LUTHER: The 2003 film with Joseph Fiennes

[CatherineofA]

I saw the film a while back. If I am remembering correctly, the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V is a character. This is amazing since he rarely gets screen time in films. (He is the grandson of Ferdinand and Isabella through their daughter Juanna.) He got his holdings and titles by amazing twists of fate.

Charles was also involved in the sack of Rome and fought Pope Clement VII. This action strongly affected Clement’s recognition of the “invalid nature” of the marriage of Catherine of Aragon and Henry VIII of England. (Clement bent to the wind of political pressure.) Henry VIII desperately wanted annullment/divorce. When he didn’t get it, he broke the English church away and declared himself the head of the church of England and not the pope. What he did (not intending to do) was open the doors for full English Reformation.

 

[wabrams]

CatherineofA:

Fidelis:

Again, the majority of internet links do not footnote nor do they list a bibliography of sources. This is what makes them opinionated commentary. My being a former history major is what makes me able to distinguish the “wheat from the chaff” as you put it and my background has shown me that most internet links on historical events is mostly balderdash.

When did you finish your degree?

 

[CatherineofA]

TertiumQuid:

Great point Catherine-

I view links cautiously. I try to apply as much fairness and scrupulosity as I possibly can. I tend to be a stickler for footnotes and accuracy. On the other hand, I have some fairly awful documented books as well!

What is one to do?

Regards,
James Swan

Horribly documented books are just as bad as unreferenced websites. The difference is is that you know that and many web surfers do not.

 

[CatherineofA]

wabrams:

CatherineofA:

When did you finish your degree?

In the 1990s officially. However, I am still involved with college level instructors and writers based on my involvement in history projects pertinent to local histories and genealogies.

 

[wabrams]

CatherineofA:

wabrams:

In the 1990s officially. However, I am still involved with college level instructors and writers based on my involvement in history projects pertinent to local histories and genealogies.

Only reason I asked was b/c I attended college from 1997 to 2001and have a research background in my Criminal Justice degree. I remember, too, being warned about using internet sites.

 

[CatherineofA]

wabrams:

CatherineofA:

Only reason I asked was b/c I attended college from 1997 to 2001and have a research background in my Criminal Justice degree. I remember, too, being warned about using internet sites.

Yea, I see what you mean. Internet sites were not forbidden. However, they were expected to support their comments and opinions with documented referencing. Being affiliated with a particular website or just because they were in black and white did not make them credible.

 

[Eden]

CatherineofA:

The movie does touch on that. It is an interesting film even with the Hollywood twist.

CatherineofA- Could you please tell me the answer? I have read that Luther said he was not an apostle, not a prophet and he was not directly inspired by the Holy Spirit. Why did he have the authority to speak for God? Thanks in advance.

 

[CommonMan]

Luther: from the Jewish perspective.
www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Luther_on_Jews.html

Short version:

The Nazis imprisoned and killed Jews who had converted to Christianity: Luther would have welcomed the Jews into Christianity.

Entire article.

"At the beginning of his career, Luther was apparently sympathetic to Jewish resistance to the Catholic Church. He wrote, early in his career:

The Jews are blood-relations of our Lord; if it were proper to boast of flesh and blood, the Jews belong more to Christ than we. I beg, therefore, my dear Papist, if you become tired of abusing me as a heretic, that you begin to revile me as a Jew.

But Luther expected them to convert to his purified Christianity. When they did not, he turned violently against Jews.

It is impossible for modern people to read the horrible passages below and not to think of the burning of synagogues in November 1938 on Kristallnacht. Nor would one wish to excuse Luther for this text.

A number of points must, however, be made. The most important concerns the language used. Luther used violent and vulgar language throughout his career…We do not expect religious figures to use this sort of language in the modern world, but it was not uncommon in the early 16th century. Second, although Luther’s comments seem to be proto-Nazi, they are better seen as part of tradition of Medieval Christian anti-Semitism. While there is little doubt that Christian anti-Semitism laid the social and cultural basis for modern anti-Semitism, modern anti-Semitism does differ in being based on pseudo-scientific notions of race. The Nazis imprisoned and killed Jews who had converted to Christianity: Luther would have welcomed them."

“None of this justifies what follows, but it may help to comprehend what is happening. In 1994, the Church Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America rejected Luther’s anti-Semitic writings.”
(note: The LCMS also rejects these writings)

jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Luther_on_Jews.html

 

[TertiumQuid]

CommonMan:

Luther: from the Jewish perspective.
www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Luther_on_Jews.html

Well it’s about time the Calvary got here.

