LUTHER: The 2003 film with Joseph Fiennes

[TertiumQuid]

Eden:

The movie was sponsered by the Lutheran Churches of the United States and Germany. I’d like to see the Catholic version.

Indeed, lets see a Catholic version (Part 2):

**Joseph Lortz ** is perhaps the most famous **Catholic Luther scholar ** of the twentieth century. His two-volume work, The Reformation in Germany, is praised by both Catholics and Protestants alike.

Lortz takes a bold stand on the state of the church during the sixteenth century. It was in need of an overhaul. It was filled with abuse and theological ambiguity: “[Lortz held that] the reformation is a Catholic matter in that Catholics share the responsibility and the guilt for its happening. So we must make it a concern for us Catholics. We must accept our guilt… It was this state of things within the catholic Church at the beginning of the sixteenth century that made Luther and the reformation possible, even in a certain manner historically necessary” (Source:Richard Stauffer, Luther As Seen By Catholics, 56)

Lortz said:

Theological confusion within Catholic theology was one of the specially important preconditions which precipitated a revolution in the Church. It is one of those keys which to some extent unlocks the riddle of the colossal apostasy.”

“Theological confusion revealed itself even more profoundly however, amongst the guardians of the doctrine of the Church.”

“The darkness [religious life before the Reformation] became all the more ominous because Catholics suffered from the illusion that Catholic doctrine had long since been settled on the disputed points. Few theologians were exempt from this illusion. In the polemic of the day- as we shall see- most of them used the unanimous consensus of the Church as an argument, whereas, in fact, on important questions only a more or less hazy opinion was the substitute for sure knowledge. The deliberations at Trent are proof of this.”

“In Luther’s search for a gracious God he came to stand outside the Church without intending to do so. And it was no prearranged revolutionary programme, and no ignoble impulses and desires which led him to desire or seek a break with the Church.”

“Today I would even go so far as to ask whether the Catholic scholar might not be in a better position to understand Luther adequately than the Protestant researcher. First, we can take it for granted that we have abandoned the evaluative categories of a Cochlaeus, which dominated for over 400 years, and those of the great Denifle, and even those of Grisar (who was particularly well-versed in details). This assumption holds also for Italy, Spain, and Latin America. Gradually Catholics have come to recognize the Christian, and even Catholic, richness of Luther, and they are impressed. They now realize how great the Catholic guilt was that Luther was expelled from the Church to begin the division that burdens us so today–even in theology. Finally, we are anxious to draw Luther’s richness back into the Church.”

James Swan

 

[Eden]

TertiumQuid:

I posted this earlier, but i’m not sure at this point if you actually read what i’ve written:

I would like to eventually get to discuss authority with you. However, be prepared. I suggest you read up on Luther’s view of authority, before you discuss it. That way, I won’t have to spend a lot of time explaining to you what it is. We could actually “discuss” it, rather than me having to explain it to you. My suggestion is this book: amazon.com/exec/obidos/t…=books&n=507846

James Swan

Could you just give me the name of the book please? This is all that link provides:

Looking for Something?
We’re sorry. The Web address you entered is not a functioning page on our site.
Please double-check the URL for typos and other errors.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Eden:

The movie was sponsered by the Lutheran Churches of the United States and Germany. I’d like to see the Catholic version.

Indeed, lets see a Catholic version (Part 3):

**Father Sartory ** was from the Niederaltaich abbey in Bavaria. He gave an important series of lectures via radio on Luther that were subsequently reproduced in the article, Martin Luther in katholischer Sicht. Sartory takes a bold approach, exhorting Catholics to see the value of Luther.

Sartory admits theological confusion plagued the Medieval Church, and this confusion was instrumental in provoking the Reformation: “Sartory mentions the importance of Occamism, which provoked the Reformation attack on meritorious works by over-emphasizing man’s power. But Occamism was not its only source. Sartory, under Lortz’s continual influence, marks the confusion of the theological debate in the sixteenth century and does not hesitate to make the Roman Church partially responsible for the events from 1517 onwards.”

**Father McDonough ** wrote The Law and the Gospel in Luther. He said,

“Luther forced the Church to take hold of herself and to reform herself, an action which is still going on today. And in this respect, it is true to say that Luther is partly responsible for saving the Church.”

“…[T]here is a growing consensus among Catholic scholars that Martin Luther, on the fundamental issue of the Reformation, was absolutely right. This issue was not politics, or economics, or indulgences, or papal authority, or even protest. It was simply the sovereignty of God. On this basic issue, Luther, in volumes of writings and thousands of sermons, preached to his contemporaries an entirely orthodox and truly Catholic doctrine: namely, that God alone—Father, Son and Holy Spirit—creates, redeems and sanctifies man.”

**Father Leonard Swidler ** (1964 – 1965) is another Catholic scholar that spoke against the Luther-vilifying tendency of earlier Catholic scholars. Swidler sees a strong historical case for the need of a Reformation:

“The kindred temptation for the catholic historian is, after having found unpleasant facts in the history of the Church, to attempt to explain them away with specious, post-factum arguments; to maintain that the actions taken were necessary, were the best possible at the time and under those circumstances, and that if those measures had not been taken, matters would have been worse. Sometimes, this will be true. But to assume that it is always true is to canonize the past merely because it is past, a slightly paraphrased version of Hegel’s dictum ‘Whatever is, is right.’”

James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

Eden:

The movie was sponsered by the Lutheran Churches of the United States and Germany. I’d like to see the Catholic version.

Indeed, lets see a Catholic version (Part 4):

**John Todd ** was formally an agnostic who converted to Catholicism. His major works on Luther are Martin Luther: A Biographical Study, and Luther: A Life.

Todd is critical of the Roman Church that condemned Luther: “Rome is frankly criticized for its whole approach to Luther. Instead of taking his concerns seriously it opted for the “easier” route, ecclesiastical pressure to silence him. The curia was blind to the theological issues, unable to believe that a critical German was really trying to work for the good of the church.”

that should suffice. Indeed, I would love to see a **Catholic version ** of the Luther movie.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Eden:

Could you just give me the name of the book please? This is all that link provides:

Here’s the link again from different sites:

amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0800618556/qid=1115857136/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-8164029-2427231?v=glance&s=books

search.barnesandnoble.com/BookSearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=pv4OxbwACA&isbn=0800618556&itm=1

The book is, The Theology of Martin Luther by Paul Althaus. It is one of the standard books in studying Luther.

James Swan

 

[Mickey]

TertiumQuid:

The irony I find is that Roman Catholics spend much more time talking about Luther than Protestants. I would really like to know why.

Honestly Jim, I don’t give a whole lot of thought to Martin Luther. I’m the last one to enter into an in-depth analysis of his life and thought process. All I know is that Catholic/Orthodox theology is about 2000 years old, and protestant theology is about 500 years old. The deepest wells have the clearest water. I’m not a psycho-analyst but it seems that you are obsessed with this man. Hey, we all have our hobbies.

 

[Eden]

TertiumQuid:

The irony I find is that Roman Catholics spend much more time talking about Luther than Protestants. I would really like to know why.

I do have some reasons for studying Luther.

James Swan

According to Dave Armstrong, "James Swan is a Reformed seminary student who specializes in Luther research."

The irony I find is that Roman Catholics spend much more time talking about Luther (in religious dialogue) than Protestants. I would really like to know why. - **When you go onto religious chat forums, you are going to find people talking about religion. For a Catholic engaged in religious dialogue with Protestants the discussion begins and ends with Luther. His error created the Western division in Christendom that we now have between Catholics and Protestants. **

 

[TertiumQuid]

Mickey:

Honestly Jim, I don’t give a whole lot of thought to Martin Luther. I’m the last one to enter into an in-depth analysis of his life and thought process. All I know is that Catholic/Orthodox theology is about 2000 years old, and protestant theology is about 500 years old. The deepest wells have the clearest water. I’m not a psycho-analyst but it seems that you are obsessed with this man. Hey, we all have our hobbies.:

Hi Mickey,

Funny, I see it as Roman Catholics being obsessed with Luther. Remember, i’m not the one starting all these thread about Luther. Ok, let’s discuss some of the other Reformers- how about John Calvin? Now, if I start sharing my thoughts, research, and opinions about Calvin, are you likewise going to say, “I’m not a psycho-analyst but it seems that you are obsessed with this man. Hey, we all have our hobbies.”?

James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

Eden:

When you go onto religious chat forums, you are going to find people talking about religion. For a Catholic engaged in religious dialogue with Protestants the discussion begins and ends with Luther. His error created the Western division in Christendom that we now have between Catholics and Protestants.

It still seems to me that Roman Catholics are preoccupied with Luther, while Protestants care very little about him.

Luther said late in his life:

"I would have been quite content to see my books, one and all, remain in obscurity and go by the board. Among other reasons, I shudder to think of the example I am giving, for I am well aware how little the church has been profited since they have begun to collect many books and large libraries, in addition to and besides the Holy Scriptures, and especially since they have stored up, without discrimination, all sorts of writings by the church fathers, the councils, and teachers. Through this practice not only is precious time lost, which could be used for studying the Scriptures, but in the end the pure knowledge of the divine Word is also lost, so that the Bible lies forgotten in the dust under the bench (as happened to the book of Deuteronomy, in the time of the kings of Judah)…I cannot, however, prevent them from wanting to collect and publish my works through the press (small honor to me), although it is not my will. I have no choice but to let them risk the labor and the expense of this project. My consolation is that, in time, my books will lie forgotten in the dust anyhow, especially if I (by God’s grace) have written anything good. Non ere melior Patribus meis. He who comes second should indeed be the first one forgotten. Inasmuch as they have been capable of leaving the Bible itself lying under the bench, and have also forgotten the fathers and the councils—the better ones all the faster—accordingly there is a good hope, once the overzealousness of this time has abeted, that my books also will not last long. There is especially good hope of this, since it has begun to rain and snow books and teachers, many of which already lie there forgotten and moldering. Even their names are not remembered any more, despite their confident hope that they would eternally be on sale in the market and rule churches.” (LW 34:283-284).

Talking about Luther is not talking about divisions between Protestants and Catholics. If we wanted to talk about what divides us, we would be discussing the Bible. The Bible divides us. Whether or not Luther said or did something is irrelevant to the discussion. What do the Scriptures say? This is relevant.

James Swan

 

[INRI]

TertiumQuid:

It still seems to me that Roman Catholics are preoccupied with Luther, while Protestants care very little about him.
…
Talking about Luther is not talking about divisions between Protestants and Catholics. If we wanted to talk about what divides us, we would be discussing the Bible. The Bible divides us. Whether or not Luther said or did something is irrelevant to the discussion. What do the Scriptures say? This is relevant.

James Swan

Actually James, given the shear volume of stuff you’ve dumped on this forum, it seems you are the one pre-occupied with Luther. Dave Armstrong and you seem to have quite a little spat going on. In fact, it seems you hardly talk about anything BUT Luther, based on your internet profile.

If most Protestants ignore Luther, it is because their theology has since diverged far away from Luther’s original vision. No sense in quoting a guy you no longer agree with. My undersanding is that Luther condemned contraception. The ELCA today, through its insurance program for employees, effectively subsidizes abortion!

Talking about Luther is talking precisely about what (and whom) divides us. Whatever the undeniable corruptions of the 16th century Church, they could never, ever justify schism. Luther’s actions that have damaged Christendom far more than the illegitmate children of Alexander VI ever did.

The Bible shouldn’t divide us, **but the notion of private interpretation of the Bible apart from sacred tradition (an innovation of Luther) **continues to divide us. You ask “What do the scriptures say?”. Instead, you should ask, “What did the Apostles and the Church Fathers say about those scriptures?”, before presuming you have stumbled on the correct interpretation.

