LUTHER (2004)

[indianasmith]

  I am watching this one with my World History class right now, and it is an amazing piece of work.  Joseph Fiennes plays the title role as Martin Luther, and Sir Peter Ustinov is cast as his patron and protector, Elector Frederick of Saxony. 
  This is a remarkable film, recreating with great historical accuracy the climate and emotions of the late Renaissance/Early Reformation era.  Fiennes is very believable as Luther, but Ustinov absolutely steals every scene he is in as the wily Prince who refused to turn his favorite seminary professor over to Rome.  The other actors names' escape me and the DVD case is at school, but the actor who plays Pope Leo X is quite capable, and Johann Tetzel, the famous seller of indulgences who set Luther's reforms in motion, is portrayed by the same actor who  was Doc Ock in SPIDERMAN 2. 
   One thing I like about this film is that it manages to portray the spiritual morass that was the Renaissance church without resorting to knee-jerk Catholic bashing.  Several of the Catholic characters are very sympathetically portrayed as desperate men trying to hold together a splintering church, acknowledging privately the accuracy of some of Luther's criticism, but unwilling or unable to reform the church themselves . . . .
   Luther comes across as an intense yet likeable person, tormented by his own imperfections, yet conscious of the fact that he has been thrust to the head of a movement that is larger than himself.  The scene where he and Frederick finally meet face to face is worth watching the movie for.  Yes, the movie does not get into some of the less admirable things that Luther said and wrote in his later years, when his idealism had become tempered by bitterness over the endless theological wrangling and the constant pain of disease, but he is not portrayed as a cardboard saint, either.

If you like historical biopics at all, this is a great one that slipped under the critical radar.  I highly recommend it.

[Scott]

Looks like a good one IndianaSmith. I'll try to locate a copy.

Martin Luther was an important figure. He was very beneficial to the Catholic Church. The church had become very diluted and corrupt with such things as the inquisition, Medici Popes, and practice of Indulgences.

What comes to mind when considering what Martin Luther did is that instead of reforming the Catholic Church from within he basically broke off and started his own church based on what is today known as the bible without considering that the early Catholic Church decided on which books would be included in the "bible" around 300 A.D.. The Catholic church put these works together. The Protestants still follow the Catholic bible to this day without considering the liturgical traditions of the early church that preserved these books. Not recognizing that the new testament letters themselves were there to address problems within those particular early churches. The letters also help reinforced the faith in those churches. More people knew how to read in ancient times up until the dark ages, but it was the liturgy that brought the gospel to the larger masses. The letters in the new testament don't mention the liturgical traditions that the early non-heretical church practiced because they were already understood by the faithful and therefore no need to mention every aspect of the faith community in those "letters". The early church had a use for the text and it wasn't meant to be the absolute authority of the faith. The practices of the Catholic faith are indeed found in the bible. It's a matter of looking in different places. Even within the bible you will see remnants of the traditional early liturgical church. Luther may not of known or understood the fullness of his own faith. This doesn't mean that he intended harm. No doubt the truth is in the bible, but we have to consider the traditional source and how it was used to enhance the faith.

In the end Luther, Calvin the rest of those who followed them helped the Catholic Church reform back to a more pure Catholic Church. It's is probably this divisive Protestant element that allows todays Catholics (and even Orthodox) to practice and understand the faith of the early church which has been preserved for the most part through the centuries. Even today the Protestant and Evangelical break aways help to keep the the Catholic Church on the right track according to traditions of the assembles of old.

Luther didn't have to read nor have a written text to know truth. If Martin Luther and the Protestant movement wanted they could have condensed the whole bible into one sentence. Everything in the bible is in this very phrase.

"Lord Jesus Christ Have Mercy On Me"

 

[indianasmith]

   Interesting points.  However, if you'll read some of my earlier discussions on the history of Scripture (Check out the thread entitled "My Issues with the Da  Vinci Code" for one), you'll see where I'm coming from. I have devoted much of my adult life to the study of where the New Testament came from, and to the authorship and date of each book.  I have a big issue with this idea that the Church created the Bible.  The Roman Catholic Church did not really, properly exist as such until after the fall of the Western Roman Emperors thrust the Bishop of Rome into a position of great political as well as spiritual power - although the roots of classic Catholicism began with Constantine and the legalization of Christianity 150 years earlier.  Anyhoo, that's not my point.

