Dear Jonathan:

Thanks for your kind words about our Q&A's. I am glad that they have been helpful to you.

There is a rule of thumb about docu-drama movies and documentaries -- their accuracy tends to be seriously lacking. Any movie or documentary will reflect the beliefs and bias of the producers and directors. When it comes to movies and documentaries about Christianity the tendency is horrid misrepresentation of the truth about Christianity in general and the Catholic Church in particular.

The History Channel, or as I like to call it, the UNhistory Channel has shamelessly trashed Christianity, and especially the Catholic Church with so-called documentaries that frankly contain outright bald faced lies. Most of the documentaries make me so mad when I watch them that I end up turning the TV off.

This misrepresentation and even outright bigotry gets applied to Christianity as a whole, but since the Catholic Church is the big boy on the block, we get the brunt of most of it.

The movies "Luther" also misrepresented not only Luther himself, but also the Catholic Church.

Luther himself, at the time, misrepresented the issue of indulgences. He used that issue as a hook to hang his rebellious little hat on and thus was not that careful to be accurate about what was really happening.

Were there abuses of indulgences? Yes. Those abuses were not a result of Church teaching, they were a result of the sins of men.

You asked how such a thing could happen in the Church. ALL denominations have their scandals. Why? Because the Church contains men and men sin. We cannot place blame on the Church for the sins of its members. The fall from grace of Jimmy Swaggert and Jim Bakker do NOT reflect negatively upon the Assemblies of God denomination (I think it was the Assemblies of God they belonged to at the time). Jim Jones, who was a Disciples of Christ minister, does not reflect upon the denomination for what he did. Those men sinned against God and against their denominations. The denomination cannot be held accountable for their sins. They, themselves, are accountable for their own sins.

The same is true with Catholics, even Catholic leaders, even Catholic Bishops, even Catholic Popes when they sin. Their sin does not represent the Church. They are sinning against Church teaching when they do the rotten stuff they do.

Those bishops who abused the doctrine and practice of indulgences were sinning against God and the Church.

This distinction must be understood. Martin Luther himself did not seem to understand or want to understand this.

For the REAL SCOOP on the Indulgences issues I recommend the following two articles:

Myths about Indulgences

Primer on Indulgences

As for the credibility of Martin Luther, I am reminded of the Scriptural warning: (Rev 22:19 KJV)  And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

The Catholic Church has NEVER added or removed any words from the Bible. But Martin Luther, whoa......

Martin Luther ripped out seven books in the Old Testament that had been considered canon in the Church for 1500 years solely on his opinion. Luther wanted to rip out the books of James, Hebrews and Revelations too. He called James an "epistle of straw". Of course St. James refuted Martin Luther's claim of justification by "faith alone". The only place in the Bible where those words come together in in the book of James where St. James says that "justification is not by faith alone" (James 2:24).

Martin Luther, in his abject arrogance, added the word "alone" to the passage in Romans 3:28 in his German translation.

Luther, in fact, was confronted at the time on why he had added the word "alone" to Romans 3:28. His response is VERY revealing. To the criticism of adding the word "alone" to Romans 3:28 Martin Luther replied:

"You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word 'alone' is not in the text of Paul. If your Papist makes such an unnecessary row about the word 'alone,' say right out to him: 'Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,' and say: 'Papist and asses are one and the same thing.' I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word 'alone' is not in the Latin or the Greek text, and it was not necessary for the Papists to teach me that. It is true those letters are not in it, which letters the jackasses look at, as a cow stares at a new gate...It shall remain in my New Testament, and if all the Popish donkeys were to get mad and beside themselves, they will not get it out."

Thus sayeth the "humble" Martin Luther.

Martin Luther also hated it when anyone interpreted the Bible differently than he did. He expected everyone to accept his interpretation alone and only his interpretation. For a man who hated the papacy, it sounds to me like he has delusions of popehood.  :)

Luther apparently had some fear of the Eucharist and perhaps the crucifix, from what a Lutheran historian said once. Fear of religious objects is a sign of demonization. At the very least Luther was a very troubled man psychologically. These troubles and his huge pride got the best of him and I think as a result he went much further into rebellion than he originally intended to do.

Anyway, I hope this help clarify the issues a little.

God Bless,
Bro. Ignatius Mary