Martin Luther and Other Protestant "Reformers" On the Assumption of Mary (+ Historic Lutheran Liturgical Celebration of the Assumption)

I've documented in the past that both Catholic and Protestant (including Lutheran) historians and Luther scholars accept the fact that Luther believed in the Assumption, at least in his early days, if not later. Catholic writer Thomas A. O'Meara, O.P., presents the confusing evidence about Luther (claiming he did accept this doctrine early on):

In 1522 Luther preaches on the feast of the Assumption, apparently taking this belief for granted, although he notes that it is not an article of faith . . . [WA, 10, III, 268]. In 1530 he decrees that the Assumption is an aspect of the "hypocritical Church" which should be eliminated. [WA, 30, II, 351]. In 1544 the Assumption is abandoned as a feast . . . [WA 52, 681] The period of drastic change lies within the years 1522 to 1532. It is impossible to pinpoint the moment of change, for as is usual in Luther the change is gradual and there are inconsistencies and reversals. In 1521 Luther says he does not know exactly when he gave up the veneration of the saints and of Mary, but in 1526 he writes that he venerated the saints for thirty years.

(Mary in Protestant and Catholic Theology, New York: Sheed & Ward, 1966, 118-119; my emphases)

Lutheran scholar Eric W. Gritsch, who was a major translator in the English set of the works of Luther (edited by Jaroslav Pelikan), also states pretty much the same, from the same evidence (the 1522 sermon):

Luther affirmed Mary's assumption into heaven but did not consider it to be of benefit to others or accomplished in any special way.(in The One Mediator, the Saints, and Mary, Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VIII, edited by H. George Anderson, J. Francis Stafford, Joseph A. Burgess, Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1992, 241; footnote 44; p. 382: "Sermon on the Festival of the Assumption, August 15, 1522. WA 10/3:269.12-13. Sermon on the Festival of the Visitation . . . August 15, 1522. WA 52:681.27-31."; my emphasis)

In the same book, twelve Lutheran and ten Catholic scholars participated. Their "Common Statement" (a sort of creed-like formulation agreed-upon by all) yielded some very interesting conclusions indeed:

(89) Luther preached on the Assumption . . . There were early Lutheran pastors who affirmed the Assumption as both evangelical and Lutheran.

(101) From the Lutheran side, one may recall the honor and devotion paid to the Mother of God by Luther himself, including his own attitude to the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, which he accepted in some form.

(p. 55)

Luther signed an August 19, 1527 letter to Georg Spalatin in the following (very "unProtestant") manner:

Yours, Monday after the Assumption of Mary, 1527. Martin Luther.

(in Luther: Letters of Spiritual Counsel, edited and translated by Theodore G. Tappert, Vancouver: Regent College Publishing, 2003, 230)

Historic Lutheranism has also, in various places, retained the Feast of the Assumption on the liturgical calendar. For example, the Wikipedia article, "Liturgical calendar (Lutheran)" notes:

Some of the Marian festivals, notably the Nativity of Mary (September 8) and her Assumption (August 15) were retained by Luther whereas the feasts of her conception and presentation in the Temple were suppressed “because they were judged to have no scriptural or dogmatic interest.”

[source: Frank C. Senn, Christian Worship and Its Cultural Setting, 344]

The Swedish Mass draws from a number of different sources, though Luther’s Formulae Missae is apparent in regards to the Eucharistic structure [1] This included revising the calendar along similar lines as those in Germany. Laurentius Petri further revised the Swedish Mass 1557. In large part, the Swedish liturgy retained “vestments, altars and frontals, gold and silver chalices and patens” and many other “popish” customs. [2] Following Laurentius’ death in 1573, King John III embarked on a separate, though similar, religious policy more conciliatory towards Catholicism. Much of his work was in the area of liturgy and his Nova Ordinantia reinstated much of the sanctoral cycle from the Old Swedish Mass, reviving the feasts of Saint Mary Magdalene, Saint Lawrence, Corpus Christi, and the Assumption and Nativity of Mary. [3]

