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

[wmscott]

While I have known this to be true, then I guess the Reformation really just needed to be from within the Church and not outside of it. With that said, what would have happened if the Council of Trent had happened 100 years earlier?

 

[dcointin]

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

Lutherans are unique among Protestants in that they attempted to return to what they believed were the historic catholic faith and practices. They believed that there was value in tradition, and that it should not be done away with, only held as adiaphora. This is why, for example, Lutherans worship using a liturgy, wear vestements, honor the saints, etc. Unfortunately there’s a trend against these things in modern Lutheranism.

 

[Lovesa]

Lutherans are unique among Protestants in that they attempted to return to what they believed were the historic catholic faith and practices. They believed that there was value in tradition, and that it should not be done away with, only held as adiaphora. This is why, for example, Lutherans worship using a liturgy, wear vestements, honor the saints, etc. Unfortunately there’s a trend against these things in modern Lutheranism.

^ Agreed. It’s a real shame, too.

 

[PJM]

=teresa_mrg;7853819]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

The SAD truth is they don’t accept God at His Divine Word, or Matt., Mark, Luke, John or Paul, or the early Church Fathers; to ML is in GREAT company here

 

[pablope]

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.

Hi, Pastor Gary…

i thought it was only the LCMS that believed in the RP. So, I get it that the ELCA too? Does the WELS believe in it too?

 

[dcointin]

Hi, Pastor Gary…

i thought it was only the LCMS that believed in the RP. So, I get it that the ELCA too? Does the WELS believe in it too?

Yes, all Lutherans believe in the real presence. I would also like to emphasize that this is not a “spiritual presence”, but a real, substantial, corporeal presence.

 

[JonNC]

Hi, Pastor Gary…

i thought it was only the LCMS that believed in the RP. So, I get it that the ELCA too? Does the WELS believe in it too?

And just to follow up on what dcointin said, Lutheranism is a doctrinal Church, and while our doctrines are based on scripture, they are expressed in the “Book of Concord” generally, and specifically the Augsburg Confession, its Apology, and the Small Catechism.
To be Lutheran, one must confess these teachings. And the teachings regarding the Lord’s Supper are clear, and for me best expressed in the Apology:

…we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but 56] is truly changed into flesh. And there is a long exposition of Cyril on John 15, in which he teaches that Christ is corporeally offered us in the Supper. For he says thus: Nevertheless, we do not deny that we are joined spiritually to Christ by true faith and sincere love. But that we have no mode of connection with Him, according to the flesh, this indeed we entirely deny. And this, we say, is altogether foreign to the divine Scriptures. For who has doubted that Christ is in this manner a vine, and we the branches, deriving thence life for ourselves? Hear Paul saying 1 Cor. 10:17; Rom. 12:5; Gal. 3:28: We are all one body in Christ; although we are many, we are, nevertheless, one in Him; for we are, all partakers of that one bread. Does he perhaps think that the virtue of the mystical benediction is unknown to us? Since this is in us, does it not also, by the communication of Christ’s flesh, cause Christ to dwell in us bodily? And a little after: Whence we must consider that Christ is in us not only according to the habit, which we call love, 57] but also by natural participation, etc. We have cited these testimonies, not to undertake a discussion here concerning this subject, for His Imperial Majesty does not disapprove of this article, but in order that all who may read them may the more clearly perceive that we defend the doctrine received in the entire Church, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered with those things which are seen, bread and wine. And we speak of the presence of the living Christ [living body]; for we know that death hath no more dominion over Him, Rom. 6:9.

One who denies this is simply not a lutheran, their claim to the contrary notwithstanding.
So, yes, all Lutherans believe in th real presence. Further, this is different than our view on sempre virgo, which is adiaphora.

Jon

 

[PJM]

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

THANKS Jon,

God Bless my friend,

Pat

 

[Publisher]

The SAD truth is they don’t accept God at His Divine Word, or Matt., Mark, Luke, John or Paul, or the early Church Fathers; to ML is in GREAT company here

No…the TRUTH is YOU do not believe they accept God at His Divine Word…that is your belief…not theirs.

 

[patricius79]

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

likewise Calvin excoriated the typrical Protestant arguments “from Scripture” that Mary had other children

 

[hn160]

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.

By the same token, we Lutherans can claim the Christ’s Body and Blood is in, with, and under the bread and wine. We still receive His Body and Blood.

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

 

[Bluegoat]

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

What some people don’t realize is that there were really several different “reformations” that happened all at about the same time. Several different ways of thinking developed and diverged from the Catholic Church. So we have the Lutheran Reformation, the English Reformation, the Radical Reformation…

Also, Luther isn’t seen as a person with the power to define doctrine alone, even within the Lutheran Church. It is the whole Church who has to agree on doctrine. So if the whole Lutheran Church agreed on a change that had to be made, it could be done.

And finally, many people have left those original Reformation groups because they simply don’t agree with them.

 

[PJM]

=Publisher;7856756]No…the TRUTH is YOU do not believe they accept God at His Divine Word…that is your belief…not theirs.

Thank you my friend for your imput

The position articulated in both God’s own and Biblically supported.

If you’d care to challange me on this, just send me a PM,

God Bless you,
Pat

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Martin Luther not only believed that Mary was Ever-Virgin, he had no problem accepting her sinlessness etc.

He carried his rosary with him wherever he went - all his life. He frequently recited the Hail Mary of the Middle Ages i.e. ending with “Jesus Christ” after the Fruit of Thy Womb." Many early Lutheran leaders were also depicted by artists holding their rosary beads.

