Just as Christmas time has its carols, so also penitential seasons must need have their doggerel from Douglas. To wit, and without further ado . . .
Sing if you can the affair of the sausages,
Brave Zwingli taking on Lenten observances.
Honor then Wittenberg’s 95 theses,
But Zurich was first with a meat reformation.
What could be better than fat, roasting sausages,
Striking a blow against vain gnostic scrupling?
What could be better to set the soul soaring
Than meat on the grill and then meat in the stomach?
Blame if you will the book printer Froschauer,
Who, printing editions of Pauline epistles,
Decided that he should feed all hungry workers
Just like it says in Colossians and elsewhere.
That kind of set down the cat midst the pigeons,
Nothing like sausages riling archbishops.
Battle was joined with liberty flourishing,
And the gospel aroma of meat lovers’ pizza.
As Lent now approaches and you think to ignore it,
Know that you really have good antecedents.
You have all your freedom, no need for abstentions,
So kick off the season with breakfast at Denny’s.
Don’t give up Facebooking, don’t give up chocolate,
And don’t give up charbroiled innocent pleasures.
If you must give up something else, why not the fussing,
Along with all gnostic, ascetic inventions?
Alternative titles:
The Affair of the Sausages
Giving Fat Tuesday a Promotion
Protestantism: Where Every Day Is Mardi Gras
Dogmatic Doggerel
For Further Reading:
An outline of a sermon on penitential seasons
Some good cautions on Lent.
Some good cautions on ash.
And let us not leave out the place where Jesus said not to do things to your head to let people know you are abstaining from things (Matt. 6:16-18).
As a protestant, I love lent. Here in St. Louis we have a big Roman Catholic population, so:
1. It’s super easy to get a Friday night table at a steakhouse or BBQ joint, which we have plenty of here.
2. Fish specials at many area restaurants. Anybody else tried Culver’s Walleye?
3. I always get a kick out of hearing what people “give up” for lent, and then Disfigure their Facebook about two days into.
But is it not better that at least they tried, even if they failed two days in? Aren’t we told, specifically, to practice self-denial?
But is it not better that at least they tried, even if they failed two days in? Aren’t we told, specifically, to practice self-denial? Oh don’t worry about my friends breaking their Lenten fast early. In 2016, disfiguring one’s face (Matt 6:16) to gain attention for fasting means going on Facebook to complain about it (i.e. “Disfiguring your Facebook”). And yes, we are called to deny ourselves, but whenever he got the chance, Jesus warned about practicing your religion FOR THE PURPOSE of being noticed for it. It would be hard to argue that that’s not what the Facebook Disfigurers… Read more »
I agree with that. I thought you meant they went on Facebook and confessed their failure to keep their resolutions, not that they complained about it. (I don’t think Catholics and Anglicans should choose to walk around in public with ashes on their foreheads either.) It’s a bit too much public piety.
Yeah, I might should have wrote “I always get a kick out of hearing what people “give up” for lent, and then about which they Disfigure their Facebook two days into.” Prepositions sometimes trip me up.
J’, I have not kept up with this dialogue, but I did notice a few comments north of here, that others were admiring your clear, uncomplicated, inquirey and sincerity.
In response,I might have to call you “Jilly the Lilly” once in a while, at least during lent!
;-)
Thank you, you are sweet!
To deny ourselves does not involve asceticism (giving up bacon) but giving up the authority over our lives to the One who truly has authority.
I gave up prayer one year…
it would be nice, once in awhile, if protestants could define themselves without always having to define themselves in reference to the catholic church… But, I guess, the name says it all… Without catholics, there’s no “protestants”. So protestants, up until now, need catholics to simply exist.
ya protestants really needed the Catholic church to spread hypocrisy and persecute them.
sorry, heresy
The solas of the Reformation define Protestantism, and those are positive statements. That’s always in the background.
If every time you see something done it’s a symptom of “always” doing something, then you’ll be convinced that Protestants “always” do this. But if you really want to know how Protestants define ourselves, it’s easily found.
If a protestant quotes directly from Romans or Galatians, it will rightly come across as against Roman Catholicism. Man, that Apostle Paul was ALWAYS defining himself with reference to catholic teaching.
Sola Scriptura seems a tad negatory, though.