[footnotes: (1) Senn, 407; (2) Senn, 415; (3) Senn, 419; my emphases for both paragraphs]

Lutheran Latif Haki Gaba, who oversees "a Traditionalist Lutheran Blog," writes about this feast day in Lutheranism:

The LCMS Lutheran could call it the feast of Mary's Assumption. Most Lutherans, even of those dissatisfied with the Missouri Synod's practice, shy away from this, for a variety of reasons. Not all have all the same reasons. You would really need to ask each Lutheran who dislikes using "Assumption" just why it is that he feels that way. Some say, for example, that it is Roman Catholic. Lutherans are not Catholic. Therefore it is unLutheran terminology. This logic has many problems, but for now let us just point out that Mary's Assumption is not something that has ever been condemned by the Lutheran Church. In fact, there is a history of this feast being kept as the Assumption in the Reformation churches. As Professor Joseph Herl shows in his book, Worship Wars in Early Lutheranism, [p. 254] the Assumption is listed in the church orders in Weissenburg 1528, Dessau 1532, Nordlingen 1538, Brandenburg 1540, Palatinate-Neuburg 1543, Schwabisch Hall 1543, Brandenburg-Ansbach-Kulmbach 1548, Hohenlohe 1553, & Nuremberg 1543. To dogmatize the Assumption, as Rome did in 1950, is not the sort of thing the Church of the Augsburg Confession would do, yet it is quite another thing to claim that the Assumption itself (the event, not the dogma) is impossible and unLutheran.

There is another option, namely, to see this as the feast of Mary's Dormition. Some see this as too Byzantine, too Orthodox. Here we must clarify a few things. One is that there is no conflict or contradiction between the Assumption and the Dormition, as if one necessarily cancels the other out. Many of those who, even in the ancient church, believed and celebrated and preached the Dormition also believed that Mary was taken bodily to heaven. Likewise many who believe in Mary's assumption also believe that she did in fact die. Even the Roman Church's official definition of the dogma of the Assumption allows for Mary's death at the end of her earthly life, contrary to what I've heard some claim about that dogma. Many do prefer to simply celebrate this, though, as Mary's Dormition, and to be content that she is now in heaven.

Trent Sebits, of unknown denominational affiliation (but presumably Lutheran), wrote in a combox on the popular blog of Lutheran pastor Paul T. McCain (on 16 August 2007):

I have a Lutheran liturgical calendar from 1879, published out of Pennsylvania, that lists Aug. 15th as, "Assumption of the BVM".

Interesting to note that not only did the Lutheran publishers of this calendar call it the assumption, buy also refer to St. Mary as still a virgin at the time of her assumption . . . two pretty unpopular stances in Lutheranism these days.

As to other Protestant "Reformers," there is evidence that some accepted this doctrine or something quite similar to it:

In regard to the Marian doctrine of the Reformers, we have already seen how unanimous they are in all that concerns Mary's holiness and perpetual virginity. Whatever the theological position which we may hold today, in regard to the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary it is right to know, perhaps to our great surprise, that these two Catholic dogmas were accepted by certain Reformers, not of course in their present form but certainly in the form that was current in their day.

(Reformed scholar Max Thurian, Mary: Mother of all Christians, translated by Neville B. Cryer, New York: Herder & Herder, 1963, 197)

Noted Protestant scholar Donald G. Bloesch concurs:

It is well to note that the notions of Mary's immaculate conception, her assumption, her perpetual virginity and her spiritual motherhood were all present in varying degrees among the Protestant Reformers. Zwingli could refer to Mary as "the Mother of God, the perpetually pure and immaculate Virgin Mary." The Reformed theologian Henry Bullinger seemed to support the assumption of Mary when he declared that "the most pure chamber of the Mother of God and the temple of the Holy Spirit, her most holy body, was taken up by the angels to heaven."

(Jesus Christ: Savior & Lord, Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1997, 116-117)

In another book, Bloesch wrote:

[T]he Reformers did not jettison all Marian doctrine . . . Bullinger, Zwingli's successor, held that Mary was taken up bodily into heaven.

(The Church: Sacraments, Worship, Ministry, Mission, Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2002, 67)

Fr. Dwight Longenecker, in a debate book about Mary with Episcopalian David Gustafson, noted how many Anglicans have accepted Mary's Assumption in faith:

[I]t was held by Lutherans at the Reformation and by many Lutherans today. It is also affirmed by the Anglican Church. The Scottish Anglican lectionary actually celebrates a feast of the Falling Asleep of Mary on the fifteenth of August just as the Orthodox and Catholics do. The new lectionary in the Church of England also institutes a Marian feast on the fifteenth of August in keeping with the tradition. Even your own Episcopal Church of the USA celebrates a Marian feast on the traditional date for the Feast of the Assumption. On that day Episcopalians pray, "O God, you have taken to yourself the Blessed Virgin Mary, . . . grant that we may share with her the glory of your eternal kingdom." . . . If you allow for the Assumption as a permissible pious opinion, you've left the door open, and that isn't really "heretical denial."

(Mary: A Catholic-Evangelical Debate, Gracewing Publishing, 2003, 128-129)

The most remarkable assertion of Mary's Assumption or something highly akin to it, by a major Protestant "Reformer" that I've found, was made by Heinrich Bullinger of Zurich (alluded to above):

Elijah was transported body and soul in a chariot of fire; he was not buried in any Church bearing his name, but mounted up to heaven, so that . . . we might know what immortality and recompense God prepares for his faithful prophets and for his most outstanding and incomparable creatures. . . . It is for this reason, we believe, that the pure and immaculate embodiment of the Mother of God, the Virgin Mary, the Temple of the Holy Spirit, that is to say her saintly body, was carried up to heaven by the angels.

(in Thurian, ibid., 197-198; for further secondary and primary source information, see my paper specifically devoted to that issue; the quotation comes from a 1568 work entitled De Origine Erroris)

Catholics and the Historicity of Jonah the Prophet

Jonah Cast Forth by the Whale, by Gustave Dore (d. 1883)

[ source ]

Regarding Jonah, the straightforward sense would seem to be that he was an actual historical person, as were all the prophets. The book about him, after all, is included in the prophetic writings in both the Christian and Jewish Bibles. We don't deny that any of the other prophets (to my knowledge) were actual persons; why should Jonah be any different, then?

Beyond that, Catholics have usually taken the position that Jonah was an actual person and that this event (with the "fish" and so forth) really happened. Note that the fish incident is not even necessarily a miracle. There is reason to believe it could have literally happened on a natural level. But God, of course, would have used the fish (some sharks are large enough to swallow a man, though it is difficult to conceive surviving the wounds of all those teeth) or whale for His purposes, in His Providence. Recently, of course, liberals in the Church have taken the view that the book was fantastic allegory or fiction, with a message. For example, John L. McKenzie, S.J.:

Modern students of the Bible, observing the historical and geographical background of the book, know that Jonah is a parable, as fictitious a composition as the Prodigal Son or the Good Samaritan; and they seek the truth which is there conveyed in the form of a story.

(The Two-Edged Sword: An Interpretation of the Old Testament, Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Co., 1956, 202)

It's the usual liberal condescension of those who follow traditional Catholic teaching, by, in effect, collapsing the honorable category of "literal" or narrative into "parable" and "fictitious." The implication is that those who accept the plain literal presentation are gullible, a bit infantile (kids love fairy tales, after all) and unsophisticated. If you've seen it once, you've seen it a hundred times . . .

In fact, quite intelligent (even "modern"!) Catholics have taken a different view. How about the late Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., a scholar who authored many books, was one of the leading catechists in America, and close advisor to both Pope Paul VI and Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity:

Jonah. An Israelite prophet, son of Amittai. Unlike the books of the other Minor Prophets, the short book of Jonah (only four chapters) is narrative rather than oracular. . . . he lived in the eighth century B.C. . . . To evade Yahweh's assignment, Jonah had fled in a ship but a terrible storm led to his being thrown overboard and being swallowed by a huge fish . . . The story uses an actual personality to teach a moral lesson: God's mercy is at hand provided man is willing to repent.

