Talk:Reformation Day

message: Umm, "mass" is a Catholic thing - you may wish to check to see if you are using the correct word.
Hmm.  That's true though "mass" is not necessarily wrong.  Perhaps "service" is better?  And isn't it the "Feast of the Reformation"? Sumergocognito 00:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going back and forth on the question of keeping the link. An external page can be political, I think. We just need to clearly identify it as such, which I tried to do. (That's what I seem to read (different topic) in this discussion) The only argument I see for taking it out is that it was not a source to this text, right? Awolf002 15:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  On the word mass: Luther went back and forth on the use of the term, as did most of the Lutheran fathers of the first few generations. Sometimes it is used to refer to the Sacrifice of the Mass, which is roundly condemned and its abolition is urged. On the other hand, the term is retained by Luther and European Lutherans to this day as one of a series of terms used to describe the sacrament of communion. In the US, the term is not often used by Lutherans at all, except for those committed to a high view of liturgical worship. Since not all Lutherans, especially in the US, celebrate the sacrament on Reformation Day, I'd recommend the term "service." By the way, the article could use considerable adjustment. Does anyone mind if I make such adjustments. (for example, no Lutheran Church considers the day a "major" festival and, although many churches do use a lot of special music on the day, the vast majority do not "perform" A Mighty Fortress, but do sing it without exception. Most will stand in honor of those who lost their lives confessing the Christian faith as Lutherans understand it. I could say more, but...  --CTSWyneken 03:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  please do. Sumergocognito 22:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes

message: I think that allies is a totally inappropriate word!  Just a few sentences earlier, this article reads "This was not an act of defiance or provocation as is sometimes thought."  However, the use of the word "allies" later connotates that Luther was waging some type of religious war.  I believe the more correct word here is "supporters."
--Dwspig2 23:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ...and his ???allies???? 

message: "Many families in the Reformed tradition do not allow their children to observe Halloween on the grounds of various satanic associations."
Could this be more neutral?  The so-called 'satanic associations' of Halloween are the stuff of urban legend, not fact.
:Well, not so much "urban legend" as some peoples' religious beliefs. (Razor blades in apples are urban legend.) Anyway, I've changed it to "perceived Satanic associations" and added a link to the section in the Halloween article where it's discussed. —Angr 06:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is not about Halloween! Why is this detail needed here and is placed in the starting paragraph? This should be cut, and all we need is the link to Halloween in the previous sentence. Awolf002 23:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. The fact that Reformation Day and Halloween coincide is, well, coincidence. —Angr 06:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: aint both related to All-Saints-Day?178.210.114.106 (talk) 09:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Satanic associations

message: The Anabaptists did not spring forth from the Reformation, but predate the Reformation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.26.18.201 (talk • contribs) 31 October 2006
:I suppose it depends on your definition. According to the article Anabaptist, the term is usually applied to Mennonites, Amish, and Hutterites, groups that did arise from the Reformation, but there were also pre-Reformation forerunners. —Angr 20:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anabaptists Born From Reformation??

message: I'm a little confused by the attachment of a meaning to the practice of standing during the hymn. One generally stands for hymns anyway. Carolynparrishfan 20:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standing 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 14:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: Why is Reformation Day not a legal holiday in Berlin? --84.61.153.119 (talk) 16:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. Perhaps because the majority of the population of Berlin is irreligious, but then so is the majority of the population in the states where it is a legal holiday, so that's not a very satisfying explanation. Perhaps because Berlin doesn't have any legal holidays that aren't nationwide ones, though one could still ask why that's the case. At any rate, it was convenient for me when I worked in Potsdam and lived in Berlin, because then every 31 October I didn't have to go to work, but I could still go shopping! 85.178.66.45 (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See :w:de:Wikipedia Diskussion:Botschaft#Odd cross-wiki behaviour by someone in Germany; sometimes includes edit-warring and disruptive page creation for a discussion of the questioner's edits. --A. B. (talk •  contribs)  17:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Berlin 

message: I took the liberty of deleting a sentence and footnote about how catholic theology states that "faith alone is necessarily not salvific and true"--or words to that effect.  The relationship of faith to good works certainly became the key issue in the controversy between Roman theology (as it developed in response to the Reformation) and the Evangelicals.  But it was not yet the issue in 1517.  Besides, the footnote cited the Council of Trent's definition of faith, which was not codified until decades after the indulgence controversy.
Besides this, the wording of the sentence was problematic even in describing the difference between Rome and Wittenberg after the Council of Trent.  Lutherans would say that faith that does not result in good works (works of charity) is not true faith and not saving faith.  If I'm not mistaken, Rome teaches that true faith, inspired and given by the Holy Spirit, can exist in a person without charity and good works.  The Tridentine Roman teaching is that such faith can be faith infused by the Holy Spirit, and yet, if it is alone and not acted upon, such faith does not save.  It is Lutherans who insist that real faith, created by the Holy Spirit, cannot exist without works of love.  Lutherans insist that faith alone in Christ saves, but that such faith is always active in good works (though the good works do not merit eternal life.)  Rome says that one can have true faith but lack good works, and since the good works of the Christian (produced by the grace of God, to be sure) merit eternal life, one must add good works to faith in order to be saved.  Consequently Rome teaches that Christians cannot be certain that they will obtain eternal life.  
The sentence as it stood made it sound as if Lutherans say as long as a person has faith they are at liberty to sin.  Rather the Lutheran teaching is that a justified sinner is set free from the bondage to sin and now serves God with a willing and joyful heart that comes from the certainty of the forgiveness of sins.
At any rate, the whole discussion on faith and works might be useful in this article, but it should have its own section instead of trying to tack it on to a paragraph about indulgences, which has to do with the power to absolve and remit sins.Pomeranus (talk) 12:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole discussion on faith and works certainly does not belong in this article, which is just about Reformation Day. If it belongs anywhere, it belongs in the articles Sola fide and Good works. Angr (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Faith and Good Works in Relation to the Indulgence Controversy 

message: The statement that "a number of scholars, especially Protestant converts to Catholicism, starting around the 1990s, have been criticizing the Reformation for being unbiblical and unfaithful to the doctrines and practices of the early Church" needs citations and correction. Sources need to be identified, but are they criticizing the Reformation or are they criticizing the Joint Declaration?
I note this is a good day to ask the question: Happy Reformation Day!
- BobKilcoyne (talk) 06:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman Catholic attitudes