The Dialogue Between Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther on Sacramentology, Research Paper Example

General Introduction

Any attempt to bring Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther together on the same dialogue table is clearly an unprecedented move in the annals of    conventional theological dialogue because of a number of reasons that will be explicitly discussed as this essay advances. Having said so, it is also worth acknowledging that once upon a time it would have been unimaginable to link any of these two characters in any way whatsoever.

The available evidence indicates that until recently, the over five hundred years of bickering and contention as to who is a legitimate custodian of absolute truth run drove an irreconcilable wedge between followers of both great thinkers. Like many observers this author aligns with the widely held view that there is a tidal wave mounting on the horizon that has no place for obsolete doctrinal acrimony (Baglow 2002, Pp. 67-87)

In its place is a new dawn of scholarship built on interconfessional dialogue in our quest to understand what constitutes “the truth” and what does not. It is against this background that the late Pope John Paul is on record to have advocated for deeper interconfessional exchanges, particularly sanctioning the need for the Catholic faithful to extend a hand of openings to look at what Lutheran sacraments stand for, much in the same way as Lutheran followers have always had a cordial approach to the core teachings of Thomas Aquinas (Baglow, 2002, Pp 87-93).

Of course the skeptics such as McGraith (1988) have reasons to say that, towing such a line is easier said than done. Without underestimate the enormity of the task ahead in view of the years of entrenchment the prospects sounds somewhat promising. A number of indicators poignantly point to this emerging discourse; prominently among them include the step towards the acknowledgement by the Catholic church that Thomas Aquinas is by many standards a theologian, an issue that remained contentious for many years, though superficially there seems to be inadequate basis to doubt his theological inclination. Prior to this recent holding, many interpretive scholars had reasons to believe that Thomas Aquinas was more suited as metaphysician than a theologian in the most absolute sense (Aquinas 1948).

This acknowledgement by itself gives this essay a significant boost given the fact that it takes away a major hurdle that could potential defeat the merit of making a theologically centered comparative analysis of what Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther both stood for in their respective teachings. A new dawn in the body of theological knowledge owes its success to the depths of this feat—effectively putting Thomas Aquinas to his rightful place within the corridors of interpretive theology and thus consequently serving as an impetus that drives the defining framework of this current study.

Sacramentology at a Closer View

By many authoritative accounts, the day of Pentecost marks the advent of the Christian church (Reference). The coming of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost did indeed provide the foundational precepts of the Church and the place it devotes to sacramentology as a whole. There is an apparent sense of synergy that comes with the different Christian institutions and thinkers about what a sacrament is. For instance reference from the Concise Dictionary of Religion cites the Roman Catholic Church as describing a sacrament as “a rite in which God is uniquely active.”[1] Careless (2003, Pp 24) also citing references from the Anglican Book of Common Prayer defines a sacrament as “an outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible Grace.”

In the light of both definitions provided above, it is not farfetched to settle on the fact that essentially a sacrament is a “rite,” inasmuch as it also carries “religious symbolic” connotations. The perceived or real impact of this symbolic rite upon the individual or groups who participate in it turn to be a reflection of a fulfillment of a spiritual identification. By another stroke, sacraments as put forward by Bennet (2008) are rites that physically represent the bestowment of sanctifying grace upon the believer.[2]

The latter definition offered by David Bennet does not have a universal appeal because of the divergence in opinions regarding which specific physical acts fall within this category of acts of sacraments makes his definition somewhat contentious.

With the foregoing background, suffice to state the main physical and external acts considered to be sacramental, listed chronologically. They are:

• Baptism;
• Eucharist;
• Reconciliation;
• Confirmation;
• Marriage;
• Holy Orders;
• Anointing of the sick.

Being the first of the list of sacraments, baptism traces its origin to the episode of John the Baptist’s immersion of Jesus in the Jordan River and all the other symbolic gestures that are recorded in the gospels of the New Testament. The Church being the body of Jesus Christ chose to adopt baptism as a ritual that is intricately contained in the entire package of salvation. Baptism is therefore the first primary step required for salvation of the soul of a man, explaining why infants are baptized as a spiritual initiation by parents unto salvation.

Among others, pioneering thinkers like Augustine who held an overly pessimistic view of humanity with regards to sin, highly recommends infant baptism as a tentative initiation of salvation and the safeguarding of it thereof (Marie Dominque 2002, Pp. 67).

Similarly, the Eucharist like the sacrament of baptism owes its practice to the final Passover meal that Jesus shared with his disciples in the upper room as also recorded in the gospels of the apostles of Jesus Christ in the New Testament. The Church in obedience to Jesus’ instructions when he said, “eat my body and drink my blood” as a commemorative ritual of the redemption message is the basis of the ritual of the communion, with the bread and wine serving as the physical symbols of his body and blood. The sacrament of the Eucharist is carried out regularly in remembrance of Jesus Christ and the presence of his deity amongst believers.

