Looking Back at what the Reformation has Done

[Stilldreamn]

Actually I follow Catholic ecumenical dialogue which notes as stated the difficulty of signing a declaration with ALL Lutherans given the different signatories which is directly
related to the intra/inter Lutheran controversies.

The signing of the JDDJ was a “big deal” in Catholic circles but also a realization of how far we have to go with reaching agreement with the confessional Lutherans on justification.

Thus, to keep abreast of issues in Catholicism it is important to have some idea what is going on in Non Catholic circles, including the Lutherans and why we can’t sit down and have one Catholic-Lutheran discussion; the intra Lutheran conflicts

Thus the post.

Mary.

Ah! Then you are aware of the impending melt-down in our LC-MS. It’s that authority thing that just won’t go away.

 

[SteveVH]

Ah! Then you are aware of the impending melt-down in our LC-MS. It’s that authority thing that just won’t go away.

Don’t you think that this was the reason that Christ, in his wisdom, established his Church under one leader as a sign of unity?

 

[Per_Crucem]

Don’t you think that this was the reason that Christ, in his wisdom, established his Church under one leader as a sign of unity?

He just waited a few centuries for it to show up

 

[SteveVH]

He just waited a few centuries for it to show up

I realize you would like to believe that. The fact that the hierarchical structure of the Church developed over the centuries does not mean that the Church was ever without the Chair of Peter.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Sort of like the injection of a small amount of a virus causes the body to produce antibodies to fight it off and to avoid the sickness?

HAHA!

No, I was thinking more in line of: God works in mysterious ways.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

He just waited a few centuries for it to show up

14 is not a few

 

[Per_Crucem]

14 is not a few

 

[spina1953]

HI Stilldream: I have read the history of the period in which was a violent time in which one lived. Religious wars fought over beliefs shows just how intolerant people could be. Both sides of the issue were wrong in thinking violence was the answer. The driving force behind the Reformation wars were those who had control over the masses in the regions they controlled You are correct in that the Peace of Augsburg ended the religious wars and that each prince of the regions they controlled dictated what people were to believe. Seems to me the masses were led by those who had and axe to grind using religious beliefs to attain their ends.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Thor,

Thanks for your response.

It’s interesting to me to read about the process you went through to get to the other shore, but I personally would find it impossible to submit to and support ALL the teachings of the Catholic Church. It would be like saying, “Yes, please come and put a straitjacket on me.” It feels to me that the Catholic Church does not leave any room for individual conscience.

First of all, I find it interesting that rather than argue this point from an intellectual standpoint, or from logic and reason, or from the perspective Christian history, you speak of how it ‘feels’ to you.

We have often heard on this thread that in Lutheranism, it is the church which decides matters of doctrine, and yet you say that ‘personally’ you would ‘find it impossible to submit to ALL the teachings of the Catholic Church’. It seems to me that as long as you are concerned as to how things personally ‘feel’ to you, you will not be able to submit to ANY church, that is unless it ‘feels’ right to you of course.

For example, my ELCA Lutheran church has a young woman associate pastor who was called to join us about a year and a half ago and shares responsibilities with our senior pastor who is male. She preaches the sermon every other week and I have been attending a Bible study with her every week for a number of months. She is just as gifted in preaching and teaching as her male counterpart and my conscience would not allow me to accept a teaching that women cannot be ordained. This is an issue where I personally think that the Catholic Church is wrong and this in itself would prevent me from ever becoming a Catholic.

First of all, I find it interesting that on this matter Jon and I are on the same page, and you and Edwin are on the same, but different page. Since you brought it up, I would like to know, if you know, when it was that any Lutheran communion in the world began to first ordain women.

How many different issues are there that people could claim would be ‘deal breakers’ and that would preclude them from joining the Catholic Church? Also, who is it, specifically and exactly that decides how many issues there are that are of that significance? It seems to me that, at least within Protestantism, including Lutheranism, it is the individual who decides how ‘important’ each of these dozens of issues are (or whatever number they decide).

Is that the way that Christianity first began? Do we see ANY indication in either Holy Scripture or in the Early Church Fathers which shows that it is up to the individual to decide which issues are ‘deal breakers’?

