Article XXIV (XII): _Of the Mass._
At the outset we must again make the preliminary statement that we do
not abolish the Mass, but religiously maintain and defend it. For
among us masses are celebrated every Lord's Day and on the other
festivals, in which the Sacrament is offered to those who wish to use
it, after they have been examined and absolved. And the usual public
ceremonies are observed, the series of lessons of prayers, vestments,
and other like things.
The adversaries have a long declamation concerning the use of the
Latin language in the Mass, in which they absurdly trifle as to how
it profits [what a great merit is achieved by] an unlearned hearer to
hear in the faith of the Church a Mass which he does not understand.
They evidently imagine that the mere work of hearing is a service,
that it profits without being understood. We are unwilling to
malignantly pursue these things, but we leave them to the judgment of
the reader. We mention them only for the purpose of stating in
passing, that also among us the Latin lessons and prayers are
retained.
Since ceremonies, however, ought to be observed both to teach men
Scripture, and that those admonished by the Word may conceive faith
and fear [of God, and obtain comfort] and thus also may pray (for
these are the designs of ceremonies ), we retain the Latin language
on account of those who are learning and understand Latin, and we
mingle with it German hymns, in order that the people also may have
something to learn, and by which faith and fear may be called forth.
This custom has always existed in the churches. For although some
more frequently, and others more rarely, introduced German hymns,
nevertheless the people almost everywhere sang something in their own
tongue. [Therefore, this is not such a new departure.] It has,
however, nowhere been written or represented that the act of hearing
lessons not understood profits men, or that ceremonies profit, not
because they teach or admonish, but _ex opere operato_, because they
are thus performed or are looked upon. Away with such pharisaic
opinions! [Ye sophists ought to be heartily ashamed of such dreams!]
The fact that we hold only Public or Common Mass [at which the people
also commune, not Private Mass] is no offense against the Church
catholic. For in the Greek churches even to-day private Masses are
not held, but there is only a public Mass, and that on the Lord's Day
and festivals. In the monasteries daily Mass is held, but this is
only public. These are the traces of former customs. For nowhere do
the ancient writers before Gregory make mention of private Masses.
We now omit noticing the nature of their origin. It is evident that
after the mendicant monks began to prevail, from most false opinions
and on account of gain they were so increased that all good men for a
long time desired some limit to this thing. Although St. Francis
wished to provide aright for this matter, as he decided that each
fraternity should be content with a single common Mass daily,
afterwards this was changed, either by superstition or for the sake
of gain. Thus, where it is of advantage, they themselves change the
institutions of the Fathers; and afterwards they cite against us the
authority of the Fathers. Epiphanius writes that in Asia the
Communion was celebrated three times a week, and that there were no
daily Masses. And indeed he says that this custom was handed down
from the apostles. For he speaks thus: Assemblies for Communion were
appointed by the apostles to be held on the fourth day, on Sabbath
eve, and the Lord's Day.
Moreover, although the adversaries collect many testimonies on this
topic to prove that the Mass is a sacrifice, yet this great tumult of
words will be quieted when the single reply is advanced that this
line of authorities, reasons and testimonies, however long, does not
prove that the Mass confers grace er opere operato, or that, when
applied on behalf of others, it merits for them the remission of
venial and mortal sins, of guilt and punishment. This one reply
overthrows all objections of the adversaries, not only in this
_Confutation_, but in all writings which they have published
concerning the Mass.
And this is the issue [the principal question] of the case of which
our readers are to be admonished, as Aeschines admonished the judges
that just as boxers contend with one another for their position, so
they should strive with their adversary concerning the controverted
point, and not permit him to wander beyond the case. In the same
manner our adversaries ought to be here compelled to speak on the
subject presented. And when the controverted point has been
thoroughly understood, a decision concerning the arguments on both
sides will be very easy.
For in our Confession we have shown that we hold that the Lord's
Supper does not confer _grace ex opere operato_, and that, when
applied on behalf of others, alive or dead, it does not merit for
them _ex opere operato_ the remission of sins, of guilt or of
punishment. And of this position a clear and firm proof exists in
that it is impossible to obtain the remission of our sins on account
of our own work _ex opere operato_ [even when there is not a good
thought in the heart], but the terrors of sin and death must be
overcome by faith when we comfort our hearts with the knowledge of
Christ, and believe that for Christ's sake we are forgiven, and that
the merits and righteousness of Christ are granted us, Rom. 5, 1:
Being justified by faith, we have peace. These things are so sure
and so firm that they can stand against all the gates of hell.
If we are to say only as much as is necessary, the case has already
been stated. For no sane man can approve that pharisaic and heathen
opinion concerning the _opus operatum_. And nevertheless this
opinion inheres in the people, and has increased infinitely the
number of masses. For masses are purchased to appease God's wrath,
and by this work they wish to obtain the remission of guilt and of
punishment; they wish to procure whatever is necessary in every kind
of life [health riches, prosperity, and success in business]. They
wish even to liberate the dead. Monks and sophists have taught this
pharisaic opinion in the Church.
But although our case has already been stated, yet, because the
adversaries foolishly pervert many passages of Scripture to the
defense of their errors, we shall add a few things on this topic. In
the _Confutation_ they have said many things concerning "sacrifice,"
although in our Confession we purposely avoided this term on account
of its ambiguity. We have set forth what those persons whose abuses
we condemn now understand as a sacrifice. Now, in order to explain
the passages of Scripture that have been wickedly perverted, it is
necessary in the beginning to set forth what a sacrifice is. Already
for an entire period of ten years the adversaries have published
almost infinite volumes concerning sacrifice, and yet not one of them
thus far has given a definition of sacrifice. They only seize upon
the name "sacrifices" either from the Scriptures or the Fathers [and
where they find it in the Concordances of the Bible apply it here,
whether it fits or not]. Afterward they append their own dreams, as
though indeed a sacrifice signifies whatever pleases them.