Polish film on the influence of Martin Luther

[TertiumQuid]

I have to admit, I had never heard the claim before that Lither was a murderer.

The theory that Luther went into the monastery because of killing someone in a duel surfaced in the 1980’s via scholar Dietrich Emme. It’s based on speculation of reading into a Table Talk comment with no real evidence to back it up. Two of the editors of the recent publications of Luther’s Works wrote me personally and provided the following:

In the early 1980’s, Dietrich Emme popularized the theory that Martin Luther entered the Augustinian monastery in Erfurt not due to his experience in a storm, but in order to escape prosecution after killing a companion (Hieronymus Buntz) in a duel in 1505 ( Martin Luther: Sein Jugend- und Studentenzeit 1483-1505 [Cologne, 1982]). Emme’s work on this point has been widely dismissed in recent scholarship as piling one speculative conclusion upon another (e.g., Andreas Lindner, “Was geschah in Stotternheim,” in C. Bultmann, V. Leppin, eds., Luther und das monastische Erbe [Tübingen, 2007], pp. 109-10; cf. Franz Posset, The Front-Runner of the Catholic Reformation: The Life and Works of Johann von Staupitz [Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003], 94, and the response by Helmar Junghans, Lutherjahrbuch 72 [2005]:190).

The standard biographer of Luther claims that Hieronymus Buntz died of plague (Martin Brecht, Martin Luther: His Road to Reformation, 1483-1521 [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1985], 47), and this is documented in sources from 1505.

The “duel theory” relies on one of Luther’s Table Talks: “By the singular plan of God I became a monk, so that they would not capture me. Otherwise I would have been captured easily. But they were not able to do it, because the entire Order took care of me” ( D. Martin Luthers Werke: kritische Gesamtausgabe [Weimar Edition]: Tischreden , vol. 1 [Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1912], p. 134, no. 326). Yet this refers to the Augustinian order’s protection of Luther from Rome in 1518, not a putative flight from prosecution for dueling in 1505.

If Luther’s “duel” were true, it would have been a matter of rather public knowledge, both casually, among students and the monks, and officially, both with whatever civil or episcopal authorities were supposedly trying to arrest Luther, as well as because a dispensation would have been required for Luther’s ordination (homicide being a canonical impediment for the sacrament of order). In other words, it would be practically unthinkable that when the Roman Catholic polemical biographer of Luther, Johannes Cochlaeus, was searching for data about Luther’s monastic career (and coming up with stories like Luther wailing in the choir) that such a “fact,” if true or even rumored, would not have emerged.

Dr. Christopher Boyd Brown, general editor, Luther’s Works: American Edition
Dr. Benjamin T. G. Mayes, managing editor, Luther’s Works: American Edition

 

[TertiumQuid]

the script is written certainly from a Catholic perspective how Luther was not a really committed Catholic priest.

This particular charge was popularized by Catholic historian Heinrich Denifle over one hundred years ago. Denifle was a priest, so that he had a focus on this is not surprising. Denifle provoked a lot of interest in Luther’s early career, and many other historians have demonstrated his view is inaccurate, not just Protestant scholarship, but Catholic scholarship as well: Congar, Lortz, Wicks, Swidler, etc.

 

[TertiumQuid]

I don’t see how people could have followed Luther if he openly thought God was evil. This is probably some glaring misrepresentation of what Luther taught/believed.

There is an out of context Luther quote floating around cyberspace in which Luther is purported to have said, “I look upon God no better than a scoundrel.” There are also quotes in regard to Luther’s view of free will / predestination which are often used
to paint a negative view of Luther’s view of God.