Luther also had an image of Mary in his room at all times. He was against iconoclasm as well.

Lutherans rejected transubstantiation as an explanation of the Mystical change of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. That doesn’t mean they rejected the change itself. Although Lutherans have been accused of “consubstantiation,” outside of the parameters of the philosophy of “transubstantiation,” that charge doesn’t really hold water.

Something similar happens when RC’s see the Orthodox rejecting the Immaculate Conception dogma and then automatically assume that the Orthodox must believe the Virgin Mary wasn’t “All-Holy” and “Ever Holy” (sinless). That is completely wrong!

Today, there is NO reason why there cannot be Lutherans with their own traditions who are in communion with Rome or “Evangelical Catholics in union with Rome” or some such.

The basis for such a union would be the views of the historic Luther and the Augsburg Confession. The “Catholic Luther” and Lutherans of the High Church variety need to make their peace with the Bishop of Rome, once and for all! :bounce:

Alex

 

[pablope]

Martin Luther not only believed that Mary was Ever-Virgin, he had no problem accepting her sinlessness etc.

He carried his rosary with him wherever he went - all his life. He frequently recited the Hail Mary of the Middle Ages i.e. ending with “Jesus Christ” after the Fruit of Thy Womb." Many early Lutheran leaders were also depicted by artists holding their rosary beads.

Luther also had an image of Mary in his room at all times. He was against iconoclasm as well.

Lutherans rejected transubstantiation as an explanation of the Mystical change of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. That doesn’t mean they rejected the change itself. Although Lutherans have been accused of “consubstantiation,” outside of the parameters of the philosophy of “transubstantiation,” that charge doesn’t really hold water.

Something similar happens when RC’s see the Orthodox rejecting the Immaculate Conception dogma and then automatically assume that the Orthodox must believe the Virgin Mary wasn’t “All-Holy” and “Ever Holy” (sinless). That is completely wrong!

Alex

Thanks for your insightful post, Alex.

Then I wonder, where did the disbelief or unbelief in Mary’s sinlessness and perpetual virginity start, if it did not start with Luther?

Today, there is NO reason why there cannot be Lutherans with their own traditions who are in communion with Rome or “Evangelical Catholics in union with Rome” or some such.

The basis for such a union would be the views of the historic Luther and the Augsburg Confession. The “Catholic Luther” and Lutherans of the High Church variety need to make their peace with the Bishop of Rome, once and for all! :bounce:

I think with prayers, humility and the Holy Spirit, it will come to fruition and looking forward to it.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Good question sir! It (disbelief in her perpetual virginity) began only in the 19th century among some Evangelicals. The only time this was raised in the early Church was in the fourth century and St Jerome answered the fellow in a treatise where he completely takes down the very same arguments used by “Evangelicals” today - we can see from Jerome’s copious notes and common sense interpretation of scripture that “Evangelicals” can be a real misnomer for some!

In the Christian East, it was ALWAYS the belief that Mary was sinless and sanctified from her Conception.

This was a different story in the West, since it was allowable to believe that she had the “stain of original sin” until the dogma of the IC was proclaimed.

Because Roman Catholics did not have to affirm the IC themselves, it was allowable to have a divergence of view on this (although the Spanish Empire, for example, actually enforced the belief in the IC throughout its dominions). And so, this was never a point of contention between the RC Church and the Reformers.

Alex

 

[hn160]

Luther and most Lutheran theologians up to recent times although they didn’t set it into stone as doctrine believed that Mary was ever-virgin. I believe that Virgin Mary was ever-virgin. This is what Luther said in his book That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew. This comes from Luther’s Works Vol. 45, page 205:
Hence we see that St. Paul nowhere calls the mother of God a virgin, but only a woman, as he says in Galatians 3 [4:4], “The Son of God was born of a woman.” He did not mean to say she was not a virgin, but to extol her virginity to the highest with the praise that is proper to it, as much as to say: In this birth none but a woman was involved, no man participated; that is, everything connected with it was reserved to the woman, the conceiving, bearing, suckling, and nourishing of the child were functions no man can perform. It is therefore the child of a woman only; hence, she must certainly be a virgin. But a virgin may also be a man; a mother can be none other than a woman.
For this reason, too, Scripture does not quibble or speak about the virginity of Mary after the birth of Christ, a matter about which the hypocrites are greatly concerned, as if it were something of the utmost importance on which our whole salvation depended. Actually, we should be satisfied simply to hold that she remained a virgin after the birth of Christ because Scripture does not state or indicate that she later lost her virginity. We certainly need not be so terribly afraid that someone will demonstrate, out of his own head apart from Scripture, that she did not remain a virgin. But the Scripture stops with this, that she was a virgin before and at the birth of Christ; for up to this point God had need of her virginity in order to give us the promised blessed seed without sin.

 

[mikefriday]

Learning more about Martin Luther makes me think he was a well meaning catholic after all. I think that he just wanted to correct the abuses of the erring clergy at the time, I don’t blame him. Lutherans are the closest thing (aside from our Orthodox brothers) to being roman catholics. I hope that one day soon the catholics, orthodox, lutherans, and anglicans can join as One Church so that the other churches will join also. To God be the Glory!

 

[JoshuaNY]

I hope that one day soon the catholics, orthodox, lutherans, and anglicans can join as One Church

Hear Hear!

 

[gcnuss]

I hope that one day soon the catholics, orthodox, lutherans, and anglicans can join as One Church

I’ll echo that