Of the Mass.
What is the main dispute in this article.
This is the main controversy, whether the Holy Supper is a true outward sacrifice of atonement, in which the body of Jesus Christ is offered to the heavenly Father for the living and for the dead, which the popes say, but we can by no means accept such a sacrifice.
For what reasons?
1. Since in the institution of the Holy Supper Christ Jesus instituted not a sacrifice but a sacrament, it is not proper for us to change Christ's order.
2. Nor is there any word to be found in which the Lord Christ instituted such sacrifices.
3. The Scripture knows of only one atoning sacrifice, of one trespass offering, namely the suffering and death of Jesus
Christ, Heb. 10 [:12]. With one sacrifice he has perfected, for eternity, those who are sanctified.
4. The mass is said and repeated so often, but what is repeated so often cannot be a sacrifice, as can be seen in the same 10th chapter of Hebrews, where it says [:1]: Every year one must always offer one kind of sacrifice, and cannot make those who offer perfect, otherwise the sacrifice would have ceased. Every priest is ordained to worship every day and often to offer the same sacrifice, which can never take away sin. But he (Christ) offered one sacrifice for sin, which endures forever. This is the difference between the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and the sacrifices of the Old Testament, that the former happened only once, while the latter happened often and many times.
5. If Christ had been offered up in the Mass and had offered himself to God in the Holy Supper, he would not have been offered only once, but at least twice, once in the sacrament, the other time on the cross. But this is clearly contrary to Holy Scripture, which testifies that the Lord Christ offered Himself only once. As we read in Hebrews 9 [:1], where it says: At the end of the world he appeared once to take away sin by his own sacrifice. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: So Christ was once offered to take away much sin. So it cannot be that Christ sacrificed himself again in the Lord's Supper, or that he did not have to sacrifice himself on the cross, which no Christian will say.
6. Because there is no shedding of blood in the Mass, the Mass cannot be a sacrifice that expiates sin. For so it says again in Hebrews 9 [:22]: Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.
7. As often as Christ is sacrificed, so often must he suffer, is written in the 9th chapter of Hebrews, verse 26. Now he suffered only once, he died once, dies and suffers no more, Romans 6 [:10]. From this it also follows irrefutably that he is not offered up in the Mass.
8. Did the Lord Christ institute the holy sacrament of the Lord's Supper, not for the dead, but for the living, for those who can still eat, still drink, still
speak, proclaim the Lord's death, and test themselves? The Mass, however, is to be a sacrifice for the deceased, which does not correspond with the institution of the Lord Christ.
9. Too much haggling and profiteering is done with the mass, the poor people are shamefully cheated of their money, which they give for the papal mass, since otherwise these spiritual gifts, as forgiveness of sins etc., are not sold for the money, as can be seen in Acts 8 [:20].
10. There are many errors in the Mass, many vain, ridiculous, and useless things, all of which are added to Holy Communion with great sacrilege, such as making a sacrifice out of a sacrament, greatly reducing and diminishing the Lord Christ's atoning sacrifice, that they devise a forgiveness of sins without the shedding of blood, that they use all kinds of gesticulations and ridiculous offerings, sometimes pretending to be asleep, sometimes bowing down, sometimes mumbling secretly, sometimes shouting loudly, and other such ridiculous and useless offerings. But especially the Canon Missaticus or the prayers that are said at Mass are extremely blasphemous and against Christ Jesus, for they pray that God would be as pleased with this sacrifice of the body and blood of Jesus Christ as with the sacrifices of Abel and Melchizedeck. Is Christ out of favor with God the Father so that the papal priests must first plead with the Father on his behalf? Must not the Lord Christ be more acceptable to the Father than the sacrifice of Abel, which may have been a little lamb? Indeed, if this prayer is to be valid, then Christ does not have to please God at all, because they pray that he should please him, like the sacrifice of Melchizedeck. Because there is no Melchizedeck sacrifice in the Bible, it could not have been pleasing if there had been none. More subtly, they ask God to command the angels to bring the body of Christ before his face. What is that? I thought that Christ did not need the angels to help him into heaven first, for he is the Lord of heaven, he is first in heaven, he is first with, yes, in the heavenly Father, John 14: I thought that Christ went to heaven only once and never departed from his Father. What then may the angels first bring him to the Father? Or does Christ perhaps have two bodies? One that ascended to heaven
in the person of the Word, the other that the angels take to heaven in the Mass? Such and more such abominable errors are all found in a heap in the papal Mass.
11. In the eleventh place, there are many contradictions in the Mass, many repugnant doctrines and speeches, for how is it possible that the Mass should be a true sacrifice, namely a propitiatory sacrifice without blood? Has this ever been heard? The Mass should be a visible sacrifice, and what is sacrificed cannot be seen. Christ is sacrificed and yet imperfectly for the sin of the world, which is all against each other. Our adversaries are still so blind that they do not see such abominations.
They say: The Mass has always been in use and Luther himself confesses it.
In the Apology of the Augsburg Confession we clearly confess that there has always been a Mass in the Christian Church, but it does not follow from this that the papal Mass has been in use for so long that one should be careful about what we mean by the word Mass, namely Holy Communion, as it has always been held in the Catholic Church with Christian ceremonies. This has always been the case, but the popes mean something else by the Mass, namely their supposed sacrifice, of which they cannot say with reason of truth, even if they do say it, that it has always been in the Church of God. For Bellarminus, one of the most distinguished Jesuits, proves that 800 years after the birth of Christ the Mass was first held with the ceremonies as it is now. Although he has now added many false things, it is nevertheless to be concluded that he did not dare to say, as others do, that the Mass has always been held in this way from the institution of Christ to the present time, which Pope Gregory Magnus, the first of this name, in Regist. 7th book, 63rd chapter, and the papal Historicus Platina, speaking of the life of Sixtus the First, testify and clearly state that the sacrament was previously observed in a simple and Christian manner, until now one after another has forged and set more to it. If the popes themselves confess this, with what conscience may some of them write publicly that the papal Mass has always been customary in the Church of Christ,
as it is now in the papacy, which is called too much of the truth.
The paschal lamb in the Old Testament was a sacrifice, but the sacrament of the Holy Supper, which was signified by the old paschal lamb, was soon substituted for the old paschal lamb, which is why it is a sacrifice as well as that one.
Answer: 1. Nowhere in sacred Scripture is the paschal lamb actually called a sacrifice, nor a propitiatory sacrifice. For the same sacrifices had to be offered by the priests alone, on the altar alone, with certain ceremonies. This paschal lamb, however, was not only sacrificed by priests, but also by all the householders, and not on the altar alone, but through all the houses, in all the houses, with many other ceremonies than those used in the sacrifice of atonement. In the eighth chapter of Exodus [:26] it says that no sacrifice could be offered in Egypt because of the abominations of Egypt, but because the paschal lamb was slaughtered in Egypt, it must follow that it was not a real sacrifice, and it does not help to prove from the mere slaughter that the paschal lamb was a sacrifice, since it was not slaughtered for sacrifice but for food.
2. The sacrament of Holy Communion was not actually signified by the paschal lamb, but by Christ Jesus, who was to be slain for us on the cross as an innocent lamb. Isaiah 53, 1 Cor. 5.
3. And although the sacrament of the Holy Supper succeeded the paschal [or Easter] lamb and was instituted in its place in the New Testament, it does not follow that the new sacrament is of the same kind as the old. If the pascal lamb had been sacrificed in the Old Testament, it would not follow that Christ was also sacrificed in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, because this sacrament came in place of the old. Otherwise it would also have to follow that Baptism came instead of circumcision; therefore, just as in the circumcision of the Old Testament the foreskin was circumcised, so also in Baptism there must be circumcision, and if this is true, I cannot finely press the popes in this way. In the pascal lamb the sacrifice was made with the shedding of blood, so it must follow that in the Mass the sacrifice should also be made with the shedding of blood, but this does not happen,
what do they want to say about this? Therefore, it is safest to believe and know that the pascal lamb in the Old Testament was a type of the Easter lamb in the New Testament, which was slaughtered on the trunk of the cross, and not a type of the sacrifice of the Mass.
They say that Christ on the cross is not the paschal lamb indicated, because no meal would have been performed there, but the old paschal lamb would have been eaten.
They evidently say against Scripture, which confesses that Christ on the cross is signified by the paschal lamb, Isaiah 53, and especially John 19. In the first epistle to the Corinthians 5 [:7], concerning eating: Although the slain Christ Jesus is not eaten bodily, as the lamb was eaten in the Old Testament, yet by faith he is eaten spiritually, which Scripture also calls eating. John 6: I speak of the passion of Jesus Christ as it is eaten, not of the body in the holy sacrament, which we eat spiritually, but also orally. This objection of ours to the contrary is of no avail, although it is already held in high esteem by them.
As, however, when Christ is slaughtered in the mass, incruento modo, bloodlessly, because otherwise one would not have been able to eat Christ if he had not been slaughtered, just as in the Old Testament one could not eat an un-slaughtered lamb.
So our adversaries pretend, but very inconsistently. For where do they always want to prove that Christ was slain in the Mass, slain in the Lord's Supper in an unbloody manner? Is there even a single letter of this in the whole of Scripture? How often was Christ slain? The Scriptures say only once, and the papists say twice, first in the sacrament, and secondly on the stem of the cross. Are we then to abandon God's Word? But the fact that they pretend that otherwise Christ could not have been eaten if he had not been slain shows what coarse, carnal, capernaiac thoughts they have in their heads about partaking of the sacrament. Do you think, you papists, that the eating of the body of Jesus Christ in Holy Communion is like the eating of the paschal lamb in the
Old Testament? God forbid, and what need is there to eat the body of Christ in the same way as the old paschal lamb? Now that we have been freed from the Jewish ceremonies, we would have to use bitter salt and other things and be girded with belts around our loins. But I ask, if Christ sacrificed himself for sin in the Lord's Supper, why did he sacrifice himself again for sin at the foot of the cross? Where is the word of Scripture that he was sacrificed only once, that he redeemed us eternally from sin only through one sacrifice, which is written so often in the epistle to the Hebrews.
The church is visible and must have visible things so that it may be strengthened in its faith.
It does not follow from this that the Mass is precisely the visible means of help. Let us stick to the means which Christ Jesus has instituted for us, namely the sacraments, which are also visibly administered and distributed. But since the popes want so much to insist on this argument, one can justifiably counter them with this objection: All sacrifices of the Old Testament were such that what was sacrificed was also seen. If, then, the Mass is a true, outward sacrifice, it must follow that what is offered can be seen.
But now, according to their pretense, the body of Jesus Christ is sacrificed, which is not seen or felt. And so they have no really visible sacrifice in the Mass. They should probably leave this argument unresolved; they must not come up with the bread and wine, for they themselves confess that they do not offer bread and wine, but the body of Jesus Christ.
Is there supposed to be no sacrifice at all in the New Testament? After all, the Scriptures commemorate sacrifice several times.
The Scriptures commemorate it, yes, but in eternity it will not be found that such a papal sacrifice of the Mass is commemorated, that is so certain, as God is God, but other sacrifices are mentioned with clear letters, as:
1. The atoning sacrifice which Jesus Christ made at the foot of the cross. Hebrews 9 and 10.
2. The ministry of the gospel is also called a sacrifice. Romans 15 [:16-17], where St. Paul writes thus: I am to be a minister of Christ among the Gentiles, to offer the gospel of God, that the Gentiles may become a sacrifice acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit. Not only the gospel, but also the Gentiles are called a sacrifice in an oblique way. As also Philippians 2 [:17].
3. The prayers of the saints are called incense and sacrifices in Revelation, chap. 5 and 8, and in many other places.
4. When praise is given to God and shared with the poor, this is called a sacrifice in Scripture. To Hebrews 13 [:15-16], where it says, Let us therefore through him offer the sacrifice of praise to God always, which is the fruit of lips that confess his name. Do not forget to do good and to share, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God.
5. If one leads a Christian life, the Scripture also means this to be a sacrifice pleasing to God. So St. Paul writes to the Romans, chapter 12 [:1]: I beseech you, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. But that Holy Communion should ever be called a sacrifice in Holy Scripture cannot be proved for all eternity.
Our opponent endeavors to force from the 13th chapter of the Apostolic Histories [Acts 13:2] that the apostles sacrificed; the text thus reads: And as they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit spoke, etc. Oh, what a ridiculous proof! Can the Lord not be served in any other way than with the sacrifice of the Mass? Can he not be served with prayer and preaching? Must not the word λειτονργειν serve, as it is used here, mean something other than holding Mass? St. Paul, who uses the very word here, not for sacrificial Mass, but for the ministry of the Holy Gospel, says that he is a λειτουργός a servant of Jesus Christ among the Gentiles, etc.
To conclude from this irrefutably how the little word λειτονργειν must not be understood of the holding of mass, and I would like to know, because it is said by many, since they served the Lord, whether the popes think that many masses were forged at that time? They can offer no reason at all.
In the Church of God the word liturgia was first used for the office of the Church, for the action of Holy Communion, until finally the Romanists applied it to their invented sacrifice, like the word Mass. In sum, it remains the same: λειτονργειν, to serve, must not nevertheless mean to hold Mass, as only with the popes, otherwise not, neither in Scripture, nor elsewhere.
Nevertheless, the Most Blessed Sacrament has always been called a sacrifice by the Fathers and the Church.
Answer: 1. Is that certain? In the Scripture it is not called a sacrifice, much less a sacrifice of the Mass. 2. As to the Fathers and Churches, we confess that they have at times called Holy Communion a (sacrificium) sacrifice, but not such a sacrifice as the Mass, but in the manner in which preaching, praying, and almsgiving are called a sacrifice, and the holy Fathers in the first pure Church saw the word sacrifice chiefly from this: 1. because all divine services in general can be called in Latin sacrificia, & facienda sacra. 2. because of the prayers which are performed in this holy sacrament, as the right sacrifices of the mouth, the right sacrifices of praise. (Heb. 13 [:15]) 3. because of the alms which were offered in times past from the first fruits of the sacrament. This is what they meant by the word sacrifice in this sacrament, but that the holy pure Fathers should have regarded the Lord's Supper as such a propitiatory sacrifice as the Mass is, can never be presented with truth. The Fathers used the word sacrifice loosely (abusive), and metaphorically; the popes use it proprie, even properly, as the word sacrifice is otherwise taken; that is a great difference. Finally, if they will not stop with the writings of this or that ancient Father, we say that it is not enough to prove that this or that one called the Lord's Supper a sacrifice, but that Jesus Christ considered his sacrament
a sacrifice. We have come to Jesus, of whom the heavenly Father says [Matthew 3:17]: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, him you shall hear. Therefore let us say, as St. Paul says to the Romans in chapter 15 [:18]: So I must not speak unless Christ works through me.
Because Christ is an eternal high priest, he must also have an eternal sacrifice.
Answer: The holy sacrifice which he offered to his heavenly Father at the foot of the cross is and remains eternal as far as its power and effect are concerned, even if it is offered only once. And the Lord Christ remains a high priest forever, not because of the Mass, that he must always be offered up, but for other reasons which Scripture indicates:
1. because he remains forever.
2. because he is able to save forever those who come to God through Him.
3. because he lives forever and prays for us, as is expressly stated in the epistle to the Hebrews in chapter 7 [:23-28]: Many of those became priests because death would not let them remain, but this one, because he remains forever, has an everlasting priesthood, therefore he can also save forever those who come to God through him, and he lives forever and prays for them.
But that he would still have to sacrifice because of his priesthood is nowhere attested in Scripture. Nor is it true that Christ performs his priesthood in this way in the Mass, because in the Mass it is not He who offers himself to the Father, but the sacrificer. But away with such erroneous teachings. We know from the Word of God that Christ did not want to sacrifice himself more than once, as it says in the epistle to the Hebrews in chapter 9 [:25-26]: Not that he (Christ) should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with strange blood: otherwise he must needs have suffered often from the beginning of the world. But now, at the end of the world, he has appeared once to take away sin by his own sacrifice.
We leave it at that in Christian simplicity, asking God not to let us deviate from His Word.
Nevertheless, much good is still found in the Mass and the suffering of Jesus Christ is commemorated in it, so the Mass need not be rejected outright?
Answer: Yes, if there were only good things in the Mass, they should not be rejected. We do not condemn the Kyrie, the Hallelujah, the Gloria in excelsis and other Christian things, even if these good things are included, they do not make the Mass good, which can be deduced from a likeness. In sorcery, good things are also healthy, namely the name of the Holy Trinity, this name in itself remains good, but the sorcerer is not good because he abuses this noble, holy name and mixes in other cursed, damned things. So the aforementioned parts in the Mass are also good. The name of Jesus and His remembrance are good, but there are several things in the Mass, namely the idolatrous invocation of the saints, the blasphemies mentioned above, that the priest intercedes for Christ before the heavenly Father, and the most atrocious thing of all, that the holy, sacred sacrament is changed into such a sacrifice, that Christ is so often (supposedly) sacrificed by the sacristan with his highest dishonor and bought with money from the people, which cannot be glossed over or disguised with the Kyrie and other good things.
From all this, then, which has hitherto been said and proved from God's Word with thorough truth, let our opponents one day open their eyes and see how the Mass has been introduced not only without God's Word, but also contrary to it, and be ashamed to doubt it any longer. For it is not enough, let them only point out to their people that the church has always accepted its Mass and received it from the apostles, which they only say with mere words to make a blue haze before the eyes of the simple, but do not prove in eternity, which they are hereby commanded to defy, that they should prove from the Scriptures and the first Fathers in the first church, that the Lord's Supper is actually a sacrifice, indeed a propitiatory sacrifice, and not for the living alone, but also for the dead, and that Christ Jesus in the Lord's Supper slaughtered himself in an unbloody manner, sacrificed himself, and that consequently in the Mass he is thus to be slaughtered and sacrificed in an unbloody manner, incruento modo, by the ministers of the Mass
which the papists preach in their Mass. If this is proved by them from the Scriptures or from the holy Fathers of the early Church, let us accept the Mass and fall in with them.
But this is so certain, as true as God's Word is true, that the papal altar priests can never prove and enforce it in one place. May God convert those who are to be converted, so that they may open their eyes and be saved from this abomination, which Daniel pointed out in chapter 12. Amen, in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.
Chapter Navigation