God Bless You Thor, Topper

 

[jmcrae]

Topper-

You know I enjoy your posts, but I have to take issue with something you have written above. I just can’t let it slide, so here goes:

It’s “y’all”. Not ‘ya all’. "Y’all’ is the contraction of “you all”, and the apostrophe replaces the “ou” in “you”.

By the way “y’all” is singular. If I were speaking to you, I might say, “Are y’all coming by the house after supper?” If I were speaking to a group, I would use the plural “all y’all” as in, "I haven’t seen all y’all since I don’t know when.’

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

It depends on the region. My own Southern kin use “y’all” as the plural, with “you” for the singular. However “ya” has a completely different meaning; it’s an exclamation in the affirmative signifying a change of subject, as, “Did you do your homework?” “Ya, can I take the car tonight?”

 

[Randy_Carson]

It depends on the region. My own Southern kin use “y’all” as the plural, with “you” for the singular. However “ya” has a completely different meaning; it’s an exclamation in the affirmative signifying a change of subject, as, “Did you do your homework?” “Ya, can I take the car tonight?”

Beauty, eh?

 

[Thorolfr]

We have often heard on this thread that in Lutheranism, it is the church which decides matters of doctrine, and yet you say that ‘personally’ you would ‘find it impossible to submit to ALL the teachings of the Catholic Church’. It seems to me that as long as you are concerned as to how things personally ‘feel’ to you, you will not be able to submit to ANY church, that is unless it ‘feels’ right to you of course.

I’ve been reading Derek Wilson’s recent biography of Luther, and he points that while Luther was in the Wartburg, he became disturbed by all the new rules that Karlstadt was making in Wittenburg. According to Wilson (pp. 188-189), “He…disapproved of Karlstadt’s tendency to proclaim as truths binding on all Christians some issues which, Luther believed, were matters of individual conscience: ‘We are certainly a people on whom no law should be imposed - especially not for the whole of life - but to whom everything should be left free.’”

Lutherans have decided far less doctrines than the Catholic Church and the ELCA has left many divisive issues to individual conscience. I also wonder if it is to a church that we are supposed to submit or to Christ as we individually understand his teachings?

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12775633]

OK, so how about you all lock yourselves into a room with some Budweiser and some hot dogs and not come out until you can present a unified doctrinal front to Cathocism. How can the issue of ‘authority’ be solved between Catholoicsm and Lutheranism when ‘ya all’ can’t agree on who, or even what ‘is’ right amongst yourselves. What are we supposed to do Jon, dialogue with each Lutheran communion separately? Actually I am starting to get the impression that one of the reasons for the lack of progress is the lack of intra-Lutheran unity

Guess we’ll have to wait and see how the leaders work that out. Rome has a similar issue with OC’s and many others.

Personally I wonder how any real progress with Lutheranism overall is possible when it has so much internal disagreement within Lutheranism itself.

Perhaps that’s why you are not the one in charge.

I agree. It would have a much bigger impact on Christian unity, at least percentagewise. However, I think that your statement implies that the Catholic/Lutheran dialogue is ‘less important’. It also seems that you might be implying that Lutheranism, or maybe you personally, would be inclined to reunite with Rome IF somebody other than you or Lutheranism ‘does something’. That seems to assign yourself and Lutheranism a somewhat ‘passive role’. Is that what you mean?

Not at all. I think the Vatican can discuss with more than one dialogue partner, as can Lutherans. Even the LCMS has ongoing dialogue with Rome, the ACNA, and others.
That said, complete reconciliation between Rome and the EO would have a profound impact on me, personally.

I think that this gets right to the issue of the authority of Luther (and thus Lutehranism) to proclaim ANYTHING to be ‘normative’. As for the Formula of Concord, just exactly who were the authors and by what authority did they have to make doctrinal prononcements outside of an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church. Maybe we should start with exactly who the authors were and why Lutheranism (or some portion of it) believes that they were ‘correct’ in the doctrinal formulations which were in opposition to those of the Church. Specifics please.

The authors are listed
Jacob Andreae, Martin Chemnitz, Nicholas Selnecker, David Chytraeus, Andrew Musculus, and Christopher Koerner.
The Catholic Church, while in schism, has the same issue regarding ecumenical councils.

Well Jon, it was Martin Luther who ‘decided’ that, and today roughly 4% of Christianity bear his name and follow his teachings. Whether or not he was right is a HUGE issue, although not as important to ‘some’ as my ‘style’ of apologetics. So to answer your question as to ‘who determines’, based on what I have learned (and have posted) I would accept the jugdement of just about anyone before I would that of Luther.

