Blog
February
13, 2008
I cannot believe that we have our reading week next week. It seems to me to be too soon, and I know that we will regret it later when we really need the time. This 1520 Treatise is in many ways one of the most difficult that Luther ever wrote, partially, because he was in dialogue with many skilled theologians and not just his own followers and students. Of all the various questions that Luther had about the inherited faith, the questioning of the sacramental system was among the most difficult for someone who had sought to be a good priest and pastor. The sacraments were the cushions of medieval religious life, the bumpers that protected against the wiles of Satan and the powers of hell. They formed a grand religious circle around ordinary life. For ordinary people, they were a source of beauty and mystery that provided a touch of transcendence in the midst of what was often a struggle for existence; for the educated elites, they represented a puzzle and an opportunity for both reflection and meditation. For Luther, who was afte rall pastor, priest, and monk, this was also self-criticism and marked the beginning of the end of a comfortable and successful life.
Kathleen M. Batchelder
CH 1502—Online Seminar
Class #3-- February 14, 2008
Martin Luther’s “The Babylonian
Captivity of the Church”
Martin
Luther’s essay “The Babylonian Captivity of the Church” is a strong defense of
his belief in reducing the number of sacraments. Early in his “Prelude,” Luther suggests (page
132) that “for the present. . .there are but
three: baptism, penance, and the
bread.” By the end of the essay, Luther
has reduced the number to two, removing penance from the list. While he organizes the essay into sections
about six of the sacraments of his own day, Luther holds the essay together
with his title and image of the captivity of the church and effectively brings
the reader to his conclusion supporting only baptism and the bread (Luther’s
designation of the Lord’s Supper) as sacraments.
Luther
begins by clearing the board of human authority in his demand for Scriptural
support of the sacraments. From “the
tyrants of the churches” (page 137) and the “popish flatterers” (page 139) to
the pope (page 142) and Thomas Aquinas (page 145), Luther says theologians and
philosophers (page 151) have misinterpreted the sacraments and their
practice. Luther promotes worship and
sacraments which are available and understandable to all But understanding is not as important to him as the
combination of the sign and the promise.. Luther does not totally separate himself from
association with the priesthood, even though it is clear to the reader that
Luther wants distance from Roman policies.
One place Luther slips from being critic to participant is when he
writes, “What we deplore in this captivity is that nowadays they take every
precaution that no layman should hear these words of Christ, as if they were
too sacred to be delivered to the common people. So mad are we priests that we arrogate to
ourselves alone the so-called words of consecration, to be said secretly, yet
in such a way that they do not profit even us, for we too fail to regard them
as promises or as a testament for the strengthening of the faith. Instead of believing them, we reverence them
with I know not what superstitious and godless fancies” (page 159). This inclusion of his own complicity gives
the reader the sense of prevalent dialogue and debate. Good point.
Luther was after all a professor of theology who was also
Dean of the Faculty, preacher in one of the most
prestigious pulpits, and widely regarded as a rising star.
Luther
discusses the bread, baptism, and penance at length before he moves to shorter
discussions of confirmation, marriage, ordination, and supreme unction. Each section has a building definition of
sacrament as being a
word of divine promise by which faith may be exercised (page 219), a mystery
(page 221). Excellent
eyes.
Luther’s
descriptions are sometimes quite compatible with our contemporary scene. For example, his description of marriage
makes me think of current discussions of marriage and civil unions as
conservatives and liberals debate same-sex unions and tax benefits for all adult
unions. Luther writes, “Furthermore,
since marriage has existed from the beginning of the world and is still found
among unbelievers, there is no reason why it should be called a sacrament of
the New Law and of the church alone” (page 220). I think a news commentator covering
denominational debates, conservative talk shows, and other “church folk” on the
hot topics of society could quote Luther, “That is childish and foolish talk,
by which we expose our ignorance and foolhardiness to the ridicule of unbelievers”
(page 220).
One question
I have to research arises in Luther’s discussion of confession and
penance. He lists the stages of
confession and forgiveness as contrition, confession, and satisfaction (page
209). He writes that the focus needs to
be on God’s truth more than on counting sins and performing required
penance. He agrees that private
confession is a cure for a distressed conscience and suggests that we find
peace in the mercy of God speaking to us through our brother (page 212). My question is whether Luther supported the
practice of confession to a priest or is the “brother” a lay family member or
friend in this context. It could be
a priest, a fellow religious, or any Christian.
For Luther, we can all pronounce the words of absolution.
The title of Luther’s essay is
effectively metaphoric. He compares
images of the exile of ancient Israel in Babylonia (587-538 BCE) with the
alienation between the papacy/church authority and the good of the church. He writes, “For where faith dies and the
word of faith is silent, there works and the prescribing of works immediately
crowd into their place. By them we have
been carried away out of our own land as into a Babylonian captivity” (page
166). Near the end of the essay, Luther
refers to Isaiah’s description (in 5:13) of the exile as a comparison for the
lost integrity of priests (page 249), “What a dreadful word for our age, in
which Christians are swallowed up in so deep an abyss!” When Luther’s image of
a church in exile was published in 1520, he had no inkling of the number of
splinter groups and denominations which would result from the Reformation—maybe
he would have continued this extended metaphor with a “diaspora” following the
exile. At first, Luther may have believed that the church
could be reformed
without schism. After all, everyone was
in favor of reform, at least at some level.
But, as he became aware, he was one of the few that believed that Reform
could only begin theologically—with the Word of God—and that is
inherently an unstable position. As a
late renaissance man and one of the experts in the new media of print, Luther
gave the printed word a solidity that it did not have. He believed that if we
only would make the text available to everyone, everyone could come to a common
understanding of its contents. Alas, experience has taught us that this is not
true. The diversity in denominations is
one sign that was manifest
even in Luther’s day, but we realize today that even the most rigorous
scholarship can and often does
lead to very different opinions about the meaning of the text. I wish that Luther had been right about the power of
print and of dissemination .
Sandy Lucas
Blog #2
Some good stuff here.
Thoughts on “The
Babylonian Captivity of the Church”
It’s impossible to address in any depth all seven sacraments, or so-called sacraments, as Luther so cogently and persuasively presents. As a papist – I use the pejorative word deliberately since it is one of Luther’s favorite words – I found myself unsettled most of the time since, sadly, many of the abuses Luther condemns are still in fashion albeit to a lesser extent. However, the dramatic theological renewal that came out of Vatican II – some 450 years later! – has changed the interpretation and practice of certain sacraments, especially baptism and the anointing of the sick.
Baptism is no longer a sacrament that can be “lost” or
overridden by sin – as it was in the days of Luther. Penance was the “second plank after
shipwreck” (182), according to St. Jerome’s metaphor – an image Luther decries
and debunks. “How pernicious an error it
is to believe that the power of baptism is broken, and the ship dashed to
pieces, because of sin. “ (182) That
belief that gave rise to the system of indulgences and various penances to get
back in God’s good graces, the system that was abused by the Roman Catholic
hierarchy. Even Luther concedes that
Christians can lose their way but, as he so convincingly asserts, one cannot
lose the salvific power of baptism. In the renewal of Vatican II, baptism plays
a more significant role in the sacramental life and its graces are not
lost. Also one’s baptismal vows are
remembered more often, especially during the Easter Vigil liturgy when converts
are baptized (by immersion), although Luther would probably object to the
renewal of one’s vows. This is one
of the most important changes in Catholic practice. The recovery of the period of preparation and
the Easter Vigil represent a real recovery of Patristic Christianity. Of all the renewals of Vatican II, the
recovery of Baptism and of Baptismal promises may be the most significant. In many ways, a similar recovery occurred around
justification by faith and contemporary Lutherans and Catholics have come to an
agreement on this complicated doctrine.
Speaking of vows, I found Luther’s objections to priestly and religious vows the most compelling of all his arguments. It was a “Wow!” moment. When I was denied entrance into religious life because my psychological test indicated I questioned authority (they did not think I’d be able to live the vow of obedience!), I questioned the use of a psychological test but I never questioned the system of vows. And when I’ve challenged religious orders, especially the Jesuits when I attended their seminary, that their vow of poverty was in reality a pretty nice standard of living, I wasn’t questioning the system, just their practice of the vow.
Luther knew, first-hand, the restrictions and difficulties
of a vowed life. As he points out, vows “run
directly counter of the Christian life” because a “Christian is subject to no
law but the law of God.” (200) And – something that had not occurred to me but
is so obvious – “there is no instance in Scripture of such a vow, especially of
lifelong chastity, obedience, or poverty” (201). And as he also points out – the Roman Church
elevates priests, monks and nuns to a higher status than the ordinary layperson
– something that is still entrenched today – the superiority of the religious.
