What religion or denomination would Martin Luther belong to if he were alive today?

[TriuneUnity]

Good point.

Yes, he wasn’t exactly what I’d call “ecumenical” (what with calling people heretics and anti-Christs and what-have-you) but that doesn’t exactly make him a heretic.

Anyways, who was ecumenical in those days?

That spineless pansy Philip Melancthon!

 

[sola_scriptura]

It must be understood that Catholics, Lutherans, EO, and conservative Anglicans who hold to the Real Presence do not believe we are consuming Christ carnally. We are eating His flesh and blood sacramentally. He is truly physical present, but not like eating a steak.

We simply take the words “this is my body” as they are…we are partaking of the real flesh and blood of the risen Savior.

This is what I hoped (and frankly assumed) the RCC view (and those of other denominations with similar views) is. The view as presented by many opponents of the RCC doctrine in this area seems extreme.

Overall Calvin had the proper view, IMHO, on the Eucharist.

Zwingli went to far by denying a real spiritual presence. He was right to say we are to partake in the Eucharist in remembrance of Christ and His sacrifice – but wrong to strip this commemoration of its spiritual significance.

However, I do also think Luther had ample justification for holding on to his view (which is largely the same as the RCC view). This is a contentious issue, and the finer points of this doctrine are very debatable.

 

[TriuneUnity]

This is what I hoped (and frankly assumed) the RCC view (and those of other denominations with similar views) is. The view as presented by many opponents of the RCC doctrine in this area seems extreme.

Overall Calvin had the proper view, IMHO, on the Eucharist.

Zwingli went to far by denying a real spiritual presence. He was right to say we are to partake in the Eucharist in remembrance of Christ and His sacrifice – but wrong to strip this commemoration of its spiritual significance.

However, I do also think Luther had ample justification for holding on to his view (which is largely the same as the RCC view). This is a contentious issue, and the finer points of this doctrine are very debatable.

It seems to me that Reformed churches have fluctuated back and forth between Calvin’s view and Zwingli’s view, and sometimes holding an in between position. I suppose I could write a whole article on the problem with Calvin’s interpretation but I’ll digress for the moment

 

[sola_scriptura]

It seems to me that Reformed churches have fluctuated back and forth between Calvin’s view and Zwingli’s view, and sometimes holding an in between position. I suppose I could write a whole article on the problem with Calvin’s interpretation but I’ll digress for the moment

Honestly I’m a bit embarrassed because I’ve never really studied the issue of the Eucharist in any great detail. When I was Methodist we used to actually break bread, while in my Presbyterian church we use matza bread (prepared in advance for the congregation). I’ve always accepted the Eucharist as a mystery and partaking in a gracious union with Christ. However, beyond that I’ve always been a student of I guess “harder” topics in theology (like soteriology).

So I now turn to the Wikipedia reference (I could go onto reformed.org but that will no doubt give me a long dissertation by Calvin; and I’d rather summarize our view for easy reading):

• • “Real Spiritual presence”, also called “pneumatic presence”, holds that not only the Spirit of Christ, but also the true body and blood of Jesus Christ (hence “real”), are received by the sovereign, mysterious, and miraculous power of the Holy Spirit (hence “spiritual”), but only by those partakers who have faith. This view approaches the “pious silence” view in its unwillingness to specify how the Holy Spirit makes Christ present, but positively excludes not just symbolism but also trans- and con-substantiation. It is also known as the “mystical presence” view, and is held by most Reformed Christians, such as Presbyterians, as well as some Methodists and some Anglicans, particularly Low Church Reformed Anglicans. See Westminster Confession of Faith, ch. 29. This understanding is often called “receptionism”. Some argue that this view can be seen as being suggested — though not by any means clearly — by the “invocation” of the Anglican Rite as found in the American Book of Common Prayer, 1928 and earlier and in Rite I of the American BCP of 1979 as well as in other Anglican formularies:
    
    And we most humbly beseech thee, O merciful Father, to hear us, and of thy almighty goodness, vouchsafe to bless and sanctify, with thy Word and Holy Spirit, these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine; that we, receiving them according to thy Son our Savior Jesus Christ’s holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed body and blood.*

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist

Frankly given this definition the term “real spiritual presence” seems inappropriate, since it “holds that not only the Spirit of Christ, but also the true body and blood of Jesus Christ (hence “real”), are received.”

Frankly I see little practical difference between the view of “Transubstantiation” (the RCC view) and the Lutheran idea of “Consubstantiation.”

In fact, until the view of Zwingli is reached (symbolism) it seems the differences are more a matter of semantics that anything. Not to be outdone the Quakers came up with yet another theory, “Suspension,” which posits that the partaking of bread and wine was not intended as a perpetual ordinance.

In sum now that I’ve learned a bit about this doctrine I remain comfortable with the reformed view. I think the “reformed” churches you mention that have adopted Zwingli’s view are probably reformed Baptists (Baptists pretty much do not view anything accept faith as having any real significance – just because a particular Baptist congregation identifies themselves as “reformed” and adopts the soteriology of Calvin doesn’t mean they abandon the practices that make Baptists distinct).

 

[TriuneUnity]

but also the true body and blood

of Jesus Christ (hence “real”), are received."

Calvin said:

*We acknowledge then, that in the Supper we eat the same body which was crucified, although the expression in regard to the bread is metonymical, so that it may be truly said to be symbolically the real body of Christ, by the sacrifice of which we have been reconciled to God. And though there is some diversity in the expressions, The bread is a sign, or figure, or symbol of the body; and the bread signifies the body, or is a metaphorical, or metonymical, or synecdochical expression for it, they perfectly agree in substance… *

St. Paul simply says that the bread is a coming together with the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 10:16). Calvin says that the bread is a metaphorical, metonymical, or synecdochical expression. Without trying to be sarcastic I must ask the question: where in the world is the comfort in a metaphorical, metonymical, synecdochical expression?

The false teaching of the Reformed church makes us question the very essence of the Lord’s Supper itself. Zwingli and his theological descendants would have us believe that the Lord’s Supper is nothing more than a memorial meal. According to this argument there is potentially as much spiritual benefit to receiving the Lord’s Supper as there is gazing at a painting of Jesus. Calvin’s Lord’s Supper is not much better. In fact, it’s worse.

Calvin’s Lord’s Supper says that Christ is present in the Lord’s Supper. One Reformed author suggests that we call Calvin’s teaching suprasubstantiation. He explains: “The prefix supra means ‘above,’ ‘beyond,’ or ‘transcending.’ According to Calvin, Christ’s body is present in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, but the mode of his presence is not specifically connected with the substance of the elements." In other words, Jesus is not physically present in the Lord’s Supper. That begs the question: where is He? Calvin’s answer: In heaven, of course. This is an attack on Biblical Christology and a number of Bible passages.I immediately think of Matthew 28:20: And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age. What does Calvin say about this comforting promise from our Savior?

This I prefer to explain in the words of Augustine rather than my own: Through death Christ was to go to the right hand of the Father, whence he is to come to judge the quick and the dead, and that in corporal presence, according to the sound doctrine and rule of faith. For, in spiritual presence, he was to be with them after his ascension, (August. Tract. in Joann. 109). In another passage he is more full and explicit: In regard to ineffable and invisible grace, is fulfilled what he said, Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world (Mt. 28:20); but in regard to the flesh which the Word assumed in regard to his being born of a Virgin, in regard to his being apprehended by the Jews, nailed to the tree, taken down from the cross, wrapt in linen clothes, laid in the sepulchre, and manifested on his resurrection, it may be said, Me ye have not always with you. Why? because, in bodily presence, he conversed with his disciples forty days, and leading them out where they saw, but followed not, he ascended into heaven, and is not here: for there he sits at the right hand of the Father: and yet he is here, for the presence of his Godhead was not withdrawn. Therefore, as regards his divine presence, we have Christ always: as regards his bodily presence, it was truly said to the disciples, Me ye have not always. For a few days the Church had him bodily present. Now, she apprehends him by faith, but sees him not by the eye, (August. Tract. 51). (Institutes, II, xvi, 14)

Calvin has split Jesus up! Apparently Jesus is with me with His divine presence…but not with His bodily presence. Not only does the Reformed teaching of the Lord’s Supper steal the comfort from the Lord’s Supper it threatens to steal the comfort from other parts of the Bible as well.

Frankly I see little practical difference between the view of “Transubstantiation” (the RCC view) and the Lutheran idea of “Consubstantiation.”

It’s less one of difference as it is a refusal on the Lutheran side to dogmatically state how Jesus is present, beyond sacramentally. In our view, the mistake of Rome is trying to use Aristotelian philosophical thought to explain the presence. It is the farthest thing from biblical context to attempt to do. On top of that, Rome has stated it must be agreed with to be in union with the See.

In sum now that I’ve learned a bit about this doctrine I remain comfortable with the reformed view. I think the “reformed” churches you mention that have adopted Zwingli’s view are probably reformed Baptists (Baptists pretty much do not view anything accept faith as having any real significance – just because a particular Baptist congregation identifies themselves as “reformed” and adopts the soteriology of Calvin doesn’t mean they abandon the practices that make Baptists distinct).

I would agree with that. The Reformed Confessions, particularly the Belgic, place a much higher emphasis on the importance of the Sacrament.

 

[sola_scriptura]

Calvin said:

*We acknowledge then, that in the Supper we eat the same body which was crucified, although the expression in regard to the bread is metonymical, so that it may be truly said to be symbolically the real body of Christ, by the sacrifice of which we have been reconciled to God. And though there is some diversity in the expressions, The bread is a sign, or figure, or symbol of the body; and the bread signifies the body, or is a metaphorical, or metonymical, or synecdochical expression for it, they perfectly agree in substance… *

St. Paul simply says that the bread is a coming together with the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 10:16). Calvin says that the bread is a metaphorical, metonymical, or synecdochical expression. Without trying to be sarcastic I must ask the question: where in the world is the comfort in a metaphorical, metonymical, synecdochical expression?

He means it is symbolic of the body and blood. I wish he would have skipped the elaborate terminology (but that’s how he wrote). I see no deviation between Calvin’s and Paul’s view.

The false teaching of the Reformed church makes us question the very essence of the Lord’s Supper itself. Zwingli and his theological descendants would have us believe that the Lord’s Supper is nothing more than a memorial meal. According to this argument there is potentially as much spiritual benefit to receiving the Lord’s Supper as there is gazing at a painting of Jesus. Calvin’s Lord’s Supper is not much better. In fact, it’s worse.

Calvin’s Lord’s Supper says that Christ is present in the Lord’s Supper. One Reformed author suggests that we call Calvin’s teaching suprasubstantiation. He explains: “The prefix supra means ‘above,’ ‘beyond,’ or ‘transcending.’ According to Calvin, Christ’s body is present in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, but the mode of his presence is not specifically connected with the substance of the elements." In other words, Jesus is not physically present in the Lord’s Supper. That begs the question: where is He? Calvin’s answer: In heaven, of course. This is an attack on Biblical Christology and a number of Bible passages.I immediately think of Matthew 28:20: And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age. What does Calvin say about this comforting promise from our Savior?

This I prefer to explain in the words of Augustine rather than my own: Through death Christ was to go to the right hand of the Father, whence he is to come to judge the quick and the dead, and that in corporal presence, according to the sound doctrine and rule of faith. For, in spiritual presence, he was to be with them after his ascension, (August. Tract. in Joann. 109). In another passage he is more full and explicit: In regard to ineffable and invisible grace, is fulfilled what he said, Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world (Mt. 28:20); but in regard to the flesh which the Word assumed in regard to his being born of a Virgin, in regard to his being apprehended by the Jews, nailed to the tree, taken down from the cross, wrapt in linen clothes, laid in the sepulchre, and manifested on his resurrection, it may be said, Me ye have not always with you. Why? because, in bodily presence, he conversed with his disciples forty days, and leading them out where they saw, but followed not, he ascended into heaven, and is not here: for there he sits at the right hand of the Father: and yet he is here, for the presence of his Godhead was not withdrawn. Therefore, as regards his divine presence, we have Christ always: as regards his bodily presence, it was truly said to the disciples, Me ye have not always. For a few days the Church had him bodily present. Now, she apprehends him by faith, but sees him not by the eye, (August. Tract. 51). (Institutes, II, xvi, 14)

Calvin has split Jesus up! Apparently Jesus is with me with His divine presence…but not with His bodily presence. Not only does the Reformed teaching of the Lord’s Supper steal the comfort from the Lord’s Supper it threatens to steal the comfort from other parts of the Bible as well.

I take the opposite view. I find no greater comfort in doctrines like perseverance, unconditional election, and irresistible grace.

It’s less one of difference as it is a refusal on the Lutheran side to dogmatically state how Jesus is present, beyond sacramentally. In our view, the mistake of Rome is trying to use Aristotelian philosophical thought to explain the presence. It is the farthest thing from biblical context to attempt to do. On top of that, Rome has stated it must be agreed with to be in union with the See.

It’s amazing to me that Rome can state how Jesus is present?

I would agree with that. The Reformed Confessions, particularly the Belgic, place a much higher emphasis on the importance of the Sacrament.

You go from attacking the position of the reformed church, to I guess praising the Belgic confession? Which is it?