(Modern Catholic Dictionary, Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1980, 296)

The Catholic Encyclopedia ("Jonah", written by James F. Driscoll in 1910) gives the traditional Catholic view:

Historicity

Catholics have always looked upon the Book of Jonah as a fact-narrative. In the works of some recent Catholic writers there is a leaning to regard the book as fiction. Only Simon and Jahn, among prominent Catholic scholars, have clearly denied the historicity of Jonah; and the orthodoxy of these two critics may no longer be defended: "Providentissimus Deus" implicitly condemned the ideas of both in the matter of inspiration, and the Congregation of the Index expressly condemned the "Introduction" of the latter.

Reasons for the traditional acceptance of the historicity of Jonah:

Jewish Tradition

According to the Septuagint text of the Book of Tobias (xiv, 4), the words of Jonah in regard to the destruction of Ninive are accepted as facts; the same reading is found in the Aramaic text and one Hebrew manuscript. The apocryphal III Mach., vi, 8, lists the saving of Jonah in the belly of the fish along with the other wonders of Old Testament history. Josephus (Ant. Jud., IX, 2) clearly deems the story of Jonah to be historical.

The authority of Our Lord

This reason is deemed by Catholics to remove all doubt as to the fact of the story of Jonah. The Jews asked a "sign" -- a miracle to prove the Messiahship of Jesus. He made answer that no "sign" would be given them other than the "sign of Jonah the Prophet. For as the Jonah was in the whale's belly three days and three nights: so shall the Son of man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights. The men of Ninive shall rise in judgment with this generation and shall condemn it: because they did penance at the preaching of Jonah. And behold a greater than Jonah here" (Matthew 12:40-1; 16:4; Luke 11:29-32). The Jews asked for a real miracle; Christ would have deceived them had He presented a mere fancy. He argues clearly that just as Jonah was in the whale's belly three days and three nights even so He will be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights. If, then, the stay of Jonah in the belly of the fish be only a fiction, the stay of Christ's body in the heart of the earth is only a fiction. If the men of Ninive will really not rise in judgment, neither will the Jews really rise. Christ contrasts fact with fact, not fancy with fancy, nor fancy with fact. It would be very strange, indeed, were He to say that He was greater than a fancy-formed man. It would be little less strange were he to berate the Jews for their real lack of penance by rating this lack in contrast with the penance of Ninive which never existed at all. The whole force of these striking contrasts is lost, if we admit that the story of Jonah is not fact-narrative. Finally, Christ makes no distinction between the story of the Queen of Sheba and that of Jonah (see Matthew 12:42). He sets the very same historical value upon the Book of Jonah as upon the Third Book of Kings. Such is the very strongest argument that Catholics offer for the firm stand they take upon the ground of the fact-narrative of the story of Jonah.

The authority of the Fathers

Not a single Father has ever been cited in favor of the opinion that Jonah is a fancy-tale and no fact-narrative at all. To the Fathers Jonah was a fact and a type of the Messias, just such a one as Christ presented to the Jews. Saints Jerome, Cyril, and Theophilus explain in detail the type-meaning of the facts of the Book of Jonah. St. Cyril even forestalls the objections of the Rationalists of today: Jonah flees his ministry, bewails God's mercy to the Ninivites, and in other ways shows a spirit that ill becomes a Prophet and an historical type of Christ. Cyril admits that in all this Jonah failed and is not a type of Christ, but does not admit that these failures of Jonah prove the story of his doings to have been a mere fiction. . . .

