Sola scriptura, in the strictest sense, allows for Confessions, creeds, councils, etc. the practice doesn’t excludes them.
Jon
- Status
Jon
M
marywarfield
Guest
Purgatory is near and dear to my heart as is evidence of
Jewish tradition continuity within the Church simply
because it was near and dear to Christ’s heart. We know
factually He made sure the eight day Feast of Unleavened
Breads were adhered to strictly according to Talmudic law on
the night of and the days preceding the Last Supper.
His banquet place had been secured, his sacrificial lamb obtained,
reclining couches prepared and he sent his disciple ahead to
make sure the wine and four Cups of Blessing, bitter herbs, etc.
had been prepared in accordance to ritual.
Since He IS God He had no intention of destroying what
He had already put forth in His previous Covenants- only to
bring them to fullness.
That is WHY it is such an incredible sin to harbor
extreme anti semetic views that it leads one to throw
out of the Church anything that smacks of Jewish culture.
I’m surprised Luther stopped with demoting the Jewish Scriptures
and Traditions. Maybe he didn’t realize we adopted
altars and incense from the Jews as well…
Jewish tradition continuity within the Church simply
because it was near and dear to Christ’s heart. We know
factually He made sure the eight day Feast of Unleavened
Breads were adhered to strictly according to Talmudic law on
the night of and the days preceding the Last Supper.
His banquet place had been secured, his sacrificial lamb obtained,
reclining couches prepared and he sent his disciple ahead to
make sure the wine and four Cups of Blessing, bitter herbs, etc.
had been prepared in accordance to ritual.
Since He IS God He had no intention of destroying what
He had already put forth in His previous Covenants- only to
bring them to fullness.
That is WHY it is such an incredible sin to harbor
extreme anti semetic views that it leads one to throw
out of the Church anything that smacks of Jewish culture.
I’m surprised Luther stopped with demoting the Jewish Scriptures
and Traditions. Maybe he didn’t realize we adopted
altars and incense from the Jews as well…
Or Catholics that of some of their 16th century leaders. The fact is there have been horrible things said and done by Christians of all stripes.
Please understand that this is an analogy, not a comparison. I am not comparing Luther to St. Peter, or King David, or any other, but the Bible is filled with wonderful people of God who did horrible things. From my perspective, since this thread is supposed to be about sola scriptura, sola scriptura holds Martin Luther’s teachings accountable, as the confessions say: Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them. He doesn’t get a free pass, either. When I read the Small Catechism, I don’t consider it as the writings of a saint, but I consider them sound
Christian teaching, even though the man who wrote it didn’t always act or write the way they tell us to act.
But that’s me, and nobody here at CAF has to do the same. I frankly expect many Catholics to reject the writings because of the writer in Luther’s case. That’s ok. Catholics have many wonderful writers, too.
Jon
What’s curious is that Luther is sometimes accused of only listening to the Jews, regarding his views of the Deuterocanon. For example, his preface to 1 Macc:
This doesn’t sound like the words of a man who held great hatred for the Hebrews. He bases his opinion of their placement in the canon based on what the Hebrew Bible does, at least in part.
Jon
M
marywarfield
Guest
How do you reconcile this passage by Luther with his actual
earlier quotes listed by Topper?
In part, time frame. In 1523, he wrote a book, Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew". In it he was trying to disprove the charge against him that he thought Joseph was Jesus’ natural father, but also to confirm Jesus as a Jew, and maybe win some Jews to Christianity.
He also in his early career was rather supportive of the Jews, and called for tolerance of them. “I would request and advise that one deal gently with them [the Jews] and instruct them from Scripture; then some of them may come along."
Jon
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Jon,
Thanks for your response.
How do you think that looks to people reading this?
What matters even more though Jon, is that Sola Scriptura and Private Interpretation came out of the exact same mind as did those evil recommendations. Furthermore we need to remember that Eck, knew early on what would result from Luther’s SS+PI and warned him. But Luther was never one to heed warnings was he?
What do Luther’s recommendations about what he wanted to happen to the Jews tell us about Luther’s credibility as a Christian leader and REPUTED ‘Reformer’?
We “should forget that kind of hatred”? Recent history shows that it has NOT been forgotten.
