Martin Luther On the Real Presence

Q. What did Martin Luther believe about the Body and Blood of Christ in the bread and wine?

A. Martin Luther believed in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. He became indignant when groups, who had followed him out of the Catholic Church, rejected the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. He deplored the fact that every milkmaid and farmhand thought they could interpret scripture correctly. Here he is in his own words.

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

Who Decided Which Books Should be in the Bible?

Q. Who Decided Which Books Should be in the Bible?

A. The Sacred Scriptures used by the Jews at the time of Christ were simply adopted by the Church and became what is known as the Old Testament. The books of the New Testament were not finalized until the fourth century by Catholic Councils and Catholic popes.

Before the 4th Century there were many worthy and some unworthy “gospels” and “letters” floating around the ancient world. Christian liturgies used what they had available.

The four Gospels, as we have them today were clearly recognized as inspired at an early date as were many of Paul’s letters. But about many other writings there was disagreement. For instance, some people thought Hebrews, Jude, Revelation and 2 Peter were not inspired. Others were very certain that the books of Shepherd of Hermas, Gospels of Peter and Thomas, Letter of Barnabas and Letter of Clement were inspired.

Starting around the year of 175 A.D. Various lists of inspired books of the New Testament were made by Bishops and saints.For instance:

Origen: Gospels, the thirteen Pauline Epistles, Acts, Apocalypse, I Peter, and I John. The contested writings were Hebrews, II Peter, II and III John, James, Jude, Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, and probably the Gospel of the Hebrews.

EusebiusBishop of Cæsarea in Palestine

Four Gospels, thirteen Epistles of St. Paul, Hebrews, Acts, I Peter, I John, and Apocalypse.

A second category is composed contested writings; these in turn are of the superior and inferior sort. The better ones are:

Epistles of St. James and St. Jude, II Peter, II and III John; these, like Origen, Eusebius wished to be admitted to the Canon, but was forced to record their uncertain status;

The inferior sort were Barnabas, the Didache, Gospel of the Hebrews, the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd, the Apocalypse of Peter.

This uncertainty about the inspiration of Christian writings lasted for nearly four centuries. But the Faith of the Apostles, as taught to them by Jesus Christ, continued to evangelize the world since it was not dependent upon or derived only from scripture.

Canonization of Scripture

By the time the fourth century of Christianity was nearing completion,

Pope Damasus in 382 A.D. prompted by the Council of Rome, wrote a decree listing the 73 Old and New Testament books of the Bible.

At the Council of Hippo, in North Africa, 393 A.D. the same 73 Books of the Old and New Testament were approved or canonized.

Again at the the Council of Carthage, (North Africa) 397 A.D. approved the same 73 books of sacred scripture that the Catholic Church uses today.

Finally, in 405 A.D. Pope St. Innocent I approved the same 73 books of the canon and closed the canon of the Bible.

Up until the close of the canon there was much debate among faithful Catholics. That is probably why it took four official decisions to close the canon: Two Councils and Two papal decisions.

For a discussion of the books of the OT removed by Martin Luther click HERE , Sola Scriptura, and Martin Luther on debt to Catholic Church, here.

Which Protestant Scripture Translation is Correct?

Reblogged from

The translations and interpretations of the Scriptures have been violated by the Protestant reformers:

It is one thing for the Protestant reformers to dare cut off entire books, chapters, sentences and words from Scripture, but even more, the books that they chose not to cut off they have corrupted and violated by their translations. ….

… It is common knowledge that only one word can change the meaning of an entire sentence. We note here that Hieronymus Emser, a literary opponent of Luther, points out 1400 inaccuracies in Luther’s translation of Scripture, while Bunsen, a Protestant scholar, points out 3000.

If Luther, Calvin and other reformers’ translations of a verse in Scripture differ from the original AND from each other, which one is the word of God? Or are  (all translations)  still the word of God, though their translation may make their meaning completely different from the next? How can so many brains which are so different make so many translations without overthrowing the sincerity of Scripture?

It has always been a practice of the early Church to limit the Scriptures to universal languages such as Greek and Latin since they are not only universal but also not subject to changes like other languages. Most other languages change town to town in accents, phrases, and words (i.e. slang), and vary season to season and age to age and therefore it has never been recommended by the early Christian Church to translate the Bible to other languages that are not fixed languages. Doing so has much more danger than profit as we can see from our example above. Though we note here also that the early Christian Church has never disallowed translation of the Scriptures to non-fixed languages, though She has always insisted that public services of the Church use a fixed language translation to avoid possibly misleading the faithful with verses of possibly incorrect translation and meaning.

In summary, the Protestant reformers not only made major changes to Scripture by poor translations, but also translated Scripture to all the local non-fixed languages of the people where they started their churches, and they use those faulty translations in their church services. Is it not evident why there are so many Protestant interpretations of Scripture all in conflict with one another?

The Catholic Church is Indefectible

The following is taken from with permission.

To those who say the true Church can err:

The Protestant reformers such as Calvin and Beza claim the Catholic Church to have been the True Church during the early centuries of Christianity (before they claim it fell into error). During those five hundred years the Church had fought and condemned the same doctrines that the Protestant reformers were resurrecting. Yet now Calvin and Beza have the audacity to offer the same doctrines again as medicine and holy reformations? If when the True Church in the early centuries of Christianity declared those Protestant beliefs to be error, how can the Protestant reformers now claim them to be truth and to base their new churches on them?

If the Church can err, to whom shall we have recourse in our difficulties? Protestants will say Scripture. We do not doubt that we must believe in and consult Scripture, but what if our difficulty pertains to Scripture itself? How can we find an answer? I cannot go to Luther or Calvin for they have opposing opinions. Do you really think Our Lord went to the trouble to establish His Church just to leave us in anarchy with no recourse on matters which could lead us into darkeness?

All denominations shout their claims with equal assurance that their interpretation of Scripture is accurate, which would leave all others inaccurate. To say Our Lord has not left us any guides to help us choose the good from the bad in an environment that He knew contained much error, is to say that He wishes us to be confused, which we know He does not.

Our Lord said, “And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican” (Matt 18:17). How else can this be understood than Our Lord sends us to the Church in our differences? (If not the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which Protestant one?)

If the Church can err, and God commands us to go to the Church, then this means God wishes to deceive us. Does it make sense that God would send all of His lambs to the slaughter by commanding them to consult a Church that can contain error?

When St. Paul says, “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15), why would he call the Church the “pillar and ground of truth” if it could contain error? (Why didn’t He call the Bible the pillar and ground of Truth?)

If the Church did err and the Protestant reformers started churches of their own, as they did, then how can we explain this verse from Scripture: “And he hath subjected all things under his feet, and hath made him head over all the church” (Ephesians 1:22). This verse refers to Jesus being head of ONE church, not multiple churches such as those started by Lutheran, Calvin and subsequent Protestants.

It must be made clear here that when we refer to the Church not erring, we are referring to the Church not misguiding the faithful with respect to faith and morals, which we are required to hear and know for our salvation. The Church at the same time is also a human society because it consists of human members. This is why scandals, heresies, schisms and sins among its members also arise. These sins are expected with human beings and do not indicate a failure of a divinely founded Church that Our Lord promised would never fail! Did the mission of all the Apostles fail or cease to be because Judas turned to betrayal? Of course not. Christ Himself foretold of these type of problems in Scripture when He spoke parables in Matthew 13 regarding the wheat and tares and the net containing good fish and bad fish. Consider the verses,

“Again the kingdom of heaven is like to a net cast into the sea, and gathering together of all kind of fishes. Which, when it was filled, they drew out, and sitting by the shore, they chose out the good into vessels, but the bad they cast forth. So shall it be at the end of the world. The angels shall go out, and shall separate the wicked from among the just.” Matthew 13:47-49.

In summary, Our Lord said His Church would never fail, yet we clearly see members of His Church making mistakes due to their human natures. These mistakes clearly do not indicate failure of the Church. Again, the Church is equivalent to an army with good and bad soldiers, many of which stray or are killed, but this does not affect the army as a whole. The same applies to the true Church of Christ; it continues unscathed over the gates of hell despite the downfalls of its members.

Was The True Church Restored by the Reformers?

Copied with permission from

To those who say the Catholic Church perished, which brought about the need for a reformation:

To say that the Church perished or went apostate is blasphemous against the Passion of Our Lord. Didn’t Jesus undergo His passion and death for us that He could establish His Church for all of us? Of what sense does it make that Our Lord should let go of His Church which cost Him so dear right after He established it? Of what sense would it make that He would take it back from us after giving it to us? How could He have abandoned the Church, which cost Him all of His blood? Do you think that Jesus is weaker than His adversary, the devil, and was overcome by him?

In Scripture Jesus clearly made promises on promises pertaining to the perpetuity of His Church. To say the Church perished is to call Jesus a liar, since he promised…. “and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt 16:18)

Who gave Luther and Calvin a commission to revoke so many holy and solemn promises which Our Lord made of His Church? Did Our Lord not say of His Church, “and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”? (Matt 16:18) And didn’t He say, “behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world” Matthew 28:20? And didn’t Our Lord say “And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever” John 14:16? And don’t we see repeated mention in the New Testament that Our Lord will be with us? How can all of these promises stand if the Church perished or went apostate? And if the true Church is to last forever as Christ told us, how can it have failed or gone apostate for a thousand years as the Protestant reformers claim?

He who thinks himself to be the reformer or resuscitator of the Catholic Church attributes to himself the honor due to Jesus alone, and makes himself greater than the Apostles. The Apostles preserved the Church by their ministry after Our Lord instituted it. He who says that he has found the Church dead and raised it to life himself is the most audacious human alive.

If the Church did perish and the Protestant reformers were the ones to truly resuscitate the Church back to a true state, that would make them greater than the Apostles. But never have they shown any signs or wonders of such greatness in their lives as the Apostles did!

To say that the Church perished sometime after the first five or six centuries as the Protestant reformers say is to imply nothing else than our predecessors for nearly 1000 years before the reformation are damned,…

For the rest of the article click–>Protestant Errors

By What Authority Did the Reformers Change the Church?

To those who say the Protestant reformers had an immediate mission from God to reform the Catholic Church:

To claim that the Protestant reformers were given direct mission by God to reform the church requires undeniable proof, otherwise people all over the world could easily claim direct mission from God on all sorts of beliefs, then where would we be? Then each time we thought we were following the truth we would be forever interrupted by men claiming an extraordinary vocation. Is that how Jesus intended His Church to be?

Consider the miracles sent by God through Moses so that others would believe his mission. Also consider the miracles performed by Jesus and the Apostles so that the people would believe their word. Yet the Protestant reformers, despite making the most drastic changes to the Catholic Church since its founding, have never shown a miracle or any other sign to prove their mission, as would have occurred elsewhere in Scripture with such a drastic change to the faith. Jesus did not hesitate to show signs when reforming the Jewish Faith, so what audacity do the Protestant reformers have to propose changes as drastic as Jesus made without showing any signs? “Believe you not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? Otherwise believe for the very works’ sake. Amen, amen I say to you, he that believeth in me, the works that I do, he also shall do; and greater than these shall he do.” John 14:11,12

Why should we take the Protestant reformers mere word without a sign? He who boasts an extraordinary mission from God without immediately producing undeniable signs cannot be believed.

If there was a true immediate mission from God to reform the church, then we ask which one had the true mission; Luther, Calvin, or another reformer? Each of these men had opposing beliefs from the start which resulted in different denominations so it is quite obvious these men did not have an immediate mission from God.

For those who would like to claim the Protestant reformers were true prophets, why did they act contrary to all other prophets before them by not showing any undeniable signs to prove their words, and by opposing the one true Church which no other true prophet has ever done?

“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema” Galatians 1:8.

For the rest of the article click–> Protestant Errors

Where Did Luther (et. al) Get Authority to Change Christianity?

The following is taken from with permission.
The Protestant reformers had no legitimate mission from God (or from someone given power by God) to reform the Church:

Jesus Christ instructed His Apostles to preach the Gospel to the whole world, therefore they had an “immediate” mission from God. St. Paul sent Timothy of Ephesus and Titus of Crete as Bishops to help him on his first mission, therefore they had a “mediate” mission from someone given the power by God to send them.

On the other hand, never have we seen any of the Protestant reformers show any mission from God or from anyone else to reform the church. Rather it is readily apparent they wrongfully took it upon themselves to make reforms. “How shall they preach unless they be sent”? Romans 10:15.

No individual has the right to associate himself with the Apostles or attempt to act under their authority; the individual must be sent or commissioned with divine authority. “He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up another way, the same is a thief and a robber” John 10:1. Here we see Martin Luther openly agreeing with this. Consider verses such as “As the Father hath sent me, I also send you” John 20:21 and “He that receiveth whomsoever I send, receiveth me” John 13:20.

How can people without any authority attempt to make such drastic decisions affecting a divinely founded, global Church? Laity or princes do not have authority or power to start such a mission, rather someone must be sent legitimately, in Apostolic fashion, such as from a Bishop, or their mission is null. “Neither doth any man take the honor to himself but he that is called by God, as Aaron was.” Hebrews 5:4

If you say the reformers were given appropriate mission to reform the Catholic Church, then we ask who is the authority that sent them? We know it was not the Catholic Church for the ideas of the Reformation are against Catholic teaching, and it was not the Lutheran and other Protestant churches for they were not yet formed when the reformation was being organized. So on who’s authority was the mission of the Reformation?

For the rest click –>Protestant Errors