Jon, I am a ‘results person’. It’s not about ‘feelings’ with me. In addition, are you seriously telling me that after 50 years, papal infallibility just hasn’t come up in the sequence of topics? Have we just not gotten to the ‘Ps’ yet?

Actually, it has.

Well, when we look at the progress made by ‘staying positive’ and avoiding the real issues, then how in the world can another ‘braver’ approach be criticized, especially when it obviously has not been attempted and has NOT failed so miserably as the current approach. To me Jon, the fact that papal infallibilty has not ‘come up’ in 50 years tells me everything I need to know about the Dialogue.

Actually, we’ve made more progress than your approach, which was practiced for 450 prior to Vatican II.

As a matter of fact, any such dialogue would logically require the Lutheran ‘side’ to justify the Authority of Luther to challenge the doctrines of the sixteenth century Church. That question challenges the FOUNDATION of Lutheranism and greater Protestantism. Approaching that topic that is not ‘staying positive’ and thus will not happen at all under the current framework and necessity of not challenging people’s long held beliefs. Better we just stay divided rather than ‘go there’. Right?

Perhaps the Catholic side has determined, against your wishes, that Lutherans are actually worth talking to, and in a respectful manner. Perhaps they’ve decided that the “stay divided” approach prior to Vat II wasn’t working very well.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12775647]
I certainly does at that.

That’s an interesting confession, Topper.

Jon – is it acceptable to you that Luther didn’t consider Catholics to be Christians? What do you think of that ‘attitude’?

That fact that you even ask that question of me reveals how little you listen to discussion partners. You know for a fact that I do not approve of anyone who claims that Catholics are not Christian, and I’ve said so often. In my last post I even said that the CC was the Church (part of it). I find the question typical of the baiting and polemics you regularly employ here.

Here you were offered a chance to suggest a means by which there could be some real progress, and you admit that you don’t have anything. Personaly, I think that just leaving it up to the Holy Spirit, is a little too ‘passive’. I think that it is fallen man who has destroyed the Unity that Christ commanded and that it is at least partly up to fallen man to fix it.

Fallen men - plural. All sides. You. Me, Luther. Leo X. Personally, I have great confidence in the power of the Holy Spirit to work through men of good will, who despite our differences, dialogue with charity and a a positive approach.

Here by these comments and a lack of a ‘plan’, even a hypothetical plan, you admit that there will NOT be any kind of reconciliation UNTIL Heaven. I would suggest that we be a little ‘braver’ than that and actually take on the reasons for our separation.

It is not my place to formulate a plan. Unlike you, I trust our leaders.

Of course you are going to agree that they are doing the right thing. What they are doing Jon is avoiding the issue.

May I suggest you call the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity?

OK, how much time are you willing to allow them? All I am saying is the obvious Jon, that if after 50 years we haven’t ‘gotten around’ to the most crucial issue, the issue of authority, then the current Dialoge is NOT WORKING. We need a new, bolder, less ‘timid’ approach.

Your leadership disagrees with you. I might be tempted to say that referring to the leadership of men like John XXIII, Paul VI, JP II, and Benedict XVI as “timid” is laughable, Topper, but I actually think its sad. Of all of the things you have said here at CAF, I probably disagree with this the most.

Jon

 

[Larryk113]

If Luther could have foreseen clearly what has happened to western Christianity over the past 500 years, would Luther have said and done the things that history records of him?

If you had been Luther, would you have followed the same course he took?

Why or why not?

Look at the division the reformation has brought upon us as believers. I think he would have taken a different course.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Edwin,

Thanks for your response.

No. I’d have to go through the list to decide what I think about them. What I’m saying is that these are disagreements among Christians.

Wednesday, March 29, 2006
50 Ways In Which Luther Had Departed From Catholic Orthodoxy or Established Practice by 1520 (and Why He Was Excommunicated)

socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/03/50-ways-in-which-luther-had-departed.html

Dave’s list of fifty things seems to be only a partial. But since you asked, and not that I am asking for a response, but here is the list of the fifty.

