Why did the Reformers/Protestants change Mass ( service) proceedings so drastically?

12,179 Views | 249 Replies | Last: 7 yr ago by texag_89
Furlock Bones
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I am reading about Saint Justin Martyr aka Justin the Philosopher. Born in 100 AD, he is one of earliest theologians. In one of his writings, he describes procession of the Mass and Eucharist.

Why did the Reformers change the service so drastically? Or is this an American Protestant evolution?

The foundation of services had been laid down in the beginning. Why change it 1500 years later?

https://www.wordonfire.org/resources/blog/st-justin-martyr-on-the-eucharist-and-the-ancient-mass/4780/

Quote:

So here's Justin on the Eucharist, first from chapter 65, Administration of the Sacraments:

Quote:

But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation.
Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands.
And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to ge'noito [so be it].
And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.



Quote:

The Eucharist consists of bread and wine, mixed with a bit of water. This is a practice done (to my knowledge) only in the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches.

Also, the Eucharist is brought to the absent. This seems like a minor detail, but it invalidates the Lutheran Church's Eucharistic views, where the blessed bread and wine are incarnated in some sense with Christ during the duration of the service, and not afterwards.

Quote:

Quote:

"And this food is called among us Eucharistia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined.
Quote:

For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." - (First Apology, 66)



swimmerbabe11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
http://bookofconcord.org/augsburgconfession.php#article24

Quote:


Falsely are our churches accused of abolishing the Mass; for the Mass is retained among 2] us, and celebrated with the highest reverence. Nearly all the usual ceremonies are also preserved, save that the parts sung in Latin are interspersed here and there with German hymns, which have been added 3] to teach the people. For ceremonies are needed to this end alone that the unlearned 4] be taught [what they need to know of Christ]. And not only has Paul commanded to use in the church a language understood by the people 1 Cor. 14:2-9, but it has also been so ordained by man's law. 5] The people are accustomed to partake of the Sacrament together, if any be fit for it, and this also increases the reverence and devotion of public 6] worship. For none are admitted 7] except they be first examined. The people are also advised concerning the dignity and use of the Sacrament, how great consolation it brings anxious consciences, that they may learn to believe God, and to expect and ask of Him all that is good. 8] [In this connection they are also instructed regarding other and false teachings on the Sacrament.] This worship pleases God; such use of the Sacrament nourishes true devotion 9] toward God. It does not, therefore, appear that the Mass is more devoutly celebrated among our adversaries than among us.
swimmerbabe11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

Also, the Eucharist is brought to the absent. This seems like a minor detail, but it invalidates the Lutheran Church's Eucharistic views, where the blessed bread and wine are incarnated in some sense with Christ during the duration of the service, and not afterwards.

What? Our pastors definitely do housecalls and whatnot.
Furlock Bones
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

Nearly all the usual ceremonies are also preserved, save that the parts sung in Latin are interspersed here and there with German hymns, which have been added 3] to teach the people. For ceremonies are needed to this end alone that the unlearned 4] be taught [what they need to know of Christ]. And not only has Paul commanded to use in the church a language understood by the people 1 Cor. 14:2-9, but it has also been so ordained by man's law.
swimmer, i know your Lutheran church is much more in line with tradition than many others. the Sacrament of the Eucharist being the major contention.

but, as to this quotes, why then did the reformers not look to the Eastern Orthodox who had always performed in the local language?
swimmerbabe11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The reformers reached out a bit. Mostly, They could not come to an agreement on justification (the chief article) and invocation of the saints. I think there were some issues with theosis misunderstanding (although I don't think the actual beliefs are different, just some of the language) and quite honestly, the EO didn't want to get involved with what they felt was a Catholic issue. Politically, it could have been very dangerous and led to wars.


