Did Martin Luther commit the eternal sin?

[Lief_Erikson]

Hey, I don’t think you’re interpreting Revelation correctly here. It says -

“I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of THIS book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this book; if anyone takes away from the words of the book of THIS prophecy, God will take away that person’s share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in the book.” (Rev 22:18-19)

The above verse only applies to the book of Revelation. Martin Luther did not add or take away anything from the book of Revelation.

I agree that John was referring specifically to that book, Revelation. However, the reason he gave this warning was because it was God’s Word the person would be tampering with. If Revelation was all John’s own human words and opinions, John would not have made this dire warning. Therefore the offense (and, logically, the corresponding penalty) is the same for one who detracts from any other canonical text.

As far as the other books of the Old Testament are concerned, even St. Jerome denied their canonical value. But we still remember him as a saint, don’t we?

Yes, but he denied their canonical value before the Church had declared definitively what the canon was. Jesus said that the man who sins in ignorance will be punished with few blows, but the one who sins with knowledge will be punished with many.

 

[expectthebest]

Pope Pius III forbid the saying of Mass for Pope Alexander VI saying “It is blasphemous to pray for the damned”.

Did Pope Pius commit the eternal sin?

JJ

Would not Pope Pius III teaching on this be considered faith and morals and therefore infallible?

 

[NoPlaceLikeRome]

I think that the proposition

To pray for the damned is blasphemous

might fall under infallibility. However,

Alexander VI is certainly damned

does *not *sound at all like a candidate for infallibility.

 

[expectthebest]

I think that the proposition

might fall under infallibility. However,

does *not *sound at all like a candidate for infallibility.

The Pope forbid masses to be said because the soul was in hell. Basically, he is saying that it would be immoral to pray for this soul. How is this not about morality?

 

[donmaximuso27]

Would not Pope Pius III teaching on this be considered faith and morals and therefore infallible?

Infallibility is only used in officially proclaimed doctrines on faith and morals. The Pope does not use infallibility when simply making statements about faith and morals. It must be made an official doctrine, by the Pope, for there to be infallibility. This statement on Alexander does not appear to be an official doctrine.

 

[Jolly_Joe]

Pope Leo X wasn’t Alexander with his constant assassinations to confiscate property and his string of mistresses and children but Leo wasn’t exactly a pious fellow either. His greatest determination seems to have been to have as much fun as possible. Under his rule, Rome was like a combination of Vegas and Disneyland.

Now Leo had a bunch of Cardinals murdered by poison, but then it basically was self defense since they planned to assassinate him.

Most famous of Leo was his selling everything for cash. I think it was 31 Cardinals at one time, boy did that bring in the cash. And he kept right on selling existing offices and creating new ones to keep the cash flowing in.

And he led parades around Rome all the time, leading things on his white elephant.

And Rome just filled with con men and prostitutes and so on.

Whether Luther’s claim of Pope Leo having his boy for sex is true or not I’m not sure history really documents, but Rome was a sea of sexual, financial, and political sins.

All this while the peasants suffered in extreme poverty in contrast to the decadence of Rome.

JJ

 

[expectthebest]

Pope Leo X wasn’t Alexander with his constant assassinations to confiscate property and his string of mistresses and children but Leo wasn’t exactly a pious fellow either. His greatest determination seems to have been to have as much fun as possible. Under his rule, Rome was like a combination of Vegas and Disneyland.

Now Leo had a bunch of Cardinals murdered by poison, but then it basically was self defense since they planned to assassinate him.

Most famous of Leo was his selling everything for cash. I think it was 31 Cardinals at one time, boy did that bring in the cash. And he kept right on selling existing offices and creating new ones to keep the cash flowing in.

And he led parades around Rome all the time, leading things on his white elephant.

And Rome just filled with con men and prostitutes and so on.

Whether Luther’s claim of Pope Leo having his boy for sex is true or not I’m not sure history really documents, but Rome was a sea of sexual, financial, and political sins.

All this while the peasants suffered in extreme poverty in contrast to the decadence of Rome.

JJ

I’ve often thought what I might have done if I lived in some of these times. Would I have thought that the HS was actually guiding the Church? In contrast, maybe I would have thought Luther was the one being guided by the HS to direct the Church, especially as a non-educated peasant.

 

[daveqdimal]

It is important to understand the Church’s teaching on the eternal sin. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is one’s ultimate denial of God’s grace. It does not mean every single word of hatred towards God. Many people often say hateful things to God out of anger, frustration, and doubt. Yet, these incidences are not the eternal sin. By stating that the Pope is the antichrist, Luther is not necessarily denying the mercy of God, that is a ridiculous assumption.

1864 “Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.” There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit. Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.

I think this is the most accurate explanation on the particular bible quotationa or the subsequent subject on Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

If i may add my 2 cents worth, unpardonable blasphemy is not about a particular sin considering its gravity or contempt against the divine. And man, considering its very nature of being capable of doing good, and then doing evil and then repenting, would commit that remote possibility of eternal sin or Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. It is only on a very rare case, as in the nature of the angels(the bad angels), would man, by virtue of their perfect understanding, will and act, to defy God, committed the eternal sin. This malicious self reliance, of wanting to be God, without God, without remorse, would be the ultimate pride and disobedience to our creator, judging itself and leading itself to damnation, as it perfectly understood and manifested contempt against, its creator, the immutable source of goodness which offers man their salvation by sharing His Divine self as our ultimate end.

 

[expectthebest]

I think this is the most accurate explanation on the particular bible quotationa or the subsequent subject on Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

If i may add my 2 cents worth, unpardonable blasphemy is not about a particular sin considering its gravity or contempt against the divine. And man, considering its very nature of being capable of doing good, and then doing evil and then repenting, would commit that remote possibility of eternal sin or Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. It is only on a very rare case, as in the nature of the angels(the bad angels), would man, by virtue of their perfect understanding, will and act, to defy God, committed the eternal sin. This malicious self reliance, of wanting to be God, without God, without remorse, would be the ultimate pride and disobedience to our creator, judging itself and leading itself to damnation, as it perfectly understood and manifested contempt against, its creator, the immutable source of goodness which offers man their salvation by sharing His Divine self as our ultimate end.

I think what the Catechism is saying is that Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is defined as not repenting for your sins and denying Gods Grace. This is unforgivable once a person dies because he then has no chance at repentance.