2 members (2 invisible),
726
guests, and
83
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,521
Posts417,613
Members6,170
|
Most Online4,112 Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 421
Moderator
|
Moderator
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 421 |
Dear friends,
Yesterday my wife and I decided to see the "Luther" movie. We both agreed that we were glad to have seen it.
Here are some thoughts:
1) The movie itself is very well made. On the level of pure entertainment, it works very well. The acting is excellent, and the period costumes and music are nice.
2) Luther, as portrayed by Joseph Fiennes, almost perfectly captures the character and personality of the reformer, as is found in his early writings. (The irrational Luther of later writings, such as the absurd "Table Talk," would appear very differently on screen). Many particularities regarding Luther's mental state are present in the film.
3) There are a few noteworthy historical mistakes, which were noted by the Register review, but for the most part the movie is historically accurate.
4) While the medieval Roman Catholic Church comes off looking pretty bad, the depiction of Catholicism wasn't nearly as bad and unfair as it could have been.
5) My favorite part of the film, I have to admit, was when Luther argued with his professor over whether or not "Greek Christians" could be saved. I smiled when Luther finally got his professor to admit that it is possible for Greek Christians to enter heaven.
6) I wouldn't recommend this movie to Catholics who are not already solidly grounded in their Catholic faith. But for those of us who already know what the Church of today does and doesn't teach, the movie isn't harmful.
Just my thoughts, Anthony
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38 |
Dear Francis, Very funny indeed . . . But, really, how would you define yourself as a Latin Catholic? Obviously traditional, but how traditional? Are you Tridentine traditional? Where are you at in this respect? I like traditional Catholics and Christians period. And I've come across a lot of modernist Catholics in my time. So tell me about yourself, if you care. Alex
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 76
Member
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 76 |
Anthony, I just wanted to say �hi.� I think your forum on EWTN is the BEST.
Alex, do you know how I can use the private e-mail here? I don�t want to bore anyone else with details about me.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38 |
Dear Francis, Unfortunately, I can't get into my profile since it has been closed shut in response to my messing about with it. It's enough for me to know you are into engineering . . . See y'a, Alex
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 421
Moderator
|
Moderator
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 421 |
Originally posted by francisg: Anthony, I just wanted to say �hi.� I think your forum on EWTN is the BEST.
Francis, Thank you! Anthony
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,960
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,960 |
//1) The movie itself is very well made. On the level of pure entertainment, it works very well. The acting is excellent, and the period costumes and music are nice.//
I thought the acting was quite good, except for that darn microphone hanging in the chapel when Luther was preaching! It looked out of place. The village scenes and costumes seemed authentic.
//2) Luther, as portrayed by Joseph Fiennes, almost perfectly captures the character and personality of the reformer, as is found in his early writings. (The irrational Luther of later writings, such as the absurd "Table Talk," would appear very differently on screen). Many particularities regarding Luther's mental state are present in the film.//
I hope this Luther movie spurs on further Luther movies that will include his �Table Talk� era. The movie was, indeed, a selective interpretation of what was desirable to portray about Luther. Judging by the number of his theses that are now Catholic practice, I would say that he wasn�t all wrong. Catherine von Bora, as portrayed by Claire Cox, did give us some idea of the woman that even Luther couldn�t tame. His bouts of psychological disturbance and sly comments about his bowels were brief cameos reflecting a man who had his personal troubles.
//3) There are a few noteworthy historical mistakes, which were noted by the Register review, but for the most part the movie is historically accurate.//
See my comment about its criticism about the movie portraying Luther's translation as being the first German translation below in #5.
//4) While the medieval Roman Catholic Church comes off looking pretty bad, the depiction of Catholicism wasn't nearly as bad and unfair as it could have been.//
I�m sure the bishops and Pope would have come of being more diabolical if the movie was produced under the auspices of Disney or Chick Publications.
//5) My favorite part of the film, I have to admit, was when Luther argued with his professor over whether or not "Greek Christians" could be saved. I smiled when Luther finally got his professor to admit that it is possible for Greek Christians to enter heaven.//
Yes, indeed! There were a couple Greek comments in the film, especially his desire to utilize a Greek text for his German bible translation. I loved it, especially what he said regarding the texts that were brought to him. Har, har! The Register notes how there was already several German translations available at the time of Luther, but fails to note some important differences between Luther�s German translation and previous the German translations. On the one hand, previous translators used the Latin Vulgate to translate into Middle High German. Luther�s translation, on the other hand, used the Greek text and would become the impetus towards Modern High German. In other words, whereas the previous translations were translations of translations, Luther�s translation by-passed an intermediate text, namely the Latin Vulgate.
//6) I wouldn't recommend this movie to Catholics who are not already solidly grounded in their Catholic faith. But for those of us who already know what the Church of today does and doesn't teach, the movie isn't harmful.//
I think this is where I may have been in error in my initial post. Having a fuller understanding about the background and environment of Luther helps one appreciate it, the movie, as a work of art rather than a meticulous adventure into historicity. Of course, there is always the possibility of those attending it getting the wrong message. When I saw the movie, I went by myself like most of the other folks who showed up. Most of them looked like either teachers or ministers checking out how well the Luther they knew was being conveyed.
[The movie, BTW, was only being seen in 401 cinemas and didn't gross much at the box office.]
Thank you for getting the thread back on track.
Joe Thur
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 221
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 221 |
Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic: Dear Francis,
Yes, I don't condemn Purgatory and don't say it can't be spiritually helpful for others.
The Eastern pentitential spirituality is very rich and meaningful indeed.
It sees penance, suffering etc. for sin and sinfulness in human nature as primarily medicinal, rather than as something, in my view, that is to satisfy justice.
We are to pray always, invoking the Name of the Lord Jesus and glorifying the Holy Trinity, in this way calling down upon ourselves the Grace of God that saves, sanctifies and deifies us.
I just don't find anything approaching that perspective in the West - and certainly not in Protestantism!
The East does not have any notion about "temporal punishment due to sin."
Instead, it is because of our fallen state, that continues as such even after the spiritual rejuvenation we experience in baptism and confession, that we need to undertake spiritual discipline that is seen as a spiritual remedy or "epitimia."
The Orthodox theologian, John Meyendorff, said that Orthodox and Catholic eschatology can indeed come into agreement.
But he said that the East will never have a system of indulgences.
However, Eastern Catholic Churches do indeed offer the opportunity for their faithful to receive indulgences.
When the Roman Church reformed its system of indulgences into "full" and "partial," a full or plenary indulgence was given to the devotion of the Stations of the Cross and the Rosary, under certain conditions, of course.
Some Eastern Catholic Patriarchs, following the advice from Rome, assigned plenary indulgences to the Akathist of the Passion of our Lord and the Akathist to the Mother of God in place of the above.
And there are indulgenced pilgrimages in Eastern Catholic Churches as well. I'm not saying that I will not participate in such - I do at least once a year - such as the upcoming one at my in-laws' church. But I no longer "collect indulgences" as I used to and FOR ME at least, my experience with indulgences was truly a juridical, calculating one.
When I say the Jesus Prayer, even though it has a "partial indulgence" attached to it (it used to be one of 300 days), I don't think about that, but say it for myself and for others as often as I can.
And as for prayer for the dead, the Eastern Church is constantly engaged in assiduous prayer for the faithful departed and there are 12 special times for their commemoration - apart from the weekly Horological commemoration on all Saturdays of the year.
The Eastern Churches have a truly high and developed sense of penitential spirit (just look at the lives of the ascetical Orthodox Saints) with the spirituality of unceasing prayer, fasting, good works and prayer for the dead.
However the juridical notions surrounding indulgences and purgatory have been reduced in the aftermath of Vatican II and further reforms in that area, there is nothing incomplete about the Eastern Church's spirituality of penance and prayer for the dead.
There is a reticence to define just what such prayer and ascetical practice calls down on us from God. But we cannot know about the "full" or "partial" blessings we receive from the Lord. We may only realize whether we are doing what we can to be totally devoted to Him - or otherwise.
...<snip, etc.>Alex Y'all, I'm coming into this thread on the fly, so take it from whence it comes. If Purgatory exists, it exists, irrespective of whether the East is comfortable with that concept...right? And if indulgences are beneficial, then they're beneficial, irrespective of what Father Meyerendorff (or anyone else) may think about the matter...right? That isn't to say that some Easterners will ever glom onto them. I'm just saying that, if they're beneficial, they're objectively so. There's a sense in which what the East thinks vs. what the West thinks is immaterial. These aren't purely mental constructs, after all. If Purgatory exists, for instance, then it's an objective reality, not merely a concept. It's a state or place (or both)...and whether you're Eastern or Western, whether or not you even believe Purgatory exists, there's a pretty good chance you'll end up there. I think we tend to relativize things too much--you know: "The East doesn't see the need for the Immaculate Conception," and that sort of thing. I always wanna say, "Well, whoop-de-doo." I mean, if the IC exists, it exists; it's real; it's objective reality--and whether or not the East can relate to it is irrelevant. There isn't one truth for the East and another for the West. Our Lady isn't immaculate in the West and non-immaculate in the East. Similarly, if Purgatory exists, then it exists for both Easterners and Westerners, and both Easterners and Westerners can and do go there. It doesn't exist only in the West (or for Westerners) and not for Easterners. Reminds me of the existence of God: Some people speak as if God exists for those who believe in Him but not for those who don't--as if He's a purely mental construct, not an objective reality. But if God exists, He exists, period, whether or not Person A or Culture B is comfortable with that fact. And God has certain characteristics (Triunity, personality), even if non-Westerners (e.g., Buddhists or Hindus) find these characteristics alien to their sensibilities. There aren't a bunch of gods corresponding to each culture's thought-patterns. There's only One--and if some cultures find it hard to relate, say, to His Triunity, well, that's nice, but it doesn't alter God one whit--He's still (objectively) Triune. I know these are deep waters--and I also know I'm way off-topic here :p . But I guess this is something I've meant to mention for a while--this whole Mysterious Inscrutable East Thang, with its implication of: "You Westerners have your reality; we Easterners have ours"...which sounds dangerously like a Double Truth kinda thing. It also seems a tad overblown to me, too, I must say. When I see folks go on about how we Latins can't possibly understand the Eastern Mindset (which is so Different, Inscrutable, Mysterious, etc.), then I always recall a famous exchange between Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway, which took place at a bar in Paris, I believe. Fitzgerald subscribed to a sort of Mystique of Wealth not too far removed (in its mystique-y-ness) from the Mystique of the Inscrutable East I sometimes encounter among my EC and EO brethren. "The rich are different from you and me," Fizgerald remarked. "Yeah," replied Hemingway. "They have more money." I think that's spot-on. We are all hooman beans--rich and poor, east and west. Perhaps we have more in common than we think? Perhaps there's not this gaping gulf between the Eastern Mindset and the Western Mindset? Perhaps that whole mystique of the Inscrutable East thang is a bunch of baloney? I'm inclined to think so, anyhoo. And I'm also inclined to think that most of our little tushes will end up in Purgatory--whether we're eastern or western; whether we believe in Purgatory or not. Similarly, I believe most of us would do well to avail ourselves of the Treasury of Merits whether we think it's Eastern, Western, or All Around the Town. If it's objectively beneficial, then it's objectively beneficial, period--so why not go for it? Lobbying for Objective Realith, ZT
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,960
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,960 |
Let�s be objective. The Synoptic Gospel author�s indicate that the Last Supper was a Passover Meal. John the Evangelist doesn�t indicate such; that Jesus died when the lambs were being slaughtered, therefore, the Last Supper was the evening before.
The Church accepts BOTH accounts.
It wasn�t about �objective realities.�
Let�s be objective again. The Synoptics state that Jesus cleansed the Temple immediately prior to the Passion. John has Jesus cleanse the Temple early in his Gospel (cf. chapter 4:13ff).
The Church accepts BOTH accounts.
It wasn�t about �objective realities.�
Since I am in the objective kind of mood � Genesis 1 tells the story of Creation whereby man (male and female) were created last in the order of God�s creative days. Genesis 2 has man being created first, then all the other stuff in the world, and lastly woman. Who do we believe?
The Church accepts BOTH accounts:
It wasn�t about �objective realities.�
If the Church can accept diversity in interpretation or biblical theology, then how can you be so objective in speculative theology?
Why does Latin/West theology define what is objective and not the East? Didn't the Creed come from the Councils held in the East? Does theology become 'objective' only when the West puts its imprint on it? Heck! Even the CCC(!) indicates how the East does a better job expressing certain truths. Does this mean that parallel theological expressions in the West are less objective? or are not as objective? You mention being "in" Purgatory as if Purgatory is a place. This is not how the Latins today define Purgatory; it is no longer a noun, but instead, has returned to being a verb.
Is it really about objective realities or might it not be about theological interpretations?
Joe Thur
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 221
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 221 |
Hi, Mr. Thur--I believe you missed my point. But I'm too brain-dead right now to clarify it. Re Purgatory being a place--I was careful to say "place or state." But y'know--it is what it is. If it's a state and not a place, then that's what it is. If it's a place as well as a state, then that's what is is. Current theological fashions are completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter, finally, what theologians (today or yesterday) think it is. What matters is what it actually is. And something tells me most of us will find that out someday. So that, again, is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. We can speculate till the cows come home. But if Purgatory exists as an objective reality, then, well--it is what it is. Place, state, whatever--it will turn out to be something objectively real. Truth is neither defined nor altered by the latest theological fads. Purgatory may well turn out to be more nounlike than verblike--despite what theological revisionists may imagine. In any event, we'll find out someday...won't we? Blessings, ZT P.S. Re the Passover Meal thing--I didn't understand its relevance to the points I was making. Moreover, I've heard some excellent explanations for the seeming discrepancy between John and the Synoptics (e.g., that the Galileans celebrated the Passover Meal a day before Judeans did; apparently customs varied regionally).
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,960
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,960 |
Zoe T,
Now I understand the wisdom of the Fathers of the Unia who stipulated that we shall not debate Purgatory. No matter how objectively real you claim it to be, we don't teach it.
With these things in mind, I have nothing more to say.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 78
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 78 |
Of course, according to the official teaching of Catholicism (not Eastern or Latin) J Thur is anathema, but who cares, right?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 407
Member
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 407 |
Slava Isusu Christu!
PaxTecvm,
His Holiness hasn't quite gone to his eternal reward, yet, and I was unaware that you were so highly thought of at the Vatican that you just might be a candidate as his successor.
I am reminded of the words of Elder Hermann of Athos: "Humility is the only thing we need; one can still fall having virtues other than humility -- but with humility one does not fall."
And no, I don't have the source handy for that at this time.
In Christ, mikey.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 522
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 522 |
PaxTecum, that was uncalled for. Remember as a RC you are a guest here and guests are supposed to be polite to their hosts, or they may be asked to leave. Secondly, only a bishop has the right to pronounce anathema and then only for someone under their jurisdiction. Since as far as I know you are not a bishop and especially not a bishop of the Byzantine Catholic Church you are out of line condemning Joe as you have. You owe him an apology. Don
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 78
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 78 |
My role as a layperson does not mean I cannot, guided by the Church's teaching, discern heretical statements. As for an Eastern Catholic perspective on Purgatory, here's what Bishop Bishop John Elya, Melkite Eparch of Newton, has to say on the subject: Your Grace, The Holy Father Pope John Paul II has said that this Jubilee Year of 2000 is an opportunity for Catholics to gain indulgences such as by going on pilgrimage to a church designated as a pilgrimage site or by making an act of charity towards one's neighbor. The belief in indulgences is a doctrine long held by the Roman Catholic Church.
Are Melkite Catholics and all other Eastern Catholics obligated to believe in the doctrine of indulgences? I know of Eastern Catholics who say "no", stating that it has no basis according to the Eastern understanding of sin, and that it is a "Latin" doctrine. I always understood the doctrine of indulgences to be a "Catholic" doctrine- not a "Latin" one - and therefore all Eastern and Western Catholics are to believe in it.
Are Eastern Catholics to believe in indulgences?
Bishop John's Answer : You ask whether or not Eastern Catholics are to believe in indulgences. Yes, I too have heard some folks remark that the doctrine is incompatible with Eastern theology, however, they are sadly mistaken.
The notion of an indulgence that removes the temporal punishment due to sin is deeply rooted in the theological consciousness of both East and West. While it is an explicit doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, and thus a doctrine that we Eastern Catholics accept as we walk with the successor of Peter, you will find ample evidence of our Eastern affirmation of the cleansing of the soul after death as we progress towards the moment when, through God's generosity, we are admitted to eternal intimacy with Him.
When we look, for example, at the prayers that comprise the Sacrament of Holy Anointing that we celebrate as part of our observance of Holy Week, we find there, in several of the prayers, the notion that God's healing comes to us as we submit ourselves to His cleansing grace. Repeatedly, the priest prays for a purification from the effects of sin, the complete remission of the effects of sin, and for a healing that penetrates both body and soul. Many of the sacred traditions of our Eastern Church that deal with our prayers of suffrage for the dead speak of our plea that the Lord will wipe away the effects of sin, cleanse us and the faithful departed from its effects so that they might enter fully into the kingdom.
The Church, as the living, mystical Body of Christ, dispenses the mercy of God in many ways. We find that the doctrine of indulgences is a beautiful expression of the Church's role in bringing salvation and healing to both the living and the dead. Feel secure in the teachings of the Church. I suggest that you read No. 1471 of the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church that Pope John Paul II addressed to all Venerable Cardinals, Patriarchs, Bishops, Priests and to all faithful [of the East and West.] This is a jubilee year of abundant graces and many indulgences. We do well to take advantage of its many blessings.
Bishop John's continues to explain indulgences and praying for the dead.
Several folks have asked questions concerning the doctrine of indulgences given the heightened interest in indulgences granted during this jubilee year. I am often astonished at remarks that the legal nature of indulgences seem to prove that they are applicable only to the Latin Church and are thus foreign to our Eastern theology. Many people do not realize that the legal aspects of church life, including canon law, began in the East. The Emperor Justinian and the Byzantine court developed canons that are still the basis for many principles of law used in the church today.
Indulgences deal with the wider notion of praying for the dead. We ask the question: Are our prayers for the dead efficacious? Can we benefit our deceased loved ones by prayer, good works and suffrage prayers such as liturgies? Our Eastern liturgy is replete with prayers for the dead. Our calendar, unlike the calendar of the Latin Church, has several feast days that are set-aside for prayers for the dead. The Saturday before Pentecost and the Saturdays of Great Lent are good examples. Further, we observe the third, ninth, and fortieth day after the death of a loved one as important anniversaries that we observe with a Liturgy offered for the repose of the soul of a loved one. Clearly, both in the East and the West, we believe that our prayers benefit the dead. The writings of St. John Climacus: The Ladder of Divine Ascent describes some of the imagery that we find in our Eastern view of the soul's ascent to God. Perhaps you have seen the ancient icon that portrays the soul on its ascent to God. We pray that the journey will be free of pain and diabolical attack.
Indulgences, while subject to abuses in the Middle Ages, and an object of polemics against the Catholic Church in many circles, are, nonetheless, connected to the valued doctrine of God's mercy and generosity in dealing with us when we present ourselves to Him before the "awesome judgment seat of Christ". The idea of temporal punishment due to sin is not entirely foreign to our Eastern theology. In some Eastern cultures, the surviving family members of dead offer candy to passersby at a Memorial Service, especially on the Saturday of the Dead, praying that the person would offer forgiveness to the deceased for any wrongs, imagined or real. In the prayers of absolution said over the deceased, the Church prays for the dissolution of any bonds that would keep the deceased tied, in a temporal way, to the corpse or to an intermediate state of purification. We see dying and death as a process of growing towards union with God in eternity. We assist our loved ones with our prayers, our sacrifices, and even by applying indulgences to them.
Our Eastern Catholic Churches in full communion with the Apostolic See of Rome have experienced theological developments and growth. We, as we walk with the successor of Peter, are not bound to the forms of the ancient East in a slavish manner, but rather interpret our liturgy and forms of prayer through the eyes and insights of a church that is both alive and evolving. It is a grave error to keep ourselves blindly confined to the theological ideas of the first 10 centuries. My family has been Melkite Catholic for many generations. Are we to discard our Catholic beliefs because they find their origins in Catholic thought of the 20th century? We appreciate and value our heritage, but we are open to the development of new theological insights as they develop under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. We are a living Church. From: http://www.melkite.org/Questions/W-4.htm Unlike JTHUR's babblings, those of His Excellency are representative of the official teaching of the Catholic Church, as taught authoritatively, to all Catholics, in the Catechism and solemnly defined by infallible Ecumenical Councils. Alex: Are you aware that the "days" formerly attahced to indulgences indicated days of mitigation of earthly penances, not days off of Purgatory? Whoever taught you otherwise was wrong; I understand this was a common urban legend among many unlearned Catholics years ago. Just thought you'd like to know. Are you all aware of the history of indulgences as well? That it has its roots in the early Patristic period, when bishops often mitigated penances for various reasons (i.e. letters of intercession from martyers-confessors)? Even back then, the subject was open to abuses, but is far from a late-medieval "invention." Oh, and JTHUR, the Register article did make it clear that Luther's German translation was the first from the Greek text, as opposed to the Vulgate. That's not the impression the film gives, though; and anyone who knows anti-Catholic polemic clearly sees it reflected in the film. The Church in Luther's time also never taught that indulgences could be "purchased" or that they brought about the forgiveness of sins, as the film says.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 78
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 78 |
Dom:
How's this, then? JTHUR may not be anathema, but his false teachings, heresies, are. That's simply objective truth, wether it offends anyone on this forum or not.
|
|
|
|
|