<p>Because of what you posted Baelor. Is it me or are you going in circles?</p>
<p>It’s just you. I’m still waiting for any references to persons stating that which you attribute to them in the OP, i.e. that the basis for Luther’s lack of salvation was his excommunication.</p>
<p>You concede that my post stated that it was his mortal since which was responsible, and at the same time you claim that it states that the resultant excommunication was responsible. The first was the more recent claim, so I am waiting for either evidence of the second or another reference altogether. Until then, even the premise of your OP is deeply flawed.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Well, Luther himself obviously didn’t think so. Otherwise how could the Pope’s actions cut him off from salvation if all he needed for salvation in the first place was faith and the Bible?</p>
<p>Baelor,
You claim his actions were mortal sins and therefore are what got him excommunicated from the Catholic church. That was your claim, not mine. Now the Catholic church and God are not synonymous and mortal sin is a Catholic term. Based on that, we really don’t know if Luther received eternal salvation from God. We only know he lost his eternal salvation in a Catholic way, not God’s way.</p>
<p>And don’t forget the perennial Medieval History Ph.D. exam question:</p>
<p>On your deathbed, who can administer last rights? Martin Luther or St. Francis</p>
<p>Justify your response.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>False. I claimed that the mortal sins in question that he committed where what got him excommunicated from the Catholic Church. Note that he excommunicated himself, i.e. excommunication lata sententia. Nowhere did I claim that his excommunication was responsible for his loss of salvation.</p>
<p>So, again, I ask, do you or do you not have references to persons stating that it was the excommunication itself that was responsible for the loss of salvation, as per your OP?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If Catholic teaching is correct, “eternal salvation” as explained by the Church is also how it is explained by God. In other words, this claim is totally worthless because we’re discussing whether Luther was excommunicated as perceived by Catholics.</p>
<p>If we remove that condition, then the discussion becomes worthless until you can prove rationally/empirically that you religion is correct. I suggest you refrain from doing so, less you inevitably embarrass yourself.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I find these kinds of comments to be extremely rude. PLEASE don’t ever go into the teaching field.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>DonnaL, it came up in another thread and the OP was asked to take it to a new thread as it was deemed OT.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I find these kinds of comments to be extremely rude. PLEASE don’t ever go into the teaching field.[\quote]</p>
<p>Thanks for your opinion. I will be sure to keep your opinions on my career in mind.</p>
<p>^^^^Be sarcastic if you wish, but those kinds of comments are out of line and you know it. Debate these topics like a grown up and don’t throw around insults-stick to the point. When someone doesn’t get your point, clarify, don’t throw around “you can’t read” comments.</p>
<p>You spin real well Baelor. Apparently Luther did something to commit a mortal sin in the Catholic churches eyes. He just didn’t get mortal sins assigned to him! </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Key word is “If”.</p>
<p>I’m a Christian. Presbyterian denomination. I can’t prove my denomination is correct about eternal salvation any more than you can prove your denomination (Catholic) is correct about eternal salvation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I always found it odd when I am told what I know. Where may I acquire your skill?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are more than welcome to stop reading the thread if you do not enjoy my posts. You also have the option of blocking me, thus avoiding my posts on all threads entirely. You can post angry and self-righteous answers, as you have done. If you feel my posts violate forum rules, you are also able to report them to the moderator. </p>
<p>Any imperatives will be appropriately ignored.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>See above.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not spinning anything. You claimed that persons believe that Luther was excommunicated and as a direct result lost his salvation. I asked for evidence that this was the case. </p>
<p>We are on the third page and you STILL have not managed to scavenge ONE reference to anyone claiming this. That’s not a matter of spin. That’s a matter of recognizing that your statement is still worthless until validated (through evidence, in the case it was not obvious).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not when we’re discussing his salvation within a Catholic understanding. The point is that we’re arbitrarily limiting the context. We’re assuming Catholic theology is correct in order to discuss this. </p>
<p>For example, you say (with no proof) that “excommunication” meant that Luther was not saved. This itself restricts the discussion to the Catholic context because he was excommunicated from the organized Church to which he belonged.</p>
<p>Why should my son studying healing with herbs have to procure a body from a graveyard for anatomy lab? He’s not going to be a bloodletter!</p>
<p>Martin Luther wasn’t excommunicated because he “sold indulgences” he opposed the Catholic Churches selling of them among other things. Before debating he salvation ect get the facts straight. Below just a brief overview from answers.com </p>
<p>Why was martin luther excommunicated and declared a heretic?
