Monday, March 02, 2026

Which Roman Catholic Interpretation of Martin Luther and the Reformation is Correct?

The stained-glass image to the left depicts Thomas Aquinas stepping on the neck of Martin Luther and vanquishing him. Or, to quote the defender of Rome that posted this picture, 

A beautiful mosaic of the Angelic Doctor St Thomas Aquinas stepping on the neck of Luther the heretic. The Church will always prevail over protestantism. In 100 years, your protestant sect will be extinct and forgotten, but the Church will still be here. Because we were founded by God and we are invincible.

This harsh bravado is typical of low-hanging fruit online Roman Catholic fodder. For those of you actively engaged in social media, this may seem hard to believe... but this rage-bait sentiment does not reflect the entirety of modern-day Roman Catholicism. Frankly, Roman Catholics are not unified in their analysis of Martin Luther and the Reformation. They have a spectrum of conservative to liberal, from cafeteria Roman catholic to informed (in some sense), from harsh polemic to kind encounter. 

Why are there a variety of personal opinions put forth by Rome's defenders on Luther and the Reformation?

Martin Luther Was Not Named by the Decrees of the Council of Trent
The answer is that there is no official Roman Catholic interpretation on Martin Luther and the Reformation which binds them. Note this statement from Roman Catholic theologian Irwin Iserloh describing that Luther was not named in the decrees of the Council of Trent and its significance: 

[No] Reformers were condemned. Only teachings which were ascribed to them were struck with an anathema, without their being themselves individually named. This procedure of the Council was based on an instruction from the highest authority. Already in his instruction of December 31, 1546, the cardinal nephew, Alessandro Farnese, had laid down the principle that heretical teachings and not individually named persons were to be condemned. That would facilitate the procedure, but also leave open for Protestants the way to Trent. This principle was once more confirmed in February, 1547, and remained normative for the practice of all three periods.

It was clear that Trent was in this regard out of step with most of the earlier councils. Joachim of Flora had been condemned by name at the Fourth Lateran Council, and Wyclif and Hus at Constance. To the contrary, the Council of Trent, as Hubert Jedin wrote, "was not to become a tribunal." Errors would be rejected and with a view to bringing clarity to doctrinal confusion, no persons would be condemned. The rejections also related not just to teachings ascribed to the Reformers. No less opposition, as is evident, for example, in the first three canons on justification, was directed against the Pelagian currents in late medieval nominalistic theology. Canon 1 reads: "Whoever maintains that man through his own works, which are accomplished by the power of human nature or in accord with the teaching of the Law, without divine grace, which here is through Jesus Christ, can become justified before God, let him be anathema" (DS 1551). In this statement of teaching, to be sure, no Protestants are condemned. On the contrary, the endeavor here is related to doing justice to the basic concern of the Reformation.

Author James Atkinson echoes this point:
[Roman Catholic scholar Karl Rahner] reminds us of [Roman Catholic scholar Hubert Jedin’s] point, that Catholicism never condemned Luther by name at Trent, and that no official judgment on Luther exists by which a loyal Catholic is bound. He says that Catholicism may reject a certain aspect of Luther’s teaching, but that Roman Catholic the¬ ology has much to learn from him today nonetheless. These are heartening and hopeful words (James Atkinson, Martin Luther: Prophet to the Church Catholic, [p. 30). 
Roman Catholic scholar Hubert Jedin documents that the debate over officially making a pronouncement on Luther and the Reformers officially heretics was an issue for Roman Catholic authorities in the sixteenth century. There were those in attendance at the Council of Trent that wanted to condemn individuals Protestants like they did in the old days. For instance:
Claramontanus. Heretics should be summoned to a council to account for their assertions or, if they repent, to confess their error, as has been done in other councils. He holds that the articles condemned by the holy fathers and judged worthy of condemnation should be anathematized; those that are doubtful will be dealt with at another time (DeepL English translation).

Original text: Claramontanus. Oportet vocari ad concilium haereticos, qui de suis assertionibus rationem redderent, vel resipiscentes errorem suum faterentur, ut in aliis conciliis factum est. Censet articulos damnatos a sanctis patribus et damnandos iudicatos damnarí sub anathemate; de iis, qui dubii sunt, alias agetur. 

Also as an example, on the Sacraments, the Bishop of Astorga stated, "let the Council condemn specific articles extracted from the writings of the Protestants, and with the indication of the names of their authors." Jedin continues:
However, a change such as this, which would have turned the Council into a tribunal, did not materialise, but the legates took the proposals of the two Spaniards, which were supported by several Italians (for instance by the Bishops of Bertinoro and Alife), so seriously, that they reported on them to Rome and asked for instructions. The Pope upheld the earlier policy, namely, a clear differentiation between the Catholic and Protestant doctrinal position, but there was to be no condemnation by name of Protestant authors.

This is confirmed in a letter from Cardinal Alessandro Farnese:

As for the mention made in congregation about condemning the authors of heresies by name, I believe that until last year this point was doubted and finally resolved that it should not be done, so as not to enter into the lengths and intricacies of citations and processes (Google translate).

Original text: Quanto alla mentione fatta in congregatione, di condennare nominatamente li autori delle heresie, credo, che insino l'anno passato fusse dubitato di questo punto et resoluto all' ultimo, che non si facesse per non entrar' in lunghezze et intrighi di citationi et. processi.

 It is true that some of the theological positions Martin Luther and the Reformers were blatantly condemned by the Council of Trent as heretical. However, in choosing to not name them, the Council of Trent thrust Luther and the Reformers into a sort of undefined linguistic limbo.  They are not dogmatically personally heretics, but some of what they held was heretical. This allows Rome's defenders to have the freedom to choose whichever path out of linguistic limbo they want. For those defenders of Rome that long for the good 'ol days of pin the tail on the heretic, they can point to what Luther and the Reformers wrote and classify them at least as holding heretical opinions, therefore they are heretics. On the other hand, those Roman Catholics that have deep streaks of modern-day ecumenism running through their veins can look for the positive aspects of Luther and the Reformation as a means to bring separated brethren back into full communion with the Roman Catholic Church.  

How did this all come about? The answer lies in first presenting the conflicting opinions of popes and then seeing the development of ecumenical Reformation Roman Catholic scholarship.


The Popes, Luther and the Reformation
Currently, Roman Catholic authorities seem kind to Martin Luther and the Reformation while in previous centuries they were excessively hostile. Which Popes are right about Luther, those from the sixteenth century or those from the twentieth / twenty-first century? The former says he's a heretical wild boar. Those infected by Luther's errors are in eternal danger. Those in the twentieth / twenty-first centuries say Luther was honestly pursuing God, and those following along with him are the unfortunate sufferers of being separated brothers and sisters of the Roman Catholic church, lacking the fullness of the truth.  

Let's take a closer look at some papal comments about Martin Luther and the Reformation to demonstrate the severe disconnect between the ways the earlier popes understood Luther and the Reformation and those that came in the twentieth / twenty-first centuries. They once held Luther and his followers were damnable heretic needed to be exterminated, but then centuries later they said the exact opposite.


Sixteenth Century

Pope Leo X (1513-1521)

...foxes have arisen seeking to destroy the vineyard whose winepress you alone have trod. When you were about to ascend to your Father, you committed the care, rule, and administration of the vineyard, an image of the triumphant church, to Peter, as the head and your vicar and his successors. The wild boar from the forest seeks to destroy it and every wild beast feeds upon it (Pope Leo X Exsurge Domine 1520).

Against the Roman Church, you [Peter] warned, lying teachers are rising, introducing ruinous sects, and drawing upon themselves speedy doom. Their tongues are fire, a restless evil, full of deadly poison. They have bitter zeal, contention in their hearts, and boast and lie against the truth (Pope Leo X Exsurge Domine 1520).

...a new Porphyry rises who, as the old once wrongfully assailed the holy apostles, now assails the holy pontiffs, our predecessors (Pope Leo X Exsurge Domine 1520).

[Luther] is like the heretics “whose last defense,” as Jerome says, “is to start spewing out a serpent’s venom with their tongue when they see that their causes are about to be condemned, and spring to insults when they see they are vanquished” (Pope Leo X Exsurge Domine 1520). 

No one of sound mind is ignorant how destructive, pernicious, scandalous, and seductive to pious and simple minds these various errors [of Luther's] are, how opposed they are to all charity and reverence for the holy Roman Church who is the mother of all the faithful and teacher of the faith; how destructive they are of the vigor of ecclesiastical discipline, namely obedience. This virtue is the font and origin of all virtues and without it anyone is readily convicted of being unfaithful.