Luther is also responsible for the extremely problematic ecclesiology of Protestantism, made necessary by the unceasingy fissiparousness of that movement. Only by maintaining some sort of “invisible church of all believers” could you hope to maintain any semblance of credibility in the face of church split after church split, all resulting from asking “What do the Scriptures say?” without any reference to how those scriptures have been traditionally understood.

Continue to study Luther if you must. I say you shall know a tree by its fruits. While Luther did spark the Catholic Church to reform herself, his main fruits have been endless division, doctrinal choas, confusion on the meaning of various scripture passages, hostility amongst Christians, and a weakening of the proclamation of the Gospel for all the reasons given above.

One of his other fruits has been this soft-pedaled film version of his life which no real historian can take seriously. Of course, that just about goes for any “historical” film coming out of Hollywood these days (“Kingdom of God”, “Braveheart”, “JFK” etc.)

 

[Mickey]

TertiumQuid:

Hi Mickey,

Funny, I see it as Roman Catholics being obsessed with Luther. Remember, i’m not the one starting all these thread about Luther. Ok, let’s discuss some of the other Reformers- how about John Calvin? Now, if I start sharing my thoughts, research, and opinions about Calvin, are you likewise going to say, “I’m not a psycho-analyst but it seems that you are obsessed with this man. Hey, we all have our hobbies.”?

James Swan

Well, maybe the Roman Catholics you deal with, but I don’t know many who are obsessed with Luther. (but then again, I’m Byzantine Catholic ). And just because there are threads about Luther doesn’t mean there is an en mass Catholic obsession with him. This is a forum you know. In fact, you probably get quite a charge out of parading your vast knowlege of this man out into cyber-space, correcting everyone who doesn’t agree with the way you have interpreted his writings.
Yep, I probably would say it again in regard to Calvin. These men were the cause of endless divisions from the Church that Christ established. I don’t think it is really necessary to know why they did it–only that they did in fact do it. And as time passes these divisions continue to water down the truth. Of course some people feel compelled to analyze and defend these reformers so that they can justify why they separated from the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. But hey, keep doing your research–we all have free-will. Oops, Calvin wouldn’t agree with that.

 

[TertiumQuid]

INRI:

Actually James, given the shear volume of stuff you’ve dumped on this forum, it seems you are the one pre-occupied with Luther.

Hi Inri,

If I were preoccupied with Luther here at Catholic Answers, I would be starting numerous topics on him. I don’t. You Catholic folks do. Just scroll through the topics over the last few months and you’ll see what i mean. As I joined into this thread, I attempt, as much as possible, to answer and respond to others who have taken the time to participate also. If you consider this “dumped” then fine. If you have a special interest in a particular topic, I hope you are not easily discouraged- because people who can’t respond to what you’re telling them usually make fun of the ability to articulate on that subject. Nothing is worse then popping someone’s bubble.

INRI:

Dave Armstrong and you seem to have quite a little spat going on.

I don’t have a problem with Dave. We disagree on things. I will say this. I have gained some more respect for DA after dialoging with some Catholic folks here. At least Dave will read what’s been written. At least he will avoid some of the common ignorant anti-Luther silliness. He will also take correction when he’s made mistakes.

INRI:

In fact, it seems you hardly talk about anything BUT Luther, based on your internet profile.

Well, I admit that here on these forums, i’ve stuck to Luther. Over on CARM, I tend to jump into a lot of different things.

INRI:

If most Protestants ignore Luther, it is because their theology has since diverged far away from Luther’s original vision.

You have a point. I think that most Protestants have little or no understanding of the Reformation in general.

INRI:

Talking about Luther is talking precisely about what (and whom) divides us.

It’s an aspect of what divides us, and not the most important one.

INRI:

The Bible shouldn’t divide us, **but the notion of private interpretation of the Bible apart from sacred tradition (an innovation of Luther) **continues to divide us. You ask “What do the scriptures say?”. Instead, you should ask, “What did the Apostles and the Church Fathers say about those scriptures?”, before presuming you have stumbled on the correct interpretation.