“In fact Luther’s expressions about the Jews varied over his lifetime, but it seems foolish and even immoral to seek to mitigate or explain away or cover over his prevailing hatred of the Jewish people.” Richard Marius, “Martin Luther, The Christian Between God and Death”, pg. 372
I take it you disagree with Marius.
For the record Jon, Eck was wrong in his anti-semitism but his was ‘triffling’ by comparison to Luther’s. Furthermore, Eck DID NOT develop Sola Scriptura or Private Interpretation. In fact, Satan himself could not have designed teachings that could have been as harmful to Christian unity.
As Always, God Bless You Jon, Topper
Thanks for your response.
In other words Jon, according to you, it doesn’t matter that Luther made all of those horrendous, evil ‘recommendations’ about what the wanted the secular and church leaders to DO to the Jews, up to and including execution, and that Eck made NO SUCH RECOMMENDATIONS. They were both anti-Semtic and so they are both equally ‘bad’.
How do you think that looks to people reading this?
I want to see if I can provide a perfect analogy as to how it makes me feel when I hear you say that ‘it doesn’t really matter’. Do you remember how, in response to how four brave Americans were murdered in Benghazi, Hillary Clinton declared at a Senate Hearing: “What does it really matter!!!”. It is EXACTLY like that. IT DOES MATTER HILLARY! And it DOES matter that Luther made those Satanic recommendations and Eck DID NOT. It also matters what actually happened next.
What matters even more though Jon, is that Sola Scriptura and Private Interpretation came out of the exact same mind as did those evil recommendations. Furthermore we need to remember that Eck, knew early on what would result from Luther’s SS+PI and warned him. But Luther was never one to heed warnings was he?
What do Luther’s recommendations about what he wanted to happen to the Jews tell us about Luther’s credibility as a Christian leader and REPUTED ‘Reformer’?
We “should forget that kind of hatred”? Recent history shows that it has NOT been forgotten.
Again Jon, YOU steered us to the subject of Eck’s ‘virulent anti-semitism’ but now that the actual facts have come out, you want claim the high ground? Rather than ‘participating’ in the comparison between Eck and Luther with regards to their anti-Semitism, YOU STARTED IT.
Triffling? As in like Luther’s and Eck’s anti-Semitism had what – NO IMPACT? Is that what you mean? You are actually defending Luther’s twisted recommendations. Richard Marius, probably Luther’s best biographer has the following to say about defending Luther on the subject of the Jews:
“In fact Luther’s expressions about the Jews varied over his lifetime, but it seems foolish and even immoral to seek to mitigate or explain away or cover over his prevailing hatred of the Jewish people.” Richard Marius, “Martin Luther, The Christian Between God and Death”, pg. 372
I take it you disagree with Marius.
For the record Jon, Eck was wrong in his anti-semitism but his was ‘triffling’ by comparison to Luther’s. Furthermore, Eck DID NOT develop Sola Scriptura or Private Interpretation. In fact, Satan himself could not have designed teachings that could have been as harmful to Christian unity.
As Always, God Bless You Jon, Topper
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi mary,
Excellent points by you.
Nobody believes that Luther was right in everything that he taught, and YET, Protestantism has pretty much ‘bought the farm’ as to whether Luther was ‘right’ to oppose the Church of his day and to refute SO MANY important doctrines.
We see his teachings on the Jews, his recommendations that the peasants be slaughtered (‘without mercy’ and 100,000 were), his position on executing Anabaptists, and his hated of Catholics and we SHOULD question whether this man was really the kind of man who should be allowed to ‘reform’ ANYTHING, let alone the then 1500 year old Catholic Church.
Protestants, whether they will admit it or not, are placing a TREMENDOUS amount of faith in Luther’s Personal Interpretations of Scripture, and also in his character and Exegetical abilities. It seems to me that all people have to know about his Exegetical ‘abilities’ is that he quoted Scripture FURIOUSLY in ALL of his texts which recommend the executions of this or that group. Are we supposed to believe that Holy Scripture really says that all of those groups are to be executed? Or, alternatively, should we believe that Luther’s Interpretations were shaped by his HATRED? If, in fact, that is the case, then the logical conclusion is that Luther’s Personal Interpretations SHOULD NOT BE TRUSTED, including ALL of those doctrinal teachings in which he challenged the Catholic Church.
God Bless You mary, Topper
Excellent points by you.
If I might be allowed to amplify on this…
Nobody believes that Luther was right in everything that he taught, and YET, Protestantism has pretty much ‘bought the farm’ as to whether Luther was ‘right’ to oppose the Church of his day and to refute SO MANY important doctrines.
We see his teachings on the Jews, his recommendations that the peasants be slaughtered (‘without mercy’ and 100,000 were), his position on executing Anabaptists, and his hated of Catholics and we SHOULD question whether this man was really the kind of man who should be allowed to ‘reform’ ANYTHING, let alone the then 1500 year old Catholic Church.
Protestants, whether they will admit it or not, are placing a TREMENDOUS amount of faith in Luther’s Personal Interpretations of Scripture, and also in his character and Exegetical abilities. It seems to me that all people have to know about his Exegetical ‘abilities’ is that he quoted Scripture FURIOUSLY in ALL of his texts which recommend the executions of this or that group. Are we supposed to believe that Holy Scripture really says that all of those groups are to be executed? Or, alternatively, should we believe that Luther’s Interpretations were shaped by his HATRED? If, in fact, that is the case, then the logical conclusion is that Luther’s Personal Interpretations SHOULD NOT BE TRUSTED, including ALL of those doctrinal teachings in which he challenged the Catholic Church.
God Bless You mary, Topper
J
joe371
Guest
Jon, in the past we agreed that Jesus and the apostles never taught the practice of SS - right? Doesn’t that make SS a man-made tradition (as opposed to an apostolic tradition), something frowned upon in sacred scripture?
M
marywarfield
Guest
As Jon pointed out there was a large time lapse from
Luther’s original kind attitude toward the Jews and the
written evidence of hatred he evidenced in his late life.
We will never know probably what caused the change: it
could have been he always hated but had the ability when
younger to cover it up, or he could have become increasingly
psychotic as he aged or senile dementia? How can we know.
It is sad though that the first successful proponent
of Sola Scriptura did not choose “Father forgive them for
they know not what they do” to be his first self
interpretation for then he like so many other saints
would have reformed the Church from inside rather than
attacking it and tearing it in two and his name would
not be the curse word it has become for the Jews either.
In Luther’s defense I say we must remember that all
of our holiest except Christ and His Mother were
terribly flawed human beings.
But still- it is the responsibility really of every Protestant
to determine if the flaws perhaps overrode the Holy Spirit
in Luther and therefore re-examine their own conscience in
so far as his doctrinal changes go.
Hi Joe,
While scripture alludes to this very important role for the Church, you are correct that the actual practice is post-apostolic. But man-made traditions are not necessarily frowned upon in scripture, else there would be many things that Catholics and Lutherans both do that we would not be able to do. For example, this week is Holy Week, and while the events that inspire this traditional observance of the passion, death, and resurrection, it isn’t particularly commanded in scripture that we do so (unless one wants to expand the meaning of “in remembrance of me”).
You, Joe, know my stand on SS, and in fact the continued divisions themselves. I believe that SS has its roots in the Great Schism, and what the Reformers saw as contradictions in the western Church, councils and popes, etc. Whether or not they were right or wrong is really the issue, but that’s how it looked to them in the 1500’s. At least for me, SS becomes unnecessary if East and West are again in communion.
Jon
It would indeed look troublesome to people, if that was what I had said. It is not. I leave no excuse open for Luther’s words in regards to the Jews of his time. It does, indeed, matter. What does not matter is if we decide to post, as essentially a competition, the writings and words of those two men, to decide who was worse.
I commented that, Eck, too, wrote anti-Judaic writings, but it was in response to someone posting about Luther’s. I think if one goes back to that closed thread, one will see that mine was a response, not the initiation of the dialogue in this matter. That said, when Luther’s anti-Jewish writings come up, it needs to be clear that he did not develop this in a vacuum where anti-Jewish sentiment didn’t exist. That’s not an excuse for his. It is simply context. Further, in that old thread, I never said Eck’s was worse than Luther’s. As I’ve said, I find no value in a debate of comparatives in the matter.
I think I’ve made clear to anyone reading this thread what I meant by trifling.
No. I actually, in many ways agree, and have said so in this thread. I would, however, qualify that, for Luther and most in that era and place, it was the race (anti-semitism) but the religious practice they attacked.