Don’t need what? Spirit? Nature – like ears or brain?
The doctrine as held by the Reformers specifies what it means. It’s not about “don’t need” stuff, it’s about what the only source of authority is. “Sola scriptura” is short-hand for a doctrine that addresses all your questions, and it affirms the ministry of the Spirit to the human ears and mind.
WCF1.1 says this vis-a-vis how nature lacks in comparison, does it not? Gotta have Bible, because He can’t complete the job with nature plus Spirit, right?
That’s not about sola scriptura, though, that’s about the doctrine of scripture. Two different (though of course, not unrelated) things, really.
And yes, the WCF doctrine of revelation is not yours. We’ve known that for a while. That’s not quite the same thing as saying Protestants don’t stand for anything positive. I doubt you’ll find Rome saying you can find the mystery of the Eucharist in the trees, either.
The doctrine of revelation is not about what God can do, it’s about what He has chosen to do.
Hm! This implies that the best way to get rid of “Protestantism” is for the Roman church to admit Protestants to communion. It’d be a welcome development.
Indeed. On the subject of apostolic succession, the complaint from Roman Catholics is that, even if we Protestants did everything in a simple, biblical fashion, our sacraments would still be illicit and just couldn’t be recognized because we are lacking the electrical current of unbroken apostolic succession for our leadership. The barrier is not our practice, but our pedigree. (Sounds familiar.) Apparently we are just supposed to share knowing, helpless nods with Roman Catholics, and shrug our shoulders together at the Protestant predicament. However, this seems like the easiest thing in the world to remedy, that is if their intent… Read more »
In fairness, it must be admitted that this grudge goes both ways. I have been told that as a Catholic, I am not Christian, that I am hellbound, and that I worship the Whore of Babylon. Despite my fervent protestations to the contrary, I have been told that I personally worship statues, pay the priest to get my relations out of Purgatory, and believe that a picture of the Sacred Heart on my wall will keep my house from burning down. I am accused, variously, of being a simple peasant for believing such nonsense, or of being a scheming Jesuit.… Read more »
Speaking for myself, I recognize the baptism of Roman Catholics as fellow Christians, and I believe we confess the same Triune God. In addition, I’m perfectly willing to acknowledge that some of us Protestants (and even some early Reformers) are not so generous, and are guilty of a number of the generalizations that jillybean mentions. I’m no defender of grudges. However, I do wonder if jillybean will concede that some Roman Catholics in history have indeed paid the priest to spring their relatives from Purgatory (indulgences). I wonder if jillybean will concede that many personal statues of Mary in Latin… Read more »
I willingly concede both points! And I would be pretty silly not to, especially on a day when my Latin brothers and sisters are engaging in something that looks very much like venerating statues!
I meant to add something on the general topic of my declaring church teaching to be X while all around me some of my fellow Catholics are doing Y. There was recently a headline in the Los Angeles area press about a priest who sold lots of fake plane tickets and passes for elderly women to go see the Pope. I thought, oh no, this is just too much like Johann Tetzel in modern dress. Have bad priests given up molesting in order to take up fraud? But, on closer reading, the person was not a priest at all but… Read more »
“Speaking for myself, I recognize the baptism of Roman Catholics as fellow Christians, and I believe we confess the same Triune God.” Born again Christians, or covenant Christians? Are you saying Rome preaches the same gospel? Just trying to understand.
Tommy, every Christian is historical. We are “Christians” which mean we are “followers of Christ” – that’s a historical name given a group of people that were originally considered a “sect of Judaism.” We are Protestants, meaning we are that group of Christians who claim the same “catholic,” Apostolic faith of the early church *through* (that is, as marked through a specific passage of time with its own historic circumstances) the cleansing historical period of the Reformation. We are also “Americans.” American does not mean there is a Platonic, perfect form of “North American” which defines the true essence of… Read more »
fair enough
I have a real question though… Could reformed people let the prodigal son repent, and let him ask what he asked to his father? What I mean is that oftentime, you get the feeling, while listening to reformed sermons, or when reading reformed folks, that a sinner is not allowed to repent. I mean… you will hear that there is so much nothing that he can do, that he is not even allowed to demonstrate physically and concretely, that he his repenting. A repentant sinner who wants to suffer a bit (or, in catholic jargon: to do penance), like the… Read more »
Thanks for the honest questions, Tommy. One of the main points of the Prodigal Son parable is that the son did not and could not earn back his father’s love in any way. When Dad brought in the musicians and put the plate of fattened sirloin before his son, would the son be right to refuse them? “Sorry dad, but I must insist that I help to earn back your love.” The idea that his love needs earning back, and the thought that his love even could be earned at all would devestate the father. It’s not contrition that’s the… Read more »
Great analogy, btw. Captures the concept of grace very well.
Tommy wrote: the idea of earning love is silly. no catholics, who know catholicism, will talk this way. … a catholic who knows his catholicism would never say “Sorry dad, but I must insist that I earn back your love.” … that’s silly. … let’s take another example. a man is a wife-beater. to deal with it, and to deal with his many false repentance, a church ask that, in order to “demontrate” his repentance, he should, for example, go to counseling with a pastor to learn how to deal with anger, and be part of a men group to… Read more »
Is disqus doing something funny? I don’t see those replies from Tommy anymore. Maybe he deleted them, but it used to say “This comment was deleted” when that happened.
Hmm. They do seem to have disappeared now.
I find this an extremely difficult topic because so much depends on the language used. From my understanding, Purgatory is not for the purpose of expiating sins but for the purpose of repairing the damage those sins did to the soul. Catholic children used to be taught that sin is like a nail hammered into the soul. The grace of repentance removes the nail but leaves the hole. Purgatory, whether experienced in this life or after death, is intended to purify the soul and remove the holes. I think that Purgatory is a picture of grace to the Catholic. Think… Read more »
jillybean wrote: From my understanding, Purgatory is not for the purpose of expiating sins but for the purpose of repairing the damage those sins did to the soul. … I don’t think we Catholics are taught that expiation of our sins is even possible. My offenses against our Lord are infinitely greater than my capacity for repentance and atonement. Only Jesus can satisfy that debt. I do enjoy seeing jillybean’s sincere and heartfelt instincts on difficult topics. They are usually quite sound. Although, from the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Purgatory: Purgatory (Lat., “purgare”, to make clean, to purify) in accordance… Read more »
salvation as “participation” in the life of the Trinity
this could be the word which could describe the difference between the protestant view of atonement … and life, and the catholic view.
what do reformed folks do of Colossians 1:24?
Regarding Colossians 1:24, reformed would not say that Christ’s suffering lacked anything in regard to accomplishing our full atonement. Rather we would understand that Christ meant for His accomplished atonement to be lived out before the watching world, and that this would be done through His body, the Church. There are different ways of expressing this concept, but John Piper says the following: Christ has prepared a love offering for the world by suffering and dying for sinners. It is full and lacking in nothing—except one thing, a personal presentation by Christ himself to the nations of the world and… Read more »
I will second that.
Thank you!! Sometimes I am sincerely muddle-headed!
all of this leads to the basic difference from which all the rest flows… I think. That is: The reformed/protestant view of “total depravity”. And the catholic view of the Fall. From what I understand, Luther held the view that whatever, totally “whatever” anybody does is always sin (meaning: always.. all the time, in every instances..), and whatever we can do, before, during or after we are “saved”, is a dirty rag. … so, taking another analogy. I tear a ligament or two in my knee. From a catholic point of view, I “participate” to my salvation, by taking the… Read more »
I want to thank Tommy for presenting his questions very respectfully and patiently. In this setting, it might be best to actually quote from Luther if we are going to talk about his views on total depravity. In any case, the doctrine of total depravity is mainly focused on our fallen condition, before coming to Christ. It’s not primarily a statement about the nature of works of believers. For example, someone can affirm that God prepares good works for us believers to walk in (Eph 2:10), while still affirming that, apart from Christ, nothing we ever did could be regarded… Read more »
catholic doctrine doesn’t make so much a distinction between justification (or the moment I was “saved”), and sanctification, but sees salvation as something that has happened, is happening, and will happen. I won’t put here Scriptures references to back this thinking, because there is plenty (see Romans 8 for example). I am myself an evangelical (plymouth brethren), but I am seriously going toward catholicism. The truth of catholicism did hit me by total surprise, at different times in the last 10 years, while I was the most furious anti-catholic guy one could imagine. I was one of those evangelical kids… Read more »
I think the Reformed analogy works better if you have yourself jumping off the Empire State Building to your gruesome, messy, irrevocable death. And then divine intervention happens.
