Curtis- 2several chalices and a flagon are used is immaterial to the validity of the Supper (i.e. to stayingwithin the Lord's Institution). Our Lord's Institution is not done violence by these things becausehis Institution is focused on the
: "This (bread) is my body. . .this (cup of wine) ismy blood." Thus the bread and the wine in the cup
are the elements required to be within theLord's Institution. It is his Supper, his Institution, so he names the elements.This highlights the distinction between the concern for having valid elements and fallinginto a Zwinglian replicationism. Duplicating every detail of the Supper was important for Zwingli precisely because he did not believe in the Real Presence. For him the Supper wasexclusively about remembrance and therefore every detail was important. For the churches of theAugsburg Confession, however, the focus is on the Institution of the Lord's presence under breadand wine. For us the details of wooden dishes, nighttime celebration, etc. are unimportant – thatis, they fall outside the Institution, the command to Do This. But at the same time, because wevalue the Real Presence, adhering to the Lord's Institution, his Promise, is vital to us.II. BREAD AND WINEA. LUTHER'S LEXICAL LAPSE1. THE LUTHER QUOTE THAT STARTED THE SPECULATIONThe point at issue, therefore, is staying within the Lord's Institution. Faith is adhering tothe Lord's Promise, not trying to force new promises upon him that he has not made. He has not promised his bodily and bloodily presence under any other form than that of bread and wine – thus the line separating valid from invalid sacramental matter must be drawn somewhere: preferably where Christ has drawn it.Concerning those suffering from CD, the question becomes the definition of
. Wemight first answer by asking what the Church has always used for the
in the Lord's Supper.The earliest and only evidence we have is wheat bread – leavened in the East and unleavened inthe West. This continues to be the case in all of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxytoday.
Thus, the burden of proof falls on those who claim that something other than wheat breadqualifies as
.One such person is F. Pieper, who argues that this element in the Supper can be fulfilled by "rye, wheat, barley, or oatbread. . .as long as it is baked from water and the flour of somegrrain."
In this Pieper is following Walther
, who was following Baier
, who does not quote anyLutheran dogmatician in his favor but undoubtedly had in mind this statement from Luther.
As Luther pointed out, that Christ says the “cup” is his blood is an obvious synecdoche for the
the cup.See Luther's
Confession Concerning Christ's Supper
(1528) LW 37.330.
“The bread used in the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharistic Sacrifice must be unleavened, purely of wheat,and recently made so that there is no danger of decomposition. It follows therefore that bread made from another substance, even if it is grain, or if it is mixed with another substance different from wheat to such an extent that itwould not commonly be considered wheat bread, does not constitute valid matter[.]” Vatican, Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacrament,
This is merely the mostrecent restatement of the Church's understanding of
, which predates the Reformation and is common to thewhole church, East and West (see below for quotations from the Council of Florence of 1439). This has beenconsistently and clearly upheld since the time of Florence through Paul V's
of 1572, the 1917
Codex Iuris Canonici
can. 815, and finally the 1983
Code of Canon Law
, can. 924 §2.
Christian Dogmatics, vol. III.
(St. Louis: CPH, 1953) 353-354.