Indeed, he was, as was Luther, and the rest from that era.
Indeed he did not.
I will cede to you the final word on any comparison, Topper, as I will not comment further on it.
May this Holy Week bring you blessings.
Jon
M
marywarfield
Guest
You know Jon I’m not quite sure of the truth of your
first statement. Not your honesty I’m questioning but
the thought held by so many that the Holy Week observances
so near and dear to the heart of Catholics and Lutherans
is not commanded in Scripture.
We know that God commanded the Sinai Covenant
to continue at least until the Messianic Age. And we
know that during Christ’s arrest, trial and crucifixion
the observances in the Temple for the Eight Day Feast
of Unleavened Breads continued while outside the city
walls Christ was being crucified unseen by those
in the temple. We know the events of his death coincide
exactly with the slaughter/sacrifice of the two Tamid lambs in
the Temple at six, nine, noon and three.
The blood was splashed,
after the lambs were ritually declared without blemish,
the lambs drank from the cup,
the unleavened bread was placed on the altar etc.
Since the death of Christ is actually the fulfillment
of Gods promise in the Sinai Covenant, a week most holy
to observant Jews on pain of excommunication if they
did not fulfill the ritual requirements, it makes perfect
sense that our churches do re-enact the events happening
outside the city while the Jews re-enacted their ritual in the
Temple oblivious to Christ’s crucifixion.
One can point to the Sinai Covenant and say here is our
reasoning for Holy Week observances.
This is very kind and gracious, Mary. Thank you.
As for the last part, I once heard, and since then practice, the that that every Lutheran should wake in the morning, and examine whether or not today, continued division is justifiable. For me, it is one issue, and that being the claim of universal ordinary jurisdiction by Catholic Church, and its refutation by the other patriarchates.
Jon
Wow, Mary, a way of looking at what I wrote from a different vantage point. Thanks.
So much of what we do, while not explicit in scripture, is found there nonetheless. As I have told Joe before, the finding of SS explicitly in scripture escapes me, though one can find it inferred. As a result, I concur with James Kiefer, an Anglican who writes:
angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.kiefersolascriptura.html
Belief in the practice in sola scriptura as an article of faith, necessary unto salvation, is contrary to sola scriptura, as I see it, and no Catholic is condemned for not professing it.
Jon
M
marywarfield
Guest
For this Jon rather than Luther one might want to
place responsibility at the feet of the Protestants in the
late 1800’s. For one thousand eight hundred years Christianity
had no issue with Matthew being the first Gospel written
by Levi/Matthew until they seriously wanted to dispute
Matthews view of Peters primacy. At that point was when
they proposed Mark as the first Gospel account with
actually no hard evidence of their claim in direct
contradiction of ALL the ECFs. Mark had no reference
to Peters primacy.
Very suspicious behavior on the part of you Protestants
Jon if you ask me. Lol
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Jon,
Thankfully there are plenty of honest Protestant Scholars who have more interest in protecting their professional reputations than they are in protecting the (false) Legend of Luther. From Luther’s earliest writings, even before his 95 Theses, until his death, Luther was consistently ‘anti-Jewish (at least) with the possible exception of 1523 to 1527. Even in those few years, Luther’s focus in his Jewish ‘relations’ was NOT the Jews but his hatred of the Catholic Church.
The most forgiving of Luther’s “defenders” typically represent his later writings against the Jews as being out of place in the whole of his thoughts on the subject. This approach forces a more positive view of Luther than the historical record would suggest.
In one of this earliest known letters, to his friend George Spalatin in 1514, Luther demonstrates that his views of the Jews were very negative, even this early in his career:
“’I have come to the conclusion that the Jews will always curse and blaspheme God and his King Christ, as all the prophets have predicted. He who neither reads nor understands this, as yet knows no theology, in my opinion. And I also presume the men of Cologne cannot understand the Scripture……If they are trying to stop the Jews blaspheming they are working to prove the Bible and God liars…’
“Luther concluded the letter with the observation that the wrath of God has made the Jews incorrigible; such people become worse when others are trying to make them better.” (Lutheran Professor) Eric W. Gritsch, “Martin Luther’s Anti-Semitism”, pg. 50-1
Gritsch also suggests that it Luther’s early attitudes towards the Jews were relatively negative over the course of his career.
“It may be, however, that there was not so great a change in Luther’s attitude toward the Jews (over time) as has commonly been thought. A closer inspection of his utterances on the question throughout his career reveals that he was never so unambiguously positive toward them as a reading of his 1523 treatise in isolation would suggest. Wilhelm Maurer has demonstrated, in fact, that Luther’s earliest lectures—those on the Psalms, delivered in 1513–1515—already contained in essence the whole burden of his later charges against the Jews. The Jews, Luther asserts in these lectures, suffer continually under God’s wrath; they are paying the penalty for their rejection of Christ. They spend all their efforts in self-justification, but God will not hear their prayers. Neither kindness nor severity will improve them. They become constantly more stubborn and more vain. Moreover, they are active enemies of Christ; they blaspheme and defame him, spreading their evil influence even into Christian hearts. As for Jewish efforts to interpret Scripture, these, Luther asserts, are simply lies. They forsake the word of God and follow the imaginations of their hearts. It would be quite wrong, he concludes, for Christians to extend tolerance to those who hold such views.
Similar sentiments are expressed in Luther’s Lectures on Romans of 1515–1516…
In short, the evidence indicates that the Luther of these earlier years shared to the full in the medieval prejudices against the Jews. From this perspective, his more favorable attitude toward the Jews as expressed in the early 1520’s is to be understood as a temporary modification of the underlying negative stereotype which characterized his earliest statements, and to which he returned in his later treatises. That underlying stereotype, in turn, can be understood only in terms of the medieval background.” The Editors of Luther’s Works, (1999). Vol. 47, pg. 126–127 `
Of course explaining away Luther’s recommendations against the Jews in terms of ‘the medieval background’ doesn’t exactly satisfy given that ONLY Luther made those horrific recommendations as to what he wanted to happen to the Jews. A more plausible explanation was simply an extreme and lifelong hatred of the Jews.
“Luther’s career as a professor of Bible and the University of Wittenberg began with lectures on the Psalter, which he delivered over the years 1513-1515. These first lectures by the young professor are saturated with anti-Jewish references and allusions.” (Lutheran Professors) Schramm and Stjerna, “Martin Luther, The Bible, and the Jewish People” pg. 129
In regards to Luther’s early lectures (1513-1515) Lutheran Professors Schramm and Stjerna note that Luther was uniformly opposed to the Jews:
“The reader of these lectures in toto will note how pervasive is the polemic directed against either the Jews or the synagogue, so pervasive in fact that it rises to the level of a central characteristic of the lectures.” Schramm and Stjerna, “Martin Luther, The Bible, and the Jewish People” pg. 41
My God Bless You and Yours During this Holy Week, Topper
A standard part of the (false) Legend of Luther is that he was generally ‘nice’ about the Jews except for the very end of his life when he was old, sick and cranky. Better this than he just hated the Jews his whole life. In other words all of those horrible things he recommended happen to the Jews were just some sort of anomaly in an otherwise spotless record on Jewish ‘relations’. NOTHING could be further from the truth.
Thankfully there are plenty of honest Protestant Scholars who have more interest in protecting their professional reputations than they are in protecting the (false) Legend of Luther. From Luther’s earliest writings, even before his 95 Theses, until his death, Luther was consistently ‘anti-Jewish (at least) with the possible exception of 1523 to 1527. Even in those few years, Luther’s focus in his Jewish ‘relations’ was NOT the Jews but his hatred of the Catholic Church.
The most forgiving of Luther’s “defenders” typically represent his later writings against the Jews as being out of place in the whole of his thoughts on the subject. This approach forces a more positive view of Luther than the historical record would suggest.
In one of this earliest known letters, to his friend George Spalatin in 1514, Luther demonstrates that his views of the Jews were very negative, even this early in his career:
“’I have come to the conclusion that the Jews will always curse and blaspheme God and his King Christ, as all the prophets have predicted. He who neither reads nor understands this, as yet knows no theology, in my opinion. And I also presume the men of Cologne cannot understand the Scripture……If they are trying to stop the Jews blaspheming they are working to prove the Bible and God liars…’
“Luther concluded the letter with the observation that the wrath of God has made the Jews incorrigible; such people become worse when others are trying to make them better.” (Lutheran Professor) Eric W. Gritsch, “Martin Luther’s Anti-Semitism”, pg. 50-1
Gritsch also suggests that it Luther’s early attitudes towards the Jews were relatively negative over the course of his career.
