From Luther’s comments on John 3:
What should Christ do, and of what use is the Messiah? What kind of Messiah is He? . . . What does He do? He testifies. If He walks in such weakness and holds on His kingdship no more fimrly than that He testified, is there nothing else that He can do but preach and talk? If He is no soldier, possesses no land (not even the width of His palm) and no people, what does He do? Preach. Yes, such a Messiah are we bidden to accept.
How if it be God’s will that the Messiah should not come like a Caesar? Such an honour He will not grants unto them, that He should come arrayed with power like theirs. But that He comes so unadorned and does nothing but preach, that is unspeakable wisdom and strength, yes, the treasure of wisdom and knowledge, for whosoever believes in Him shall live eternally. But who sees this? You are not meant to see it. His reign and His preaching are a testimony. It is a preaching which testifies to things which no man can hear, see, or read in books of the law or anywhere else in the world. To witness means to speak of what the hearer has not seen. A judge does not judge what he sees. He must hear witnesses. But here He must preach and witness to something which men do not see, and that is how the Lord Christ is a witness to the Father in heaven, high uplifted above all men. He shall do nothing but preach, and His preaching shall be His testimony to the Father, how He is inclined, how He desires to make men blessed and to redeem them from their sins, and from the power of death and the devil. That is His testimony.
Luther might explain why Protestants have stressed sermons as the center piece of worship.
This would explain why Roman Catholics emphasize the Mass:
The Tridentine Decree on Justification is one of the most impressive achievements of the council. The leaders of the council had reported to Rome that “the significance of this council in the theological sphere lies chiefly in the article on justification, in fact this is the most important item the council has to deal with.” But reading it can give one a false impression of the significance of justification within Roman Catholicism. The decree was needed, and the doctrine received the attention that it did, because of the Protestant challenge. For the inner life of the Roman Catholic Church, however, the doctrine was not very important. In 1564 Pope Pius IV promulgated the Creed of the Council of Trent. Justification is mentioned just once in passing: “I embrace and accept each and every article on original sin and justification declared and defined in the most holy Council of Trent.” Shortly afterward, his successor, Pope Pius V, promulgated a Catechismus ex Decreto Concilii Tridentini, the so-called Roman Catechism. This contains only scattered passing references to justification, mostly in the context of teaching on the sacraments. The sacramental system is as central to the catechism as the doctrine of justification is peripheral, and the need to offer satisfaction for sins receives the sustained exposition denied to justification. Justification needed to be treated in response to the Protestant threat, but at the heart of the Christian life in Roman Catholicism is not justification but the sacramental system. The Council fathers turned from justification to the sacraments, and the Decree on the sacraments begins with the observation that all true righteousness begins with the sacraments; having been begun, increases through them; and, if lost, is restored through them. (Anthony Lane, “A Tale of Two Imperial Cities,” in Bruce L. McCormack, Justification in Perspective, 141-42)
Two paradigms, indeed, (but not much reform in the Counter-Reformation).
Old Life 
Luther’s comments suggest that a humble, seemingly not so grand or significant looking (or monolithic) Christian Church might not be so unexpected.
Maybe the lack of stress on justification within Catholicism explains the lack of specificity as to who is actually where and why after death. We seem to have a hard time getting definitive answers on anyone’s status other than those who have formally been declared saints.
LikeLike
D.G. Hart quoting from an author: ” The sacramental system is as central to the catechism as the doctrine of justification is peripheral, and the need to offer satisfaction for sins receives the sustained exposition denied to justification. Justification needed to be treated in response to the Protestant threat, but at the heart of the Christian life in Roman Catholicism is not justification but the sacramental system. The Council fathers turned from justification to the sacraments, and the Decree on the sacraments begins with the observation that all true righteousness begins with the sacraments; having been begun, increases through them; and, if lost, is restored through them. ”
RS: If we understand teaching the catechism as a way of teaching the word, then this is simply the Roman view of word and sacrament. Teach them the catechism and give them the sacrament and they will be justifed. Hmmmm
LikeLike
Richard, I’m loathe to have these kind of conversations with you. But, your paralleling protestant catechetical teaching with the sacramentalism of Rome is ignorant. Not every post works as an opportunity to push your biblicism. Round pegs square holes. There is no ex opere operato in teaching the confession or catechism
LikeLike
But, Richard, thanks for helping my recent point to the resident apologist for Rome (are you there, Bryan?) that we are assailed by two sects, both of whom mistake confessional Protestants for the other.
LikeLike
” we are assailed by two sects, both of whom mistake confessional Protestants for the other.”
Zrim, story of my life.
LikeLike
From a Lutheran perspective, “either preaching or the Mass” seems like a false choice. Both the Word preached and the Word attached to physical things (the sacraments) bring forgiveness of sins, life and salvation.
LikeLike
Nate, understanding “Mass” as all Christ’s action, and we are completely passive. and not us “offering Jesus” to gain forgiveness, as the Romanists understand Mass. (I assume you know this, just adding a footnote)
LikeLike
Katy,
Absolutely, we don’t carry over Rome’s understanding of the Mass.
LikeLike
sean: Richard, I’m loathe to have these kind of conversations with you. But, your paralleling protestant catechetical teaching with the sacramentalism of Rome is ignorant. Not every post works as an opportunity to push your biblicism. Round pegs square holes. There is no ex opere operato in teaching the confession or catechism
RS: Sean, since you are loathe to a conversation of this sort I will not answer your points other than to say you have misunderstood my point. I know, that is my fault as well.
LikeLike
Zrim: But, Richard, thanks for helping my recent point to the resident apologist for Rome (are you there, Bryan?) that we are assailed by two sects, both of whom mistake confessional Protestants for the other.
RS: But, Zrim, I have not misunderstood you for Rome.
LikeLike
Richard, we baptize babies. I thought this was but one example of how confessional Protestants don’t go far enough in their reforms and shaken all of Rome off.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, we baptize babies. I thought this was but one example of how confessional Protestants don’t go far enough in their reforms and shaken all of Rome off.
RS: Much of what you are saying here is correct, but I think the underlying assumptions you are making with it is where I would differ. Yes, I do think that the Refomers recovered the biblical Gospel but did not reform all things. True enough I would argue that this is one aspect of Rome that many Protestants have not reformed from Rome and gone back to the Bible on. However, while the practice is more or less the same, your beliefs about the baptism of infants and how they are finally to be justified are far different. So I don’t think that I have mistaken you for Rome at all. Confessional Protestants who are Reformed are far from Rome.
LikeLike
Richard, fair enough. But the point remains that confessional Protestants find themselves in the curious position of being more or less lumped in with the radicals by the Romanists or vice versa. Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right…
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, fair enough. But the point remains that confessional Protestants find themselves in the curious position of being more or less lumped in with the radicals by the Romanists or vice versa. Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right…
RS: That may be true, but then try being lumped in with Finney and perfectionism of various types as I am. No one likes to be lumped in with those they don’t agree with and perhaps even disagree with to a great degree.
LikeLike
Richard, your complaint loses some force when you affirm semi-revivalism and being a semi-revivalist. Oppose semi-revivalism in favor of Reformation and maybe you won’t have to take your lumps.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, your complaint loses some force when you affirm semi-revivalism and being a semi-revivalist. Oppose semi-revivalism in favor of Reformation and maybe you won’t have to take your lumps.
RS: Ian Murray has pointed out the huge distinction between revival and revivalism. I have simply accepted your branding revival as semi-revivalism. I still think you think of true revival as a form of revivalism. It is quite biblical to seek for the Lord to revive His people and bring the unconverted into His Church.
LikeLike