Reformation Day Oct 31

[learning]

I believe this is known as the day Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door

[One Bad Pig]

[CatholicSage]

Boo! Hiss! I'm having a very nice All Saints' Day right now.

[James Peter]

And there I was under the impression that historians weren't even certain that Luther ever nailed the 95Ts to any door, let alone that we knew which day he did it on...

[CatholicSage]

And there I was under the impression that historians weren't even certain that Luther ever nailed the 95Ts to any door, let alone that we knew which day he did it on...

Why would they challenge that? It seems rather pointless and unprovable.

[Anoetos]

Richard Marius is the only "scholar" I know of who doubts the historicity of the nailing, and he's not so much a scholar as a novelist cum historian.

[James Peter]

Richard Marius is the only "scholar" I know of who doubts the historicity of the nailing, and he's not so much a scholar as a novelist cum historian.

Well if I recall correctly both Oberman and Cameron say that there is little evidence for the nailing to the church door, and there must be some merit in the argument because one of my lecturers also mentioned it (and I consider him a pretty credible source considering he is a historian whose specialty is the early modern period of church history). I believe that the earliest time such an occurance is mentioned is more than two decades later, by Melanchton, who gets other details of Luther's early life wrong (he wasn't in Wittenberg at the time so his information is second hand). Certainly its a plausible thing to have happened and is often taught like fact but that doesn't mean that it was. Luther certainly issued them but the 'how' isn't known.

You said its pointless and unprovable - but so is the fact that it ever happened. And to those who are interested in that period of history it matters. Heck, the general modern perception of the event is skewed even if it did happen. They would have been posted in latin and the only people who would have read them would have been academics - the church door was just used as a noticeboard. Not quite the defiant outcry against Rome that its usually taught as (I know thats how my high school history teacher and textbook portrayed it, maybe thats not how its taught everywhere though)

[One Bad Pig]

Well if I recall correctly both Oberman and Cameron say that there is little evidence for the nailing to the church door, and there must be some merit in the argument because one of my lecturers also mentioned it (and I consider him a pretty credible source considering he is a historian whose specialty is the early modern period of church history). I believe that the earliest time such an occurance is mentioned is more than two decades later, by Melanchton, who gets other details of Luther's early life wrong (he wasn't in Wittenberg at the time so his information is second hand). Certainly its a plausible thing to have happened and is often taught like fact but that doesn't mean that it was. Luther certainly issued them but the 'how' isn't known.

You said its pointless and unprovable - but so is the fact that it ever happened. And to those who are interested in that period of history it matters. Heck, the general modern perception of the event is skewed even if it did happen. They would have been posted in latin and the only people who would have read them would have been academics - the church door was just used as a noticeboard. Not quite the defiant outcry against Rome that its usually taught as (I know thats how my high school history teacher and textbook portrayed it, maybe thats not how its taught everywhere though)

No, it wasn't a defiant outcry, merely Luther asking questions he felt strongly about. He didn't want to leave the church.

[Anoetos]

You said its pointless and unprovable

I didn't say that, CatholicSage said it.

It is pretty pointless though. Not Luther's Reformation, but how he initiated it.

Besides any of which, this is just the accepted date. As with the celebration of the Nativity (though Reformation Day is certainly not to be compared per ipse with the Incarnation), the date is not so important as the event.

And as has been mentioned, it's not as though Luther woke up one morning and said, "That's it, I'm leaving the church". It wasn't until he'd been excommunicated (for no good reason, by the way) that he made that decision and, even then, he'd already been kicked out.

[learning]

I thought Nov 01 was All Saints Day. And though I'm not Roman Catholic, I'ld rather think about the saints of the church, then some of the things that come out on Halloween. That's why I posted it, just to give an alternative to the other. I do remember once, our church had a party on Halloween where they had to dress up as Bible Characters, instead of other things related to the 'worldly view' of Halloween.

[Anoetos]

That's pretty common in confessional churches; i.e. to churches which self-consciously link themselves to the Reformation.

Sometimes it's called a harvest-party, or whatever.

I have to say though, the annual hullabaloo about Halloween among Christians leaves me cold for the most part. It's a secular holiday. I don't let my children dress up as demons or witches, but yes they do dress up and go begging for candy. I have yet to participate in a Samhain wicker-man lighting, or, indeed, any religious activity, except of course some observance of Luther's nailing of the theses.

So yes, it (Reformation Day) is a good observance for Protestant Christians to participate in, but I, personally, haven't much problem with them participating in the other holiday as well, again, as long as they aren't attaching any religious significance to it or dressing up as enemies of Christ.

[learning]

Yeah, my kids dress up and get candy, and man, they were sure hyper on it tonight!
But they usually pick something not related to something 'evil', like a princess,or something from a popular movie, but that's about as far as it goes.

[Chytraeus]

Actually, we know the date better than we know the surrounding circumstances.

