Was the Protestant Reformation an act of God or an Act of men?

[raumzeitmc2]

CORRECTION! CORRECTION!

REGARDING THE TWO QUOTES POSTED ABOVE ATTRIBUTED TO LUTHER:

The Decalogue belongs in the Townhall, not on the pulpit.

Decalogus gehört auf das Rathaus, nicht auf den Predigtstuhl.

All who consort with Moses, will eventually sell out to the Devil. Let Moses be hanged!

Alle, die mit Mose umgehen, müssen zum Teufel fahren, an Galgen mit Mose.

The following sources attributed some of those words to Luther, which through me off. My apologies.

Rebuilding a Lost Faith, John Stoddard, ISBN-10: 076613735X
ISBN-13: 978-0766137356, p. 94.
archive.org/details/rebuildingalostf001613mbp

books.google.com/books?id=VWbW5SqO0goC&pg=PA94&dq=%22To+the+gallows+with+Moses%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES&ei=g5XfSVWIwjLgj_SxDg&client=firefox

The Facts about Luther, Patrick F. O’Hare, p. 120.
books.google.com/books?id=ndoPAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA120&dq=%22To+the+gallows+with+Moses%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES&ei=e5XfSfS3NZLQMpv2iM8O&client=firefox#PPA120,M1

Upon further investigation however, I discovered that these authors apparently erred, and that these words were not Luther’s at all, but those of his rival, John Agricola (1494 - 1566).

However, I should point out that I have verified a number of other quotes which these authors have correctly attributed to Luther.

But regarding Agricola, this should clarify:

The antinomian views that repentance (contrition) is not wrought by the Law, but by the Gospel, and that hence there is no room for the Law and its preaching in the Christian Church, were uttered by Agricola as early as 1525. In his *Annotations to the Gospel of St. Luke *of that year he had written: “The Decalog belongs in the courthouse, not in the pulpit. All those who are occupied with Moses are bound to go to the devil. To the gallows with Moses!” (Tschackert 481; Herzog R 1, 688; E, 4, 423.)

Historical Introductions to the Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, Friedrich Bente, Echo Library (January 13, 2009), ISBN-10: 1406892459 ISBN-13: 978-1406892451, p. 303.

books.google.com/books?id=6eyb_yADJXQC&pg=PA303&dq=%22To+the+gallows+with+Moses%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES&ei=XpnfSfWyJIuqNobA8MEO&client=firefox

In any event, the fact remains that Luther did say some incredibly wild things (not only about Moses, but about nearly everyone else who entered his consciousness!). In fact, one wonders if there wasn’t anything, regardless of how outrageous, or literally intended or not, which didn’t come forth from the mouth of that man! For example, in speaking of Moses, he says:

Learn therefore, to speak of the law as thou canst, in the matter of justification …. Here, therefore, if thou be wise, banish this stuttering and stammering Moses far from thee, with his law, and in any wise let not his terrors and threatenings move thee. Here let him be utterly suspected unto thee, as a heretic, as an excommunicated, and condemned person, worse than the Pope and the Devil himself, and therefore not to be heard or obeyed in any case.

But then seems to contradict himself when he says (in the same breath!):

But out of the matter of justification we ought with Paul to think reverently of the law to commend it highly to call it holy righteous good spiritual and divine. Rom vii 12. Out of the case of conscience we should make a god of it, but in the case of conscience it is a very devil.

Commentary on Galatians, 4:3.

A Commentary on Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, Martin Luther, Rev. Erasmus Middleton, B. D., London, B. Blake, 1833, pp. 288-289
books.google.com/books?id=sGXgZgVK-1kC&pg=PA288&dq=%22worse+than+the+Pope+and+the+devil%22&lr=#PPA288,M1

See also Luther’s Works, American Edition, Lectures on Galatians, Chapters 1-4 (1535) vol. 26, p. 365, ISBN 0570064260. This volume references the Wiemar edition of Luther’s Works as: [W, XL, 557, 558].

But to give what has to be one the most egregious examples of Luther’s popping off at the mouth (though in fairness to Luther, I seriously doubt he intended these words to be taken literally. Nevertheless…). This if from his Table Talk (Ger. Tishchreden).

CHRIST REPROACHED AS ADULTERER.

Between April 7 and May 1, 1532. No. 1472. Recorded by John Schlaginhaufen.

[Martin Luther said,] “Christ was an adulterer for the first time with the woman at the well, for it was said, ‘Nobody knows what he’s doing with her’ [John 4:27]. Again [he was an adulterer] with Magdalene, and still again with the adulterous woman in John 8 :2-11], whom he let off so easily.” 100

Note 100, p. 154:

This entry has been cited against Luther, among others by Arnold Lunn in The Revolt Against Reason (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1951), pp. 45, 257, 258. What Luther meant might have been made clearer if John Schlaginhaufen had indicated the context of the Reformers remarks. The probable context is suggested in a sermon of 1536 (WA 41, 647) in which Luther asserted that Christ was reproached by the world as a glutton, a winebibber, and even an adulterer.

Table Talk, Luther’s Works, American Ed., vol. 54, p. 154, ISBN 0800603540

thumbsnap.com/vf/RppMlkC9.jpg

WA = D. Martin Luthers Werke; kritische Gesamtausgabe, Weimar: Herman Böhlau Nachfolger.

 

[O.S.Luke]

It’s very uplifting to see someone correct his own posts. Some folks are obviously comfortable in misquotes, half-quotes, and out of context quotes.

Thank you Raumzeitmc2 - that is apologetics with integrity.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Intent is not what is at question.

Martin Luther made up his teaching of the Eucharist as well as other things. He CREATED a church based on the One God already Created when Jesus was here.

In doing that Martin Luther taught contrary to God and thus he taught lies. As to Martin Luther’s intent… it really does not matter. A lie is a lie.

And we are no discussing the righteousness of these characters but rather what God has given and commanded. The Catholic Church, being the only true faith, has all that God has given in regards to Truth. That is why God made the Catholic Church the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.

Get my point yet?

Let me try again…

It is not the person but what they teach. The wolves that enter the church are wolves because they teach contrary to the Church. The ECFs had words like anti-christ for men like these. Martin Luther is a wolf and he taught lies. Whether he intended to mislead so many is a matter between God and Martin Luther. Regardless… many today follow Luther’s false teachings and believe they are doing God’s will and they have no idea it is the will of sinful man that broke his vows with God.

Jack,

Your “point” is nothing more than equivocation. Caught by posting some less-than-factual information about Luther (i.e., Luther NEVER said the word consubstantiation) you gloss over your error and go straight to derision.

That’s a chapter out of another Jack - Jack Chick anti-Catholic tracts. Be better than that, Jack.

O+

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Where did you get the idea that Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli ever were together?

Very true. In fact the Marburg Colloquy between Luther and Zwingli is one of my favorite events to reference when someone starts in with the tired old argument of believing in the “essentials” or if they try to paint the picture as if there was some united battle cry of the reformers against the Catholic Church.

Jon, you may know better than I, but I believe Zwingli was called a pawn of the devil (or something along those lines) for not affirming the Real Presence? I also believe that, because of their differences, Luther refused to call Zwingli and his followers Christian. Sounds very non-essential to me

For Luther his belief in the Real Presence was greater than a false appearance of unity with those who denied it.

God bless

 

[O.S.Luke]

Very true. In fact the Marburg Colloquy between Luther and Zwingli is one of my favorite events to reference when someone starts in with the tired old argument of believing in the “essentials” or if they try to paint the picture as if there was some united battle cry of the reformers against the Catholic Church.

Jon, you may know better than I, but I believe Zwingli was called a pawn of the devil (or something along those lines) for not affirming the Real Presence? I also believe that, because of their differences, Luther refused to call Zwingli and his followers Christian. Sounds very non-essential to me

For Luther his belief in the Real Presence was greater than a false appearance of unity with those who denied it.

God bless

Luther was an advocate of the Real Presence (as Marburg made clear).

Zwingli was an advocate of the Real Absence.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Luther was an advocate of the Real Presence (as Marburg made clear).

Zwingli was an advocate of the Real Absence.

That’s good. I like that.

I have never heard of the denial of the Real Presence referred to that way.

God bless

 

[JamesRottnek]

Protestant Reformation = Protestant Revolt

Luther, Calvin and Zwingli could not keep it held together for even a decade. LOL!

Catholicism has been strong and unified for 2,000 years. Today the church is 1.2 Billion strong and makes up more than 20% of all citizens in the USA which has a high Protestant population.

Protestant churches have given us Jehovah Witnesses and the Mormons who do not teach Jesus is God but something other.

There are the Millerites and many others false teachings… so many as to not be able to count.

God did not create Protestant churches for they lack the signs of God as we see from there ever dividing and increasing diversity. If you doubt then you have not read and understood the Gospel of JOHN chapter 17.

A couple of things:

1. “Catholicism has been strong and unified for 2,000 years.” I am not so sure that this is really true. I mean, there was the East-West Schism, there was the Western Schism, there have been countless anti-popes, plus the Protestant Reformation. While it is true that Catholicism has been strong since becoming the religion of Rome (for the first couple hundred years, it was in a rather precarious position), and while it is true that today it is strong and is the largest communion of Christians in the world, it is not true that for the last 2,000 years it has been strong and unified.
2. “Protestant churches have given us Jehovah Witnesses and the Mormons who do not teach Jesus is God but something other.” I am not sure I agree with this either. The JWs I will admit did result from the Protestant Movement (as they got their start through Adventism). The Mormons on the other hand I do not agree with you about. The LDS Church was founded by an opportunistic liar who was able to trick a lot of people - he claimed to have been visited by an angel who took him to a place where he could uncover gold tablets that held new revelations from God on them. In no way should the Mormons be believed to have resulted from Protentanism.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

It’s very uplifting to see someone correct his own posts. Some folks are obviously comfortable in misquotes, half-quotes, and out of context quotes.

Thank you Raumzeitmc2 - that is apologetics with integrity.

Thanks, O.S.! That was quite a nice compliment!

You know, I do try to be accurate and to properly source my material. But even I have been known to make mistakes now and then! LOL!

 

[look3467]

Jesus Christ, never intended there to be a Protestant Reformation, period!

Was Joseph the son of Jacob set aside by God for a mission?
Or was it just a coincidence that his brothers sold him?

Here’s what Joseph said about his journey: Gen 45:8 So now it was not you that sent me hither, but God: and he hath made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house, and a ruler throughout all the land of Egypt.

Now, limiting God to what we believe, concerning His works, will limit us to a narrow view.

If we operate under the commandments given by Jesus, we can achieve far greater works then that if we hold to a narrow view.

God is not restricted, but is by our own thinking.

Love as if every soul counted and letting God be the judge.

That is what is asked of us, to love our enemies, do good to them that despise us.

When we have become spiritually mature individuals we see the world in a different manner.

When we are born spiritually, we are babes in Christ needing to be guided as like a child.
But when we mature spiritually, we no longer think like a child but as adults spiritually to where now we see clearly the love of God transcending all views and religious beliefs as He reaches into their hearts to touch them.

Yes, justice is important, for when Gods people rule, there is peace, but the word says where they not, Gods people suffer.

Blessings, AJ

 

[MelanieAnne]

“Protestant churches have given us Jehovah Witnesses and the Mormons who do not teach Jesus is God but something other.” I am not sure I agree with this either. The JWs I will admit did result from the Protestant Movement (as they got their start through Adventism). The Mormons on the other hand I do not agree with you about. The LDS Church was founded by an opportunistic liar who was able to trick a lot of people - he claimed to have been visited by an angel who took him to a place where he could uncover gold tablets that held new revelations from God on them. In no way should the Mormons be believed to have resulted from Protestantism.

Actually the spiritual roots of Mormonism ARE in Protestantism, no matter how much the Protestants may wish otherwise. The spiritual influences on the founder of Mormonism were entirely Protestant, the Bible Mormons use is a Protestant Bible (although their founder tinkered with it here and there to “clarify” doctrine) so while it may be uncomfortable for some Protestants (as a former Protestant, I can relate!) it is nevertheless true that at least SOME of the theology of Mormonism resides in Protestantism. That doesn’t mean that Protestants are RESPONSIBLE for Mormonism, it’s just a fact. No Protestant needs to feel guilty

As to whether “the LDS Church was founded by an opportunistic liar who was able to trick a lot of people” ~ that’s for each individual to decide, based on the facts presented. I happen to agree that the Mormon faith is, at the very least, yet another Christian heresy, for a variety of reasons, not all of which have been presented in this thread. BUT IT IS OFF TOPIC.

Back on topic ~ I agree that Reformation was necessary. But I do not agree that what happened was necessary. Human weakness had corrupted certain aspects of the Church and reform was desperately needed. But human ego also played a part in the Protestant Reformation and as a result it went too far. Breaking up the Church was wrong. Splitting the Body of Christ (further) into pieces was wrong.

Today, thanks to the so-called “reformation” we have people who have no knowledge of the Early Church because no one talks about it, no knowledge of some books of the Bible, which the “Reformers” threw out because the books were in conflict with their own personal views, and we have the “Body of Christ” splintered into pieces.

There are many things about the world and about God that I don’t know and/or don’t understand because there are things that are beyond human comprehension, but I know one thing for SURE ~ Jesus, having given up His life for the sins of the whole world, as He did nearly 2000 years ago, didn’t do it so that we, out of ego, could break Him into pieces.

 

[JamesRottnek]

First, to clarify, I do not consider myself a Protestant (though I used to).

Second, the argument that the spiritual roots for Mormonism lie in Protestantism is at best flimsy. Smith taught (and the LDS Church teaches) that the Bible was corrupted, and they do not specify what parts are corrupt until something is pointed out as contradicting church teaching (at which point they declare it corrupted). Furthermore, their doctrines are only able to be supported by Smith’s imaginary gold plates (which were taken back by an imaginary angel, without anyone else seeing them), and are contrary to what virtually any protestant (except some things the JWs would agree with) consider to be acceptable to be believed and still be Christian. For instance, the LDS Church believes that God resides near a star in distant space, that people can become gods (and that God used to be a man like those on Earth), that Christ and Satan are brothers, that Christ is a god separate from the father (from what I understand, though no longer recall for certain, they teach the Holy Spirit too is a god), that if a person becomes a god, they will be put in charge of a planet, that Mary was literally impregnated by God the same way any woman is, along with a host of other things only supported by his imaginary plates.

I don’t see how the spiritual roots of Mormonism are in protestantism any more than the spiritual roots of Budhism are in Judaism. Mormonism takes just very tiny bits of Christian theology (mainly the divinity of Christ) and warp even that little bit of similarity drastically.

Anyways, I apologize for derailing this thread.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Jack,

Your “point” is nothing more than equivocation. Caught by posting some less-than-factual information about Luther (i.e., Luther NEVER said the word consubstantiation) you gloss over your error and go straight to derision.

That’s a chapter out of another Jack - Jack Chick anti-Catholic tracts. Be better than that, Jack.

O+

But Consubstantiation was related to him and was said to be from Luther. You are ignoring the truths I have posted for a grey area to place our attention elsewhere. Very devious IMO. I already clarified that Luther claimed the Host is part bread and part Jesus, call it what you like. A lie is still a lie. And none of this argument of yours regarding Consubstantiation chanegs anything I posted about Luther. You obviously do not like the truths I have posted about Luther and that is your problem and not mine.

Shalom

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Very true. In fact the Marburg Colloquy between Luther and Zwingli is one of my favorite events to reference when someone starts in with the tired old argument of believing in the “essentials” or if they try to paint the picture as if there was some united battle cry of the reformers against the Catholic Church.

Jon, you may know better than I, but I believe Zwingli was called a pawn of the devil (or something along those lines) for not affirming the Real Presence? I also believe that, because of their differences, Luther refused to call Zwingli and his followers Christian. Sounds very non-essential to me

For Luther his belief in the Real Presence was greater than a false appearance of unity with those who denied it.