Therefore we, in this above enumeration, important as it is, wish to proceed with great care as is proper, and to cut off the advance of this plague and cancerous disease so it will not spread any further in the Lord’s field as harmful thornbushes (Pope Leo X Exsurge Domine 1520).

We have found that these errors or theses are not Catholic, as mentioned above, and are not to be taught, as such; but rather are against the doctrine and tradition of the Catholic Church, and against the true interpretation of the sacred Scriptures received from the Church...  For, according to these errors, or any one or several of them, it clearly follows that the Church which is guided by the Holy Spirit is in error and has always erred (Pope Leo X Exsurge Domine 1520).

 ...we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected . . . We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication…. (Pope Leo X Exsurge Domine 1520).

Moreover, because the preceding errors and many others are contained in the books or writings of Martin Luther, we likewise condemn, reprobate, and reject completely the books and all the writings and sermons of the said Martin, whether in Latin or any other language, containing the said errors or any one of them; and we wish them to be regarded as utterly condemned, reprobated, and rejected. We forbid each and every one of the faithful of either sex, in virtue of holy obedience and under the above penalties to be incurred automatically, to read, assert, preach, praise, print, publish, or defend them. They will incur these penalties if they presume to uphold them in any way, personally or through another or others, directly or indirectly, tacitly or explicitly, publicly or occultly, either in their own homes or in other public or private places. Indeed immediately after the publication of this letter these works, wherever they may be, shall be sought out carefully by the ordinaries and others [ecclesiastics and regulars], and under each and every one of the above penalties shall be burned publicly and solemnly in the presence of the clerics and people (Pope Leo X Exsurge Domine 1520).
Therefore we can, without any further citation or delay, proceed against him to his condemnation and damnation as one whose faith is notoriously suspect and in fact a true heretic with the full severity of each and all of the above penalties and censures (Pope Leo X Exsurge Domine 1520).

Nevertheless Martin himself—and it gives us grievous sorrow and perplexity to say this—the slave of a depraved mind, has scorned to revoke his errors within the prescribed interval and to send us word of such revocation, or to come to us himself; nay, like a stone of stumbling, he has feared not to write and preach worse things than before against us and this Holy See and the Catholic faith, and to lead others on to do the same.

He has now been declared a heretic; and so also others, whatever their authority and rank, who have cared nought of their own salvation but publicly and in all men’s eyes become followers of Martin’s pernicious and heretical sect, and given him openly and publicly their help, counsel and favour, encouraging him in their midst in his disobedience and obstinacy, or hindering the publication of our said missive: such men have incurred the punishments set out in that missive, and are to be treated rightfully as heretics and avoided by all faithful Christians, as the Apostle says (Titus iii. 10-11). (Pope Leo X, Decet Romanum 1521).

Our purpose is that such men should rightfully be ranked with Martin and other accursed heretics and excommunicates, and that even as they have ranged themselves with the obstinacy in sinning of the said Martin, they shall likewise share his punishments and his name, by bearing with them everywhere the title “Lutheran” and the punishments it incurs (Pope Leo X, Decet Romanum 1521).

Our decrees which follow are passed against Martin and others who follow him in the obstinacy of his depraved and damnable purpose, as also against those who defend and protect him with a military bodyguard, and do not fear to support him with their own resources or in any other way, and have and do presume to offer and afford help, counsel and favour toward him. All their names, surnames and rank—however lofty and dazzling their dignity may be—we wish to be taken as included in these decrees with the same effect as if they were individually listed and could be so listed in their publication, which must be furthered with an energy to match their contents (Pope Leo X, Decet Romanum 1521).

We would make known to all the small store that Martin, his followers and the other rebels have set on God and his Church by their obstinate and shameless temerity. We would protect the herd from one infectious animal, lest its infection spread to the healthy ones (Pope Leo X, Decet Romanum 1521). 

Pope Adrian VI (1522-1523)

...the greatest sorrow by which we are afflicted from the prosperity of the Lutheran sect, chiefly for this reason: because we see innumerable souls, redeemed by the blood of Christ and committed to our pastoral care, being turned away on that occasion from the true faith and religion and going into perdition (Instruktion des Papstes Adrian VI, Google translate).

Fourth, let the injury move them which is inflicted by Luther upon them and their parents and ancestors; for since their parents and ancestors and they themselves have always held the faith which the Roman and Catholic Church approves, and Luther and his followers hold a far different faith—asserting many things not to be of faith which they nevertheless held to be of faith—it is manifest that they are condemned by Luther as infidels and heretics. Consequently, according to Luther, all their ancestors who died in our faith are in hell, since error in faith makes men guilty of damnation (Instruktion des Papstes Adrian VI, Google translate).

Seventh, let them consider that Luther uses nearly the same way to seduce the Christian people that the most filthy Muhammad used to deceive so many thousands of souls: namely, by permitting those things to which carnal men are inclined, and thereafter exempting them from those things which seem more grave in our law; except that Luther seems to act a little more modestly, so that he may deceive more effectively. Muhammad granted the license of having many wives and of repelling them at will and marrying others; this man [Luther], so that he may conciliate to himself the favors of monks and virgins dedicated to God and of priests eager for the lewdness of the flesh, preaches that vows of perpetual continence are even illicit, much less not obligatory. Therefore, he says it is lawful for them by evangelical liberty to marry, unmindful of the word of the Apostle when he says concerning younger widows that when they have become wanton against Christ, they wish to marry, having damnation because they have made void their first faith (1 Timothy 5:11). With these things having been set forth by you, and many others which [you may] collect partly from the examples of our letters, partly from your own prudence you will be able to devise [further arguments]. You shall exhort, in our name, the said princes, prelates, and peoples, that they may finally wake up and be stirred to resist both such a great injury, which the Lutherans are known to inflict upon God and His sacred religion, and the greatest ignominy, which they inflict upon your entire German nation—and upon the princes themselves—and the greatest disgrace and insult, which they inflict upon their ancestors whom (as we have said) they in effect condemn to hell. Let them proceed entirely to the execution of the Apostolic sentence and the aforementioned Imperial Edict [the Edict of Worms] (Instruktion des Papstes Adrian VI, Google translate).

But if anyone should perchance say that Luther was condemned by the Apostolic See without being heard and without a defense, and that therefore he ought to be heard and should not be condemned before being convicted, you shall respond: that those things which belong to faith must be believed on account of divine authority, not proved. "Away with arguments," says Ambrose, "where faith is sought; the fishermen are believed, not the dialecticians." And certainly we confess that a defense ought not to be denied to him in matters of fact—that is, whether he said [something] or not, whether he preached or wrote it or not, etc. But concerning divine law and the matter of the sacraments, one must stand by the authority of the saints and the Church (Instruktion des Papstes Adrian VI, Google translate).

Since, therefore, Luther and his followers condemn the councils of the holy fathers, burn the sacred canons, and confuse all things according to their own whim and disturb the whole world, it is manifest that they, as public enemies and disturbers of the peace, ought to be exterminated by all lovers of that same peace (Instruktion des Papstes Adrian VI, Google translate).

Twentieth Century
The twentieth century popes began with echoing that of the sixteenth century popes.

Pope Pius X (1903-1914)

Fast forward to the beginning of the twentieth century. Pope Pius X (1903-1914)  stated:  

"Protestantism as proudly called by its founders, is the sum of all the heresies, that have been before it, after it, and that could still be born to slaughter the souls." 

Original text:  Il protestantesimo o religione riformata, come orgogliosamente la chiamarono i suoi fondatori, è la somma di tutte le eresie, che furono prima di esso, che sono state dopo, e che potranno nascere ancora a fare strage delle anime. 

Certainly this suffices to show superabundantly by how many roads Modernism leads to the annihilation of all religion. The first step in this direction was taken by Protestantism; the second is made by Modernism; the next will plunge headlong into atheism (Pascendi Dominici Gregis Encyclical of Pope Pius X on the Doctrines of the Modernists).

Pope Pius X was not tolerant of ecumenism towards Protestants. He lumped all Protestants in with modernism, that movement of liberalism within theology that infiltrated the ivory towers of academia (philosophy, history, sciences), for him most particularly, Roman Catholic scholarship. Protestantism, according to Pius X, was that movement that ushered in the destruction of religion. Pius also called modernism the "sum" or "synthesis" of all heresies.  

