Todah as their Sitz im Leben.569 is is the reason for their past point of view. ey are «formulated with reference to the situation in which the thank offering is presented.»570 e Todah is celebrated in remembrance of the salvation of God «by commemorating the passage through troubles and the event of deliverance.»571 e focus of the Todah, and the Psalms of anksgiving, isn’t on «a general state of well-being, shalom, as it is in a normal meal offering but on the bringing of well-beiing out of a state of trouble.»572 e Todah is different from other offerings in that it’s not merely an offering to God, a propitiatory sacrifice, but an adoration of God.573 e Psalms of anksgiving have their Sitz im Leben within a specific ritual. A good example is Psalm 116, where we can read about the ‘cup of salvation’ being raised up as a Todah.574 e Eucharistic liturgies of the LCMS contains an offering, and two of the 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 SysT III:311, cf. Jesus II:128. Gese 1981; Gese 1977, cf. Feast 51-60. I have primarily consulted the english version (1981). Gese 1981:129 Cf. the noun zikkaron, ‘memory, reminder.’ Cf. the noun ἀ ς, ‘memory, reminder.’ Gese 1981:129, cf. the prayer and God’s response to it, in Jonah 2:3-11. Gese 1981:128 Gese 1981:129 Gese 1981:129 Gese 1981:129, cf. 120-121 Gese 1981:129, cf. Ps. 50:14-15. Gese 1981:130 87 liturgies (1 and 2) contain an offertory in which Psalm 116:12-13.17-19 is recited: What shall I render to the Lord for all His benefits to me? I will offer the sacrifice of thanksgiving and will call on the name of the Lord. I will take the cup of salvation and will call on the name of the Lord. I will pay my vows to the Lord in the presence of all His people, in the courts of the Lord’s house, in the midst of you, O Jerusalem.575 Gese point out that «[the] cup corresponds to the proclamation and the sacrifice to the meal of the thank offering.»576 e main point of Gese is that the Eucharist is the Todah of Christ, which will be celebrated perpetually. Gese quotes an ancient Rabbinic dictum: «In the coming (messianic) age all sacrifices will cease, but the thank offering will never cease; all (religious) songs will cease, but the songs of thanks will never cease.»577 We can find this in Pesikta De-Rab Kahana: And when ye sacrifice a sacrifice of thanksgiving unto the Lord—you will continue to offer it [even in the time-to-come] when you have all that delights you (Lev. 22:29). R. Phineas, R. Levi, and R. Johanan citing R. Menahem of Gallia said: In the time-tocome all offerings will cease, except the thank offering which will never cease. All prayers will cease, except the prayer of thanksgiving which will never cease. Hence it is written of the time-to-come e voice of joy and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride, the voice of them that say: οGive thanks to the Lord of Hosts, for He is good, for His mercy endureth for ever” (Jer. 33:11): these are prayers of thanksgiving; and of them that bring offerings of thanksgiving into the house of the Lord (ibid.): these are thank offerings. So, too, David said: y vows are upon me, O God (Ps. 56:13). He did not go on to say, “I will render a thank offering” but I will render thank offerings unto ee (ibid.), a statement which intimates that both thanksgiving and thank offering will be rendered [in the time-to-come].578 But now we must turn back to the first question: What is it that we are supposed to do, in remembrance of Christ? Two theologians who have both treated this similarily, is Anglican liturgist Dom Gregory Dix and Danish Lutheran theologian Regin Prenter.579 Both of these point 575 576 577 578 LSB 159-160.175-176. Gese 1981:130 Gese 1981:133, cf. Feast 58 Pesikta De-Rab Kahana. R. Kahana’s Compilation of Discourses for Sabbaths and Festal Days. Translated from Hebrew and Arameic by William G. Braude and Israel J. Kapstein (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul 1975), 579 pp.183-184. Dix 1945:48-102; Prenter 1977:75-86 88 out that the structure of what we are to ‘do’ is found right there in the text (1Cor. 11:24-25). What Christ commands us to do, is that which he himself did. In most liturgies (both lutheran and Catholic), and in the Textus Receptus, «do this» (cf. 1Cor. 11:24.25) seems to refer to the receiving of the body and blood of Christ and their subsequent concumption. But if we actually take a look at the few places in the NT were we actually find the phrase «do this in remembrance of me» (Gk. ῦ π ῖ ἰς ἐ ἀ , Luk 22:19; 1Cor. 11:24.25), we do not find any command to eat and drink in connection with the command in question. 1Cor. 11:25 comes closest, but only with a paranthetical remark: «Do this, as oen as you drink it, in remembrance of me.»580 It is clear, from other texts that we are supposed to eat and drink, but that is neither the focus of Luke or Paul, nor the way in which they understand the phrase in question. But what, exactly, does ‘this’ refer to in the imperative to ‘do this’? As I’ve already pointed out, the liturgy and the Textus Receptus can make this look as a command to take and eat.581 But we find this neither in Luk 22 nor in the oldest copies of 1. Corinthians. Bruce M. Metzger comments that it is highly improbable that Λ , was part of the original version of 1Cor. 11:24.582 But if the imperative does not refer to a meal, what does it refer to? We do not find any direct imperative to eat or to drink in the Pauline/Markan accounts. Dix discerns a seven-fold pattern:583 Christ (1) took bread, (2) gave thanks, (3) broke the bread, (4) said «this is my body which is for you; do this in remembrance of me,» (5) took the cup, (6) gave thanks, and (7) said «this cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, as oen as you drink it, in remembrance of me.» He also points out a later, ‘shortened down’ (liturgical) version: (1) take bread and wine (the offertory); (2) give thanks (the Eucharistic prayer); (3) break the bread (the fraction); and (4) distribute the elements (the communion).584 Where some commentators585 focus on the remembrance, Regin Prenter focuses primarily on the imperative to «do this.»586 He discovers two parallell groups: Allow me to organize them: 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 ῦ π ῖ ,ὁ ςἐ π , ἰς ἐ ἀ . Gk. Λ , , 1Cor. 11:24 TR. Metzger, A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament. Corrected ed. London: United Bible Societies 1975, p.562 Dix 1945:48 Dix 1945:48-50 For example iselton 2000:878-882 Prenter 1977:76-83 89 (1A) «is is my body which is for you» ( ῦ (1B) «Do this in remembrance of me» ( ῦ ύἐ π ῖ ῶ ἰς ὑπ ρ ὑ ῶ ). ἐ ἀ π ρ ἡ (2B) «Do this, as oen as you drink it, in remembrance of me» ( ῦ ἐ ἀ ). π (2A) «is cup is the new covenant in my blood» ( ῦ ἵ ). ). ἐ ῖ ,ὁ ςἐ ἐ π ῷἐ ῷ , ἰς Prenter points out that what Christ is saying is «do the bread» and «do the cup.»587 According to Prenter, with references to old liturgical traditions going back to Justin Martyr, especially the chapter 66 of his First Apology and chapter 41 of his dialogue with Tryphon,588 ‘doing the bread’ means to do what Christ did. is action, ‘doing the bread’ and ‘doing the wine’ is expressed in sacrificial terms, «where the priest imitate what Christ did at the Last Supper, i.e. he takes the bread and the wine, respectively, and when he gives thanks, he brings it forth to God, in remembrance of Jesus.»589 Prenter’s focus, when it comes to the Eucharistic sacrifice, is on the offertory. He points out that the Church offers unto God its spiritual sacrifices, ‘symbolized’ by the bread and wine, and gives this sacrifice to God, through Christ.590 e anamnesis, Prenter points out, is what «you »do« in remembrance of Christ, i.e. the offertory, the bringing forth of bread and cup and the thanksgiving which accompany it. It is the eucharistic sacrifice.» He doesn’t see this as an offering of Christ, but a thanksgiving directed towards the Lord, which results in Christ becoming present, and in Christ giving himself to the Church.591 While I maintain that Dix is correct in maintaining the seven/fourfold pattern, and I also find Prenter’s point an interesting one, it seems that there is, at least in Prenter, an uncecessary separation of the elements signified by the words of institution. To explain this, I will utilize the insight of lingustics, and specifically speech act theory. is theory was inroduced by John L. Austin and developed further by John R. Searle (who studied under Austin).592 I’m not going to go into the discussions about which speech act theory is the ‘best,’ but will point to Austin’s research in which he points to ‘performative utterances’ or simply ‘performatives.’ What is important here is the context of the utterance and the utterance in itself (and what is signified by the utterance). e context defines the meaning of a given utterance. Let’s say that a person says, «I 587 588 589 590 591 592 Prenter 1977:76-78 Prenter 1977:77-78, cf. Roberts/Donaldson 1995a:185.215 (PG 6:427-429; 6:503-506). Prenter 1977:77-78 Prenter 1977:80 Prenter 1977:80-82 Austin 1975; Searle 1968 90 declare you guilty of speeding.» If he is performing the role of a judge in a play, no ‘real’ change will come by his words, and he has no legal ‘right’ to pronounce these words with authority. If, however, he is a judge with the right to judge on behalf of the state, and he utteres these words as a judge within the context of a legal case, a lawsuit or a trial, the accused will be made legally guilty of the act of speeding.593 When it comes to the utterance in itself, Austin points out that it functions on three levels: the locutionary, the illocutionary and the perlocutionary.594 e first two parts of the speech act (the locutionary and illocutionary acts) are an integral part of the one (speech) act, while the third is external and primarily partains to the one(s) to whom the speech is uttered. Let me explain this by the example of the judge. First, the locutionary act is the words themselves (and their meaning) as they are physically uttered by the judge within its judicial context. Second, the illocutionary act is what is signified and done by the locutionary act; that the accused is made legally guilty. ird the perlocutionary act is the ‘external’ result of the illocutionary act, for instance that the accused becomes angy, that the people who might have gotten harmed by his speeding are satisfied, etc. We can now use this on the institution narrative. We must understand that per speech act theory, the locutionary and illocutionary acts are an integral part of the one (speech) act. e original institution narrative, the whole action — the taking of bread and wine, the blessing and giving thanks, the breaking of the bread and the distribution — is part of one act, with Christ as its subject. e question then becomes: Who is its object? e Church or God? e object of the distribution is, it seems, the Church, represented by the Apostles. But the blessing and thanksgiving seems to have God as its object. It is my opinion that this becomes much clearer if we make use of the fourfold distinction of sacrifice, which I provided above. is will also help to cast light on the difference between traditional Lutheran and traditional Catholic theology. First, you have Christ offering bread and wine, where he is giving himself back to God, in the gis, in bread and wine. is is reflected in the Church’s liturgy, in the offertory, where the Church gives herself to God in the gis, in bread and wine, and sometimes also in other gis such as money, food for the poor, etc. is is a real offering, but it’s not an «additional offering 593 594 e first example is what Searle (1968:406, n.3) might call an ‘unserious unliteral utterance,’ while the latter is what he would call a ‘serious literal utterance.’ Austin 1975:91-94.98-132.144-151. Searle (1968:405-424) critiques Austin’s distinction between locutionary and illocutionary acts, but they are useful for my purpose here. 91 to God.»595 It is an offering of ourselves through Christ, a participation in his sacrifice. Second, you have Christ giving the blessing (Matt. 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24) and/or giving thanks (Luke 22:19-20; 1Cor. 11:24-25). If you see this blessing as a blessing of the gis, primarily as a consecration, a case might be made that the primary orientation of the narrative is towards the Church (Christ taking bread and wine, giving it new significance and/or existence, breaking the bread and distributing the gis). But if, as most exegetes maintain,596 this is a blessing primarily of God, a praising of him, the case can be made that the primary orientation of the narrative is towards God (Christ taking bread and wine, blessing God, breaking the bread and distributing the gis). is is also strengthened by the fact that Luke and Paul, writing in a Greek enviroment, ‘translated’ this into thanksgiving.597 is is aslo reflected in the Church’s liturgy, in the consecration, the Eucharistic prayer which culminates in the institution narrative,598 and which makes Christ present.599 ird, you have Christ distributing his gis. is is where the difference between traditional Lutheran and traditional Catholic theology becomes most appearent. On the traditional Catholic view, as it’s reflected in Catholic liturgy, Christ is presented/offered to God the Father, and distributed to the people, in the gis.600 On the traditional Lutheran view, as it’s reflected in Lutheran liturgy, Christ is distributed to the people in the gis.601 Fourth, the gis are consumed, participated in. Here we see a major difference between traditional Lutheran and traditional Catholic theology. On the traditional Catholic view, God participates in the sacrifice of Christ by having it presented, and the people participates in the sacrifice of Christ by consuming it.602 On the traditional Lutheran view, the people participates 595 596 597 598 SysT III:316, cf. 316-319 iselton 2000:870-871 iselton 2000:870-871 I am here writing of the ‘normal’ situation in Western liturgies. I am not here making a judgement either of liturgies which (currently) do not contain the institution narrative, such as the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, or of Eastern Eucharistic prayers which culminate in the epiclesis, such as the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. On the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, see Nils Hallvard Korsvoll, «Nattverd utan innstiingsorda?» (Teologisk tidsskri 1, 2012, pp.249-267) and Robert F. Ta, «Mass Without the Consecration?» (America, May 12, 2003, pp.7-11). For the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, see the greek text with an english translation 599 600 601 602 from Faith Press, London, 1969, 6. ed. SysT III:295-311; GINU 74-93 CCC 1407-1419 CA X CCC 1407-1419 92 in the sacrifice of Christ by consuming it.603 ere is a real difference here between traditional Lutheran and traditional Catholic teaching. But here I must point out that the traditional Catholic approach seems more coherent. Pannenberg points out that the Eucharist «is to be celebrated as a remembrance of the unique sacrifice of Christ on the cross, and, through that remembering, the celebrants allow themselves to be drawn into Christ’s giving of his life.»604 is is what the Catholic Church holds. In Catholic theology, the offertory, while being distinct from the other parts of the institution, such as the consecration, is part of the one (speech) act of Christ, including the offering of bread and wine, the blessing/giving thanks, and the distribution. e Offertory prayers, and the bread and wine, have therefore traditionally been offered not only in thanksgiving, but also for sins. We see this clearly in the Offertory prayers of the Roman Canon (the Extraordinary Form), said forth by the priest, acting in persona Christi: Accept, holy Father, almighty, eternal God, this spotless host, which I, your unworthy servant, offer to you, my living and true God, for my insumerable sins, offenses and indifferences. … Accept, O Holy Trinity, this oblation which we offer to ee in remembrance of the passion, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ, our Lord.605 is offering of bread and wine, before the consecration, is offered for the sins of the people.606 e reason is that while the offertory is distinct from the other parts of the sacrifice of the Mass, it’s not separated from them. It is offered (cf. #1 of my four-fold pattern) for the purpose of becoming a vehicle of grace, of Christ’s sacrifice, in the consecration. is hinges not only upon the belief that Christ is offering himself in the heavenly sanctuary, as we see in Hebrews (7:24-25; 8:1-3; 9:24), but that this ‘heavenly liturgy’ is made present in our Eucharistic celebration, and that Christ, in the Spirit, acts as the ‘principal celebrant’ of this Eucharistic celebration.607 is perspective is crucial also in Lutheran tradition. It seems to me that if we as Lutherans want to affirm that there is a real offering going on, a ‘eucharistic sacrifice’ of praise and thanksgiving, yet we want to avoid, as Pannenberg, letting this offertory, 603 604 605 CA X Pannenberg 2006:171 MiRo 446.449. Lt.: Súscipe, sancte Pater, omnípotens ætérne Deus, hanc immaculátam hóstiam, quam ego indígnus fámulus tuus óffero tibi Deo meo vivo et voro, pro in numerabílibus peccátis, et offensiónibus, et negligéntiis meis. … Súscipe, sancta Trínitas, hanc oblatiónem, quam tibi offerimus ob memóriam passiónis, resurectiónis, et 606 607 ascensiónis Jesu Christi, Dómin nostri. MiRo 446 CCC 1348.1359-1361; SaCo 7; SofL 38; BXVI 141; Kelly 1978:451-452 93 or any other part of the Eucharistic celebration, become «an additional offering to God,»608 we must acknowledge that it is Christ who offers them all. We need here to consider the doctrine of justification. We see above that Pannenberg places the Eucharist (and the sacraments) within, or at least in close proximity to, the doctrine of justification. For Pannenberg, the fellowship with Christ, mediated through the Church, dogmatically «forms a theme in the doctrine of the regeneration and justification of believers and their adoption into the filial relation of Jesus to the Father.»609 One of the most important themes, if not the most important theme, of the Lutheran reformation was the doctrine of justification. In the Church of Norway, of which I am a member, the only binding documents are, besides Scripture and the ancient creeds, is Confessio Augustana and Luther’s Small Catechism.610 In Confessio Augustana, we read: Also they teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for Christ’s sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. is faith God imputes for righteousness in His sight. Rom. 3 and 4.611 e question, then, becomes how we see our offering in light of this. Pannenberg makes the point that we must see it not as something we do ourselves, but as a participation in Christ: «Faith’s offering of praise and thanksgiving is then a letting oneself be taken up into the actual sacrifice of Jesus Christ, not an additional offering to God.»612 Pannenberg points out that «the notion of such an additional offering» was one of the objects of critique in the Reformation. is, he maintains, was not merely the point of a proper distinction between thank offering and sin offering, but a recognition that if the congregation’s sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving «is viewed as an independent subject of sacrifice alongside Jesus Christ,» this becomes «an additional work.»613 e Church’s thank offering, Pannenberg maintains, is a participation in Christ, and the Church’s (and the Christian’s) thank offering «finds acceptance with the Father only as faith’s offering of praise, i.e. as participation in the praise Jesus Christ offered to God.» If we see the Eucharistic offering not as something we do ourselves, but something done in God, 608 609 610 611 612 613 SysT III:316 SysT III:237, cf. 211-236. See Arve Brunvoll, Vedkjenningsskriene åt Den norske kyrkja. Ny omsetjing med innleiingar og notar. Oslo: Lunde 1979. CA IV, cf. V-VI.XII-XIII.XX.XXIV.XXVI-XXVIII. SysT III:316 SysT III:316, cf. n.694. 94 in Christ, we do not have any ‘conflict’ with justification, any more than Jas. 2:14-26 represents a ‘conflict’ with the doctrine of justification. Christ is the subject of the whole action, not only of the consecration but of the thanksgiving, the blessing, the distribution, etc. And this, it seems, is directed primarily at God. e whole action of Christ, which he commanded his Apostles to do in remembrance of him, is part of the one speech act. As I point out above, we must understand that per speech act theory, the locutionary and illocutionary acts are an integral part of the one (speech) act. Ratzinger, as we see above, is concerned with the issue of orientation. He maintains that the Church’s adoration should be oriented towards God, towards the east, and that the priest should be facing the altar (ad orientem).614 To explore this, we can consider the work of Benedictine theologian Cyprian (Cipriano) Vagaggini.615 Citing Vagaggini’s work, Catholic priest and author Fr. omas Kocik makes the point that «[the] Latin theological tradition views the liturgical re-presentation of Christ’s sacrifice (however conceived) as an offering of the whole Christ, Head and members, to the Father through (and with) the Son in the Holy Spirit.»616 Exploring this theme, Vagaggini points out that in the NT, we find that there are certain specific roles for each of the divine Persons. is scheme, he writes, «is neither rigid nor absolute, but … is always present whenever sacred salvation history is discussed in its relationship to the divine Persons.»617 Vagaggini formulates the scheme thus: [Every] good thing comes to us from the Father, through the mediation of Jesus Christ His incarnate Son, by means of the presence in us of the Holy Spirit; and likewise, it is by means of the presence of the Holy Spirit, through the mediation of the incarnate Son, Jesus Christ, that everything returns to the Father.618 e Church is therefore oriented towards the altar, towards east, where she offers her prayer in the Spirit, through Christ. Vagaggini expresses this in Latin: A Patre, per Filium eius, Iesum Christum, in Spiritu Sancto, ad Patrem.619 us we have four important prepositions: a, per, in, ad. Vagaggini points to this scheme in many different passages in the NT,620 but my focus is on 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 SofL 74-84; Feast 139-146, cf. Rowland 2008:135-137. Interestingly the word ‘orientation’ is derived from orientem. Vagaggini 1976:191-246, chapter 7: ‘From the Father, through Christ, in the Holy Spirit, to the Father: e Liturgy and the Christological-Trinitarian Activity in the Divine Plan.’ Kocik, «e End of Orientation.» New Liturgical Movement, Feb. 23, 2011. http://bit.ly/hBcl8g [retrieved from newliturgicalmovement.org, Nov. 21, 2012]. Vagaggini 1976:198 Vagaggini 1976:198 Vagaggini 1976:198 Vagaggini 1976:198-206 95 Available online: the liturgy, and specifically the Eucharist.621 Vagaggini, writing within Catholic tradition, point out that the sacrifice of the Mass «is structured essentially on the Christological-Trinitarian perspective according to the scheme a, per, in, ad, and primarily in the extratrinitarian sense.»622 is, he points out, «can be seen from the essential form of its central part, called the anaphora, canon, or Eucharistic prayer.» Here, he points out, the Father appears «as the principium a quo and the terminus ad quem of the Eucharistic action.»623 Christ is «the High Priest through whom we perform the same priestly action,»624 and the Spirit is «appears there as the in quo» (‘in whom’). Vagaggini refers to Heb. 9:14 when pointing out that sacrifice «is brought to completion in Spiritu.»625 Allow me to quote vv.13-14: For if the sprinkling of defiled persons with the blood of goats and bulls and with the ashes of a heifer sanctifies for the purification of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify your conscience from dead works to serve the living God. e point of Vagaggini is that the anamnesis of the Church comes from the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit, and is offered back to the Father, in the Holy Spirit, through the Son.626 He points especially to the Roman Canon, both in the Ordinary and Extraordinary Form, in which the Church offers her gis to God, offers back to him what she has herself received. is is a perspective which resonates both with Pannenberg and Ratzinger. Pannenberg makes the point, as we see above, that as Christians «thank God that the Son gave up his life in faithfulness to the mission he had received from the Father, and as they themselves are drawn into this his sacrifice, [they] offer God thanks for their own lives and for the gis of his creation.»627 is Eucharistic anamnesis, this thanksgiving, is then an offering in the Spirit, through Christ, to the Father, of something the Church has herself received. Ratzinger points out that, on Moria «God gives the lamb, which Abraham then offers back to him. Accordingly, we offer sacrifice, as the Roman Canon says, οde tuis donis ac datis” (from your own gracious gis).»628 We thus see that the action is not ours, but God’s, expressed ‘extratrinitariousy’ in the different roles of he civine Persons. 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 Vagaggini 1976:223-230 (207-246) Vagaggini 1976:223 at is, ‘the principle from which’ the action comes, and ‘the end to which’ the action aims (Vagaggini 1976:223). Vagaggini 1976:223-224 Vagaggini 1976:224, n.54 Vagaggini 1976:224-226 SysT III:324 SofL 38 96 We see a strong connection here between Christ and the Church for whom he offered himself. His offering is at its deepest level also the Church’s offering, because he offered it on her behalf. And it is also something given by God, which is subsequently given back. e whole Eucharistic celebration is sacrificial, but not in the sense of offering something new, but of giving onself to God, in Jesus Christ. But there are major differences between traditional Lutheran and traditional Catholic theology. While Lutheran theologians will (normally) only go as far as stating that the Church is taken up into the sacrifice of Christ, and offered with him to God,629 Catholic theologians will add that in the Eucharistic celebration, Christ is himself offered by the Church, to God, through the priest who acts in persona Christi.630 is is a significant difference which I will discuss next. 4.2.3 e role of the priest in the Eucharistic celebration My third research question is formulated as follows: 3. What is the role of the priest in the Eucharistic celebration? As we have seen, Pannenerg and Ratzinger agrees, or are at least somewhat compatible with each other, on the issues from the preceding three sections. ey both maintain the real presence of Christ in the Echarist,631 that Christ gave himself as a sacrifice of expiation,632 and that the Church, through the Eucharistic celebration, offers up herself through bread and wine, in praise and thanksgiving.633 On the following topic, however, we see the main disagreement between the two, and between Lutheran and Catholic theology in general. And the disagreements we see between them in the preceding section are bound up to the question of the role of the priest as he acts in persona Christi. is qustion is the determining question that traditionally divided Lutherans and Catholics. Pannenberg rejects a major part of the Catholic ordination ritual, the part where the ordinand is given the chalice and paten, with the following words: «Take authority to offer in the church the sacrifice for the living and the dead.»634 Pannenberg doesn’t reject the fact that the 629 630 631 632 633 634 SysT III:316, cf. n.694. See Rom. 12:1; 1Pet. 2:5. MD; SofL 171–177 SysT III:293-304.311-315.320-324; GINU 74-93 SysT II:411.438-449; SysT III:316-319; Jesus II:38-41.76-102.186-188.229-240.251-253; GINU 29-30 SysT III:316-317; Feast 50-60 SysT III:393, cf. DS 1326 (Pope Eugenius IV’s bull Exultate Deo, November 22, 1439, from the Council of Florence). 97 Eucharist is a sacrifice, and that those who participate in the Eucharist participate in this sacrifice (both its fruits and its enactment).635 But he rejects the role of the priests in offering this «in the church … for the living and the dead.» As we see, he points out that this has ‘soened’ a bit since the Council of Florence, and that Pope Pius XII, in 1947 [concluded] from liturgical inquires into the history of ordination that laying on of hands is the proper sign (or matter, materia) of ordination (DS, 3859)636 and state expressly that the handing over of the chalice and paten (traditio instrumentorum) is not to be seen as an essential part of the sacrament according to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ (DS, 3858).637 is declaration created a new situation in ecumenical discussions of ordination.638 While it is true that Pope Pius XII did indeed conclude that «the handing over of the chalice and paten … is not to be seen as an essential part of the sacrament according to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ,»639 the Pope did not change the meaning or content of Catholic Holy Orders. Even if the Catholic Church says that «laying on of hands is the proper sign (or matter, materia) of ordination,» the content of Catholic Holy Orders still includes the belief that the priest is ordained, amongst other things, «to offer in the church the sacrifice for the living and the dead.»640 We read in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: «e Eucharist is the heart and the summit of the Church’s life, for in it Christ associates his Church and all her members with his sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving offered once for all on the cross to his Father; by this sacrifice he pours out the graces of salvation on his Body which is the Church.» (CCC 1407) «It is Christ himself, the eternal high priest of the New Covenant who, acting through the ministry of the priests, offers the Eucharistic sacrifice. And it is the same Christ, really present under the species of bread and wine, who is the offering of the Eucharistic sacrifice.» (CCC 1410) «As sacrifice, the Eucharist is also offered in reparation for the sins of the living and the dead and to obtain spiritual or temporal benefits from God.» (CCC 1414) «Having passed from this world to the Father, Christ gives us in the Eucharist the pledge of glory with him. Participation in the Holy Sacrifice identifies us with his Heart, sustains our strength along the pilgrimage of this life, makes us long for eternal life, and unites us even now to the Church in heaven, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and all the saints.» (CCC 1419) What divides traditional Lutheran and Catholic theology here, is the idea that Christ, «acting through the ministry of the priests, offers the Eucharistic sacrifice,» that it is he «who is the of635 636 637 638 639 640 SysT III:316 Apostolic Constitution, «Sacramentum Ordinis,» 4 (November 30, 1947). «Sacramentum Ordinis,» op.cit., 3 SysT III:393 SysT III:393 SysT III:393 98 fering of the Eucharistic sacrifice,» and that the Eucharistic sacrifice is «offered in reparation for the sins of the living and the dead.» (CCC 1410.1414) In Lutheran theology the priest is not seen as operating in persona Christi in the same way as in Catholic theology. Pannenberg agrees that there is a certain way in which the priest acts in such a way,641 but for him this primarily denotes the priest representing Christ before the Church, with the Gospel and with the Eucharistic gis, and not primarily a representation before God. In classic Lutheran theology, the priest is acting on behalf of Christ when he is preaching, teaching and administering the sacraments to the congregation. Adressing the issue of Donatism,642 Philip Melanchthon points out, in the Apology of Confessio Augustana, that the priest is not representing himself, but Christ: [e ministers of the Church] represent the person of Christ, and do not represent their own persons, as Christ testifies, Luke 10:16: He that heareth you heareth Me. [us even Judas was sent to preach.] When they offer the Word of God, when they offer the Sacraments, they offer them in the stead and place of Christ. ose words of Christ teach us not to be offended by the unworthiness of the ministers.643 Notice the use of the word ‘offer.’ In this context it denotes the giving of gis. It is not necessarily a sacrificial term. (On Pannenberg’s definition of sacrifice, however, where Christ is offering himself to the Church in obedience to the Father, this is a sacrificial term.) As I’ve pointed out above, Pannenberg has the same approach. He points out that the priest is representing Christ when he reads the Word of God to the Church, when he preaches and when he administers the sacraments.644 He explicitly connects it to the priests recitation of the words of institution,645 which is directed at the Church. And his focus is primarily on the meal, on communion.646 Never in the Apology do we read that the priest represents Christ before God, as high priest. is view, however, is held in Catholic theology. First, the idea that the sacrifice of Christ (and thus the Eucharist) is «offered in reparation for the sins of the living and the dead» follows from the Catholic teaching concerning the aerlife and especially the Catholic view on Purgatory. I cannot go into that debate here,647 But let’s get 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 SysT III:106.388-389; Pannenberg 2002:25 For a brief explanation, see Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donatism, retrieved Nov. 21, 2012]. Apol. VII/VIII:28 Pannenberg 2002:25 SysT III:106.388-389 SysT III:319. For the Catholic view of the doctrine, see CCC 1030-1032. For the classic Lutheran critique of the doctrine, see Apol. VI:21.26.35-43.65-70. For a positive Protestant take on the issue, see Jerry L. Walls, «Purgatory for Everyone» (First ings, April 2002), pp.26-30. Available online: http://bit.ly/fpsH4I [retrieved from firstthings.com, Nov. 21, 2012]. 99 back to the second part, the idea that Christ, «acting through the ministry of the priests, offers the Eucharistic sacrifice,» and that it is he «who is the offering of the Eucharistic sacrifice.» We see that classic Lutheran teaching accepts that the priest acts on behalf of Christ before the Church, but not before God. Herein lies a major difference between Lutheran and Catholic teaching. e question, then, is: In what way does the priest discharge this office in the Eucharistic celebration? We need here to ask two questions: (A) When presiding at the Eucharistic celebration, is the priest acting in persona Christi? (B) When the words of institution are uttered by the priest in the Eucharistic celebration, to whom is he uttering them? Allow me to start with the first. A. Does the priest act in persona Christi in the Eucharistic celebration? Pannenberg maintains that «the minister who with the whole congregation makes anamnesis of Christ’s crucifixion for us, inasmuch as he repeats the words of institution that Jesus spoke, acts in the persona of Christ.»648 e priest, according to Pannenberg, is giving the Church a share in Christ, through pronouncing the words of institution. He understands these words, in their liturgical setting, to be uttered to the Church, like Christ uttered them to the Apostles.649 He writes: As regards the church’s ministry in particular, however, here again the only unique point is that this activity in persona Christi is a public activity in the name of the whole church. We see this especially in the presiding of church leaders at celebrations of the Eucharist650 when they celebrate the eucharistic anamnesis on behalf of the whole congregation, so that all the members share in their action when in persona Christi they pronounce the words of Jesus over the bread and wine. e public discharge in Christ’s name of the commission given to the whole church takes place also in proclamation of the Word as the Word is heard and accepted, not just as that of the pastor but as that of Christ himself, and therefore as the Word of God, the same applying to the pronouncing of forgiveness of sins that ministers proclaim and pronounce in virtue of the authority of Jesus Christ that is given to the whole church, and therefore in Christ’s stead.651 We see from this that in one sense, the priest is interceding before God on behalf of the Church, in persona Christi, but not as in offering Christ, but as in praying on their behalf, and as in administering from God to the Church, the congregation, the answer to this intercession and petition, giving them a share in the salvation given by Christ in the sacraments. When officiating in the Eucharistic celebration, the priest acts in persona Christi primarily before the Church. 648 649 650 651 SysT III:106 SysT III:329, cf. 106.386-392 Cf. BEM 2:14 (with commentary) SysT III:389 100 Ratzinger, on the other hand, is writing within Catholic tradition, and maintains that in the Eucharistic Celebration, the priest qua priest acts in persona Christi.652 e priest acts in persona Christi, as a representative of Christ the High Priest. According to Ratzinger, the priest, as he prays the Eucharistic prayer, the oratio, «speaks with the I of the Lord.»653 Ratzinger holds that when the priest celebrates the Eucharist, when he offers the Eucharistic sacrifice, he is acting in persona Christi, being a ‘mouthpiece’ of Christ. Ratzinger writes within Catholic tradition, where the words of institution (in their liturgical setting) are primarily directed towards God the Father. us, when Ratzinger maintains that the priest is acting in persona Christi as he (sacrificially) offers the Eucharist and «speaks with the I of the Lord,»654 he is saying that he offers it to God, that he offers Christ. e idea that the priest acts in persona Christi, and has a special task, is found early on, for instance in the writings of Justin Martyr and Cyprian of Carthage. In his First Apology, chapters 65-67, Justin Martyr writes about the early Church’s celebration of the Eucharist.655 Fr. Timothy Finigan, a Catholic parish priest of Our Lady of the Rosary in Blackfen, part of the Archdiocese of Southwark, England, has made the point that «the translation [of Justin] most readily available on the internet and in libraries betrays a Protestant bias.»656 e reason for this is that it translates ὐ ρ ς, ὅ ύ ς ὐ ῷ as «he gives thanks to the best of his ability» rathar than «he offers the Eucharist according to the power which he has.» Most translations available make it seem that Justin has in mind a priest ‘doing the best he can.’ In a Norwegian translation,657 Justin writes that the presider offers prayers and thanksgiving «of all his might» («av all sin kra»). In Norwegian usage, this suggests an image of the priest almost shouting out the prayers. What seems to be suggested by the greek text, however, is that the priest offers this according to the power he has as a priest, maybe a ‘grace’ given in ordination. is has become more explicit in the writings of Cyprian of Carthage. He writes: For if Jesus Christ, our Lord and God, is Himself the chief priest of God the Father, and has first offered Himself a sacrifice to the Father, and has commanded this to be done in commemoration of Himself, certainly that priest truly discharges the office of Christ, who imitates that which Christ did; and he then offers a true and full sacrifice in the Church to God the Father, when he proceeds to offer it according to what he sees Christ Himself to 652 653 654 655 656 657 MD; SofL 171–177, cf. CCC 1548; LG 10, 28; SaCo 33; CD 11; PO 2, 6; ST 3a, 22.4. SofL 172, cf. 171–177. See also Hahn 2006:134-136 SofL 172 Roberts/Donaldson 1995a:185-186 (PG 6:427-432) Finigan 2008:9 Justin, Første Apologi. Trans. Jostein Garcia de Presno. Oslo: Solum 2004, p.106 101 have offered.658 We see that according to Cyprian, Christ «has commanded this to be done in commemoration of Himself.» Here ‘this’ refers to that fact that Christ, as «the chief priest of God the Father,» has «first offered Himself a sacrifice to the Father.» Cyrprian is thus telling us that what Christ has commanded is that the priest is to offer (the sacrifice of) Christ to God the Father, as the representative of Christ. He does what Christ does: He offers the Eucharistic sacrifice «according to what he sees Christ Himself to have offered.» Now, this could simply mean that the priest, on behalf of Christ, offers unto the congregation his gis; the Word and the sacraments. is has traditionally been held in Lutheran circles, and, as we see above, it is in essence the approach of Pannenberg.659 We also find a similar belief held by the Lutheran-Orthodox Joint Commission.660 In Oslo, Norway, on October 3-10 2002, they held their 11th Plenary meeting, in which the topic of discussion was the Mystery of the Church, and especially the sacraments (or ‘myseria’) as means of salvation. In the joint statement of this meeting, we read: 3. We also agree that those who perform the sacraments in the church do so in persona Christi. When the ordained servants of Christ carry out their sacramental ministries in the church, Christ himself acts as the true high priest and chief liturgist. e sacraments of the church are therefore the acts of Christ, in the power of the Holy Spirit, by means of which he baptizes, forgives sin, bestows life, and gives his own body and blood for the salvation of all believers. As St. Ambrose says, in the consecration “the priest does not use his own words, but uses the words of Christ. erefore the word of Christ effects this sacrament” (De sacramentis, 4, 14). e salvation given in the church is thus the work of the triune God, as St. John Chrysostom says: “e Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit do everything, while the priest lends his tongue and offers his hand” (Commentary on the Gospel of St. John, PG 59, 472).661 While the focus of this statement is on Christ as he administers his gis to his holy people, we do see here an somewhat official Lutheran statement to the fact that in the Eucharistic celebration the priest acts in persona Christi, on behalf of Christ who, through the priest, in the celebration «acts as the true high priest and chief liturgist.» e difference between the Lutheran and Catholic views (and between Pannenberg and Ratzinger) is not that the latter holds that the sacrifice of Christ is made present while the former denies this, but that the latter holds that the 658 659 660 661 Epistolae 62:14 (Roberts/Donaldson 1995b:362, cf. PL 4:385-386). See Finigan 2008:9. SysT III:106.388-389; Pannenberg 2002:25 See http://www.helsinki.fi/ risaarin/lutort.html [retrieved Nov. 21, 2012]. See http://bit.ly/VoFvw7 [retrieved Nov. 21, 2012]. See also Rev. Rodney L. Eberhardt, «e Pastor as In Persona Christi.» Lecture at the Society of the Holy Trinity General Retreat, Sept. 29, 2009. http://bit.ly/S1ZUoN [pdf-file, retrieved from societyholytrinity.org, Nov. 21, 2012]. 102 priest — acting in persona Christi — is offering Christ to the Father in the Eucharistic celebration. Before we go on the our second question, we need to point out that there need not be a hugh separation between the priest and the rest of the people. In Catholic theology, the priest has a special role in regards to the celebration of the Eucharist,662 yet this does not mean that he doesn’t also offer this on behalf of the Church. As we have seen in our analysis of Ratzinger’s view concerning the sacrifice of Christ and the Eucharist, he sees the roles of Christ, the Church and the priest in the Eucharistic celebration as part of one, integral whole. ere is but one sacrifice; the Todah of Christ, and this he offers in heaven, while his priests offer this in persona Christi on earth. Yet his Church is also offering this sacrifice by participating in Christ. e reason for this is that the sacrifice of Christ is the sacrifice of the Church, the sacrifice of humanity, offered up by Christ, who is our representative.663 is is not a novel idea in Catholic theology. We find it for example in the 1979 Elucidation of the statement on ministry and ordination in the documents from the Anglican-Catholic dialogue (ARCIC):664 [e] ordained ministry is called priestly principally because it has a particular sacramental relationship with Christ as High Priest. At the eucharist Christ’s people do what he commanded in memory of himself and Christ unites them. sacramentally with himself in his self-offering. But in this action it is only the ordained minister who presides at the eucharist, in which, in the name of Christ and on behalf of his Church, he recites the narrative of the institution of the Last Supper, and invokes the Holy Spirit upon the gis.665 It’s also found in Mediator Dei, an encyclical of Pope Pius XII from 1947: Now it is clear that the faithful offer the sacrifice by the hands of the priest from the fact that the minister at the altar, in offering a sacrifice in the name of all His members, represents Christ, the Head of the Mystical Body. Hence the whole Church can rightly be said to offer up the victim through Christ. But the conclusion that the people offer the sacrifice with the priest himself is not based on the fact that, being members of the Church no less than the priest himself, they perform a visible liturgical rite; for this is the privilege only of the minister who has been divinely appointed to this office: rather it is based on the fact that the people unite their hearts in praise, impetration, expiation and thanksgiving with prayers or intention of the priest, even of the High Priest himself, so that in the one and 662 663 664 665 CIC 900 Feast 50-60; Jesus II:1-2.76-90.115-138.223-240; DCE 12-13; SofL 37-50.53-61.171–177; MD, cf. Rom. 12:1; 1Pet 2:5; Heb. 8:1-3; 9:11-12. For a brief introduction to ARCIC, see Wikipedia (http://bit.ly/ROQvPQ, retrieved from en.wikipedia.org, Nov. 21, 2012). See http://bit.ly/ULze8L [retrieved from prounione.urbe.it, Nov. 21, 2012]. See Consecrated Women? A Contribution to the Women Bishops Debate (ed., Jonathan Baker. Norwich: Canterbury Press 2004), pp.56-57, cf. pp.48-58. 103 same offering of the victim and according to a visible sacerdotal rite, they may be presented to God the Father. It is obviously necessary that the external sacrificial rite should, of its very nature, signify the internal worship of the heart. Now the sacrifice of the New Law signifies that supreme worship by which the principal Offerer himself, who is Christ, and, in union with Him and through Him, all the members of the Mystical Body pay God the honor and reverence that are due to Him.666 is differentiation, in the Eucharistic celebration, between the people and the priest, the latter acting in persona Christi, can thus serve symbolically as a reminder of the fact that while the sacrifice of Christ is in many ways our sacrifice, offered by our representative, this sacrifice was offered partly, if not primarily, because we ourselves were unable to offer it, on account of our sins. e priest is thus not only a representative of the Church, acting in persona Ecclesiæ, but a representative of (the uniqueness of) the person of Christ. We must now turn to our second question. B. At whom is the institution narrative directed? I maintain that this question has large consequences for how we see sacrificial character of the Eucharist, and especially the role of the priest. Both Pannenberg and Ratzinger maintains that the priest ‘delivers’ the Eucharistic Prayer in persona Christi, and therefore it is very important to understand how these words function. Pannenberg writes within Lutheran tradition. In the liturgical tradition of Lutheranism, represented here by Luther’s Formula Missae and Deutsche Messe (from 1523 and 1526, respectively),667 the Eucharistic liturgies of the Church of Norway,668 and the Eucharistic liturgies of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS),669 the words of institution are uttered by the priest and directed towards the congregation. ey function as ‘words of promise’ in which what is signified by the promise happens there and then, by Christ becomming truly present under the species of bread and wine, and subsequently distributed to the congregation for their consumption.670 We see the direction of the words of institution especially in the fih service of 666 Mediator Dei 93. Encyclical of Pope Pius XII on the sacred liturgy, 1947. Available online: http://bit.ly/pW9iTH 667 [retrieved from vatican.va, Nov. 21, 2012]. See Vagaggini 1976:153-156 LW 53:5-40.51-90. See also Senn 1973:101-118. Gudstenestebok for Den norske kyrkja, part 2 (Oslo: Verbum 1996), pp.66-81.283-286.290-297.301-307; Gud- 668 669 670 stjeneste for Den norske kirke (Bergen: Eide 2011), pp.2.15-2.18, 2.71-2.81. LSB 160-163.177-181.194-199.208-210.216-218 CA/Apol. X; Luther’s Small Catechism VI. See Carl Fr. Wisløff, ««Des Sacraments ym Wortt warnemen». Svar til biskop Bjarne Skard» (TTK 26, 1955), pp.164-165 (160-173). 104 the LCMS, where, right before uttering the institution narrative, the priest says: «In the name of our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ, at His command, and with His own words, we receive His testament.»671 Ratzinger, on the other hand, writes within Catholic tradition. He points out that Eucharistic Prayer is the oratio of the Church, a term which doesn’t necessarily denote prayer, but «solemn public speech.»672 In the liturgical tradition of Catholicism, as represented by the Roman Canon (the Extraordinary Form)673 and the Eucharistic prayers of the Ordinary Form,674 the words of institution are not primarily directed towards the congregation. In fact, they are not directed towards anyone in particular, but function as a narrative within the Eucharistic Prayer as a whole. And this prayer is primarily directed towards God the Father. As we read in the first Eucharistic prayer of the Ordinary Form: «On the day before he was to suffer, he took bread in his holy and venerable hands, and with eyes raised to heaven to you, O God, his almighty Father, giving you thanks, he said the blessing…»675 To explain the difference between the traditional Lutheran and the traditional Catholic view of the Eucharistic liturgy, I will turn again to speech act theory. Briefly, the speech act theory of Austin states that a speech act functions on three levels: the locutionary, the illocutionary and the perlocutionary.676 If we ‘transfer’ this to the Eucharistic liturgy, we see the difference between the traditional Lutheran and the traditional Catholic view of the Eucharistic liturgy. Within classical or traditional Lutheran view of the Eucharistic liturgy, the institution narrative is uttered by the Eucharistic president,677 in the direction of the congregation, as ‘words of promise.’678 Within the context of the Eucharistic celebration the duly ordained minister (cf. CA XIV) utters the institution narrative, and here we find the difference acts, or parts of the one speech act: (1) e (physical) utterance in itself, and its meaning, within and the context in which it is uttered (the locutionary act). (2) e ‘force’ of the utterance (the locutionary act); 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 LSB 217 SofL 172 MiRo. MassEng 29-81 MassEng 35 Austin 1975:91-94.98-132.144-151. For examples of Lutheran and Catholic liturgies, see LSB 160-163.177181.194-199.208-210.216-218; MassEng 29-43. at is, the one who presides at the Eucharistic celebration (e.g. a priest or bishop). Within Lutheranism there are different views on who can do this. Within Catholicism, only baptised males who has been ordained as a 678 priest/bishop may (can) preside at the Eucharistic celebration (cf. CIC 900). Wisløff, op.cit. (TTK 26, 1955), pp.164-165. 105 that the Eucharistic elements becomes the body and blood of Christ,679 and that the consecrated elements may be distributed to those present. (3) e ‘external’ result of the preceding acts (the perlocutionary act): ose present can partake, they can be nourished spiritually, they can receive forgiveness of sins, they can offer themselves in praise and thanksgiving, they can adore Christ in the consecrated elements, etc. But this is different within Catholic tradition. Within classical or traditional Catholic view of the Eucharistic liturgy, the institution narrative is uttered by the Eucharistic president, in the direction of God, as a part of the whole Eucharistic prayer, arguably its high point. Not only is the Eucharistic prayer directed at God the Father, the institution narrative is itself directed at him (maybe as a ‘cultic reminder’). Within the context of the Eucharistic celebration the duly ordained minister (cf. CIC 900) utters the institution narrative, which functions within the larger context of the Eucharistic prayer and here we find the difference acts, or parts of the one speech act: (1) e (physical) utterance in itself, and its meaning, within and the context in which it is uttered (the locutionary act). (2) e ‘force’ of the utterance (the locutionary act); that the Eucharistic elements becomes the body and blood of Christ,680 that the consecrated elements are offered unto God, as part of the Eucharistic prayer, and that the consecrated elements may be distributed to those present. (3) e ‘external’ result of the preceding acts (the perlocutionary act): God partakes of the offering of Christ, those present can partake, they can be nourished spiritually, they can receive forgiveness of sins, they can offer themselves in praise and thanksgiving, they can adore Christ in the consecrated elements, etc. e difference between these two approaches relies on the direction of the words of institution, and how they function liturgically. To explain the difference between the Lutheran and the Catholic tradition on the question we must understand that per speech act theory, the locutionary and illocutionary acts are an integral part of the one (speech) act. In the Lutheran tradition, since these words, as they are uttered by the priest, are directed towards the congregation, they all partain to them (as ‘words of promise’).681 In the Catholic tradition, however, Christ is offered unto God by these words. e locutionary and illocutionary acts are an integral part of the 679 680 at is, «the true body and blood of Christ truly present under the species [ger. Gestalt] of bread and wine in the Supper.» (CA X, German text) at is, «the marvelous conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body and the whole substance of the wine into the Blood of Christ.» See Mysterium Fidei (Encyclical Letter of Pope Paul VI on the Holy Eucharist. September 3, 1965. An official pontifical document) 11, cf. 46. Available online: http://bit.ly/qk2j8R [retrieved 681 from vatican.va, Nov. 21, 2012]. Wisløff, op.cit. (TTK 26, 1955), pp.164-165. 106 one (speech) act, and this one (speech) act is not merely the words of institution themselves, but the whole Eucharistic prayer. e speech act in question is directed towards God the Father, and therefore it is the Father who is the primary recipient of the act. And because the speech act in question is a (verbal) sacrifice, its parts make up that sacrifice. e major difference between Lutheran and Catholic teaching lies then not in the idea of the priest acting in persona Christ as such, although some Lutherans might reject the idea, but in how they view the function of the Eucharistic liturgy, and, consequently, how they view the function of the priest. If the priest acts in persona Christi as he prays the Eucharistic liturgy, if that liturgy is directed at the congregation, and if the primary function of that liturgy is to make Christ present and administer him to the faithful, the priest represents Christ as he distributes his gis to his people, and nothing more. If, however, the priest acts in persona Christi as he prays the Eucharistic liturgy, if that liturgy is directed at God, and if the primary function of that liturgy is to offer unto God, the priest represents Christ as he offers himself to God (the Father). In western Christianity this prayer (the whole Eucharistic prayer of which the words of institution is a part) has traditionally been called the Canon of Mass and the Roman Canon, and in the Catholic Church this is indeed seen as a sacrificial act.682 But this is even more explicit in the title given to this prayer in in Eastern Christianity.683 In Eastern Christianity, the Eucharistic Prayer is called the Anaphora (Gk. ἀ ρά).684 In Greek, this has the meaning of ‘offering, ρω.685 In the Septuagint, the Greek verb πρ - carrying, liing up.’ It is related to the verb ἀ ρω (meaning ‘offer, present, bring along’) denotes bringing along something to offer, while ἀ ρω denotes the offering up of the sacrifice on the altar.686 If the words of institution is at the heart of the Eucharistic prayer which the priest offers in persona Christi, and if this prayer is offered up on the altar to God, and if Christ (made present under the species of bread and wine) is an integral part of this (speech) act, it follows that the priest does offer Christ in the Eucharistic celebration. What is needed in the ecumenical discussions, then, is research into the history of doctrine and history of liturgy, with emphasis not only on the pre-reformatorial, but also the pre-medieval, era, and particularily on what is oen called ‘the undivided Church of the 682 683 684 685 686 For a popularized introduction to this, in the Ordinary Form, see Milton Walsh, In Memory of Me: A Meditation on the Roman Canon (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press 2011). Interestingly, Phillip Melanchthon favorably cites the Eastern liturgical tradition in his argument against the Roman Catholic doctrine (Apol. XXIV:6-8.78-88.93-95.). For a brief introduction, see Vagaggini 1976:162-171. BDAG 75 Cf. Lev. 1:2-3; 2:1; 2:8; 2:14-16, 3:1.5.11.14-16; 7:5, etc. 107 first millennium.’687 is notion is not unproblematic, but it is important to give this era ‘extra attention,’ since it was emphasized by the early Lutherans.688 e question that must be asked is who coheres more with the witness of the Church Fathers; Pannenberg (and Lutherans), or Ratzinger (and Catholics)? Pannenberg maintains a ‘standard’ Lutheran position on the institution narrative; that it is directed primarily at the Church, but reads this together with an ‘untraditional’ view of the sacrifice of Christ, where Christ gives himself primarily to the Church, secondarily to God. Ratzinger, on the other hand, maintains a ‘standard’ Catholic position on the institution narrative; that it is directed primarily at God, and he reads this together with an more ‘traditional’ view of the sacrifice of Christ, where Christ gives himself primarily to God, secondarily (and derivately) to the Church. Due to the restrictions in a master’s thesis, both in scope, extent and depth, I cannot dwelve deeply into this question. But some examples can be put forth (emphasis added). And in the Anaphora of the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil,689 we read in the institution narrative that Christ, «when he was about to go out to his voluntary, blessed, and life-giving death, on the night on which he gave up himself for the life of the world, he took bread in his holy and unstained hands, and presenting it to you, God and Father, offered thanks, blessed, sanctified, broke it and gave it to his holy disciples and apostles, with these words…» And in the Anaphora of a Gallic liturgy,690 we read in the institution narrative that Christ, «on the day before he suffered for our salvation, and for all,691 [he] stood in the midst his apostles, took bread in his holy hands, and looked up to heaven, to you, God the Father almighty, offered thanks, blessed, broke and gave it to his apostles with these words…» In these liturgies, dating from the third, fourth and fih centuries, the institution narrative functions within the Eucharistic prayer, and that it is, as a narrative, directed primarily at God. More examples can be found,692 but I will not dwell upon them here. 687 688 689 See, for example, the Old Catholic Unity of Scranton [http://www.unionofscranton, retrieved Nov. 21, 2012]. Apol. XXIV:6-8.14-15.22-24.31-33.66-67.75-76.93-99 Translated from swedish (SPB I:34), through consulting an English translation found at the website of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America [http://bit.ly/10taxTI, retrieved from goarch.org, Nov. 21, 2012]. Emphasis 690 691 692 added. Translated from swedish (SPB I:47). Sv.: «…för vår och allas frälsning…» See Mike Aquilina, e Mass of the Early Christians (2nd ed. Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor 2007), esp. pp.113-114.190-191.204-205.215-216. e usage of ‘likeness’ on pp.204-205 is most likely meant in a ‘literal’ sense, where words like ‘likeness’ and ‘symbol’ has a more ‘realistic’ usage than in modern times. See Kelly 1978:212-213. 108 In connection to this, research into early doctrines concerning the sacraments are in order. On contribution to consider is that of Anglican Church historian J.N.D. Kelly.693 He points out that the Church Fathers of the post-Nicene and pre-Chalcedonian period held that the Eucharist was a sacrifice. Cyril of Jerusalem, Kelly points out, described the Eucharist as ‘the spiritual sacrifice,’ ‘the unbloody service’ and even ‘the holy and most awful sacrifice’ and ‘the sacrifice of propitiation.’694 is wouldn’t in itself be proof of some the belief that the Eucharist was a propitiatory (or expiatory) sacrifice. It could mean that Christ is sacrificed anew, or ‘re-crucified,’ in the Eucharistic celebration, which is the view errouneously attributed to the Roman Catholic Church and the Council of Trent.695 Or it could mean that the sacrificial matter of the once for all sacrifice of Christ (his body and blood) is made present under the (species of) bread and wine and distributed as gis to the Church, which is the traditional Lutheran view.696 Norwegian Lutheran theologian Sverre Aalen makes the point that what is given in the Eucharist is the sacrificial matter (Ger. der Opfermaterie) of the once for all sacrifice of Christ (his body and blood), the victim (Lt. victima).697 Or it could mean that the once for all sacrifice of Christ is made present under the species of bread and wine, offered to God in the Eucharistic celebration by the priest who acts in the person of Christ and distributed by the priest as gis to the Church, which is the traditional Catholic view.698 What is interesting is that Kelly points out that Cyril didn’t merely say that the Eucharist is a sacrifice objectively speaking, which is true for both traditional Lutheran and traditional Catholic thought. He holds furthermore that «intercession may be offered for the dead as well as the living while the dread victim lies before us, for what we offer is ‘Christ slain on behalf of our sins, propitiating the merciful God on behalf both of them and of ourselves’.»699 We see, then, that there is a natural progression from Cyril to the Catholic notion that Christ is offered unto God in the Eucharistic celebration, and that this can be offered for the living as well as the 693 694 695 696 697 Kelly 1978:193-199.211-216.440-455 Kelly 1978:451 Cf. SysT III:308 CA/Apol. X Aalen, «Das Abendmahl als Opfermahl im Neuen Testament» (Novum Testamentum 6, 1963), pp.137-138.142 (128-152). is exists also in Norwegian: «Nattverden som offermåltid i Det nye testamente» (TTK 35, 1964), pp.201.205 (193-213). He writes this partly as a polemic against Catholic notion of the sacrifice of the Mass. 698 699 is is more explicit in the norwegian verison (pp.205). MassEng 24-45; MiRo 446-450.462-470 Kelly 1978:451 109 dead.700 Kelly further points to Chrysostom, who developed the ideas of Cyril. Kelly presents a different interpretation than that of Luther,701 and maintains that ‘memorial’ for Chrysostom is a making present of Christ, and an offering of him by prayers, and a partaking, in the Eucharistic celebration, of Christ’s heavenly ministry.702 We see here, and especially in Cyril, the belief that the primary function of liturgy is to sacrifice, that it is directed primarily at God, and that Christ is offered in the Eucharistic celebration. It seems to me that the evidence points in the direction of a ‘Godward’ direction when it comes to the Eucharistic prayer, and to the institution narrative. I cannot go further here. e scope of my thesis has been to analyze and discuss Pannenberg and Ratzinger. Some remarks, however, are in order. In Confessio Augustana, we read in the conclusion of the first (doctrinal) part (parts I-XXI): is is about the Sum of our Doctrine, in which, as can be seen, there is nothing that varies from the Scriptures, or from the Church Catholic, or from the Church of Rome as known from its writers.703 In his Commonitory, Vincent of Lerin defined ‘catholic’ as «that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all.»704 If we were to conclude, from exegesis and liturgical research, that the institution narrative is primarily uttered unto the Father in the Eucharistic celebration, the coherent choice, given my preceding analysis and discussion, would be to embrace a Catholic view of the sacrificial character of the Eucharist. If we were unwilling to do so, the ‘catholic principle’ — that there is nothing in Confessio Augustana which «varies from the Scriptures, or from the Church Catholic, or from the Church of Rome as known from its writers» — would be nothing more than a rhetorical device, and a bad one at that. It would be empty words. If we hold (1) that Christ is actually present in the Eucharistic elements, (2) that Christ is offering himself (as the offering of mankind to God) in the heavenly sanctuary, presenting himself on our behalf, (3) that the Church offers her Eucharistic sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving in and through Christ who is presenting himself on our behalf, (4) that the priest, as he presides in the Eucharistic celebration, is acting in persona Christi, (5) that we participate in the 700 701 702 703 CCC 1407-1414 Cf. SysT III:309 Kelly 1978:451-452 For a comment on the catholicity of CA, see Pannenberg, «e Confessio Augustana as a Catholic Confession and a Basis for the Unity of the Church» in e Role of the Augsburg Confession: Catholic and Lutheran Views (ed., Joseph A. Burgess. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press 1980), pp.27-45 and Ratzinger, «Elucidations of the 704 Question of a “Recognition” of the Confessio Augustana by the Catholic Church» in Principles 218-228. Schaff/Wace 1995:132, cf. 128-130 110 ‘heavenly liturgy’ through the Eucharistic celebration, and (6) that the anamnesis, the Eucharistic prayer, the center of which is the institution narrative, is primarily directed towards God, it follows quite coherently that the Eucharist is a sacrifice, and that Christ is offered unto God in the Eucharistic celebration. Or rather, that Christ offers himself to God in the Eucharist, him being the ‘principal celebrant’ or ‘chief liturgist’ of the Eucharistic celebration, to use the phrase of the Lutheran-Orthodox Joint Commission.705 If Lutherans are to reject the belief that Christ is offered up to God in the Eucharistic celebration, it must either reject the idea that the priest (or the Church as a whole) acts in persona Christi, or that the liturgy is directed at God, or both. From this kind of rejection it follows that there cannot be any offering of Christ in the Eucharistic celebration. But, as I’ve pointed out above, here we need to do some research into liturgy, and how liturgy functions. And this needs to be incorporated into a holistic and systematic theological system. 705 See http://bit.ly/VoFvw7 [retrieved Nov. 21, 2012]. 111 112 5 Summary and conclusion In this thesis, I have analyzed and discussed the views of Pannenberg and Ratzinger concerning the sacrificial character of the Eucharist. e problem was stated as follows: A systematic critical-comparative analysis and discussion of the Eucharistic theology of Wolart Pannenberg and Joseph Ratzinger with emphasis on the sacrificial character of the Eucharistic celebration. In connection to this, I have examined three research questions: 1. What is the high-priestly role of Christ in the Eucharist? 2. What is the role of the Church in the Eucharistic celebration? 3. What is the role of the priest in the Eucharistic celebration? In this section I will briefly summarize my analysis and discussion of the views of Pannenberg and Ratzinger, and provide some conclusions, based on my discussion. 5.1 Pannenberg on the sacrificial character of the Eucharist Here I will briefly summarize Pannenberg’s answer to my research questions: a. Pannenberg maintains that Christ offers himself primarily to the Church as an expiatory sacrifice, and secondarily as an offering to God. He is the gi from God to mankind, and his sacrifice is primarily to do the will of God, which is to save his people from their sins. e Church is granted a piece of this salvation through the Eucharist in which Christ is personally present.706 b. In the Eucharistic celebration the Church offers her Eucharistic sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving to God, through Christ, in faith. is does not represent a new offering but a participation in the offering of Christ, a being taken up into him and partaking of the inner life of God, and in the obedience of Christ.707 c. In the Eucharistic celebration the priest acts both in persona Ecclesiæ and in persona Christi when he offers this sacrifice on behalf of the Church, when he offers the sacrament unto the 706 707 SysT II:403-441; SysT III:295.318-319 SysT III:316-317 113 Church, and when he offers the anamnesis of the sacrifice of Christ.708 In Pannenberg’s view, the focus must be on Christ as the ‘chief celebrant.’ His view of the Eucharist can thus be expressed primarily as participation in Christ. 5.2 Ratzinger on the sacrificial character of the Eucharist Here I will briefly summarize Ratzinger’s answer to my research questions: a. Ratzinger confirms the Catholic teaching of transubstantiation, though formulated differently from the Scholastics. Seen in light of the Todah sacrifice, and with focus on Christ the person, Ratzinger sees Christ as offering himself as one expiatory and propitiatory sacrifice of adoration, of praise and thanksgiving, both at the Last Supper, where he gives himself to God, consecrates himself as a sacrifice and institutes the Eucharist, on the cross, where he offers up his life as a sacrifice, and in the heavenly sanctuary, where he stands before God, perpetually offering (presenting) himself as the great high priest.709 b. In the Eucharistic celebration the Church offers her Eucharistic sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving to God, through Christ. is is not a offering the Church offers from herself, but a participation in (and a worship of God through) the representative self-sacrifice of Christ.710 c. In the Eucharistic celebration the self-offering of Christ in heaven is made present, and is offered unto God by the priest who acts in persona Christi.711 In Ratzinger’s view, the roles of Christ, the Church and the priest in the Eucharistic celebration are all part of one, integral whole. His view of the Eucharist can best be defined as s sacramental and sacrificial participation in Christ. 5.3 Conclusion In the beginning of the preceding section, I point out that my goal in analyzing and discussing the views of Pannenberg and Ratzinger is to try to answer this question: Is the Eucharist a sacrifice, and if so, in what sense? I maintain that many of the differences between Lutheran and Catholic 708 709 710 711 SysT III:108.388-389; Pannenberg 2006:171 Feast 50-60; Jesus II:1-2.76-90.115-138.223-240; DCE 12-13; SofL 37-50.53-61, cf. Heb. 8:1-3; 9:11-12 SofL 38; Feast 51-60; Jesus II:127-129, cf. Rom. 12:1; 1Pet 2:5. MD; SofL 171–177 114 teaching concerning the sacrificial charcter of the Eucharist is based upon misunderstanding, though not all. What we need to do, is to ask the questions I have asked above, to see the answers in light of the other parts of theology, and to try to assemble this in a coherent manner. e following is my conclusion. First, some preliminary points. a. Sacramental theology needs to be understood as an integral part of theology. Although differenziation in fields of study is a good thing, the insights of these different fields need to be evaluated comparatively and synthesized into a coherent whole. We must not see systematic theology, and especially systematic treatments of sacraments, in isolation from liturgical studies. is separation is typical of western theology, and it needs to be reevaluated. e rule of faith is the rule of prayer, and the rule of prayer is the rule of faith. Here, as in every other field, we need to emphasize coherence. Coherence dictates that there needs to be a connection between the ‘form’ of an action and its ‘content,’ that which it aims at or tries to express.712 b. Christ is really, substantially present under the species of bread and wine. is is a presence of the whole person of Christ. is presence, I maintain, is not due to the ‘ubiquity’ of Christ,713 since this, it seems to me, is self-contradictory. Even if the body of Christ has «personal union with the omnipresent God,» it is still a body, and cannot be omnipresent. I haven’t yet ‘concluded’ where I stand in the debate on transubstantiation or consubstantiation, but it seems that the latter is hard to explain in light of the Aristotelian-omistic framework on which both of these rely, or towards both of them is at least related. e main point, however, is that Christ is really present with all the he is. Now to my research questions. a. Christ is himself both priest and sacrifice. His sacrifice is complete, but not in the sense of being ‘over and done with,’ but in the sense of being perpetual, everlasting. He is priest forever, and he is now, perpetually, offering this same sacrifice, himself, by presenting it to God, in heaven, on our behalf.714 He is our representative, but not our ‘replacement.’ Many differences between Lutheran and Catholic theology on this subject could be avoided if we remembered that the sacrifice is Christ himself. When we use the term ‘the sacrifice of Christ’ we ought pri712 Cf. Alexander Schmemann, Liturgy and Tradition: eological Reflections of Alexander Schmemann (ed., omas Fisch. New York, NY: SVS Press 1990), pp.38-39 (38-47); Schmemann, For the Life of the World (New 713 714 York, NY: SVS Press 1973), pp.135-151. Cf. LW 37:222-224, cf. 295-303. See Alexander Balmain Bruce, e Humiliation of Christ in its Physical, Ethical, and Official Aspects (Second ed. revised and enlarged. New York, NY: A.C. Armstrong & Son 1889), p.91, n.2 Heb. 7:24-27; 8:1-3; 9:24, cf. SysT II:443; SofL 56-57; Jesus II:1-2 115 marily to mean by this the sacrificial matter (Christ himself), and not the sacrificial event (of, say, Calvary). is is true also of the Old Covenant, where the sacrifice refers primarily to the thing being offered, and not the process of offering the thing. b. e Church is offering herself to God as a living, reasonable and spiritual sacrifice in and through Christ,715 and in this process she is also ‘utilizing’ the sacrifice of Christ before God. As the people of the Old Covenant worshipped, praised, thanked and pleaded with God through the animal sacrifices which cannot «take away sins,»716 we worship, praise, thank and plead with God through Christ, who is our representative who gave himself «once for all when he offered himself.»717 c. In the Eucharistic celebration, the priest acts in persona Christi as he offers the Eucharistic sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving on behalf of the Church, and pleads on her behalf, as he offers the anamnesis of Christ and when he, as part of this anamnesis utters the words of institution.718 In this, in being an ‘icon’ of Christ, he is both distinct from the congregation, representing the one who offered what we could (or would) not offer, and deeply connected to the congregation, representing the one who offered himself as the representative of mankind. e priest is thus acting both in persona Christi and in persona Ecclesiæ. We see that there are important similarities between Pannenberg and Ratzing, as well as important differences. When it comes to asking who is most coherent, I must maintain that I find that Ratzinger is slightly more coherent than Pannenberg in this field. e reasons for this is twofold. First, he manages better to synthesise both the trinitarian aspect of the Father’s sending of the Son, and the Son’s (representative) self-sacrifice to the Father. When Pannenberg asks who is the subject of salvation, of «the giving up,»719 he sees the Father is the primary subject. I would say that the answer is both. e Father sent the Son out to gather his lost sheep, and the Son gave himself back to the Father, and took his sheep with him. is is best be summarized, I think, by Cipriano Vagaggini: [Every] good thing comes to us from the Father, through the mediation of Jesus Christ His incarnate Son, by means of the presence in us of the Holy Spirit; and likewise, it is by means of the presence of the Holy Spirit, through the mediation of the incarnate Son, Jesus Christ, 715 716 717 718 719 Rom. 12:1; 1Pet 2:5, cf. SysT III:316-317; SofL 38; Feast 51-60 Heb. 10:4, cf. v.11 Heb. 7:27 Cf. SysT III:106.388-389; SofL 171–177 SysT II:439 116 that everything returns to the Father.720 Second, Ratzinger’s approach is more coherent when it comes to the direction of the liturgy. e evidence points in the direction of a ‘Godward’ direction when it comes to the Eucharistic prayer, and to the institution narrative. I am convinced that what needs to be done in the LutheranCatholic debate is to ask some a few complex questions that might first appear simple: What is the function of the liturgy? When the priest, as part of the anamnesis of Christ, utters the words of institution, to whom is he uttering them? It is out of the scope of my thesis to explore this, but I’m convinced that it needs to be asked, and answered. And this will help us on our way of theological coherence. It also needs to be maintained, in light of historical Lutheran-Catholic controversy, that neither Lutheran nor Catholic teaching constitute a ‘breach’ of justification by faith. Both theological traditions maintain that it is Christ who is the primary subject, the principal celebrant, of the Eucharistic action, and that we are only partakers of Christ in this regard. is is important to point out in a Lutheran-Catholic debate. One thing that needs to be said in relation to this is that in Confessio Augustana, we read in the conclusion of the first (doctrinal) part (parts I-XXI): is is about the Sum of our Doctrine, in which, as can be seen, there is nothing that varies from the Scriptures, or from the Church Catholic, or from the Church of Rome as known from its writers. e churches who stood behind Confessio Augustana thus understood themselves as part of the catholic tradition. In his Commonitory, Vincent of Lerin defined ‘catholic’ as «that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all.»721 If this ‘catholic principle’ is to be more than rhetoric, we need to use it not only to critique Catholics, but also ourselves, and our Lutheran heritage. erefore, if we were to conclude, from exegesis and/or liturgical research, that the institution narrative is primarily directed at the Father in the Eucharistic celebration, the coherent choice, given the vailidity of my preceding analysis and discussion, would be to embrace a Catholic view of the sacrificial character of the Eucharist.722 720 721 722 Vagaggini 1976:198 Schaff/Wace 1995:132, cf. 128-130 For a critical assesment of the Catholic view of the Eucharistic sacrifice, written from a Norwegian Lutheran perspective, see Carl Fr. Wisløff, Nattverd og messe: En studie i Luthers teologi (Doctoral thesis. Oslo: Lutherstielsen 1957). is also exist in an english translation: e Gi of Communion: Luther’s controversy with Rom on Eucharistic Sacrifice (Translated by Joseph M. Shaw. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House 1964). 117 If we hold (1) that Christ is actually present in the Eucharistic elements, (2) that Christ is offering himself in the heavenly sanctuary, presenting himself on our behalf, (3) that the Church offers her Eucharistic sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving in and through Christ who is presenting himself on our behalf, (4) that the priest, as he presides in the Eucharistic celebration, is acting in persona Christi, (5) that we participate in the ‘heavenly liturgy’ through the Eucharistic celebration, and (6) that the anamnesis, the Eucharistic prayer, the center of which is the institution narrative, is primarily directed towards God, it follows quite coherently that the Eucharist is a sacrifice that is offered unto God in the Eucharistic celebration. As we see in the Apology, Lutherans have traditionally held that the priest acts in persona Christi.723 If we are to reject the belief that Christ is offered up to God in the Eucharistic celebration, we must therefore reject the idea that the liturgy, and in particular the institution narrative, is directed at God. In most Lutheran bodies, the institution narrative is primarily directed at the Church.724 From this it follows that there cannot be any offering of Christ in the Eucharistic celebration. But, as I’ve pointed out above, we need to do some research into liturgy, and how liturgy functions. But it’s important to note that a agreeement with the Catholic view of the Eucharist wouldn’t in and of itself entail a Lutheran-Catholic unity, nor the necessity of a conversion to the Catholic Church. e Eucharist is one of the most important parts of theology, but so is the differences concerning authority, Papal primacy, Purgatory, Mary, etc. Coherence is the key point. If we want doctrinal unity, we must have it in every significant area, not just some of them. In this regard we must model ourselves on the first Christians, as we read about them in Acts 2:42: «And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.»chryschrys With these points allow me to conclude this by quoting a lengthy passage from e Great Exemplar by Jeremy Taylor, one of the Anglican Divines of the 17th century: [Whatsoever] Christ did at the institution, the same he commanded the Church to do, in remembrance and repeated rites; and himself also does the same thing in heaven for us, making perpetual intercession for his church, the body of his redeemed ones, by representing to his Father his death and sacrifice. ere he sits, a High Priest continually, and offers still the same one perfect sacrifice; that is, still represents it as having been once finished and consummate, in order to perpetual and never-failing events. And this, also, his ministers do on earth; they offer up the same sacrifice to God, the sacrifice of the cross, by prayers, 723 724 Apol. VII/VIII (28), cf. Rev. Rodney L. Eberhardt, «e Pastor as In Persona Christi.» Lecture at the Society of the Holy Trinity General Retreat, Sept. 29, 2009. http://bit.ly/S1ZUoN [retrieved Nov. 21, 2012]. LSB 217; Gudstenestebok for Den norske kyrkja, part 2 (Oslo: Verbum 1996), pp.66-81.283-286.290-297.301307; Gudstjeneste for Den norske kirke (Bergen: Eide 2011), pp.2.15-2.18, 2.71-2.81. 118 and a commemorating rite and representment, according to his holy institution. And as all the effects of grace and the titles of glory were purchased for us on the cross, and the actual mysteries of redemption perfected on earth, but are applied to us, and made effectual to single persons and communities of men, by Christ’s intercession in heaven; so also they are promoted by acts of duty and religion here on earth, that we may be ‘workers together with God’, (as St Paul expresses it, 2 Cor. 6: 1) and, in virtue of the eternal and all-sufficient sacrifice, may offer up our prayers and our duty; and by representing that sacrifice, may send up, together with our prayers, an instrument of their graciousness and acceptation. … we ‘celebrate and exhibit the Lord’s death’, in sacrament and symbol; and this is that great express, which, when the church offers to God the Father, it obtains all those blessings which that sacrifice purchased. … As Christ is a priest in heaven for ever, and yet does not sacrifice himself afresh, nor yet without a sacrifice could he be a priest; but, by a daily ministration and intercession, represents his sacrifice to God, and offers himself as sacrificed: so he does upon earth, by the ministry of his servants; he is offered to God, that is, he is, by prayers and the sacrament, represented or ‘offered up to God, as sacrificed’; which, in effect, is a celebration of his death, and the applying it to present and future necessities of the church, as we are capable, by a ministry like to his in heaven. It follows, then, that the celebration of this sacrifice be, in its proportion, an instrument of applying the proper sacrifice to all the purposes which it first designed. It is ministerially, and by application, an instrument propitiatory; it is eucharistical, it is an homage, and an act of adoration; and it is impetratory, and obtains for us, and for the whole church, all the benefits of the sacrifice, which is now celebrated and applied; that is, as this rite is the remembrance and ministerial celebration of Christ’s sacrifice, so it is destined to do honour to God, to express the homage and duty of his servants, to acknowledge his supreme dominion, to give him thanks and worship, to beg pardon, blessings, and supply of all our needs.725 725 e Whole Works of the Right Rev. Jeremy Taylor, Lord Bishop of Down, Connor and Dromore, vol. I of III (London: Bohn 1844), p.308 119 120 6 Bibliography and attachements 6.1 Primary sources 6.1.1 Works by Pannenberg Abbreviated works SysT: Systematic eology. 3 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark (1991, 1994, 1998) Non-abbreviated works Pannenberg, Wolart (2002). «Den hellige skri som Gudsord.» In: Teologi for kirken: Festskri til professor dr.theol. Torleiv Austad på 65-årsdagen, ed. Gunnar Heiene, et.al. Oslo: Verbum, pp.2533 Pannenberg, Wolart (2006). «Ecumenical Tasks in Relationship to the Roman Catholic Church.» Pro Ecclesia 15, pp.161-171 6.1.2 Works by Ratzinger Works marked with * is works by Joseph Ratzinger written aer he was consecrated as Pope. For a list of some of Ratzinger’s important works, see Hahn 2009:9-12. Abbreviated works BXVI: e Essential Pope Benedict XVI: His Central Writings and Speeches. Ed., John F. ornton & Susan B. Varenne. Kindle Edition. HarperCollins e-books 2009. ASIN B0012OYBNA [http://ASIN.cc/30XbMA, retrieved from Amazon.com, Sept. 29, 2012] *DCE: Deus Caritas Est. Encyclical Letter of the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI to the bishops, priests and deacons, men and women religious and the lay faithful on Christian Love. An official pontifical document, 2005 (Joseph Ratzinger). Available online: http://bit.ly/jGjh3 [retrieved from vatican.va, Nov. 21, 2012] D/P: Joseph Ratzinger, Dogma and Preaching: Applying Christian Doctrine to Daily Life. First unabridged edition. Translated by Michael J. Miller and Matthew J. I’Connell. Ed., Michael J. Miller. San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press 2011 Feast: Joseph Ratzinger, e Feast Of Faith: Approaches to a eology of the Liturgy. Translated by Graham Harrison. San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press 1986 GINU: Joseph Ratzinger, God Is Near Us: e Eucharist, the Heart of Life. San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press 2003 *Jesus: Jesus of Nazareth (2 vols.): Ratzinger, Joseph (2008). Jesus of Nazareth, vol. I. Trans. by Adrian J. Walker. London: Doubleday 2007 121 Ratzinger, Joseph (2011). Jesus of Nazareth, vol. II. English translation provided by the Vatican Secretariat of State. San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press 2011 *MD: Munus docendi. General Audience at Saint Peter’s Square, Wednesday, 14 April 2010. An official pontifical adress (Joseph Ratzinger). Available online: http://bit.ly/KQ6ire [retrieved from vatican.va, Nov. 21, 2012] Pilgrim: Joseph Ratzinger, Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith: e Church as Communion, ed. Stephan Otto Horn and Vinzenz Pfnür. Translated by Henry Taylor. San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press 2005 Principles: Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic eology: Building Stones for a Fundamental eology. Translated by Sister Mary Frances, S.N.D. San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press 1987 SofL: Joseph Ratzinger, e Spirit of the Liturgy. San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press 2000 6.2 Secondary sources 6.2.1 Works about Pannenberg Grenz, Stanley J. (2005). Reason for Hope: e Systematic eology of Wolart Pannenberg. Second edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Rise, Svein (1997). Identity and Relevance: e Christology of Wolart Pannenberg. Edwin Mellen Press 6.2.2 Works about Ratzinger Hahn, Scott (2006). «e Authority of Mystery: e Biblical eology of Benedict XVI.» Letter & Spirit: A Journal of Catholic Biblical eology 2, pp.97-140 Hahn, Scott (2009). Covenant and Communion: e Biblical eology of Pope Benedict XVI. Kindle edition (1st. ed). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Brazos Press. ASIN B002U58B0Y [http://ASIN.cc/7w 8mA, retrieved from Amazon.com, March 26, 2010] Hauke, Manfred (2011). «e “Basic Structure” (Grundgestalt) of the Eucharistic Celebration According to Joseph Ratzinger.» Lecture at the 4th Fota International Liturgy Conference, session 1, July 9-11, 2011. Available online: http://bit.ly/QOvVNk [pdf-file, retrieved from scribd.com, Nov. 21, 2012] Rowland, Tracey (2008). Ratzinger’s Faith: e eology of Pope Benedict XVI. Kindle Edition. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, USA. ASIN B006NTL024 [http://ASIN.cc/Jdujef, retrieved from Amazon.com, Aug. 9, 2012] 6.2.3 Other sources Abbreviated works Apol.: e Apology of Confessio Augustana. is is found in the Triglot Concordia, which is available online: http://bookofconcord.org/. 122 BDAG: Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. ird ed. Revised and edited by Frederick William Danker. University Of Chicago Press 2001 BEM: Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (the Lima report). Faith and Order Paper No. 111, 1982. Available online: http://bit.ly/RuDU70 [retrieved from oikoumene.org, Nov. 21, 2012] CA: Confessio Augustana. is is found in the Triglot Concordia, which is available online: http://bookofconcord.org/ [retrieved Nov. 21, 2012] CCC: e Catechism of the Catholic Church. Issued by Pope John Paul II on October 11, 1992, revised 1994. Available online: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/ INDEX.HTM [retrieved Nov. 21, 2012] CD: Christus Dominus. Decree concerning the Pastoral Office of Bishops in the Church proclaimed by His Holiness Pope Paul VI on october 28, 1965. Available online: http://bit.ly/eGJ7Vv [retrieved from vatican.va, Nov. 21, 2012] CIC: Codex Iuris Canonici. e Code of Canon Law in the Catholic Church, 1983. Available online: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/ INDEX.HTM [retrieved from vatican.va, Nov. 21, 2012] CofT: e canons and decrees of the sacred and oecumenical Council of Trent, ed. and trans., J. Waterworth. London: Dolman 1848. Scanned by Hanover College students in 1995. Available online: http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent.html [retrieved Nov. 21, 2012] CP: Confutatio Pontificia. e Roman Catholic Confutation of Confessio Augustana from 1530. Project Gutenberg Etext #851, 1997. Kindle Edition. [http://bit.ly/bpiPnZ, retrieved from manybooks.net, Nov. 21, 2012] DS: Enchiridion symbolorum definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum. Editio XXXIV, ed. Heinrich Denzinger & Adolf Schönmetzer. Freiburg, Basel, Rome & Vienna: Herder 1967 (Denzinger-Schönmetzer) LG: Lumen Gentium. Dogmatic Constitution on the Church solemnly promulgated by His Holiness Pope Paul VI on November 21, 1964. Available online: http://bit.ly/MEkem [retrieved from vatican.va, Nov. 21, 2012] LSB: Lutheran Service Book. Prepared by e Commission on Worship of LCMS. St Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House 2005 MiRo: Messeboken – Missale Romanum. Latin og norsk. Oslo katolsk bispedømme 1961 MassEng: e Order of Mass in Latin and English. New English Translation. London: CTS 2011 PG: Patrologia Graeca, ed., J. Migne. See http://bit.ly/9DZaiX. See http://graeca.patristica.net for the entire volume with a list of content. PL: Patrologia Latina, ed., J. Migne. See http://bit.ly/9DZaiX. See http://latina.patristica.net for the entire volume with a list of content. PO: Presbyterorum Ordinis. Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests promulgated by His Holiness Pope Paul VI on december 7, 1965. Available online: http://bit.ly/2L6aDZ [retrieved from vatican.va, Nov. 21, 2012] 123 RSV: e Ignatius Bible: Revised Standard Version – Second Catholic Edition. San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press 2005 SaCo: Sacrosanctum Concilium. Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy solemnly promulgated by His Holiness Pope Paul VI on december 4, 1963. Available online: http://bit.ly/6SpLB [retrieved from vatican.va, Nov. 21, 2012] Sol. Dec.: e Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord. is is found in the Triglot Concordia, which is available online: http://bookofconcord.org/. SPB I: Svenskt Patristiskt Bibliotek, vol. I: Gudstjänst och kyrkoliv. Ed., Samuel Rubenson & Per Beskow. Skelleeå: Artos 1998 ST: omas Aquinas, Summa eologica. Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Second and Revised Edition, 1920. Online Edition by Kevin Knight 2008. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/ [retrieved Nov. 21, 2012] TRE: eologische Realenzyklopädie. 36 vols. Ed., Gerhard Müller, et.al. Berlin: de Gruyter 1977-2004 WA: Martin Luther, D. Martin Luthers Werke, Weimarer Ausgabe. 120 vols. Weimar 1883-2009 Non-abbreviated works Austad, Torleiv (2008). Tolkning av kristen tro: Metodespørsmål i systematisk teologi. Kristiansand: Høyskoleforlaget Austin, John L. (1975). How To Do ings with Words. e William James Lectures delivered at Harvard University in 1955. Second ed. Ed., J. O. Urmson & Marina Sbisà. Cambridge; MA: Harvard University Press Dix, Gregory (1945). e Shape of the Liturgy. Second ed. august 1945, reprint 1975. London: A&C Black. Eikrem, Asle (2011). «Dogmatikk som samtidsteologi: En kritisk videreutvikling av N.H. Gregersens program.» Dansk teologisk tidsskri 74:2, pp.152-166 Ellingworth, Paul (1993). e Epistle to the Hebrews. e New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Feser, Edward (2009). Aquinas. Oneworld Feser, Edward (2010). e Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism. St. Augustines Press Finigan, Timothy (Fr.) (2008) Sacred and Great. Traditional Liturgy in a Modern Parish. Available online: http://bit.ly/iznN [pdf-file, retrieved Nov. 21, 2012] Fortescue, Adrian (1909). «Epiklesis.» e Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 5. New York, NY: Robert Appleton Company. Available online: http://bit.ly/Piksdg [retrieved from newadvent.org, Nov. 21, 2012] Gese, Hartmut (1981). «e Origin of the Lord’s Supper.» In: Essays on Biblical eology. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, pp.117-140 124 Gravem, Peder (2004). KRL — et fag for alle? KRL-faget som svar på utfordringer i en flerkulturell enhetsskole. Vallset: Oplandske Bokforlag Gray, Tim (2004). «From Jewish Passover to Christian Eucharist: e Todah Sacrifice as Backdrop for the Last Supper.» Catholic for a Reason III: Scripture and the Mystery of the Mass, ed. Scott Hahn & Regis J. Flaherty. Steubenville, OH: Emmaus Road Publishing, pp.65-76 Gregersen, Niels Henrik (2008). «Dogmatik som samtidsteologi.» Dansk teologisk tidsskri 71:4, pp.290310 Gregersen, Niels Henrik (2011). «Samtidsteologiens fokus og horisont.» Dansk teologisk tidsskri 74:2, pp.167-172 Kelly, J.N.D. (1978). Early Christian Doctrines. Revised edition. San Francisco: HarperOne Lindsay, Dennis R. (1997). «Todah and Eucharist: e Celebratio of the Lord’s Supper as a ‘ank Offering’ in the Early Church.» Restoration Quarterly 39, pp.83-100 Norris Clarke, W. (1994). «To Be Is to Be Substance-in-Relation.» In: Explorations in Metaphysics. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, pp.102-122 Novum Testamentum Graece, ed. Eberhard Nestle & Kurt Aland, edition 27. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellscha 1993 Oderberg, David S. (2011). «Essence and Properties.» Erkenntnis 75:1, pp.85-111 Puntel, Lorenz B. (2001). «Truth, Sentential Non-Compositionality, and Ontology.» Synthese 126, pp.221-259 Puntel, Lorenz B. (2008). Structure and Being: A eoretical Framework for a Systematic Philosophy. Translated by Alan White, in collaboration with Lorenz B. Puntel. University Park, PA: e Pennsylvania State University Press Rescher, Nicholas (1973). e Coherence eory of Truth. Oxford: Clarendon Rescher, Nicholas (1985). «Truth as Ideal Coherence.» e Review of Metaphysics 38:4, pp.795-806 Rescher, Nicholas (2001). Philosophical reasoning: A study in the methodology of philosophizing. Oxford: Blackwell Richardson, Cyril C. (1950). «e Eucharistic Sacrifice.» Anglican eological Review 32:1, pp.53-68 Roberts, Alexander & Donaldson, James (ed.) (1995a). Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1. Revised and chronologically arranged, with brief prefaces and occasional notes by A. Cleveland Coxe, D.D. (Org. 1885). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers. Available online: http://bit.ly/QdVDzV [retrieved from ccel.org, Nov. 21, 2012] Roberts, Alexander & Donaldson, James (ed.) (1995b). Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5. Revised and chronologically arranged, with brief prefaces and occasional notes by A. Cleveland Coxe, D.D. (Org. 1886). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers. Available online: http://bit.ly/vmzOs9 [retrieved from ccel.org, Nov. 21, 2012] 125 Sauvage, George (1907). «Berengarius of Tours.» e Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 2. New York, NY: Robert Appleton Company. Available online: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02487a.htm [retrieved Nov. 21, 2012] Schaff, Philip & Wace, Henry (ed.) (1995). Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 11. Second series. (Org. 1894). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers. Available online: http://bit.ly/TxhWRS [retrieved from ccel.org, Nov. 21, 2012] Searle, John R. (1968). «Austin on Locutionary and Illocutionary Acts.» e Philosophical Review 77:4, pp.405-424 Senn, Frank C. (1973). «Martin Luther’s Revision of the Eucharistic Canon in the Formula Missae of 1523.» Concordia eological Monthly 44, pp.101-118 Søvik, Atle Ottesen (2011). e Problem of Evil and the Power of God. Studies in Systematic eology. Leiden/Boston, MA: Brill (Phd thesis, MF 2009) Tahko, Tuomas E. (2012). «In defence of Aristotelian metaphysics.» In: Contemporary Aristotelian Metaphysics, ed. Tuomas E. Tahko. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2012, pp.26-44 (chapter 2) iselton, Anthony C. (2000). e First Epistle to the Corinthians. (e New International Greek Testament Commentary, ed., I. Howard Marshall & Donald A. Hagner.) Carlisle: Paternoster Press Vagaggini, Cyprian (1976). eological Dimensions of the Liturgy. Translated by Leonard J. Doyle and W.A. Jurgens from the fourth italian edition. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press Ware, Kallistos (2002). «is Sacrifice Without Shedding of Blood.» (WK-91-03; WK-91-04) From the lecture series Heaven on Earth: e Inner Meaning of the Divine Liturgy. Springdale, AR: Orthodox Christian Cassettes. See http://www.orthodoxtapes.org/catalog/heaven on earth.html [retrieved Nov. 21, 2012] 6.3 Attachement In the following pages you’ll find my attachement. In the text I refer to it as A1. A1: Kringlebotten, Kjetil (2012). «Some methodological reflections in relation to my master’s thesis.» My term paper in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the course KMA306.2: Masteravhandlingen – plan, etikk og metode. NLA University College, Bergen, spring 2012. (9 pages.) 126 Some methodological reflections in relation to my master’s thesis Term paper in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the course KMA306.2 Kjetil Kringlebotten, NLA University College Bergen, spring 2012 Contents 1 Introduction 2 2 Coherence as a key in research methodologies 2 2.1 Coherence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2.2 Exegetical interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.3 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3 Summary 8 4 Literature 9 1 1 Introduction In this paper I will reflect upon the importance of methodology when writing a thesis. When writing a thesis, you must start out by posing a problem that needs to be faced. In addition to this, you can pose different research questions.1 e problem needs to be identifiable, it needs to be falsifiable and possible to solve. In connection to this, it needs to be contextually realistic, i.e. possible to be solved within the defined timeframe and with the available resources. And last, but not least, the different parts of the problem and the research questions needs to be related to one another, and needs to be coherent and consistent. When the problem is stated, you need to reflect upon how to solve it, i.e. what method you should to utilize.2 Some may find the insistence on method a bit ackward, maybe unimportant, but this insistence on ‘method’ just means that you are making explicit what we ought to do whenever we write a paper, and that you furthermore reflect more on how and why that method is to be used. e main reason to use methods, then, is to solve a problem and to solve it in a way that solves the problems and answers the questions. In the following section I will reflect on my particular approach, which emphasizes coherence. 2 Coherence as a key in research methodologies In this paper I will reflect on the coherentist methodological approach I intend to use in my master’s thesis. Simply put, by this method I will (1) gather data from my figurants under analysis and from other sources; and (2) analyze my individual figurants (based on my data, with emphasis on ‘detecting’ their level of coherence). I will largely follow German-American philosopher Nicholas Rescher, who gives (amongst other things) two important advices: when interpreting a text (1) strive for coherence; and (2) do it exegetically. In the following, I will focus these two points. 2.1 Coherence In Philosophical reasoning, Rescher points out that systematization is essential to our understanding of truth.3 And according to him, there are basically two models of systematization: 1 2 3 Everett/Furseth 2012:112-126 Everett/Furseth 2012:127-144 Rescher 2001:151-196; Rescher 1998:123-125 2 foundationalism4 and coherentism.5 Rescher points out that the mainstream Western model of systematization is foundationalism, an Euclidean model of deductive reasoning in which systematization is basically «to proceed in the manner characteristic of axiomatic systems.»6 is view holds that there exists a certain assymetry or hierarchy between different beliefs. Some beliefs, this theory holds, are basic, while others are nonbasic, resting upon the foundation of basic beliefs and reached by deduction. According to a foundationalist, there really is no alternative between foundationalism and radical skepticism. «Without noninferentially justified beliefs,» Richard Fumerton claims, «it would seem that we would need to complete an infinite number of infinitely long chains of reasoning in order to be justified in believing anything!»7 Rescher points out that essential to foundationalism is the belief that «truth is a structure that must have foundations.»8 He writes: Foundationalism might be caricatured as an essentially feudalistic view of truth: Truths as such are not equal; there are certain dominant “master” truths on which the other subordinate “client” truths are totally dependent.9 In contrast to foundationalism Rescher posits coherentism.10 While foundationalism is ‘feudalistic’ to a certain degree, coherentism is more ‘democratic.’ Coherentism, Rescher points out, is a network model in which there exists no assymetry or hierarchy between different beliefs, but that a certain belief is justified on the basis of how well it coheres with other beliefs. Each belief might be weak in itself, but all beliefs are tied together in a ‘network’ such as a Spider’s web.11 Coherentists also reject the foundationalist assumption that epistemic justification is linear, and substitutes a holistic approach.12 According to Rescher the coherentist inverts the foundationalist approach: Foundationalists begin their epistemological labors with a very small initial collection of absolutely certain truths from which they proceed to work outwards by suitably additive procedures of suplementation to arrive at a wider domain of truth. By contrast, coherentists begin with a very large initial collection of insecure pretenders to truth from which 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Rescher 2001:171-173, cf. Fumerton 2010; Moreland/Craig 2003:112-121 Rescher 2001:173-196, cf. Gravem 2004:343-365; Kvanvig 2011; Moreland/Craig 2003:121-127 Rescher 2001:171, cf. pp.171-173; Fumerton 2010; Moreland/Craig 2003:112-121 Fumerton 2010:I Rescher 2001:178 Rescher 2001:178 Rescher 2001:173-194 Rescher 2001:173 Rescher 2001:151-169 3 they proceed to work inwards by suitably reductive procedures of elimination to arrive at a narrower domain of truth.13 But one important question comes to mind: What is the relationship between coherence and truth in itself? In classic western philosophy, the most common notion of truth is the ‘Correspondence eory of Truth,’ i.e. that an idea is true if it corresponds with reality.14 In e Coherence eory of Truth Rescher made a distinction between coherence (between different data) as a criterion of truth and truth as a concept, i.e. correspondence with reality.15 Later, aer being criticized by Lorenz B. Puntel, he has reformed his view, and defines truth as ‘ideal coherence.’16 Rescher starts by asking if the link between truth and coherence is «too loose.»17 Something might appear coherent, but still be false. But coherence is an essential part of truth. Rescher holds that truth is «optimal coherence with a perfected data base.»18 is has two important characteristics: completeness and adequacy.19 To achive the fullness of truth is practically impossible for us «in actual practice,» and what we need to do is to arrive at «our best available estimate of the real truth.»20 Rescher therefore distinguishes between idealized coherence (that which is both altogether coherent and which corresponds completely with reality) and manifest coherence (that which we accept as true).21 e difference between this view of truth, and the former correspondence theory is that the correspondence theory focuses on the relationship between ideas (and people) on the one hand, and outside reality on the other. What Puntel has pointed out, and Rescher has acknowledged, is that we cannot transcend reality. Our ideas are also part of the ‘outer’ reality to which they should correspond.22 is doesn’t mean that every idea we have is true, but that we must be criticial not just of ourselves, but also of what we observe. e focus is, as always, on how well the different pieces (both our ideas and the things we observe) fit together. But it is important to note that there can be truths with a higher level of certainty in a coherentist theory. Some (for example Christian philosophers J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Rescher 2001:178-179. For Rescher’s arguments for coherentism contra foundationalism, see pp.179-184. David 2009 Rescher 1973:5-9.23-24.154-155.161-167; Gravem 2004:352-353 Rescher 1985 (esp. n.3); Puntel 1978:200-204; Gravem 2004:352-365; Pannenberg 1991:24.52-53 Rescher 1985:795 Rescher 1985:796, cf. 795-802 Rescher 1985:799, cf. Gravem 2004:352-354 Rescher 1985:795, cf. 800-806 Rescher 1985:804, cf. Gravem 2004:353-365, which criticizes Rescher through Puntel. Pannenberg 1991:53 4 hold that a coherentist view (necessarily) ends up with vicious circularity.23 But this assumes that on a coherentist view, no beliefs are certain and are only considered in relation to other beliefs. But that is not necessarily the case. Rescher points out that all beliefs aren’t necessarily equal, and some beliefs may be more ‘foundational’ or certain than others.24 e difference between foundationalism and coherentism is not that the former starts with a few truths, and coherentism starts with none, but that the the truths under consideration is systematized very differently. In foundationalism, basic truths are thought of as foundations upon which other truths can be built. In coherentism, all truths are considered equal, placed within a certain system of beliefs. at does not mean that some truth aren’t more certain than others, but that the relationship between (more or less certain) truths is not like the relationship between ‘foundation’ and ‘structure,’ but more like the relationship between individual threads of a web or individual strings in a braided rope. Some strings may be stronger than others, but they fit together in an even stronger structure. So while some truths are more certain, they are one the same level as other beliefs within a certain system of beliefs. Rescher points out that while the different truth candidates fit togeher somewhat ‘democratically,’ they aren’t necessarily equal, but they are «all more or less plausible.»25 e ideas I will analyze in my thesis (most of which are in need of justification and argumentation) need to be incorporated into a coherent system, especially since this is a thesis in systematic theology. In the case of the Eucharistic Sacrifice (which I intend to write about), you could (methododically) start with certain beliefs, and work form there: the Trinity; the real presence (however construed) of Christ in the consecrated elements; the absolute uniqueness and non-repeatableness of the sacrifice on Calvary, etc. But even though these are (for methododical reasons) established and are used in a thesis as keys of analysis, they (oen) need to be justified. ey are all part of a large network of different threads. e real presence of Christ is based upon exegesis, which is again connected to the authority and divinity of Christ, which is of course connected to the question of God’s existence, etc. In this regard, coherentism is a good approach. It manages to focus not only on particular truths or beliefs, but also on how they ‘fit’ together with other truths or beliefs. As I’ve pointed out above, Rescher contrasts a foundationalist from a coherentist by pointing out that the former starts with a «very small initial collection of absolutely certain truths» and 23 24 25 Moreland/Craig 2003:123-127 Rescher 2001:178 Rescher 2001:178 5 employs an ‘outwards’ and ‘additive’ approach until he arrives «at a wider domain of truth.» e latter, however, starts with a «very large initial collection of insecure pretenders to truth» and employs an ‘inwards’ and ‘reductive’ approach until he arrives «at a narrower domain of truth.»26 2.2 Exegetical interpretation In the following I will reflect on how I intend to read my figurants, utilizing my coherentist method. In chapter 5 of Philosophical reasoning, Rescher argues that the best way to interpret a text is by what he calls an ‘exegetical interpretation.’27 Rescher first constrasts exegesis with deconstruction. He rejects the former as inviable,28 claiming that it basically «denies any prospect of impersonal appropriateness or objectivety in [the interpretation of texts].»29 He also points out that it isn’t actually an interpretational attitude but rather a doctrine, «based on a group of hermeneutical views or contentions.»30 ese are (1) omnitextuality, that everything is text in hermeneutics; (2) plasticity, that there exists a wide variety of interpretations; and (3) equivalency, that every interpretation is essentially as good (or bad or neutral) as any other. In contrast to this, Rescher presents his idea of exegetical interpretation with emphasis on reconstruction and contextuality.31 He posits here four ‘laws’ of textual interpretation:32 1. Contextual Coherence. By this approach, Rescher seeks to shi focus from a «survery of possible interpretations» to an assesment of those interpretations which are actually plausible, and futhermore to «endeavor to decide which (if any) among them is optimal.»33 Rescher articulates what he calls the Principle of Normativity: «e better (the more smoothly and coherently) an interpretation fits a text into its wider context, the better it is as an interpretation.»34 Rescher points out that our «claims or contentions fits better or coheres better with others if they can be coordinated with the least difficulty.»35 Simply put, this theory says that «simpler is better,»36 and the «optimal interpretation» is that which works «with a minimum of cognitive friction.»37 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Rescher 2001:178-179 Rescher 2001:57-76 Rescher 2001:57-60 Rescher 2001:57 Rescher 2001:58 Rescher 2001:60-71 Rescher 2001:71-76, cf. Rescher 1998:122-128 Rescher 2001:71 Rescher 2001:69; Rescher 1998:123 Rescher 2001:72 Rescher 2001:72 Rescher 2001:72 6 I will focus on one part of the web (my topic), and interpret what my figurants write in that immediate context. But context is wide, and I will have to acknowledge that my topic is part of a whole web of ideas. 2. Comprehensiveness. What Rescher means by this is that comprehensiveness helps us decide between plausible interpretations. «e larger we spread the net of context – the more inclusive and extensive our reference to context – the smaller and more definite the range of really plausible interpretational alternatives becomes.»38 As the amount of data that needs to be included increases, the narrower we find the range of plausible, coherent interpretations. 3. Sophistication. Sophistication, Rescher points out, is a result of the 1st and 2nd law. «e more substantial an interpretation – the more extensively attuned to a larger manifold of contexts – the more elaborate and internally ramified it becomes.»39 Even though a single interpretation is simple, the system may be complex, since context is wide. Truth, as Rescher holds, is ideal coherence,40 and it encompasses, or should encompass, (all of) reality. 4. Imperfectability. Here Rescher is simply urging us to be cautious by pointing out that any interpretive act is limited by our ability to process information. We achive this, and must acknowledge that what we can achive is factual coherence (that which we accept as true).41 But that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t strive towards ideal coherence. 2.3 Procedure But this needs to be applied practically. In Structure and Being, Puntel fleshes out what he calls the Idealized Four-Stage Philosophical Method, which is partly inspired by Rescher.42 Inspired by this, with the four ‘laws’ in mind, and with a focus on Puntel’s first and fourth stage, I will utilize a three part comparative coherentist method: 1. Gathering of data from relevant works, and from the spesific figurants. 2. Systematize the relevant works of my figurants, hopefully managing to read them in relation to their whole corpus. 3. Evaluate the respective coherence of the figurants, focusing not only on how well they coher with themselves, but also on how well they coher with each other, and their field at large with focus on adequacy and truth. 38 39 40 41 42 Rescher 2001:73; Rescher 1998:126 Rescher 2001:74; Rescher 1998:126 Rescher 1985; Gravem 2004:352-365; Pannenberg 1991:53 Rescher 1985; Gravem 2004:353-365 Puntel 2008:41-52 7 When it comes to my field of study, I believe that clarifications in this area are of major ecumenical importance. But we need to be careful. Coherence is a criterion of truth. What is true is coherent. But we must always strive to be more coherent. What appears coherent isn’t necessarily true. And truth should be our goal. 3 Summary My approach, simply put, will be to read and systematize works on my topic and on my figurants, always reading them contextually. rough an exegetical reading I will try to find what my figurants believe, how (if at all) their beliefs relate, and how well they fit into the larger intersubjective context of their field. When encountering an idea in my analysis, I must ask: How coherent is the idea I read now, how well does it fit with the overall picture? is does not only apply to my figurants, but equally much to myself. I must always ask myself if my interpretation is coherent, if it «fits a text into its wider context» and is «coordinated with the least difficulty.»43 is must be a humble enterprise, as we cannot reach the full truth ourselves. But that does not mean that we ought not strive for a a larger level of ideal coherence. 43 Rescher 2001:69; Rescher 1998:123 8 4 Literature David, Marian (2009). «e Correspondence eory of Truth.» e Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2009 Edition). Ed. by Edward N. Zalta. Online: http://bit.ly/KQzUrL [Retrieved from plato.stanford.edu, May 17th 2012] Everett, Euris L. & Furseth, Inger (2012). Masteroppgaven: Hvordan begynne – og fullføre. 2. utg. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget Fumerton, Richard (2010). «Foundationalist eories of Epistemic Justification.» e Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2010 Edition). Ed. by Edward N. Zalta. Online: http://bit.ly/IkE8IS [Retrieved from plato.stanford.edu, April 26th 2012] Gravem, Peder (2004). KRL — et fag for alle? KRL-faget som svar på utfordringer i en flerkulturell enhetsskole. Vallset: Oplandske Bokforlag Kvanvig, Jonathan (2011). «Coherentist eories of Epistemic Justification.» e Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2011 Edition). Ed. by Edward N. Zalta. Online: http://bit.ly/IccmMh [Retrieved from plato.stanford.edu, April 26th 2012] Moreland, J.P. & Craig, William Lane (2003). Philosophical foundations for a Christian Worldview. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press Pannenberg, Wolart (1991). Systematic eology, volume 1. Edinburgh: T&T Clark Puntel, Lorenz B. (1978). Wahrheitstheorien in der neueren Philosophie. Eine kritisch-systematische Darstellung. Erträge der Forschung, band 83. Darmstadt: Wissenschaliche Buchgesellscha Puntel, Lorenz B. (2008). Structure and Being: A eoretical Framework for a Systematic Philosophy. Translated by Alan White, in collaboration with Lorenz B. Puntel. University Park, PA: e Pennsylvania State University Press Rescher, Nicholas (1973). e Coherence eory of Truth. Oxford: Clarendon Rescher, Nicholas (1985). «Truth as Ideal Coherence.» e Review of Metaphysics 38:4, pp.795-806 Rescher, Nicholas (1998). «e Interpretation of Philosophical Texts.» Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 72, pp.117-129 Rescher, Nicholas (2001). Philosophical reasoning: A study in the methodology of philosophizing. Oxford: Blackwell 9