edit: This is my somewhat shallow understanding. Also, there are some Lutherans who tend more east leaning (Jordan Cooper) and some who argue that we are very very close and that Luther was basically EO ( Tuomo Mannermaa and the Finnish School of Thought) I think we are somewhere between Catholics and EO and fall not squarely in either camp but, there is a lot in common.
Furlock Bones
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
i'd really like to know when the real changes starting taking place. i grew up United Methodist and attended a Baptist church frequently. their services are nothing like what the Early Church describes.
swimmerbabe11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Retired and I derailed the Saved thread a little talking about this..but it didn't take long.
Luther started and then you had a few others pop off immediately after that. Church Of England was pretty close behind, but it stayed pretty Catholic except the marriages for a long time. Traditional Anglicans are pretty close to Lutherans and we are in talks with them about fellowship (won't happen anytime soon, but its a start) and just today I saw on twitter a very involved thread about anglicans converting to Lutheran in order to stay orthodox. (they are having issues)

Even while Luther lived and was writing, Zwingli came around and said "yeah, we agree on everything except real presence...eucharist is just a symbol" they argued and fought quite a bit and Luther finally told him "we are not of the same spirit" which...was a big deal. Meanwhile Anabaptists were roaming countryside doing the anabaptist thing and our book of Confessions explicitly separates them from us several times.

Zwingli lead to Calvinism and whatnot...then you got Puritans/Great Awakening and really thats how modern churches got to where they are.


Lutheran Satire did a funny, even if it is a bit biting, video on the subject
BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Minus two points for reformation snobbery.

Plus two points for great humor.

Plus five points for "ecclesiastical Brexit" Homerun, there.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
They did. Some of the Lutherans made friends with a Greek deacon, who translated the Augsburg confession to Greek and presented it to Patriarch (of Constantinople) Joasaph II in 1559. The patriarch found the doctrines to be potentially heretical and declined to even respond out -- the idea was that it would be kinder to be silent than to refute. The deacon Demetrius died, and that ended the matter.

Later in 1570 the German Ambassador had a new copy presented to the new Patriarch Jeremiah II. Some articles he agreed with, some he disagreed. He sent a formal response. They wrote back three more times, and two times he answered. But, they would not accept his judgment against their confession. Some of his points they flat disagreed with, some they tried to present their ideas as identical teaching in different words. After their third letter, he wrote "Go your own way and do not send us further letters on doctrine but only letters written for the sake of friendship" citing Titus 3:10. He didn't respond to the fourth attempt.

You can read some excerpts here.

http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/tca_luther.aspx

http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/faithalone.aspx

https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/onbehalfofall/how-the-german-orthodox-church-alm/

Furlock Bones
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
interesting. i will have to dig into that a bit.
swimmerbabe11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
His google-fu is better than mine. I know I've read plenty of Lutheran side of stuff, but heck if I can find my articles and whatnot. I was just happy I remembered and spelled Mannermaa's name right.

Christification by Jordan Cooper does a really really really good job of outlining differences and similarities in the Lutheran view of justifcation/sanctification (salvation/theosis) I'd be happy to mail/lend you my copy.
tehmackdaddy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
swimmerbabe11 said:

Quote:

Also, the Eucharist is brought to the absent. This seems like a minor detail, but it invalidates the Lutheran Church's Eucharistic views, where the blessed bread and wine are incarnated in some sense with Christ during the duration of the service, and not afterwards.

What? Our pastors definitely do housecalls and whatnot.
The PCA, UM, and ND churches I have been a member of had pastors, elders, deacons who made house-calls as well.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
He's talking about making house-calls with the Eucharist, i.e., communing those who are too ill to make it to church.
swimmerbabe11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So was I
tehmackdaddy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Me too.

... And then I added in elders and deacons just to be more general.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Prophetic words from Patriarch Jeremiah about the schism / Reformation in his second response to the Lutherans:
Quote:

Therefore, brethren, let us stand on the rock of faith and on the tradition of the Church, and not remove the boundaries which our Holy Fathers have set. Thus, we will not give the opportunity to those who wish to innovate and destroy the edifice of the holy, catholic and apostolic Church of God. For if permission is granted to everyone who wants it, little by little the whole body of the Church will be destroyed.
...
Finally, having understood Orthodoxy from the Holy Scriptures, come enter into it with all your souls, O wise and sagacious men, and put far away from you every irrational innovation, which the host of Ecumenical Teachers and of the Church has not accepted. ...Since we have agreed on almost all of the main subjects, it is not necessary for you to interpret and understand some of the passages of the Scripture in any other way than that in which the luminaries of the Church and Ecumenical Teachers have interpreted. They themselves interpreted Scripture according to Christ our God, who is truth itself. And we, that is, our Church, keep these truths and uphold them.

