How Should We Celebrate Reformation Sunday?
November 7, 2011
Joshua Genig
Sixteen years ago, Stanley Hauerwas began his Reformation sermon this way:
I must begin by telling you that I do not like to preach on Reformation Sunday. Actually I have to put it more strongly than that. I do not like Reformation Sunday, period. I do not understand why it is part of the church year. Reformation Sunday does not name a happy event for the Church Catholic; on the contrary, it names failure. Of course, the church rightly names failure, or at least horror, as part of our church year. We do, after all, go through crucifixion as part of Holy Week. Certainly if the Reformation is to be narrated rightly, it is to be narrated as part of those dark days.
While Hauerwas could be a bit more nuanced, the question implied herein is a good one: Should the Reformation be celebrated or mourned?
In my tradition, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, the commemoration of the Reformation is a day, frankly, unlike any other day in the church year. For those local congregations who do not have a daily office or daily Eucharist, Reformation is usually transferred to the nearest Sunday. In many congregations, the entire celebration is orchestrated, with special music, guest preachers, and, often times, even a special meal. Of course, every Lutheran sings with gusto Luther’s famous hymn of the Reformation: Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott. Old timers (i.e., Moderns and Boomers) who, on most Sundays, rebel against the use of Latin in the liturgy, reminisce on this day about how great it used to be to sing in German.
Most surprising to me, however, is that the liturgical color for the day is red. According to the Altar Guild Manual of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, red is the color of zeal and martyrdom and, of course, it is integrally connected with the Holy Spirit and with fire. Therefore, it is the designated color for Pentecost, the feast days of the martyrs as those who shed their blood for Christ and his Church, and ordinations, the latter being the place where the Holy Spirit is given again to a specific man for a specific task.
But knowing all of that, this question emerges: Why, then, does Reformation get red?
Though Luther was, at times, threatened, he did not die a martyr’s death. Neither did Fr. Johannes Bugenhagen, who was given charge of Luther’s wife and children following his death. And neither did the famous lay theologian of the Lutheran Reformation, Philip Melanchthon.
The only other cause for the use of red would be the presumption that the Reformation was a new Pentecost for the Church. This is equally as troubling, however, because it likewise presumes that for hundreds of years, the fullness of the Church ceased to exist (though, officially, Lutherans reject this). Therefore, the color red suggests that it was not until 1517 that the Church came back into existence in a manner not unlike the first Pentecost recorded in Acts.
To that end, the color red is somewhat ironic, since the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod—like historic Lutheranism—sees itself as a reforming movement within the one Church catholic. We are, in other words, evangelical catholics. Our goal is not destruction and re-creation, but reform of an already existing Church.
Therefore, while I would never want to endure the pain that would undoubtedly come with changing a much-loved liturgical commemoration and its corresponding liturgical color, I really wonder why we, the pastors and congregations of the Lutheran Church, don red and not purple for Reformation.
Purple is, of course, the color of sorrow and repentance. And throughout our post-Reformation history, it has usually been the Roman Church who has expressed the reality of liturgical purple, most notably during the Day of Pardon on March 12 of the Jubilee year, 2000. We, on the other hand, do not seem to have mourned the Reformation, let alone apologized for the sins committed therein, especially the sin of helping to break up the visible expression of the Una Sancta, which resulted in plures denominationes.
One of the strangest things about our current cultural milieu, however, is the way in which denominational tags (which are a direct result of the event we celebrate on October 31) mean so little anymore. Instead, post-moderns are, as N.T. Wright has observed, given primarily to beauty, community, spirituality, and justice. What they want (and need!) is a church that is ancient, mysterious, authentic, merciful, compassionate, beautiful, and, most importantly, one.
And that latter adjective, I would propose, is not helped by wearing red for Reformation.
Therefore, it seems fitting that we, Lutherans, make our own mea culpa. It seems fitting that we confess our sins associated with the Reformation and, especially, our continued unkindness toward our brothers and sisters of other theological traditions. It seems fitting that we, once again, make Jesus’ prayer our own, not only in word, but also in deed – ut unum sint. And wearing purple for Reformation may be a good first step.
October 31 has recently come and gone. Yet, the planning for next year is likely already underway in many Lutheran congregations, and maybe the thoughts provoked by this year’s celebration will lead to a more pastoral approach next year. I know they will for me.
Joshua Genig is pastor of The Lutheran Church of the Ascension in Atlanta, GA and is finishing a Ph.D. in systematic theology at the University of St. Andrews, Scotland.
RESOURCES
Timothy George, Reformation Day
David Yeago, The Catholic Luther
Robert Benne, Lutheran in Search of a Church
Jim Nuechterlein, Lutheran Blues
Russel Saltzman, Unraveling the ELCA
Comments:
11.7.2011 | 9:34am
Repentance is good, so I hate to speak against it. But this article seems cut from the same detestable bolt of cloth that the American Left uses when crudely fashioning its one-size-fits-all Blame America First garment to cover the areas of economics, politics and war. Over and over again, they pathetically snatch shame from the jaws of rightful celebration.
Here Joshua Genig, apparently reluctant to be cast as a good soldier of Jesus Christ, waves the purple flag of surrender. Does he not remember that the Reformation was a victory for the truth, removing from power those Catholics who, like the Jews, were our enemies as regards the gospel but beloved because of the Patriarchs? We forgive, but we must not forget the Catholic Church's example of unbelief and spiritual blindness that led them to shut the door to the kingdom of God in men's faces while not entering in themselves. They resisted the new wine to the point of shedding blood, and so new wineskins were selected. They refused to bear on themselves the fruit of the gospel, so yet another wild branch was grafted into the cultivated olive tree. They were removed, at least in part, as unworthy tenants and the vineyard was given to others who would produce its fruit. The freedom of the year of Jubilee was proclaimed to a Europe held captive to a false gospel. Like all judgments of God, it was and is an opportunity both for celebration of God's righteous judgment and for circumspection lest we, like they, be judged for the same things.
We ought now to take the same attitude toward them that Paul took toward the Jews in Romans chapters 9-11: If their removal and judgment was a blessing to the world (and the Protestant Reformation was a blessing to the world), then their future repentance and restoration will be even more a blessing. We must not reject them, but we must not become like them, at least as they were then. We ought to be immersing ourselves daily in God's word and prayer so that we do not become someone else's cause for celebration and circumspection.
If Joshua Genig decides to remember these things--that the Reformation is worthy of celebration as God's simultaneous judgment and unexpected blessing to the world; that this judgment stands in history as a byword and an opportunity for circumspection so that we do not repeat the same sins; and that the Catholic Church, like the Jews, still stands in need of repentance and restoration--both his congregation and we FT readers will be the healthier and happier for it.
Here Joshua Genig, apparently reluctant to be cast as a good soldier of Jesus Christ, waves the purple flag of surrender. Does he not remember that the Reformation was a victory for the truth, removing from power those Catholics who, like the Jews, were our enemies as regards the gospel but beloved because of the Patriarchs? We forgive, but we must not forget the Catholic Church's example of unbelief and spiritual blindness that led them to shut the door to the kingdom of God in men's faces while not entering in themselves. They resisted the new wine to the point of shedding blood, and so new wineskins were selected. They refused to bear on themselves the fruit of the gospel, so yet another wild branch was grafted into the cultivated olive tree. They were removed, at least in part, as unworthy tenants and the vineyard was given to others who would produce its fruit. The freedom of the year of Jubilee was proclaimed to a Europe held captive to a false gospel. Like all judgments of God, it was and is an opportunity both for celebration of God's righteous judgment and for circumspection lest we, like they, be judged for the same things.
We ought now to take the same attitude toward them that Paul took toward the Jews in Romans chapters 9-11: If their removal and judgment was a blessing to the world (and the Protestant Reformation was a blessing to the world), then their future repentance and restoration will be even more a blessing. We must not reject them, but we must not become like them, at least as they were then. We ought to be immersing ourselves daily in God's word and prayer so that we do not become someone else's cause for celebration and circumspection.
If Joshua Genig decides to remember these things--that the Reformation is worthy of celebration as God's simultaneous judgment and unexpected blessing to the world; that this judgment stands in history as a byword and an opportunity for circumspection so that we do not repeat the same sins; and that the Catholic Church, like the Jews, still stands in need of repentance and restoration--both his congregation and we FT readers will be the healthier and happier for it.
11.7.2011 | 9:38am
Nancy D. says:
No doubt, The Reformation, which served to change some of the corrupt practices in The Catholc Church, also changed some of The Doctrine of The Catholic Church, and for this reason should be seen as a recycling of the Arian Heresy, for no longer do those outside His Church recognize that there is only ONE Word of God, Who Has revealed The Truth of Love to His Church in the trinitarian relationship of Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and The Teaching of The Magisterium, and that The Filioque, which affirms the essence of the ordered, complementary, relationship of Perfect Love that is The Blessed Trinity, affirms the fact that there can be only ONE Word of Love, Our Savior, Jesus Christ.
11.7.2011 | 10:39am
Nancy D. says:
Which is why I often wonder if the reason that Our Lady of Fatima asked for the Consecration of Russia to her Immaculate Heart, is to heal the schism in her Son's Church, from the beginning. That is up to The Pope and the Bishops in communion with him, to decide. Anyone who can read The Sign's of The Time we are living in knows that at this hour it is late. In the meantime, what is needed is a Miracle, and every Miracle requires an act of Faith.
11.7.2011 | 10:45am
Nathaniel Peters says:
Thank you for a lovely article. It strikes me that Reformation Day is one that Catholics and Protestants together should mark as a day of penance and prayer for Christian unity. At least that is how this Catholic, once an Anglican, chooses to mark the occasion.
11.7.2011 | 10:54am
harry says:
“But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. Then he addressed the Sanhedrin: “Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”
The test Gamaliel proposed turned out to be a good one. In a few centuries it was apparent that the Jewish authorities and the mighty Roman Empire, which also tried to destroy Christianity, had indeed been “fighting against God.”
So, five centuries have passed, was Luther's movement “of human origin” or was it “from God”? Unlike the Jewish temple being destroyed in A.D. 70, the Vatican is still standing. The Roman Catholic Church has not been reduced to a struggling remnant – it is a billion strong. Unlike the Roman Empire being Christianized instead of destroying Christianity, the dismemberment of the Body of Christ and the rejection of its institutional authority by many of its dismembered members brought about the rejection of its authority and relevance altogether by the state; this made the atheistic, completely secularized states of today possible, leading to the destruction of Christendom. What do you think? What has the test of Gamaliel revealed?
Luther had some legitimate complaints. Had he stuck to reforming the institutional Body of Christ he would probably be honored today as one of Christianity's greatest saints and reformers by the Catholic Church – and Christendom would probably still exist. As it is, all we can do is make a genuine effort to let the Holy Spirit guide us in being a holy, healing ointment in the wounds of the Body of Christ. We have been – Protestants and Catholics alike – salt in those wounds for far too long.
The test Gamaliel proposed turned out to be a good one. In a few centuries it was apparent that the Jewish authorities and the mighty Roman Empire, which also tried to destroy Christianity, had indeed been “fighting against God.”
So, five centuries have passed, was Luther's movement “of human origin” or was it “from God”? Unlike the Jewish temple being destroyed in A.D. 70, the Vatican is still standing. The Roman Catholic Church has not been reduced to a struggling remnant – it is a billion strong. Unlike the Roman Empire being Christianized instead of destroying Christianity, the dismemberment of the Body of Christ and the rejection of its institutional authority by many of its dismembered members brought about the rejection of its authority and relevance altogether by the state; this made the atheistic, completely secularized states of today possible, leading to the destruction of Christendom. What do you think? What has the test of Gamaliel revealed?
Luther had some legitimate complaints. Had he stuck to reforming the institutional Body of Christ he would probably be honored today as one of Christianity's greatest saints and reformers by the Catholic Church – and Christendom would probably still exist. As it is, all we can do is make a genuine effort to let the Holy Spirit guide us in being a holy, healing ointment in the wounds of the Body of Christ. We have been – Protestants and Catholics alike – salt in those wounds for far too long.
11.7.2011 | 11:58am
Nathan Duffy says:
I always read Jesus' prayer for unity as greatly hinging on the words that follow "ut unum sint". Namely: "May they be one AS WE ARE ONE". And how are the Father and Son one? One in substance, but as distinct persons in the Trinity. Similarly I don't think what is often held to be a sinful division on essentials (analogous to the 'substance' that the Father and Son share), can just be un-sinful differentiation within The Church (analogous to the persons of the Trinity).
I'm not taking a strong stance on which of these the Catholic-Protestant divide is, but I think we should at least realize there is a question to be asked whether it's one or the other rather than just blithely assuming it's the former.
I'm not taking a strong stance on which of these the Catholic-Protestant divide is, but I think we should at least realize there is a question to be asked whether it's one or the other rather than just blithely assuming it's the former.
11.7.2011 | 12:02pm
David Gray says:
>>Had he stuck to reforming the institutional Body of Christ he would probably be honored today as one of Christianity's greatest saints and reformers by the Catholic Church – and Christendom would probably still exist.
Perhaps Rome should not have excommunicated him.
Perhaps Rome should not have excommunicated him.
11.7.2011 | 12:24pm
Luke Sampson says:
Pr Genig: You mentioned three uses for red: Pentecost, Martyrdom, and Ordination. Once you knocked down Martyrdom you immediately state the "only other" signification would be Pentecost. What happened to the third option, Ordination? In this case it would be a celebration of the Holy Spirit's equipping of a specific man, Luther, for a specific task, the restoration of the Gospel message.
11.7.2011 | 12:58pm
patricksarsfield says:
Luke Sampson writes:
"What happened to the third option, Ordination? In this case it would be a celebration of the Holy Spirit's equipping of a specific man, Luther, for a specific task, the restoration of the Gospel message. "
So much for Sola Scriptura. Where in the Bible does it record that Luther was ordained by the Holy Spirit to restore the Gospel message? Nowhere, of course. Protestants made up the unbiblical rule of Sola Scriptura to justify their rejection of the long-standing Tradition of the only Church Jesus ever founded, but they feel no compunction to judge the foul-mouthed, vow-breaking founder of their own religion by hjis own test of Sola Scriptura.
"What happened to the third option, Ordination? In this case it would be a celebration of the Holy Spirit's equipping of a specific man, Luther, for a specific task, the restoration of the Gospel message. "
So much for Sola Scriptura. Where in the Bible does it record that Luther was ordained by the Holy Spirit to restore the Gospel message? Nowhere, of course. Protestants made up the unbiblical rule of Sola Scriptura to justify their rejection of the long-standing Tradition of the only Church Jesus ever founded, but they feel no compunction to judge the foul-mouthed, vow-breaking founder of their own religion by hjis own test of Sola Scriptura.
11.7.2011 | 1:01pm
Pastor Larry A. Peters says:
Red is also the color for the feasts and festivals of the church -- churchly acts like ordination, dedications, consecrations, church anniversaries, etc. so I am surprised that you find the use of red on Reformation such a mystery. It is a day of the church, recalling not simply one Reformation but all renewals that have raised up the Gospel in every generation and place, of which the Great Reformation of Lutheran, et al, was but one, if primary, still one of many and, if God is gracious, not the last of His works to recall the Church to the voice of her formation and recovery that which, from time to time, may become lost or obscured to her...
11.7.2011 | 1:05pm
Matj Cepl says:
> We, on the other hand, do not seem to have mourned [...] especially the sin of helping to break up the visible expression of the Una Sancta, which resulted in plures denominationes.
The only way how I can understand Reformation (and yes, the color should be purple, if the colors mean anything) is that not Protestants but Catholics split church when they refused to reform the Church. Which is the way I thought all Protestants understood the Reformation. If I didn't take this point of view, I don't think I could stay to be a Protestant anymore.
The only way how I can understand Reformation (and yes, the color should be purple, if the colors mean anything) is that not Protestants but Catholics split church when they refused to reform the Church. Which is the way I thought all Protestants understood the Reformation. If I didn't take this point of view, I don't think I could stay to be a Protestant anymore.
11.7.2011 | 1:15pm
pentamom says:
I think recounting Luther's personal history and then discounting "martyrdom" as an aspect of the Reformation is rather simplistic. Granted I am Presbyterian, not Lutheran, but I doubt if even Lutherans think "Luther's personal history" when they think "Reformation." The Reformation -- the thing that Luther started, that cannot be reduced only to his own experience -- resulted in quite a bit of martyrdom, the Huguenots being just one example.
I don't have much opinion on the propriety of red as a liturgical color, or of honoring Reformation Day as a martyrs' feast, I just thought that was a rather off-hand and inaccurate dismissal of the relationship between martyrdom and the Reformation.
Personally, I think Reformation Day ought to be a solemn observance rather than the rather party-like atmosphere that especially the Reformed sometimes want to make it. It strikes me that (even from the Protestant perspective, if we are not Anabaptists) it should be regarded more as the anniversary of a life-saving amputation and a sober giving of thanks for the resultant increase in health, than as a really happy thing.
I don't have much opinion on the propriety of red as a liturgical color, or of honoring Reformation Day as a martyrs' feast, I just thought that was a rather off-hand and inaccurate dismissal of the relationship between martyrdom and the Reformation.
Personally, I think Reformation Day ought to be a solemn observance rather than the rather party-like atmosphere that especially the Reformed sometimes want to make it. It strikes me that (even from the Protestant perspective, if we are not Anabaptists) it should be regarded more as the anniversary of a life-saving amputation and a sober giving of thanks for the resultant increase in health, than as a really happy thing.
11.7.2011 | 1:23pm
Nancy D. says:
It is important to note that Christ Was Baptized into His Church and then said to His disciples, "Follow Me", ...and "Lo I am with you until the end of Time...".
11.7.2011 | 1:39pm
Pastor Spomer says:
Back then, being on the wrong side of a debate could mean that you would be burned alive. We should not then expect the contemporaries to sort out theological issues in a polite, rational, and amiable manner. We must come together anew and respectfully seek first, to communicate (which is rarely done.) then, to identify just how divided we are, and how divided we need to be.
When this topic has come up in the past, some have written with pleasure in the division, along the lines of, “You guys are wrong and I’m so happy you’re not one of us!” If we really believe that our doctrines are correct, then it should be with sadness that we note that others do not share our belief. As Saint Paul wrote, “speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.” Eph. 4:15-16
We have to make distinctions, because there are so many factors theological as well as historical. Should we celebrate the reaffirmation of the catholic teaching that, “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.” Eph. 2:8-10? Yes, of course. Should we celebrate separation? No, of course not.
My family and I visited Washington DC last week. Though we’re Orthodox Lutheran (LC-MS, or ‘Orthodox Northern rite’) I took them to the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception to give my children a feel of being a members of the Una Santa.
The priest mentioned that it was Reformation Sunday and said, in a respectful way, that, although he couldn’t understand why someone would want to celebrate a division, all of us should have an ongoing Reformation in our hearts, as we strive to be what God wills us to be.
After the service I introduced myself and my family. (I found particular pleasure in telling him why I named my daughter Nicaea.) I thanked him for his message, which was very Christocentric. I said, as cordially as I could that it’s not the separation that we celebrated. He affirmed this graciously, and suggested that we pray regularly for each other. God bless you in your work Father Dan.
When this topic has come up in the past, some have written with pleasure in the division, along the lines of, “You guys are wrong and I’m so happy you’re not one of us!” If we really believe that our doctrines are correct, then it should be with sadness that we note that others do not share our belief. As Saint Paul wrote, “speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.” Eph. 4:15-16
We have to make distinctions, because there are so many factors theological as well as historical. Should we celebrate the reaffirmation of the catholic teaching that, “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.” Eph. 2:8-10? Yes, of course. Should we celebrate separation? No, of course not.
My family and I visited Washington DC last week. Though we’re Orthodox Lutheran (LC-MS, or ‘Orthodox Northern rite’) I took them to the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception to give my children a feel of being a members of the Una Santa.
The priest mentioned that it was Reformation Sunday and said, in a respectful way, that, although he couldn’t understand why someone would want to celebrate a division, all of us should have an ongoing Reformation in our hearts, as we strive to be what God wills us to be.
After the service I introduced myself and my family. (I found particular pleasure in telling him why I named my daughter Nicaea.) I thanked him for his message, which was very Christocentric. I said, as cordially as I could that it’s not the separation that we celebrated. He affirmed this graciously, and suggested that we pray regularly for each other. God bless you in your work Father Dan.
11.7.2011 | 1:46pm
Luke Sampson says:
harry wrote:
"What do you think? What has the test of Gamaliel revealed?"
Now that you mention it, the test of Gamaliel lends some credence to the argument that "Christendom", the alliance and even conflation of the secular state and sacred hierarchy, was of human, not divine origin.
"What do you think? What has the test of Gamaliel revealed?"
Now that you mention it, the test of Gamaliel lends some credence to the argument that "Christendom", the alliance and even conflation of the secular state and sacred hierarchy, was of human, not divine origin.
11.7.2011 | 3:03pm
patricksarsfield says:
"With God all things are possible" writes in justification of the Reformation's removal of Catholicism from some territories:
"They were removed, at least in part, as unworthy tenants and the vineyard was given to others who would produce its fruit."
This is propaganda that ignores the reality of what actually went on in the Reformation, which had at least as much to do with raison d'etat and sheer greed as it did with theological imperatives. Henry VIII--a true "worthy," I suppose--stole the monasteries from the Church of Christ and conferred them on himself and his henchmen, notably including such murderers/thieves as Thomas Cromwell and the earl of Bedford. His son's "protectors" then renewed the assault on the Church by extending the state-sanctioned thefts to the local parish churches.
The fruit produced by Henry is doing really well in England and in the US, I suppose, in the mind of "With God...." but it should be remembered that even several of Hebnry Tudor's own successors did not think much of his Protestant Church of England. Of the next six adult successors to the throne of England (from Mary I to James II), only three were and remained Protestant. The other three, Mary I, Charles II and James II recognized the truth claims of the Catholic Church and sought reconciliation with Rome. Indeed, Mary I's Parliament formally requested reunion and in the Fall of 1554 expressed its sorrow for the split.
It got so bad with supposed heads of the Church of England reconciling with Rome that the 1688 Protestant Cabal had to change the law so that the Monarch could not become Catholic EVEN IF HE WANTED TO. To this day, that law stands in England (the recent change allowing a noble to marry a Catholic without losing his/her place in the succession does not permit the potential successor him/herself to become a Catholic. Ironically, a Buddhist could become the head of the Church of England, but not a Catholic).
As to the rest of Protestant Europe, the same wholesale theft of the property of the Catholic Church occurred throughout Northern Germany, the Baltic States, Navarre, the Swiis Protestant statelets and Scandinavia but there has been a lot less written about those thefts, largely because the ruthlessness of the Scandinavian kings and German nobles was so great that Catholicism was basically rooted out of those countries and the history of those countries has been written without much reflection on the viciousness with which the thefts were accomplished.
"They were removed, at least in part, as unworthy tenants and the vineyard was given to others who would produce its fruit."
This is propaganda that ignores the reality of what actually went on in the Reformation, which had at least as much to do with raison d'etat and sheer greed as it did with theological imperatives. Henry VIII--a true "worthy," I suppose--stole the monasteries from the Church of Christ and conferred them on himself and his henchmen, notably including such murderers/thieves as Thomas Cromwell and the earl of Bedford. His son's "protectors" then renewed the assault on the Church by extending the state-sanctioned thefts to the local parish churches.
The fruit produced by Henry is doing really well in England and in the US, I suppose, in the mind of "With God...." but it should be remembered that even several of Hebnry Tudor's own successors did not think much of his Protestant Church of England. Of the next six adult successors to the throne of England (from Mary I to James II), only three were and remained Protestant. The other three, Mary I, Charles II and James II recognized the truth claims of the Catholic Church and sought reconciliation with Rome. Indeed, Mary I's Parliament formally requested reunion and in the Fall of 1554 expressed its sorrow for the split.
It got so bad with supposed heads of the Church of England reconciling with Rome that the 1688 Protestant Cabal had to change the law so that the Monarch could not become Catholic EVEN IF HE WANTED TO. To this day, that law stands in England (the recent change allowing a noble to marry a Catholic without losing his/her place in the succession does not permit the potential successor him/herself to become a Catholic. Ironically, a Buddhist could become the head of the Church of England, but not a Catholic).
As to the rest of Protestant Europe, the same wholesale theft of the property of the Catholic Church occurred throughout Northern Germany, the Baltic States, Navarre, the Swiis Protestant statelets and Scandinavia but there has been a lot less written about those thefts, largely because the ruthlessness of the Scandinavian kings and German nobles was so great that Catholicism was basically rooted out of those countries and the history of those countries has been written without much reflection on the viciousness with which the thefts were accomplished.
11.7.2011 | 3:32pm
Gabriel says:
Harry says: “ “But a Pharisee named Gamaliel... addressed the Sanhedrin: ‘...Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.’ ” / The test Gamaliel proposed turned out to be a good one. In a few centuries it was apparent that the Jewish authorities and the mighty Roman Empire, which also tried to destroy Christianity, had indeed been “fighting against God.” / So, five centuries have passed, was Luther's movement “of human origin” or was it “from God”? Unlike the Jewish temple being destroyed in A.D. 70, the Vatican is still standing.”
You seem to think that the Jewish people and religion have failed Gamliel’s test! True, the Jewish Temple was destroyed, and the Jewish people lost sovereignty over the Land of Israel and were scattered across the earth. But I hardly think that counts as the Jewish people, or the Jewish religion, ‘failing’ – in the sense of collapsing (as Gamliel meant). After all, the Temple was destroyed, but hundreds of thousands of thriving synagogues were built, to be Jewish houses of worship in its stead! The first Temple was also destroyed, but it was rebuilt – no third Temple has been rebuilt, yet, but after thousands of years the Jews have regained sovereignty in the Land of Israel! And they have remained – all the while – a living and thriving people, adherents of a living and thriving religion, thriving in their worship of a Living God! That seems a far cry from failure and collapse to me...
Harry’s line of thought puts me in mind of a passage towards the end of Part I of Rabbi Judah haLevi’s great medieval dialogue ‘The Kuzari’: “Al Khazari: ‘Apply this also in the other direction, and judge their [the non-Jewish religions’] degree in the next world according to their station in this world.’ / The Rabbi: ‘I see thee reproaching us with our degradation and poverty, but the best of other religions boast of both. Do they not glorify him who said: ‘He who smites thee on the right cheek, turn to him the left also; and he who takes away thy coat, let him have thy shirt also.’ He and his friends and followers, after hundreds of years of contumely, flogging and slaying, attained their well-known success, and just in these things they glorify. This is also the history of the founder of Islam and his friends, who eventually prevailed, and became powerful. The nations boast of these, but not of these kings whose power and might are great, whose walls are strong, and whose chariots are terrible. Yet our relation to God is a closer one than if we had reached greatness already on earth.’ ”
You seem to think that the Jewish people and religion have failed Gamliel’s test! True, the Jewish Temple was destroyed, and the Jewish people lost sovereignty over the Land of Israel and were scattered across the earth. But I hardly think that counts as the Jewish people, or the Jewish religion, ‘failing’ – in the sense of collapsing (as Gamliel meant). After all, the Temple was destroyed, but hundreds of thousands of thriving synagogues were built, to be Jewish houses of worship in its stead! The first Temple was also destroyed, but it was rebuilt – no third Temple has been rebuilt, yet, but after thousands of years the Jews have regained sovereignty in the Land of Israel! And they have remained – all the while – a living and thriving people, adherents of a living and thriving religion, thriving in their worship of a Living God! That seems a far cry from failure and collapse to me...
Harry’s line of thought puts me in mind of a passage towards the end of Part I of Rabbi Judah haLevi’s great medieval dialogue ‘The Kuzari’: “Al Khazari: ‘Apply this also in the other direction, and judge their [the non-Jewish religions’] degree in the next world according to their station in this world.’ / The Rabbi: ‘I see thee reproaching us with our degradation and poverty, but the best of other religions boast of both. Do they not glorify him who said: ‘He who smites thee on the right cheek, turn to him the left also; and he who takes away thy coat, let him have thy shirt also.’ He and his friends and followers, after hundreds of years of contumely, flogging and slaying, attained their well-known success, and just in these things they glorify. This is also the history of the founder of Islam and his friends, who eventually prevailed, and became powerful. The nations boast of these, but not of these kings whose power and might are great, whose walls are strong, and whose chariots are terrible. Yet our relation to God is a closer one than if we had reached greatness already on earth.’ ”
11.7.2011 | 4:10pm
harry says:
Hi, Luke Sampson,
"harry wrote:
'What do you think? What has the test of Gamaliel revealed?'
Now that you mention it, the test of Gamaliel lends some credence to the argument that 'Christendom', the alliance and even conflation of the secular state and sacred hierarchy, was of human, not divine origin."
The Scriptures and Tradition attest to the fact that the legitimate authority of the state comes from God. When I say "Christendom" I mean those nations where a just relationship between Church and state exists, each exercising its own legitimate authority. Today, Christendom no longer exists as the Church has submitted to completely secularized "atheocracies," which have claimed for themselves authority over innocent human life that belongs only to God, Who clearly commanded "You shall not kill," referring to the truth that it is He who calls human life into being, fashioning it in His own image, and it is He Who calls it back to Himself when He is good and ready to do so. Mere mortals simply have no authority to deliberately take innocent human life or to rule that others may do so. Submission to this deification of the state is idolatrous in so far as our silent compliance renders unto Caesar that which belongs only to God. It is no insignificant detail of history that our current situation came about for the reasons mentioned in my previous post.
This dismemberment of the Body of Christ and the rejection of its institutional authority has had consequences, especially for the children in the womb who are dismembered daily. I don't see how the latter dismemberment can end until the former dismemberment is brought to an end. It appears the condition of the Body of Christ as a whole depends upon our care of the body of Christ in His least brothers and sisters, as well as the reverse. Like Lazarus, who the rich man didn't hurt or bother – he just lived as though what was happening to Lazarus wasn't happening – the plight of the child in the womb isn't so much one we approve of as much as one we have learned to live with as though nothing deserving our attention is taking place.
There *is* something deserving our attention taking place: the greatest holocaust of innocent human life in the history of the world made possible by idolatry. It appears that this holocaust can only end when the body of Christ is once again made whole, the unity of which will enable it to reestablish a just relationship between Church and state, bringing Christendom into existence once again.
"harry wrote:
'What do you think? What has the test of Gamaliel revealed?'
Now that you mention it, the test of Gamaliel lends some credence to the argument that 'Christendom', the alliance and even conflation of the secular state and sacred hierarchy, was of human, not divine origin."
The Scriptures and Tradition attest to the fact that the legitimate authority of the state comes from God. When I say "Christendom" I mean those nations where a just relationship between Church and state exists, each exercising its own legitimate authority. Today, Christendom no longer exists as the Church has submitted to completely secularized "atheocracies," which have claimed for themselves authority over innocent human life that belongs only to God, Who clearly commanded "You shall not kill," referring to the truth that it is He who calls human life into being, fashioning it in His own image, and it is He Who calls it back to Himself when He is good and ready to do so. Mere mortals simply have no authority to deliberately take innocent human life or to rule that others may do so. Submission to this deification of the state is idolatrous in so far as our silent compliance renders unto Caesar that which belongs only to God. It is no insignificant detail of history that our current situation came about for the reasons mentioned in my previous post.
This dismemberment of the Body of Christ and the rejection of its institutional authority has had consequences, especially for the children in the womb who are dismembered daily. I don't see how the latter dismemberment can end until the former dismemberment is brought to an end. It appears the condition of the Body of Christ as a whole depends upon our care of the body of Christ in His least brothers and sisters, as well as the reverse. Like Lazarus, who the rich man didn't hurt or bother – he just lived as though what was happening to Lazarus wasn't happening – the plight of the child in the womb isn't so much one we approve of as much as one we have learned to live with as though nothing deserving our attention is taking place.
There *is* something deserving our attention taking place: the greatest holocaust of innocent human life in the history of the world made possible by idolatry. It appears that this holocaust can only end when the body of Christ is once again made whole, the unity of which will enable it to reestablish a just relationship between Church and state, bringing Christendom into existence once again.
11.7.2011 | 5:00pm
Matthew N. Petersen says:
@pentamom: Regarding the Protestant martyrs: if we are honest, however, we would recognize that the Protestants made as many Catholic martyrs as the Catholics made Protestant martyrs. Fox, for instance, details the Marian martyrs. But Elizabeth had as many Catholics executed as Mary did Protestants.
11.7.2011 | 5:42pm
@ patricksarsfield - "The fruit produced by Henry is doing really well in England and in the US, I suppose, in the mind of 'With God....' "
Wow. Are church structures, hierarchies, rulers, organizations and church properties all you see?
I had in mind the apparent shifts in the movement of the Spirit of God, demonstrated by such spiritual fruit as the blood-bought translation and delivery of the scriptures into the common languages of Europe, previously opposed and forcibly prevented by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church; the unbroken 120+ year prayer meeting of the Moravians; the explosion of genuine faith and piety throughout Europe during the Reformation; the great revivals in Britain and the United States including the Great Awakening; the great world mission movements that have reached the ends of the earth; and the translation of the Bible into thousands of languages. What achievements in the Catholic Church in the same time period can compare with those?
If anything, the subsequent cratering of various Protestant denominations in many parts of Europe reinforces my point that they were at risk of committing (as demonstrated by their actual committing of) the same sins as their Catholic predecessors, and came under similar judgments. If the Protestant churches amassed properties and enriched themselves, whether by theft or other means, this was no doubt part of what corrupted them too. God is no respecter of persons, or organizations.
Wow. Are church structures, hierarchies, rulers, organizations and church properties all you see?
I had in mind the apparent shifts in the movement of the Spirit of God, demonstrated by such spiritual fruit as the blood-bought translation and delivery of the scriptures into the common languages of Europe, previously opposed and forcibly prevented by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church; the unbroken 120+ year prayer meeting of the Moravians; the explosion of genuine faith and piety throughout Europe during the Reformation; the great revivals in Britain and the United States including the Great Awakening; the great world mission movements that have reached the ends of the earth; and the translation of the Bible into thousands of languages. What achievements in the Catholic Church in the same time period can compare with those?
If anything, the subsequent cratering of various Protestant denominations in many parts of Europe reinforces my point that they were at risk of committing (as demonstrated by their actual committing of) the same sins as their Catholic predecessors, and came under similar judgments. If the Protestant churches amassed properties and enriched themselves, whether by theft or other means, this was no doubt part of what corrupted them too. God is no respecter of persons, or organizations.
11.7.2011 | 6:00pm
pentamom says:
Matthew -- I'm not really interested in disputing that. I'm just saying that a quick dismissal of "martyrdom" associated with the Reformation purely because Luther died in his bed doesn't strike me as very clear thinking. Besides, it's hard to call the casualties of both sides of a struggle "martyrs" if you happen to believe one side was significantly more in the right than the other -- and we're talking about Protestants who celebrate Reformation Day, not people who consider the claims of both sides something close to equal. That point of view tends to make one side martyrs, and the others victims of their own error (regardless of how justly you believe their opponents to have acted.)
11.7.2011 | 7:03pm
Greg says:
The fruit of the reformation is a shattered vase. A vase that continues to be ground into even smaller bits every time some new Protestant denomination, or sect is founded - to include, especially, every "non-denominational" church. Luther didn't throw out the baby or the bath water, he broke the tub!
11.7.2011 | 7:20pm
Eleanor says:
How should we celebrate the Reformation? How about 2 days?
People get to celebrate their leaders. Parishes get to celebrate their founding anniversary. Would it be poor taste for the Jesuits to celebrate the day their order got re-founded? There were many who didn't want to see them come back. The same for evangelicals. We aren't celebrating schism. We are celebrating having the Gospel in Word and Sacrament and that we are saved by Grace, grace free and boundless. This is the joy behind our Reformation day celebration.
But as Pastor Genig put so well, probably all of us would do for a day of mourning that the various denominations seem more inclined to splinter further than to reconcile. And that deserves weeping.
So, suggestion: Red Reformation Day and Purple for the day we mourn our sad divisions.
People get to celebrate their leaders. Parishes get to celebrate their founding anniversary. Would it be poor taste for the Jesuits to celebrate the day their order got re-founded? There were many who didn't want to see them come back. The same for evangelicals. We aren't celebrating schism. We are celebrating having the Gospel in Word and Sacrament and that we are saved by Grace, grace free and boundless. This is the joy behind our Reformation day celebration.
But as Pastor Genig put so well, probably all of us would do for a day of mourning that the various denominations seem more inclined to splinter further than to reconcile. And that deserves weeping.
So, suggestion: Red Reformation Day and Purple for the day we mourn our sad divisions.
11.7.2011 | 8:28pm
A.M. says:
Read the article sited above as 'Catholic Luther '; surprised to read in there about Luther's search as to 'how can I get a gracious God ' !
Is not the commandement that we love God with all our heart , mind and strenghth and to love our neighbor as ourselves !
Could Luther have missed the point that even indulgences could have been seen with a benign eye , in the context of the above - making up for what would have been the lacking in love of a deceased family member , with even the feeble attempt one is capable of , as an act of love and faith that a good God who is gracious would accept for the genuineness of one's heart and faith , in such an act !
' How to get God ' ! - is it the underlying human greed that others with ill gotten wealth might be 'getting more God ' that led to the revolt , that spread , amidst the greed in like minded hearts !
It is a good thing that the vigil Mass for All Saints Day gets celebrated in many churches , on Oct 31st - asking a gracious God , to give us the help of those 'neighbor saints ' in heaven , who have perfectd their love for God , to help us too , so that they can rejoice too , in being allowed to love us (poor ) neighbors with their help and thus it goes on , in His family ...many of those saints , also ancestors of the ones who now ? errantly searching as to how to get and seemingly forgetting that 'in Christ ' - ons would be trying to love as
He does , even as one would be offering up His love, on behalf of all who love imperfectly, which is all of us !
Today happens to be the 8th day of Oct 31st ; in The Church, there is the Octave of Easter , now celebrated as Mercy Sunday ; it is preceded in many places by a 9 day Novena , in which the faithful are asked to bring diffrent persons , to His mercy ( which in turn would mean that the faithful too would have a merciful heart toward all ); seems that would be one way, to love Him , with all our mind and heart too and loving others .
Such prayers , raised up , in many forms , from many bodies , some of them like that of the virgins wo had gone to buy their oil from the 'merchants ' of the world who supplied them with their power , instead of the oil of faithful love for The Bride - let us hope that they can be allowed in , by the pleadings of the Bride and all the virgins , into the one happy big Banquet !
Is not the commandement that we love God with all our heart , mind and strenghth and to love our neighbor as ourselves !
Could Luther have missed the point that even indulgences could have been seen with a benign eye , in the context of the above - making up for what would have been the lacking in love of a deceased family member , with even the feeble attempt one is capable of , as an act of love and faith that a good God who is gracious would accept for the genuineness of one's heart and faith , in such an act !
' How to get God ' ! - is it the underlying human greed that others with ill gotten wealth might be 'getting more God ' that led to the revolt , that spread , amidst the greed in like minded hearts !
It is a good thing that the vigil Mass for All Saints Day gets celebrated in many churches , on Oct 31st - asking a gracious God , to give us the help of those 'neighbor saints ' in heaven , who have perfectd their love for God , to help us too , so that they can rejoice too , in being allowed to love us (poor ) neighbors with their help and thus it goes on , in His family ...many of those saints , also ancestors of the ones who now ? errantly searching as to how to get and seemingly forgetting that 'in Christ ' - ons would be trying to love as
He does , even as one would be offering up His love, on behalf of all who love imperfectly, which is all of us !
Today happens to be the 8th day of Oct 31st ; in The Church, there is the Octave of Easter , now celebrated as Mercy Sunday ; it is preceded in many places by a 9 day Novena , in which the faithful are asked to bring diffrent persons , to His mercy ( which in turn would mean that the faithful too would have a merciful heart toward all ); seems that would be one way, to love Him , with all our mind and heart too and loving others .
Such prayers , raised up , in many forms , from many bodies , some of them like that of the virgins wo had gone to buy their oil from the 'merchants ' of the world who supplied them with their power , instead of the oil of faithful love for The Bride - let us hope that they can be allowed in , by the pleadings of the Bride and all the virgins , into the one happy big Banquet !
11.8.2011 | 11:47am
harry says:
Hi, Gabriel,
"You seem to think that the Jewish people and religion have failed Gamliel’s test!"
No. I think Christianity passed it. As Gamaliel in his wisdom pointed out of movements that fail the test, "all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing." The rejection of the authority of the Church proved to be much worse than if we could say of it, "it all came to nothing." It splintered into thousands of contradictory versions of Christianity, body parts all refusing to submit to the spiritual authority of the Body from which they came. The fruit of that, by which we are to judge things, I have already pointed out.
By the way, I appreciated your thoughtful comments.
"You seem to think that the Jewish people and religion have failed Gamliel’s test!"
No. I think Christianity passed it. As Gamaliel in his wisdom pointed out of movements that fail the test, "all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing." The rejection of the authority of the Church proved to be much worse than if we could say of it, "it all came to nothing." It splintered into thousands of contradictory versions of Christianity, body parts all refusing to submit to the spiritual authority of the Body from which they came. The fruit of that, by which we are to judge things, I have already pointed out.
By the way, I appreciated your thoughtful comments.
11.8.2011 | 11:53am
patricksarsfield says:
"With God" writes in response to me:
"I had in mind the apparent shifts in the movement of the Spirit of God, demonstrated by such spiritual fruit as the blood-bought translation and delivery of the scriptures into the common languages of Europe, previously opposed and forcibly prevented by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church; the unbroken 120+ year prayer meeting of the Moravians; the explosion of genuine faith and piety throughout Europe during the Reformation; the great revivals in Britain and the United States including the Great Awakening; the great world mission movements that have reached the ends of the earth; and the translation of the Bible into thousands of languages. What achievements in the Catholic Church in the same time period can compare with those? "
Huh? Protestantism is about half the size of Catholicism throughout the World, despite its alliance with the kings and powers of Europe. Let's look at the examples you give.
The Moravian Brethren are a little nit that has brought fewer people to Christ throughout the World than the Malabar Rite of Eastern Rite Catholics in the Kerala Region of India, or the Maronite Eastetrn Rite Catholics of Lebanon, and certainly there are fewer Moravian Brethren throughout the World right now than there are Western Rite Catholics in the single archdiocese of Los Angeles.
As to the Great Awakenings in Britain and America, the current lukewarmness of the faith of the Protestants of both places suggests the ephemeralness of those supplosed awakenings. Indeed, it could be argued that those awakenings just led to the American and English Protestant churches just rolling over and turning on the "spiritual snooze alarm."
As to Missionary activities, there are hundreds of millions of Catholics both in Africa and Asia. How many Moravians? How many Anglicans? How many Methodists? How many Baptists?
As to the claim that the Church had forbidden the translation of the Bible into the languages of Europe prior to the Reformation, that is, of course, entirely false. Protestant mythology.
Finally, "With God" has not addressed my showing that the Reformation, in large measure, was a cynical grab for the property of the Church by the kings of Northern Europe and their henchmen. [I will address "With God's" entirely false argument concerning the supposed lack of money raising in the Protestant churches in a separate post].
"I had in mind the apparent shifts in the movement of the Spirit of God, demonstrated by such spiritual fruit as the blood-bought translation and delivery of the scriptures into the common languages of Europe, previously opposed and forcibly prevented by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church; the unbroken 120+ year prayer meeting of the Moravians; the explosion of genuine faith and piety throughout Europe during the Reformation; the great revivals in Britain and the United States including the Great Awakening; the great world mission movements that have reached the ends of the earth; and the translation of the Bible into thousands of languages. What achievements in the Catholic Church in the same time period can compare with those? "
Huh? Protestantism is about half the size of Catholicism throughout the World, despite its alliance with the kings and powers of Europe. Let's look at the examples you give.
The Moravian Brethren are a little nit that has brought fewer people to Christ throughout the World than the Malabar Rite of Eastern Rite Catholics in the Kerala Region of India, or the Maronite Eastetrn Rite Catholics of Lebanon, and certainly there are fewer Moravian Brethren throughout the World right now than there are Western Rite Catholics in the single archdiocese of Los Angeles.
As to the Great Awakenings in Britain and America, the current lukewarmness of the faith of the Protestants of both places suggests the ephemeralness of those supplosed awakenings. Indeed, it could be argued that those awakenings just led to the American and English Protestant churches just rolling over and turning on the "spiritual snooze alarm."
As to Missionary activities, there are hundreds of millions of Catholics both in Africa and Asia. How many Moravians? How many Anglicans? How many Methodists? How many Baptists?
As to the claim that the Church had forbidden the translation of the Bible into the languages of Europe prior to the Reformation, that is, of course, entirely false. Protestant mythology.
Finally, "With God" has not addressed my showing that the Reformation, in large measure, was a cynical grab for the property of the Church by the kings of Northern Europe and their henchmen. [I will address "With God's" entirely false argument concerning the supposed lack of money raising in the Protestant churches in a separate post].
11.8.2011 | 12:16pm
patricksarsfield says:
"With God...." evades my points that the kings of Northern Europe set up their Protestant churches, in large measure, to rob the Catholic Church of its property with this assertion that does not even admit the truth that Protestant churches are extremely concerned with money all the time:
"If the Protestant churches amassed properties and enriched themselves, whether by theft or other means, this was no doubt part of what corrupted them too. God is no respecter of persons, or organizations. "
In truth, all one needs to do is listen to a Gospel radio station to know that even the most unstructured protestant churches spend a lot of time and effort in money-raising. The real difference between the Catholic Church and the protestant churches when it comes to money-raising is that the churches spend their money on different things. Protestant propaganda points to the decoration of the interior of Catholic churches ("all that gold, etc."), but the truth is that Protestant congregations need to contribute more money for the support of their churches than Catholic congregations do. (Polls consistently show that Protestants contribute about 2.5% of their income supporting their churches, while Catholics contribute just 1.5%).
Why the difference? Protestant churches need to spend their wealth on the support of the minister and his family while the Catholic Church does not need to worry about the family because of the celibacy rule. As a result, the Catholic Church can spend a lot more on the interior of its sanctuaries while the Protestant churches tend to spend their decorating budgets on the interior of the minister's residence (or maybe for his vacation home or retirement fund).
And as to God not being a respecter of organizations? Whether He "respects" the Church or not is beside the point; He did promise to remain with it until the End of the Age (Matt. 28:20). That is in the Bible while "With God's" claims about the Great Awakenings are not.
"If the Protestant churches amassed properties and enriched themselves, whether by theft or other means, this was no doubt part of what corrupted them too. God is no respecter of persons, or organizations. "
In truth, all one needs to do is listen to a Gospel radio station to know that even the most unstructured protestant churches spend a lot of time and effort in money-raising. The real difference between the Catholic Church and the protestant churches when it comes to money-raising is that the churches spend their money on different things. Protestant propaganda points to the decoration of the interior of Catholic churches ("all that gold, etc."), but the truth is that Protestant congregations need to contribute more money for the support of their churches than Catholic congregations do. (Polls consistently show that Protestants contribute about 2.5% of their income supporting their churches, while Catholics contribute just 1.5%).
Why the difference? Protestant churches need to spend their wealth on the support of the minister and his family while the Catholic Church does not need to worry about the family because of the celibacy rule. As a result, the Catholic Church can spend a lot more on the interior of its sanctuaries while the Protestant churches tend to spend their decorating budgets on the interior of the minister's residence (or maybe for his vacation home or retirement fund).
And as to God not being a respecter of organizations? Whether He "respects" the Church or not is beside the point; He did promise to remain with it until the End of the Age (Matt. 28:20). That is in the Bible while "With God's" claims about the Great Awakenings are not.
11.8.2011 | 1:03pm
@ patricksarsfield - "As to the claim that the Church had forbidden the translation of the Bible into the languages of Europe prior to the Reformation, that is, of course, entirely false. Protestant mythology."
Patrick, your untruths are showing. Your case is built on sand.
Here's an excerpt from http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/
"The first hand-written English language Bible manuscripts were produced in the 1380's AD by John Wycliffe, an Oxford professor, scholar, and theologian. Wycliffe...was well-known throughout Europe for his opposition to the teaching of the organized Church, which he believed to be contrary to the Bible. With the help of his followers, called the Lollards, and his assistant Purvey, and many other faithful scribes, Wycliffe produced dozens of English language manuscript copies of the scriptures. They were translated out of the Latin Vulgate, which was the only source text available to Wycliffe. The Pope was so infuriated by his teachings and his translation of the Bible into English, that 44 years after Wycliffe had died, he ordered the bones to be dug-up, crushed, and scattered in the river!"
Read more about Hus there also, who was burned at the stake by the Roman Catholic church with Wycliff's manuscript used as kindling for the fire. he predicted in 1415 that God would raise up someone else to advocate God's truth. In 1517, Martin Luther nailed his theses to the door of the church.
Patrick, your untruths are showing. Your case is built on sand.
Here's an excerpt from http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/
"The first hand-written English language Bible manuscripts were produced in the 1380's AD by John Wycliffe, an Oxford professor, scholar, and theologian. Wycliffe...was well-known throughout Europe for his opposition to the teaching of the organized Church, which he believed to be contrary to the Bible. With the help of his followers, called the Lollards, and his assistant Purvey, and many other faithful scribes, Wycliffe produced dozens of English language manuscript copies of the scriptures. They were translated out of the Latin Vulgate, which was the only source text available to Wycliffe. The Pope was so infuriated by his teachings and his translation of the Bible into English, that 44 years after Wycliffe had died, he ordered the bones to be dug-up, crushed, and scattered in the river!"
Read more about Hus there also, who was burned at the stake by the Roman Catholic church with Wycliff's manuscript used as kindling for the fire. he predicted in 1415 that God would raise up someone else to advocate God's truth. In 1517, Martin Luther nailed his theses to the door of the church.
11.8.2011 | 3:07pm
harry says:
Hello, With God all things r possible, patricksarsfield,
The truth is that there was a lot of shameless sin on both sides. A true history of the reformaiton is not an account of "good guys" and "bad guys." There were too many bad guys and not enough good guys among Catholics and Protestants alike. What is more important, I think, is that we deal with the results of what happened -- not focusing on whose fault it was, there was grevious fault on both sides -- but admitting that the result was harmful to Christianity's ability to influence and evangelize the world, and figuring out how we are going to reestablish the unity Christ so ardently prayed that we would have. I wonder if He wasn't considering the present state of affairs when He so fervently prayed that we would be one even as He and the Father are one. God wills our unity, that the Body of Christ be made whole once again. What are we going to do about that?
The truth is that there was a lot of shameless sin on both sides. A true history of the reformaiton is not an account of "good guys" and "bad guys." There were too many bad guys and not enough good guys among Catholics and Protestants alike. What is more important, I think, is that we deal with the results of what happened -- not focusing on whose fault it was, there was grevious fault on both sides -- but admitting that the result was harmful to Christianity's ability to influence and evangelize the world, and figuring out how we are going to reestablish the unity Christ so ardently prayed that we would have. I wonder if He wasn't considering the present state of affairs when He so fervently prayed that we would be one even as He and the Father are one. God wills our unity, that the Body of Christ be made whole once again. What are we going to do about that?
11.8.2011 | 3:23pm
Gabriel says:
Harry – many thanks for your response to my response... You say that you didn’t intend to claim that Judaism failed Gamaliel’s test, but rather that Christianity passed it. You did say, in your initial comment, though, that “The test Gamaliel proposed turned out to be a good one. In a few centuries it was apparent that the Jewish authorities and the mighty Roman Empire, which also tried to destroy Christianity, had indeed been ‘fighting against God’.” – That sounds like a judgement of failure, though (to be judged as ‘fighting against God’).
Apart from its polemical intent, the quote from Judah haLevi’s ‘Kuzari’ does seem to me to contain a good – and one that is profoundly contrary to the very idea of Gamaliel’s test. Namely, Gamaliel’s test seems to take worldly success to be a sign of Divine favour or intention. But looking at the world, worldly success seems to be a misconceived way of judging Divine favour. I’m not Christian – as you may have guessed! – but I would have thought that one of the great insights of the Christian religion is that this is a bad way of looking at things – after all, Jesus’ ‘success’ was his being crucified and spat at, and God’s great power was his ‘self-emptying’ to become a slave (very close the Jewish mystical conceptions of God’s ‘self-contraction’ as a prelude to and condition of creation).
Philipians, chap 2: “In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death— even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
To mention another idea of the Jewish mystics, this is a ‘world of lies’. It is not a reflection of pure goodness and holiness, but - one could say - it is fallen and twisted in many ways. Thus the apparent failure – or the weakening – of a cause is not the same of its rejection by God, or a sign of its unGodliness.
Re-reading your comments, however, there seems to be a ‘test’ quite separate form Gamaliel’s, which you are using. – Namely that of “By their fruits shall you know them”. This seems to be the principle you are appealing to to in your comments about the negative fruits of the Reformation. And this seems to me to be a much better test than that of Gamaliel, which focuses on the worldy fate of a movement, rather than its moral or spiritual fruits. Maybe, however, Gamaliel meant something closer to this than I have allowed for...
Apart from its polemical intent, the quote from Judah haLevi’s ‘Kuzari’ does seem to me to contain a good – and one that is profoundly contrary to the very idea of Gamaliel’s test. Namely, Gamaliel’s test seems to take worldly success to be a sign of Divine favour or intention. But looking at the world, worldly success seems to be a misconceived way of judging Divine favour. I’m not Christian – as you may have guessed! – but I would have thought that one of the great insights of the Christian religion is that this is a bad way of looking at things – after all, Jesus’ ‘success’ was his being crucified and spat at, and God’s great power was his ‘self-emptying’ to become a slave (very close the Jewish mystical conceptions of God’s ‘self-contraction’ as a prelude to and condition of creation).
Philipians, chap 2: “In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death— even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
To mention another idea of the Jewish mystics, this is a ‘world of lies’. It is not a reflection of pure goodness and holiness, but - one could say - it is fallen and twisted in many ways. Thus the apparent failure – or the weakening – of a cause is not the same of its rejection by God, or a sign of its unGodliness.
Re-reading your comments, however, there seems to be a ‘test’ quite separate form Gamaliel’s, which you are using. – Namely that of “By their fruits shall you know them”. This seems to be the principle you are appealing to to in your comments about the negative fruits of the Reformation. And this seems to me to be a much better test than that of Gamaliel, which focuses on the worldy fate of a movement, rather than its moral or spiritual fruits. Maybe, however, Gamaliel meant something closer to this than I have allowed for...
11.8.2011 | 6:02pm
@ harry - "God wills our unity, that the Body of Christ be made whole once again. What are we going to do about that?"
Thank you. Let's repent of our own sins, pray for unity and watch for opportunities that God provides.
Thank you. Let's repent of our own sins, pray for unity and watch for opportunities that God provides.
11.8.2011 | 7:46pm
harry says:
Hi, Gabriel,
Although I certainly believe in judging things by their fruits, considering Who said that was the way to judge, I think Gamaliel had a wise observation based his knowledge of God's way of doing things.
I took Gamaliel's point to be that if a movement is of divine origin you won't be able to thwart it, more than that if something has the appearance of failure it is not of divine origin. Although I certainly agree with you and the Jewish mystics that we can't always correctly judge things using the world's standards of success.
My thought was that the reformation, if it had truly been a movement of God, would have overwhelmed the "old" Christianity much as Christianity became a much more dominant force in the Roman Empire than the Jewish religion and paganism combined had been, and did so in spite of significant powers opposing it. (A Jewish gentleman I used to work with would tell me that all the Christians had going for them was a better marketing strategy. ;o) We used to have some great discussions.)
The reformation, rather than it overwhelming the "old" Christianity, found its "followers were dispersed," to use Gamaliel's expression, into numerous contradictory versions of Christianity, a dispersal that took place just as Gamaliel said would happen if a movement was not of divine origin. That in itself, as you pointed out, might be a case of our judging by worldly standards. But the rejection of an authority established by God is not honored by God according to the Scriptures. The Scriptures testify to the fact that God tends to put somebody in charge and stand by them. (Think of the earth opening and swallowing up those who rebelled against Moses in Numbers 16) What Gamaliel knew happens when an authority established by God is rejected, unless He has established a new authority, should and did happen after the Church's authority was rejected by the reformers -- a dispersal and a splintering of those following men they shouldn't have been following. That didn't happen when the Christians denied the authority of those in the “Chair of Moses.” It did happen when the Protestants denied the authority of the “Chair of Peter.”
There was a new order of things establish by God in the case of St. Peter's disobedience of those in the “Chair of Moses.” Before that was established, the followers of Jesus were to obey those sitting in the Chair of Moses (Mt 23:2-1). But afterwords:
“Then they called them in again and commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John replied, “Which is right in God’s eyes: to listen to you, or to him? You be the judges!”
--Acts 4:18-19
“The apostles were brought in and made to appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. “We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,” he said. … Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than human beings!”
--Acts 5:27-29
God honored Peter's disobedience. In the case of the rejection of the authority God placed in His Church by the reformers there was, as expected, a dispersal of their followers.
In all fairness, as I said before, Luther had some legitimate complaints. There were abuses that needed to be dealt with. The dismemberment of the Body of Christ was not Luther's intent, although that is what happened due to sinfulness on the part of both Protestants and Catholics. It is hard for contemporary Christians to forgive the other side and begin restoring the unity of the Body of Christ -- one would think 500 years would be enough time to get over things and forgive each other, especially for the followers of One Who said we have to forgive seventy times seven times and Who insisted we love our enemies. There is nothing Christian or virtuous about clinging to resentments and failing to treat the wounds in the Body of Christ.
As for doctrinal differences, a return to the faith of the Church Fathers as the basis of our common belief and unity would be as hard to accept for many Catholics as it would be for Protestants. ;o)
Although I certainly believe in judging things by their fruits, considering Who said that was the way to judge, I think Gamaliel had a wise observation based his knowledge of God's way of doing things.
I took Gamaliel's point to be that if a movement is of divine origin you won't be able to thwart it, more than that if something has the appearance of failure it is not of divine origin. Although I certainly agree with you and the Jewish mystics that we can't always correctly judge things using the world's standards of success.
My thought was that the reformation, if it had truly been a movement of God, would have overwhelmed the "old" Christianity much as Christianity became a much more dominant force in the Roman Empire than the Jewish religion and paganism combined had been, and did so in spite of significant powers opposing it. (A Jewish gentleman I used to work with would tell me that all the Christians had going for them was a better marketing strategy. ;o) We used to have some great discussions.)
The reformation, rather than it overwhelming the "old" Christianity, found its "followers were dispersed," to use Gamaliel's expression, into numerous contradictory versions of Christianity, a dispersal that took place just as Gamaliel said would happen if a movement was not of divine origin. That in itself, as you pointed out, might be a case of our judging by worldly standards. But the rejection of an authority established by God is not honored by God according to the Scriptures. The Scriptures testify to the fact that God tends to put somebody in charge and stand by them. (Think of the earth opening and swallowing up those who rebelled against Moses in Numbers 16) What Gamaliel knew happens when an authority established by God is rejected, unless He has established a new authority, should and did happen after the Church's authority was rejected by the reformers -- a dispersal and a splintering of those following men they shouldn't have been following. That didn't happen when the Christians denied the authority of those in the “Chair of Moses.” It did happen when the Protestants denied the authority of the “Chair of Peter.”
There was a new order of things establish by God in the case of St. Peter's disobedience of those in the “Chair of Moses.” Before that was established, the followers of Jesus were to obey those sitting in the Chair of Moses (Mt 23:2-1). But afterwords:
“Then they called them in again and commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John replied, “Which is right in God’s eyes: to listen to you, or to him? You be the judges!”
--Acts 4:18-19
“The apostles were brought in and made to appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. “We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,” he said. … Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than human beings!”
--Acts 5:27-29
God honored Peter's disobedience. In the case of the rejection of the authority God placed in His Church by the reformers there was, as expected, a dispersal of their followers.
In all fairness, as I said before, Luther had some legitimate complaints. There were abuses that needed to be dealt with. The dismemberment of the Body of Christ was not Luther's intent, although that is what happened due to sinfulness on the part of both Protestants and Catholics. It is hard for contemporary Christians to forgive the other side and begin restoring the unity of the Body of Christ -- one would think 500 years would be enough time to get over things and forgive each other, especially for the followers of One Who said we have to forgive seventy times seven times and Who insisted we love our enemies. There is nothing Christian or virtuous about clinging to resentments and failing to treat the wounds in the Body of Christ.
As for doctrinal differences, a return to the faith of the Church Fathers as the basis of our common belief and unity would be as hard to accept for many Catholics as it would be for Protestants. ;o)
11.8.2011 | 9:15pm
patricksarsfield says:
In response to my showing of the falsity of his claim that the Church had forbidden the translation of the Bible into the languages of Europe prior to the Reformation, "With God" proffers the disputes between the Church and two early heretics, Hus and Wycliffe that involved, inter alia, disputes about their translations of the Bible. While it is true that the Church certainly did have disputes with those particular persons, that does not mean that the Church forbade any translation of the Bible into the vernacular tongue. In fact, there were a number of translations of the Bible into vernacular tongues prior to the Reformation. Thus, as noted, "With God's"original claim was false.
11.9.2011 | 12:33am
Franz says:
Of course the reformation is not a "new Pentecost". But it is reformation of the church, a mighty act of God. As the Preface to the Book of Concord put it (Kolb / Wengert edition, p. 5) "In these last days of this transitory world the Almighty God, out of immeasurable love, grace, and mercy for the human race, has allowed the light of his holy gospel and his Word that alone grants salvation to appear and shine forth purely, unalloyed and unadulterated out of the superstitious, papistic darkness for the German nation, our beloved fatherland." Or the introduction to the Formula of Concord (Kolb / Wengert, 524): "By the Almighty's special grace and mercy the teaching of the chief articles of our Christian religion (which had been hideously obscured by human teaching and regulations under the papacy) was purified and elucidated anew on the basis of God's Word by Dr. Luther, of blessed and holy memory." The reformation celebrates God's grace in reforming His Church, and act that is rightly connected to God the Holy Spirit by appropriation.
Traditionally, Lutherans did not understand themselves as "a reforming movement in the church Catholic". That is the language of the "Mission Affirmations" of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod of 1965. Again, in the introduction to the Formula of Concord, they call themselves "our reformed churches" - obviously not in the sense of Reformed=Calvinistic, but the churches re-formed, purified. That is much more than a "movement".