1. Separation of justification from sanctification.
2. Extrinsic, forensic, imputed notion of justification.
3. Fiduciary faith.
4. Private judgment over against ecclesial infallibility.
5. Tossing out seven books of the Bible.
6. Denial of venial sin.
7. Denial of merit.
8. The damned should be happy that they are damned and accept God’s will.
9. Jesus offered Himself for damnation and possible hellfire.
10. No good work can be done except by a justified man.
11. All baptized men are priests (denial of the sacrament of ordination).
12. All baptized men can give absolution.
13. Bishops do not truly hold that office; God has not instituted it.
14. Popes do not truly hold that office; God has not instituted it.
15. Priests have no special, indelible character.
16. Temporal authorities have power over the Church; even bishops and popes; to assert the contrary was a mere presumptuous invention.
17. Vows of celibacy are wrong and should be abolished.
18. Denial of papal infallibility.
19. Belief that unrighteous priests or popes lose their authority (contrary to Augustine’s rationale against the Donatists).
20. The keys of the kingdom were not just given to Peter.
21. Private judgment of every individual to determine matters of faith.
22. Denial that the pope has the right to call or confirm a council.
23. Denial that the Church has the right to demand celibacy of certain callings.
24. There is no such vocation as a monk; God has not instituted it.
25. Feast days should be abolished, and all church celebrations confined to Sundays.
26. Fasts should be strictly optional.
27. Canonization of saints is thoroughly corrupt and should stop.
28. Confirmation is not a sacrament.
29. Indulgences should be abolished.
30. Dispensations should be abolished.
31. Philosophy (Aristotle as prime example) is an unsavory, detrimental influence on Christianity.
32. Transubstantiation is “a monstrous idea.”
33. The Church cannot institute sacraments.
34. Denial of the “wicked” belief that the mass is a good work.
35. Denial of the “wicked” belief that the mass is a true sacrifice.
36. Denial of the sacramental notion of ex opere operato.
37. Denial that penance is a sacrament.
38. Assertion that the Catholic Church had “completely abolished” even the practice of penance.
39. Claim that the Church had abolished faith as an aspect of penance.
40. Denial of apostolic succession.
41. Any layman who can should call a general council.
42. Penitential works are worthless.
43. None of what Catholics believe to be the seven sacraments have any biblical proof.
44. Marriage is not a sacrament.
45. Annulments are a senseless concept and the Church has no right to determine or grant annulments.
46. Whether divorce is allowable is an open question.
47. Divorced persons should be allowed to remarry.
48. Jesus allowed divorce when one partner committed adultery.
49. The priest’s daily office is “vain repetition.”
50. Extreme unction is not a sacrament (there are only two sacraments: baptism and the Eucharist).

So that is 50 ways in which Luther was a heretic, heterodox, a schismatic, or believed things which were clearly contrary to the Catholic Church’s teaching or practice, up to and including truly radical departures (even societally radical in some cases). Is that enough to justify his excommunication from Catholic ranks? Or was the Church supposed to say, “yeah, Luther, you know, you’re right about these fifty issues. You know better than the entire Church, the entire history of the Church, and all the wisdom of the saints in past ages who have believed these things. So we will bow to your heaven-sent wisdom, change all fifty beliefs or practices, so we can proceed in a godly direction. Thanks so much! We are forever indebted to you for having informed us of all these errors!!” Dave Armstrong.

I think that this list demonstrates what you might call ‘originality and creativity’. My suggestion is that Luther went WAY over the line in this regard.

This is pretty much the point that I have been making here. What was it, specifically and exactly that the Church was supposed to do ‘with’ Martin Luther after he had proclaimed these 50 revisions, but before his excommunication? About all I have gotten so far is that the Church should have done some ‘stuff’ differently? What exactly?

 

[Topper17]

Frustration that you seem to want to revive an older Catholic approach to Luther which simply widens the divisions between Protestants and Catholics, for one thing. And even more importantly, the desire to make clear to the lurkers that you do not speak for Catholics as a whole. You risk causing grave scandal–Protestants who come to this forum and read your posts and those of many other Catholics on this subject would get a misleading and harmful impression of the Catholic Church’s attitude to Protestantism.

I don’t see it that way at all, although in your personal situation, I can see how you would. In fact, I never present my position as that of Catholocism or as anything other than my own. As far as the lurkers are concerned, I believe that my point of view is something that should be considered. The facts that I post should NOT be surpressed out of some misguided need to be ‘comfortable’ or in response to some new fangled ‘right not to have your beliefs criticized.’ Remember, many people here on CA have commented that their ‘swim’ is at least in part the result of their learning the facts about Martin Luther and the early Reformation.