God bless

Luther even told Calvin that if he did not believe in the Real Presense that he was not Christian.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

First, to clarify, I do not consider myself a Protestant (though I used to).

Second, the argument that the spiritual roots for Mormonism lie in Protestantism is at best flimsy. Smith taught (and the LDS Church teaches) that the Bible was corrupted, and they do not specify what parts are corrupt until something is pointed out as contradicting church teaching (at which point they declare it corrupted). Furthermore, their doctrines are only able to be supported by Smith’s imaginary gold plates (which were taken back by an imaginary angel, without anyone else seeing them), and are contrary to what virtually any protestant (except some things the JWs would agree with) consider to be acceptable to be believed and still be Christian. For instance, the LDS Church believes that God resides near a star in distant space, that people can become gods (and that God used to be a man like those on Earth), that Christ and Satan are brothers, that Christ is a god separate from the father (from what I understand, though no longer recall for certain, they teach the Holy Spirit too is a god), that if a person becomes a god, they will be put in charge of a planet, that Mary was literally impregnated by God the same way any woman is, along with a host of other things only supported by his imaginary plates.

I don’t see how the spiritual roots of Mormonism are in protestantism any more than the spiritual roots of Budhism are in Judaism. Mormonism takes just very tiny bits of Christian theology (mainly the divinity of Christ) and warp even that little bit of similarity drastically.

Anyways, I apologize for derailing this thread.

The Protestant Reformation is evil because it rejects God. That is why the Protestant church keeps giving birth to more wicked churches that are growing further and further from God. I believe the Protestant church has a few that have men claiming to be Jesus today… further and further it grows from God.

Some say the greatest lie that Satan accomplished was to have people believe he does not exist. I disagree, I believe a greater lie of Satan’s is that of the Protestant Reformation.

 

[O.S.Luke]

But Consubstantiation was related to him and was said to be from Luther. You are ignoring the truths I have posted for a grey area to place our attention elsewhere. Very devious IMO. I already clarified that Luther claimed the Host is part bread and part Jesus, call it what you like. A lie is still a lie. And none of this argument of yours regarding Consubstantiation chanegs anything I posted about Luther. You obviously do not like the truths I have posted about Luther and that is your problem and not mine.

Shalom

Jack:

Consubstantiation, like transubstantiation, comes from Thomistic and Aristotelian philosophy and metaphysics, and was a term coined by Duns Scotus, a 13th century Franciscan. Consubstantiation was embraced by the Lollardy movement in the 13th-14 century… quite a few years before the Reformation and Luther. If you read Luther’s writings, he rejected consubstantiation as he did transubstantiation. Luther was not about to go along with Thomism for a New York minute, and Thomism gave us both transubstantiation and consubstantiation.

Luther’s understanding of the Real Presence was more like the Eastern Church’s understanding - it is a mysterious change beyond human understanding and defies explanation, nor needs explanation (mysteries do not need to be explained). The term Luther DID use and embrace was Sacramental Union:

Why then should we not much more say in the Supper, “This is my body,” even though bread and body are two distinct substances, and the word “this” indicates the bread? Here, too, out of two kinds of objects a union has taken place, which I shall call a “sacramental union,” because Christ’s body and the bread are given to us as a sacrament. This is not a natural or personal union, as is the case with God and Christ. It is also perhaps a different union from that which the dove has with the Holy Spirit, and the flame with the angel, but it is also assuredly a sacramental union (as found in WA 26, p. 442 and LW 37, pp. 299-300).

In other words, it is bread and wine. It is also Christ’s body and blood. No explanation needed - or possible. The nature of a sacrament is that it is mysterion - which was the Latin term for sacrament/sacramentum.

I am not a Lutheran. But I think we need to be accurate about what is true about Luther verses the many things that were ascribed to Luther than Luther didn’t really say.

It is a lot like non-Catholics, who out of ignorance say that Catholics worship Mary, which is certainly not true. There are many things that CAN be ascribed to Luther, but consubstantiation is not one of them.

