The Eucharistic Pamphlets of Andreas Bodenstein Von Karlstadt Habent Sua Fata Libelli
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Eucharistic Pamphlets of Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt Habent sua fata libelli Early Modern Studies Series General Editor Michael Wolfe St. John’s University Editorial Board of Early Modern Studies Elaine Beilin Helen Nader Framingham State College University of Arizona Christopher Celenza Charles G. Nauert Johns Hopkins University University of Missouri, Emeritus Barbara B. Diefendorf Max Reinhart Boston University University of Georgia Paula Findlen Sheryl E. Reiss Stanford University University of Southern California Scott H. Hendrix Robert V. Schnucker Princeton Theological Seminary Truman State University, Emeritus Jane Campbell Hutchison Nicholas Terpstra University of Wisconsin–Madison University of Toronto Mary B. McKinley Margo Todd University of Virginia University of Pennsylvania Raymond A. Mentzer James Tracy University of Iowa University of Minnesota Merry Wiesner-Hanks University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee The BURNETT Eucharistic Pamph lets of Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt NELSON AMY Translated and Edited by Early Modern Studies 6 Truman State University Press Copyright © 2011 Truman State University Press, Kirksville, Missouri USA All rights reserved tsup.truman.edu Cover: Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt, engraving, ca. 1540s, from broadsheet “Rever- endus … Christodan Andreas Botenstein Carolstadius.” [Basel?, 154-]. Image courtesy of Öffentliche Bibliothek der Universität Basel. Cover design: Teresa Wheeler Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Karlstadt, Andreas Rudolff-Bodenstein von, ca. 1480–1541. [Selections. English. 2010] The eucharistic pamphlets of Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt / translated and edited by Amy Nelson Burnett. p. cm. — (Early modern studies series ; 6) English translations from German originals. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-935503-16-3 (alk. paper) 1. Lord’s Supper—Early works to 1800. 2. Sacramentarians—Doctrines—Early works to 1800. 3. Lutheran Church—Controversial literature—Early works to 1800. I. Burnett, Amy Nelson, 1957– II. Title. BV825.3.K37213 2010 264'.36—dc22 2010045562 No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any format by any means without written permission from the publisher. The paper in this publication meets or exceeds the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Mate- rials, ANSI Z39.48–1992. Contents Maps and Illustrations vii Chronology ix Introduction 1 1 On the Recipients, Signs, and Promise of the Holy Sacrament (June 1521) 21 2 On the Adoration and Veneration of the Signs of the New Testament (November 1521) 39 3 On Both Forms in the Holy Mass (November 1521) 49 4 Sermon of Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt Given in Wittenberg on the Reception of the Holy Sacrament (January 1522) 78 5 On the Priesthood and Sacrifice of Christ (December 1523/January 1524) 89 6 Against the Old and New Papistic Masses (October 1524) 110 7 Whether One Can Prove from Holy Scripture That Christ Is in the Sacrament with Body, Blood, and Soul (October 1524) 116 8 Exegesis of This Word of Christ: “This Is My Body, Which Is Given for You. This Is My Blood, Which Is Shed for You,” Luke 22 (October 1524) 144 9 Dialogue, or a Discussion Booklet on the Horrible and Idolatrous Misuse of the Most Worthy Sacrament of Jesus Christ, 1524 (October 1524) 163 10 On the Anti-Christian Abuse of the Lord’s Bread and Cup (October 1524) 205 11 Explanation of 1 Corinthians 10: “The Bread That We Break, Is It Not a Fellowship of the Body of Christ?” Answer of Andreas Karlstadt to Luther’s Book, and How Karlstadt Recants (March 1525) 219 12 On the New and Old Testament. Answer to the Saying, “The cup, the new testament in my blood,” etc., Luke 22; 1 Cor. 11. How Karlstadt Recants. 1525 (April 1525) 238 13 A Declaration of How Karlstadt Regards His Teaching about the Venerable Sacrament et cetera and Wants It to Be Regarded (September 1525) 258 Bibliography 271 About the Author 279 Index 281 Maps and Illustrations Map 1: The Holy Roman Empire in the Sixteenth Century 2 Fig. 1: Title Page of On the Recipients, Signs, and Promise of the Holy Sacrament (Augsburg: Oeglin, 1521). Herzog August Bibliothek, Wolfenbüttel [97.6 Theol. (6)]. 22 Fig. 2: Title Page of On the Recipients, Signs, and Promise of the Holy Sacrament (Augsburg: Otmar, 1521). Herzog August Bibliothek, Wolfenbüttel [96.14 Theol. (11)]. 27 Fig. 3: Title Page of On the Recipients, Signs, and Promise of the Holy Sacrament (Strasbourg: Prüss, 1521). Pitts Theology Library, Candler School of Theology, Emory University, Atlanta GA. 33 Fig. 4: Title page of Karlstadt’s Christmas Sermon (Augsburg: Ramminger, 1524). Herzog August Bibliothek, Wolfenbüttel [127.6 Theol. (7)]. 79 Fig. 5: Title Page of Dialogue, or a Discussion Booklet on the Horrible and Idolatrous Misuse of the Most Worthy Sacrament of Jesus Christ (Bamberg: Erlinger, 1524). Herzog August Bibliothek, Wolfenbüttel [Yv 2178. 