Luther and the Mass

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Here are Luther’s thoughts on the mass from his Smalcald Articles. I will quote in full.

Part II, Article II: Of the Mass.

1] That the Mass in the Papacy must be the greatest and most horrible abomination, as it directly and powerfully conflicts with this chief article [justification sola fide], and yet above and before all other popish idolatries it has been the chief and most specious. For it has been held that this sacrifice or work of the Mass, even though it be rendered by a wicked [and abandoned] scoundrel, frees men from sins, both in this life and also in purgatory, while only the Lamb of God shall and must do this, as has been said above. Of this article nothing is to be surrendered or conceded, because the first article does not allow it.

2] If, perchance, there were reasonable Papists we might speak moderately and in a friendly way, thus: first, why they so rigidly uphold the Mass. For it is but a pure invention of men, and has not been commanded by God; and every invention of man we may [safely] discard, as Christ declares, Matt. 15:9: In vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

3] Secondly. It is an unnecessary thing, which can be omitted without sin and danger.

4] Thirdly. The Sacrament can be received in a better and more blessed way [more acceptable to God], (yea, the only blessed way), according to the institution of Christ. Why, then, do they drive the world to woe and [extreme] misery on account of a fictitious, unnecessary matter, which can be well obtained in another and more blessed way?

5] Let [care be taken that] it be publicly preached to the people that the Mass as men’s twaddle [commentitious affair or human figment] can be omitted without sin, and that no one will be condemned who does not observe it, but that he can be saved in a better way without the Mass. I wager [Thus it will come to pass] that the Mass will then collapse of itself, not only among the insane [rude] common people, but also among all pious, Christian, reasonable, God-fearing hearts; and that the more, when they would hear that the Mass is a [very] dangerous thing, fabricated and invented without the will and Word of God.

6] Fourthly. Since such innumerable and unspeakable abuses have arisen in the whole world from the buying and selling of masses, the Mass should by right be relinquished, if for no other purpose than to prevent abuses, even though in itself it had something advantageous and good. How much more ought we to relinquish it, so as to prevent [escape] forever these horrible abuses, since it is altogether unnecessary, useless, and dangerous, and we can obtain everything by a more necessary, profitable, and certain way without the Mass.

7] Fifthly. But since the Mass is nothing else and can be nothing else (as the Canon and all books declare), than a work of men (even of wicked scoundrels), by which one attempts to reconcile himself and others to God, and to obtain and merit the remission of sins and grace (for thus the Mass is observed when it is observed at the very best; otherwise what purpose would it serve?), for this very reason it must and should [certainly] be condemned and rejected. For this directly conflicts with the chief article, which says that it is not a wicked or a godly hireling of the Mass with his own work, but the Lamb of God and the Son of God, that taketh away our sins.

8] But if any one should advance the pretext that as an act of devotion he wishes to administer the Sacrament, or Communion, to himself, he is not in earnest [he would commit a great mistake, and would not be speaking seriously and sincerely]. For if he wishes to commune in sincerity, the surest and best way for him is in the Sacrament administered according to Christ’s institution. But that one administer communion to himself is a human notion, uncertain, unnecessary, yea, even prohibited. And he does not know what he is doing, because without the Word of God he obeys a false human opinion and invention. 9] So, too, it is not right (even though the matter were otherwise correct) for one to use the common Sacrament of [belonging to] the Church according to his own private devotion, and without God’s Word and apart from the communion of the Church to trifle therewith.

10] This article concerning the Mass will be the whole business of the Council. [The Council will perspire most over, and be occupied with this article concerning the Mass.] For if it were [although it would be] possible for them to concede to us all the other articles, yet they could not concede this. As Campegius said at Augsburg that he would be torn to pieces before he would relinquish the Mass, so, by the help of God, I, too, would suffer myself to be reduced to ashes before I would allow a hireling of the Mass, be he good or bad, to be made equal to Christ Jesus, my Lord and Savior, or to be exalted above Him. Thus we are and remain eternally separated and opposed to one another. They feel well enough that when the Mass falls, the Papacy lies in ruins. Before they will permit this to occur, they will put us all to death if they can.