I have a job of work persuading other Protestants, especially Episcopalians, that Catholics have any serious interest in ecumenism at all. The rejection of our orders and of intercommunion makes most Episcopalians assume that you guys don’t really think we are Christians.

Then they assume wrong as you know. What do you think the Church should do about the fact that it’s teachings are misunderstood? In fact, the Catholic rejections of Anglicans orders is as old as Anglicancism itself. Are you suggesting that the Church should recognize your orders so that there will not be any ‘hard feelings’? The Church cannot do that and yet Anglicans are entering the Church in droves.

It is frustrating when Catholics insist on taking a polemical tone that has been wisely abandoned by the major figures of their own Communion.

What has not been ‘abandoned’ is the ‘Whig Narrative’ and the ‘Legend’. We see both at least in some form or another here on CA every day. What I do is a necessary ‘counterbalance’ (as I see it).

I know. I also know that Catholic Answers is not part of the Magisterium, though many here seem to think otherwise

The Church excommunicated Luther as a heretic. CA is only accurately depticting the position of the Church in depitcting Protestanism as a heresy. So maybe your issue is not with CA but with the Church.

I am happy to follow the Catholic Church on this point. Those whom the Catholic Church regards as validly baptized “separated brethren” who share faith in Christ are those whom moderate Protestants regard as sharing “essentials.” I don’t mean that the Catholic Church evaluates the matter in the same way, only that the line is not in any way arbitrary and is one drawn by the Catholic Church also.

My conversion story, like all of them probably, is reasonably complex. In my case there was a ‘stop-over’ at ‘Cafeteria Catholocism’. At one point, I was extolling the virtues of the ‘Cafeteria’ to a Buddest/Unitarian computer jock who was also an ex-pole vaulter. He looked me straight in the eye and asked me why I would want to belong to a Church where I didn’t believe everything they teach. It was like getting hit with a 2 x 4 across the forehead.
I knew that I had no choice but to find out where the Truth is actually taught and that is when I began to study Protestant and Catholic apologetics.

No, it’s by the historic consensus of the Church.

So would this ‘consensus’ be then a consensus of the WHOLE Church, or only a consensus communion by communion with each forming their own, or, would it be a consensus of the individual (meaning not a consensus at all)?

Only if you think that the Church’s recognition of Protestant baptism is “man made, and therefore not of God.”

Of course various Protestant communities draw lists of essentials that are shaped by their own concerns. Some conservative Protestants insist on the “solas” and on Biblical inerrancy as essentials. But as I said above, it’s fairly easy to point out criteria, used by the Catholic Church, by which these overly narrow views can be refuted. The historic Creeds of the Church, the practice of the two “evangelical sacraments,” and the acceptance of at least the books found in the Protestant canon as divinely inspired, are all easy criteria to discern and are not peculiar to any one community. They do not rest on “personal preference.”

The main objection to this approach is that if used before the fourth century it would have prevented the establishment of Nicene orthodoxy as an essential.

It seems that we are not in agreement on what an ‘essential’ really is, which would seem to support my position BTW. Personally I would think that anything that would be ‘communion dividing’ to a particular group would be ‘essential’. In other words, if you don’t believe what we (or I) believe on this particular matter, then we will not be ‘communing’. The divide between Lutheranism and Catholocism come to mind here, and also those Lutherans who will not commune with each other. Most Christians accept the baptisms of the others.

 

[Topper17]

Completely untrue, and refuted by your previous statement that there are various lists. In fact, in my experience there are really only two main lists: the conservative list which includes Protestant distinctives and/or a strict view of inerrancy, and the more moderate one that is based on the historic Creeds and the things Protestants have in common with Catholics and Orhtodox. Conservative Lutherans would add the Real Presence. I don’t claim that there are no further variations, only that in fact most Protestants would give one of these two answers.

He didn’t maintain any such position with any consistency. He did frequently speak as if he thought this.

It really is no shock to learn that Luther was inconsistent on this matter, or any other for that matter. On the other hand, he consistently ACTED as if he believed that Catholics were not Christians.

