Transubstantiation: Comparing Martin Luther And The Council Of Trent

Transubstantiation is the idea that Christ’s body is present in the bread and wine during the sacrament of the Eucharist. It is something that was practiced in early Christian churches, and it continues to be practiced today. Martin Luther and the Council of Trent hold opposing positions on the subject of transubstantiation, which overlap in a way that can be compared. Martin Luther believed transubstantiation was an unnecessary step in the consecration of the bread and wine during mass. The Council of Trent believed that transubstantiation was a sacred action during Eucharist. Both are ideas that are still believed today, although many people understand that it is a symbolic change and not a physical one. Martin Luther rejects the concept of transubstantiation in the sense that the bread and wine are physically changing into the body and blood of Christ. He believes, unlike others, that the bread and wine should be present during mass. Luther believes Christ is already present in the bread and wine. Christ is divine and human as He is bread and body and wine and blood. He says that this is possible to understand through faith and the word of God. Although this idea believes Christ already lives in the bread and wine, it can be compared to the ideas of the Council of Trent. …show more content…
Although different from the ideas of Martin Luther, this idea can be similar because both understand that Jesus is present in the bread and wine. The Council of Trent believed transubstantiation was a crucial step in the consecration of the Eucharist. They believed that since Christ Himself declared the bread to be His body and the wine to be His blood, these words should be sacred. The Council of Trent also depends heavily on having faith in Christ in order to understand the concept that the bread is becoming His body and the wine is becoming His