...For having researched diligently some of the passages of Holy Scripture, which you referred to in your first and second letters which you sent to us, we saw clearly that you had misinterpreted them, perhaps in following your new teachers. For this reason we again entreat you to understand the passages as the Ecumenical Teachers of the Church have interpreted them and which interpretations the seven ecumenical synods and the other regional ones have ratified. For as we have already said, it is not necessary to rise up and remove everlasting boundaries which the Fathers have established....
Kinda sad, really.
tehmackdaddy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
k2aggie07 said:

Prophetic words from Patriarch Jeremiah about the schism / Reformation in his second response to the Lutherans:
Quote:

Therefore, brethren, let us stand on the rock of faith and on the tradition of the Church, and not remove the boundaries which our Holy Fathers have set. Thus, we will not give the opportunity to those who wish to innovate and destroy the edifice of the holy, catholic and apostolic Church of God. For if permission is granted to everyone who wants it, little by little the whole body of the Church will be destroyed.
...
Finally, having understood Orthodoxy from the Holy Scriptures, come enter into it with all your souls, O wise and sagacious men, and put far away from you every irrational innovation, which the host of Ecumenical Teachers and of the Church has not accepted. ...Since we have agreed on almost all of the main subjects, it is not necessary for you to interpret and understand some of the passages of the Scripture in any other way than that in which the luminaries of the Church and Ecumenical Teachers have interpreted. They themselves interpreted Scripture according to Christ our God, who is truth itself. And we, that is, our Church, keep these truths and uphold them.

...For having researched diligently some of the passages of Holy Scripture, which you referred to in your first and second letters which you sent to us, we saw clearly that you had misinterpreted them, perhaps in following your new teachers. For this reason we again entreat you to understand the passages as the Ecumenical Teachers of the Church have interpreted them and which interpretations the seven ecumenical synods and the other regional ones have ratified. For as we have already said, it is not necessary to rise up and remove everlasting boundaries which the Fathers have established....
Kinda sad, really.
So is the part I bolded, thinking there is a limitation to the reach of God's Word.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Can you elaborate on what you mean by reach?
swimmerbabe11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The whole intent of the Augsburg Confession and defense thereof is to show that we were not innovators.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
If Rome said it was innovation and the Orthodox church said it was innovation, then all of existing Christendom at the time thought it was innovation.

Patriarch Jeremiah wrote: "From whence have you reckoned better than Old and New Rome? Indeed, have you forsaken the interpretations of the true theologians and considered your own as more preferable?"
Quote:

All these things which we have spoken, beloved, are founded, as you very well know, upon the inspired Scriptures, according to the interpretation and the sound teaching and explanation of our wise and holy theologians [the Fathers of the Church]. For we may not rely upon our own interpretation and understand and interpret any of the words of the inspired Scripture except in accord with the theologizing Fathers who have been approved by the Holy Synods, [inspired] by the Holy Spirit for a pious purpose, lest our thought, like that of Proteus move around here and there, deviating from the correct evangelical teaching, from true wisdom and from prudence. But someone will say, how can these things be corrected? In this way: with the help of God.

Let no one undertake or think anything contrary to the decisions of the Holy Apostles and the Holy Synods. He who uprightly keeps this principle will be a partner with us in our rejoicing, a member of our community and one who holds the same faith. But what communion would one have with us, who rejects the aforementioned canons and opposes the Apostles and shamelessly turns himself against the Holy Apostles? What part could he have with us?

[Saint Basil] says: "One who has the judgment of Christ before his eyes, who has seen the great danger that threatens those who dare to subtract from or add to those things which have been handed down by the Spirit, must not be ambitious to innovate, but must content himself with those things which have been proclaimed by the saints."

Therefore, since so many and such important of our theologizing Fathers forbid thinking otherwise, there is only one correction: conform to the Holy Synod and follow the canons of the Apostles and, thus, follow Christ in all things.
Then here are only a few options.

1. That everyone was wrong except for the Lutherans.
2. That the Lutherans and Rome or Constantinople were saying the same things, but in different ways (i.e., nobody is wrong).
3. That the Lutherans were wrong.

