Lehmann, Volume 36: Word and Sacrament II (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971) 18. 3 Martin Luther, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, in Luther’s Works, general editor Helmut T. In order to demonstrate that faith in Christ is the sole sacrament for Luther, it is necessary to begin with a 1 Catechism of the Catholic Church (hereafter as CCC), 1116. At the beginning of his work The Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520), Martin Luther outlines the existence of three sacraments: “baptism, penance, and the bread.”3 While Luther refers to Baptism, Penance, and the Eucharist as sacraments, in light of his writings it would be more accurate to describe them as rites that are outward signs of the one sacrament: the believer’s act of faith in Christ. While the sacraments play a significant role in the theology of Martin Luther (1483–1546), it is clear that his understanding of sacramental efficacy is substantially different from the doctrine of the Catholic Church. At the same time, the efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice for humanity depends upon the mystery of the Incarnation. The Church teaches that the sacraments draw their efficacy from the causality of Christ’s Passion and Death. ![]() And all these are signified by the sacraments.”2 Sacraments are efficacious signs of God’s grace that Christ himself instituted. ![]() In which three things may be considered: the very cause of our sanctification, which is Christ’s Passion the form of our sanctification, which is grace and the virtues, and the ultimate end of our sanctification, which is eternal life. The Nominalist Justification for Luther’s Sacramental Theology Roland Millare The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes the sacraments as “‘powers that come forth’ from the Body of Christ, which is ever-living and life-giving.”1 According to Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), a sacrament is “that which is ordained to signify our sanctification. It’s all fractured.In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content: ![]() And if there is no participation there is no such thing as “being in communion”. In fact, in one is not a realist, then one cannot believe in true participation in any metaphysical sense. If one rejects communal consensus, then one cannot truly believe in ecclesial authority, because the church is necessarily common. Whether it be Ockham’s razor, Luther’s faith alone, or Hobbes’ absolute statism each nominalist “solution” rejects communal consensus. It drives one to sacrifice balance for an extreme position. My suspicion is that nominalism creates an epistemology of angst. Is this a coincidence or does nominalist thinking lead its adherents to shake off the shackles of ecclesial authority? Is this a historical accident or is there a true connection? Here’s the question that I have been pondering. Thomas Hobbes sought to undermine papal authority by placing ecclesial authority in the arms of the state (see Book IV of Leviathan for details). Thomas Hobbes was a philosophical nominalist. Martin Luther sought to undermine papal authority by appealing to the princes of Germany. Martin Luther was a philosophical nominalist. William of Ockham sought to undermine papal authority through his dealings with the Holy Roman Emperor Louis IV of Bavaria. William of Ockham was a philosophical nominalist.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |