Talk:Protestant Reformation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christianity Portal Protestant Reformation is part of the WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familier with the guidelines.

B

This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	Germany Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as top-importance on the Project's importance scale.

	Protestant Reformation is part of WikiProject Lutheranism, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Lutheranism on Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to Lutheran churches, Lutheran theology and worship, and biographies of notable Lutherans. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

	Calvinism Portal Protestant Reformation falls within the scope of WikiProject Calvinism, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Calvinism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familier with the guidelines.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] The Bible as the "main" reason for the Reformation?? Not NPOV

The following piece of the article is complete nonsense:

While there were some parallels between certain movements within humanism and teachings later common among the Reformers, the main influence was the Bible itself. The Roman Catholic Church had itself been the main purveyor in Europe of humanism for centuries: the neo-Platonism of the scholastics and the neo-Aristotelianism of Thomas Aquinas and his followers had made humanism part of church dogma. Thus, when Luther and the other reformers adopted the standard of “sola scriptura”, making the Bible the sole measure of theology, that made the Reformation a reaction against the humanism of that time.

I'd agree that the Bible could be viewed as a cause, but claiming that it's the main cause is to adopt a pro-Protestant view that isn't shared by either Catholic or secular scholars. There is no evidence that early Christians adopted the same practices as Protestants and, being that we can assume that the first Christians would've interpreted the Bible most correctly, we therefore cannot say that the Protestants are necessarily anymore correct in their 'interpretation' than Catholics. Furthermore, a great deal of the early Protestant reformers were humanists with secular education. And they considered such things that had never been considered before by any theologians, such as Calvin's predestination. Finally, the idea that Catholics themselves adopted humanism needs to be clarified. Wikipedia's article on humanism states:

Humanism is an active ethical and philosophical approach to life, focusing on human solutions to human issues through rational ("reasonable") thought, without recourse to supernatural entities, such as a God or gods, or to sacred texts, traditions or religious creeds.

It would be insane to claim that Catholicism had been teaching such a thing for "centuries." While St. Aquinas taught that the conscience is at the will of the intellect and that faith cannot come before reason, that's not to immmediately say that he focused on it without recourse to God, sacred texts, traditions or religious creeds. Even when Aquinas wrote such things, he quoted the Bible quite frequently. Furthermore, being that the definition of Humanism includes tradition, you cannot write that Protestant reformers rejected Catholics for being both humanist 'and' having beliefs based upon tradition. That's contradictory, as the paradigms of beliefs based upon logic and beliefs based upon tradition oppose one another and cannot both co-exist in equal extremes.

I agree that they adopted Neo-Platonist philosophy which was certainly secular beliefs accepted without regard for scripture. However, virtually all Christians' beliefs today are affected by the adoption of Neo-Platonism, it wasn't something that Luther railed against.

So it needs to be clarified that Catholicism adopted "religious," humanism, which had regard for the artwork and writings of the Romans and Greek. But however, during the Middle Ages, few could read, so this "humanism," was privy only to monks, not the general populace. Only after the printing press was made and education became widely available, thereby magnifying the humanist aspects of Catholicism, did such a "reformation" occur. The article frankly downplays this trend as well as the bubonic plague by calling the Bible the main reason for the Protestant reformation, a position that my history professor also disagrees with -- and he's a Protestant. It also begs the question: If the Bible was the main cause of the reformation, why didn't it happen centuries earlier? Certainly, more widely-available Bibles, yes, giving people the possibility to know how their scholars were interpreting the Bible and challenge it. But why didn't any of the previous Catholic monks make such statements as the reformers did? The answer: Because the Bible wasn't the main reason for the reformation.

For now, I added an NPOV tag to the article and I'm going to edit it soon. 71.246.209.206 01:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Whoever wrote this paragraph doesn't seem to know what humanism means. We need a rewrite or even a deletion. 2nd Piston Honda 11:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The reformation was caused by a great many things. For example, the Avignon papacy (1309-1377); the corruption of the papacy under the Renaissance Popes; the cynical sale of indulgences that sacrificed a life of piety and made forgiveness of sins something to be bought and sold. By the time of the reformation, Catholicism had a detrimental impact on the economy of nations. Luther wrote of the proliferations of cardinals in Italy that had impoverished that nation, and warned that should the Catholic church be allowed to multiply cardinals in Germany, that it would impoverish the German state as well. The subtext of this discussion was the ever present threat of the Turks, who territorial ambitions with continental Europe. The German rules were especially keen to see that German monies stayed in Germany to fund their ongoing defense against Turkish invasion. So no, the reformation was not all about the bible, but was in fact was influenced by a great many things.Kris Carlson 23:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The PR was influenced by a great many things. Let's not forget that one of the things it was based on was the humanist tradition of looking at the text and the Protestant tradition of spreading accessible translations of the Bible. The Bible getting into lots of people's hands certainly had a lot to do with the PR. Don't let anyone tell you it was the only thing, or that it was irrelevant. Jonathan Tweet 01:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Catholic counter-reformation

I would suggest add the following: catholic counterreformation, and (drums) Warsaw confederation (agreement about religious tolerance, first and probably only one up to modern times not imposed by kings or government, by agreed by people alone).

and of course impact of reformation on national languages - standarisation of German came as one example, first books in national language in Poland, etc, etc szopen

I agree. The Polish influence allowed Unitarianism to survive and probably gave the moral framework for allowing Protestantism and Catholocism to call a peace years later. The article also doesn't discuss the Catholic answer to Luther. Heck, it barely mentions some of the more famous members on both sides. This is one of *the* defining moments in the Western world Nickjost 20:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Early sixteenth century key revolutionary period in European history needs expansion

The early sixteenth century was a revolutionary stage in which old elite groups were challenged or eliminated, namely the clergy. As Reformation pushed the clergy out of its dominant position while the French Revolution would later herald the twilight to the aristocracy’s traditional primacy. In both times new groups emerged, partly at least to fill the vacuum in a process fundamental to cultural regeneration and cultural renewal.

Although the cultural contexts of the two eras set these two great revolutions apart, ideologies can vary in their content, dependent on the local cultural values. Some might stress political values like justice as in the French Revolution, and some may stress immediate or long range economic values as in the Russian Revolution.

In short, this was a key revolutionary period in European history not adequately addressed by this short article. I hope that my recent contributions spur other contributors to fill in the gaps and make this an article worthy of the historical significance of the topic.

172

[edit] Reformation was religiously motivated

The Reformation was religiously motivated (not discounting economic and nationalistic justifications). To denigrate religion as the chief motive, is to insist that those who carried out the Reformation did not understand their own cause. The article should not characterize the stimulus of the Reformation in terms of materialism or class-struggle, except where the proponents of the Reformation expressed these as bases for their own actions. Otherwise, the article may satisfy Marxists and anarchists, but in my opinion it is simply not the truth about this movement, as understood by those who promoted or defended it, or by those since who have been most sympathetic with it. Mkmcconn

Mkmcconn: The article goes into the theological debate, particullary the complex relationship between humanism and Protestantism. In that sense, it makes reference to the revival of Augustinian theology, namely salvation by faith alone. However, this is a historical page, not one simply pertaining to theology or philosophy. Thus, it not only goes through the intellectual and religious developments of the era, but characterizes the context in which these ideas caught on. If the ideas of the Protestant reformers were derived from Augustus and carried out to a logical consistency one must ask why did these ideas all of a sudden catch on at this time.

Just because some readers aren’t familiar with the economic and political sides of the Reformation doesn’t mean that these factors shouldn’t be presented. Rather, it accentuates the necessity of presenting them.

I'm familiar with Marxist theory, even Marxist theory applied to this era, and I must say that just because this article doesn't refute Marxism doesn't mean that this article is backing it up. It simply doens't go into sufficient detail do either. And that's fine for an NPOV encyclopedia article.

If you intuitively sense “Marxism” because economic factors and social class are mentioned in a historical article (My God, what could they be doing in an article on perhaps the most complicated period in European history?), then I challenge you to suggest in why the Reformation caught on where it did and why did it fragment into radical branches without looking at the broader historical trends of the sixteenth century. Why and how did Lutheranism win the support of the territorial princes in Northern Germany?

I must also correct a very common misconception. Introducing economic and political factors does not imply that the Protestant reformers didn’t take their ideas seriously. They most certainly did and the article makes that clear. One, though, has to look at the environment in which these theologians came to their ideas and found their ideas easy to disseminate. 172

You added a lot of material. There are a few points that might need some corrections or clarifications (I lost your point here and there); but, I did not react to your insertions the way that I reacted to your explanation of what you are doing. It's your comments that I reacted to, not your additions - but, I'll admit that since you chose to be so open about what you are trying to illustrate by your edits, I'm going to look closer at what you have added in that light ;-) Mkmcconn 01:51 Apr 8, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Huh?

First, I denied trying to insert a Marxist slant into the article in the above comments. Why is that making you more suspicious?

Second, the comment I had made earlier on this page was not a uniquely Marxist interpretation. In fact, it’s making a distinction between the political/economic French Revolution and the religious revolution of the Protestant Reformation. That comment said nothing more than the Protestant Reformation was a period of historical upheaval.

Mkmcconn,SPIFFY!!!

I was just trying to entice people into work on an article pertaining to a key era in history.

coolish...i dont care....blahblahblah...

[edit] informing and delghtful to read

qt, well i thought it was great!!!! very informing and delghtful to read. qt

[edit] Text is used twice in the article...

The great rise of the burgers, the desire to run their new businesses free of institutional barriers or outmoded cultural practices contributed to the appeal of individualism. To many, papal institutions were rigid, especially regarding their views on just price and usury. In the North burgers and monarchs were united in their frustration against for not paying any taxes to the nation, but collecting taxes from subjects and sending the revenues disproportionately to Italy

Booyabazooka 17:56, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Overlap/inconsistency with Protestantism article

It would be valuable if s/o could look to rationalise this with the [disputed] Protestantism article and make the links between the two articles clear. Paul foord 07:39, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Someone deleted early historical material from Protestantism, I have attempted to integrate it here. Generally usefulo but some more work required. Paul foord 4 July 2005 14:17 (UTC)

[edit] some observations

You might take note of the fact that in the 16thC there was no idea of "The Reformation" and "Protestants" did not begin with that name or greatly like it when they got it--nor did Lutherans and Calvinists like being called Lutherans and Calvinists. The idea was to claim true Catholicity and denounce innovation or "newfangledness." Much of the period has to do with multiple competing stories about national and ecclesial origins and destinies. This should not be obscured by collapsing it into a "period" or "event" or "movement" with a single teleological narrrative.

There also needs to be some attention to recent historiographical paradigm shifts such that the "Counter-Reformation" is discarded as a term in favor of "Catholic Reformation" and England is understood to have been reformed coercively by an elite minority embedded in and/or backed by the state that imposed a "reformation from above"--thus denying older views of the English reformation as a populist affair driven by rampant anticlericalism.

It would be wise to subdivide or better yet "outsource" this entry to significant nations, regions and cities.

Dan Knauss

[edit] Need Revision

I believe the huge amount of material added by User:172 in the early development of this article obscures its essence. He argues that the overall socio-political environment in Europe played a significant role. True, as did the Renaissance, but the title of the article is "Protestant Reformation", not "The Socio-Political developments in early 16th century Europe". Jim Ellis 19:00, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I would agree; this article, like Jesus, needs a massive rewrite...I think we should just have a "do over". There's just too much info that's (relatively) inconsequential. Yes, the socio-economic factors deserve mention, but it detracts from the main thrust of the article. KHM03 23:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

There is no mention of the French Revolution, nor should there be--that happened at the end of the 18th century. Dan Knauss

My mistake. Thanks Dan-- I deleted the phrase. My overall feeling that this article should be re-written and made more concise and focused still stands. Jim Ellis 11:44, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

This article does need replacement; it really ought to have a general outline of what was included in the Ref., and then it ought to be broken down by region (Germany, France, Italy, Switzerland, etc.). The socio-economic arguments can still be included, but they really ought to be subordinated to the theological roots of Luther's action. Perhaps if we rewrite it as a skeleton and then add to it to fix it. Rekleov

And yet, despite all that, there's still a lot of missing information relevant to both the ideas and the sociopolitical context of the Reformation: there's no reference in this article to the debates over the value of marriage vs. the cloister.

[edit] Radical Reformation

There is a new page for this topic which could use expansion by someone with expertise in that area. KHM03 11:41, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pro / Anti

A link is listed under external links entitled something like "Why Catholicism makes Protestantism Work". That's fine. An anonymous user placed that link under the label "Pro-Roman Catholic"; the assumption there is that the other links are anti-RC. This is not only an NPOV violation of wikipedia policy, it is also incorrect. Protestant does not necessarily mean anti-RC, not in 2005. I removed the label. KHM03 00:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, that link simply shouldn't be in this article. It may fit under Protestantism, but not under Protestant Reformation. This is an historical piece, not polemical --- while the linked article is. I won't blast it away from this page, but it simply shouldn't be here. --Rekleov 13:12, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable...why don't you move it? KHM03 13:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Found it and moved it. --Rekleov 13:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

removing the link is fine, but I think Protestant still implies anti-RC, even in 2005. Most protestants still strongly disagree a number of Catholic doctrines and practices, such as the role of the papacy, transubstantiation of the Eucharist/Communion, indulgences, role of saints, etc. If they didn't, wouldn't they rejoin the Catholic Church? Why else would they remain separate? Wesley 15:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Protestant does imply an opposition to various Roman Catholic teachings, of course. My point, however, is that such an article is simply out of place in an historical overview of the Protestant Reformation. It sits much better in the Protestantism article. I don't see this as a matter of pro/anti RC, but rather one of proper categorization.