Another twentieth century Pope Pius echoed this sentiment in honoring the memory of anti-Protestant polemicist Francis de Sales, Pope Pius XI (1922- 1939). He spoke of the "heresies begotten by the Reformation."

In 1959, Pope John XXIII began the shift towards a friendly approach to Protestants. Let's pick up with Pope John XXIII statement that Protestants are not the sum of all heresies and soul killers, but are rather, "separater brethren."classifying Protestants as "separated brethren" led to a different kinder approach from the later popes toward Martin Luther.

Pope John XXIII (1958-1963)

79. We address Ourselves now to all of you who are separated from this Apostolic See. May this wonderful Spectacle of unity, by which the Catholic Church is set apart and distinguished, as well as the prayers and entreaties with which she begs God for unity, stir your hearts and awaken you to what is really in your best interest. 80. May We, in fond anticipation, address you as sons and brethren? May We hope with a father's love for your return? (Ad Petri Cathedram Encyclical of Pope John xxiii on Truth, Unity and Peace, in a Spirit of Charity, June 29, 1959).

86. We address, then, as brethren all who are separated from Us, using the words of Saint Augustine: "Whether they wish it or not, they are our brethren. They cease to be our brethren only when they stop saying 'Our Father'" (Ad Petri Cathedram Encyclical of Pope John xxiii on Truth, Unity and Peace, in a Spirit of Charity, June 29, 1959).

Wherefore, to all Our brethren and sons who are separated from the Chair of Blessed Peter, We say again: "I am . . . Joseph, your brother." Come, "make room for us."  We want nothing else, desire nothing else, pray God for nothing else but your salvation, your eternal happiness (Ad Petri Cathedram Encyclical of Pope John xxiii on Truth, Unity and Peace, in a Spirit of Charity, June 29, 1959).

96. We pray earnestly to the Blessed Virgin Mary, to whose Immaculate Heart Our predecessor, Pius XII, consecrated the entire human race. May she seek and obtain from God this harmonious unity, this true, active, and militant peace, on behalf of Our children in Christ and all those who, though separated from Us, cannot help loving truth, unity and peace (Ad Petri Cathedram Encyclical of Pope John xxiii on Truth, Unity and Peace, in a Spirit of Charity, June 29, 1959).

Unhappily, however, the entire Christian family has not as yet fully and perfectly attained to this visible unity in the truth. But the Catholic Church considers it her duty to work actively for the fulfillment of that great mystery of unity for which Christ prayed so earnestly to His heavenly Father on the eve of His great sacrifice. The knowledge that she is so intimately associated with that prayer is for her an occasion of ineffable peace and joy. And why should she not rejoice sincerely when she sees Christ's prayer extending its salvific and ever increasing efficacy even over those who are not of her fold? (Solemn Opening of Vatican Ecumenical Council ii gaudet mater ecclesia opening address of the holy father pope john xxiii,11 October 1962).

The great desire, therefore, of the Catholic Church in raising aloft at this Council the torch of truth, is to show herself to the world as the loving mother of all mankind; gentle, patient, and full of tenderness and sympathy for her separated children (Solemn Opening of Vatican Ecumenical Council ii gaudet mater ecclesia opening address of the holy father pope john xxiii,11 October 1962).

There is also a unity of prayer and ardent longing prompting Christians separated from this Apostolic See to aspire to union with us. And finally there is a unity, which consists in the esteem and respect shown for the Catholic Church by members of various non-Christian religions. (Solemn Opening of Vatican Ecumenical Council ii gaudet mater ecclesia opening address of the holy father pope john xxiii,11 October 1962).

Nor do We wish to forget Our separated brethren for whom Our prayers rise unceasingly to Heaven so that the promise of Christ may be fulfilled: one Shepherd and one flock (Christmas Message of Pope John XXIII, December 23, 1959).

Pope Paul VI (1963-1978)

Everywhere large numbers have felt the impulse of this grace, and among our separated brethren also there increases from day to day the movement, fostered by the grace of the Holy Spirit, for the restoration of unity among all Christians. This movement toward unity is called "ecumenical." Those belong to it who invoke the Triune God and confess Jesus as Lord and Savior, doing this not merely as individuals but also as corporate bodies. For almost everyone regards the body in which he has heard the Gospel as his Church and indeed, God's Church. All however, though in different ways, long for the one visible Church of God, a Church truly universal and set forth into the world that the world may be converted to the Gospel and so be saved, to the glory of God (Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio).

Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly condemned. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church - whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church - do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church (Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio).

The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation (Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio).


Pope John Paul II (1978-2005)

Pope John Paul II was the first pope to truly change the magisterial opinion on Martin Luther.  He rereferred to Luther as a man of "profound piety." 

Consequently Luther's profound piety that, with burning passion, was driven by questioning on eternal salvation, is clearly delineated.

Pope John Paul II also stated:

The deep religiosity of Luther, who was driven by a burning passion for the question of eternal salvation, has become convincingly visible. Of course, it has also become clear that the rupture of church unity can be traced back neither to a lack of understanding on the part of the pastors of the Catholic Church nor to a lack of understanding of true Catholicism on the part of Luther alone, however much this may have played a role. The decisions at stake went deeper. In the dispute over the relationship between faith and tradition, fundamental questions of the correct interpretation and appropriation of the Christian faith were at play, the church-dividing effect of which cannot be overcome by mere historical understanding (botschaft von johannes paul ii. an kard. johannes willebrands, präsident des sekretariats für die einheit der christen, 1983, Google English translation).

Original text: Jahrhunderts geführt. Überzeugend sichtbar geworden ist dabei die tiefe Religiosität Luthers, der von der brennenden Leidenschaft für die Frage nach dem ewigen Heil getrieben war. Deutlich geworden ist freilich auch, daß sich der Bruch der Kircheneinheit weder auf Unverständnis seitens der Hirten der katholischen Kirche noch auf mangelndes Verstehen des wahren Katholizismus auf seiten Luthers allein zurückführen läßt, so sehr solches mitgespielt haben mag. Die Entscheide, um die es ging, reichten tiefer. Bei dem Streit um das Verhältnis von Glaube und Überlieferung waren Grundfragen der rechten Auslegung und Aneignung des christlichen Glaubens im Spiel, deren kirchentrennende Wirkung durch bloßes historisches Verstehen nicht zu überwinden ist. 

First of all, it is important to proceed with careful historical work. The aim is to gain a fair picture of the Reformer as well as of the entire epoch of the Reformation and the persons working in it through unbiased research guided solely by the search for truth. Where there is guilt, it must be acknowledged, no matter which side it hits; where polemics have distorted the view, it must be corrected, again regardless of which side it is. In doing so, we cannot be guided by the intention of setting ourselves up as judges of history, but the goal must only be to recognize better and thus to become more capable of truth (botschaft von johannes paul ii. an kard. johannes willebrands, präsident des sekretariats für die einheit der christen, 1983, Google English translation).

Original text: Zunächst ist das Fortgehen sorgfältiger historischer Arbeit wichtig. Es geht darum, durch unvoreingenommene, allein von der Suche nach Wahrheit geleitete Forschung ein gerechtes Bild des Reformators wie der ganzen Epoche der Reformation und der in ihr wirkenden Personen zu gewinnen. Wo Schuld ist, muß sie anerkannt werden, gleich welche Seite sie trifft; wo Polemik die Sicht verzerrt hat, muß sie richtiggestellt werden, wiederum unabhängig davon, um welche Seite es sich handelt. Dabei kann uns nicht die Absicht leiten, uns zu Richtern der Geschichte aufzuwerfen, sondern das Ziel darf einzig sein, besser zu erkennen und damit wahrheitsfähiger zu werden.  

Pope John Paul II didn't view Martin Luther as still excommunicated. He stated: "According to Roman Catholic doctrine, any excommunication expires with the person's death. It only applies during a person's lifetime." This appears to be an inference made from the Code of Canon Law that states excommunication is a medical penalty enacted upon someone who is living (Code of Canon Law, can. 1312). 

In a letter from October 31, 1983, Pope John Paul II also wrote of the "profound religiousness of Luther who, with burning passion, was driven by the examination of eternal salvation."