Rome excommunicated the Lutherans because Rome rejected their teaching. If Rome is right, then Lutherans should repent and return and submit to the Pope. If the Book of Concord was and Rome still does not teach the gospel purely and rightly, then Lutherans cannot, for the gospel's sake, return. It makes no sense to repent for sins of others. We can regret their sins, be ashamed for them. But we can only repent for our own sin. But I, as a Lutheran, cannot repent for the teachings as they are contained in the Lutheran Confessions.
Traditionally, Lutherans did not understand themselves as "a reforming movement in the church Catholic". That is the language of the "Mission Affirmations" of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod of 1965. Again, in the introduction to the Formula of Concord, they call themselves "our reformed churches" - obviously not in the sense of Reformed=Calvinistic, but the churches re-formed, purified. That is much more than a "movement".
Rome excommunicated the Lutherans because Rome rejected their teaching. If Rome is right, then Lutherans should repent and return and submit to the Pope. If the Book of Concord was and Rome still does not teach the gospel purely and rightly, then Lutherans cannot, for the gospel's sake, return. It makes no sense to repent for sins of others. We can regret their sins, be ashamed for them. But we can only repent for our own sin. But I, as a Lutheran, cannot repent for the teachings as they are contained in the Lutheran Confessions.
11.12.2011 | 11:12am
Daniel Leach says:
I read your article, "Should We Celebrate Reformation Sunday" with interest. Your call to "Repent" for Luther's attempts to reform the Catholic Church and to don purple "sackcloth" as a sign of penance begs the question, why are you a Lutheran. Your theology appears to be more consistent with the Roman Church. Perhaps you should consider converting.
11.12.2011 | 8:53pm
Matt Yonke says:
Daniel -- It does not beg the question, it raises the question. See:
http://begthequestion.info/
Begging the question is assuming what one is trying to prove. I hate to be the combox grammar police, but this particular error sets my teeth on edge.
But I'm always happy to raise the question of why any given Protestant isn't returning. Professor Carl Trueman once noted that all Protestants should constantly be asking themselves why they aren't returning. He still believes he has good reason for not, but the question is good and necessary.
http://begthequestion.info/
Begging the question is assuming what one is trying to prove. I hate to be the combox grammar police, but this particular error sets my teeth on edge.
But I'm always happy to raise the question of why any given Protestant isn't returning. Professor Carl Trueman once noted that all Protestants should constantly be asking themselves why they aren't returning. He still believes he has good reason for not, but the question is good and necessary.
11.13.2011 | 2:22pm
Rev. Paul T. McCain says:
Obviously First Things enjoys these kinds of articles by hand-wringing Lutherans. The tragedy of the Reformation is not that it happened, but that it was not a completed work. The Council of Trent slammed the door shut, and bolted it shut, against the good news of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, on account of Christ, alone. That fact is to be mourned.
However, the fact that the Reformation happened, is something to rejoice in and celebrate.
The article reminds me of something Luther once said about Erasmus' writings being like serving poop on a silver platter.
However, the fact that the Reformation happened, is something to rejoice in and celebrate.
The article reminds me of something Luther once said about Erasmus' writings being like serving poop on a silver platter.
11.15.2011 | 7:59pm
enoch says:
ah, the spirit of political correctness and it's constant apologizing to everyone for everything under the sun! recently, the amish apologized to the jews for the holocaust!!! wow, i didn't know that nazies were amish?! i guess, if they can apologize for that, why not lutherans apologize for "continued unkindness toward our brothers and sisters of other theological traditions"...
11.16.2011 | 1:48pm
David says:
Concerned,
Mea Culpa -- to reconsider color or retain an accepted color choice, is not the true concern, confession, here.
One can hear deeper with ears turned toward a forgiven heart...
"It seems fitting that we confess our sins associated with the Reformation, especially our continued unkindness toward our brothers and sisters of other theological traditions."
"It seems fitting that we, once again, make Jesus’ prayer our own, not only in word, but also in deed – ut unum sint."
"A church that is ancient, mysterious, authentic, merciful, compassionate, beautiful, and, most importantly, one, is what we want (and need)."
To assist...
--- John 17:11, "Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one."
--- Or again, 17:21, "That they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me."
Attaining Christ's perfect desired unity is never to be achieved with such ease of continued unkindness, and here, a written display within the brotherhood of a Lutheran pastor.
ONE CAN READ CLEARLY...
"...like serving poop on a silver platter," as a direct attack on Jesus' prayer.
The conduct of the above wording brings an eye opening view to the core meaning of this article, highlighting the unkindness driving disunity, its maintenance, and celebrating division.
MY WAY and not I AM the WAY.
So the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered the Council and said, "What are we to do? For this man performs many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation." But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all. Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish." He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. So from that day on they made plans to put him to death.
Peace
Mea Culpa -- to reconsider color or retain an accepted color choice, is not the true concern, confession, here.
One can hear deeper with ears turned toward a forgiven heart...
"It seems fitting that we confess our sins associated with the Reformation, especially our continued unkindness toward our brothers and sisters of other theological traditions."
"It seems fitting that we, once again, make Jesus’ prayer our own, not only in word, but also in deed – ut unum sint."
"A church that is ancient, mysterious, authentic, merciful, compassionate, beautiful, and, most importantly, one, is what we want (and need)."
To assist...
--- John 17:11, "Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one."
--- Or again, 17:21, "That they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me."
Attaining Christ's perfect desired unity is never to be achieved with such ease of continued unkindness, and here, a written display within the brotherhood of a Lutheran pastor.
ONE CAN READ CLEARLY...
"...like serving poop on a silver platter," as a direct attack on Jesus' prayer.
The conduct of the above wording brings an eye opening view to the core meaning of this article, highlighting the unkindness driving disunity, its maintenance, and celebrating division.
MY WAY and not I AM the WAY.
So the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered the Council and said, "What are we to do? For this man performs many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation." But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all. Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish." He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. So from that day on they made plans to put him to death.
Peace
11.16.2011 | 3:41pm
Walt Raffel says:
What difference does it make what color is used.
You are just majoring in minors!
You are just majoring in minors!
11.17.2011 | 12:55am
Larry Luder says:
Thank you Pastor Genig for this beautifully well thought out article. I’ll never look at Reformation Day quite in the same way ever again.
"It seems fitting that we, once again, make Jesus’ prayer our own, not only in word, but also in deed – ut unum sint." Well said. Yet, the vast majority of the comments here are quite conflict-ridden. Snarly skepticism seems to rule the day. How can we, as brothers and sisters in Christ, even expect to sit at the same table when vulgar and unkind language like the above is used and expect to move toward God’s fervent prayer that we be one? Jesus emphasizes in John 17 why unity is important. Yet the attacks here are ruthless. Is this how we response to this high priestly prayer?
I’m concerned that most of these comments here. They appear to words from an untamed and out of control tongue. Let’s slowly read and carefully ponder over what is actually has been brilliantly articulated in the article. Remember, let the words from our mouth and the mediation of our hearts be acceptable in the sight of our Lord and Redeemer. After all, Jesus said, “I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned” (Matthew 12:36-37).
"It seems fitting that we, once again, make Jesus’ prayer our own, not only in word, but also in deed – ut unum sint." Well said. Yet, the vast majority of the comments here are quite conflict-ridden. Snarly skepticism seems to rule the day. How can we, as brothers and sisters in Christ, even expect to sit at the same table when vulgar and unkind language like the above is used and expect to move toward God’s fervent prayer that we be one? Jesus emphasizes in John 17 why unity is important. Yet the attacks here are ruthless. Is this how we response to this high priestly prayer?
I’m concerned that most of these comments here. They appear to words from an untamed and out of control tongue. Let’s slowly read and carefully ponder over what is actually has been brilliantly articulated in the article. Remember, let the words from our mouth and the mediation of our hearts be acceptable in the sight of our Lord and Redeemer. After all, Jesus said, “I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned” (Matthew 12:36-37).
11.26.2011 | 9:38pm
Rev. Paul T. McCain says:
Larry Luder:
How about reflecting long and hard on these words and asking yourself how indeed we can sit at the same table when the Gospel is so savagely attacked?
"If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema."
Canon 9; Council of Trent
That is the "poop on the silver platter" that is the problem and why the young pastor's blog post was so entirely wrong-headed.
How about reflecting long and hard on these words and asking yourself how indeed we can sit at the same table when the Gospel is so savagely attacked?
"If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema."
Canon 9; Council of Trent
That is the "poop on the silver platter" that is the problem and why the young pastor's blog post was so entirely wrong-headed.
Which leads directly to the question, should we celebrate Reformation Day, and how?
We can celebrate the "wake-up call" sounded by the "reformers", with subsequent needed reforms having happened. But we can and should rue the cost--the divisions which remain an open and festering wound in the Body of Christ, and which of course represent a profound affront to Him in His priestly prayer at the Last Supper--ut unum sint. It's more than just a formal problem with church governance--it is a practical problem in engaging a secular culture, when our truth claims are negated by our real divisions.
Thus let us celebrate by answering the "yes" to the question of needed reform, starting in our own hearts. Let us move from the reform of our hearts to the reform of the reform, and dedicate ourselves anew to becoming truly one in Chrstendom.