Ok, I see your point. You're probably right about the categorization. Wesley 02:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Pro-Roman Catholic" - I put this heading on - would have better been cited as "Anti-protestant". I decided not to jump into the discussion straight away. The article itself was quite POV, but the inference that the assumption there is that the other links are anti-RC is not clear to me. It could be that, and I believed they were NPOV or providing information. Resolution of issue is good. Paul foord 14:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] kudos

Nice edit under the new section, Early Puritan Movement. Mkmcconn (Talk) 14:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, seemed something more was needed - it illustrates the overlap with the Protestantism article though Paul foord 14:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that we can distinguish this article as a general history focused on a definable era, sub-divisible into identifiable periods, and the other looks at Protestantism partly in terms of an intellectual history, the event-structure (if that's a word) of which is mostly contained in this article. Mkmcconn (Talk) 14:37, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Simplify

The Reformation, in most accurate and simple terms, was the result of reform needed in the Church. There were so many people saying so many different things, it's hard to bring out which caused what. Luther's theses didn't start the reformation, but it is a figurehead for those opposing key fundamental problems. Jan Hus in Czechoslovakia, John Calvin in Geneva etc. were all doing the same things. They were arguing that the Church had strayed too far from the true doings of Christ.

It's POV to say that the reform was needed, but you're right. I tried to move Hus and Wycliffe forward in the intro. Jonathan Tweet 02:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More on the Impetus for Reform

Note that Luther never wanted a split from the church, and would have preferred the church reform from within. Church response toward him showed him (and others) that the church wasn't receptive to reform.

Also, the importance of the translation of the Biblical texts into the vernacular cannot be understated as a driver behind what ultimately became known as the 'Reformation'. De-mystifying the text was important and made the Bible accessible to those beyond the priesthood.

[edit] Act of Supremacy

This article asserts:

In 1534 The Act of Supremacy put Henry at the head of the church in England (that is, not the Church of England).

According to the text of the Act, however, it says [1]:

An act concerning the king's highness to be supreme head of the Church of England...

...the king's majesty justly and rightfully is and ought to be the supreme head of the Church of England...

...the king, our sovereign lord, his heirs, and successors, kings of this realm, shall be taken, accepted, and reputed the only supreme head in earth of the Church of England called Anglicana Ecclesia...

I've re-written the sentence.--Johnbull 20:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] seach redirecting

I searched for "German Reformation" and "Lutheran Reformation" and neither yielded any results - perhaps both should redirect to this page? 82.24.168.136 12:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phrasing

The "his 95 Theses proceeded to promulgate" isn't idiomatic. The verb needs an animate subject and an object. People and organisations promulgate things such as theses. Theses can't just promulgate on their own (without an object).

[edit] lutheran?

The article states that some Lutheran churches allow blessings of same-sex marriages in the Netherlands. However most protestant churches in the Netherlands are not Lutheran; so I suspect it is better to change this to protestant churches (which include both Lutheran and Calvinist churches, among others).

No. Same sex marriages in protestant churches in Denmark is not allowed, i dont think it is in Netherland either.

[edit] WikiProject Anglicanism

A new WikiProject focussing on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion has just been initiated: WikiProject Anglicanism. Our goal is to improve and expand Anglican-reltaed articles. If anyone (Anglican or non-Anglican) is interested, read over the project page and consider signing up. Cheers! Fishhead64 06:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Luther Posting Theses

I believe that the notion that Luther nailed his Theses to the door of the church in Wittenburg is now commonly held to be false; he probably simply passed out copies, made possible by Mr. Gutenburg. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.211.46.54 (talk • contribs) .

Even with the printing press, it seems unlikely to me that printing would have been so inexpensive in the beginning that they would pass out free flyers. But then I'm certainly not up on the latest scholarship in this areas. Any references or suggested reading in this area? Wesley 01:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Have a read about this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/95_Theses Fabiodrn 13:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

See also the discussion in D MacCollough, Reformation, p. 123

[edit] Indulgences

The definition for indulgences (which should also probably have a link to "indulgence"--though that article isn't correct either) is not not accurate. Saying that indulgences are "substitutes for confession that had to be bought." An indulgence is not a substitute for confession, rather it is remission of all, or part, of the temporal punishment due to sin. It is not forgiveness of sin, thus is cannot be used as a substitute for confession. Indulgences presuppose a freedom from the guilt of sin, which is received through confession. Indulgences were typically applied to those already in a state of grace, such as those in purgatory.Pladow 16:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Self-link/authorship

What's up with the link back to this page in the Primary Sources section? Also, why is authorship of a Wikipedia page attributed in that link to one person (Ji-Hee Lee)?

[edit] Bible Belt?

I'm not familiar with this connection. Please explain. For now, I'm reverting it. Thanks! Keesiewonder ^talk 12:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)