I don’t think you really need to ask me. Obvoiusly those Protestants who think this are terribly wrong, and insofar as Luther spoke this way he was terribly wrong.

But the same holds true on the other side. I can’t see that sola fide as taught by Luther and the other early Reformers is a heresy in the sense that a person who holds it ought to be excluded from the Church. While I think Luther was a bit less consistent than TertiumQuid maintains, I agree with Tertium that Luther did make his position clear overall–that love and good works always accompany true faith.

Interestingly, TQ (James Swan) wrote a very compelling article ‘proving’ that Luther believed that Catholics are NOT Christians. It is a very convincing article and quotes Luther at great length, portraying Luther’s beliefs about Catholics as not being Christians as being very much in also in support of Swan’s, which are detailed very clearly in the last paragraph of the article.

For the record, my posts here on CA are sometimes ‘taken hostage’ and posted on Swan’s blog.

The Beggers All article in question is as follows:

***Sunday, June 09, 2013
Luther: The Roman Church is Basically Christian? ***

beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2013/06/luther-roman-church-is-basically.html

Its well worth the read.

That is in fact the core of my disagreement with Luther–that he made sola fide an essential doctrine of the Church and was willing to split the Church over it.

It seems that in this you have answered the main question of the thread, which is what would Luther have done, if he had ‘known the results of his teaching’. Here you indicate that Luther was ‘willing to split the Church’ over sola fide.

**“(Luther) did not anticipate that the question how sinful man can prevail before God and secure salvation would ever lead to a controversy between him and the Church.” G. F. Behringer, “**The Life of Martin Luther”, pg 40

Here we have another Protestant informing us that Luther had a poor understanding of what was considered “orthodox” within a Church in which he was a monk, Priest, Doctor of Theology, and Professor. How can this be explained?

Protestant Scholar Paul Tillich makes the following comment:

**“….Luther saw in the papacy in Rome the ‘Antichrist’ dominating Christendom and attacked it with all his prophetic wrath, although he risked the inity of Christendom.” **“The Protestant Era”, pg. 168

This makes it pretty clear, that Tillich at least, believed that Luther would probably ‘do it all over again’. It also seems clear that to Luther, his own assurance of his personal Salvation was worth splitting the Church over. He could have simply believed whatever it was that he ‘needed’ to believe about his personal Salvation, without having to drag the whole of Christendom into his personal psychological issue. He could have made his ‘Revolt’ a personal matter only, believing whatever he wanted. However, his opponents caused him to doubt his beliefs, he always lashed out at them.
**
“And what was the gospel? For the rest of his life he quarreled fiercly with other dissenters from Catholic faith – many of them beginning as his disciples – over the definition of his most treasured signs (the Holy Eucharist).** How could God be in charge of all this confusion?..It does not require much insight to infer that he countered this frustration with a barrage of vehement language, railing on and on for page after ugly page as if he could hold all his fears and doubts at bay only by pouring liquid fire onto his foes, dissolving them and his doubts in one mighty holocaust of rhetoric.” Marius, pg. 285

God Bless You Edwin, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Mary,

Thanks for your kind words.

It’s been interesting to read the dialogue between Edwin and Topper. Thanks to both posters for posting and Topper your posts are excellent as usual.

May God bless your youngest granddaughter, and your family abundantly this Baptismal day, Topper.

Every time I go to a Baptism, or a Conformation, I am more moved. I continue to better understand the importance of the Sacrament, and when it is one of your own, in this case my granddaughter and Goddaughter combined, I mean WOW!!!.

Thanks for your excellent post on the Lutheran conflicts. I would like to know more about that if you have time to post.

God Bless You Mary, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Randy,

Thanks for your posts and your kind words.

Topper-

You know I enjoy your posts, but I have to take issue with something you have written above. I just can’t let it slide, so here goes:

It’s “y’all”. Not ‘ya all’. "Y’all’ is the contraction of “you all”, and the apostrophe replaces the “ou” in “you”.
Randy Carson;12776251:

By the way “y’all” is singular. If I were speaking to you, I might say, “Are y’all coming by the house after supper?” If I were speaking to a group, I would use the plural “all y’all” as in, "I haven’t seen all y’all since I don’t know when.’

Hope this helps. :tiphat

et tu Randy???Actually I prefer the correction. How do you ever get better. Up high in theRocky Mountians, we didn’t say y’anything,