Reformation Sunday

[raumzeitmc2]

The Reformation also helped the Catholic Church to get its house in order. I know people will lynch me in here for saying that …

Naw! But we might put you in a duel with this guy!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think a more fair argument wouldn’t be a behavioral one but the fact that Catholics divorce impeccability and infallibility to such a high degree that a pope can do just about anything and as long as it’s not ex cathedra it’s no big woop. Catholics completely ruled Europe at the time of Luther. They ruled politically, they ruled the religious lives of people, they ruled in the courts, owned a ton of the real estate of Europe, and financially sucked up a ton of revenue. They were the fat cats on the block. But Luther and the gang weren’t angry that popes had mistresses and illegitimate kids, they were angry at policies like indulgences, denying the cup to the laity, lack of appreciation for grace and justification through faith and instead focusing on penances, flagellation, self-denial and indulgences. Luther was mad at what he saw as corrupt practices and abuse of power, not so much the private lives or behavior of the clergy. Although he was sickened at what he saw when he journeyed to Rome on a pilgrimage. The scandals and sexual hedonism, the marketplace style worship, the irreverence of high-speed private Masses, etc. all angered him greatly.

So there are no bad churchmen in your church?

 

[raumzeitmc2]

I think a more fair argument wouldn’t be a behavioral one but the fact that Catholics divorce impeccability and infallibility to such a high degree that a pope can do just about anything and as long as it’s not ex cathedra it’s no big woop. Catholics completely ruled Europe at the time of Luther. They ruled politically, they ruled the religious lives of people, they ruled in the courts, owned a ton of the real estate of Europe, and financially sucked up a ton of revenue. They were the fat cats on the block. But Luther and the gang weren’t angry that popes had mistresses and illegitimate kids, they were angry at policies like indulgences, denying the cup to the laity, lack of appreciation for grace and justification through faith and instead focusing on penances, flagellation, self-denial and indulgences. Luther was mad at what he saw as corrupt practices and abuse of power, not so much the private lives or behavior of the clergy. Although he was sickened at what he saw when he journeyed to Rome on a pilgrimage. The scandals and sexual hedonism, the marketplace style worship, the irreverence of high-speed private Masses, etc. all angered him greatly.

Problem is, the list of the Reformer’s crimes is easily just as great. Hence the hypocrisy.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

So there are no bad churchmen in your church?

I didn’t say that, there are bad churchmen and women all over the place in every church. But to say that Luther’s reforms are invalid because he’s flawed, is the same logic to look at the Roman Catholic Church and say that the first 1500 years were a complete waste because the papacy had been bought and sold more than my used Buick.

I think both are a completely inaccurate and useless way for us to be evaluating what’s good and how we can actually be on a path to unity.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

But like I said, it’s not so much about crimes as policies, dogmas, teachings, theology. Behaviorally Luther was one of the better ones. Compare him to the bloodiness of the Anglican reformers, Calvin and company, etc.

Problem is, the list of the Reformer’s crimes is easily just as great. Hence the hypocrisy.

 

[GKC]

They have you guys wearing uniforms now!?

Only the traditionalist Anglo-Catholics. The rest wear stuff like the gracious Katherine’s oven-mitt mitre, or rainbow stoles, or iridescent chasubles.

GKC

 

[raumzeitmc2]

I didn’t say that, there are bad churchmen and women all over the place in every church. But to say that Luther’s reforms are invalid because he’s flawed, is the same logic to look at the Roman Catholic Church and say that the first 1500 years were a complete waste because the papacy had been bought and sold more than my used Buick.

And so Luther’s “reforms” represent true Christianity?

I think both are a completely inaccurate and useless way for us to be evaluating what’s good and how we can actually be on a path to unity.

If Luther’s “reforms” do indeed represent true and “pure” Christianity, then they are the standard by which the whole church must be judged!

But like I said, it’s not so much about crimes as policies, dogmas, teachings, theology. Behaviorally Luther was one of the better ones. Compare him to the bloodiness of the Anglican reformers, Calvin and company, etc.

Luther could be pretty cut-throat in his own right!

But it may be that the Anglicans, Calvinist et al were even worse!

And what a pack of hypocrites!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Luther had fiery rhetoric and often violent lingo in his polemics but his bark was often worse than his bite. He talked at one time about bathing in the blood of the clergy and popes, etc. But did he ever lead or really encourage such a blood bath? Luther felt a great amount of guilt about the peasants’ rebellion and took it hard. He was never involved in any “cutthroat” activities that I’m aware of. But then again, look at the inquisition, the way Jan Hus was backstabbed by the Catholic Church with a supposed “safe conduct” and how people were hanged and executed right and left in medievel Europe and the whole argument is pretty much a non sequitar LOL

And so Luther’s “reforms” represent true Christianity?

If Luther’s “reforms” do indeed represent true and “pure” Christianity, then they are the standard by which the whole church must be judged!

Luther could be pretty cut-throat in his own right!

But it may be that the Anglicans, Calvinist et al were even worse!

 

[raumzeitmc2]

gurney, I think you’re in denial! You certainly don’t know your history (no offense).
This might help. And again, the Reformers were unbelievable* hypocrites*!

 

[JonNC]

gurney, I think you’re in denial! You certainly don’t know your history (no offense).
This might help. And again, the Reformers were unbelievable* hypocrites*!

Guilty, raum!! Which makes them exactly like Catholics, and Orthodox, and all other humans, popes and priests, metropolitans and pastors, laity and deacons and elders (like me). Such is the need for the savior whom we both confess.

Question is, how does this relate to the OP’s interest in knowing how Reformation Sunday has relevance today?

Jon

 

[Janet1983]

And so Luther’s “reforms” represent true Christianity?

If Luther’s “reforms” do indeed represent true and “pure” Christianity, then they are the standard by which the whole church must be judged!

Luther could be pretty cut-throat in his own right!

But it may be that the Anglicans, Calvinist et al were even worse!

And what a pack of hypocrites!

These were mere men and as such they could err. I don’t think any reformer doubted that.
Concerning them not being perfect I’d like to throw in another issue: What about the Swiss Brethren?
Felix Manz was executed by drowning at the hand of fellow Protestants. Michael Sattler was part of the same movement, but he was caught by Catholic authorities… while his family was drowned (same method as Protestants), reading about Sattler’s execution requires a strong stomach or a less vivid imagination than mine.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Guilty, raum!! Which makes them exactly like Catholics, and Orthodox, and all other humans, popes and priests, metropolitans and pastors, laity and deacons and elders (like me). Such is the need for the savior whom we both confess.

But the question Jon is this: on what authority do such men “reform”? And should not men reform themselves first before trying to reform others? That’s what I’ve always been told.

Question is, how does this relate to the OP’s interest in knowing how Reformation Sunday has relevance today?

I don’t know. But given the brutality of the Reformers and the bloodbath they themselves helped to unleash, should there be any celebration of their Reformation?

Janet said:

These were mere men and as such they could err. I don’t think any reformer doubted that.
Concerning them not being perfect I’d like to throw in another issue: What about the Swiss Brethren?
Felix Manz was executed by drowning at the hand of fellow Protestants. Michael Sattler was part of the same movement, but he was caught by Catholic authorities… while his family was drowned (same method as Protestants), reading about Sattler’s execution requires a strong stomach or a less vivid imagination than mine.

Horrible stuff! But how *little *we ever hear of Protestant excesses, which is why I tend to focus on them.

But let me quote Denifle if I may. He makes an important point and we should all keep it in mind:

Is it possible the “Reformation” is good and to be extolled, because it was, for instance, the occasion of abolishing many prevalent abuses from the Church? What is then become of logic?

What St. Augustine says of the study of the Scriptures, to which Catholics were driven by heretics, applies here as well: “Divine Providence permits variously erring heretics to arise, so that, when they mock us and ask us things we do not know, we may at least shake off our indolence and desire to learn to know Holy Writ. Many are too lazy to seek, were they not, as it were, awakened from sleep by the hard pushing and reviling of the heretics, did they not blush for their ignorance and attain to knowledge of the danger of their inexperience.” {De Gen. cont. Manichaeos, 1, N. 2).

“By heresies, the sons of the Catholic Church are awakened from sleep as by thorns, so that they may make progress in the knowledge of Holy Writ” (Enarr. in ps. 7, n. 15) . “There is much good in the world which would not exist,” teaches St. Thomas, "were there no evils. There would be no patience of the just, for instance, were there no malice of persecutors” {Cont. Gent. Ill, c. 71 and 1 p. qu. 22, a. 2, ad. 2). Shall we glorify evil, therefore, and extol the “Reformation,” because they have been the occasion of much good in the Church?
Luther and Lutherdom, xi.

