Martin Luther view on Mary and the Eucharist, is this true?

[teresa_mrg]

Martin Luther admitted that Mary remained virgin after giving birth to Jesus, and he maintained his view that Christ is present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist.

is this true? i don’t mean to debate or attack protestant brothers and sisters here.
i ask because i found an article about this, and want to know if this is true or not.
because many of my Protestant friends say that Mary was no longer virgin after giving birth to Jesus, and Jesus have biological brothers.

here’s the article i found:
davidmacd.com/catholic/martin_luther_on_mary.htm

please advice…

thanks,
teresa

 

[shelby2014]

You probably wanted Lutherans to respond…

But I just want to say the bit about the Eucharist is consistent with my understanding. Actually, it played a large part of my conversion. Luther believed in the Real Presence but not that the bread and wine transformed but that the Real Presence filled them. When I found this out it really struck my protestant beliefs - not only that protestants do believe in the real presence, but that it seemed Luther was just trying to make up words and twisting theology to be “his own” in order to distance himself from the Roman Catholic church. This may be an unfair reading of what was in his mind, but it is how it came across to me.

 

[pablope]

Martin Luther admitted that Mary remained virgin after giving birth to Jesus, and he maintained his view that Christ is present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist.

is this true? i don’t mean to debate or attack protestant brothers and sisters here.
i ask because i found an article about this, and want to know if this is true or not.
because many of my Protestant friends say that Mary was no longer virgin after giving birth to Jesus, and Jesus have biological brothers.

here’s the article i found:
davidmacd.com/catholic/martin_luther_on_mary.htm

please advice…

thanks,
teresa

Apparently, yes.

Here is another article: (llink: chnetwork.org/journals/mary/martinlutheranddevotiontomary.html)

Martin Luther’s Devotion to Mary (Intro only):

by Dave Armstrong

Despite the radicalism of early Protestantism toward many ancient Catholic “distinctives,” such as the Communion of the Saints, Penance, Purgatory, Infused Justification, the Papacy, the priesthood, sacramental marriage, etc., it may surprise many to discover that Martin Luther was rather conservative in some of his doctrinal views, such as on baptismal regeneration, the Eucharist, and particularly the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Luther indeed was quite devoted to Our Lady, and retained most of the traditional Marian doctrines which were held then and now by the Catholic Church. This is often not well-documented in Protestant biographies of Luther and histories of the 16th century, yet it is undeniably true. It seems to be a natural human tendency for latter-day followers to project back onto the founder of a movement their own prevailing viewpoints.

Since Lutheranism today does not possess a very robust Mariology, it is usually assumed that Luther himself had similar opinions. We shall see, upon consulting the primary sources (i.e., Luther’s own writings), that the historical facts are very different. We shall consider, in turn, Luther’s position on the various aspects of Marian doctrine.

Along with virtually all important Protestant Founders (e.g., Calvin, Zwingli, Cranmer), Luther accepted the traditional belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary (Jesus had no blood brothers), and her status as the Theotokos (Mother of God):

Christ…was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him… "brothers" really means "cousins" here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. (Sermons on John, chapters 1-4, 1537-39).

He, Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb…This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. (Ibid.)

God says…"Mary's Son is My only Son." Thus Mary is the Mother of God. (Ibid.).

God did not derive his divinity from Mary; but it does not follow that it is therefore wrong to say that God was born of Mary, that God is Mary's Son, and that Mary is God's mother…She is the true mother of God and bearer of God…Mary suckled God, rocked God to sleep, prepared broth and soup for God, etc. For God and man are one person, one Christ, one Son, one Jesus, not two Christs…just as your son is not two sons…even though he has two natures, body and soul, the body from you, the soul from God alone. (On the Councils and the Church, 1539).

Probably the most astonishing Marian belief of Luther is his acceptance of Mary’s Immaculate Conception, which wasn’t even definitively proclaimed as dogma by the Catholic Church until 1854. Concerning this question there is some dispute, over the technical aspects of medieval theories of conception and the soul, and whether or not Luther later changed his mind. Even some eminent Lutheran scholars, however, such as Arthur Carl Piepkorn (1907-73) of Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, maintain his unswerving acceptance of the doctrine. Luther’s words follow:

It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God's gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin" (Sermon: "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," 1527).

She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin—something exceedingly great. For God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. (Personal {"Little"} Prayer Book, 1522).

