A Consistent Lutheran Believes Jesus Is Literally Present In The Bread and Juice

I read the following in an article relating to the Vision Forum/Doug Phillips/Patriarchal movement and its problems, finding that the author reiterates what I've been telling Evangelical Christians for a long time now: Lutherans are Roman Catholic when it comes to the Lord's Table, if they are consistent with what Luther taught. Clearly the author is one of those consistent Lutherans:

Finally, let me just say that, as a Lutheran, this is no mere intellectual exercise relating to some esoteric point about the Atonement. My church teaches, almost certainly contrary to BCA, the Real Presence of Christ in the sacrament. Thus, when Phillips bars women from taking the sacrament directly, to my ears, he is LITERALLY forbidding them from approaching Jesus without a male escort!
I cannot even begin to express how wrong and unbiblical this is. Even accounting for the fact that Phillips would not agree with me about the Real Presence – even though he views the elements as symbols of Jesus’ body and blood, it will not save him. The theological import is clear. Jesus, whether actually present in the elements or only represented by them, is off-limits to ladies without the menfolk. 

End quote. (caps, bold, italics, are original)

This is entirely consistent with what Luther taught, since Luther never rejected Rome's teachings of transubstantiation or baptismal regeneration. To call Luther's version merely  "con-transubstantiation" is to sugar-coat the actual teaching, which the author of the article I quoted above, understands rightly according to Luther and the LCMS documents.  And it has indeed continued down through the centuries. To which I still say:

What Reformation?

How can you reform that which is anti-biblical?

How can  you reform enemies of Christ?

How can you reform that which is dead?

How can you reform a false, damnable gospel?

You can't.

That is why the Reformation was a failure. It presumed the RCC was a valid church built by Christ (otherwise the Reformers's baptisms were illegitimate), and thus worthy of being reformed--bringing in some changes to align itself more properly with Scripture as if just minor issues were needed.

Did Rome reform?

Did it change is unbiblical view and practice of infant sprinkling, indulgences, purgatory, the position and authority of the pope, the magiesterium, Mary worship, Mass, and the eucharist? Did it?

DID IT?

No.

So the Reformation was a total failure.

Moreover, to this day, Rome won the argument by getting people to believe it was indeed the only church around in the 1400-1600's, that it alone had Bibles, etc. In other words, Rome's propaganda still continues to win the battle of its legitimacy, even when Scripture and history proves otherwise

I've dealt with Luteranism more fully in this article.