Author Topic: Did Martin Luther remain a Catholic till his bitter end? (Read 7158 times)

2Vermont · « **Reply #30 on:** October 02, 2024, 05:52:53 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn on October 02, 2024, 05:01:31 AM

QV asked a barrage of questions in that thread just so he could do what he did, i.e. post one quote of mine as if that's all I said. QV, you're a wicked sede you are. Whatever makes you happy I guess.

He and 2V selectively quoted/posted what I said:
"What does Once a Catholic, always a Catholic mean to you? Likely it's heresy to you. In the case of Fr. Luther, he remained a Catholic till his bitter end, excommunicated and and guilty of the public mortal sins of heresy, apostacy and schism, and you can add adultery and whatever other public mortal sins you know of."

He did not bother to post what I said first: Meaning, like a deserter, the Church still claims jurisdiction over him and demonstrated this via his excommunication = he is still a Catholic. Does the Church excommunicate non-Catholics? (QV will never answer) The primary purpose of excommunications is medicinal, for the Catholic sinner to repent.

If Luther would have decided to repent on his death bed, he could have received the Last Rites on the spot - which ONLY Catholics can receive. And the Church would rejoice!
If he is not a Catholic, how is it that he could receive the Last Rights? (Like always, QV will ignore this question and go right on as if it's not there.)

This above explanation I gave him more than once in that thread altogether eludes him, or befuddles him, or he is blinded to it, or it confuses him - because it is altogether contrary to his sede opinion-turned-doctrine.

The last post in that thread....
I said:
His reply:To me, this demonstrates his intentions are strictly malevolent.

I'm not interested in arguing with you on this Stubborn. Whether the quote was "selective" or not, it's clear from your other quotes that you believe that Martin Luther was Catholic until his death.

My main purpose in quoting the "selective" quote was only to show that Pax Vobis was wrong to accuse QvD of "twisting your words" with that quote when you said exactly what he said you said.

Stubborn · « **Reply #31 on:** October 02, 2024, 06:07:32 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont on October 02, 2024, 05:52:53 AM

I'm not interested in arguing with you on this Stubborn. Whether the quote was "selective" or not, it's clear from your other quotes that you believe that Martin Luther was Catholic until his death.

My main purpose in quoting the "selective" quote was only to show that Pax Vobis was wrong to accuse QvD of "twisting your words" with that quote when you said exactly what he said you said.

That was a small part of a whole conversation, you took both it and Pax out of context by posting only that quote.
You are never "interested in arguing" because you will not face the challenge, because of the truth of the matter.

Case in point, no arguing here, simply answer the clear question with a clear answer.....
If he is not a Catholic, how is it that he could receive the Last Rights? (Like always, QV will ignore this question and go right on as if it's not there.)

2Vermont · « **Reply #32 on:** October 02, 2024, 06:09:31 AM »

Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on October 01, 2024, 04:57:26 PM

Let me help you out here….

Major - Only Catholics have received the indelible marks of the sacraments.
Minor - Even heretics and schismatics retain their indelible marks.
Conclusion - Heretics and schismatics are not Catholics because they don’t profess the True Faith, but because they retain their indelible mark of baptism they can become Catholic again if they repent and once again profess the True Faith.

From what I have gathered, I think the bolded is the key. They lose their membership but can regain their membership. They do not remain Catholic. The question is whether everyone agrees with that.

2Vermont · « **Reply #33 on:** October 02, 2024, 06:12:29 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn on October 02, 2024, 06:07:32 AM

That was a small part of a whole conversation, you took both it and Pax out of context by posting only that quote.
You are never "interested in arguing" because you will not face the challenge, because of the truth of the matter.

Case in point, no arguing here, simply answer the clear question with a clear answer.....
If he is not a Catholic, how is it that he could receive the Last Rights? (Like always, QV will ignore this question and go right on as if it's not there.)

And all this post proves is that you still think he remains Catholic until his death.

No, Stubborn. I like you (and respect that you are one of the few posters here who will try to play above board and apologize when needed..unlike posters like Pax Vobis and Ladislaus), but I no longer argue with you because it is futile to argue with you. That is why my focus in the other thread was to ask you for Church teaching. THAT is what I want to see, not your or anyone else's opinion.