 

[PJM]

=teresa_mrg;7850227]Martin Luther admitted that Mary remained virgin after giving birth to Jesus, and he maintained his view that Christ is present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist.

is this true? i don’t mean to debate or attack protestant brothers and sisters here.
i ask because i found an article about this, and want to know if this is true or not.
because many of my Protestant friends say that Mary was no longer virgin after giving birth to Jesus, and Jesus have biological brothers.

here’s the article i found:
davidmacd.com/catholic/martin_luther_on_mary.htm

please advice…

thanks,
teresa

Yes it’s TRUE. But no-longer held as true by many; including many Luthers. Who also don’t beleive God; the Bible or Christ One Church.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[JonNC]

=teresa_mrg;7850227]Martin Luther admitted that Mary remained virgin after giving birth to Jesus, and he maintained his view that Christ is present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist.

is this true? i don’t mean to debate or attack protestant brothers and sisters here.
i ask because i found an article about this, and want to know if this is true or not.
because many of my Protestant friends say that Mary was no longer virgin after giving birth to Jesus, and Jesus have biological brothers.

here’s the article i found:
davidmacd.com/catholic/martin_luther_on_mary.htm

please advice…

thanks,
teresa

Hi Teresa,
Yes to both, but let’s break it down.

On Mary’s perpetual virginity. He believed she remained a virgin, but did not believe that this belief was an article a faith. The Lutheran Confessions echo this same belief in the Formula of Concord, well after Luther’s death. What he and the Lutheran reformers said, however, was that since scripture is silent on the issue, it should be an article of faith. Therefore, Lutherans are free to accept this belief or not. It is adiaphora.
I personally believe it because it is the historic teaching of the Church, east and west, and the Lutheran Confessions express it within and about the person of Christ, placing the belief as Christicentric. While I am not at liberty to condemn Lutherans who don’t, based on the Confessions, I am often perplexed as why some do not believe it. It does no damage to the centrality of Christ as Savior, or the Gospel.

On the Eucharist, Lutherans and Luther himself believe that the body and blood of Christ are received, in with and under the forms of bread and wine - what we see, taste, and feel. This, however, is not consubstantiation nor impanation. Accordingly, it is not a statement regarding the substances of bread and wine after consecration, simply because Christ makes no such statement. He simply says, “this is my body”, “this is the covenant in my blood”. And that is what we believe. The disposition of the substances of bread and wine are as God wills it to be.

And there seems to be growing convergence that, while we espress His presence differently, these expressions are not necessarily different.

48.Catholic and Lutheran Christians together confess the real and true presence of the Lord in the Eucharist. There are differences, however, in theological statements on the mode and therefore duration of the real presence.

49.In order to confess the reality of the eucharistic presence without reserve the Catholic Church teaches that "Christ whole and entire"34 becomes present through the transformation of the whole substance of the bread and the wine into the substance of the body and blood of Christ while the empirically accessible appearances of bread and wine (accidentia) continue to exist unchanged. This “wonderful and singular change” is “most aptly” called transsubstantiation by the Catholic Church.35 This terminology has widely been considered by Lutherans as an attempt rationalistically to explain the mystery of Christ’s presence in the sacrament; further, many suppose also that in this approach the present Lord is not seen as a person and naturalistic misunderstandings become easy.

50.The Lutherans have given expression to the reality of the Eucharistic presence by speaking of presence of Christ’s body and blood in, with and under bread and wine�but not of transsubstantiation. Here they see real analogy to the Lord’s incarnation: as God and man become one in Jesus Christ, Christ’s body and blood, on the one hand, and the bread and wine, on the other, give rise to a sacramental unity. Catholics, in turn, find that this does not do sufficient justice to this very unity and to the force of Christ’s word “This is my body”.

51.The ecumenical discussion has shown that these two positions must no longer be regarded as opposed in a way that leads to separation. The Lutheran tradition agrees with the Catholic tradition that the consecrated elements do not simply remain bread and wine but by the power of the creative Word are bestowed as the body and blood of Christ. In this sense it also could occasionally speak, as does the Greek tradition of a “change”.36 The concept of transsubstantiation for its part is intended as a confession and preservation of the mystery character of the Eucharistic presence; it is not intended as an explanation of how this change occurs37 (see the appendices on “Real Presence” and “Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist”).

prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/doc/e_l-rc_eucharist.html

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=shelby2014;7851282]You probably wanted Lutherans to respond…

But I just want to say the bit about the Eucharist is consistent with my understanding. Actually, it played a large part of my conversion. Luther believed in the Real Presence but not that the bread and wine transformed but that the Real Presence filled them. When I found this out it really struck my protestant beliefs - not only that protestants do believe in the real presence, but that it seemed Luther was just trying to make up words and twisting theology to be “his own” in order to distance himself from the Roman Catholic church. This may be an unfair reading of what was in his mind, but it is how it came across to me.