Likewise, A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (general editor: Dom Bernard Orchard, London: Thomas Nelson & Sons Ltd, 1953). It provides an excellent introduction to the book of Jonah, written by E.F. Sutcliffe, S.J.:

It is recorded that Jeroboam II (782-753) 'restored the borders of Israel . . . according to the word of the Lord the God of Israel, which he spoke by his servant Jonas, the son of Amathi, the prophet, who was of Geth, which is in Opher', 4 Kg 14:25 [2 Kings 14:25]. As this prophet and his father have the same names as the prophet of our book and his father, it can hardly be doubted that they are the same persons. Our prophet was, therefore, probably a contemporary of Jeroboam and a member of the Northern Kingdom. (p. 669)

This is highly important in showing Jonah's historicity, because he is mentioned in what all agree is historical narrative. The chapter of 2 Kings 14 is filled with historical writing and persons (the kings of Judah and Israel: Joash, Amaziah, Jehu, David, Jehoash, Jeroboam, and their fathers). In the middle of all these historical persons (that no one -- even liberals -- doubt as historical, we are led to believe that the historical narrative suddenly switches to mere fiction and parable, in mentioning Jonah and his father (complete with the place name of where they lived). Right after they're mentioned, it talks about God and the "affliction" of Israel, then back to King Jeroboam, succeeded by King Zechariah.

Sutcliffe continues:

Until recent times, however, the historical character of this narrative was never seriously doubted in the Church. Now several Catholic authors, such as Van Hoonacker and Condamin, have denied or questioned it. They explain the book as a parable or in some similar way.

He goes on to list defenses of the book's historicity by Church fathers Augustine, Jerome, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianzen, and Theophylact, and concludes:

That the book has an important lesson to teach is not, of course, a proof of its being parabolic. (p. 670)

Protestant Bible scholar Gleason L. Archer, Jr. offers similar reasoning, favoring a literal, historical interpretation:

A closer examination of the text . . . shows that numerous features of the narrative can scarcely be fitted into the allegorical pattern. If the whale represented Babylon, what did Nineveh represent? As for the ship that set sail from Joppa, it is hard to see what this would correspond with in the allegory, nor is it clear why three days would be selected to represent seventy years of captivity. . . .

In view of the vigorous objections of rationalists to the historicity of Jonah, it is appropriate at this point to refer to the statements of the Lord Jesus . . . Every other instance where an Old Testament typical event is referred to in Scripture (for example, John 3:14; 1 Cor. 10:1-11), a historical episode is involved. There is no objective evidence whatsoever that Jesus of Nazareth regarded this experience of Jonah's as nonhistorical.

(A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, Chicago: Moody Press, 1964, 297, 301)

Archer (p. 302) also provides several accounts of men swallowed by whales who survived, from the years 1758, 1771, and 1891. In the latter case (carefully investigated by two scientists) the man (one James Bartley) was inside a sperm whale for a day and a half. Thus, what happened to Jonah is entirely possible and has, in fact, been observed.

Books That Refute the "Health-and-Wealth / Prosperity" False Teaching

All of these are Protestant authors, far as I know, and several are themselves charismatic / pentecostal (because that is where the error arises). These viewpoints are sadly rampant within charismatic circles, as I know first-hand from my four years at an Assembly of God congregation. I've personally seen it wreak havoc in the lives of people (including some in my larger family). I wrote my own refutation of this terribly dangerous strain of thought in 1982:

Biblical Refutation of "Hyperfaith" / "Name-it-Claim it" Teaching: Is it Always God's Will to Heal in Every Instance?

And just for the record (because this always comes up when one expresses this opinion), I firmly believe that God continues to heal today, when He chooses to do so, in His Providence, not based on our preferences. Here's one remarkable example concerning a son of a friend of mine. I could tell personal stories about myself, my wife, and others I know, but I'll refrain, because that isn't the point of this post.



The Word-Faith Controversy: Understanding the Health and Wealth Gospel by Robert M., Jr. Bowman (Paperback - Sep 2001)
7 Used & new from $19.95
(13)

In God we trust?: The deadly cancer of the "health and wealth gospel" by Greg Loren Durand (Unknown Binding - 1996)
1 Used & new from $14.94

The Health and Wealth Gospel: What's Going on Today in a Movement That Has Shaped the Faith of Millions by Bruce Barron (Paperback - Jan 1987)
24 Used & new from $0.34




The Disease of the Health and Wealth Gospels by Gordon D. Fee (Paperback - Jan 1, 1985)
Buy new: $7.95
24 Used & new from $3.93
In Stock
(4)
Eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping.




A Different Gospel: Biblical and Historical Insights into the Word of Faith Movement by D. R. McConnell (Paperback - Feb 1, 1995)
Buy new: $16.95 $11.53
19 Used & new from $9.85
Get it by Monday, Jun 30 if you order in the next 4 hours and choose one-day shipping.
(36)
Eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping.

A Different Gospel: A Historical and Biblical Analysis of the Modern Faith Movement by D. R. McConnell (Paperback - Jul 1988)
35 Used & new from $0.13
(6)

Charisma versus charismania by Chuck Smith (Unknown Binding - 2000)
5 Used & new from $3.25

2.


Charisma Vs. Charismania by Chuck Smith (Paperback - Sep 1993)
12 Used & new from $0.35
(3)

Other Editions: Unbound

Charisma Vs. Charismania by Chuck Smith (Paperback - 1983)
21 Used & new from $0.01

Counter-"Traditionalist" Argument From Liturgical Development: Method of Receiving Holy Communion (vs. David Palm )

The Last Supper: the first Catholic service with communion in the hand

[ source ]

In the course of vigorous discussions over my defense of the Pauline Mass (aka Novus Ordo or "New Mass"), "traditionalist" David Palm (blue font) made the following statements / arguments (almost ad nauseum) in the combox (all bolded emphases are my own):

The heart of the effective traditionalist argument isn't that the various aspects reintroduced into the Pauline rite are intrinsically wrong--there is acknowledgement that they did at one time exist in the Church. Rather, the argument is that the innovations were neither required for the good of the Church, nor were they introduced in an organic way. Sacrosanctum Concilium insisted that, "care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing." I would argue that in numerous instances among those examples you cited, that dictum was violated. . . . Your essay would be stronger if you could go down the list of innovations and show, not that they existed somewhere, sometime, in some unknown measure in Church history, but rather that they "in some way grow organically from forms already existing."

(6-20-08)

I am interpreting "existing forms" to mean something that presently exists, not something that existed sometime in the past but fell out of use. To me that's the only way that something can organically develop, from an existing (present tense) form. Any number of analogies (plant growth, etc.) would support this. It's an area deserving of some discussion.

(6-20-08)

The "Tridentine Mass" (or Gregorian Rite as Cardinal Hoyos has recently insisted is its correct name) was not formulated by the Council of Trent. It had been celebrated for well over a thousand years prior to that council. Rather, the Council of Trent cracked down on the liturgical uncertainty/anarchy of that day by mandating that unless a liturgy could prove its pedigree to be more than two hundred years old it had to give way to the Gregorian Rite as codified by its celebration in Rome. . . . Vatican II mandated that the changes to the liturgy develop organically from *existing forms*. Upon some reflection, I think I want to camp on the position that "existing" means presently in existence, not just resurrected from the distant past after umpteen centuries of extinction (or, in the case of such things as female altar servers, female lectors, etc. introduced based on no historical precident [sic] at all.)

(6-20-08)

. . . what I see as the heart of the issue, namely, that the liturgical "reforms" were not organic developments but artificial constructs--sometimes more or less supported by historical precident, sometimes not at all, and sometimes outright condemned . . . mainstream critics of the NO does not hold that the myriad changes and innovations are intrinsically evil. Even Davies, an outspoken critic, wrote a book in defense of the validity of the NO. Rather, they contend that a) they were not introduced through organic development, b) that they frequently have no historical precident at all or were introduced from dissident influences, . . .

(6-21-08)

. . . *some* of the changes have historical precident and to cite this precident against those who would argue that the NO is invalid or intrinsically evil is legitimate. However, this does not make their reintroduction an organic development, since an organic development can only come from “existing forms”. . . . I argue that the introduction/imposition of so much non-organic change has (gravely) harmed the Church.