My favorite sentence: “Therefore, I advise no one to enter any religious order
or the priesthood . . . unless he is forearmed with this knowledge and
understands that the works of monks and priests, however holy and arduous they
may be, do not differ one whit in the sight of God from the works of the rustic
laborer in the field or the woman going about her household task, but that all
works are measured before God by faith alone…” (202-203) Powerful words today where the “chain of command”
still lingers – priest, nun, layperson – let alone how radical those words were
then. And it’s no secret that the
numbers joining religious orders dropped dramatically once Vatican II
recognized “the priesthood of the laity,” eliminating some of the special
status of vowed religious life. The system
of vows and the clericalism that goes with it is a major problem still for the
Catholic church and sometimes for Protestants whose new pastors are often “old priests
writ large.” I know that I have struggled with this
clericalism in my soul as well. Ministry is often a job, and it has to be done
well. It is not a calling that protects
from responsibility and accountability.
Gary Cyr
CH1502
“The Babylonian Captivity of the Church”
2/13/08
Amply titled, this treatise mirrors Israel’s experience during its exile in Babylon. Luther emerges as the purveyor of early church tradition in light of the papacy’s and church’s cultural assimilation of worldliness. Appealing, I believe, to the patristic church fathers, Luther presents a case that purges the Roman Church of its ‘cultic’ practices (i.e. sacramental system) that places the laity in bondage to the hierarchy of the church. Laced with scriptural support for his argument, Luther, like a prophet of old, mocks and taunts the Church leadership—pope, bishop, priest, and deacon and their lethargy towards the true role of the ‘ordained’: to care for God’s people.
Luther’s emerging theology of the sacraments is based in his decree of a sacrament being both a sign and promise that requires faith on the believer’s behalf. The primary sacraments that are biblically supported are baptism and the Eucharist. It is to the misuse of these that Luther challenges the church’s doctrine. He willingly aligns himself with Wycliffe and Hus over and against Lombard, Aquainas and the scholastics. He mentions the sophists often, which is a term that I continually find difficult to define and wonder how does it relate to his argument? If I were to summarize Luther’s understanding of a sacrament, the formula would read:
word + sign
promise = God as the principle author; a work of God, not man—“sacraments of
justifying faith”
“Godless monsters of greed and superstition” amply states the misuse of the sacramental system. The mystery of the Eucharist has been taken from the people to the realm of the priest; the whole service, from its Latin language to the priest facing away from the congregation to pay for service masses point to a system that is broken and unbiblical. The church has moved from ‘holy mother’ of Julian of Norwich understanding to a paternal and domineering structure of benefice and profit. The ‘power of the keys’ has become a yoke of burden placed on the back of the common people.
I found it interesting that much of Luther’s argument contains hints of the early church fathers, such as Irenaeus. Luther’s use of the Old Testament foreshadowing Christ and mentioning ‘regeneration’ are plainly Irenaeus. This is a major theme in Christian theology until comparatively recently, and no less a OT teacher than Gerhard von Rad advocated a return to it. And though he is discussed with the scholastics, his phrasing of ‘God could not die unless he became man’ almost mirrors Anselm’s ‘Why God became man’. Even the idea of pence requiring satisfaction before absolution has a hint of Anselm’s satisfaction theory of atonement. Luther seems to be utilizing ad fonts. Luther was a very well trained theologian who read the Bible, the Fathers, and who had taught the scholastics. Almost all of the great themes of Christian thought are found in his work, sometimes advocating one side or another of a historic debate, other times trying to balance competing views.
His humor continues to amuse me, especially his rewriting of the papal bull against heretics, Coena domini, into German as a New Years gift to the pope. What better way to thumb one’s nose at being labeled a heretic. Luther almost seems pleased to be in the company of said individuals. Sarcasm aside, this treatise speaks truly to the abuse of the sacraments as a for-profit system that is based on fear mongering when they should be used for the edification of faith.
Barbara Chodkowski
Email Seminar
Feb 14
Note the reduction in the number of the sacraments from seven to three and finally, when Luther had finished writing, to 2. The relationship to God is now rooted in the promises of Christ and not in the ritual acts.
Considering the fact that Luther is running a few steps ahead of those who would have him tried for heresy, it is amazing that he can continue to grow and develop in the way he does. Going back and reading him now, almost 30 years after my first encounter, I marvel at the capacity of his mind and the quickness of his deduction. He is constantly reworking, adjusting, changing and developing. What I would not give to hear him speak. He openly tells us of his growth and of the inadequacies of his previous thought, and why he held these inadequate thoughts. It is within our reading for today, “The Babylonian Captivity of the Church”, that he acknowledges one of his most significant theological growth periods, and (I am not sure how to read this. Was Luther ever into a theology of the land? Be careful on grace and sin: Luther was always heavily involved in the advocacy of grace and a believer in human sinfulness) a shift from a theology of grace rooted on the relationship between God and humans based on the sinful nature of humans and a focus on how God’s laws tell us how to act to live on earth to gain a land, to a theology that is focused on the authority of Jesus, and how to obtain salvation through Christ. This he argues is through the physical sacramental act in the church, as this is the act coming to Christ. To Luther, the act of receiving the sacrament becomes the sign that corresponds to the grace everyone who comes to Jesus is entitled Note the role of the promise.. Why then, does the church give the grace freely, but withhold part of the sign – the cup? Luther sees the distinction as a way of maintaining priestly privilege.
Somewhere along the way, Jesus became real for Luther – real
meaning concrete. Luther seems to now be
able to reach out and touch Jesus with his faith. The church, not in the form of the corrupt
papacy, but in the form of the church that is built from Jesus’ life and his
New Testament as a result of his death; is made real to Luther by the actual
presence of Christ in its essence.
Christ will come to us and take us from our trials and
tribulations if we give one thing, our trust.
Christ, then, does not give us an outline to follow to somehow
mystically receive God’s Grace, moving closer and closer to God in following
laws and commandments, but instead in the partaking of the actual sign or
physical sacrament, moves us to the second part of the sacrament or the actual
grace (footnote 45, p 137). If the
church believed that everyone received the grace, than
why not the full sign of the grace as described in the gospels as Luther read
them. His argument makes great
sense. Why would someone deny part of a
sign but recognize the actual benefit?
Therefore, it made sense to Luther to give the laity the bread and the
cup as Jesus did and said should happen, rather than just the one. If everyone
who believes deserves to be with and in Christ, than why should they not
partake of Christ?
I was very moved by this treatise. Looking at the mass specifically as the
promise of Christ, sheds new light on the responsibility of sermonizing as well
as the sacraments. While I do not
believe that the failure of modern clergy to ground messages in Christ and the scriptures
is a result of their subversive attempt to keep the truth from the laity, I do
believe that the lack of scriptural focus present in some preaching on all
things human (social, political, assorted personal agendas) without scriptural
base has left many Christians today in much the same ignorant state as if we
had purposely chosen to keep them in ignorance.
You
have an important point. Few of our
laity have much biblical education, and the same is
true of many of our clergy, unfortunately.
You cannot teach what you do not know. If we as the
speakers
of the Word do not speak it, our congregations will not understand the Promise
of Christ. Attending a church becomes
something to do for the heck of it, a place to go during a time slot, perhaps a
place to see friends. I believe that
Luther is right. Christ needs to be
there.
Michael Kasevich
February 14, 2008
The Babylonian captivity of the Church
This read was exciting for me. I
like lists and Luther goes through his lists of what the church should be. He
goes into
great detail his theology and uses his interpretation of the Bbible
as his authority along with his experience.
Choosing a topic this week is difficult because I could talk and compare
Luther with so many issues in today’s church. Therefore I will choose the most
relevant issue in my church in
The question came up about who can receive communion in our Sunday service. In our communion service, I, the licensed Pastor, invite the congregation who are Christian to partake in the Lord’s Supper. I asked our deacons what that actually meant. Does it say that only professing Christians can partake in the Lord’s Supper and receive the bread and juice? They said that at the time of communion the individual person would have to make the decision to share in the invitation of the communion. Therefore, they believe it is up to the individual to make the distinction whether or not to partake.
Luther referrers to Luke 22:20 And
he did the same with the cup after supper, saying, ‘This cup that is poured out
for you is the new covenant in my blood. Matthew 26:27-28 Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks
he gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink from it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which
is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Luther states that in these scriptures there are no distinguishing words
thate would
or could withhold anyone from receiving the sacrament. He writes that the
“blood is given to all those whose sin it was poured out. “ We are all humans
and we all sin, therefore the blood is for all of us. The actions taken at the
Lord’s Supper are in memory of what Jesus did Himself.
Luther does not mix words when talking about the bishops who have gone off the correct path according to Luther’s mindset. He called the tyrants who use the sacraments against the people to gain power and control. If my understanding correct Luther can see that these fallen Bishops, in Luther eyes, can ever re-write the doctrine of the church to reestablish the true church. (pp144) And yet he goes on to explain the accident of Jesus true body and blood in communion as he calls the followers of Thomas Aquinas to there own statement of faith concerning the sacrament of communion. I don’t think that this is quite right. Did you understand the critique of transubstantiation.
