More on Zwingli and the Lord’s Supper

An earlier post considered the stimulating article of Peter Opitz that considered Zwingli’s liturgy for the Lord’s Supper, Aktion und Brauch des Nachtmals, that Zwingli prepared in 1525. This work represents a the climax of a growing understanding of the Lord’s Supper since the moment Zwingli considered Scripture freed from the traditions of the Roman church.

We know, for example (as referred to in an earlier post) that the 18th of his Sixty Seven Theses (developed for the First Zurich Disputation of 1523) declares:

“That Christ, having sacrificed himself once, is to eternity a certain and valid sacrifice for the sins of the faithful, wherefrom it follows that the mass is not a sacrifice, but is a remembrance of the sacrifice and assurance of the salvation which Christ has given us.”

Clearly, by 1523 Zwingli opposed the Roman view of the mass being a resacrifice of Christ. It also appears that in this same year that he began to reject transubstantiation. This may be deduced from a letter written 15 June 1523 to his former tutor at Basel, Thomas Wittenbach, who was then living at Biel. Zwingli wrote: “Just as you can dip someone a thousand times in the water of baptism but if he has no faith it is in vain, so too, I think, the bread and the wine remain unchanged to the unbeliever.”

The following is the footnote from G.R. Potter, Zwingli (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976) pp150,151:

“‘Ego haud aliter hic panem et vinum esse puto, quam aqua est in baptismo, in qua frustra millies etiam ablues eum, qui non credit.’ This long and important letter was not intended to be a full discussion of the subject but an indication of the way Zwingli’s thoughts were moving. He does however indicate clearly that it is the faith of the recipient that is effective and alone matters. It is unprofitable to enquire how it works for the believer: ‘quicquid hic agitur, divina virtute fieri, modum autem nobis penitus ignotum, quo deus illabatur animę, neque curiosos esse in hac re oportere, quam soli fideles sentiant.’ It is apparent that it was the problem of the veneration paid to objects, to images and statues, which was the urgent issue at the moment. This forced a consideration of the veneration of the reserved sacrament, and hurriedly and without any full argument Zwingli comes out against this practice. For him the believer received the body and blood of Christ at the time of reception, but there was not opus operatum irrespective of any faith, and the bread, after consecration and apart from the commemorative act of the Last Supper, remained plain bread and could not be adored without idolatry.”