Twenty-First Century

Pope Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger) (2005-2013) 

 “How do I receive the grace of God?”: this question struck him in the heart and lay at the foundation of all his theological searching and inner struggle. For Luther theology was no mere academic pursuit, but the struggle for oneself, which in turn was a struggle for and with God. “How do I receive the grace of God?” The fact that this question was the driving force of his whole life never ceases to make a deep impression on me... The question: what is God’s position towards me, where do I stand before God? – Luther’s burning question must once more, doubtless in a new form, become our question too, not an academic question, but a real one. In my view, this is the first summons we should attend to in our encounter with Martin Luther. (Meeting with the Council of the Evangelical Church in Germany Friday, 23 September 2011).
Luther’s thinking, his whole spirituality, was thoroughly Christocentric: “What promotes Christ’s cause” was for Luther the decisive hermeneutical criterion for the exegesis of sacred Scripture. This presupposes, however, that Christ is at the heart of our spirituality and that love for him, living in communion with him, is what guides our life  (Meeting with the Council of the Evangelical Church in Germany Friday, 23 September 2011).

It was the error of the Reformation period that for the most part we could only see what divided us and we failed to grasp existentially what we have in common in terms of the great deposit of sacred Scripture and the early Christian creeds. For me, the great ecumenical step forward of recent decades is that we have become aware of all this common ground, that we acknowledge it as we pray and sing together, as we make our joint commitment to the Christian ethos in our dealings with the world, as we bear common witness to the God of Jesus Christ in this world as our inalienable, shared foundation (Meeting with the Council of the Evangelical Church in Germany Friday, 23 September 2011).

 ...I firmly hoped for an ecumenical experience in Erfurt, for it was in this very city that Martin Luther entered the Augustinian community and was ordained a priest. I was therefore deeply cheered by the meeting with the members of the Council of the Evangelical Church in Germany and by the ecumenical event in the former Augustinian Convent. It was a cordial meeting which, in dialogue and prayer, brought us more deeply to Christ. We saw once again how important our common witness to faith in Jesus Christ is in today’s world, which all too often takes no notice of God or is not interested in him (General Audience, St. Peter's Square, Wednesday, 28 September 2011).

Pope Francis (2013-2025)

I think that Martin Luther’s intentions were not mistaken; he was a reformer. Perhaps some of his methods were not right, although at that time, if you read Pastor’s history, for example – Pastor was a German Lutheran who experienced a conversion when he studied the facts of that period; he became a Catholic – we see that the Church was not exactly a model to emulate. There was corruption and worldliness in the Church; there was attachment to money and power. That was the basis of his protest. He was also intelligent, and he went ahead, justifying his reasons for it. Nowadays, Lutherans and Catholics, and all Protestants, are in agreement on the doctrine of justification: on this very important point he was not mistaken. He offered a “remedy” for the Church, and then this remedy rigidified in a state of affairs, a discipline, a way of believing, a way of acting, a mode of liturgy.  (In Flight Press Conference of His Holiness Pope Francis from Armedia to Rome, Sunday, 26 June 2016).

 Pope Francis Celebrates the Reformation with a Martin Luther Statue? 

One of the most bizarre official Roman Catholic reclassifications of Martin Luther happened in 2016. Bonafide pictures circulated online showing Pope Francis standing next to the Vatican's statue of Martin Luther. Some reports say the Pope also received the gift of a jumbo edition of the Ninety-Five Theses. Luther's statue appears to be holding the New Testament. Here's an excerpt from the Pope's address:

Jesus reminds us: “Apart from me, you can do nothing” (v. 5). He is the one who sustains us and spurs us on to find ways to make our unity ever more visible. Certainly, our separation has been an immense source of suffering and misunderstanding, yet it has also led us to recognize honestly that without him we can do nothing; in this way it has enabled us to understand better some aspects of our faith. With gratitude we acknowledge that the Reformation helped give greater centrality to sacred Scripture in the Church’s life. Through shared hearing of the word of God in the Scriptures, important steps forward have been taken in the dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation, whose fiftieth anniversary we are presently celebrating. Let us ask the Lord that his word may keep us united, for it is a source of nourishment and life; without its inspiration we can do nothing.

The spiritual experience of Martin Luther challenges us to remember that apart from God we can do nothing. “How can I get a propitious God?” This is the question that haunted Luther. In effect, the question of a just relationship with God is the decisive question for our lives. As we know, Luther encountered that propitious God in the Good News of Jesus, incarnate, dead and risen. With the concept “by grace alone”, he reminds us that God always takes the initiative, prior to any human response, even as he seeks to awaken that response. The doctrine of justification thus expresses the essence of human existence before God.

Conclusion
This excursion into papal comments is intended to demonstrate the significant differences in interacting with Roman Catholics considering Protestants to be separated brethren and those that think Protestants are headed toward eternal damnation. Both types of Roman Catholics online, but the latter category presents itself as an overwhelming expansive swarm. If you're conversing with a member of the swarm, challenge them to be transparent as to which pope they agree with:

Which private interpretive opinion of Roman Catholicism do you hold

Also ask: Why is your opinion of Martin Luther, the Reformation, and Protestants more authoritative or meaningful than a pope?

 The founder of the popular North American pop-apologetics website Catholic Answers commented on the statements of Pope Francis above. Compare and contrast Keating's Reformation-hostile remarks to those of Pope Francis:  

I see nothing to celebrate in the Protestant Reformation. It was the greatest disaster the West suffered over the last millennium. It brought theological confusion, political turmoil, and decades of war. The religious wars of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries killed about three percent of the world’s population, the same proportion that died in World War II. The religious wars would not have occurred had the Reformation not occurred.

Keating's rhetoric finds many noisy allies in cyberspace. For instance, just recently a defender of Rome called me a "slimy Anti-Christ heretic." Another comment stated, "death to prots" (though hours later this comment was edited out). This is not official Roman Catholic language post-Vatican II! For those of you involved in online Reformation dialogs, the overwhelming majority of noisy Roman Catholics have no idea that the way the papacy understood Luther in the sixteenth century is not the way the papacy understands him currently. I haven't found many that care or see it as a dilemma. They have no interest in parsing out the extreme conflicting opinions of the Papacy. 


Addendum #1: Old School Roman Catholics vs. New School Ecumenism

In interacting with Rome's defenders, I have come across more than a few people that rejects the ecumenically driven Vatican II type of authority and ecumenism of the modern papacy. They seem flatly against the view that Protestants are separated brethren and viewing Martin Luther favorably. These cyber-defenders of Rome cling to an older interpretation of the papacy that was hostile to Protestants and consider them lost heretics. For instance, take a look at this Roman Catholic work from the nineteenth century:

Q. Does the Lord make use of apostate Catholics, such as Martin Luther, Calvin, John Knox, Henry VIII., King of England, to reform the manners of the people?

A. The thought is absurd. The lives of those men were evil, and it is only the devil that makes use of them to pervert the people still more. The Lord makes use of His saints, such as a St. Francis of Assisium, a St. Dominick, a St. Ignatius, a St. Alphonsus, to convert the people and reform their evil manners by explaining to them the truths of faith, the commandments, and the necessity of receiving the sacraments with proper dispositions, and by setting them in their own lives the loftiest example of faith, purity, and all Christian virtues.

Q. Are there any other reasons to show that heretics, or Protestants who die out of the Roman Catholic Church, are not saved?

A. There are several. They cannot be saved, because

1. They have no divine faith.
2. They make a liar of Jesus Christ, of the Holy Ghost, and of the Apostles.
3. They have no faith in Christ.
4. They fell away from the true Church of Christ.
5. They are too proud to submit to the Pope, the Vicar of Christ.
6. They cannot perform any good works whereby they can obtain heaven.
7. They do not receive the Body and Blood of Christ.
8. They die in their sins.
9. They ridicule and blaspheme the Mother of God and His saints.
10. They slander the spouse of Jesus Christ —:the Catholic Church.

Q. What is the act of faith of a Protestant?

A. O my God, I believe nothing except what my own private judgment tells me to believe; therefore I believe that I can interpret Thy written word—the Holy Scriptures —as I choose. I believe that the Pope is anti-Christ; that any man can be saved, provided he is an honest man; I believe that faith alone is sufficient for salvation; that good works, and works of penance, and the confession of sins are not necessary, etc.

Q. Have Protestants any faith in Christ?

A. They never had.

Q. Why not?

A. Because there never lived such a Christ as they imagine and believe in.

Q. In what kind of a Christ do they believe?

A. In such a one of whom they can make a liar, with impunity, whose doctrine they can interpret as they please, and who does not care about what a man believes, provided he be an honest man before the public.

