Q. What did Martin Luther believe about the Body and Blood of Christ in the bread and wine?
A. Martin Luther believed in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. He became indignant when groups, who had followed him out of the Catholic Church, rejected the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. He deplored the fact that every milkmaid and farmhand thought they could interpret scripture correctly. Here he is in his own words.
Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.
Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.”
–Luther’s Collected Works, Wittenburg Edition, no. 7 p, 391
Filed under: Death, Eucharist, Marthin Luther, The Church
One could say the same thing about “Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away” (Acts22:16) or “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.” (Acts2:37-41) or “baptism now saves you” (1Pet3:21). Regenerative baptism certainly had every bit as much support from the Fathers of the Church -and from Luther- and has even MORE biblical support that the Eucharist, which is hardly lacking in it.
So TRUE
That’s deep
I liked the message Martin Luther has left us..
John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
How can we avoid all of John 6 here and its conclusion?
I am sorry, but you are taking john 6 outta of context. This flesh he is referring to here is not speaking of The Lord’s Body, but rather human Flesh. Later in john, he is very dogmatic about “eating the son of man’s flesh and blood, so much so that he let some of his disciples walk away.
Better translation of Jn 6:63: the Spirit is making alive; the flesh isn’t benefiting any one. The words, which I have spoken to you, are both spirit and life.
In context this is a reply to “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” Thus Jesus explains that it is the Spirit in HIs flesh and not merely the flesh that is live giving. Then He tells them all He spoke to them about eating My flesh and drinking My blood is both life giving and a way of life.
Martin Luther believe in the real presence. However, he believe in consubstantiation rather than transubstantiation. This means that rather than believing that the bread and wine undergo and change of substance to become Jesus, he believed that the host and the cup were both bread and Jesus, both wine and Jesus. Besides this, Zwingli believed in a symbolic presence. Of Zwingli’s Eucharistic theology, Luther said, “I’d rather drink blood with the pope than wine with Zwingli.”
And we all know how Luther felt about the pope.
Consubstantiation, like transubstantiation, is an attempt to explain HOW Christ’s body and blood are present in the sacrament. Neither Luther nor the Lutheran Church have taught consubstantiation because neither Luther nor the Lutheran Church have fallen into the trap of attempting to explain HOW the Real Presence takes place. Luther and the Lutheran Church have simply taught the FACT of the Real Presence based on scripture without any attempt to explain HOW it happens. Consubstantiation is NOT a Lutheran teaching.
David, you are right about consubstantiation not being a lutheran teaching.
That’s a cop-out. The fact is Lutheran theology is clear that after the words of Our Lord are spoken at the altar at a Lutheran Service, both the bread and wine with The Presence of Jesus Christ remain. To believe or say otherwise is to refute Martin Luther’s words about this analogy himself:
“the iron put into the fire whereby both fire and iron are united in the red-hot iron and yet each continues unchanged”. Note Luthers words.. “Yet Each Continues UNCHANGED”. This is exactly Martin Luther’s quotation of what occurs after the words from The Gospel are said.
The latest? Your right about that. Protestantism always keeps evolving. They are all afraid of explaining wha exactly they believe because they know it tears at the fabric of that befief so they just resort to “the bible says”…which is goofy because what the bible says has nothing to do with Protestant Reformers and what they actually said on record.
He believed in CONSUBSTANTIATION. That is the analogy he himself taught concerning The Eucharist: “the iron put into the fire whereby both fire and iron are united in the red-hot iron and yet each continues unchanged”.
If that doesn’t spell out CONSUBSTANTIATION, what does? lol..
Actually, I believe the latest Lutheran teaching is “If you believe it’s Christ, then it is. If you believe it is just a symbol, then that’s what it is.” Interesting how everything gets changed over time except in the Catholic church when it comes to important things like sacraments. Kevin you are right that transubstantiation is an attempt to explain the mystery of Christ in the Eucharist. It simply means that although to our senses the bread is bread and the wine is wine, it really is the Body and Blood of Christ. It is just applying a name to a truth. The Catholic church does this in a lot of the teachings of the Church. As far as what Luther thought of the Eucharist, even if he did believe the same as Catholics, is only important in that maybe that is why everyone should be Catholic? Especially now, since a lot of the stuff that Luther wasn’t willing to wait for (changes in the Catholic church) being changed are not good arguments any longer.
All Catholics should recognize the error in this question at first glance.
Q. What did Martin Luther believe about the Body and Blood of Christ in the bread and wine?
Catholics know Christ’s body and blood are not in the bread and wine. After valid consecration there is no wine or bread present, to say otherwise is a false doctrine and heresy. This question should be reworded so not to harm some less schooled or weak in faith Catholic. For clarity it should read;
Q. What did Martin Luther believe about the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ in the Eucharist?
In response to Joseph Bellington, wow my friend, You need to go back and search scripture, epsecially 1 Cor 11: 27-29 where Paul speaks of the real Presence of the Eucharist, and those who eat it in sin make a judgment upon themselves…if its not his body they why would we be symbolically eating a judgment upon ourselves. Also John Ch. 6….Classic…Jesus says at least 3 times…this is my “BODY”..he does not say…Um this is a symbol of my body …..also his Disciples leave him after this happens….he dosnt stop them. He also says to his Twelve “will you leave me too”? Never does he retort and say..ok now that they are gone I was only being symbolic. read up my friend and learn the scriptures, dont try to re-invent the wheel. The early Church Fathers already figured this out for us, we are no where near as smart as them and no where near as holy. So lets try to learn from them instead of twist thier words to suit our modern day egos and agendas. By leading others astray you will be liable. God Bless
LOve your enemy , you might even have to die for them for you to get into hevean