11] In addition to all this, this dragon’s tail, * the Mass, has begotten a numerous vermin-brood of manifold idolatries.*

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

12] First, purgatory. Here they carried their trade into purgatory by masses for souls, and vigils, and weekly, monthly, and yearly celebrations of obsequies, and finally by the Common Week and All Souls’ Day, by soul-baths so that the Mass is used almost alone for the dead, although Christ has instituted the Sacrament alone for the living. Therefore purgatory, and every solemnity, rite, and commerce connected with it, is to be regarded as nothing but a specter of the devil. For it conflicts with the chief article [which teaches] that only Christ, and not the works of men, are to help [set free] souls. Not to mention the fact that nothing has been [divinely] commanded or enjoined upon us concerning the dead. Therefore all this may be safely omitted, even if it were no error and idolatry.

13] The Papists quote here Augustine and some of the Fathers who are said to have written concerning purgatory, and they think that we do not understand for what purpose and to what end they spoke as they did. St. Augustine does not write that there is a purgatory, nor has he a testimony of Scripture to constrain him thereto, but he leaves it in doubt whether there is one, and says that his mother asked to be remembered at the altar or Sacrament. Now, all this is indeed nothing but the devotion of men, and that, too, of individuals, and does not establish an article of faith, which is the prerogative of God alone.

14] Our Papists, however, cite such statements [opinions] of men in order that men should believe in their horrible, blasphemous, and cursed traffic in masses for souls in purgatory [or in sacrifices for the dead and oblations], etc. But they will never prove these things from Augustine. Now, when they have abolished the traffic in masses for purgatory, of which Augustine never dreamt, we will then discuss with them whether the expressions of Augustine without Scripture [being without the warrant of the Word] are to be admitted, and whether the dead should be remembered at the Eucharist. 15] For it will not do to frame articles of faith from the works or words of the holy Fathers; otherwise their kind of fare, of garments, of house, etc., would have to become an article of faith, as was done with relics. [We have, however, another rule, namely] The rule is: The Word of God shall establish articles of faith, and no one else, not even an angel.

16] Secondly. From this it has followed that evil spirits have perpetrated much knavery [exercised their malice] by appearing as the souls of the departed, and with unspeakable [horrible] lies and tricks demanded masses, vigils, pilgrimages, and other alms. 17] All of which we had to receive as articles of faith, and to live accordingly; and the Pope confirmed these things, as also the Mass and all other abominations. Here, too, there is no [cannot and must not be any] yielding or surrendering.

18] Thirdly. [Hence arose] the pilgrimages. Here, too, masses, the remission of sins and the grace of God were sought, for the Mass controlled everything. Now it is indeed certain that such pilgrimages, without the Word of God, have not been commanded us, neither are they necessary, since we can have these things [the soul can be cared for] in a better way, and can omit these pilgrimages without any sin and danger. Why therefore do they leave at home [desert] their own parish [their called ministers, their parishes], the Word of God, wives, children, etc., who are ordained and [attention to whom is necessary and has been] commanded, and run after these unnecessary, uncertain, pernicious will-o’-the-wisps of the devil [and errors]? 19] Unless the devil was riding [made insane] the Pope, causing him to praise and establish these practices, whereby the people again and again revolted from Christ to their own works, and became idolaters, which is worst of all; moreover, it is neither necessary nor commanded, but is senseless and doubtful, and besides harmful. Hence here, too, there can be no yielding or surrendering [to yield or concede anything here is not lawful], etc. 20] And let this be preached, that such pilgrimages are not necessary, but dangerous; and then see what will become of them. [For thus they will perish of their own accord.]

21] Fourthly. Fraternities [or societies], in which cloisters, chapters, vicars have assigned and communicated (by a legal contract and sale) all masses and good works, etc., both for the living and the dead. This is not only altogether a human bauble, without the Word of God, entirely unnecessary and not commanded, but also contrary to the chief article, Of Redemption. Therefore it is in no way to be tolerated.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

22] Fifthly. The relics, in which there are found so many falsehoods and tomfooleries concerning the bones of dogs and horses, that even the devil has laughed at such rascalities, ought long ago to have been condemned, even though there were some good in them; and so much the more because they are without the Word of God; being neither commanded nor counseled, they are an entirely unnecessary and useless thing. 23] But the worst is that [they have imagined that] these relics had to work indulgence and the forgiveness of sins [and have revered them] as a good work and service of God, like the Mass, etc.

24] Sixthly. Here belong the precious indulgences granted (but only for money) both to the living and the dead, by which the miserable [sacrilegious and accursed] Judas, or Pope, has sold the merit of Christ, together with the superfluous merits of all saints and of the entire Church, etc. All these things [and every single one of them] are not to be borne, and are not only without the Word of God, without necessity, not commanded, but are against the chief article. For the merit of Christ is [apprehended and] obtained not by our works or pence, but from grace through faith, without money and merit; and is offered [and presented] not through the power of the Pope, but through the preaching of God’s Word.
bookofconcord.org/smalcald.php#mass

As you can see, irenicism was not one of Luther’s strong points. Neither is this all he had to say pertaining to the mass in this document. Just to name one example, the section immediately following he attacks the invocation of the saints (as we do at the beginning of every mass in the Confiteor) as an “[abuse] of the Antichrist.” The complaints here are still relevant today because they are not just Luther’s private opinions, but part of the official and binding confessions of all Lutherans to this day. At any rate, I hope it gives you some perspective on Luther’s mindset.

 

[concretecamper]

I hope that our Roman Catholic friends understand that the Lutheran objection to some of the language of the Roman Mass is out of supreme reverence for Christ’s work

So the RCC has less reverence?

 

[steido01]

So the RCC has less reverence?

This was not what I implied, as I hope is obvious from my posts. Luther himself might, perhaps, agree with your supposition, though it’s important when reading Luther to parse through the polemic Zeitgeist of the day to understand the point of and reason for the protest. He didn’t exactly speak with the softest of tones, which suits the era he lived in. His Roman Catholic contemporaries were equally “earthy” folk, if not more so.

Perhaps Luther’s day is not so different from today’s internet, where one would prefer to ask the “gotcha” question rather than seek to understand another.

 

[marywarfield]

But we did not die for our sins. Christ did. Even as the church is the Body of Christ while He is the Head, we made no sacrifice - Christ did. To claim that we made a sacrifice sounds, to Lutheran ears, as if we are somehow able to save ourselves. That’s the fundamental difference between Rome and Wittenberg’s understandings.

That said, I think there may be room to find agreement if the Roman understanding can be considered in a specific way (though Lutherans will likely still bristle at the wording). I’m certainly not eloquent enough to attempt making one though - best left to our respective theologians.

Are we not called though to die TO sin? There is no
way to do that without a sacrifice of our own.

 

[concretecamper]

This was not what I implied, as I hope is obvious from my posts. Luther himself might, perhaps, agree with your supposition, though it’s important when reading Luther to parse through the polemic Zeitgeist of the day to understand the point of and reason for the protest. He didn’t exactly speak with the softest of tones, which suits the era he lived in. His Roman Catholic contemporaries were equally “earthy” folk, if not more so.

Perhaps Luther’s day is not so different from today’s internet, where one would prefer to ask the “gotcha” question rather than seek to understand another.

I am sure you did not intend to imply anything negative.

But the reality is that if Luther did something out of supreme reverence, what he was deviating from was less reverent.

As for soft tones, I for one like red and blue rather than pastels.

 

[MaryT777]

I am sure you did not intend to imply anything negative.

But the reality is that if Luther did something out of supreme reverence, what he was deviating from was less reverent.

As for soft tones, I for one like red and blue rather than pastels.

 

[concretecamper]

Are we not called though to die TO sin? There is no
way to do that without a sacrifice of our own.

I was thinking of Christ saying “take up your cross and follow Me”… did He mean we could stop before Calvary?

 

[babs57]

Are we not called though to die TO sin? There is no
way to do that without a sacrifice of our own.

This is how I understand it. :yup:

Romans 12:1 I urge you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God.

and…(speaking on Baptism)…

Rom 6:6 We know that our old self was crucified with Him, so that our sinful body might be done away with, that we might no longer be in slavery to sin.

and…Col 1:24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of His body, which is the church,…

 

[steido01]

I am sure you did not intend to imply anything negative.

But the reality is that if Luther did something out of supreme reverence, what he was deviating from was less reverent.

As for soft tones, I for one like red and blue rather than pastels.

I think even the most ardent Roman apologists will agree that abuses in the 1500s were manifest in the Church. Whether that translates to a general lack of correct doctrine and proper reverence, I’ll let people decide for themselves. I see no point in arguing over whose stone is most likely to become a Son of Abraham.

I agree that pastels serve us no use in the pursuit of Truth. Conversely, bright and loud neon lights don’t exactly show us the proper colors either. Admittedly, that side of the problem usually falls on my side of the Tiber - Luther’s language was never as flowery as the sort that has generally come from the Vatican.

Of course, being a Wisconsinite, the best colors are Green and Gold.

 

[steido01]

Just wanted to thank the Roman Catholic posters here for their (name removed by moderator)ut. I appreciate the deference to Scripture, and you’ve given me much to ponder. I am hopeful that our communions may someday reach consensus on this issue.

 

[babs57]

Just wanted to thank the Roman Catholic posters here for their (name removed by moderator)ut. I appreciate the deference to Scripture, and you’ve given me much to ponder. I am hopeful that our communions may someday reach consensus on this issue.

Praying hard!! :grouphug:

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Regarding the “Orate Fratres” prayer, A simple explanation of the “my sacrifice and yours” is that Christ gave himself for the whole world so “mine and yours” indicates the claim of the whole congregation to the sacrifice. By this I mean that “we have an altar,” as it says in Hebrews, at which all Christians have a right to eat. Then of course, there is also our participation (something I think is unduly suppressed in Lutheran theology) in Christ’s sacrifice as St. Paul says, “if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.” One Catholic priest-blogger, Fr. Z, comments on a recent improvement in the English translation.

The most important change (from “May our sacrifice…”) is the correct translation of “meum ac vestrum… my and yours”. That “our” in the outgoing version distorted the theology of the text.

There are various Latin conjunctions for “and”. Ac is used to join two different but related words into a single complex concept. This is what ancient orators called hendiadys (Greek for “one through two”). In Latin, an ac in hendiadys generally gives the first word more importance than the second.

The Second Vatican Council in its Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen gentium 10 defined that the priesthood given in baptism is a true participation in the priesthood of Christ, but that it differs qualitatively from the ministerial priesthood conferred by the sacrament of Holy Orders. The ordained don’t merely receive more priesthood. They receive a priesthood different from that which they already had from baptism.

These two modes of priesthood, distinct but sharing a common source, relate to each other as a single person’s head does with the body.

At the Offertory the priest says “my sacrifice and yours”. He acts and speaks in the person of Christ, the Head of the Body, the Church. He calls the people, Body of the Church, into complementary unity. He invites them to pray that his sacrifice, according to his manner of offering sacrifice as an ordained priest, and their (“your”) sacrifice, according to how the baptized offer gifts and sacrifices, will be accepted.

Lay people, with the priesthood of the baptized, are the vanguard of the Church’s mission in the world.

…

At the Offertory the priest says “my sacrifice and yours”. He acts and speaks in the person of Christ, the Head of the Body, the Church. He calls the people, Body of the Church, into complementary unity. He invites them to pray that his sacrifice, according to his manner of offering sacrifice as an ordained priest, and their (“your”) sacrifice, according to how the baptized offer gifts and sacrifices, will be accepted.
wdtprs.com/blog/2011/07/quaeritur-our-sacrifice-and-my-sacrifice-and-yours/

The priest says “my” speaking in persona Christi (strongly emphasized in Lutheran theology), but he does not fail to include the rest of the congregation (though distinguishing them with the conjunction “ac”) in their own priestly role, which Father explains. Such ideas need not add, much less detract anything from Christ’s sacrifice. Rather, I believe the correct idea is that we are all called to participate in Christ’s sacrifice, a theme present all over the New Testament. For example, Paul says when we are baptized, we are “buried with [Christ] in baptism.” Peter describes the Christian life as a “participation in the divine nature.”