Q. Will such a faith in such a Christ save Protestants?

A. No sensible man will assert such an absurdity.

 

Addendum #2: The Roman Catholic Perspective of Martin Luther

One of my earliest online projects was tracing Roman Catholic views of Martin Luther through the centuries (2003). Back then, I stumbled upon the change from their harsh polemic to kind evaluation... seemingly by accident!  The information in the links below was primarily gathered from my deep dives in the library at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. 

The Roman Catholic Perspective of Martin Luther (Part One)


To explain this as simply as possible: Roman Catholic scholarship was generally hostile to Martin Luther up until the early twentieth century. Then, there was a shift toward from destructive criticism of Luther to respectful encounter. This Roman Catholic scholarship eventually filtered into the papacy. 

It seems to me that while the harsh polemic was avoided by Roman Catholic scholarship in the twentieth century, it did not filter down that well to the masses. Then, the Internet hit. The old polemic was revived and given new life in the twenty-first century by anyone with an online dial-up connection! If you're interacting with Roman Catholicism on Martin Luther, you'll benefit greatly by understanding this flow of their history.


Addendum #3: Video- History of Roman Catholic Treatments of Martin Luther
In February 2024 I was invited to do a YouTube interview on the History of Roman Catholic Treatments of Martin Luther for Javier Perdomo's channel. I provided a cursory trace of Roman Catholic opinions on Martin Luther through the centuries. For those of you interested in the issues between Protestants and Roman Catholics, I highly recommend Javier Perdomo's channel!
 
 


Monday, February 23, 2026

Luther Against Transubstantiation and Roman Catholics Using Him on the Real Presence

Roman Catholic apologists utilize Martin Luther's comments about the Real Presence of the body and blood of Jesus Christ in the Lord's Supper. His comments seem to suggest a strong point of unity with Roman Catholicism as well as a broad rejection of the views of many contemporary Protestants. He's portrayed as being on Rome's side. It's an attempt to cause cognitive dissonance aa a means to convert people to their side of the Tiber

I see their Luther's Real Presence argument as a clever way to corner many Protestants. They say, "you believe in sola scriptura? Look what your founder says about the body and blood of Jesus Christ!" Unfortunately for them... their argument suffers fatal flaws if viewed within their worldview. Using this argument places them in direct denial of Roman Catholic infallible authority.

Luther's seeming unity with Roman Catholicism disintegrates in two ways. First, Luther's opinion on transubstantiation demonstrates his lack of unity with Rome's infallible pronouncements on transubstantiation.  Second, Luther's broader comments on Rome's liturgical presentation of the Lord's Supper (the sacrifice of the Mass) demonstrate he wanted nothing to do with attending a Eucharistic presentation in a papal Roman Catholic church. 

In this entry, we'll first take a cursory look at what Rome says about transubstantiation and secondly, we'll look at what Martin Luther said about it. In a future entry, we'll dive into Luther's rejection of the sacrifice of the Mass.   

The Roman Catholic View of Transubstantiation, a Brief Primer
To be obedient to Rome, you are required to believe that which was pronounced by the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215:

His body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and wine having been changed in substance, by God’s power, into his body and blood, so that in order to achieve this mystery of unity we receive from God what he received from us.

The Council of Florence (1431-1439) stated, "Substantia panis in corpus, substantia vini in sanguinem (Christi) convertitur" (the substance of bread is changed into the body of Christ and the substance of wine into his blood).

 This was reaffirmed after Luther's death by the infallible Council of Trent:

CANON I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.

 CANON lI.-If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.

These statements were succinctly summarized in the authoritative Tridentine Creed of 1564:
I profess, likewise, that in the Mass there is offered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead; and that in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist there is truly, really, and substantially, the Body and Blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ; and that there is made a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood, which conversion the Catholic Church calls Transubstantiation. I also confess that under either kind alone Christ is received whole and entire, and a true sacrament.
In this brief overview, notice Roman Catholicism makes no excuses, both dogmatically and in practice. It believes the bread and wine are no longer physically present in the Lord's Supper, "Transubstantiation means the change of the whole substance of bread into the substance of the Body of Christ and of the whole substance of wine into the substance of his Blood" as per the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Roman Catholics before and after the Council of Trent must wholeheartedly agree to transubstantiation to be considered faithful Roman Catholics and not subject to a severe anathema. 

Luther's View of Transubstantiation, a Primer
Here is a sampling of some specific quotes from Luther on transubstantiation. To summarize: the extant evidence shows he appears to have accepted it at first, then rejected it but allowed it to be held if one wanted to, then a short while later he rejected it as impious, blasphemous and anathema

Early on in the Reformation via a passing comment, Luther appears supportive of Roman Catholic transubstantiation. In 1519 he writes,
...[H]e gave his true natural flesh in the bread, and his natural true blood in the wine, that he might give a really perfect sacrament or sign. For just as the bread is changed into his true natural body and the wine into his natural true blood, so truly are we also drawn and changed into the spiritual body, that is, into the fellowship of Christ and all saints and by this sacrament put into possession of all the virtues and mercies of Christ... (LW 35:59).
Only a year later though he declares it to be an aspect of the Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520), being under "Roman tyranny" (LW 36:28). He dubs it "the second captivity" (LW 36:28). Luther states:
Some time ago, when I was drinking in scholastic theology, the learned Cardinal of Cambrai gave me food for thought in his comments on the fourth book of the Sentences. He argues with great acumen that to hold that real bread and real wine, and not merely their accidents, are present on the altar, would be much more probable and require fewer superfluous miracles—if only the church had not decreed otherwise. When I learned later what church it was that had decreed this, namely the Thomistic—that is, the Aristotelian church—I grew bolder, and after floating in a sea of doubt, I at last found rest for my conscience in the above view, namely, that it is real bread and real wine, in which Christ’s real flesh and real blood are present in no other way and to no less a degree than the others assert them to be under their accidents. I reached this conclusion because I saw that the opinions of the Thomists, whether approved by pope or by council, remain only opinions, and would not become articles of faith even if an angel from heaven were to decree otherwise [Gal. 1:8]. For what is asserted without the Scriptures or proven revelation may be held as an opinion, but need not be believed. But this opinion of Thomas hangs so completely in the air without support of Scripture or reason that it seems to me he knows neither his philosophy nor his logic. For Aristotle speaks of subject and accidents so very differently from St. Thomas that it seems to me this great man is to be pitied not only for attempting to draw his opinions in matters of faith from Aristotle, but also for attempting to base them upon a man whom he did not understand, thus building an unfortunate superstructure upon an unfortunate foundation (LW 36:28-29).
True, Luther at this point does go on to allow someone to hold to transubstantiation if so desired, but only to allow the other possibility that someone holds the bread and wine are also still present: 
Therefore I permit every man to hold either of these opinions, as he chooses. My one concern at present is to remove all scruples of conscience, so that no one may fear being called a heretic if he believes that real bread and real wine are present on the altar, and that every one may feel at liberty to ponder, hold, and believe either one view or the other without endangering his salvation. However, I shall now set forth my own view (LW 36:30).
In presenting his view, Luther remains firm that the bread and wine are physically present:
Even so here, when the Evangelists plainly write that Christ took bread [Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19] and blessed it, and when the Book of Acts and the Apostle Paul in turn call it bread [Acts 2:46; 1 Cor. 10:16; 11:23, 26–28], we have to think of real bread and real wine, just as we do of a real cup (for even they do not say that the cup was transubstantiated). Since it is not necessary, therefore, to assume a transubstantiation effected by divine power, it must be regarded as a figment of the human mind, for it rests neither on the Scriptures nor on reason, as we shall see (LW 36:30-31).
He declares transubstantiation to be a "a monstrous word and a monstrous idea" (LW 36:31). He clearly rejects it, placing him clearly at odds with Rome's pronouncements:
Therefore it is an absurd and unheard-of juggling with words to understand “bread” to mean “the form or accidents of bread,” and “wine” to mean “the form or accidents of wine.” Why do they not also understand all other things to mean their “forms or accidents”? And even if this might be done with all other things, it would still not be right to enfeeble the words of God in this way, and by depriving them of their meaning to cause so much harm.