ETA: I just saw you were asking me the question. I'd answer it. But it won't be enough for you. That is why it is futile.

Stubborn · « **Reply #34 on:** October 02, 2024, 06:35:27 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont on October 02, 2024, 06:09:31 AM

From what I have gathered, I think the bolded is the key. They lose their membership but can retain their membership. They do not remain Catholic. The question is whether everyone agrees with that.

No, a Catholic does not forfeit his membership anymore than the army solder who deserts from the army forfeits his.

The repentant heretic on his death bed can receive the sacraments on the spot by any priest precisely because he is a Catholic, and wants to repent - see the quote from Trent in the other thread I posted for you. The same goes for confession, the priest says "I absolve you in the name of the...." The priest does not say: "In case thou art a Catholic I absolve you...." The Church does not administer her sacraments to non-Catholics.

Philip · « **Reply #35 on:** October 02, 2024, 06:38:46 AM »

There is an excellent explanation of 'reserved sins' in the 1917 CIC available online in a thesis by a Vinson Joseph:

https://folia.unifr.ch/unifr/docuмents/304577

Chapter III deals with reserved sins, Canons 893-900, and the author also compares with the 1983 CIC (and the process in Eastern Churches in the rest of the thesis).

With the 1917 CIC anyone aware of a censure, such as excommunication, cannot have sins forgiven by confession in the ordinary manner before the censure is remitted - except in certain, limited, circuмstances like danger of death. How the censure is removed, and by whom, is also described.

Stubborn · « **Reply #36 on:** October 02, 2024, 06:43:59 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont on October 02, 2024, 06:12:29 AM

And all this post proves is that you still think he remains Catholic until his death.

No, Stubborn. I like you (and respect that you are one of the few posters here who will try to play above board and apologize when needed..unlike posters like Pax Vobis and Ladislaus), but I no longer argue with you because it is futile to argue with you. That is why my focus in the other thread was to ask you for Church teaching. THAT is what I want to see, not your or anyone else's opinion.

ETA: I just saw you were asking me the question. I'd answer it. But it won't be enough for you. That is why it is futile.

Well, I don't want to argue with you either, yet you should answer it, at least to yourself because this is something all sedes should seriously deal with because it's high on the list of things that are in the sede opinion-turned-doctrine.

OABrownson1876 · « **Reply #37 on:** October 02, 2024, 09:55:22 AM »

The question is not phrased well. St. Alphonsus says in his History of the Heresies says that Martin Luther died while on the commode, his head ending up at the base of the toilet. Did he have the indelible marks of Baptism, Confirmation and the Priesthood? Yes. So do many other heretic priests. The question is not phrased well, nor are the answers. This is why I answered, "I do no know."

Quo vadis Domine · « **Reply #38 on:** October 02, 2024, 12:06:21 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on October 01, 2024, 06:46:14 PM

Theory vs practice.
Potentially vs actually.

Same thing I’ve been saying.

QVD has a problem because he hates distinctions and likes everything black n white. Which is why he likes straight Sedevancantism and is opposed to any nuance of the idea (ie sedeprivationism…human/govt papal office vs spiritual papal office). For him, everything is ‘either-or’.

It’s probably the root cause of 50% of the debates on this site. 1) Lack of distinctions and 2) those who vehemently oppose all distinctions.

This is not true. I have no problem with making distinctions and you even acknowledged that in my post above by saying: “You just re-wrote what I already have said about 10x. Thanks for finally getting it.”

Your problem is that you didn’t recognize that it was Stubborn who used just the word “Catholic” instead of making any distinction between being a member of the Catholic Church and having the baptismal character. You tried to give Stubborn an “out” from adhering to his heterodox beliefs of “once a Catholic always a Catholic” and “Luther remained a Catholic till his bitter end”.

As you can see from his post above to Vermont, he makes it clear that when he says “remains a Catholic” he really means being a member of the Church: “No, a Catholic does not forfeit his membership anymore than the army solder who deserts from the army forfeits his.”