The third sacrament of reconciliation listed above is attributed to the power Jesus bestowed on his disciples the mandate to forgive sins because he Jesus did himself forgive sins of sinners. The Church has therefore assumed the full scope of implementing this command through the right of the clergy to listen to confessions, forgive sins and apply commensurate penances to the sinner. Confirmation as a sacrament is administered to believers within the age bracket considered to have the capacity of consent and the ritual is carried out once in the lifetime of the believer as a means of settling the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer.

By his acceptance to attend the marriage ceremony in Canaan, church leaders equate that to the importance Jesus attached to marriage and consequently endorse the institution of marriage is an important sacrament. The appointment of clergies is conducted and guided by the sacrament of the holy orders. By commanding his disciples to forgive the sins of sinners, the holy orders take association with the same depth of authority given by Jesus Christ. The last rites are the sacraments the church offers to the sick, especially terminally ill people as an initiation of passage.

Sacraments and Its Contending Views

For the most part, Martin Luther is known to have expressed his disagreement about some of the sacraments listed in the previous section (White 1989, Pp. 17). Notably among Luther’s trouble areas has to do with confirmation as a sacramental rite, because he argues that it does not have any biblical proof to warrant its practice. The sacrament of the anointing of the sick, in many ways like the sacrament of confirmation is seen as among a series of physical church rituals bequeathed to it by traditions of the church Fathers, which inherently does not offer anything near the offer of salvation. Some critics however hold the view that by writing and publishing the Small Catechism for children, Luther was by his actions endorsing confirmation because the contents of the book are a liturgical preparation for a future confirmation process by a minister of the gospel (Claybonrne & Atal 1994, Pp. 78).

Shifting attention to the penance as a package of the sacrament of reconciliation, the individual sinner was expected hitherto to the reformation to carry along a visible sign of wrongdoing as part of an extension of communal recognition of the state of sinfulness of the individual. Increasing discontent with the practice eventually resulted in the introduction of indulgence as a replacement for the former. Liberalism in the sense of Luther spearheading the truth about justification through individual accountability and reception emerged as counter to the sacrament of reconciliation.

In contrast to the Luther stance, Thomas Aquinas saw the Roman Catholic Church as a divine agent mandated through messianic prophecy to be the Messianic Kingdom. With this prophetic command comes the task of ruling the faithful under the one true God manifested through his prophets in the days of old and Jesus Christ representing the moral authoritative force of this kingdom (Martin Luther 1996, Pp. 47). Luther still maintains that, the faithful submitted to the will of Jesus Christ as an act of open choice devoid of human ritualistic sentiments. In other words, it sought to place premium on the freedom that comes with God’s grace perfected in Jesus Christ.

Luther’s view of Grace unlike Aquinas’ lies in viewing God manifesting his deity in human form to atone for the sins of man as a fulfillment of the biblical first covenant of restoration and fellowship. It is this act of divine acceptance that spells out God’s provision of salvation guaranteed in grace. The difference here lies in Luther reducing the role of the church in the entire process of salvation for man, which differs in the Aquinas firm stance on the procedure and institutionalism in attaining the fullness of salvation.  Althaus (1966) does not find Thomas Aquinas’ stance very surprising, taking cognizance of the fact that Aquinas for the most part built his theology on the foundation of an Aristotelian principles of physics.

Looking at Thomas Aquinas and his legacies cannot be treated in isolation to the striking link that mutually flowed in his theological and philosophical instincts at all levels. In both instances, he pioneered great scholarly works with the most renowned ones being the place he occupies in the development of the so-called natural theology as well as the Thomistic scholastic views of philosophy and theology attributed to him. At the core of most of the contemporary scopes of theology that makes the rounds in conventional theological teachings have varying degrees of traces to the legendary works of Thomas Aquinas even as far as some non-traditional areas such as political theory and natural law (Aquinas, 1948).

The divergence between Luther and Aquinas was further widened by Luther’s insistence on justification in the sight of God, whilst Aquinas contends that beyond grace good works was a requisite complement. Good works as argued by Luther is an offshoot of righteousness and plays almost no role in the sustaining righteousness much less salvation. The promotion and proliferation of symbols and figurative materials were deplored by Luther and his reformation movement; in the same way as Aquinas and Luther stood on opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to the question of what the church is. For the former, the church is a representation of the divine handiwork of Jesus Christ with the goal of achieving the salvation plan. The church is therefore a living institution guided by Jesus Christ and therefore the Catholic Church is the physical presence of Jesus Christ in the world. In other words the Catholic Church is the body of Jesus Christ. Lutherans are more of the view that the communion and fellowship of believers constitute the body of Jesus Christ (McGraith 1988, Pp. 87; Martin Luther, 1996, Pp. 13).

Luther and Aquinas in Contemporary Theology

It will be recalled that both Luther and Thomas Aquinas and their respective legacies were exhaustively discussed in earlier sections of this essay, but what those sections conspicuously could not highlight was on the question of how and where their respective views resonated into the discourse of intercofessional dialogue as they both resolutely lay claim to the custody of the ultimate truth in whatever form it appears. Initiating a dialogue on the platform of Aquinas is further complicated by the absence of a concise vision path that had dogged the legacy of Aquinas for so many years (Garland, 1959, Pp 78). Pundits sensationalized the debate about who Thomas Aquinas indeed was; philosopher or a theologian? With this issue amicably addressed, it is becoming increasingly certain that a cogent way forward is within reasonable grasp.

Dialogue in its apparent form was not alien to the character of Thomas Aquinas given the fact that he remained openly welcoming to dissenting opinions for which reason any attempt to do so today is clearly permissible (Marie Dominque, 1964). Once again both Martin Luther and Thomas Aquinas were passionately devout in their convictions often times without making room for any compromising latitude that will be spacious enough to welcome the other. Deeply embedded in their actions was an underlining insatiable thirst to distill the truth from falsehood mongering.

To agree on the need for dialogue, implicitly implies an acknowledgement of an open difference and being what it is Luther and Aquinas stood on opposing ends when it came to a score of teachings but prominently mentioned are the questions of grace and faith among many other issues that are somewhat remote from the limited scope of this essay. Luther had real difficulty with Thomas Aquinas’ theology of the cross because of several reasons he cited in the “Ninety-Five Theses.” For the most part Luther cautions against the practice of placing a human intuitive tag as the precursor to the knowledge of God’s deity, as he subtly accuses Aquinas of proliferating in his theology of the cross. Any theological source that fails to attribute God’s true deity to God himself is unacceptable according to Luther. God ultimately is the source of any information that reveals his true nature and for this reason God should be the authority of theology, rather than baseless speculation.

Leaving the discourse at that point sounds very premature, because the supporting facts become compromised. How does God become known as Martin Luther calls for? Luther speaks of the cross being the semblance of God’s true revelation wrapped in the paradox of the cross as it epitomizes suffering, incapacity and disgrace. It is in these unpalatable extremes that God’s manifestation is completely expressed (1953, Pp. 29). The cross and all that comes with it, as Luther puts it carries the true nature of God as he reveals his true identity through faith. He identifies with human suffering, neglect and disgrace. Luther was firm in his conviction that the cross is the true revelation of the identity of Christ and for that matter is the source of every theology. The theology of glory which Thomas Aquinas represents is seen by Luther as an illusory because essentially it seeks to make meaning of God using the world view of common sense, logic, virtue and other related empirical connotations.

On the issue of sacraments, Aquinas was consistent in his rhetoric about consolidating it as the rite of passage in the Roman Catholic Church. His reason as indicated is to press on the public acknowledgement of the reigns of a deity. Luther on the hand, though not fundamentally disagreeing with Aquinas, finds Aquinas’ obsession rather very troubling because of the internal inconsistencies his teachings are supposedly wrought with. Sacraments as seen by Thomas Aquinas is a sacred act rightly so because it leads to sanctification or justification if you like (Claybornme & Peter et al 1994, Pp. 26-34). But Luther sees sanctification in grace rather than acts.

As a sacrament, baptism therefore allowed a Christian an unimpeded access to the holy presence of God, consequently making it an indispensable facet in the determination of salvation. In other words, without baptism a Christian forfeits the chance of making it into heaven, according to Thomas Aquinas. Interestingly, in contemporary times it is not uncommon to find some Protestant groups that have accepted both baptism and Eucharist as among the few legitimate sacraments and therefore practice them with the same propensity (Schmenan, 1997, Pp 27).

McGrath (1988 Pp. 124) contends that Lutheran Protestants in some instances do entirely dismiss sacramental theology as a whole even though the acts are contained in their dogma, yet they refuse to place labels on them. Baptism and Eucharist in the view of the Lutheran movements is not an exclusive preserve of the Roman Catholic Church principally because they are specific ordinances left by Jesus Christ and therefore their observation is imperative, regardless of Roman Catholic dogma.

Works Cited

Alister. McGrath. Reformation Thought. third .ed. (Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers 1988)

Aquinas. Commentum in Quatuor Libros Sententiarum Magistri Petri Lombardi (1252-56). In Opera Omnia, Parma edn., vols. 6-7 1/2. New York: Musurgia Publishers, 1948

Baglow, Christopher T. “Modus et Forma”: A New Approach to the Exegesis of Saint Thomas Aquinas with an Application to the “Lectura super Epistolam ad Ephesios” (Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2002)

Claybonrne .C. & Peter Atal. Writings of Martin Luther king. Los Angels: University of California Press, 1994.

Marie Dominique. Understanding St Thomas Aquinas. translated by AM Landry — 1964.

Martin Luther. The Sacraments. Virginia: Solomon d Henkel and BRS, 1953.

Martin Luther, “The Sacraments” ed. The Christian Theology Reader, 3rd edition Malden Blackwell publishing: 1996.

Martin Luther. Three Treatises Paper. Augsburg Fortress Publishers; 2nd edition (November 1990)

Paul, Althaus, The theology of Martin Luther. USA: Fortress Press, 1966

Peter B. Garland. The definition of the sacrament according to Saint Thomas Ottawa: 1959

James F. White, Protestant Worship: Traditions in Transition, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1989, 45;

[1] Accessed from  http://www.ucalgary.ca/~nurelweb/concise/WORDS-S.html on March 19, 2010.

[2] For deeper discussion see David Bennet (2008). Sacraments: Meeting God in Our Own World. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ancient-future.net/sacraments.html