 

[bassmansteiny]

Lol, no not at all. Sorry you miss understood what I was trying to get at, maybe I did not word it correctly. I believe in the truth of the Catholic Church!!! I am very Orthodox Catholic in my beliefs. like I said I need to watch the film. I know Luther was wrong in what he did and about most of the things he claimed against the Church. What I was getting at, while Luther believed and taught many things not correct with the teaching of the Catholic Church, some people or groups could liable things against him that weren’t true or didn’t happen. We need to be totally honest, their is no reason to make up things if they are not true, Luther was wrong in his theology and to leave the Church, that is the Truth. OP stated that in the film, Martin Luther committed murder and ran to hide in the Priesthood, I never heard or read that, not in any of the Catholic Apologetics books or any of the Catholic books that discussed Martin Luther. I’ve read that his confessor believed he was very Scrupulous and was paranoid about going to hell. That is why he changed his beliefs in theology. Again sorry you misunderstood me. I don’t adhere to either Religious or Moral Relativism. Have a Blessed Day my friend!

What about truth? Is there such a thing any longer? Are you proposing religious relativism as a way to view the world. It seems to me that this is the way to destroy, or ignore, the truth of Catholicism.

 

[ontheway1]

No worries. I should have read your message twice before responding.
I haven’t seen the movie and can’t speak to its claims.
Have you read Belloc’s book on the impact of the reformation on Europe, civilization and the Church?

 

[bassmansteiny]

No problem. No I haven’t read it. Is it pretty good? I will have to add that to my list of books to get.

 

[otrrl]

I’m looking forward to watching this, thanks for posting. Obviously it comes from a certain perspective but did you find it even-handed?

short answer: yes. why? because it was so well documented. There is so much to be said in so short a time of 90 minutes, but I don’t think they misquoted anything.

p.s. “even handed” ? I’d still say yes. There’s a “Catholic” lady at the end who expresses her belief that there should be another revolt inside the Catholic Church. So, yes, the opposite point of view is expressed in the film.

 

[ATraveller]

Although Luther disparaged the popes and the Church, he made himself the Pope by coming up with all of his own ideas about Christianity.

Most Protestants and especially Lutherans would even dare to compare Martin Luther to a Pope. To Augustine or Aquinas? Maybe. Most of what he wrote was derived from Augustine and other Early Church Fathers as already mentioned.

It is ironic that in disparaging the one Church, it resulted in the formation of many churches with different beliefs.

The Eastern Orthodox branch did exist in the 1500’s.
Luther gets the credit for the Reformation but the factures were happening at least 100 years before the 95 Theses. Would a schism have occurred without Luther? We’ll never know other than the fact there was a possibility in light of the Great Schism centuries earlier.

 

[AlbertDerGrosse]

(Watches trailer)

“The Protestant world is most deeply, and most pitifully deplorable…”

Alright! Hard pass. Thanks.

Edit: And Michael Voris makes a cameo! I feel more justified (hehe) in not giving this film much credence.

 

[ltwin]

Luther thought God was evil, that man does not have free will, etc. – all against Catholic teaching.

As an Augustinian monk, Luther struggled with the knowledge that God was perfectly just/righteous and that he (Luther) was a sinner. The medieval Catholic emphasis on works only emphasized the gulf between God’s righteousness and his inability to meet God’s standard of holiness. Luther struggled with this view of God as a hard disciplinarian and judge waiting to hold every imperfection against his children until he began to actually study the Bible and began developing his concept of justification by faith. He then saw God as a loving God, but earlier he was plagued by doubts of God’s love or doubts that God could love him.

 

[AlbertDerGrosse]

As an Augustinian monk, Luther struggled with the knowledge that God was perfectly just/righteous and that he (Luther) was a sinner…

I might be looking too deeply into your word choice, but by saying “As an Augustinian monk…” do you mean that Luther’s characteristic hyper-scrupulosity was caused by his Augustinian formation, or do you mean that he came to this realization while he was an Augustinian monk?

 

[GordonP]

the script is written certainly from a Catholic perspective

The film maker, Grzegorz Braun, is a well known figure on the idiot fringe of the Polish far right, with ties to neo-facists and ultra-nationalists. Even most conservative Poles consider him a bit too “icky” for their taste. He has a well-earned reputation for historical revisionism (meaning just making stuff up to spread hatred).