This is undeniable proof that he erroneously believes that Martin Luther was a member of the Catholic Church until the day he died. No true sane Catholic can possibly hold that position without being, at the very least, in the state of sin.

It’s obvious as to why he believes this idiocy. It’s because he knows that once he accepts the true teaching of the Church, that one can lose membership in the Church by heresy, he will have to admit that Bergoglio isn’t a real pope.

Stubborn has a bad habit of spreading dangerous error on this forum and it’s my duty as a Catholic to try and expose it as best as I can.

Quo vadis Domine · « **Reply #39 on:** October 02, 2024, 12:15:05 PM »

Quote from: OABrownson1876 on October 02, 2024, 09:55:22 AM

The question is not phrased well. St. Alphonsus says in his History of the Heresies says that Martin Luther died while on the commode, his head ending up at the base of the toilet. Did he have the indelible marks of Baptism, Confirmation and the Priesthood? Yes. So do many other heretic priests. The question is not phrased well, nor are the answers. This is why I answered, "I do no know."

If you read the thread I think you’ll understand it better.

Stubborn · « **Reply #40 on:** October 02, 2024, 12:23:38 PM »

Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on October 02, 2024, 12:15:05 PM

If you read the thread I think you’ll understand it better.

If he is not a Catholic, how is it that he could receive the Last Rights? (Like always, QV will ignore this question and go right on as if it's not there.)

Quo vadis Domine · « **Reply #41 on:** October 02, 2024, 01:19:06 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on October 02, 2024, 12:23:38 PM

If he is not a Catholic, how is it that he could receive the Last Rights? (Like always, QV will ignore this question and go right on as if it's not there.)

In danger of death, the penitent who overtly displays repentance, can once again be admitted to the sacraments. If the former Catholic is not cognizant of what is going on, I believe, with people close to him testifying that he showed some overt desire to be reconciled with the Church, the priest can conditionally give the sacraments. There must be some sign of repentance! Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Stubborn · « **Reply #42 on:** October 02, 2024, 02:24:17 PM »

Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on October 02, 2024, 01:19:06 PM

In danger of death, the penitent who overtly displays repentance, can once again be admitted to the sacraments. If the former Catholic is not cognizant of what is going on, I believe, with people close to him testifying that he showed some overt desire to be reconciled with the Church, the priest can conditionally give the sacraments. There must be some sign of repentance! Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

I understand it just fine. You're the one screwed up. Look back a few posts where I said: "The repentant heretic on his death bed can receive the sacraments on the spot by any priest precisely because he is a Catholic..." Suddenly you are agreeing with me - while acting as if I'm the one who doesn't understand.

The Church does not administer sacraments to non-Catholics, yet all of a sudden, when faced with answering a clear question for once, here you are admitting correctly that the Church will indeed administer the sacrament to a heretic, a "former Catholic" - whom you have repeatedly insisted is not a Catholic.

Quo vadis Domine · « **Reply #43 on:** October 02, 2024, 03:32:18 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on October 02, 2024, 02:24:17 PM

I understand it just fine. You're the one screwed up. Look back a few posts where I said: "The repentant heretic on his death bed can receive the sacraments on the spot by any priest precisely because he is a Catholic..." Suddenly you are agreeing with me - while acting as if I'm the one who doesn't understand.

The Church does not administer sacraments to non-Catholics, yet all of a sudden, when faced with answering a clear question for once, here you are admitting correctly that the Church will indeed administer the sacrament to a heretic, a "former Catholic" - whom you have repeatedly insisted is not a Catholic.

This is getting frustrating. It’s done CONDITIONALLY. If the person shows no repentance or hasn’t displayed any sign of repentance before he became incognizant, he CAN’T be given the sacraments. If you are correct, he would be given the sacraments unconditionally, but the Church doesn’t do that. The Church refuses the sacraments to NON-CATHOLICS. At the point when they repent and are in danger of death, because time is of the essence, they are presumably back as members of the Church.