I’m not trying to be sarcastic – but beyond your discourse attacking Calvin (calling his view worse that Zwingli, which is preposterous) I’m not sure what you’re view is?

Frankly I think Calvin did a fine job in describing the Eucharist!

 

[TriuneUnity]

He means it is symbolic of the body and blood. I wish he would have skipped the elaborate terminology (but that’s how he wrote). I see no deviation between Calvin’s and Paul’s view.

Where did Paul describe the Supper as a “real spiritual presence?” In fact, his language in 1 Cor. is completely material.

I take the opposite view. I find no greater comfort in doctrines like perseverance, unconditional election, and irresistible grace.

I didn’t mean to imply this against the 5 points per se. Though I honestly do not see how comfort can be taken in not having an objective way to know whether Christ died for you. But I do share much agreement with the five points. What I was referring to is Calvin’s Christology.

It’s amazing to me that Rome can state how Jesus is present?

Yes it is. Using pagan Greek philosophy to boot!

You go from attacking the position of the reformed church, to I guess praising the Belgic confession? Which is it?

I like the Belgic Confession, as Reformed Confessions go. I was comparing the view expressed in that to the Baptist position on the sacrament.

I’m not trying to be sarcastic – but beyond your discourse attacking Calvin (calling his view worse that Zwingli, which is preposterous) I’m not sure what you’re view is?

That we receive the true body and true blood of the Lord in the Supper; we receive it by mouth, physically. We receive the benefits it offers through faith in what is promised in the sacrament.

Frankly I think Calvin did a fine job in describing the Eucharist!

If Scriptural accuracy is taken out of the equation, sure

 

[Ronald_E]

What religion or denomination would Martin Luther belong to if he were alive today?

Forgive me before I start but evil Ron just came to the surface.
Father Luther would still be a Catholic priest because we have psychotherapy today for his rage with his father.

 

[Peter_J]

It’s less one of difference as it is a refusal on the Lutheran side to dogmatically state how Jesus is present, beyond sacramentally. In our view, the mistake of Rome is trying to use Aristotelian philosophical thought to explain the presence. It is the farthest thing from biblical context to attempt to do. On top of that, Rome has stated it must be agreed with to be in union with the See.

I don’t believe Catholics are required to agree with transubstantiation.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I don’t believe Catholics are required to agree with transubstantiation.

Isn’t it considered to be a revealed dogma that was formulated and defined at an ecumenical council (IV Lateran)?

 

[RobHom]

Isn’t it considered to be a revealed dogma that was formulated and defined at an ecumenical council (IV Lateran)?

Not sure about IV Lateran, but this link ties it to the Council of Trent:

usccb.org/catechism/quizzes/eucharist6.htm

**e. Para. 1413: By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity (cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651).

Para. 1376: The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation” (Council of Trent [1551]: DS 1642; cf. Mt 26:26 ff.; Mk 14:22 ff.; Lk 22:19ff; 1 Cor 11:24 ff.).

**

 

[SIA]

Luther would either be Anglican or Catholic today.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think he’d be Anglican, Lutheran, or heck maybe even Orthodox. He certainly wouldn’t be baptist, presbyterian and the rest of the folks who feel the Eucharist is merely a symbol or spiritual presence.

Luther was opposed to contraception, pro-Mary, and had affection for the saints and early fathers.

From all the Luther-bashing I get a vibe in the CAF that many Catholics in here have a sneaking admiration for Luther under all of that bad-mouthing.

Luther’s reformation changed western Europe, broke open a new era of nationhood out of the medievel world, a sense of individuality and freedom to explore science, literature, art, and the world around us from a non-religious point of view. The Reformation gave birth to the concepts of personal freedom, revolution, and the democracies we enjoy today. The top-heavy, monolithic, autocratic structure of the Roman Catholic Church would never have allowed for the government of the United States or the French Revolution, or the scientific inquiry we’ve been blessed with. Luther was an important link in a chain of freedom and modernity that I appreciate even though I’m a Catholic. Intellectual honesty forces me to admit that if we Catholics had remained completely in charge, we’d probably still be in ox carts, serving kings and dukes, torturing heretics and living in the dark ages.

Ok, now here comes the tsunami of people ready to lynch me!! LOL

 

[SIA]

I think he’d be Anglican, Lutheran, or heck maybe even Orthodox. He certainly wouldn’t be baptist, presbyterian and the rest of the folks who feel the Eucharist is merely a symbol or spiritual presence.

Luther was opposed to contraception, pro-Mary, and had affection for the saints and early fathers.

From all the Luther-bashing I get a vibe in the CAF that many Catholics in here have a sneaking admiration for Luther under all of that bad-mouthing.

Luther’s reformation changed western Europe, broke open a new era of nationhood out of the medievel world, a sense of individuality and freedom to explore science, literature, art, and the world around us from a non-religious point of view. The Reformation gave birth to the concepts of personal freedom, revolution, and the democracies we enjoy today. The top-heavy, monolithic, autocratic structure of the Roman Catholic Church would never have allowed for the government of the United States or the French Revolution, or the scientific inquiry we’ve been blessed with. Luther was an important link in a chain of freedom and modernity that I appreciate even though I’m a Catholic. Intellectual honesty forces me to admit that if we Catholics had remained completely in charge, we’d probably still be in ox carts, serving kings and dukes, torturing heretics and living in the dark ages.

Ok, now here comes the tsunami of people ready to lynch me!! LOL

The RCC has quietly embraced much of Luther under the radar.

 

[Jimmy_B]

The RCC has quietly embraced much of Luther under the radar.

Hello SIA,

If you are going to post something here, why don’t you back it up with credible facts?

You must like this Protestant “sound-bite”, because you have posted this comment here at CAF before, elsewhere and it is not true. Reform within the Roman Catholic Church began well before Martin Luther’s 95 Thesis…and you know that.

Moreover, the Counter Reformation is where changes were made within the Church, by the Church, addressing issues that were mentioned in previous Ecumenical Counsels.

The biggest change that occurred as a result of Martin Luther’s actions, is that he, Martin Luther… was Excommunicated.

 

[SIA]

Hello SIA,

If you are going to post something here, why don’t you back it up with credible facts?

You must like this Protestant “sound-bite”, because you have posted this comment here at CAF before, elsewhere and it is not true. Reform within the Roman Catholic Church began well before Martin Luther’s 95 Thesis…and you know that.

Moreover, the Counter Reformation is where changes were made within the Church, by the Church, addressing issues that were mentioned in previous Ecumenical Counsels.

The biggest change that occurred as a result of Martin Luther’s actions, is that he, Martin Luther… was Excommunicated.

It doesn’t matter what happened after the fact. Luther was Excommunicated. So What? He left already… The RCC knew of its errors through the upcoming centuries. With the Councils that followed including Vatican II you know as well as anyone that much of what Luther argued for was eventually embraced by the RCC.

 

[sola_scriptura]

Hello SIA,

If you are going to post something here, why don’t you back it up with credible facts?

You must like this Protestant “sound-bite”, because you have posted this comment here at CAF before, elsewhere and it is not true. Reform within the Roman Catholic Church began well before Martin Luther’s 95 Thesis…and you know that.

Moreover, the Counter Reformation is where changes were made within the Church, by the Church, addressing issues that were mentioned in previous Ecumenical Counsels.

The biggest change that occurred as a result of Martin Luther’s actions, is that he, Martin Luther… was Excommunicated.

You don’t really believe that do you? Of course the RCC changed because of Luther. Protestant doctrine and sentiment was beginning to creep into Northern Italy – and that was the wake up for Rome.

I would agree that there were bishops who privately agreed with Luther (in some areas – particularly with regard to church abuses); but notwithstanding change was not on the horizon, it had to be compelled.

The idea that the reformation didn’t produce the counter-reformation is simply revisionist history at its worse; but I guess it is a hard fact to swallow since it is logically fatal to infallibility.

 

[Jimmy_B]

SIA and sola_scriptura,

Sounds good, that is until questioned or asked about specific details, supporting your claims.

The fact is, Martin Luther and others like him have been a disaster for Christianity, causing the divisions that we see today.

Both of you act like Martin Luther “saved” Christianity, yet most Protestants today don’t agree with Martin Luther or with each other…Now why is that?

Protestants today have more disagreements among themselves than they do with Catholicism.

Once again, this is a case where there is an attempt to re-write history by claiming that a person who was all about, rejecting aspects of Christianity, by stating that he somehow “added” to, or made “better” something, that after his excommunication, was no longer a part of.

Nice try, but some people like facts, which support claims, timelines are nice too….Please try again thank you.

 

[Dempsey1919]

Nice try, but some people like facts, which support claims, timelines are nice too….Please try again thank you.

I agree with Jimmy. Don’t make a statement without giving examples and proof.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Pay no attention to Jimmy. He makes up some of the facts himself as he goes along.

Luther’s pints are cold, Jimmy. Galileo is even tending the bar, I hear…

Lighten up, man, and take a pill. Or two.