If we accept item 1, we have to then start going back to find where the "wrong" happened.
tehmackdaddy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
k2aggie07 said:

Can you elaborate on what you mean by reach?
The way that excerpt reads, individuals shouldn't look to the Scriptures for themselves. In addition, it reads as though Church unity is more important than allowing the Holy Spirit to speak to person.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The scriptures don't speak for themselves. They require interpretation. Just as the Ethiopian told St Philip how can I understand unless someone teaches me.

Church unity versus personal activity of the Holy Spirit is a false dichotomy. The same Spirit that you're suggesting may provide personal interpretations (which are forbidden by scripture) is that which leads the church.

St Vincent of Lerins wrote:
But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reasonbecause, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters.

Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.

Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense Catholic, which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.
tehmackdaddy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
k2aggie07 said:

The scriptures don't speak for themselves. They require interpretation.
Are you saying the Holy Spirit cannot speak to me through the Scriptures? That's what I mean by "reach".
Furlock Bones
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It was understood for 1500 years that we needed the teachings of the church fathers, theologians, and church to help guide and understand the scriptures.

Then, the reformation happened. The reformation certainly helped in some areas but the rejection of early teachings and traditions was not beneficial to the faith. As k2's posts elucidates, the early Lutherans were looking for validation from the East. When it was also rejected there, they decided to forge their own path. In doing so, it opened the box that allowed a thousand different denominations to form and continue to form. To me that's exactly what St Basil is speaking to.
Furlock Bones
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
tehmackdaddy said:

k2aggie07 said:

The scriptures don't speak for themselves. They require interpretation.
Are you saying the Holy Spirit cannot speak to me through the Scriptures? That's what I mean by "reach".


There are over 100 versions of the Bible in English alone.

Yes, you absolutely need outside guidance.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Of course. But if your interpretation is not consistent with what has been taught everywhere, always, by all -- it's not from the Holy Spirit. The scriptures tell us the faith was passed down to the Church once for all.

The explanation and depth of it can grow, but it can't change. For example, explains St Vincent (in the 400s) a child is different than an adult, but adults don't grow new arms or legs.

He continues "In like manner, it behooves Christian doctrine to follow the same laws of progress, so as to be consolidated by years, enlarged by time, refined by age, and yet, withal, to continue uncorrupt and unadulterate, complete and perfect in all the measurement of its parts, and, so to speak, in all its proper members and senses, admitting no change, no waste of its distinctive property, no variation in its limits."
tehmackdaddy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
k2aggie07 said:

Of course. But if your interpretation is not consistent with what has been taught everywhere, always, by all -- it's not from the Holy Spirit. The scriptures tell us the faith was passed down to the Church once for all.
The faith...as in the gospel message, yes.

Quote:

The explanation and depth of it can grow, but it can't change.
That is what the excerpt fails to clarify. It reads very much as though The Bible is closed and we are not to look into the Scriptures ourselves.

It may not be the intent, but it is very discouraging in tone.
Furlock Bones
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Everyone is called to the scriptures, but why reject what the fathers taught us? Those fathers, those councils, those traditions that determined the very canon itself.
tehmackdaddy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Furlock Bones said:

Everyone is called to the scriptures, but why reject what the fathers taught us? Those fathers, those councils, those traditions that determined the very canon itself.
It isn't a rejection of what the fathers taught us, it is the rejection that God can't speak to us other than what they taught us.
Furlock Bones
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
there is some serious irony your post and I hope you don't take that as condescension because it is is not intended that way at all.
tehmackdaddy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Furlock Bones said:

there is some serious irony your post and I hope you don't take that as condescension because it is is not intended that way at all.
Thanks for responding, but I am missing the irony. Can you point it out to me?
Furlock Bones
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
tehmackdaddy said:

Furlock Bones said:

Everyone is called to the scriptures, but why reject what the fathers taught us? Those fathers, those councils, those traditions that determined the very canon itself.
It isn't a rejection of what the fathers taught us, it is the rejection that God can't speak to us other than what they taught us.
Quote:

Thanks for responding, but I am missing the irony. Can you point it out to me?


The fathers, the early Church, and the Councils determined what was and was not scripture. You believe that God speaks to us directly through the scriptures. It was divinely inspired. So, then you must accept that the very people that determined what was scripture were themselves divinely guided.

so to recap, you don't reject the fathers' teachings because you accept the scripture, but you do reject the fathers' teachings because you can interpret for yourself what God said in the scriptures that the early Church determined was scripture.

furthermore, nowhere in the Catholic faith (this is RCC and OCC united) does the Church say God does not speak to individuals directly. We both venerate Saints that received the word of God directly.
swimmerbabe11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think much it is a combination of 1 & 2...I also think it is obvious that the Catholic church had strayed from pure doctrine at the highest level in many ways...many of the original 99 theses got reformed later (except when the Gospel was declared anathema at the Council of Trent of course)

The Lutherans don't deny previous theologians, church fathers, church history etc. We also subject it all to the scrutiny of Holy Scripture. They weren't making things up out of whole cloth. The Augsburg confession was written to clear up false accusations and..well make sure they weren't murdered like the Huguenots eventually were or more obviously, Jan Hus was. (I imagine Hus would have been Lutheran had he been born 100 years later) The defense of the confession is all backed up with Scriptural defense and backed up with church history and fathers, especially Augustine, Ambrose, Chrystostam and I believe Iraneaus (he is used for justification, so he might be in there). The confession was mostly written addressing a Catholic crowd (and distinguishing themselves from other certain sects that had already developed)..I would love to write what they would have written had they written the augsburg confession also from the standpoint of addressing the EO church.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
No, the faith as in the total faith. Christ did not deliver just the gospel to the saints. He spent forty days after the resurrection with the Apostles "speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God". He told them to stay in the city "until you are clothed with power from on high." Before He died, He told the disciples there were things He couldn't explain to them. But after, He promised the Spirit who would "guide them into all the truth". Not some. All. And of course, at Pentecost, they were given the Spirit. The Faith was delivered once, for all. All of it, everything sufficient for salvation and knowledge in Christ. The Apostles didn't teach a theology that was lacking in any way for salvation. The words St Paul, St Peter, St Andrew, St James, St Jude, and all the rest spoke were complete.


You can, of course, read and interpret the scriptures. The Spirit can inspire you to explain, teach, expand on the truths within. But those truths can't refute the Truth, because they are icons or representations of Him, and He is the Truth. So an interpretation that refutes what the Apostles delivered can't be true, and obviously isn't permissible.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
swimmerbabe11 said:

I think much it is a combination of 1 & 2...I also think it is obvious that the Catholic church had strayed from pure doctrine at the highest level in many ways...many of the original 99 theses got reformed later (except when the Gospel was declared anathema at the Council of Trent of course)

The Lutherans don't deny previous theologians, church fathers, church history etc. We also subject it all to the scrutiny of Holy Scripture. They weren't making things up out of whole cloth. The Augsburg confession was written to clear up false accusations and..well make sure they weren't murdered like the Huguenots eventually were or more obviously, Jan Hus was. (I imagine Hus would have been Lutheran had he been born 100 years later) The defense of the confession is all backed up with Scriptural defense and backed up with church history and fathers, especially Augustine, Ambrose, Chrystostam and I believe Iraneaus (he is used for justification, so he might be in there)
I can't accept 1. The entire Church didn't fall into apostasy. Luther was not a second messiah, the Church can't be reformed. I'll say that again - if an institution needs to be reformed, it is NOT the Church. The Church is the Body of Christ, with Him as the unique and sole head.

Quoting from the Fathers is not the same as expressing the truth that they expressed. This is why Jeremiah said "we request that from henceforth you do not cause us more grief, nor write to us on the same subject if you should wish to treat these luminaries and theologians of the Church in a different manner. You honor and exalt them in words, but you reject them in deeds. For you try to prove our weapons which are their holy and divine discourses as unsuitable. And it is with these documents that we would have to write and contradict you." The Lutheran church sifts through the writings of St Augustine, St Ambrose, St John Chrysostom, and St Irenaeus to look for the things they find suitable. Instead of being taught by the Fathers, they presume to instruct them about what is and isn't "True Doctrine".
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.