Here is what I wrote and I highlighted the word you conveniently left out:

“In danger of death, the penitent who overtly displays repentance, can once again be admitted to the sacraments. If the former Catholic is not cognizant of what is going on, I believe, with people close to him testifying that he showed some overt desire to be reconciled with the Church, the priest can conditionally give the sacraments. There must be some sign of repentance! Why is this so difficult for you to understand?”

Do you understand what is meant when a sacrament is given conditionally?

Stubborn · « **Reply #44 on:** October 03, 2024, 05:47:47 AM »

Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on October 02, 2024, 03:32:18 PM

This is getting frustrating. It’s done CONDITIONALLY. If the person shows no repentance or hasn’t displayed any sign of repentance before he became incognizant, he CAN’T be given the sacraments. If you are correct, he would be given the sacraments unconditionally, but the Church doesn’t do that. The Church refuses the sacraments to NON-CATHOLICS. At the point when they repent and are in danger of death, because time is of the essence, they are presumably back as members of the Church.

Here is what I wrote and I highlighted the word you conveniently left out:

“In danger of death, the penitent who overtly displays repentance, can once again be admitted to the sacraments. If the former Catholic is not cognizant of what is going on, I believe, with people close to him testifying that he showed some overt desire to be reconciled with the Church, the priest can conditionally give the sacraments. There must be some sign of repentance! Why is this so difficult for you to understand?”

Do you understand what is meant when a sacrament is given conditionally?

We are *talking* about a penitent. You highlighted the wrong word, then added your own mixed up criteria to your own mixed up idea.

The fact that the priest administers the sacrament to a heretic at all *should* show you that the heretic is a Catholic.

You even admitted that The Church does not administer her sacraments to those she knows is non-Catholics, not ever. You neglected to add: *not even conditionally.* Period. Apparently you do not believe this, or don't know what to believe - which is what your last few posts demonstrate.

You are the one who does not understand what a conditional sacrament is. For the Last Rites it's: "If thou art still alive" -not- "If thou hast overtly displayed repentance when I wasn't (or was?) looking."

If the penitent heretic can still communicate, obviously the priest would confirm his desire to receive the sacrament, but if he cannot communicate and is still alive, then Per Trent, the priest may administer the sacrament: "all priests may absolve all penitents whatsoever from every kind of sins and censures whatever: and as, save at that point of death, priests have no power in reserved cases, let this alone be their endeavour, to persuade penitents to repair to superior and lawful judges for the benefit of absolution."

Further, should the penitent recover and the very next day he goes back to being a heretic, proving that the whole "death bed episode" was insincere, a farce and a lie, then he only adds to his sins. And yet, if a year later he's back on his death bed, all of the above could well be repeated. Why? Because once a Catholic, always a Catholic.

Poll

Did Martin Luther remain a Catholic till his bitter end?

Author Topic: Did Martin Luther remain a Catholic till his bitter end? (Read 7158 times)

2Vermont

Re: Did Martin Luther remain a Catholic till his bitter end?

Stubborn

Re: Did Martin Luther remain a Catholic till his bitter end?

2Vermont

Re: Did Martin Luther remain a Catholic till his bitter end?

2Vermont

Re: Did Martin Luther remain a Catholic till his bitter end?

Stubborn

Re: Did Martin Luther remain a Catholic till his bitter end?

Philip

Re: Did Martin Luther remain a Catholic till his bitter end?

Stubborn

Re: Did Martin Luther remain a Catholic till his bitter end?

OABrownson1876

Re: Did Martin Luther remain a Catholic till his bitter end?

Quo vadis Domine

Re: Did Martin Luther remain a Catholic till his bitter end?

Quo vadis Domine

Re: Did Martin Luther remain a Catholic till his bitter end?

Stubborn

Re: Did Martin Luther remain a Catholic till his bitter end?

Quo vadis Domine

Re: Did Martin Luther remain a Catholic till his bitter end?

Stubborn

Re: Did Martin Luther remain a Catholic till his bitter end?

Quo vadis Domine

Re: Did Martin Luther remain a Catholic till his bitter end?

Stubborn

Re: Did Martin Luther remain a Catholic till his bitter end?