God Bless you!
JS

 

[Eden]

Perhaps Luther would have welcomed the Jews into Christianity. But Luther’s doctrines have been used to arrive at extraordinarily dangerous positions in the history of Lutheranism. Think of the use of the doctrine “orders of creation” during the Nazi period in Germany. By means of this doctrine, some pious German Lutheran theologians justified their wholehearted support of Adolf Hitler, the “legitimate” leader of the German people, and their support of the notion of the Germans and their soil as established by God and so beyond criticism.

 

[Eden]

It’s disingenuous to dismiss the influence of Luther’s anti-Semitism as unimportant.

The Nazis highly esteemed Protestantism:

theturning.org/folder/nazis.html

The Nazis were Christians too.

An interview with Richard Steigmann-Gall,
author ofThe Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity,
1919-1945.

At a time when right-wing Christians are exerting great influence over White House policy, it is perhaps time to ask if all Christian influence is good influence.

The current situation has some surprising parallels with Nazi Germany. Richard Steigmann-Gall of Kent State University has recently released a book which examines the influence of Christian beliefs on Nazi Germany. In the past historians have argued that Nazis publicly posed as Christians to score political points, but privately deplored the religion. However, Steigman-Gall has reached a very different conclusion by looking at the diaries, private writings and communications of the most influential Nazis, including Hitler. Far from deploring Christianity, many important Nazis felt that their racist policies were inspired by Protestant Christianity.

How could Christianity be the inspiration for the Final Solution? And does this suggest ominous parallels with the current influence of right-wing Protestants in the United States? The Turning’s Stephen Milton spoke to Dr Steigmann-Gall to find out.

The Turning: Did leading Nazis see a source of inspiration in Protestant theology?

Steigmann-Gall: Well, this is the main focus of my book, to explore what the Nazis had to say, and what their conceptions of Christianity were. One thing we have to keep in mind is that the Nazis, because they were a nationalist movement in a country with a long sectarian divide between Catholic and Protestant, the Nazis wanted to appear to be above the confessions, above the denominations. So they came out with an expression, ‘Positive Christianity’, which theological historians will know is an expression that was used in the 19th century. The Nazis’ ‘Positive Christianity’ bears no relationship to that. When the Nazis said ‘Positive Christianity’, they never really defined it very clearly. In fact they kept it rather hazy.

And what I discovered was that when the Nazis talked about what they liked about Christianity, time and again they made references to Protestantism. So I can’t tell you in a very explicit way that they said ‘well, we like this about Luther, but we dislike that about dialectical theology.’ They spoke in broader terms. They were certainly very positive about Luther. They went through the history of religious wars in Germany, they were always very effusive about Luther as the first German and the first Protestant who broke the domination of Rome over Germany, as they saw it. But he also introduced a more personal understanding of God, so the Nazis saw Luther as the person who broke down the necessity of a mediator between the individual and God. So they didn’t make explicit reference to which 19th century theologian they liked or disliked.

The leaders they did esteem were recognizably Protestant. And one of those actually is, as frightening as it sounds, a theology which recognized the Volk or the race or the people, as one of the orders ordained by God. Now, this sounds heretical today, the idea that race is one of God’s creations, but one hundred years ago, even before the Nazis, you begin to see varieties of Protestant thought which suggested just that. It is called a Theology of the Orders of Creation. And it was quite current in Lutheran circles both before the Nazis and during the Nazis, too. So in these ways the Nazis made reference to how highly they esteemed Protestantism. Now, I should point out that these were nominally Protestant Nazis who made this connection. Nominally Catholic Nazis, on the other hand, were less inclined to say positive things about Martin Luther. Although there were cases within the Nazi party where even nominal Catholics could make such associations.

 

[Eden]

(cont’d)

And perhaps most startling of all is Adolph Hitler himself. Hitler was saying much the same things as the Protestant Nazis were saying: that Luther was a great national hero. Keep in mind that in Germany if you were a good Catholic you weren’t going to end up saying such a thing. So I make it clear in the book that I don’t consider Hitler a good Catholic - he never went to Mass, he never went to confession. But what he had to say about Christianity behind closed doors was that he too esteemed Protestantism as the ‘natural’ religion of the Germans. Both a national religion and the natural religion of the Germans.

