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.
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,
Johann Eck (1519)
Henry VIII (1521, Against Luther while still a Roman Catholic (probable help in composition by Roman Catholic Controversialist Thomas More)
Saint John Fisher (1469-1535)
The Roman Catholic View of Transsubstantiation, 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).
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:
...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].
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).
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."
Posts