 

[Bluegoat]

I find we hear about Protestant excesses ad nauseam around here.

 

[TertiumQuid]

I still hold to that. There are many things Luther said and did (pointed out in Grisar, Denifle) which are an embarrassment to Protestants, particularly Lutherans. On the other hand, Luther said many good and praiseworthy things. I just believe we need to know the both. That’s the only way to make any sort of real judgment of the man.

You can hold whatever you wish, but if what you hold has no support, then perhaps you should admit it is your feeling.

There’s more to the world than English. Most of the volumes from WA are now on-line and public domain, for anyone to look at. English speaking people don’t determine truth for the world.

That being said, a new volume of Luther’s Works in English came out recently, and a new
volume is planned to be released each year.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Ironically we hear the term “ad nauseum” ad nauseum here!

I find we hear about Protestant excesses ad nauseam around here.

 

[JonNC]

=raumzeitmc2;7223419]But the question Jon is this: on what authority do such men “reform”? And should not men reform themselves first before trying to reform others? That’s what I’ve always been told.

If you wish to discuss, on another thread (I’ve already been properly chided by this OP for straying off topic) about authority, we can certainly do so, not that it would be a new topic.
As for the question of reforming oneself first, one could contend that no reforms would ever take place.

I don’t know. But given the brutality of the Reformers and the bloodbath they themselves helped to unleash, should there be any celebration of their Reformation?

Brutality happened on all sides, and was there before the Reformation (ask Jan Huss).
That said, I have already stated my opinion about Reformation Day (read my first post on this this, which actually was on topic.

Horrible stuff! But how *little *we ever hear of Protestant excesses, which is why I tend to focus on them.

I think it is heard here often, but it and the excesses of the Catholic Church of the time don’t speak to the question at hand, as posted by the OP, nor does it help in dialogue meant to bring about reconciliation.

But let me quote Denifle if I may. He makes an important point and we should all keep it in mind:

Fine, so long as we keep in mind that, as my father used to say, “it takes two to tango”.
And the sin of the Reformation spreads equally on both sides of it.

Now, to reiterate my stance on the commemoration of the Reformation, the date of which has been and will be used again for joint commemorations between Catholics and Lutherans:
Adding to Pastor Gary’s remarks here, my firm belief concerning the Reformation is that, by its very name, it is not successful without unity being restored. It is a vigil of sorts, that requires constant dialogue and prayer. If we, the ancestors of the Reformation become comfortable in schism and disunity, then the Reformation was/is a failure, and those who here polemically call it the “Deformation” are sadly correct.

Jon

 

[Janet1983]

That being said, a new volume of Luther’s Works in English came out recently, and a new volume is planned to be released each year.

And as we all know, translations are always flawed in some way or another as usually one one of the aspect for each word is being translated and other subtle meanings are therefore ignored while new subtle meanings are included…
Uh… what were you trying to say?

 

[TertiumQuid]

…Uh… what were you trying to say?

It’s very simple. raumzeitmc2 holds to a conspiracy that the Lutherans at Concordia Publishing House are “afraid of going public domain with Luther’s works.” Actually, they have 20 new volumes planned, and even the volumes published don’t cover up the “real” Luther.

Here’s one thing to keep in mind Janet, based on your point about translation: the heroes that raumzeitmc2 so admires that are said to expose and refute Luther (Denifle & Grisar) wrote their books in German. So if you want to suggest one can’t really know what Luther said without reading his words in Latin and German, let’s include Denifle & Grisar as well.

While we’re at it, let’s include most of the statements coming from the Vatican as well.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

And so Luther’s “reforms” represent true Christianity?

You mean as opposed to the holy example of the papacy of Leo X?

If Luther’s “reforms” do indeed represent true and “pure” Christianity, then they are the standard by which the whole church must be judged!

The only true standard by which the whole church must be judged is the Gospel. If Luther’s reforms are consistent with the Gospel, then his reforms are valid and should be given merit.

And what a pack of hypocrites!

Yes, because the papacy and curia set such fine examples of reflecting the life of Christ.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Now that Reformation Sunday is over, it’s time for

San Francisco Giants World Series Champions Saturday!