RE: Filosofien og løyndomen

Ei stund tilbake skreiv eg ein artikkel om motstanden mot bruk av filosofiske omgrep i enkelte protestantiske kretsar. Eg vil no fortsetje litt med nokre ord om nattverdsteologien til Martin Chemnitz. Bjarne Wollan Teigen skriv:

What is significant about the analysis of Chemnitz of the Sacrament of the Eucharist in the Examination is the precise line he draws between the Lutherans and the Romanists. He does not think it is necessary that in debating with them the “whole treatment of the controversy [i.e., the Real Presence] should be repeated here. . . . I am one in confession with those churches which differ from the Sacramentarians” (Ex 2, 223). Yet he devotes about twenty pages to the rejection of transubstantiation. Both he and the Romanists agree that the bread and cup become sacramental by a certain consecration (Ex 2, 225), but he disagrees with them when they “patch human traditions into the Word of God” as in the Canon of the Mass (Ex 2, 230). And when he comes to examine “the cult and veneration to be shown this most holy sacrament, “he is willing to say that” a number of things are not in controversy; these I willingly concede” (Ex 2, 277). And yet there are several points on which he must disagree with them (Ex 2, 279). The common-sense clear writing of Chemnitz is a healthy antidote against the excesses of some simplistic high-church liturgically minded as well as against the excesses of the anti-liturgically minded.[1]

Problemet eg har med dette, er todelt. For det fyrste gjev det ikkje noko meining å fyrst seie at det skjer noko gjennom konsekrasjon (“…the bread and cup become sacramental by a certain consecration…”) og samstundes påstå at ingenting skjer. Som eg påpeika i den fyrste artikkelen, så handlar ikkje Den katolske kyrkja sin nattverdsfilosofi om at løyndomen, mysteriet, skal uttømmast, men at ein skal finne ei ramme for den, for slik å beskytte frå kjetteri. På same måte som det er med lære om treeininga og inkarnasjonen. Og dette tar meg vidare til neste punkt.

Chemnitz skriv at katolikkane “patch human traditions into the Word of God.” Ja, og det same skjedde i år 325 når kyrkja stadfesta at Kristus er vesensett med Faderen. Her brukte eit platonsk omgrep for å ‘forklare’ Kristi natur. Kvifor forkastar ikkje Chemnitz dette også? Er Platon guddomleg, kanskje?

Noter:

[1] Teigen: 1986: 4

Referansar:

Teigen, Bjarne Wollan (1986) The Lord’s Supper in the Theology of Martin Chemnitz. Brewster, Mass.: Trinity Lutheran Press. (Lenke til pdf-fil)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s