Luther admits that he was “drinking in theology” as he is writing the text. It is interesting that this may be taken two ways, was he drinking and doing theology or was he drinking in theology because he was thirsty for knowledge and wisdom? This case is metaphorical
He lets everyone choose his or her own theology pertaining to the sacrament (not really, Luther believes that there are specific teachings in the Bible that have to be followed. The sacraments will divide the Protestant movement into Lutherans, Reformed, and Anglican/; however, he does in his authoritative way tell us what he thinks. When he speaks of transubstantiation, he uses the word monstrous as he describes the churches ideals about this topic.
In my experience with the deacons of my church, transubstantiation is not an issue for us. We do not believe in it. We believe in the symbolic power of the forgiveness of sin. Standard congregational teaching Luther writes, “the mass is a promise of the forgiveness of sin made to us by God.”
Through out this particular writing I can see where Luther has no problem telling people of his authority on the topics from the sacraments to the story of creation as he states on pp.241. Even in his conclusion, he invites people to ask him the correct way he sees the scriptures. CH 1502
Christian Movement
Glenn Miller
February 12, 2008
Please put email address
The Babylonian Captivity of the Church
Martin Luther doesn’t waste any time in this treatise launching into his criticism of the Church. He outlines his basic argument that likens the sacramental system of the church to the Babylonian capture of the Israelites. He starts by offering his opinion that there are really only three biblically sound sacraments, Baptism, Penance and Eucharist, or The Bread. He then expands his argument to refute the authenticity of the seven sacraments, in detail. There is a lot more material here than can be covered in a few pages, so the focus will be on the three captivities of the sacrament.
He starts with a discussion of the practice of offering to the laity only the bread portion of the Eucharist. He refers to biblical references in some detail to outline his philosophy that the practice of the church was without biblical authority. He does so at some length, and is quite scathing in his criticism of the church. He accuses them of denying people their rights – he suggests that only the individual has the right to choose to take only one element. And, in part, he is saying that no one sins by so doing, if they are constrained by authority He also makes this interesting connection between faith and sacrament, asserting that sacramental eating is not sufficient for spiritual health (an assertion he will repeat in many forms, castigating the pomp and circumstance of the church as well as the myriad of traditions designed to save souls but found lacking by Luther). He quotes Augustine here “Why do you make ready your teeth and your stomach? Believe, and you have eaten.” I agree with Luther here. During a long period of semi-Quaker rebellion against even the very abbreviated Baptist system of sacraments, I found great comfort in the fact that the purpose of the sacrament was to convey the biblical truth about death and resurrection and with it, the promise of salvation. Even now, when I am mellower in my opinions, I still struggle with the clericalism implicit in the idea of a sacramental order.
Luther moves on to a discussion of what he calls the first captivity of this sacrament, concerning its substance or completeness. He makes this interesting statement: “These same servants are likewise bound to administer baptism and absolution to everyone who seeks them, because he has a right to them; but if they do not administer them, the seeker has the full merit of his faith, while they will be accused before Christ as wicked servants.” This is a theme that re-emerges repeatedly in Luther’s writing: the individual’s personal relationship with God and Christ ultimately trumps church authority. Perhaps better for Luther, the individual’s faith in Christ. The language of personal relationship is more Wesleyan and Anabaptist.
The second captivity of this sacrament launches a long dissertation by Luther on the nature of the Eucharist. He is debating the issue of transubstantiation and there is a dense and complicated discussion of the various aspects of this theory. He lays out a detailed and well referenced argument that refutes the doctrine of transubstantiation. He employs philosophical arguments that are reminiscent of the early church and earlier philosophers. “What does it matter if philosophy cannot fathom this? The Holy Spirit is greater than Aristotle. Does philosophy fathom there transubstantiation?”
The third captivity of this sacrament is that the mass is a good work and a sacrifice. It is here that he works to strip the church of their conceits regarding their role in the relationship between man and God. He quotes scripture to demonstrate Christ’s simple approach to his last supper, and accuses the church of embellishments that do nothing to add to it. He goes on to accuse the church of significant abuse of their authority, to serve the hierarchy, to retain power, and to contribute to church wealth. It is a scathing accusation and must have rankled many who were within the system.
For a man who works to simplify his approach to Christian living, he certainly manages to say a lot. As one of my friends once put it, simplicity is more expensive than we think. A simpler theology may be, as it often is in the history of the church, more complicated than the alternatives it replaces. He does tend to repeat himself, and it does not seem as though he is holding back much, if anything, of his true feelings. He is skilled at building his arguments, and has apparently studied the available material quite carefully.