• Richard Steigmann-Gall is the Director of the Jewish Studies Program at Kent State University.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Eden:

Perhaps Luther would have welcomed the Jews into Christianity. But Luther’s doctrines have been used to arrive at extraordinarily dangerous positions in the history of Lutheranism. Think of the use of the doctrine “orders of creation” during the Nazi period in Germany. By means of this doctrine, some pious German Lutheran theologians justified their wholehearted support of Adolf Hitler, the “legitimate” leader of the German people, and their support of the notion of the Germans and their soil as established by God and so beyond criticism.

Hi Eden,

Exactly what was Luther’s doctrine “orders of creation”? Perhpas you could explain first: the correct usage by Lutherans throughout the centuries, secondly, the incorrect usage by the Nazi’s, and thirdly, how (or if) Roman Catholic theology differs from the doctrine as expressed by 1)Luther 2)Subsequent Lutheranism.

That humans are able to take someone’s words, inventions, theology, scientific discovery, Art, etc. does not logically negatively indict the author/creator of those things. Think of God’s creation (which was created good), and see what we humans have done with it. Think also how the Scriptures have been misused (by both Protestants and Catholics) to exploit people.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[CommonMan]

Luther’s doctrines have been used to arrive at extraordinarily dangerous positions in the history of Lutheranism.

Luthers view on the Jews were never doctrine, but I’ll go along for the monent, what, specficially, are these dangerous positions in the history of Lutheranism?

One of the unsung hero’s of the WWII was Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a Lutheran pastor. He and members of his family were imprisoned and killed in the death camps for running and underground resistance against the Nazi’s and for attempting to eradicate Hitler an assination attempt.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Eden:

But Luther’s doctrines have been used to arrive at extraordinarily dangerous positions in the history of Lutheranism.

On a positive note, I would say any time a Lutheran proclaims the Gospel, it is dangerous. The world hates the Gospel and will attempt to suppress it all costs.

On a negative note, by and large, Luther’s suggestions in his later writings about the Jews were not followed,and those writings were reprinted less frequently.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[Eden]

TertiumQuid:

That humans are able to take someone’s words, inventions, theology, scientific discovery, Art, etc. does not logically negatively indict the author/creator of those things. Think of God’s creation (which was created good), and see what we humans have done with it. Think also how the Scriptures have been misused (by both Protestants and Catholics) to exploit people.

Exactly! That’s why man alone is not capable of interpreting God’s word! Luther told us that we each could interpret God’s word without the official Church’s assistance. Men took* Luther’s* words about the order of creation and created the idea of the Volk- a special race chosen by God.

 

[Eden]

CommonMan:

One of the unsung hero’s of the WWII was Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a Lutheran pastor. He and members of his family were imprisoned and killed in the death camps for running and underground resistance against the Nazi’s and for attempting to eradicate Hitler an assination attempt.

Stories of resistance by anyone during WWII are amazing and inspiring. I’m aware of this inspiring man’s story. He was, however, the exception to the rule.

 

[Eden]

TertiumQuid:

On a positive note, I would say any time a Lutheran proclaims the Gospel, it is dangerous. The world hates the Gospel and will attempt to suppress it all costs.

On a negative note, by and large, Luther’s suggestions in his later writings about the Jews were not followed,and those writings were reprinted less frequently.

Regards,
James Swan

I asked my questions about Luther in a sincere effort to understand what about the man spoke to so many. The more I read about him, the more I find that he was just a man and a very flawed one at that. I would humbly invite you to explore the real doctrine of the Catholic faith as you seem to be speaking from the a-C and (completely wrong) notion that Catholics do not revere the Gospels. The Gospels are dangerous? Tell me about it! Every time a Catholic prays the rosary, amazing things happen. "The rosary", you say*? “That’s all about Mary and worshipping Mary.” *The rosary is actually a reflection on the Gospels. (And what are the “Gospels”? They mean ‘good news’ but the Gospels are not a thing. They are a person. The Gospel ‘good news’ is Jesus Christ himself.) When Catholics pray the rosary they are contemplating the Gospel while praising Christ. By the way, where does the “Hail Mary” come from? Straight out of the Gospel of Luke: “Hail Mary full of Grace” when the angel appears to her. And later during the Visitation when Mary goes to Elizabeth (the mother of John the Baptist), Elizabeth says (in Luke) “Blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb.” We agree on that. Yes, the Gospels are a very powerful thing.

deoomnisgloria.com/mt/archives/000309.html

The above link follows with some common Protestant questions about the rosary and some answers.

I genuinely started out my questions about Luther with an attempt to understand him and what Protestants believe. The further I got into his works, the more it strengthened my faith that the Catholic Church is the one true faith! I regret that it may not have been your purpose but without your counterpoints, I would not have had the impetus to find out more. Thank you for that. Authentic education is the journey to truth.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Eden:

I would humbly invite you to explore the real doctrine of the Catholic faith as you seem to be speaking from the a-C and (completely wrong) notion that Catholics do not revere the Gospels. The Gospels are dangerous?

My comments will make sense to anyone who understands the presuppositions of Luther’s theology: the theology of the cross vs. the theology of glory. If you aren’t sure what this is, I suggest you’re missing a key ingredient to understanding the work of Luther, and anything you think you about him and what he stood for will be skewed.

Eden:

I genuinely started out my questions about Luther with an attempt to understand him and what Protestants believe. The further I got into his works, the more it strengthened my faith that the Catholic Church is the one true faith!

I have a great deal of respect for many Roman Catholic scholars who have studied Luther:

ntrmin.org/Catholic%20Understanding%20of%20Luther%202.htm

I have a great deal of animosity for many Roman Catholic scholars who have studied Luther:

ntrmin.org/The%20Roman%20Catholic%20Understanding%20of%20Martin%20Luther%201.htm

I read Luther for a few years before I understood him. It was only after learning the fundamental presuppositions of his theology that I learned to appreciate him. I suggest you Get Paul Althaus: The Theology of Martin Luther for a good book explaining what Luther was all about.

Listen to the words of the brilliant Roman Catholic historian Joseph Lortz:

“The problems of an adequate treatment of Luther are obvious from several points of view. First, Luther is an intellectual giant, or, to use a word from Paul Althaus, an "ocean. " The danger of drowning in him, of not being able to come to grips with him satisfactorily, arises from his tremendous output, but no less from his own original style, which we are going to take up. It sounds banal, but cannot be left unsaid: Luther belongs in the first rank of men with extraordinary intellectual creativity. He is in the full sense a genius, a man of massive power in things religious and a giant as well in theological interpretation. Because of this, he has in many respects shaped the history of the world–even of our world today.”

“Wherever Luther is sketched, one feels the gulf between the man and what is said about him. One is tempted simply to quote him–his wonderful outpouring of self, his tireless thrust to discover and express, his massive power, the immeasurable height, breadth, and depth of the message, the astounding vitality and fullness present in this man so captivated by the spirit of Scripture.”

“The Church condemned Luther as a heretic. That is certain, but whatever one thinks in detail of Luther’s orthodoxy or heterodoxy, however one may view certain sides of his character, whatever criticism one has to level against his immoderate polemic, there is no doubt that he was a profoundly religious man, a true Christian, who lived by a deep faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary, crucified and risen to save us. We must also remember that all his life Luther was a man of prayer and a zealous preacher of the Word of God.”

“In his class lectures, sermons, books, and table remarks, Luther was an active personality. The works marking the major steps of his development --his early lectures on the Psalms and on Romans, the Disputations in Heidelberg and Leipzig, his reform writings of 1520, his works of liturgical renewal, the lectures and disputations of the 1530’s and 1540’s–have all formed human history. This was not merely because of their theological content, but also because of their power of expression and the personal strength that permeates them. Luther was not simply a theologian. In fact, he was very seldom and only briefly just a theologian, even in the classroom. He was more than all else a believer, a prophet, and a battler. To this day, Luther’s works have retained much of his vitality. Thus they are not adequately understood when their abstract theological content is extracted and repeated. Successful interpretation must be tinged with prophecy. As we look back at Luther, we must bring out Luther’s many instinctively sure resonances with historical developments in the world and in the Church. We must show the mutual influence between Luther and history.”

“Luther was a theologian of the highest rank.”

Regards,
James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

Eden:

Exactly! That’s why man alone is not capable of interpreting God’s word! Luther told us that we each could interpret God’s word without the official Church’s assistance. Men took* Luther’s* words about the order of creation and created the idea of the Volk- a special race chosen by God.

Luther understood that the primary message of the Bible was clear enough that even a child could understand it (as do I). As i’ve mentioned previously, for Luther, the chief channel of bringing the Word to people was the office of the Pastor. God selects and calls specific individuals to lead His people in their gathering around the Word for their saving use of it. Luther was certain that God had singled out certain individuals for certain “horizontal” tasks. They were called to be leaders of the congregation so that the Word of God might proceed in orderly fashion.

Luther felt the pastoral office and priesthood of all believers was not to be played off against each other. Our status as priests is chiefly a matter of our vertical relationships. The status of pastors is chiefly a matter of the horizontal relationship with God.

Regards,
James Swan