You like Eden should do a little study on Luther and tradition. I can’t do all the work.Who interprets what the church fathers and tradition means for you? Who interprets what the church means?

INRI:

Only by maintaining some sort of “invisible church of all believers” could you hope to maintain any semblance of credibility in the face of church split after church split, all resulting from asking “What do the Scriptures say?” without any reference to how those scriptures have been traditionally understood.

Interestingly, the concept of “invisible church” was taught by Augustine. The church is the true and full number of the elect (there are some who are elect that are never catholic, and there are some catholics that are not elect). He argues the true christian can be found inside and outside the true church, but the elect are to be found substantially within the church.

INRI:

Continue to study Luther if you must.

Thank you for the permission.

INRI:

I say you shall know a tree by its fruits.

Be careful with that way of arguing. Your church is not guiltless.

INRI:

While Luther did spark the Catholic Church to reform herself, his main fruits have been endless division, doctrinal choas, confusion on the meaning of various scripture passages, hostility amongst Christians, and a weakening of the proclamation of the Gospel for all the reasons given above.

Well, why hasn’t your papacy infallibly interpreted all of the Bible for us? What’s the holdup? I know all sorts of Catholics that disagree with each other on things.

James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

Mickey:

In fact, you probably get quite a charge out of parading your vast knowlege of this man out into cyber-space, correcting everyone who doesn’t agree with the way you have interpreted his writings.

Hi Mickey,

Perhaps rather than mocking me you should actually show everyone how wrong I am about Luther.

Mickey:

Yep, I probably would say it again in regard to Calvin.

Exactly as I suspected. It wouldn’t matter who I discussed. You would simply dismisss it and mock it. great.

I thought these were supposed to be discussion boardss? If we’re just going to bark at each other, perhaps its best to not participate until we have something of substance to say.

James Swan

 

[Mickey]

TertiumQuid:

Perhaps rather than mocking me you should actually show everyone how wrong I am about Luther.

Didn’t mock you. Didn’t say you were wrong. Don’t care if you are right or wrong. I said he was the father of division and I don’t feel I have to prove that.

TertiumQuid:

Exactly as I suspected. It wouldn’t matter who I discussed. You would simply dismisss it and mock it. great.

Didn’t mock it. Simply called it an obsession.

TertiumQuid:

I thought these were supposed to be discussion boards? If we’re just going to bark at each other

Wasn’t barking.
I said you have vast knowledge on this subject. That wasn’t a mock. Unfortunately the written word can sometimes be construed as sarcasm or mocking. However, perhaps you should return to discussing the subject with your intellectual equal–you had your hands full with Mr. Armstrong. Maybe you should look him up again.

 

[Mickey]

TertiumQuid:

I know all sorts of Catholics that disagree with each other on things.

You know how many times we’ve heard that one, James? A Catholic who doesn’t know their faith proves nothing. What is your point?

 

[Eden]

TertiumQuid:

Hi Inri,

If I were preoccupied with Luther here at Catholic Answers, I would be starting numerous topics on him. I don’t. You Catholic folks do. Just scroll through the topics over the last few months and you’ll see what i mean. As I joined into this thread, I attempt, as much as possible, to answer and respond to others who have taken the time to participate also. If you consider this “dumped” then fine. If you have a special interest in a particular topic, I hope you are not easily discouraged- because people who can’t respond to what you’re telling them usually make fun of the ability to articulate on that subject. Nothing is worse then popping someone’s bubble.

I don’t have a problem with Dave. We disagree on things. I will say this. I have gained some more respect for DA after dialoging with some Catholic folks here. At least Dave will read what’s been written. At least he will avoid some of the common ignorant anti-Luther silliness. He will also take correction when he’s made mistakes.

Well, I admit that here on these forums, i’ve stuck to Luther. Over on CARM, I tend to jump into a lot of different things.

You have a point. I think that most Protestants have little or no understanding of the Reformation in general.

It’s an aspect of what divides us, and not the most important one.