Moreover, the church kept the true faith for more than twelve hundred years, during which time the holy fathers never, at any time or place, mentioned this transubstantiation (a monstrous word and a monstrous idea), until the pseudo philosophy of Aristotle began to make its inroads into the church in these last three hundred years. During this time many things have been wrongly defined, as for example, that the divine essence is neither begotten nor begets; that the soul is the substantial form of the human body. These and like assertions are made without any reason or cause, as the Cardinal of Cambrai68 himself admits (LW 36:31).

Perhaps they will say that the danger of idolatry demands that the bread and wine should not be really present. How ridiculous! The laymen have never become familiar with their fine-spun philosophy of substance and accidents, and could not grasp it if it were taught to them. Besides, there is the same danger in the accidents which remain and which they see, as in the case of the substance which they do not see. If they do not worship the accidents, but the Christ hidden under them, why should they worship the [substance of the] bread, which they do not see? .

 And why could not Christ include his body in the substance of the bread just as well as in the accidents? In red-hot iron, for instance, the two substances, fire and iron, are so mingled that every part is both iron and fire. Why is it not even more possible that the body of Christ be contained in every part of the substance of the bread? (LW 36:31-32)

...[I]t is not necessary in the sacrament that the bread and wine be transubstantiated and that Christ be contained under their accidents in order that the real body and real blood may be present. But both remain there at the same time, and it is truly said: “This bread is my body; this wine is my blood,” and vice versa. Thus I will understand it for the time being to the honor of the holy words of God, to which I will allow no violence to be done by petty human arguments, nor will I allow them to be twisted into meanings which are foreign to them. At the same time, I permit other men to follow the other opinion, which is laid down in the decree, Firmiter, only let them not press us to accept their opinions as articles of faith (as I have said above) (LW 36:35).

They come then to the profundities, babble of transubstantiation and endless other metaphysical trivialities, destroy the proper understanding and use of both sacrament and testament together with faith as such, and cause Christ’s people to forget their God—as the prophet says, days without number [Jer. 2:32] (LW 36:44-45).

On May 16, 1522 Luther wrote to Paul Speratus saying, 


The dispute about whether the body of Christ alone is present under the bread by virtue of the words, etc., is to be settled the same way. Judge for yourself whether there is any need to involve the ignorant multitude in these hair-splittings, when otherwise they can be guided by the sound and safe faith that under the bread there is the body of Him who is true God and true man. What is the use of wearying ourselves with the question how blood, humanity, Deity, hair, bones and skin are present by concomitance, for these things we do not need to know. These things neither teach nor increase faith, but only sow doubts and dissensions. Faith wishes to know nothing more than that under the bread is present the body, under the wine the blood of the Christ who lives and reigns. It holds fast to this simple truth and despises curious questions. 

In July 1522, Luther responded to written attack from King Henry VIII of England (who was still a Roman Catholic at this point) with detailed and vehement arguments that transubstantiation was false (LW 61:36-44). He laments that Christians are "forced to believe as a necessary article of faith that the bread and wine cease to be present after the consecration" (LW 61:30) and contrarily that "it is not necessary to believe that the bread and wine are transubstantiated" (LW 61:36) Luther admits "no article unless it is supported by clear Scriptures" (LW 61:38). "[W]hat Scripture asserts should be asserted in articles of faith, and what it does not assert should not be asserted but considered free. But it plainly calls the Sacrament itself "bread" (LW 61:38). In this treatise, that "freedom" to believe in transubstantiation morphed into his firm opinion that it was impious, blasphemous and anathema.

He makes a number of clear statements expressly denying transubstantiation:

[W]hich grammarian would be so insane as to understand or conclude from the saying "This is My body" that thing which is the bread, is transubstantiated? Who except the rabble of the Thomists, who have cause us to unlearn even grammar? (LW 61:38).

Therefore, my Paul stands undefeated against those futile transubstantiators and says, "The bread we break" (1 Cor. 10:16], and strikes them down with a double horn: first, that they can assert their arguments neither by reason nor by authority; second, that with their feeble explanations they can do nothing but beg the question most faultily, and at most what they accomplish is that it could be so, as they imagine, although they needed to prove both that it is done and that it is right, that it is so and must be so. For no one can doubt whether God can transubstantiate the bread, but they cannot show that He in fact does it (LW 61:42).

And so I can say that the body of Christ is in the Sacrament in such a way that the bread is preserved, just as the fire is in the iron with the substance of the iron being preserved... (LW 61:42)

And so we have this article which, although I did not examine it with any anxiety before, has now been quite abundantly confirmed by the Papists own assertions- that is, by their lies and stupidities and blasphemies- so that now we are utterly safe in saying that it is the merest invention of the impious and blind Thomists, whatever the bleat out about transubstantiation, and that one should hold firmly to the faithful words of God, where He says simply and purely in Paul that the bread that we break and eat is the body of Christ [1 Cor. 1016, 11:23-24]... Previously I posited that it does not matter at all if you think this or that way about transubstantiation, but now I judge from the clear reasons and most beautiful arguments of the assertor of the sacraments that it is impious and blasphemous if anyone says that the bread is transubstantiated, but catholic and pious if anyone says with Paul: "The bread that we break is the body of Christ." Let him be anathema who has said otherwise and has changed one jot or tittle 9cf. Matt. 5:18], even if it is Lord Henry, the new and exception Thomist (LW 61:44).

In Luther's 1523 treatise The Adoration of the Sacrament, he wrote:

The third error is that in the sacrament no bread remains but only the form of bread. Of course, this error is not very important if only the body and blood of Christ, together with the Word, are not taken away—though the papists have earnestly contended and still contend for this their new doctrine. They label as heretic anyone who does not agree with them that it is a necessary truth, that no bread remains there—that monastic fantasy buttressed by Thomas Aquinas and confirmed by the popes. But while they insist so strongly upon this, and that out of pure arbitrariness and without any foundation in Scripture, we shall defy them and hold to the contrary that real bread and wine are truly present along with the body and blood of Christ. We are glad to be labeled heretic by such imaginary Christians and naked sophists. For the gospel calls the sacrament bread. It says that the bread is the body of Christ. We shall stand by that. We are sufficiently certain, contrary to all the dreams of the sophists, that what the gospel calls bread is bread. If it deceives us, we shall take our chances (LW 36:287-288).

It was not for any good purpose that the devil let the papists retain the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament. On the contrary he has caused them on their commercial fairground to deal with Christ as the Jews dealt with him that night in Caiaphas’ house when he had been betrayed into their hands [Matt. 26:57–68]. There would not have been so many and such terrible sins if the sacrament had been entirely renounced, just as those who did not crucify Christ did not commit such great sins as the Jews did who seized him and put him to death (LW 36:288). 

In Luther's heated clashes with Zwingli, the later argued the logical outcome of the former's view was Rome's transubstantiation. Luther vehemently denied this. He stated in 1528,

Throughout the world universities have long been plagued by it, until they forced themselves to teach that in the sacrament no bread remains in essence, but only its form. This “identical predication of diverse natures” is untenable both in Scripture and in reason, i.e. the idea that two diverse natures should be identical. If the fanatics were not such ignorant logicians, they would have known how to handle this problem. It would have been worth talking about, and they could have left their useless flesh and Christ up in heaven, along with their other childish nonsense (LW 37:295).

Now, I have taught in the past and still teach that this controversy is unnecessary, and that it is of no great consequence whether the bread remains or not. I maintain, however, with Wycliffe that the bread remains; on the other hand, I also maintain with the sophists that the body of Christ is present. So against all reason and hairsplitting logic I hold that two diverse substances may well be, in reality and in name, one substance (LW 37:296).

Against this someone will object once more, “But you yourself declare that the wine remains wine in the new Supper. These words of yours make you a good papist who believes that there is no wine in the Supper.” I reply: This bothers me very little, for I have often enough asserted that I do not argue whether the wine remains wine or not. It is enough for me that Christ’s blood is present; let it be with the wine as God wills. Sooner than have mere wine with the fanatics, I would agree with the pope that there is only blood (LW 37:317).

Used now as part of the official Lutheran confessions of faith, in his Large Catechism of 1529, Luther wrote:

8 Now, what is the Sacrament of the Altar? Answer: It is the true body and blood of the Lord Christ in and under the bread and wine which we Christians are commanded by Christ’s word to eat and drink.

9 As we said of Baptism that it is not mere water, so we say here that the sacrament is bread and wine, but not mere bread or wine such as is served at the table. It is bread and wine comprehended in God’s Word and connected with it.

