Talk:Reformation

message: it about how other religions give birth 102.132.142.88 (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baptisms and birth 

message: The current article says "The Brethren of the Common Life opposed their members' priestly ordination" which seems utterly unlikey to me: there is a big difference between not pushing and opposing...I don't have the book cited, could someone check the reference to confirm that is actually what it claims?  I thought the reverse was true, that the Brethren tried to shovel their promising students into Augustinian canonries (like Erasmus) or monastaries (like Luther.) The book The Modern Devotion says that Brotherhouses that could not attract rectors or priests actually failed.  Rick Jelliffe (talk) 14:50, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: MacCulloch says that the Brethren "discouraged members from becoming priests". Borsoka (talk) 02:13, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I will change "opposed" to "discouraged" then: they are not synonyms. (The Brethren took their stability promise seriously, but that surprises me: does MacCulloch means secular priests, not canons, perhaps?) Rick Jelliffe (talk) 05:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing should also be taken into account. Borsoka (talk) 05:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure.  Possible synonyms for "discourage" --if necessary-- might be (to try to) deter, dissuade, disincline, put off, talk out of, advise against, urge against. But not "oppose". Rick Jelliffe (talk) 06:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brethren 

message: There is currently a strange sentence: "The canons of the Cologne Cathedral requested Gropper to write a critical response to it,[262] and achieved Hermann's deposition at the Roman Curia"    
I don't understand the last clause: what does it mean to achieve a deposition? Is the word "archived" meant instead?    Rick Jelliffe (talk) 03:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholic Reform 

message: I have reinstated the text that says purgatory is a transition state between this life and heaven, from the incorrect text that says it is an intermediate state between heaven and hell.  I have put four academic citations as justification: if more are desired, please let me know.
The traditional Catholic sequence here is
* death (separation of body and soul)
* personal judgment (in state of grace?)  
* purgatory (purification of soul) for the elect[1]  
** (are you a saint? go direct to heaven)[2] 
** (are you in mortal or original sin? go to hell and await)
* resurrection (reunion of body and soul)
* the general judgment (sorting of "sheep and goats")
* beatific vision and happiness for the sheep, hell for the goats
So purgatory is not intermediate but prior to heaven for the elect, nor does it provide a way between heaven and hell, in medieval (and modern) Catholic belief.  I have added (what Denizinger provides as) the specific wording from the Second Council of Lyon 1274 at Second_Council_of_Lyon#Purgatory as additional evidence.
There is a lot of mis-informed material, including even in some older academic material, that confuses purgatory and hell, or want to make them the same kind of thing, or to say that purgatory is related to salvation/justification (e.g., some backdoor way to get into heaven by works, outside grace and obedient faith in Jesus) rather than relating to sanctification/purgation/refining. Because of this, Wikipedia articles need to be extra careful not to propagate this kind of myth.  
[1] Interestingly, Hildegard of Bingen teaches that purgatory is voluntary (in the sense that the participants think it is a good and necessary thing to get done, like going to the dentist perhaps ;-)  ) and that the pains (of having the dross refined from the gold) are received with joy (because they remove impediments to the beatific vision). 
[2] Some medieval theologians/visionaries made further distinctions like "earthly paradise" and "limbo" but they never took off.  Rick Jelliffe (talk) 12:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calamity: purgatory 

message: The current article is quite Luther-centric.  The Reformed tradition of Zwingli and Calvin is scattered in pieces. Yet they were very independent of Luther: different theory of justification for example.  Rick Jelliffe (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this follows standard literature: Luther is treated as the origo of the movement. Furthermore, we do not need to present all details of each reformators' theologies in a general article, so we should use sources about the Reformation not about individual reformators. Borsoka (talk) 02:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luther-centric 

message: I have removed a sentence that papal legate Wolsey "and the lawyer Thomas More (d. 1535) assumed the leadership of massive purges against Protestant."
1) There were 30 heretics killed in Wolsey's time as Lord Chancellor 1515-1529, and 6 in More's time 1529-1532. This makes 2 per year: both "massive" and "purge" are not the right words. 
2) The trials and executions were not done "by" the Lord Chancellor, but, usually, by regional authorities, as More pointed out.
3) The "and" suggests that More was a henchman or lackey of Wolsey. This does not seem to be historical. 
4) That it was not Protestantism per se that More was interested, but malicious and seditious heresy, is suggested by 1) his "my darling" exchange with Tyndale, and 2) he tolerated under his roof his Lutheran-leaning son in law, William Roper, on condition he kept any dangerous views private.
5) It is not cited.Rick Jelliffe (talk) 05:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Reformation under Henry VIII

message: I have added a note on the Prône.  This is has two citations, and most importantly the link to Latin_liturgical_rites#Vernacular_and_laity_in_medieval_and_Reformation-era_Latin_rites which itself has citations to six sources.  
After an editor added a tag questioning the context, I have moved the note to a different position which I hope is more obvious.  
It would also be useful to point out that sermons were (almost always) in the vernacular too (in parishes, not monastaries), and preceded by a translation of the Gospel verse that was the subject of the homily. 
The current article's text that "the language of public worship was Latin" really does only captures half the reality: certainly the ritual language of priests was Latin and they used it to get on with their business of confecting the eucharist (indeed some prayers were deliberately said to softly for the laity to hear) according to their missal; the language of the people was the vernacular (certainly  with code-switches to memorized Latin prayers) and they used it to play their part. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 14:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note on Prône 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Not moved per the discussion below.   estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Reformation →  – As this refers to a specific event, rather than the process of reforming something. GnocchiFan (talk) 02:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 16 August 2023 

message: Could we rename this to "The Protestant Reformation"?
It comes up more easily on Google and it's a more common term TerryJerry19 (talk) 13:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a discussion about this about 10 months ago (see the section above). Wikipedia generally drops definite articles like the, so the move would most likely take the article to "Protestant Reformation". However, there's not really a need to do that, as "Reformation" is the simplest and most common name for the subject. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Pbritti I find that in educational formats, it's still referred to as The Protestant Reformation. So if we were going to remove the definite, we should still change it. Considering most people using this page will be AP Euro high school students or College Students studying this particular period, it would be a matter of a small quality of life change so it comes up on the top of search engines. For me the top result is a list of Protestant reformers when I search "The Protestant Reformation" on Ecosia, Google and DuckDuckGo TerryJerry19 (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that the title the Encyclopedia Britannica uses is Reformation, I'd say that the current title of this article is the better one. Indyguy (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

text: The Wikipedia guidelines is to avoid articles at the start, unless it is part of a proper name or title (e.g. "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button"). WP:DEFINITE  Also, Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(definite_or_indefinite_article_at_beginning_of_name) gives an example that is very close: "Renaissance, not The Renaissance". So no "The Reformation", even though it is strange.  But it is not bad, given that for half a century many academics regard "the" as obsolete (and, perhaps, an artifact of German self-identity/importance) and prefer to talk of Reformations plural. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 23:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename?