Luther, the Roman Mass, and the Lutheran Liturgy
Posted on October 26th, 2009
Another gem from Sasse, as we reflect this week on the Reformation:
Although in his book on the Babylonian captivity of the church and in the Smalcald Articles, [Luther] unmasked and condemned the idolatry which had crept into the Mass, he admitted that the Roman Mass was still a valid Eucharist. And so he did not, like Zwingli and Calvin, introduce a new liturgy. The Lutheran liturgy was merely a Mass without the invocation of the saints and [without] the Roman conception of sacrifice. To Luther it was unthinkable that the unity of the Western church might be forever destroyed. He wanted to recall this church to what he was convinced was the pure teaching of the Gospel and, at the same time, the ancient teaching of the church.
Only from this point of view can Luther’s actions be understood. He wanted neither to split the church nor to found a new church. Nor was it his ambition to become the reviver, the Reformer of the church. His conscience told him that he was merely carrying out the duties of his office in the church: the pure teaching of the Gospel. According to his own conception, his work consisted only in this: “to have reintroduced the Holy Gospel into the world.”
–Hermann Sasse, “Luther and the Teaching of the Reformation,” in The Lonely Way
Tagged: Calvin, Church, Hermann Sasse, Lord's Supper, Luther, Reformation, Roman Mass, Sacrifice, Smalcald Articles, Zwingli
"The Lutheran liturgy was merely a Mass without the invocation of the saints and [without] the Roman conception of sacrifice. " — Sasse
This line of reasoning always bothered me while still a confessing Lutheran. Lutherans who use the liturgy as set out in either TLH, or LW or LSB claim that it stands in the tradition of the Western Liturgy. I would say: Yes and No? It surely stands in the tradition of Service of the Word and Service of the Sacrament. It also does so without much differentiation within those two subsets of the liturgy as a whole.
But the glaring difference between those churches which maintain the historic Western liturgy and those who don't is the inclusion of something that at least resembles a Eucharistic prayer, including most importantly the epiclesis. Such a prayer, even when it was prayed extempore, is witnessed in the earliest liturgies that we have (ex. Hippolytus, Justin Martyr) without necessarily having any emphasis on the "Roman conception" of sacrifice. And such a tradition of the words of institution being within a prayer is widely attested to throughout time until Luther's reforms. For this reason I find the Lutheran claim to, liturgically, be standing in the great tradition of the Western liturgy to be tenuous.
I don't have any of my liturgical books across the pond with me, but if I am not mistaken, Frank Senn has claimed that the epiclesis was actually witnessed to earlier in recorded liturgies than the words of institution. The absence of the Eucharistic prayer and epiclesis are large holes to cut in the historic Western liturgy.
"I don't have any of my liturgical books across the pond with me, but if I am not mistaken, Frank Senn has claimed that the epiclesis was actually witnessed to earlier in recorded liturgies than the words of institution."
You mean, excepting of course the liturgy of Jesus that is recorded in Scripture by which he instituted the Lord's Supper, right.
So…I guess the epiclesis is NOT actully witnessed to earlier that the Verba.
Outstanding point, Pastor Ramirez!
AMEN!
I’m a Catholic and if it helps the discussion, according to our canon law, the only words strictly necessary to confect a valid Eucharist are the Words of Institution. Now that is in the WESTERN Church. I’m also a MARONITE Christian and as an Eastern, I feel more comfortable when there is an epiclesis.