10 It is the Word, I maintain, which distinguishes it from mere bread and wine and constitutes it a sacrament which is rightly called Christ’s body and blood. It is said, “Accedat verbum ad elementum et fit sacramentum,” that is, “When the Word is joined to the external element, it becomes a sacrament.” This saying of St. Augustine is so accurate and well put that it is doubtful if he has said anything better. The Word must make the element a sacrament; otherwise it remains a mere element [Tappert, T. G., ed. (1959). The Book of Concord the confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. (pp. 447–448). Mühlenberg Press].

 Used now as part of the official Lutheran confessions of faith, Luther's Smalcald Artilces of 1537 state:

As for transubstantiation, we have no regard for the subtle sophistry of those who teach that bread and wine surrender or lose their natural substance and retain only the appearance and shape of bread without any longer being real bread, for that bread is and remains there agrees better with the Scriptures, as St. Paul himself states, “The bread which we break” (1 Cor. 10:16), and again, “Let a man so eat of the bread” (1 Cor. 11:28) [Tappert, T. G., ed. (1959). The Book of Concord the confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. (p. 311). Mühlenberg Press].

In 1545, Luther still affirms his rejection of transubstantiation. In Against the Thirty-Two Articles of the Louvain Theologists, Luther argues "18. Transubstantiation of the bread and the wine is taught without reason, yes, without the [authority of the] Word, by the mere vanity of the 'little masters'” (LW 34:355).

Finally, while not primary evidence, the Table Talk corroborates Luther's rejection of transubstantiation:  

No. 96: Rejection of Transubstantiation November 9, 1531. “In the sacrament of the altar Thomas invented transubstantiation. I think that the bread and wine remain, just as the water remains in baptism and just as the human voice remains when I preach. Yet it is in truth the power of God, as Paul calls it (LW 54:12).
Luther's Contemporary Opponents, a Primer
Unlike today's defenders of Rome, Luther's contemporary foes realized something was dangerously not right with Luther's rejection of transubstantiation. When the Roman Catholic controversialists brought up Luther's denial of transubstantiation, they intended to specifically document his heresy, particularly his assertion that the bread and wine were still present in the Eucharist. This is antithetical to many of the presentations of Rome's modern defenders: they ignore Luther held the bread and wine are still present and are happy to promote Luther's acceptance of the Real Presence. Here are a few examples of Luther's Roman Catholic contemporaries:

Johann Eck (1519)
...I say if the Bohemians are of the same mind as you, then they are of the same mind as they have always been. (Or does he deny that the Bohemians are heretics? I hear that he has been pouring out poison of this sort along with his friend Philipp Melanchthon.  “It is no heresy to disbelieve indelible character, transubstantiation and the like”: this is how the Wittenbergers argue, so that among them are no heretics, even though they say that in the holy sacrament of the altar one eats the element of bread, just as one does ordinary food!) Therefore, this foolish hunter confuses Bohemian and Catholic articles, and the rejected and the condemned. So it is certain that the Bohemians boast that in these articles, in which they dissent from the Catholic Church, they have Luther as their champion— and indeed that he is the most Hussite of them all. [Graham, M. Patrick (ed.). Luther as Heretic: Ten Catholic Responses to Martin Luther, 1518–1541 (p. 57). Pickwick Publications, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle Edition]. 
Henry VIII (1521, Against Luther while still a Roman Catholic (help in composition by Roman Catholic Controversialists)
Luther takes a deal  of Pains to confute the Arguments of the Neoteries, by which they endeavored  to maintain and prove Transubstantiation, by philosophical Reasons, out of Aristotle's School; in which troubles himself than is requisite:  For the Church does not believe it, because they dispute it so to be; but  because She believed so from the Beginning, and  that  none should stagger about it, decreed that all  should so believe. They therefore exercise their Wit with philosophical Reasons, that they may be able to teach that no absurd Consequence can follow that Belief; or that the Change of Bread into a new Substance, does not necessarily leave, but take away the former. 

Luther says, 'This Doctrine of Transubstantiation, is risen in the Church within these three Hundred Years; whereas before, for above twelve Hundred Years, from Christ's Birth, the Church had true Faith:  Yet all this while was there not any mention made of this prodigious (as he calls it) word Transubstantiation. If he strives thus only about the Word, I suppose none will trouble him to believe Transubstantiation; if he will but believe, that the Bread is changed into the Flesh, and the Wine into  the Blood; and that Nothing remains of the Bread and Wine but the Species; which, in one Word, is the Meaning of those who put in the Word Transubstantiation. But after the Church decreed that to be true, (though this were the first time it should be ordained) yet if the Ancients did not believe the contrary, although none should ever think of that thing before; why should not Luther be obedient to the present Decree of the whole Church, as persuaded that this is revealed now at length to the Church, which was hidden before? For as the Spirit inspires where he is willing; so likewise he inspires when he pleases (Assertio septem sacramentorium, or in English, Defence of the Seven Sacraments, p. 242-244).

Johannes Cochlaeus (documenting the years 1521 and 1534), extracted from Luther's Lives: Two Contemporary Accounts of Martin Luther.

1521: But since in the opinion of many Aleander seemed to be stirred up against Luther more from envy and a desire for vengeance than by zeal for piety, and since he accomplished or managed very little through his orations, be they however frequent and vehement, then finally he excerpted about forty Articles from Luther’s book About the Babylonian Captivity, which had then recently been published. In these articles Luther had dared to reject, trample upon, and condemn not only the rites and sacraments of the Church, but even the laws of the Princes and any and all governmental arrangements of human beings. These were among the articles: ‘That the Seven Sacraments must be denied, and only three accepted for the time being; that Transubstantiation at the altar must be considered a human fiction, since it is based upon nothing in Scripture or in reason (p.82).

1545: About the Words of the Consecration, Cochlaeus responded as follows, among many other things: “Moreover, when Luther mocks us for fleeing to the Faith and the mind of the Church, he acts like an Apostate. I would gladly hear, in return, from which Scripture Luther or his Devil (who, he says, disputed with him over the Mass) can demonstrate that, when a Lutheran priest (who although he is baptized, still has not been legitimately initiated into Sacred Orders) in his new Evangelical Mass chants or speaks these words of Christ, ‘This is My Body,’ in a very loud voice, through this the Flesh and Blood come into the bread and wine. Where is this written? Luther and Cordatus are the biggest babblers you please, yet they keep silent and are mute on this question. Therefore, the Lutherans could have seen to what place the Devil was leading them through Luther, as long as he wished to admit nothing except that which was expressly stated in the Scriptures – namely, he was leading them into the sect of the Zwinglians or the Pighardians, who deny Transubstantiation; just as Luther too denies it, saying ‘The substance of the bread and wine remain the same after consecration as before it.’ Therefore, if there is not Transubstantiation there, which is a transmutation of the substances, nothing is achieved by the words of consecration; since the bread remains bread, and the wine, after just as before. Moreover, Cordatus namely poured out as many words as you please, this man who wishes in the cause of the Faith to admit or receive nothing beyond the Scripture; nevertheless, he does not indicate any Scripture which says that the flesh and blood of Christ are made by the words of Consecration, when they are pronounced at the altar; but not when they are said or chanted at another time, in the Passion or the Gospel reading or elsewhere; or, if the words are said over bread and wine, but not if they were said over stone and water or ale. Be bold here, Cordatus, you mighty boaster about Scripture, and clearly pass judgment on these things for me from the Scriptures. I charge you by the eternal Truth. But for as long as you Lutherans will not pass judgment on these matters, I will consider you pure Zwinglians and Pighardians, bread-eaters and wine-bibbers, since you will receive nothing outside of clear Scripture. But we believe most firmly, with undoubted faith, that Transubstantiation is achieved by the words of Consecration, that is, that from the substance of the bread and wine are created the body and blood of Christ. For even if we do not have a Scripture about this, nevertheless we have the belief and approbation of the Church, which has taught and accepted this from Christ and His Apostles up to the present time. For these sublime mysteries are not set out in public Scriptures, lest they be mocked by infidels, Pagans, Turks, and Jews; just as Christ ordered in Matthew 7, when he said ‘Do not give a holy thing to the dogs,’ etc.; as He added sayings of Paul, Dionysius, and Augustine in support of the same opinion, which it would take to long to quote (pp. 314-315).



