Kjetil Kringlebotten
«Do this in remembrance of me…»
e sacrificial aspect of the Eucharist in the systematic
theology of Wolart 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 gis
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 Wolart 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
Wolart 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 Wolart 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.
Aer 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 gis 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 gis 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 gis 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 gis 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 aer 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 gis 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 oen, 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 gis (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, aerward 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 gis 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 Aer 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, aer 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 lis 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 gis 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 gis 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 aer 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 oen 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 gis, 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 oen 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 gis 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 Aristotelianomistic 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 aer 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
Wolart 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 aer 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 gis 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 oen 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 gis 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 oen 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 gis 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 gis 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 gis).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 oen 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 gis
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, aer supper, saying, «is cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as oen
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 oen 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 oen 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 oen 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 oen 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 oen 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 gis, in bread and wine. is is reflected in the Church’s liturgy, in the offertory, where the
Church gives herself to God in the gis, in bread and wine, and sometimes also in other gis
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 gis, 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 gis). 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 gis). 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 gis. 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 gis.600 On the traditional Lutheran view, as it’s reflected
in Lutheran liturgy, Christ is distributed to the people in the gis.601
Fourth, the gis 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 innstiingsorda?» (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, Vedkjenningsskriene 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 gis 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 gis 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 gis).»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 ‘soened’ 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 gis,
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 gis. 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 aerlife
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 gis; 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 gis 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 gis.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 fih 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 gis 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, liing 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 oen 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 fih 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 gis 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 gis 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 Wolart
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: Lutherstielsen 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, Wolart (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, Wolart (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 aer 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 Wolart Pannenberg. Second
edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans
Rise, Svein (1997). Identity and Relevance: e Christology of Wolart 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.
Skelleeå: 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,
aer 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 (oen) 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, Wolart (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: Wissenschaliche 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