In: Catholicism, Reformation History [Edit categories]
Catholic Radio Now In NYCnye.radiomariausa.org/
Radio Maria, Now In English 620 AM M-T 10PM -12AM; M-F 12-6AM</p>
<p>He encouraged Catholics to question a number of practices of the church, including the sale of indulgences. He later denied the priesthood. He also denied the original Bible which was used by everyone at the time, and was used for the 1500 years before him. He came along and took out what are know as the apocryphal books. One of the reasons know for his action of taking books out of the Bible is that some of the Apocryphal books talked about priesthood. One of the things he took out of the Bible was Psalm 151. The way that catholics look at it today is, what human is given the right to take books out of the Bible? These are the reasons that Martin Luther was declared a heretic and was later excommunicated.
(He encouraged Catholics to question a number of practices of the church, including the sale of indulgences)</p>
<p>Roman Catholic Answer</p>
<p>Martin Luther was a sick and morbid man who had tremendous trouble with the truth. Many, many of the incidents of his “life” are totally beyond belief. You can read the entire sad account in the Catholic Encyclopedia article (link below). He denied many of the doctrines of Jesus Christ as revealed in the Scriptures and taught by the Church. Here is the account as to his excommunication:</p>
<p>Luther the reformer had become Luther the revolutionary; the religious agitation had become a political rebellion. Luther’s theological attitude at this time, as far as a formulated cohesion can be deduced, was as follows:</p>
<p>The Bible is the only source of faith; it contains the plenary inspiration of God; its reading is invested with a quasi-sacramental character.
Human nature has been totally corrupted by original sin, and man, accordingly, is deprived of free will. Whatever he does, be it good or bad, is not his own work, but God’s.
Faith alone can work justification, and man is saved by confidently believing that God will pardon him. This faith not only includes a full pardon of sin, but also an unconditional release from its penalties.
The hierarchy and priesthood are not Divinely instituted or necessary, and ceremonial or exterior worship is not essential or useful. Ecclesiastical vestments, pilgrimages, mortifications, monastic vows, prayers for the dead, intercession of saints, avail the soul nothing.
All sacraments, with the exception of baptism, Holy Eucharist, and penance, are rejected, but their absence may be supplied by faith.
The priesthood is universal; every Christian may assume it. A body of specially trained and ordained men to dispense the mysteries of God is needless and a usurpation.
There is no visible Church or one specially established by God whereby men may work out their salvation.</p>
<p>The emperor is appealed to in his three primary pamphlets, to destroy the power of the pope, to confiscate for his own use all ecclesiastical property, to abolish ecclesiastical feasts, fasts, and holidays, to do away with Masses for the dead, etc. In his “Babylonian Captivity”, particularly, he tries to arouse national feeling against the papacy, and appeals to the lower appetite of the crowd by laying down a sensualized code of matrimonial ethics, little removed from paganism, which “again come to the front during the French Revolution” (Hagen, “Deutsche literar. u. religiöse Verhaltnisse”, II, Erlangen, 1843, 235). His third manifesto, “On the Freedom of a Christian Man”, more moderate in tone, though uncompromisingly radical, he sent to the pope.</p>
<p>In April, 1520, Eck appeared in Rome, with the German works, containing most of these doctrines, translated into Latin. They were submitted and discussed with patient care and critical calmness. Some members of the four consistories, held between 21 May and 1 June, counselled gentleness and forbearance, but those demanding summary procedure prevailed. The Bull of excommunication, “Exsurge Domine”, was accordingly drawn up 15 July. It formally condemned forty-one propositions drawn from his writings, ordered the destruction of the books containing the errors, and summoned Luther himself to recant within sixty days or receive the full penalty of ecclesiastical punishment.</p>
<p>EDITOR’S NOTE (May 16, 2007): This interview was originally published on IgnatiusInsight.com on November 6, 2006. In light of recent statements by Pope Benedict XVI about pro-abortion politicians and excommunication (in the context of a trip to Mexico and South America), as well as remarks by other Church leaders and by certain American politicians, I’m posting it again for readers of this site. </p>
<p>Dr. Edward Peters has doctoral degrees in canon and civil law, and operates the Canon Law Info website and the “In The Light of the Law” web log. He has authored or edited several books, including Annulments and the Catholic Church (Ascension Press), and is the translator of the English edition of The 1917 Pio Benedictine Code of Canon Law, published by Ignatius Press. His most recent book is Excommunication and the Catholic Church, published by Ascension Press. IgnatiusInsight.com editor Carl E. Olson, who had the pleasure of studying canon law under Dr. Peters, recently interviewed the canon lawyer about excommunication and his new book. </p>
<p>IgnatiusInsight.com: Do you have a simple definition of “excommunication”?</p>
