Luther and the Real Presence

Abstract

By 1523 Luther had thrown overboard the following items in the Roman doctrine of the Lord's Supper or mass: (i) transsubstantiation, (2) the absolute necessity of the priest, (3) the sacrifice of the mass, (4) private and soul masses, (5) the denial of the cup to the participants except the officiating priest. He taught positively, on the other hand, that active faith was necessary for a blessing in partaking, that the Word was greater than the sacrament and alone gave it validity, and that the Word could be received without actual partaking. It is evident from this that Luther's views were open to misunderstanding and objection, and he must either go backward or forward to clear matters up. The Catholic could say: You deny trans-substantiation. Well, how is the of Christ related to the sacrament ? Is it only a spiritual presence, or a bodily one, and, if so, how and where and why ? How do you understand This is my body ? How can you secure the presence of the ? The Protestant could say: You deny the indispensableness of partaking, because faith is the chief thing subjectively and the Word is the chief thing objectively, and faith is not bound to the sacrament but is bound to the Word. Then, why not restore the sacrament to its original position as a memorial meal where faith is stimulated to a spiritual feeding in Christ ? What special blessing is there in the partaking? what special gift in the Supper ? what special function in the presence of the and blood in the sacrament and nowhere else ? What is your religious interest in the doctrine of the Real Presence? What is the connection between partaking of the and blood and the forgiveness of sins ? It may be said, then, that partaking is necessary because we as sinners are subjected all the time to attacks which endanger