(6-22-08)

. . . he [Msgr. Klaus Gamber] argued that the 1965 revision of the Roman missal was an organic development along the lines of what Vatican II actually called for, whereas the NO was uncalled for by Vatican II, contained numerous inorganic and highly imprudent innovations, represents a radical break with the Roman liturgical tradition, . . . if you believe that the entire approved liturgical reform has been represented by nothing but true, organic developments, then you will need to provide a different set of arguments than those contained in your essay.

(6-22-08)

. . . is the almost universal adoption of this orientation [priest facing the people, or versus populum] in the celebration of the NO a result of organic liturgical development and a legitimate application of Vatican II, or does it represent a liturgical novelty and an abuse of ecclesiastical authority?

(6-22-08)

For my part, I would submit that the questions on the table would be 1) was the introduction of the almost universal celebration of the NO Mass versus populum an organic development in the liturgy that was certainly required for the good of the Church . . .

(6-24-08)

Picture a liturgy celebrated in Latin, with . . . Holy Communion received by kneeling recipients on the tongue. . . . Now imagine another NO [Novus Ordo] . . . Holy Communion received in the hand by standing recipients. . . . The two liturgical expressions are night and day from one another. One is distinctively, unmistakably Roman Catholic. In the other, the actually distinctive Catholic content is approaching zero-- . . . I personally would argue that the first is objectively superior [original emphasis here, not mine] to the second in terms of preserving the Roman Church's venerable liturgical tradition, in expressing the fullness of the Catholic Faith in word and deed, and in instilling by example a holy reverence in the parishioners. Two abuse-free Novus Ordo Masses. Huge difference. One objectively superior to the other . . .

(6-24-08)

Let us summarize for brevity's and argument's sake. Our self-described "reluctant traditionalist" friend David Palm contends (and also contends that it is the Church's proper and orthodox view) that:

A) Liturgical changes (so Holy Mother Church has decreed and established) must be organic developments from preceding liturgy.

B) This means, furthermore, that the development has to flow from what immediately preceded it (i.e., "organically"), not from earlier or primitive Christian precedents from many hundreds of years prior (but with a break of time in-between).

C) The Council of Trent (agreeably to David Palm) asserted that liturgical rites that lacked a pedigree of at least two hundred years, could be overthrown by the then-to-be-codified Gregorian (Tridentine rite).

D) Vatican II (400 years later) reiterated the requirement of development from "existing forms."

E) Conversely, any liturgical changes that can be shown to have no historical precedent at all are no developments, but in fact a harmful corruptions, and therefore to be rejected as a violation of the above established principles, and deleterious to the Church and the piety of the Catholic faithful.

F) As particular examples, David Palm suggests that kneeling to receive communion, on the tongue, are practices "distinctively, unmistakably Roman Catholic" and "objectively superior . . . in terms of preserving the Roman Church's venerable liturgical tradition" while contrary actions possess a "distinctive Catholic content" that "is approaching zero."

G) Moreover, the actions described in F, according to David Palm, are characterized as "expressing the fullness of the Catholic Faith in word and deed, and in instilling by example a holy reverence in the parishioners." And again, it logically follows that actions to the contrary (Holy Communion received standing, in the hand) signify a lack of same.

These are the principles and contentions that shall be presently scrutinized. I hope to prove that they are internally inconsistent and incoherent, through a rather simple exercise of logic (so apparent in the end, once the "spotlight" is shone upon them, that it is almost as easy to miss as the nose on one's own face).

To do this, we shall examine (as a question of verifiable history) the examples of pious Catholic eucharistic practices suggested by Mr. Palm and see whether they themselves pass this crucial test of organic development from immediately existing forms. Obviously, if they do not, then they (assuming the desirability and helpfulness of logical consistency) would have to (logically speaking) be rejected on the selfsame basis as their contrary liturgical practices were rejected by Mr. Palm. For development (as Cardinal Newman generally argued in his magnum opus on the topic) is not a "herky-jerky" process that follows one rule at one point of time, and another in a future era, but rather, consistent throughout, and true to itself. In much simpler terms, I'll apply the old proverb: "what's good for the goose is good for the gander."

Let's start with kneeling to receive communion? Was this always the practice of the Church or did it come in later on? