The Blessed Virgin Mary
Martin Luther had a great love for the Blessed Mother. In
one sermon, Luther recognized two Catholic dogmas: The Perpetual Virginity of
Mary and Mother of God (Theotokos). In another, he recognized the Immaculate
Conception.
“[Christ] was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him..."brothers" really means "cousins" here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers…God says..."Mary's Son is My only Son." Thus Mary is the Mother of God” (Sermons on John, Chapters 1-4, 1537-39).
“It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God's gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin" (Sermon, "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," 1527).
Infant Baptism
Martin Luther saw infant baptism as an authentic apostolic practice. Baptizing infants is not strictly a Catholic practice; many non-Catholic
traditions indeed baptize infants. However, there are many Protestants today who
reject infant baptism.
“That the Baptism of infants is pleasing to Christ is sufficiently proved from His own work, namely, that God sanctifies many of them who have been thus baptized, and has given them the Holy Ghost…Now, since God confirms Baptism by the gifts of His Holy Ghost as is plainly perceptible in some of the church fathers, as St. Bernard, Gerson, John Hus, and others, who were baptized in infancy, and since the holy Christian Church cannot perish until the end of the world, they must acknowledge that such infant baptism is pleasing to God” (Part Four, Infant Baptism, The Large Catechism, 1529).
The Real Presence of
Christ in the Eucharist
Martin Luther did not hold to a “symbolic” view of the
Eucharist like most Protestants do today. Although Luther rejected the Catholic idea of transubstantiation, he later formulated
his own idea known as consubstantiation. Nevertheless, he did not altogether reject
the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
“Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? Or, that it is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present. (That These Words, 'This is My Body,' Still Stand Against the Fanatics, 1527).
Contraception
The Church has always taught that contraception is a serious
sin. It wasn't until 1930 at the Anglican Church’s Lambeth Conference that this
practice was allowed, though only in certain situations for married couples. Marin
Luther’s rejection is fierce.
“The exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches…is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomistic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime…Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him" (Luther Works, vol. 7, pp. 20-21).
There are other doctrines and practices that Martin Luther
accepted but later rejected. In his friar days, he had some pretty favorable
things to say about purgatory, indulgences, and priestly celibacy. After all, I
suppose he would have since he was Catholic at one point.
Now, if you want to read some of the crazy things this man
has said, click here.
My late mother was very fond of Augustinian priests. She said that they were all so humble - they knew that Luther had come from their order.
ReplyDeleteIt is incorrect to characterize Luther's views on the Lord's Supper as "consubstantiation." Luther's primary objection to transubstantiation was the use of Platonic philosophy in order to understand that which Scripture itself calls a mystery. Therefore, neither transubstantiation nor consubstantiation were acceptable doctrines in his opinion. Instead, he taught of a real, sacramental presence that defies human logic. The bread and wine of the Lord's Supper simply are the body and blood of Christ. "Hoc est." Any attempt to explain beyond that will just lead to heresy.
ReplyDeleteDid not Luther believe that the Eucharist was natural bread and natural body of Christ? That is what consubstantiation means; two substances that coexist together.
Delete“Luther's primary objection to transubstantiation was the use of Platonic philosophy in order to understand that which Scripture itself calls a mystery.”
The councils of Nicea and Constantinople used philosophy to help explain the mystery of the Incarnation; Christ is consubstantial with the Father. It is still a mystery. The doctrine of Transubstantiation is not there for us to “understand” in the sense that it can be explained using reason alone, rather it tells us *what* is happening, not *how* it is happening. Same goes with the doctrine of the Trinity. Terms like “nature,” “person,” “essence,” and “energy” are all philosophical. But these terms are there to keep us within an orthodox understanding of the Trinity, and to help keep us away from adopting heretical ideas.