Saint John Fisher (1469-1535)
In the discussion in David V. Bagchi, Luther's Earliest Opponents, p. 131-132. he mentions a number of Roman Catholic controversialists responding to Luther on transubstantiation: "Fisher, Powell, and More."' Bagchi states, 
The controversialists could safely have rested their case for transubstantiation entirely on arguments from authority. But Luther’s reliance on arguments from reason obliged them to follow suit, in case their hand appeared weaker than his. His chief argument for the bread’s continued existence after consecration had been the grammatical sense of the words of institution: “This is my body” (Mark 14:22 and parallels) must mean “This bread is my body.” Fisher, Powell, and More followed Henry’s argument that the Scriptures often give transformed entities the names of their previous forms. The sentence “Aaron's rod swallowed the rods of the magicians” (Exod. 7:12) refers to the rods when serpents; similarly, Christ’s words at the wedding feast at Cana, “Draw some out” (John 2:8), appear from the context to refer to water but in fact refer to the water now become wine. “This is my body” must therefore mean “This flesh is my body.”
John Fisher penned Defensio regiae assertionis contra Babylonicam Captivitatem. This Roman Catholic controversialist responded to Luther's rejoinder to Henry VIII, including a lengthy reply against Luther on transubstantiation. The original text can be found here. This treatise was translated into English in 2024, Defense of the Royal Assertion Against Luther's Babylon Captivity by a pro-Roman Catholic publisher.  Included is an entire chapter entitled, "The Substance of the Bread Does Not Remain with the Most Holy Body of Christ." Fisher painstakingly defends transubstantiation while giving accolades to King Henry (who would go on to execute him). For Fisher, Luther's rejection of transubstantiation shows he is liar and an insulter, trying to "enchant and fill the ears" of his readers (p.105). He "does violence to Christ's words" (p. 109). Luther has "fallen into intellectual darkness" (p.111). He takes "such a license in the Scriptures that he can twist, add, take away, invert, and do whatever he pleases with them, according to the mere madness of his own brain" (p. 114). "There is no danger in disbelieving Luther, while no one can escape a manifest judgment of his own soul for having ignored the same Fathers [of the Lateran Council]" (p. 117).  Fisher ends the chapter by declaring Luther anathema (p. 137). Fisher appeals to the Lateran Council against Luther on Transubstantiation:
So that is why, at the Lateran Council, 1,315 Fathers came together from the entire Christian world for a declaration of this truth, and these very same men considered that Christ’s words should be explained in such a manner that we would believe that no bread remained with the body; nor is there the least suspicion that the same Fathers had their focus turned anywhere else than to the pursuit of this truth. For my part, since the matter stands thus, unless Christ in vain promised the help of the divine spirit for the clarification of such doubts, or unless the very Spirit of Truth fooled so many orthodox Fathers — although he was so devoutly beseeched by them — there’s no doubt whether this decree which the same synod of so many saintly Fathers at the Lateran did pronounce is much more surely trustworthy for any Christian, than any of Martin Luther’s creations, no matter how artfully crafted they may have been. Furthermore, if anyone should perhaps seek out the words of that same council, here is how it handed over what was to be believed by the faithful on this matter: “There is one Universal Church of the faithful, outside of which there is absolutely no salvation. In which Jesus Christ is the very priest and sacrifice, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the species [appearance] of bread and wine; with the transubstantiated change of bread into the body and wine into the blood, by the divine power.” That is what the council said, so Luther is not right when he relates Christ’s words, saying: “When he says, ‘this,’ He means, ‘this bread...is my body’,” given that a synod of so many Fathers affirms that the bread and wine are transubstantiated by the divine power into the body and blood of Christ (pp. 116-117).

Conclusion
In summary, Luther denied transubstantiation as impious, blasphemous and anathema, placing him succinctly against Roman Catholic dogma both then and now. If Roman Catholics want to champion Luther as a defender of the Real Presence of Christ in Lord's Supper, they do so at the expense of utilizing a theological position their infallible authority considers anathematized. Luther's position clearly contradicts Roman Catholic dogmatic beliefs. Luther's earliest Roman Catholic foes understood this! They did not champion him as someone on their side for his belief in the Real Presence. They were not at all ecumenical like Luther was in 1519: "I permit every man to hold either of these opinions, as he chooses." Rome's modern-day defenders, in accordance with their alleged infallible authority, should not be ecumenical to Luther's view either.  

An interesting aspect of Luther's view of the Lord's Supper is to keep in mind that neither today's Roman Catholic nor modern-day Zwinglians should claim him as their own. The original Zwinglians chastised Luther for finding the Real Presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper while the papists criticized him for finding the bread and wine to be physically present. Luthers view is therefore neither Rome's view nor the Zwinglian view. He doesn't fit with either group.

The Bottom line: Rome's defenders are not allowed by their infallible magisterial authority to pick and choose aspects of the Eucharist to promote ecumenical unity or "gotcha!" pop-apologetics. Their tactic seems quite contrary to one of the cardinal points of Roman Catholic authority, that Rome has spoken and the case is closed.  Rome has spoken about transubstantiation, but her modern defenders don't care to consistently apply those infallible pronouncements to Luther's view of the Real Presence of Christ's body and blood along with the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper!



Addendum #1: What Luther thought of the Real Presence and Attending the Papal Mass

... [W]e say to someone who would approach the Sacrament: “It is not enough that you believe the body and blood are present, but it is necessary [to believe] also that it is for your good, etc.” The pope denies this. I believe that I receive the body and blood to this end: that the body and blood should avail for my consolation, etc. “That is false,” says the pope. “It is enough that you obey the Church and do it once a year, that you possess a historical faith and the intention not to sin in the future or to impose an obstacle [to sacramental grace], etc., when you receive the Sacrament, saying, ‘I will not steal and rob anymore.’ ” They speak like fools. This same argument was made to me by the Cardinal at Augsburg, who condemned me for saying that faith is necessary for one who would approach the Sacrament. Afterward, the Parisian [theologians] and Leo’s bull condemned the same thing, saying likewise that it is enough that you perform the work [of the sacrament] and have the intention [not to sin again] (LW 58:336).


Addendum #2 Wikipedia Reveals the Lack of Roman Catholic Unity on the Real Presence
I don't normally recommend anything Wikipedia puts forth on history. However, as of the writing of this blog post, their entry on Transubstantiation provides a statistical analysis of how disunified Roman Catholic are about the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (Wiki adds and edits its entries at a whim, so it could disappear any time!). Scroll down to the section entitled, "General belief and doctrine knowledge among Catholics." Here is an interesting excerpt:

A 2019 Pew Research Report found that 69% of United States Catholics believed that in the Eucharist the bread and wine "are symbols of the body and blood of Jesus Christ", and only 31% believed that, "during Catholic Mass, the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus". Of the latter group, most (28% of all US Catholics) said they knew that this is what the Church teaches, while the remaining 3% said they did not know it. Of the 69% who said the bread and wine are symbols, almost two-thirds (43% of all Catholics) said that what they believed is the Church's teaching, 22% said that they believed it in spite of knowing that the Church teaches that the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ. Among United States Catholics who attend Mass at least once a week, the most observant group, 63% accepted that the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ; the other 37% saw the bread and wine as symbols, most of them (23%) not knowing that the Church, so the survey stated, teaches that the elements actually become the body and blood of Christ, while the remaining 14% rejected what was given as the Church's teaching. The Pew Report presented "the understanding that the bread and wine used in Communion are symbols of the body and blood of Jesus Christ" as contradicting belief that, "during Catholic Mass, the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus".

From a quick look, Wiki's facts come from this 2019 link: Just one-third of U.S. Catholics agree with their church that Eucharist is body, blood of Christ. This article posits, "Seven in-ten U.S. Catholics believe bread, wine used in Communion are symbolic." I certainly realize statistics do not represent absolute truth and any analysis should be subjected to a close scrutiny of how the data was obtained. However, it's been my experience with Roman Catholics in real time, face to face, that the overwhelming majority are clueless as to what their church teaches.


Addendum #3: Helpful Explanations of the Contemporary Lutheran view of the Real Presence of Christ’s Body and Blood in The Lord’s Supper and the Rejection of Transubstantiation
The Real Presence of Christ’s Body and Blood in The Lord’s Supper: Contemporary Issues Concerning the Sacramental Union by John F. Brug (June 1998)

Wels Q&A: " We reject transubstantiation because the Bible teaches that the bread and the wine are still present in the Lord's Supper (1 Corinthians 10:16, 1 Corinthians 11:27-28). We do not worship the elements because Jesus commands us to eat and to drink the bread and the wine. He does not command us to worship them."