Polish film on the influence of Martin Luther

[MagdalenaRita]

What form of “Protestant “ were you?
There are many “Protestant “ communions who have no more in common with Luther than they do with Rome.

For twelve years I searched through many, many different denominations. It is true that there are some protestants who have nothing in common with Luther or want nothing to do with Luther, but it is not many. The main ones that I encountered that feel that way are those of the “restoration movement”. They are what they called “non denominational” before “non denominational” became popular. Also the anabaptists, but then both of those groups had their own reformers.

For the most part, though, most protestants see Luther as a hero. In our area we used to have “reformation days” at a park, where many protestants came together to re-enact the so called evils of the Catholic church and the so called heroic acts of Luther. That type of celebration might sound like something from the time of Luther, but no, just recently.

 

[mcq72]

I was actually reading the book to my family as we homeschooled, protestant at the time. I had to stop reading the book to my family because I couldn’t stand how he was being praised for doing such things and I didn’t want my family to think that we praise someone for such horrible acts.

CS Lewis wrote something to this effect:

“Those ignorant of history are slaves to the recent past.”

I quote him to say Luther must be considered in light of His time. He is a product of His time, and the Catholic Church was the prime player, molder, in church culture and civic culture and political culture, and the union of civic and Church authority.

Reformers vary in levels of being graced to break from such a mold. One must also be aware also that death came to some reformers who dared any breaking of said mold. The powers to be were much more absolute in their power than today.Conformity in church affairs was also the glue for all other life’s affairs.

 

[JonNC]

For twelve years I searched through many, many different denominations. It is true that there are some protestants who have nothing in common with Luther or want nothing to do with Luther, but it is not many. The main ones that I encountered that feel that way are those of the “restoration movement”. They are what they called “non denominational” before “non denominational” became popular. Also the anabaptists, but then both of those groups had their own reformers.

Yep. Nothing in common with Luther.

For the most part, though, most protestants see Luther as a hero. In our area we used to have “reformation days” at a park, where many protestants came together to re-enact the so called evils of the Catholic church and the so called heroic acts of Luther. That type of celebration might sound like something from the time of Luther, but no, just recently.

How many of them would sign on to Lutheran understanding of the Eucharist, or Baptism, or private confession, or soteriology?
Next time you see them celebrating Luther on Reformation Day, ask them why they celebrate him but disagree with him on these basic, fundamental teachings.

I was raised Lutheran by a Lutheran pastor. Never once were there “re-enactments of the “evils” of the Catholic Church. I don’t doubt the possibilities, but I also hear about the evils of Father Martin here, too, and recently.

 

[GKMotley]

CS Lewis wrote something to this effect:

“Those ignorant of history are slaves to the recent past.”

“…it is not the remembered but the forgotten past that enslaves us. I think the same is true of society. To study the past does indeed liberate us from the present, from the idols of our own market-place. But I think it liberates us from the past too. I think no class of men are less enslaved to the past than historians. The unhistorical are usually, without knowing it, enslaved to a fairly recent past.”

De Descriptione Temporum

Inaugural Lecture from The Chair of Mediaeval and Renaissance
Literature at Cambridge University, 1954

Included in SELECTED LITERARY ESSAYS/ (ed. Hooper), chap 1, p.1. 1979 TPB ed.

 

[Darryl_B]

It is strange that Luther has an artificially inflated significance, and I prefer not to call him a reformer as such, that is a euphemistic term which his adherents are welcome to use.

Everyone needs their mighty heroes I guess.

 

[JonNC]

It is strange that Luther has an artificially inflated significance, and I prefer not to call him a reformer as such, that is a euphemistic term which his adherents are welcome to use.

Everyone needs their mighty heroes I guess.

I think we all agree that the one mighty hero is Christ Jesus our Lord.
As Luther himself said:

“Who is Luther? The doctrine is not mine. I have been crucified for no one. St. Paul in 1 Cor. 3:4-5 would not suffer that the Christians should call themselves of Paul or of Peter, but Christian. How should I, a poor stinking bag of worms, become so that the children of Christ are named with my unholy name? It should not be dear friends. Let us extinguish all factious names and be called Christians whose doctrine we have.”

 

[MagdalenaRita]

“He who goes out to reform the world must begin with himself, or he loses his labor.”
St. Ignatius of Loyola

 

[mcq72]

Lol…i think you have put more fiz in my pop on this before…thank you

 

[GKMotley]

My pleasure.

 

[mcq72]

It is strange that Luther has an artificially inflated significance, and I prefer not to call him a reformer as such, that is a euphemistic term which his adherents are welcome to use.

Everyone needs their mighty heroes I guess.

Indeed, maybe there would be no famous Luther had there not been some artificially inflated significance for him and others to contest.

 

[Darryl_B]

No. That’s not really the reason is it.

 

[mcq72]

No. That’s not really the reason is it.

Oh it is.

Just heard a nice radio message on how the Catholic church was right in 15, 16 century in not wanting bibles, even in vernacular, in people’s hands, apart from magisterium, for the sake of souls. It was not so they could keep people ignorant of any errors. The church correctly saw the dangers of reformers right to private interpretation doctrine, of people interpreting any which way they wanted, of a chaos of multiple churches/ denominations. Luther saw this also, but said it was worth it to get the printed gospel out to the masses, even the world, to the saving of souls.

The church though correctly prophesying the mess of denominations galore and endless misinterpretations, was wrong on two counts: one that she had not done any misinterpetations herself, and two, that even in conformity (one church), many in the church were still in darkness and superstition that might be reached otherwise.

So yes, resistance to reform, the artificial inflating of infallibility and rightness, certainly didn’t help “pacifying those that contend…and to not schism.” (Didache)

 

[Darryl_B]

If I had a dollar for every opinion.

If I read some protestant literature luthers legacy is sola gratia sola fides sola scriptura and all believers are priests.

Slayer of dragons is invariably the image always presented of luther, even as you have done here.

The only problem was he failed to do that.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Jusr heard a nice radio message on how the Catholic church was right in 15, 16 century in not wanting bibles, even in vernacular, in people’s hands, apart from magisterium, for the sake of souls

That is a very popular protestant deception. I also heard, when I was a protestant, that the reason the Church chained the bibles in the Churches was so no one else could have them.
Neither is true.
The cost of printing a bible at that time was very high. Printing presses and bookstores were not all around. Very few people could afford a bible, so they were kept in the Churches so everyone when coming into the Church could read them and because of its value it would not be stolen.

After the protestant revolt, yes, the Church was very hesitant to encourage private reading due to so much incorrect private interpretation occurring which, yes, is dangerous to ones soul.

Bible reading is important but with the guidance of the Church who alone was given the authority to interpret.

 

[niceatheist]

It is strange that Luther has an artificially inflated significance, and I prefer not to call him a reformer as such, that is a euphemistic term which his adherents are welcome to use.

Everyone needs their mighty heroes I guess.

How is his significance inflated? He was the first significant reformer in centuries, his revolt against Rome, unlike, say the Hussites, actually stuck. He got the backing of powerful German princes, and wrote almost constantly. His influence on European society, in Protestant and Catholic lands, was profound. Heck, it even had a bit of backchannel influence on the Russian Orthodox Church through high-ranking Russian clerics like Feofan Prokopovich.

 

[TMC]

How is his significance inflated? He was the first significant reformer in centuries, his revolt against Rome, unlike, say the Hussites, actually stuck. He got the backing of powerful German princes, and wrote almost constantly. His influence on European society, in Protestant and Catholic lands, was profound. Heck, it even had a bit of backchannel influence on the Russian Orthodox Church through high-ranking Russian clerics like Feofan Prokopovich.

I believe the Church refers to Luther as a “reformer” does it not? I know the Church refers to that period as the “Reformation,” and that the Church has concluded that Luther was right about a number of things, including justification. So it seems to me that the Church is moving to a position of gratitude, not condemnation, on Luther.

 

[niceatheist]

Well, centuries of condemning him, going so far as to suggest he was a servant of Satan, didn’t exactly build bridges. For some folks, it’s as if the 95 Theses had just be nailed up last week.

 

[TMC]

Well, centuries of condemning him, going so far as to suggest he was a servant of Satan, didn’t exactly build bridges. For some folks, it’s as if the 95 Theses had just be nailed up last week.

This thread certainly demonstrates that is true for some, but I don’t think its the position of the Church. Pope Benedict used to quote and cite to Luther in his talks. Pope Francis speaks very highly of him. I think he may have been more formally honored by the Church by now if it would not cause some folks heads to spin.

 

[Darryl_B]

Ah. Now we are getting closer. It was a revolt, and it was a politically motivated one.

 

[Darryl_B]

I would also expect Luther’s sphere of influence to be the presence of his adherents, often called Lutherans. They only had a significant presence in Germany (and possibly Norway), ignoring of course the waves of immigration.