tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post5067857059503976719..comments2024-03-22T16:09:48.895-04:00Comments on Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: THE GERMAN MASS AND ORDER OF SERVICEJames Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-87237660564612497812015-09-25T09:48:29.750-04:002015-09-25T09:48:29.750-04:00One particular liturgical obsession that is pushed...One particular liturgical obsession that is pushed by Romanophiles in the Missouri Synod, is the use of the word, “Mass,” to refer to the Lord’s Supper. Some Lutherans claim that Martin Luther’s denouncing the Mass as “the greatest and most horrible abomination” in his 1536 Smalcald Articles (Part II, Art. II) refers to the Roman Mass, and thus is not applicable to the use of the word, "Mass," such as in his 1526 "German Mass”, which had been purged of Roman heresies. <br /><br />To the contrary, as Missouri Synod Lutheran Rev. Daniel Preus discussed in his paper, “<a href="http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/PreusDanielLutherandtheMass.pdf" rel="nofollow">Luther and the Mass</a>" (<i>Logia</i>, 10:4, 2001,13-19):<br /><br />"By 1533, however, Luther came to the conclusion that 'mass' should no longer be used in reference to the sacrament of the altar. Luther’s Letter Concerning His Book on the Private Mass [AE:38, 139-214; WA 38:195-256] is very illuminating in regard to his distinction between the two. In this letter Luther provided a definition of the term 'mass' that clearly drives a wedge between mass and sacrament. According to Luther, 'mass' refers <br /><br /><i>"to what the priest does alone at the altar, to which no ordinary Christian or layman adds anything. For they indeed know that no layman or ordinary Christian can celebrate mass and they will not allow it. Nor do they allow it to be or to be called a mass when a layman receives the sacrament; but they . . . alone celebrate mass; all other Christians simply receive the sacrament and do not celebrate mass."</i><br /><br />"The word 'mass,' Luther believed, should be defined as the sacrifice that the priest offers for sin. It should never be used to speak of that sacrament which grants to believers the body and blood of Christ and the forgiveness of sins. He spoke of the time when he himself could not differentiate between the two: <br /><br /><i>"For me mass and sacrament at the altar were one and the same thing, as they were at that time for all of us. Yet they are not one and the same thing. It is the mass when I sacrifice the sacrament to God for my sins and the sins of others as a work performed by human beings (whether they be evil or godly) . . . it is the sacrament when I receive from the priest the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and wine."</i><br /><br />"Luther was convinced that the use of the terms 'mass' and 'sacrament' interchangeably has resulted in great confusion, and that the only way to provide a clear understanding of the nature of the Lord's Supper is to stop calling it the mass. <i>"Indeed, I wish and would very much like to see and hear that the two words 'mass' and 'sacrament' would be understood as being as different as darkness and light, yes, as different as devil and God."</i> Again Luther prayed, <br /><br /><i>"May God grant to all devout Christians such hearts that when they hear the word 'mass,' they might be frightened and make the sign of the cross as though it were the devil's abomination; on the other hand, when they hear the word 'sacrament' or 'Lord's Supper' they might dance for pure joy…"</i>Carl Vehsehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00348831096001668813noreply@blogger.com