Polish film on the influence of Martin Luther

[TMC]

For those who may be curious, here are some quotes from Pope Benedict on Luther:

As the Bishop of Rome, it is deeply moving for me to be meeting you here in the ancient Augustinian convent in Erfurt. As we have just heard, this is where Luther studied theology. This is where he celebrated his first Mass. Against his father’s wishes, he did not continue the study of Law, but instead he studied theology and set off on the path towards priesthood in the Order of Saint Augustine. And on this path, he was not simply concerned with this or that. What constantly exercised him was the question of God, the deep passion and driving force of his whole life’s journey. “How do I receive the grace of God?”: this question struck him in the heart and lay at the foundation of all his theological searching and inner struggle. For Luther theology was no mere academic pursuit, but the struggle for oneself, which in turn was a struggle for and with God

Luther’s thinking, his whole spirituality, was thoroughly Christocentric: “What promotes Christ’s cause” was for Luther the decisive hermeneutical criterion for the exegesis of sacred Scripture. This presupposes, however, that Christ is at the heart of our spirituality and that love for him, living in communion with him, is what guides our life.

Read the whole speech here: Apostolic Journey to Germany: Meeting with representatives of the German Evangelical Church Council in the Chapter Hall of the Augustinian Convent (Erfurt, 23 September 2011) | BENEDICT XVI

 

[JonNC]

If I had a dollar for every opinion.

Add one dollar for yours.

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

All of which, properly understood, is true, but it isn’t Luther’s

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

I haven’t seen that. Do you have a source?

 

[Darryl_B]

Have you heard of poetry Jon?

It scares me a little when the term “properly understood” is used to describe something.

 

[mcq72]

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

Umm…the church was into politics then, so you couldn’t reform one without the other…the church had used civil enforcement for conformity since Nicean council.

 

[JonNC]

Have you heard of poetry Jon?

It scares me a little when the term “properly understood” is used to describe something.

Really? Ive heard that here about dulia and hyper-dulia often. Prayer to the saints is different than prayer to God. Prayer, properly understood.

 

[mcq72]

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.

That is your perceived image, but we all wrestle not against flesh and blood but principalities of a higher nature.

For sure the banter between the pope and Luther was legendary and quite " flowery" in verbiage and entertaining. However, I would not make the mistake of trivializing the real danger of life and limb and property for any reformer and the real threat of a lasting schism.

No, he slew not Rome, but for sure motivated another reformer to win back half of German princes ( politics) with his Jesuits . But for sure, the other princes and a few nations more remained free from Rome, Luther being a key figure.

 

[niceatheist]

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

Well, I don’t think there was political motivation for Luther, at least in the beginning. In the beginning, he had genuine theological differences with Rome, at least in part inspired by what he (and many others) viewed as a Church corrupted by wealth and power.

It was his benefactors who saw the advantages of using his theological positions and general disdain for the Church to their advantage. I do think at some point Luther, having realized that his critiques pleased his protectors, was spurred to some of his more outrageous attacks, but in the beginning I think he viewed himself as a reformer. The breach with Rome cannot solely be blamed on Luther. France was playing dirty pool as well, since the Reformation was weakening the Holy Roman Empire, and of course the Turkish menace in the east meant Charles V couldn’t smash the Reformation as had been done with previous reformist groups.

 

[mcq72]

That is a very popular protestant deception.

I beg to differ.

The church and the bible have a two thousand year history. There are many turns and twists. I was careful to address a very specific time of the reformation. Thank you for admitting that the church was “hesitant” about private reading in reaction.

Agree to misconceptions about chained bibles and trying to keep parishioners ignorant, etc. Apparently you are still unhappy and eager to find fault in Ps understanding.

I can only state again what I heard on radio. The motivations were proper, that of welfare of souls, to keep them on straight and narrow, and “out of hell” said the teacher. So it was why Tyndale was exhumed and burned to ashes, and Wycliffe also, and why popes much later condemned bible societies,(19th century) vernacular translations ( unless thru Catholic magisterium).

But like the CS Lewis quote, the unhistorical are slaves to recent past. So today the bible and Church have no problems,and since Vat 2 bibles are in every home, encouraging family and private reading and devotions, but it has not always been so, with some rough patches for said reasons.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. I have heard several different versions of that story from protestants.

And, yes, even still anyone reading Scripture should read it in light of the teaching authority of the Catholic church, lest they fall into misinterpretation, as has happened in the past and still happens every day, putting their souls in danger.

 

[Darryl_B]

I agree with MagdalenaRita. I believe the protestants have flavoured certain histories over time into some fairly interesting colourful myths, the Bible suppression being one of them, the Catholic political arena being another. There is a King, that King is Catholic, therefore the Catholic Church is political.

Wycliffe was declared a heretic and exhumed to remove him from consecrated ground. Tyndale was not exhumed.

And that whole Vat 2 bible myth.

But then who would know the Catholic Church better than a protestant.

There is one thing a protestant particularly US ones with all their historical fact checking seems to be completely incapable of understanding. It has always been possible to read the Bible and be Catholic, as for example the Early Church Fathers, many of whom knew the bible better than your average protestant, and were Catholic in their theology.

 

[JonNC]

It has always been possible to read the Bible and be Catholic, as for example the Early Church Fathers, many of whom knew the bible better than your average protestant, and were Catholic in their theology.

They knew the scriptures better than most modern day Catholics, too. And the were more Catholic than post-Schism Catholics.

 

[Darryl_B]

Jon, your logic is often missing.

Early Church Fathers switch bait modern Catholics switch bait …

 

[JonNC]

Jon, your logic is often missing.

Early Church Fathers switch bait modern Catholics switch bait …

lol. My logic is pretty clear. No ECF spoke of universal jurisdiction or infallibility ex cathedra.

 

[Darryl_B]

There you go again. So you have switched back to the Early Church Fathers and expect that they were sola scriptura?

No your logic is not clear. Maybe to you.

 

[JonNC]

There you go again. So you have switched back to the Early Church Fathers and expect that they were sola scriptura?

No your logic is not clear. Maybe to you.

It is remarkably uncharitable to claim someone said something they didn’t. I would like you to reference the quote where I said the ECFs professed the hermeneutical principle of sola scriptura.

If you didn’t read what I wrote, it is understandable that it isn’t logical to you

 

[AlbMagno]

Have you heard about the Epistle from Clement? The receptors of this epistle considered it part of the Bible just because the pope was writing it. Not to mention all the passages in the Bible in which Peter presides over the other Apostles. Universal Jurisdiction was understood from the begining.

 

[JonNC]

Have you heard about the Epistle from Clement? The receptors of this epistle considered it part of the Bible just because the pope was writing it. Not to mention all the passages in the Bible in which Peter presides over the other Apostles. Universal Jurisdiction was understood from the begining.

No. It wasn’t. Nicaea canon 6 makes that clear.
If it were clear from the beginning, something this important, it would have been explicitly stated, and all of the patriarchs save one would not have rejected it.
James presided over the council in Acts

 

[hope]

I can only state again what I heard on radio. The motivations were proper, that of welfare of souls, to keep them on straight and narrow, and “out of hell” said the teacher. So it was why Tyndale was exhumed and burned to ashes, and Wycliffe also, and why popes much later condemned bible societies,(19th century) vernacular translations ( unless thru Catholic magisterium).

But like the CS Lewis quote, the unhistorical are slaves to recent past. So today the bible and Church have no problems,and since Vat 2 bibles are in every home, encouraging family and private reading and devotions, but it has not always been so, with some rough patches for said reasons.

It was on the radio! It must be accurate. What program? One which promotes the old myths. We had bibles in the home long before Vatican II and were encouraged to read them. In fact, reading the Bible had indulgences for doing so and it has always been so. What did you write the unhistorical are slave to the recent past?

 

[mcq72]

It was on the radio! It must be accurate. What program? One which promotes the old myths

It is not a myth that the pre and post peformation CC indeed acted on belief that bad translations, that bibles in the hand of untrained readers and teachers, and acting outside of magisterium would endanger souls snd lead some to hell.The CC also forwarned the growth of much division and varied interpretations.

We had bibles in the home long before Vatican II and were encouraged to read them

Ok, what is “long before”, 50 years, 500 years ? Please set us straight
I am sure some qualifications and exceptions can be made to my genersl statement on Vat 2.

In fact, reading the Bible had indulgences for doing so and it has always been so.

Especially if you think there were no bibles before late 4th century council. Reading the bible, and having vernacular translations, and having personal bibles are all distinct issues. So there have been indulgences for reading bible since late 4th C ?

So it is myth that 19 C popes issued some decrees concerning vernacular reading, unauthorized translations, bible societies, that might be at oddds with what she says today?

 

[MagdalenaRita]

CC indeed acted on belief that bad translations, that bibles in the hand of untrained readers and teachers, and acting outside of magisterium would endanger souls snd lead some to hell.

Hmm. Seems they were right. The Catholic church has always encouraged the reading of the Bible as long as it is done in the light of the Catholic church, since that is where Christ revealed His truths.

The CC also forwarned the growth of much division and varied interpretations.

Pretty prophetic if you ask me.

So it is myth that 19 C popes issued some decrees concerning vernacular reading, unauthorized translations, bible societies, that might be at oddds with what she says today?

Reading the Bible with incorrectly translated or translated in protest of the Catholic church, is different than reading an accurate Catholic Bible.

The myth is that the Church did not want anyone reading the Bible