8° Helmst]. 164 vii Introduction lthough Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt (1486–1541) played a key role in Athe Reformation debate over the Lord’s Supper, his eucharistic theology has not received the attention it deserves. In fact, in both the sixteenth century and the present, Karlstadt’s views have generally been misrepresented or caricatured by others. Modern histories of the Reformation, if they discuss Karlstadt at all, sum up his understanding of the sacrament by repeating the assertion in the Dia- logue on the Horrible and Idolatrous Misuse of the Most Worthy Sacrament that when Christ said, “This is my body,” he was pointing to himself and not to the bread.1 As Karlstadt’s biographer Hermann Barge pointed out, this claim was not original to Karlstadt, but had been used already by Cathar and Waldensian heretics in the thirteenth century.2 More importantly, the claim that Christ physically pointed to his body was only one of many arguments against Christ’s corporeal presence in the elements made in the Dialogue, and it did not hold a major place in Karlstadt’s understanding of the Lord’s Supper. His surmise about Christ’s gesture can better be understood as growing out of his understanding of the sacrament rather than as the basis for it. Martin Luther directed his criticism at another of Karlstadt’s arguments against Christ’s corporeal presence in the sacrament: his exegesis of Christ’s words instituting the sacrament. According to Karlstadt, Christ’s statement, “Take and eat; this is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me,” fell into three parts, the first and last phrases applying to the bread and the central phrase apply- ing to the body. The pronoun “this” referred not to the bread that was the subject of the first phrase, but to Christ’s body that would be given as a sacrifice for sin, as stated in the second phrase. In his Dialogue, Karlstadt supported this exegesis by referring to the gender of the words “this” and “bread” in the original Greek and to 1 Karlstadt, Dialogue, b4r (p. 175 below); Greengrass, Longman Companion, 231; Lindberg, European Reformations, 140; and Hillerbrand, Division of Christendom, 150. The latter two have published articles with more sensitive presentations of Karlstadt’s eucharistic theology: Lindberg, “Concep- tion of the Eucharist According to Erasmus and Karlstadt,” 79–94; and Hillerbrand, “Andreas Bodenstein of Carlstadt,” 379–98. Euan Cameron more accurately describes Karlstadt’s position as arguing that Christ referred to (rather than pointed to) himself when he said, “This Is my body”; European Reformation, 163–64. Karlstadt’s inference concerning Christ’s gesture appears in English-language treatments of the eucharistic controversy as well; Barclay, Protestant Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, 38; Sasse, This Is My Body, 125; and Heron, Table and Tradition, 116. 2 Barge, Karlstadt, 2:170–71. 1 2 Introduction Map 1. The holy RoMan eMpiRe in The SixTeenTh CenTuRy. DRawn by ChRistopheR laDegard. Introduction 3 the punctuation separating the phrases of Christ’s statement.3 Luther’s mockery of this exegesis, expressed in part 2 of his treatise Against the Heavenly Prophets, would perpetuate the belief that Karlstadt’s rejection of Christ’s bodily presence in the elements was based on a wrongheaded and perverse interpretation of the original Greek.4 y B the mid-sixteenth century, when the eucharistic controversy began anew between Jean Calvin and Joachim Westphal, the memory of Karlstadt’s con- tribution to the debate over the Lord’s Supper would be reduced to his claim con- cerning Christ’s gesture and his exegesis of the words of institution.5 Ulrich Zwingli came closer to understanding Karlstadt’s central conviction that the sacrament was instituted so that Christians would remember Christ’s suffering and death as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. Zwingli’s knowledge of Karlstadt’s position was based not on the Dialogue but on another pamphlet, On the Anti-Christian Abuse of the Lord’s Bread and Cup, where Karlstadt described this function.6 Nevertheless the Zurich reformer preferred the figurative interpretation of the words “this is my body” to that proposed by Karlstadt, and his criticism of Karlstadt’s exegesis has generally been interpreted as a rejection of Karlstadt’s eucharistic theology more broadly.7 This does not mean, however, that Karlstadt had no impact on the debate over the Lord’s Supper. Because Karlstadt developed his understanding of the sac- rament in a series of pamphlets, discussing various aspects in different works, it has until now been extremely difficult to trace the influence of his views. The translations contained in this volume are intended to make Karlstadt’s eucharistic theology better known in both its earlier and its later forms, so that readers can see how Karlstadt’s ideas changed over time and can form their own judgment about his understanding of the Lord’s Supper and its role in the eucharistic controversy.