… if we take the parable of the prodigal son, and compare it to the 3 analogies: 1-simply hurting one’s knee, 2-hurting a knee and being in coma because of concussion, 3- jumping off the Empire State Building … it seems to me that the #1 is the closer. people will answer that the prodigal son was irresistibly drawn to his father by the Holy Spirit (irresistible grace)… Jesus does not mention it though. In the parable, the son seems to be able to have some kind of intelligent (some will say … self-interested…) reasonning. Is he to blame for… Read more »
I’ve never heard anyone, reformed or otherwise, say that. And if I heard a professing believer say that, I’d confront them on it.
” in other words, how do reformed brothers convince themselves that evangelization is important… apart from “we do it … ’cause God ask us to do it”
‘Because God commands us to do it’ is always a good place to start for a Christian.
“Real and serious question here:
practically speaking… how do we preach to a guy who is falling from the Empire State Building?”
We don’t, we preach to people who are already ‘dead’.
Wait. The answer wasn’t “Loud and fast.”? ; – )
I will also accept ‘loud and fast’ as an answer.
That was kinda my point. We preach to a valley of dried bones because our Father told us to, Christ’s atonement knits together the bones with sinews and muscles and covers them over with skins, and the Spirit breathes new life.
It’s like you can’t really appreciate the light without a good bit of darkness to compare it to…you know, we wouldn’t know what “good” was if it weren’t for all the “bad.”
By definition, Protestants must protest.
Protestants were not called “Protestants” because they protested in the modern sense of the word (as in to protest against something). It comes from the Latin “protestari” which means declare publicly or testify. The Protestants protested (testified publicly for) the truth.
If every day is Mardi Gras for Protestants, does that mean we’re going to see our gracious host doing the Samba?
I mean, point well taken, but let’s not forget that there are some other connotations of the examples we’re using here.
Hmmm…..no meditation for Cruz lovers? Doug, you’ve been quite prolific in writing about the GOP nomination process up til now. C’mon, Doug – you need to rally the troops. They’re very discouraged. If this Trump juggernaut keeps rolling on, Cruz won’t be able to pardon the traitor Jonathan Pollard. Trump’s got to be stopped!
JFN, if you’re disappointed that Doug isn’t riding his hobby horse next to yours, you might set up your own blog to say what you think needs to be said. Doug is not committing any kind of malfeasance by not being you.
Yeah, I’m really disappointed!
It’s an entertaining show, but this blog covers serious topics too.
Don’t poke fun, Doug, you might make an evangelical priest feel bad.
So Doug……..did you give up rhyming for lent? ; – )
I always give up gin for Lent.
I think I will give up broccoli.
Amen and amen, Sister Jilly!
I always give up gin for any reason!
18-yr single malt Scotch is MUCH better, as is a smooth, satisfying rum. But there’s a problem with my rum; it’s always gone. Why is the rum always gone?!
A Captain Sparrow classic!
Yo ho! ????
I never give up Scotch for Lent. We have the same rum issue. HMMM.
This is a very childish and disappointing post, in the same vein as “There should be no Father’s Day — we should honor fathers every day.”
Maybe someone should give up silly Reformed/Evangelical posturing for Lent?
Suppose Father’s day consisted of: 1. Obligatory participation ( http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/liturgical-year/lent/catholic-information-on-lenten-fast-and-abstinence.cfm ) (contra Rom 14:5-6) and 2. A barrage of people on Facebook and elsewhere complaining and self pitying the oh so difficult sacrifices they made in celebrating it (contra Matt 6:16-18). Then, yeah, I’d be glad to see someone simply say “There should be no Father’s Day — we should honor fathers every day.”
It’s not a holy day of obligation for Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, or many others who observe it. And even among Roman Catholics, “holy day of obligation” hardly has the force it used to have.
The post is an example of the “living in the past” syndrome many Reformed people exhibit.
We’re not in the 16th century any more. Eating sausages during a fast is no longer the bold, “speaking truth to power” move. Now it just seems silly.
Actually Ash Wednesday is not an official “Holy Day Of Obligation”, but the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops do say this: “Ash Wednesday and Good Friday are obligatory days of fasting and abstinence for Catholics. In addition, Fridays during Lent are obligatory days of abstinence.”
But aside from that, if “Holy Day Of Obligation” means something different now than it used to for Roman Catholics, where is the official Magisterial teaching on its updated meaning?
You’re right that Ash Wednesday is not a holy day of obligation, but I believe the Lenten fasts are still required.
If you want to quarrel about the RC Church imposing obligations on people, fine. I don’t care, and I’d agree. But thumbing your nose at Lent in the modern context and pretending you’re being brave like Zwingli is … hmm … is that what the SJWs call “cultural appropriation”?
Who said he was being like Zwingli? There are still some cultural pressures to do Lent, and lately they’re even coming from evangelicals too. Wilson is reminding everyone that because of our freedom in Christ we aren’t bound to those unbiblical obligations. But nobody here is saying we’re doing something just as brave as what Zwingli did. I agree, that would be silly.
Dude, lighten up. I think he’s just having a little fun. Not “being brave” or “speaking truth to power.”
Huldrych Zwingli broke with Swiss church authorities by attending Froschauer’s sausage feast during Lent in 1522. About the same time, he began cohabiting with the widow Anna Reinhard. Zwingli’s wedding with Anna did not take place until April 1524, three months before the birth of their daughter Regula. Is this really the sort of hero of Christian freedom we want to celebrate?
“Zwingli nearly died from bubonic plague in 1519… He married the widow Anna Reinhard secretly in 1522, then publicly in 1524. Their four children — Regula (1524), Wilhelm (1526), Huldreich (1528) and Anna (1530) — joined three from her previous marriage… Zwingli’s chief theological work was The Commentary on True and False Religion (1525)… After his death, his body was quartered, burned and mixed with dung to keep his ashes from being used as relics.” http://www.infoplease.com/biography/var/ulrichzwingli.html Wow! That was some secret marriage in 1522. It’s 2016 and some people still don’t know about it! If anyone needs a hero…..well…….there’s always… Read more »
Hmm. Zwingli’s only wedding that I’ve been able to find any evidence of is the one on April 2, 1524, when he married Anna. His “secret marriage” to her beforehand seems to be a conjecture based on the fact that one of his friends called Anna his “wife” as far back as July 1522, and his friends and enemies knew that he was living with her earlier that year. Perhaps she was a common-law wife? Rather than patiently working to reform the Catholic Church’s rules for fasting (no meat during Lent, no sexual intercourse by ordained priests), Zwingli simply broke… Read more »
Acts 11 8 “I replied, ‘Surely not, Lord! Nothing impure or unclean has ever entered my mouth.’ 9 “The voice spoke from heaven a second time, ‘Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.’ Jeff, seriously, have a sausage. Q: “Is it wrong to point out that a person who…” A: Yes. Matthew 18 15 “If your brother or sister[b] sins,[c] go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. Jeff, you are not in a good place to be talking about the conjecture of… Read more »
It’s only transgressive if you believe that the church had the authority to dictate Lenten diet, which I’m not sure is supportable from Scripture. If the Church never had the authority to ban sausages, then isn’t going and eating sausages an expression of Godly freedom, rather than submission to false authority? In the same way, should 1st century Jews be called transgressive and fleshily indulgent for abandoning their defunct food traditions?
From the Preface to the 1662 Book of Common Prayer: “For, as on the one side common experience sheweth, that where a change hath been made of things advisedly established (no evident necessity so requiring) sundry inconveniences have thereupon ensued; and those many times more and greater than the evils, that were intended to be remedied by such change: So on the other side, the particular Forms of Divine Worship, and the Rites and Ceremonies appointed to be used therein, being things in their own nature indifferent, and alterable, and so acknowledged; it is but reasonable, that upon weighty and… Read more »
The Puritan churches often established public days of fasting and repentance on particular occasions. What Scripture allows for these on an occasional basis but prohibits them as a regular practice?
Romans 14:4-6
4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.
5 One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. 6 Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.
Any questions?
Is there a difference between a church agreeing among itself to do something, and a Church hierarchy demanding that all churches fast in a particular way for a whole season?
Oops. See below.