You like Eden should do a little study on Luther and tradition. I can’t do all the work.Who interprets what the church fathers and tradition means for you? Who interprets what the church means?

Interestingly, the concept of “invisible church” was taught by Augustine. The church is the true and full number of the elect (there are some who are elect that are never catholic, and there are some catholics that are not elect). He argues the true christian can be found inside and outside the true church, but the elect are to be found substantially within the church.

Thank you for the permission.

Be careful with that way of arguing. Your church is not guiltless.

Well, why hasn’t your papacy infallibly interpreted all of the Bible for us? What’s the holdup? I know all sorts of Catholics that disagree with each other on things.

James Swan

A little humility and a lot less pride will do you well. While I understand that your pride is wounded because we have rejected your “feature article” on an anti-Catholic website, I would like to remind you that you are a guest among Catholics. If you came to this site with the attitude that *you *had something to tell us to set us straight, you will be sorely disappointed. Surely, after your time as moderator on the Catholic boards at CARM, you have learned something about respectful dialogue. Might I remind you that your condescending attitude about my “education” reflects your own insecurity. Your opinion of Luther is very high, however, it is just your opinion. You have made it quite clear that no understanding of Luther is the “correct” understanding unless one reaches the same conclusions that you have. I find your research on Luther to be fawning and misleading (especially your references to Desiderius Erasmus and Cardinal Cajetan). It’s rather a pity that you will not open yourself to learning anything from us.

 

[Eden]

“Be careful with that way of arguing. Your church is not guiltless.”

“I know all sorts of Catholics that disagree with each other on things.”

Yes. And isn’t it amazing how the Holy Spirit protects His Church despite these things, just as we were promised? This excerpt from “Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth” speaks directly to your statements:

catholic.com/library/pillar.asp

**"The Catholic Church has existed for nearly 2,000 years, despite constant opposition from the world. This is testimony to the Church’s divine origin. It must be more than a merely human organization, especially considering that its human members— even some of its leaders—have been unwise, corrupt, or prone to heresy.

Any merely human organization with such members would have collapsed early on. The Catholic Church is today the most vigorous church in the world (and the largest, with a billion members: one sixth of the human race), and that is testimony not to the cleverness of the Church’s leaders, but to the protection of the Holy Spirit."
**

 

[Mickey]

“Be careful with that way of arguing. Your church is not guiltless.”

“I know all sorts of Catholics that disagree with each other on things.”

Yes. And isn’t it amazing how the Holy Spirit protects His Church despite these things, just as we were promised? This excerpt from “Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth” speaks directly to your statements:

catholic.com/library/pillar.asp

**"The Catholic Church has existed for nearly 2,000 years, despite constant opposition from the world. This is testimony to the Church’s divine origin. It must be more than a merely human organization, especially considering that its human members— even some of its leaders—have been unwise, corrupt, or prone to heresy. **

Any merely human organization with such members would have collapsed early on. The Catholic Church is today the most vigorous church in the world (and the largest, with a billion members: one sixth of the human race), and that is testimony not to the cleverness of the Church’s leaders, but to the protection of the Holy Spirit."

AMEN, EDEN!!!

Do you know how fast we would be suspended if we were on a protestant forum writing similar comments that James posts here? In the blink of an eye!

 

[Eden]

AMEN, EDEN!!!

Do you know how fast we would be suspended if we were on a protestant forum writing similar comments that James posts here? In the blink of an eye!

I had thought about that too, Mickey. Keep him in your prayers.

 

[Mickey]

TertiumQuid:

Hi Mickey,

Perhaps rather than mocking me you should actually show everyone how wrong I am about Luther.

In order for me to refute your conclusions on Martin Luther, I would have to dedicate an inordinate amount of time researching and studying this man. My time is devoted to reading the Word of God, reflecting on the teachings of the Catholic/Orthodox Church, and studying the writings of the Church fathers. Personally, for me to study and analyze Martin Luther, (or any other reformer for that matter), would be a fruitless endeavor.