<p>Peters: Yes. Excommunication is the most serious censure the Catholic Church imposes on her members. Excommunication has roots deep in ecclesiastical history, and it is still applied, in fact increasingly applied, today. But it’s more than a penalty for past actions; it’s really an urgent call to reform one’s conduct in the future. Excommunication is classified as a “medicinal penalty” by the Church precisely because its main purpose is to bring about reform in the individual. Having certain actions punished by excommunication demonstrates that certain actions are gravely wrong in themselves and cause deep harm both to their perpetrators and to others.</p>
<p>IgnatiusInsight.com: Is it correct, in your opinion, to say that the topic of excommunication is the most misunderstood and misrepresented topic that canon lawyers have to deal with? Or do annulments give excommunication a run for the money?</p>
<p>Peters: Annulment questions are posed more frequently than anything else, but that’s because so many more people are directly involved in marriage nullity cases. But in terms of how widespread confusion can be, or as a measure of genuine interest in what’s happening in the wider Church today, excommunication issues are quite common. That’s in part why I wrote the book. I’ve been saying for some time, excommunication issues are going to increase, and the recent trends back me up. You can see those trends set out on my Excommunication Blotter.</p>
<p>IgnatiusInsight.com: What would you say are the most common misconceptions about excommunication? Why are they so prevalent, even among Catholics? </p>
<p>Peters: Let’s start with your second question. There are two factors behind the prevalence of the misconceptions about excommunication: first is the complexity of the subject matter itself, of course, and the second is the lower average level of catechesis that today’s Catholics bring to the dicussion. It is harder for people to understand the notion of excommunication if they have insufficient appreciation of the underlying concept of sin, or of what membership in the Church implies, or what kind of authority the Church has from Christ, and so on. Again, all factors leading me to write the book.</p>
<p>IgnatiusInsight.com: And the most common misperceptions?</p>
<p>Peters: I’d say there are two, maybe three. </p>
<p>First, there is the idea that excommunication kicks one out of the Church. That is not right. There are ways to cancel one’s Church membership, but excommunication isn’t one of them. The analogy I use to explain it is that of a felon serving a long prison term; he’s in prison, but he remains a citizen bound by the laws of his country. If he, say, owns property upon which he incurs taxes while in prison, he still owns the property and is still liable for the tax from prison; if he commits a crime in prison, he can be prosecuted for it, and so on. A felon loses certain important rights, obviously, like freedom of movement and the right to vote, but he is still a citizen. Similarly, an excommunicated person is still a member of the Church, but he or she has lost certain key rights attached to Church membership and is cut off from many of the activities and benefits of the Church.</p>
<p>The second misconception is that people who die excommunicated go to hell. Maybe they do, and maybe they don’t, but we don’t know with certainty either way. In any case, the Church does not claim to exercise jurisdiction over the dead, and one’s final fate is determined by God based on the life one leads. Of course, appearing before God for judgment in the state of excommunication from His Church on earth is not a good thing.</p>
<p>The third misconception is sort of complicated. Still want it?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nah Baelor I gave you the evidence you needed. You just don’t like it! Time for you to get back on your Sit and Spin.</p>
<p>Whatever. You contradicted your only piece of non-evidence by stating that I in fact said that it was his mortal sin, not excommunication, that posed the question of loss of salvation.</p>
<p>I love it when people resort to “Whatever”. I contradicted nothing Baelor. You refuse to that your post (#58) states Luther was in mortal sin therefore excommunicated and therefore did not receive eternal salvation. When I get to heaven, I’ll tell him you said “Hey”!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, I stated several times and maintain that my post stated that he was in mortal sin. His excommunication was not a result of that, it was a result of the fact that that mortal sin happened to be schism and heresy. So, yes, he did commit a mortal sin. Yes, that mortal sin, because it was heresy or schism, resulted in his excommunication. </p>
<p>No, I did not say he potentially lost salvation because he was excommunicated. You still have not provided a reference to anyone saying that.</p>
<p>He was in mortal sin and according to you (and the Catholic church) one can’t receive eternal salvation if one has committed a mortal sin and not repented. And you already admitted that mortal sin resulted in Luther’s excommunication from the Catholic church. </p>
<p>So yeah you did say what you are claiming you didn’t say. You are beginning to sound like a Billy Preston song Baelor.</p>
<p>coskat,</p>
<p>I never stated Luther was excommunicated because he sold indulgences. Please re-read my post.</p>