The reviews I’ve read in Polish confirm that this film is just more of his alt-right blither. I wouldn’t waste time watching it. It contains nothing of historical, or spiritual value. It’s basically a “Catholic” version of a Chick track.

 

[AlbertDerGrosse]

Thank you for the background info. It helps, for sure.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

I’d rather listen an Oratorio.

 

[Salibi]

I don’t see how it can be so “well-documented” when it mispresents how Luther came to enter a monastery.

If it were a “well-documented” documentary, it would have said that the mainstream theory of why Luther entered a monastery is because he made a vow to St.Anne during a storm, but there exists other theories that claim he was actually escaping murder. The credibility of the movie is also not helped by the fact that the moment I pressed on the link I was presented with some sort of medieval woodcut showing the Devil using Luther’s head as bagpipes.

 

[fisherman_carl]

I watched the documentary and it is worth watching. According to the film the story of Luther traveling through the storm is a legend and most certainly dreamt up. According to them, the real reason he became a monk was because he killed a man in an illegal duel and would have been sentenced to death, if it wasn’t for him studying law at the time, so he was able to join the monastery and claim protection as a monk. They quote a letter that Luther’s friends at law school sent him which was asking what should they do with his illegitimate children (that were generated with his nurse/girlfriend previously). Luther replied that he had to stay with this damned monastery because if he left they would slit his throat. So, according to this, Luther went to the monastery not because he felt he was called to do so but because he was trying to save his backside.

Even if that story is not accurate there is a lot more to the documentary than that one story. So I would not dismiss it solely on that alone. Or it may just be nitpicking it for any excuse not to watch it.

 

[niceatheist]

The credibility of the movie is also not helped by the fact that the moment I pressed on the link I was presented with some sort of medieval woodcut showing the Devil using Luther’s head as bagpipes.

You’ve got to admire a filmmaker that doesn’t pull punches. Almost makes me want to see it, for the same reason I enjoy Plan 9 From Outer Space.

 

[fisherman_carl]

The documentary is polemical, and may offend some, but I think it may still worth watching for some. It may not be for everyone and there may be some inaccuracies to be wary of. But, there is still something to be learned from it. Watch it and then report back and tell us where you think it is inaccurate, rather than just dismissing it without even looking at it.

edit: There are some things I don’t like about the documentary. One is it tries to pack a lot of information in about 90 min. So it is fast paced and not relaxed. It is full of controversy about Luther rather than taking a more objective approach. It is very one sided or polemical. After reading some of the comments here it has me questioning some of the accuracy of this film. Nonetheless, there is a lot of info in it to be unpacked and verified. It is not something I would spend a lot of time thinking about though as it is not my area of interest. And I don’t think most Protestants faith stand or falls on Martin Luther anyways.

 

[ltwin]

I watched the documentary and it is worth watching. According to the film the story of Luther traveling through the storm is a legend and most certainly dreamt up. According to them, the real reason he became a monk was because he killed a man in an illegal duel and would have been sentenced to death, if it wasn’t for him studying law at the time, so he was able to join the monastery and claim protection as a monk. They quote a letter that Luther’s friends at law school sent him which was asking what should they do with his illegitimate children (that were generated with his nurse/girlfriend previously). Luther replied that he had to stay with this damned monastery because if he left they would slit his throat. So, according to this, Luther went to the monastery not because he felt he was called to do so but because he was trying to save his backside.

All of this is completely made up. Why would you recommend people watch something that is obviously propaganda? There is a lot of bad stuff to say about Luther without having to go out of your way to be untruthful.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Why is it obviously propaganda? This is from the documentary. I didn’t make it up. There is more to the film than just that one theory. Yes, it is polemical. You don’t have to watch it.