First off, the 95 theses were originally written in Latin. They were written and presented for the purpose of discussing them in a theological forum. In those days, church men dated all important documents using the Church Calandar. Therefore, the noted date for the 95 Theses is the Eve of All Saints Day, that is, the day before, or Oct. 31. Interestingly enough Holloween is celebrated on October 31 precisely because it falls on the Eve of All Saints Day. Holloween is an Irish and American holiday, and is not celebrated anywhere else that I know of. In fact, I do not believe that even the Irish celebrate it with quite the zeal that we do.

Now, as to the Theses, they were written by Martin Luther in Latin and posted for discussion. It is assumed that he posted them on the door of the Wittenburg Castle, for that was the traditional place for posting such things. They had to be posted publically for it would be very unfair to invite someone to a theological debate without the opposing party knowing what all the issues were. There were posted in Latin because this was considered scholarly and church business, not common business.

However, someone, and we will never know for certain who, thought otherwise. It is commonly held that some of his students had a printing press. When they saw the Theses they were so impressed by them that they thought that everyone needed to read them, so they translated them into German and printed thousands of tracts to hand out to everyone they met. It is interesting to note that although the collected works of Martin Luther fill nearly 100 volumes, he actually only had a handfull of books intentionally published. All the rest were published by those who thought it unfair that the rest of the world could not read what he had written to them.

However, these theses are not the most interesting or even the most controvesial of his published theses, they are just the most widely known and published.

The Hildelburgh Theses caused much more trouble and are much more interesting to read. In those Luther was arguing that all true theology is theology of the Cross, and that all false theology is a theology of glory. In these theses he challenges us to always remember that we are nothing more than sinners saved by grace, and that any good we do in life is in spite of our strength, only because of the grace of God. It is also a reminder that we cannot ever be saved because of anything that we have done. "The theology of glory says, 'Do this, do not do that and you will be saved.' The theology of the cross says, 'Believe this and everything is already done.'"

Luther eventually repented of the 95 Theses for being too soft on the Pope. It was during the discussion of the Hildelburg Disputation that he found himself forced to first confess that he did not believe the Pope was infalible. This was the statement, made publically at a theological disputation, that really got him into trouble with Rome. Until then he was just a nuisance whom they thought they could eventually bully into returning to the doctrine of his mother. After this point it because open war, and only a complete recantation of all of his writings and teachings could be excepted.

[spauline]

bear with me, I will get to the point of how this applies to the exact date of the beginning of Protestantism. Anyway, this is just something I've been pondering as a Catholic:

In the OT, from what I understand, there was a great division between the North Kingdom and the South Kingdom. The North took 10 of the 12 tribes of Israel with it, leaving Judah behind with only 2, and yet, the true kingship remained with Judah. Well, anyway, we know in Catholicism that the 12 apostles are a type of the twelve tribes of Israel. Well, anyway, I know it may be crazy, but in both Catholic and Orthodox belief, the Apostles left successors in the Bishops, and, in particular there are five [four?] Apostolic Sees. Well, anyway, of course, in the NT history there was a great schism, not between north and south but between east and west, and just as the seceding party took most of the tribes in the OT, so the seceding Orthodox took all but one of the Apostolic Sees, that is, all but Rome, which, nevertheless, is the true kingship (the Pope of Popes).
Well anyway, to go on, because of their respective "apostasies", God of course chastised both the North and Southern kingdoms, and yet, it was the North, by way of Assyria that was chastised first (wasn't it somewhere around the 710's or 720's BC), whereas only later was Judah chastised by Babylon.

Well, I'm just thinking, just as there were these two great arch enemies of the People of God, Assyria and Babylon, so in the modern era, the two great Kingdoms of Christendom, Orthodoxy and Catholicism, are under assault by different but equally evil spiritual kingdoms, the one being ATHEISTIC MATERIALISM and the other RELATIVISTIC, HEDONISTIC MATERIALISM, and, I know I must be crazy, but the Orthodox (who are, according to this analysis a fulfillment of the North) have already been chastised by former, communism, whereas the chastisement of the west yet remains.

What does this have to do with Protestantism? Well, I'm just thinking, Judah was chastised an eye for an eye so to speak, in that it was 490 years that Judah had not been keeping the seventh year Sabbath for the land that their chastisement with Babylon came. Well, anyway, it's interesting to note that the Protesant Rebellion began in 1517, whereas, the chastisement for the Orthodox began in 1917. Moreover, 490 years from 1517 is 2007, and we note that there is considerable data from fully approved Catholic mystics that predict the sign that the Minor Chastisement is about to begin (a dress rehearsal for the end of the world, so to speak) is that a civil war will break out at nearly the same time in France and Italy. Now note, we are only about a year away from 2007, France and Italy are not in stable condition, and the Minor Apostasy is in full swing in the west. This makes me scared that the West's chastisement for hedonistic materialism may be simply a year away.

[spauline]

please note my mistake above: it now reads correct: France and ITALY, not Germany.