Actually, one of the things Luther says regarding this is that, based on scripture, he couldn’t separate himself from the historic teachings of the Church regarding the real presence. His complaint with Transubstantiation was that it set as doctrine something Christ doesn’t reveal, and it adds metaphysical Aristoltelian language - substances and accidents to the expression. He also said, in effect, that Transub. made much more sense than the notions of symbolic presence, etc.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Yes it’s TRUE. But no-longer held as true by many; including many Luthers. Who also don’t beleive God; the Bible or Christ One Church.

God Bless,
Pat

Hi Pat,
If I were to say to you that many Catholics no longer accept the real presence, this would be a true statement. I suspect you would say, and quite rightly, they were in this regard no longer Catholic. This is exactly what I would say to a Lutheran who refuses to discern the real presence.

Regarding non-Lutherans, many never believed it in the first place, and it is for this reason, among others, that the Lutheran reformers were never able to accept the idea of a pan-Protestant Church.

Jon

Jon

 

[dcointin]

I don’t have anything new to add other than to second what JonNC said. Luther did indeed believe those things.

 

[Lovesa]

Just tossing in my agreement that that is what Luther believed. It’s one of the reasons I am a little disenchanted with the later Lutheran church; it dismissed things later on that even Luther did not.

Hi Teresa,
Yes to both, but let’s break it down.

On Mary’s perpetual virginity. He believed she remained a virgin, but did not believe that this belief was an article a faith. The Lutheran Confessions echo this same belief in the Formula of Concord, well after Luther’s death. What he and the Lutheran reformers said, however, was that since scripture is silent on the issue, it should be an article of faith. Therefore, Lutherans are free to accept this belief or not. It is adiaphora.
I personally believe it because it is the historic teaching of the Church, east and west, and the Lutheran Confessions express it within and about the person of Christ, placing the belief as Christicentric. While I am not at liberty to condemn Lutherans who don’t, based on the Confessions, I am often perplexed as why some do not believe it. It does no damage to the centrality of Christ as Savior, or the Gospel.

Yes; well-said.

On the Eucharist, Lutherans and Luther himself believe that the body and blood of Christ are received, in with and under the forms of bread and wine - what we see, taste, and feel. This, however, is not consubstantiation nor impanation. Accordingly, it is not a statement regarding the substances of bread and wine after consecration, simply because Christ makes no such statement. He simply says, “this is my body”, “this is the covenant in my blood”. And that is what we believe. The disposition of the substances of bread and wine are as God wills it to be.

And there seems to be growing convergence that, while we espress His presence differently, these expressions are not necessarily different.

prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/doc/e_l-rc_eucharist.html

Jon

Again, agreed. The difference here between Lutheran and Catholic belief has frequently seemed to me a mere matter of semantics, or perhaps of a little exactly-when-does-it-change dispute of a few seconds. However, as long as the “difference” is stressed, it is important to remember the different words.

 

[dcointin]

Just tossing in my agreement that that is what Luther believed. It’s one of the reasons I am a little disenchanted with the later Lutheran church; it dismissed things later on that even Luther did not.
.

I couldn’t agree more. In fact, it’s one reason I left the LC-MS and became Orthodox.

 

[PJM]

=JonNC;7852719]Actually, one of the things Luther says regarding this is that, based on scripture, he couldn’t separate himself from the historic teachings of the Church regarding the real presence. His complaint with Transubstantiation was that it set as doctrine something Christ doesn’t reveal, and it adds metaphysical Aristoltelian language - substances and accidents to the expression. He also said, in effect, that Transub. made much more sense than the notions of symbolic presence, etc.

Jon

Jon dear friend: Reread John 6: verses 55 and 56. Christ could not possibly be more clear.

If you’d care for a more detail explaination send me a PM…

God Bless my friend!

Pat

 

[hn160]

Jon dear friend: Reread John 6: verses 55 and 56. Christ could not possibly be more clear.

If you’d care for a more detail explaination send me a PM…

God Bless my friend!

Pat

Just curious, how do you read transubstantiation into those verses?

 

[teresa_mrg]

thanks to all Catholics, Lutherans, and some others for the responses and the knowledge.

wow this is new to me, i didn’t know it before. But I understand it now, including the similarity and differences between Catholic and Lutheran in these matters.

so looks like Lutherans belief is quite different to many other Protestant denominations then in these things? I’m curious why many Protestant denominations don’t accept Martin Luther’s view on these, although they admit that Luther was the one who started the reform and Protestantism…

teresa

 

[Nominefili]

Martin Luther admitted that Mary remained virgin after giving birth to Jesus, and he maintained his view that Christ is present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist.

is this true? i don’t mean to debate or attack protestant brothers and sisters here.
i ask because i found an article about this, and want to know if this is true or not.
because many of my Protestant friends say that Mary was no longer virgin after giving birth to Jesus, and Jesus have biological brothers.

here’s the article i found:
davidmacd.com/catholic/martin_luther_on_mary.htm

please advice…

thanks,
teresa

Both of these are true.

The issue for Luther was not the semper virgo as a doctrine, but rather, that consciences were bound to it.

As far as the Sacramental Union, any Lutheran will tell you that Christ is present, body and blood, in the Eucharist.

 

[Victor777]

Martin Luther admitted that Mary remained virgin after giving birth to Jesus, and he maintained his view that Christ is present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist.

is this true? i don’t mean to debate or attack protestant brothers and sisters here.
i ask because i found an article about this, and want to know if this is true or not.
because many of my Protestant friends say that Mary was no longer virgin after giving birth to Jesus, and Jesus have biological brothers.

here’s the article i found:
davidmacd.com/catholic/martin_luther_on_mary.htm

please advice…

thanks,
teresa

Dear Teresa, I would like to response to your email. I am a protestant. It is inevitable that with this topic, it will somehow entail into the discussion of Mary, earthly mother of Jesus. I will limit this to discussion of perpetual virginity of Mary. This is a sharing, and not on a attack on Catholism.
The final authority is the bible. For this discussion, I will quote from Catholic Bible. For now, I will just bring out 2 points for the moment…

(1) Matthew 1:24-25

24 When Joseph woke up he did what the angel of the Lord had told him to do: he took his wife to his home;

25 he had not had intercourse with her when she gave birth to a son; and he named him Jesus.
(Comments : Implies strongly that Mary had sexual intercourse after Jesus’s birth)

   Mark 6 1-3

1 Leaving that district, he went to his home town, and his disciples accompanied him.

2 With the coming of the Sabbath he began teaching in the synagogue, and most of them were astonished when they heard him. They said, 'Where did the man get all this? What is this wisdom that has been granted him, and these miracles that are worked through him?

3 This is the carpenter, surely, the son of Mary, the brother of James and Joset and Jude and Simon? His sisters, too, are they not here with us?’ And they would not accept him.

(Comment : Basically, I can quote around 10 verses that claims similiar meanings. However, there is no even a verse that claims or even implies that Mary does not have intercourse or children)

(2) I have asked C priests, and read their replies on the web. There are various answers, (not unilateral), ranges from Tradition, Brethen refering to step brothers, cousins, brothers in Christ, translational differences… etc

So far these explanations do not fit. I could give you the other verses, and you see, whether they fit in logically or linguistically.

The best answer of all, the direct quote from Pope John Paul II,

“The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, ‘brothers of Jesus,’ are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ…” Pg. 126 #500.Catechism (Check it for authenticity)

Thats all for now

Cheers

Victor

 

[Victor777]

I am a protestant. It is inevtable that this topic will entail into the discussion on Perpetual virginity of Mary. This is the sharing, and not an attack on Catholism.

The authority I used will be the bible. For this reply, I will quote from Catholic bible. 2 points to share…

(1) Matthew 1:24-25

24 When Joseph woke up he did what the angel of the Lord had told him to do: he took his wife to his home;

25 he had not had intercourse with her when she gave birth to a son; and he named him Jesus.

(Implies that there were intercourse after Jesus’s birth)

   Mark 6:1-3

1 Leaving that district, he went to his home town, and his disciples accompanied him.

2 With the coming of the Sabbath he began teaching in the synagogue, and most of them were astonished when they heard him. They said, 'Where did the man get all this? What is this wisdom that has been granted him, and these miracles that are worked through him?

3 This is the carpenter, surely, the son of Mary, the brother of James and Joset and Jude and Simon? His sisters, too, are they not here with us?’ And they would not accept him.

(There are around 10 verses similar to this. No where in the bible is it written that Mary is a perpetual virgin or that she does not have other children)

(2) In looking at replies from Catholic church, many priest have given many replies…ranging from Tradition, Brethen refering to cousins, step brothers, brothers in Christ and so on.

It is not fit in the explanation. I can give the other 10 verses and you can see that they are meaning less.

The best reply: Pope John Paul II

“The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, ‘brothers of Jesus,’ are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ…” Pg. 126 #500.Catechism (Check if it is true)

In the Pope’s word, there are actually 3 Marys in his usual circle. Mary (Mother), Mary Magdalene, and Mary (another disciple)… becomes a bit confusing.

Cheers

Victor

 

[Oldtimer_7]

One of the first great disputes among the reformers was this issue of Real Presence. Luther and Ulrich Zwingli were the polar opposites in their understanding of Eucharist. The anabaptist movement grew out of Zwingli and his followers, and that branch of Protestantism that rejects the idea of God being present in the Eucharist.
Here are two urls that come down on either side of the conflict, one Catholic and the other Protestant:
socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/06/martin-luther-refutes-zwingli-other.html
philofreligion.homestead.com/files/mpaper8.htm

 

[IowaJay]

thanks to all Catholics, Lutherans, and some others for the responses and the knowledge.

wow this is new to me, i didn’t know it before. But I understand it now, including the similarity and differences between Catholic and Lutheran in these matters.

so looks like Lutherans belief is quite different to many other Protestant denominations then in these things? I’m curious why many Protestant denominations don’t accept Martin Luther’s view on these, although they admit that Luther was the one who started the reform and Protestantism…

teresa

That is because most Protestant denominations do not trace their heritage to Luther at all. Acknowledgment that he was the first reformer (which ignores Hus and others) does not mean that they ever followed his teaching. Virtually all other Christian denominations were either split off directly from the Catholic Church or from other Protestant movements that were never Lutheran.

Presbyterians and Reformed Churches trace their heritage to John Calvin, who was never a Lutheran. There was some Lutheran influence eventually upon the English Reformation, but the Church of England was never Lutheran, so the Anglican Communion and the Methodists, who come from the Anglican Church, were never Lutheran. Likewise, I’m not aware of any Baptist groups who split off from a Lutheran group.

The only denominations that I am aware of that split off from the Lutheran Churches would be a few evangelical denominations with roots in the Scandanavian countries, such as the Evangelical Free Church.

 

[gcnuss]

Being a bit behind the curve, as usual, I want to thank the Lutherans who got here first for their accurate and concise responses. I agree with what they have written.

As Jon noted, the perpetual virginity of Mary is not an article of faith in Lutheran understanding. We (at least he and I) accept it as the historical teaching of the church. On the other hand - and I have said this elsewhere - if someone were to come up with incontrovertible proof that Mary had other children, it would have no effect whatever on my faith. She is the Mother of God and that’s the important thing.

With regard to the Real Presence, we acknowledge that what we receive at the communion rail is the true Body and Blood of our Lord. We don’t worry about how it happens – we simply trust the words of our Lord, “this is my body” and “this cup is the new covenant in my blood.” All the rest is a distraction from what we are receiving.

 

[PJM]

=hn160;7853572]Just curious, how do you read transubstantiation into those verses?

Thanks for asking

Knowing that the term “transunstanuation” is a Theological TERM applied by the Fathers for the sake of explaination of what happens; and to a lesser degree how this happens. When I read … John 6: 55 and 56 …

John.6 Verses 55 to 56 “For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.”

**Verse 55 **tells all of us in the clearest possible terms that “it is” the Body,Blood Sole and Divinity of Christ that we receive in Catholic Holy Communion.

Again it could not be put is clearer terms by Christ who is God.

Verse 56 affirms that Once we HAVE received Jesus in His Glorified Body; Blood, Soul and Divinity [the Complete God-man]; then INDEED we are in Christ and Christ is in us.

IN ORDER FOR THIS TO BE THE REALITY THAT IT IS; TRANSUBSTANUATION HAD TO OCCOUR

God Bless,
Pat