“It may be, however, that there was not so great a change in Luther’s attitude toward the Jews (over time) as has commonly been thought. A closer inspection of his utterances on the question throughout his career reveals that he was never so unambiguously positive toward them as a reading of his 1523 treatise in isolation would suggest. Wilhelm Maurer has demonstrated, in fact, that Luther’s earliest lectures—those on the Psalms, delivered in 1513–1515—already contained in essence the whole burden of his later charges against the Jews. The Jews, Luther asserts in these lectures, suffer continually under God’s wrath; they are paying the penalty for their rejection of Christ. They spend all their efforts in self-justification, but God will not hear their prayers. Neither kindness nor severity will improve them. They become constantly more stubborn and more vain. Moreover, they are active enemies of Christ; they blaspheme and defame him, spreading their evil influence even into Christian hearts. As for Jewish efforts to interpret Scripture, these, Luther asserts, are simply lies. They forsake the word of God and follow the imaginations of their hearts. It would be quite wrong, he concludes, for Christians to extend tolerance to those who hold such views.
Similar sentiments are expressed in Luther’s Lectures on Romans of 1515–1516…
In short, the evidence indicates that the Luther of these earlier years shared to the full in the medieval prejudices against the Jews. From this perspective, his more favorable attitude toward the Jews as expressed in the early 1520’s is to be understood as a temporary modification of the underlying negative stereotype which characterized his earliest statements, and to which he returned in his later treatises. That underlying stereotype, in turn, can be understood only in terms of the medieval background.” The Editors of Luther’s Works, (1999). Vol. 47, pg. 126–127 `
Of course explaining away Luther’s recommendations against the Jews in terms of ‘the medieval background’ doesn’t exactly satisfy given that ONLY Luther made those horrific recommendations as to what he wanted to happen to the Jews. A more plausible explanation was simply an extreme and lifelong hatred of the Jews.
“Luther’s career as a professor of Bible and the University of Wittenberg began with lectures on the Psalter, which he delivered over the years 1513-1515. These first lectures by the young professor are saturated with anti-Jewish references and allusions.” (Lutheran Professors) Schramm and Stjerna, “Martin Luther, The Bible, and the Jewish People” pg. 129
In regards to Luther’s early lectures (1513-1515) Lutheran Professors Schramm and Stjerna note that Luther was uniformly opposed to the Jews:
“The reader of these lectures in toto will note how pervasive is the polemic directed against either the Jews or the synagogue, so pervasive in fact that it rises to the level of a central characteristic of the lectures.” Schramm and Stjerna, “Martin Luther, The Bible, and the Jewish People” pg. 41
My God Bless You and Yours During this Holy Week, Topper
M
marywarfield
Guest
Luther factually became worse as time went on Topper.
between circa 1515 and 1530 it was Luther’s idea that once
the Jews saw his successful rejection of the excesses of the
Catholic Church they in turn would flock to him, supporting him and
and convert to Christ. He had really convinced himself
that the only reason the Jews clung to their religion and
rejected Christ was their own hatred for the Catholic Church.
However the Jews in Germany and elsewhere completely
ignored both Luther and the Church. The more the Jews
rejected both the more anger he had toward Judaism.
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Mary,
Great posts BTW
When we look at the horrible things that Luther wrote, we don’t have much choice but to ask WHY he would have written about them with such hatred and venom. What could have possibly caused him to deal with other human beings in such a completely un-Christian manner? How could he have POSSIBLY interpreted Scripture in such a way that it would ‘justify’ what he wrote?
May God Bless You and Yours in This Most Holy Week, Topper
Great posts BTW
I agree 100%.
When we look at the horrible things that Luther wrote, we don’t have much choice but to ask WHY he would have written about them with such hatred and venom. What could have possibly caused him to deal with other human beings in such a completely un-Christian manner? How could he have POSSIBLY interpreted Scripture in such a way that it would ‘justify’ what he wrote?
May God Bless You and Yours in This Most Holy Week, Topper
- Status