Sunday, March 20, 2011

Luther is in Hell? So Says Robert Sungenis

If the word "condemned" actually means what I think it does, Roman Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis has determined Luther's eternal fate. Commenting on John Paul II, Sungenis states-

Although the pope wasn’t in Regensburg to sign the final draft of the Joint Declaration (and neither was Cardinal Ratzinger), Cardinal Cassidy, who was representing the Catholic Church, eagerly put his signature on it. This was the end of a process begun by John Paul II in November of 1980, when he had already given implicit sanction to Luther’s faith alone doctrine by stating at a Lutheran church in Germany that the Lutherans had a “profound religiousness and spiritual heritage” and that Martin Luther was driven by a “burning passion of the question of eternal salvation,” which ended in him telling the Lutheran bishops that “Rome’s excommunication of Luther had expired when he died,” which fact he then encouraged them to use in order to pave the way for the Catholic-Lutheran dialogue. What the pope didn’t tell them is that if an excommunication is not rescinded before the person dies, the Church considers his soul condemned; and the false doctrine that caused the excommunication is still heresy. Instead, John Paul II told them: “There is a need for a new evaluation of the questions raised by Luther and his teaching.” Apparently the Council of Trent wasn’t good enough for John Paul II. [source]

14 comments:

Northwest SD Lutheran said...

This guy is wrong as usual!I think he forgot John 3:16 and in Habbakkuk 2:4. Then again Rome always prefers her unwritten traditions over that which is written.

Dozie said...

It is good to know that excommunication from the Body of Christ, whether enforced or voluntary, means something.

Constantine said...

I am reminded of Hans Kueng's call to the Vatican to rescind Luther's excommunication and apologize for having in inflicted it in the first place!

Ha!

CathApol said...

Well, Sungenis isn't wrong in what he said. The Church may very well "officially" consider the unrepentant excommunicant to be condemned, but God is still such a person's final judge.

Scott<<<

James Swan said...

Scott,

I don't doubt your personal interpretation of Rome and Sungenis, but could you point to an offical infallible statement to verify your interpretation? I'm not looking for a debate, just clarification. You need not cite the CCC, as that is not an infallible document.

Dozie said...

“I don't doubt your personal interpretation of Rome and Sungenis, but could you point to an offical infallible statement to verify your interpretation?”

I don't pretent to speak for Mark but you can make a good start with "Extra ecclesiam nulla salus". It is an infallible teaching, especially for one who was baptized in the Catholic Church.

I am not looking for a debate, just clarification. You need not cite the CCC, as that is not an infallible document”.

Clearly, “you need not cite the CCC…” is an unnecessary search for argument. Thankfully, James Swan does not get to determine what is infallible Catholic document.

Matthew D. Schultz said...

Dozie said:

Clearly, "you need not cite the CCC..." is an unnecessary search for argument. Thankfully, James Swan does not get to determine what is infallible Catholic document.

That's right, Dozie. The proper method of discovering whether the CCC is infallible is to put the question up to a vote.

Catholics give Protestants a hard time for differing in their interpretations of their infallible rule of faith. But at least Protestants can consistently identify what it is.

James Swan said...

Thankfully, James Swan does not get to determine what is infallible Catholic document.

It's my understanding the CCC is not an infallible document. If I'm wrong, I don't mind being corrected.

Dozie said...

"The proper method of discovering whether the CCC is infallible is to put the question up to a vote".

You make my point. The statement I was critiquing attracts arguments; from Protestants no less.

"Catholics give Protestants a hard time for differing in their interpretations of their infallible rule of faith. But at least Protestants can consistently identify what it is".

You simply run arond this rule of faith but never get around to listing it. There is no agreement on anything in Protestantism and not even the selective group at the Whitehorse Inn has been able to achieve anything close to "identity".

James Swan said...

If there's anyone antagonizing this, it's Dozie, but that should come as no surprise. A few years ago I banned Dozie completely from commenting here.

I really don't have antagonism toward Scott. The fact is, most of us on this side of the Tiber (at least in my immediate circle) like Scott, despite his Roman Catholicism.

That said, I tried to avoid unnecessary dialog by bypassing the CCC. If indeed, the CCC is an infallible document, that's fine, then Scott can cite it. I will stand corrected.

James Swan said...

From Catholic Answers, today:

"Sungenis has as much standing to speak on behalf of the Catholic Church as David Koresh had to speak on behalf of all Protestantism: none. Entirely self appointed. So please don't expect anybody here to accept his assertions (especially those with no citations) at face value."

http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=7675460&postcount=47

Joe said...

My question is directed to CathApol's comment.

It sounds like your are saying that the RCC can "officially" declare something to be false. Is this true?

-Joe

John Bugay said...

A few years ago I banned Dozie completely from commenting here.

I didn't even realize this. It makes my job a bit easier.

_ said...

Sungenis is wrong in his certainty, though I wouldn't be surprised if he's right about Luther's final destiny. Excommunication is a medicinal penalty, not a definitive statement of where someone will land if they don't get the excommunication lifted before death. The Church canonized Joan of Arc - who was excommunicate when she died - and Dominican theologians have long called for the canonization of Girolamo Savonarola, whose excommunication was by the Roman Pontiff himself (admittedly not a good one, the pope in question being Alexander VI).