I was recently challenged by a friend of mine regarding my entry into the Catholic Church this Easter. He is confused how I can make such an abrupt departure from my Protestant theological background and embrace the gaudy, gilded world of Catholicism. More specifically, he asked how I could so easily discard the teachings of Martin Luther and John Calvin. "After all," he continued, "these are great theologians who have studied the Catholic faith and have found it wanting. How can you toss aside their conclusions so easily?"
Our conversation ended cordially and we agreed to get together again in the near future to continue the dialogue.
Since that breakfast about a month ago, I've been thinking. And reading. And starting to jot down a few notes and thoughts. Here's where I think I'll begin....
The question raised is a fair question. And a good one: how can I so easily discard the teachings, writings, thoughts and conclusions of great theologians like Luther or Calvin? Before I try to answer the question as honestly and clearly as I can, I'd like to first remove the word "easily" from the question: this journey and rejection of Luther's and Calvin's conclusions was not "easy". It was long, painful, terrifying and finally, abundantly clear, but never, never easy. Secondly, before going on to my answer, I'd like to start with a question of my own: How can you so easily discard certain teachings of Martin Luther and John Calvin?
For example, let's look at Luther's belief in the very Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. In Luther's Collected Works we read Luther as he laments a new symbolic interpretation of Christ's presence in communion that was starting to arise:
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 is 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.
Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous. (Luther's Collected Works, Wittenburg Edition, no. 7, p. 391).
Luther's covering a number of important points here: first, that scripture is not claiming that the bread and wine of Lord's Supper is a mere sign of Christ's body and blood. Secondly, he invokes the Early Church Fathers and makes a very common Catholic assertion: "Not one of the Fathers . . . ever said, It is only bread and wine; or the body and blood of Christ is not there present." He goes farther and points out that with all the discussion the Church Fathers had regarding the Blessed Sacrament, none of them make the claim that the "body and blood of Christ were not really present." He concludes: "they are all of them unanimous."
Luther's argument is simple: the text of the Holy Scriptures is clear: Christ's words leave no room for a translation or meaning other than that Christ's body and blood are really, truly present in the Blessed Sacrament. He then demonstrates that a mere symbolic interpretation is not only against Scripture, but also against all of Christian thought and understanding and belief.
And don't think this was an easy stance to take. On the contrary, in regards to a controversy that arose between Luther and those who felt that Christ's words were simply symbolic, Luther states:
If five years ago D. Carlstadt, or anybody else, had been able to persuade me that there is nothing but bread and wine in the Sacrament, he would, I confess, have rendered me a great service. I have undergone severe struggles and have twisted and turned to get over it (belief in the Real Presence), because I was fully aware that it would have been the most severe blow which I could have dealt against Popery . . . . But I am in prison. I cannot escape, the text ('This is my body') is too powerful, and no words can make it mean anything else." (pg. 39-40)
His point is simple: if he could be convinced of the symbolic interpretation, he would be grateful because then he could deal a "severe blow . . . against Popery." Yet, he admits that the words of Scripture are too clear, too obvious, "too powerful". He cannot escape their obvious meaning and cannot make Christ's statement "mean anything else".
There is much more that could be said about Luther's belief in at least some version of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but that is enough for a blog post. I'll end by repeating my initial question: most modern Protestants who hail Luther as a hero and a biblical scholar extraordinaire also utterly reject any notion of Christ's Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament. How can these modern Protestants so easily reject Dr. Luther's teaching on something of such great importance?
