Luther: The Movie

[Anthony]

Have any of you seen "Luther" the movie?

 

[Dream]

Nope. Have you?

 

[PeterPaul]

Nope.

 

[bigsierra]

I haven't

 

[Xpycoctomos]

Yes. It was well done as far as acting adn cinematography go. As far as the history goes, it was not too sympathetic to the Vatican, but then again, things were quite crazy at those times. I can't comment rreally on how authentic it was... but in history you cna find things to make either side look really bad. They made Luther look a lot better (and normal) than I would ever guess from his own writings.

But, in the end, I didn't think it was half bad. Of course it's going to be sympathetic to the Lutheran POV... it's Lutheran! lol As long as you don't go looking for a defence fo the Medieval/Rennaissance Catholic Church then you might kind of enjoy it???

John

Wouldn't suggest it for RCIA classes though

 

[Anthony]

As long as you don't go looking for a defence for the Medieval/Rennaissance Catholic Church then you might kind of enjoy it???

If the tape(history) could be rerun, and this entire period erased from both sides; the church(s) as we know them today would be united. Thank God, man can't harm Christ's Church ( as you may know it ).

I found the movie interesting, yet without some knowledge the average Christian, watching the movie would not understand the reasons and history behind such things as the "collecting of relics" by universities and governments, and the fund raising practices of "indulgencies" of the Catholic Church.

One thing it does show is the problem of mixing church and state.

 

[PeterPaul]

If the tape(history) could be rerun, and this entire period erased from both sides; the church(s) as we know them today would be united. Thank God, man can't harm Christ's Church ( as you may know it ).

I found the movie interesting, yet without some knowledge the average Christian, watching the movie would not understand the reasons and history behind such things as the "collecting of relics" by universities and governments, and the fund raising practices of "indulgencies" of the Catholic Church.

One thing it does show is the problem of mixing church and state.

If you say so. I'm glad the movie does, because the reality of modernity demonstrates the problem of separation of church/state.

BTW: Are you being critical of the CC Anthony? Because your polite rhetoric has been constant on this board.

 

[Adammi]

I haven't even heard of it until now, it might make me have nightmares.

 

[Anthony]

If you say so. I'm glad the movie does, because the reality of modernity demonstrates the problem of separation of church/state.

BTW: Are you being critical of the CC Anthony? Because your polite rhetoric has been constant on this board.

There should be a separation, when the Goverment trys to be a church it fails, when the Church try to do the civil government function it fails. Both proven by history

Where did the separation of church and state originate?

1. France
2. Soviet Union
3. United States of America
4. Nazi Germany

Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.

 

[InnerPhyre]

Nah I think I'll pass.

 

[PeterPaul]

There should be a separation, when the Goverment trys to be a church it fails, when the Church try to do the civil government function it fails. Both proven by history

Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.

Actually, I would say that history has proven that when the State is unguided by the Church it fails nortoriously. The present day proves that.

And those quotes may be used to back your position, because you choose to interpret them towards your case, but they make no case for any kind of separation, of course unless you do not believe in a visible Church, which you do not.

Furthermore, if those words we given to the "laity" (you know, what we Catholics believe to be those not in the hierarchy) then they would resound even more, as State would be guided by the Magisterium and the "laity" would have no fear. In addition, because there was no "reformation" during the time of (oral) tradition (that terribly annoying unscriptural time), I would make the case that the reference presupposed a homogenous society with one united truth, versus the splintering of many sects under one roof (the justification Protestants make for the separation).

On a personal note, I'd rather live in Malta, which btw respects the dignity of other religions in it but does not pander or conform to them, to a nation with a separation of church/state (sounds like I may want to move).

 

[Rising_Suns]

The problem with Separation of Church and state is that people use it to try to separate the state from morality.


With reagrds to the movie, I really do not have any desire to see it either. A movie that is biased like this would only discourage me, especially regarding such a pivitol and dark time in Christian history. Even if it was biased towards the Catholic Church, the bias still undermines the truth of history. People need to know that both Protestants and Catholics were culpable for the violence they partook against one another. I will not support it.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

It's a complicated situation. I have to say that I side more with separation of Church and State, but not to the absurdity that France takes it where the State has actual fear of religion. But I don't think they practice separation of Church and State logically or responsably. My reason for being for a reasonable separation of Church and State are exemplified by Franco's dictatorship and the effect he had on the people of Spain and their distrust of the Church, and more extreme examples like Constantinople and Rome which I do not think were the Golden age of the Church. We got a lot done then (as far as councils go) and this may have been a necessary stage in the development of the Church, but it was by no means ideal.

Separation of Church and State is by no means ideal either, but it is better in that the Church learns to stand on Her own. It owes nothing to the State and therefore does not have to pander to the State and its needs.

Anything I stand for politically is not soley based on my religious beliefs. Abortion is a religious issue, but also a human rights issue. I would never dare to use biblical evidence as to why the State should outlaw abortion, but rather scientific and logical evidence. Gay marriage: I don't think the state should have anything to do with marriage period. Civil Unions, sure... but as far as a State-recognized union of love???? that just doens't work this day and age. I say the religious institutions shouldl be the only one to recognize Marriage. If some wayward church wants to marry two men.. go ahead.. that's there perrogative, but the Catholic Church should never be made to look like they are not going along with the status qui (set by the State) because they're "old-fashioned".

I am not for Separation of Church and State for the State's purposes.. I honestly could care less. I support it though for the Church's good... the State has been used as a crutch on so many occasions throughout the past 1500 years and it only weakens Her in the long-run.

John

 

[Xpycoctomos]

I don;t think history can be unbiased. news can't either. Any historian or journalist will admit that. Am I wrong? I don;t think the Luther movie was untruthful anywhere... it just showed a truthful history from a reformer's point of view.

 

[PeterPaul]

My reason for being for a reasonable separation of Church and State are exemplified by Franco's dictatorship and the effect he had on the people of Spain and their distrust of the Church, and more extreme examples like Constantinople and Rome which I do not think were the Golden age of the Church.

The distrust of the Church because of Franco is very complicated. There were good things and bad to his dictatorship. The day he died my grandfather and mother opened a bottle of cava. However, seeing the results of "democracy" in Spain, many are taking another look at the dictatorship and wonder which was worse. Certainly, as a Catalan, I abhor what he did to my language, to my people. Absolutely. And I can understand the reluctance on the part of my countrymen to endorse some of the acts by some priests (but the same thing can be said of some priests in Germany). What my fellow Catalans fail to remember, conveniently, is not just the terrorism of ETA, but the murder of clergy at the hands of the reds. What they fail to recall is how churches were burnt and the rich were killed in areas like Terrassa by radical separatists and envious atheist communists. When they hail Lluis Companys, President of Catalunya for having the "guts" to proclaim independence for Catalunya never thinking before he spoke that many would be shot down in the streets.

I agree that the subject is complicated, but I think on the part of my countrymen, Franco and the actions of some in the priesthood was an excuse for what was popular at the time: "liberation".

 

[nyj]

Have any of you seen "Luther" the movie?

No, I have not. Probably won't bother either.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

PP.. on a large scale (not just exceptions to the norm which will always be present) what do you see wrong with the Separation of Church and State the way the US implements it?

 

[PeterPaul]

PP.. on a large scale (not just exceptions to the norm which will always be present) what do you see wrong with the Separation of Church and State the way the US implements it?

I wasn't picking on the US specifically, but I understand what you mean. How much time do you have colega?

We can certainly discuss it (maybe in another thread). The more I think about it, read and discern, the more I think the Church is not just there to advocate for a conversion to Christ, but that Christ's truth is and should be implemented to economics, law, and to the political landscape. I am not advocating for Church as State, but State that defines itself as limited, and advocate of Church teaching. I might not be making myself clear. I think that when the State acts and behaves as relativist, even if religiously relativist, it will naturally turn to secular relativism (state as pantheist), and this is my premise. The State, limited as it should be, should elevate not reduce man, which it has done in several, if not all, countries.

I recognise and admit, that perhaps this change of heart in religious man may never come save for the Second Coming. I will also admit that corruption will never cease to exist as neither will sin. That said, I do have to ask myself whether we are better off today than we were yesterday (not that a utopia ever existed).

Where I fail to see the point, is when secular society imposes itself and we are to keep this structure simply because it appears "fair" to others or because to do the contrary would limit certain groups (Satanists, ACLU, Gay rights, Masons, etc).

Certainly in any society that declared the Orthodox or the Catholic as official Church, it would have to stipulated that persecution would not be tolerated. Then again, one can say it is inevitable. But what is the present situation of the role of government in these nations? Crosses are removed to satisfy the whims of a few, gay marriage or civil unions are being imposed on a majority of Americans, abortions are a million a year..blah blah. I've failed to see how this enlightened concept of fulfilling everyone's whims has done anything but cause more problems.

 

[Benedicta00]

Have any of you seen "Luther" the movie?

Didn’t know there was one. I know there was a wildly inaccurate documentary a while ago on PBS but I never knew a movie was made.

 

[StarSapphire]

It is just as other things... the truth lies somewhere in the middle.