  The Church did not CREATE the New Testament, the New Testament - or, more accurately, the teachings of Jesus Christ that  it preserves - created the Church.  The purpose of writing down the teachings of Jesus, Peter, and Paul was to preserve their instruction on how believers were to carry the Gospel forward once that first generation of Christians were gone.  When the Councils of Nicea and Hippo published the "authritative" canon of 27 books that make up the New Testament, all they were doing was acknowledging the works that had been accepted as genuine, apostolic teachings for over 200 years at that point.  Modern scholarship has pretty well established that every single book of the New Testament was composed between 50 and 100 AD; when the eyewitnesses of Jesus' life and ministry were still alive.  The vast majority were written in the 20 year span between 50 and 70 AD.  All of them were recognized as authoritative by the First Century Church almost as soon as they were written. (A few of the shorter works, like II and III John, Jude, and II Peter were not widely distributed, and therefore their acceptance was debated initially, but all of them passed muster eventually.)   What the later councils did was take all the extant Christian writings and apply a three-fold test to determine whether or not they should be included in the canon:

1.  Was it written by, or sponsored by, one of the Apostles of Jesus Christ?
2. Was  it immediately accepted as authoritative by the early Church?
3.  Does it show evidence of inspiration by agreeing in testimony with the other acknowledged works?

There was no debate at all on 22 of the 27 books, because they had been universally accepted from the time they were written.  The Church fathers were very picky on the others  because there was a plethora of Second and Third Century forgeries, mostly written by Gnostics, that bore the names of various apostles but were not written until more than a century had passed since the Crucifixion.  All of these works were rejected because of their fraudulent origin - they claimed to be eyewitness testimony when they were patently NOT (although the Gnostic gospels  were not deliberately censored or destroyed at that time).  But there is not a single case of an authentic apostolic work that was rejected.

   Anyway, back to the movie and to Martin Luther - I don't know that Luther ever meant to break with the Church.  He dedicated his 95 Theses to Pope Leo, and desired nothing more than to purify the Church of unscriptural practices.  The Renaissance popes were a corrupt lot who were more interested in money and power than in the spiritual aspect of their jobs.  So when Luther was ordered by the Pope to recant his writings or burn as a heretic, he could not deny his conscience, and his challenge hangs in the air to this day:

"Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason - for I do not trust in Popes and Councils, who have so often erred and contradicted themselves - I cannot and will not recant anything, for it is dangerous to go against one's conscience.  Here I stand - I can do no other - God help me, Amen!"

Preach it, Brother Martin!

[Scott]

I'll look for your Da Vinci Code in the next few days IndianaSmith, but note that I'm not a Gnostic, nor a Da Vinci believer. For now I'll just make a couple passing remarks before going to bed and try to expand as much as I'm able. It's more about faith.

The liturgy goes back to the earliest church during the time of the original apostles and the churches that were established as it is a continuation of old testament temple rituals with the new ritual of Jesus the Christ as the sacrificial lamb which is also shared in the daily Eucharist in the Church in remembrance of the Lord Jesus Christ. The early accounts of the "letters" are as you have stated of accounts of how the apostles and followers shared their faith with the world. The "letters" are also corrective messages to other churches, but within the church itself they had the liturgy as done by Catholic and Orthodox Christians of today. It was more primitive in places than the more extravagant masses of today depending on where the community was and the dangers they faced, or the resources of the community, but the liturgical elements where all there. You just don't hear about them in the "letters", but if you look at the writing of the early church fathers you will find references to this.

Again the Bible is divine in its purpose, but even though the bible points the way to divine truth it is not the absolute authority of truth. These inspired books where preserved by the early church and recognised as being the closest works associated to those around Jesus. 

Jesus giving Peter authority and to what is now the Church.

Here's a small excerpt about St. Thomas ordaining priest in India around A.D. 52.

"He was preaching to the people Church surmounted by a cross and ordained priests. One of the first that he ordained was the Son - in - law of the King. King was named Andrew and the Son - in - law, Peter. Accompanied by Peter, the Apostle went to Quilon (Kollam) where he planted a cross and baptized 2400 heathens. From Quilon, he went to the mountain place, Chayal' remained there a whole year as he had done at Quilon and baptized 2,800 heathens and planted a cross. At the request of the two chiefs of 'Triepalesuaram' he returned to that village. But seeing that the people had desecrated the cross he had erected there, he cursed the village (which at the present - day is a heap of ruins) Nevertheless, he remained there for two months. He again erected the cross and instructed the people so that they might not return to heathenism and ordained priest St. Thomas, one of the chiefs who had always remained strong in his faith. During this two months that he remained at 'Triepalesuaram', he confirmed in their faith all the Christians and converted 200 pagans. Not far from there, to the south, he built the Church of 'Niranam' and ordained priests, his first disciple St. Thomas Maliyakel who has a native of the place. He then repaired to 'Kokkamangalam', where he dwelt one year and converted 1500 heathens erected a cross and taught the people how to honour God. He visited again Kottakavu - Paraur, remaining there nearly a year and converted 2,200 people."

Though this is not the church I'm trying to find, but just an idea. Syrian Christian Church in India.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=iZ-H-xm-7Pk
	Small | Large

[indianasmith]

Only problem is, that narration of Thomas is from the Fifth or Sixth Century, with no early attestation as to its veracity.  It's a charming story . . . but there's no way of knowing it is true.

Look, I don't want to re-fight the Reformation with you.  You obviously seem to believe in the whole "Simon Peter was the first Pope" interpretation, and most Protestants do not.  And there is some debate as to just how "liturgical" the early church was.

Suffice it to say, I think the Scriptures of the New Testament are the ONLY true source of authority for Christians.  All else is tainted by later traditions, customs, and rituals.  This is the divide that has separated Catholic and Protestant and Proto-Protestants for 500 years, and we're not going to settle it on this forum.

But, Peace to you and yours.  Have a good night.

[Scott]

Well......I'm not Catholic yet as I have a lot to resolve before I can fully consider Catholicism, but even Martin Luther had a form of liturgical worship as do even Lutherans today. Again I'm not knocking the Protestant/Evangelical movement as I can see the fullness of what is happening.

Even the liturgy isn't necessary for salvation, but it's traditions help ground ones spiritual journey back to God through Jesus Christ and these are why they have done it over the centuries. The Catholic Church rituals bring God back into the temple sort of speak in a community setting. Not that God isn't always near to those who believe. We haven't even mentioned the monastic and hermetical practices of the faith. Both the bible and the liturgy are one, but neither are necessary to obtain salvation within the Christian faith, but the succession of communal authority is through Peter.

God bless, my friend IndianaSmith

[Scott]

A few clips from different Martin Luther films.

Trailer to Martin Luther (2003)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jilpbQaHpY&feature=related
	Small | Large

Here is an older film on Martin Luther.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0F1utKV46w&feature=related
	Small | Large

Look at Justin Martyr in 150 A.D. and consider the early church by looking at the the Coptic, Syrian (Nestorian), Greek Orthodox, and Roman Catholic practices and how those bishops where present at the Consul of Nicea around 300 A.D.. Each having their own authority yet similiar practice. Notice the universality of those developing practices. The Protestant church likes to focus on the Roman Catholics when denoucing subjects about Popes, Virgin Mary, Priest, Saints, Liturgy, Euchurist, and Monasticism. The Nestorian Church has had the largest missionary work in the history of Christianity going all the way from the Middle East to China establishing many places of worship throughout till they were put out by much harsher persecution than Western churches ever faced.

Small history of the Liturgy and Euchurist

http://www.ritchies.net/p1wk4.htm

These are a few of the things that are worth considering when making Christ a part of your life. Christian life is enhanced by the church. The Church is the bride of Christ.

[BoyScoutKevin]

I was fortunate enough to see this one in the theater, and I pretty much agree with everything that indianasmith says. But, there again, Oscar doesn't know who to nominate for an award. While Ustinov had already won two Oscars, I think he was so good in his role, as Elector Frederick, they should have, at least, nominated him for another Oscar. And as a historical note, this would be Ustinov's last theatrical film role.

[CheezeFlixz]

I've had this movie for a couple of years and have not watched it yet, I'll have to find time to do so.