O+

 

[JonNC]

=JacktheCatholic;5062743]Intent is not what is at question.
Martin Luther made up his teaching of the Eucharist as well as other things. He CREATED a church based on the One God already Created when Jesus was here.
In doing that Martin Luther taught contrary to God and thus he taught lies. As to Martin Luther’s intent… it really does not matter. A lie is a lie.

Yesterday, one of my 4th grade students, though working a problem out with honest effort and intentions, came to a wrong answer. Now according to your post here, intent does not matter, that 4th grader lied to me.

And we are no discussing the righteousness of these characters but rather what God has given and commanded. The Catholic Church, being the only true faith, has all that God has given in regards to Truth. That is why God made the Catholic Church the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.

But you choose to call Luther a Liar. Of course you’re talking about his righteousness. In fact, you’re judging it!

It is not the person but what they teach. The wolves that enter the church are wolves because they teach contrary to the Church. The ECFs had words like anti-christ for men like these. Martin Luther is a wolf and he taught lies. Whether he intended to mislead so many is a matter between God and Martin Luther. Regardless… many today follow Luther’s false teachings and believe they are doing God’s will and they have no idea it is the will of sinful man that broke his vows with God.

You say, “It is not the person, but what they teach.” Then you say, “Martin Luther was a wolf…”

Jack, I won’t respond in kind, here. I do not consider you or the Catholic Church liars. I don’t even consider what the CC teaches lies, even where I disagree. And I do know that if the dialogue between our leaders started off with, **“let’s sit down and talk and pray about our differences, and oh by the way, you guys are a bunch of liars!” **I suspect they would not have gotten as far as they have.
Jon

 

[JonNC]

Very true. In fact the Marburg Colloquy between Luther and Zwingli is one of my favorite events to reference when someone starts in with the tired old argument of believing in the “essentials” or if they try to paint the picture as if there was some united battle cry of the reformers against the Catholic Church.

Jon, you may know better than I, but I believe Zwingli was called a pawn of the devil (or something along those lines) for not affirming the Real Presence? I also believe that, because of their differences, Luther refused to call Zwingli and his followers Christian. Sounds very non-essential to me

For Luther his belief in the Real Presence was greater than a false appearance of unity with those who denied it.

God bless

Thanks, R_C,
He went further and said (quote may not be exact), “Before I drink mere wine with the Swiss, I would drink blood with the pope.”

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Jack:

Consubstantiation, like transubstantiation, comes from Thomistic and Aristotelian philosophy and metaphysics, and was a term coined by Duns Scotus, a 13th century Franciscan. Consubstantiation was embraced by the Lollardy movement in the 13th-14 century… quite a few years before the Reformation and Luther. If you read Luther’s writings, he rejected consubstantiation as he did transubstantiation. Luther was not about to go along with Thomism for a New York minute, and Thomism gave us both transubstantiation and consubstantiation.

Luther’s understanding of the Real Presence was more like the Eastern Church’s understanding - it is a mysterious change beyond human understanding and defies explanation, nor needs explanation (mysteries do not need to be explained). The term Luther DID use and embrace was Sacramental Union:

In other words, it is bread and wine. It is also Christ’s body and blood. No explanation needed - or possible. The nature of a sacrament is that it is mysterion - which was the Latin term for sacrament/sacramentum.

I am not a Lutheran. But I think we need to be accurate about what is true about Luther verses the many things that were ascribed to Luther than Luther didn’t really say.

It is a lot like non-Catholics, who out of ignorance say that Catholics worship Mary, which is certainly not true. There are many things that CAN be ascribed to Luther, but consubstantiation is not one of them.

O+

 

[josie_L]

Jack:

Consubstantiation, like transubstantiation, comes from Thomistic and Aristotelian philosophy and metaphysics, and was a term coined by Duns Scotus, a 13th century Franciscan. Consubstantiation was embraced by the Lollardy movement in the 13th-14 century… quite a few years before the Reformation and Luther. If you read Luther’s writings, he rejected consubstantiation as he did transubstantiation. Luther was not about to go along with Thomism for a New York minute, and Thomism gave us both transubstantiation and consubstantiation.

Luther’s understanding of the Real Presence was more like the Eastern Church’s understanding - it is a mysterious change beyond human understanding and defies explanation, nor needs explanation (mysteries do not need to be explained). The term Luther DID use and embrace was Sacramental Union:

In other words, it is bread and wine. It is also Christ’s body and blood. No explanation needed - or possible. The nature of a sacrament is that it is mysterion - which was the Latin term for sacrament/sacramentum.

I am not a Lutheran. But I think we need to be accurate about what is true about Luther verses the many things that were ascribed to Luther than Luther didn’t really say.

It is a lot like non-Catholics, who out of ignorance say that Catholics worship Mary, which is certainly not true. There are many things that CAN be ascribed to Luther, but consubstantiation is not one of them.

O+

Consubstantiation. — This heretical doctrine is an attempt to hold the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist without admitting Transubstantiation. According to it, the substance of Christ’s Body exists together with the substance of bread, and in like manner the substance of His Blood together with the substance of wine. Hence the word Consubstantiation. How the two substances can co-exist is variously explained. The most subtle theory is that., just as God the Son took to Himself a human body without in any way destroying its substance, so does He in the Blessed Sacrament assume the nature of bread’. Hence the theory is also called “Impanation”, a term founded on the analogy of Incarnation.

The subject cannot be treated adequately except in connection with the general doctrine of the Holy Eucharist (q.v.). Here it will be sufficient to trace briefly the history of the heresy. In the earliest ages of the Church Christ’s words, “This is my body”, were understood by the faithful in their simple, natural sense. In the course of time discussion arose as to whether they were to be taken literally or figuratively; and when it was settled that they were to be taken literally in the sense that Christ is really and truly present, the question of the manner of this presence began to be agitated. The controversy lasted from the ninth to the twelfth century, after which time the doctrine of Transubstantiation, which teaches that Christ is present in the Eucharist by the change of the entire substance of bread and wine into His Body and Blood, was fully indicated as Catholic dogma. In its first phase it turned on the question, whether the Body was the historical body of Christ, the very body which was born, crucified, and risen. This was maintained by Paschasius Radbert and denied by Ratramnus in the middle of the ninth century. What concerns us here more closely is the next stage of the controversy, when Berengarius (1000-1088) denied, if not the Real Presence, at least any change of the substance of the bread and wine into the substance of the Body and Blood. He maintained that “the consecrated Bread, retaining its substance, is the Body of Christ, that is, not losing anything which it was, but assuming something which it was not” (panis sacratus in altari, salves sues substantift, est corpus Christi, non amittens quod erat sed assumens quod non erat—Cf. Marten and Durand, “Thesaurus Novus Anecd.”, IV, col. 105). It is clear that he rejected Transubstantiation; but what sort of presence he admitted would seem to have varied at different periods of his long career. His opinions were condemned in various councils held at Rome (1050, 1059, 1078, 1079), Vercelli (1050), Poitiers (1074), though both Pope Alexander II and St. Gregory VII treated him with marked consideration. His principal opponents were Lanfranc, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury (De Corpore et Sanguine Domini adversus Berengarium Turonensem), Durandus of Troarn (q.v.), Guitmundus of Aversa, and Hugh of Langres. **Although it cannot be said that Berengarius found many adherents during his lifetime, yet his heresy did not die with him. It was maintained by Wyclif (Trialog., IV, 6, 10) and Luther (Walch, XX, 1228), **and is the view of the High Church party among the Anglicans at the present time. Besides the councils above-mentioned, it was condemned by the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the Council of Constance (1418.—“The substance of the material bread and in like manner the substance of the material wine remain in the Sacrament of the altar”, the first of the condemned propositions of Wyclif), and the Council of Trent (1551).

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Consubstantiation

 

[JonNC]

Consubstantiation. — This heretical doctrine is an attempt to hold the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist without admitting Transubstantiation. QUOTE]

Josie, Just curious, do you believe the Orthodox are in heresy, as well?

Lutherans and Orthodox take the Lord’s words “this is my body; this is my blood” (Mt 26,27f, par.) literally. They believe that in the Eucharist the bread and wine become Christ’s body and blood to be consumed by the communicants