You Know that Luther Guy...

[sweetpea316]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Dec 1 2005, 06:18 PM']still doesn't matter.

for a non- Catholic to be saved they must inculpably ignorant. Its hard to argue that a man who was a Catholic priest, and a prominent Catholic theologian would be incullpably ignorant. If they are incullpably ignorant (which Luther proably was not) they would have to live by their conscience (which he may or may not have done). So considering these facts it is very hard to say that Luther is not Damned.  there is a letter to his mother that he wrote  telling her NOT to convert becasue Catholicism is true. He called the Pope the Anti-christ, and led thousands from the truth. to even say that you feel he is in heaven is perpostrous.
[right][snapback]807518[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Hmm, ok so... I'm a little confused. This really interests me, and I wanna make sure that I'm understanding this right. If I had never learned about Catholicism, stayed Lutheran my whole life and was ignorant of anything else, and just didn't know any better, I'd be saved?

But, hypothetically, since now I do know all about the Catholic Church, if I for some reason didn't convert, I would be damned? Even if I have faith in God?

Confusion.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

yes were boys

i don't like him because he was wrong and he led thousands of people into errror. he destroyed the Unity of Western Christianity.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote name='sweetpea316' date='Dec 1 2005, 07:24 PM']Hmm, ok so... I'm a little confused. This really interests me, and I wanna make sure that I'm understanding this right. If I had never learned about Catholicism, stayed Lutheran my whole life and was ignorant of anything else, and just didn't know any better, I'd be saved?

But, hypothetically, since now I do know all about the Catholic Church, if I for some reason didn't convert, I would be damned? Even if I have faith in God?

  Confusion.
[right][snapback]807600[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

if you knew that the Catholic church was true, or you had the oppurtunities and resources to find out than yes. Extra ecclesiam nulla salus still aplies. most people in america who are not Catholic have the means to find out the truth.

if you were ignorant of catholicism you would still have to live a good life to be saved.

[sweetpea316]

Darn you Lutheran upbringing!!! This is so difficult for me to grasp...

[the 13th papist]

there is simply no way to speculate whether or not anybody is in hell. the church has never damned anybody, ever. they claim to have no knowledge of anybody actually being in hell. nor should anybody hope luther should be in hell. it is not for anybody to try and understand the great mercy of god. we should all be so concerned with our own slavation.

peace

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

no one here hops that Lutehr is hell, nor do I/we claim that he is there. I just think its very proabable that he is there.

[sweetpea316]

Exactly. I'm just concerned about what was said before, about ignorance and whatnot... I know that I accept Catholicism, love it, and want to become a member of the Church... it just scares me that when I expose my family to the truth, they might not accept it and will therefore be damned, even though I know they all have great faith. If I'm understanding what was said before... I could have misunderstood...

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

that is a concern, but you must expose them to the truth.

[beatty07]

Don't worry sweetpea. Well I guess worrying about your family's salvation is good. But don't worry too much! It's true that if you explained the truth of the Catholic faith perfectly to them, and they understood it perfectly, then they would have to convert to be saved. But if you look at it closely, both of those conditions are pretty unlikely.

The only people who the Church proclaims definitively beyond salvation are those who know that the Catholic Church contains the full truth of Jesus Christ unto salvation, and freely reject that truth.

I suspect that EENS and I are probably pretty far apart in terms of how widely we'd apply that definition, but that's okay because it's a very vague definition. The Church is wise that way!

This is explained beautifully in Lumen Gentium paragraph 16. Sorry I've brought that up like twice already in other threads, but it is an important teaching! It's also taken up by Dominus Iesus.

[N/A Gone]

Woah EENS.....no...no, no no...no..

the whole ecumenical outsides the church salvation thing has been slaughtered here friend. Salvation is not gnosis, it is the faith and devotion and the change in our life to align with his. For those outside the faith even if they come to a "knowledge" of the church it doesnt mean they are condemend as opposed to if they lacked knowledge. For as St. Augustine said, knowledge is good. So the appearance of a knowledge cant be condeming. Our conscience is what is judged, our ability to somehow come to grace with the lord, enter in the relationship. "being good" is a result of that.

For luther, his understanding of the church was mostly due to the misuse of indulgances and the power they held over the people. Using this as his understanding than how could one condeme him for following his conscience here? If anything the church needs to take more responsability in the reformation. As JPII says in Ut Unum Sint, we have both hurt each other and we must apologise and move on from there towards unity.

[Myles Domini]

Just an aside. I've never read any historical evidence that Luther was ever considered a Papabile. He was married to Katherine von Bora in 1525, 5 years after the bull Exsurge Domine was published by Pope Leo X excommunicating him. If not for the elector of Saxony he would've died shortly thereafter. Becoming Pope was never an option for Luther and within 50 years of his death it was not Luther but Calvin who had become the main brain behind Protestant Europe.

[N/A Gone]

calvin is a whole nother story..as an open theist I dont carry the same respect

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

anyone who calls the Pope the anti-christ is no friend of mine, and I FEEL that he is in Hell.

[N/A Gone]

the church said just as harsh things after the split..

i had a teacher tell me once, a protestant teacher whom is a great patristic historian and has an ecumenical heart that the words spoke by both sides after the split were like the words spoken by lovers after a breakup. You ignore the words, because they speak in pain. Remember, luther wanted reform, he didnt want to be kicked out. Both sides carry blame here.

He might have called the pope that, but he loved the church.

[Myles Domini]

[quote]calvin is a whole nother story..as an open theist I dont carry the same respect[/quote]

Duly noted but it was not my intention to enter a debate about Calvin. Only to highlight two points 1) Luther was never a possible Pope and 2) His reputation amongst his contemporaries though great was not as positive or powerful as has been made out on this thread in places. In essence Lutheranism's influence was restricted to where the authorities were favourable to it, that is, Scandanavia and some German states.

It was Calvin's theology that fed the evangelical mission of Protestantism in Navarre, France, Poland, England and elsewhere. By the end of the 16th century the Lutheran countries of Northern Europe had basically become nominally Protestant again. The real Protestants were in France and the Netherlands and places like that and all of these were inspired by Calvin.

I think this is for a number of reasons. One Calvin was easier to read, he basically invented clarte francias and moreover his [i]institutes[/i] are far more systematic than any of Luther's works. Philip Melancthon also failed Luther by being even worse at codifying his masters' teachings than Dr Luther was. Moreover, he was more decidedly Protestant, more definitively a break with the Catholic past. He was far more energetic and he did not rely on Christian princes for protection which allowed his message to disseminate faster. Also Luther got himself into trouble for removing James from the canon and permitting the bigamy of Philip of Hesse. Both of these things hugely damaged his reputation amongst his contemporaries. In our day much has changed but at the time of the Reformation and the European wars of religion, it was Calvinism that led the charge. Trust me I live in England, a country where the Puritans killed King Charles I. All the real moving and shaking amongst early modern Protestantism was done by those influenced by Calvin e.g. John Knox. Luther can be viewed as much more as the spark than the flame.

INXC
Myles

PS) Luther did not want reform alone. I agree until 1518 he probably wasnt sure where he was going but pretty much after the Cajetan episode it was clear that Sola Fide as he taught was (and is) incompatible with Catholic teaching. A fact he accepted and decided to hold onto in the face of condemnation from the Church. What he was teaching in his Wittenberg lectures from 1510 onwards is objectively inaccurate according to our standards.
PPS) If Luther loved the church he wouldnt have written 'Address to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation' and 'On the Babylonish Captivity of the Church'. Encouraging a nationalistic erastian ecclesiology and advocating the destruction of the concept of a ministerial priesthood and the sacraments.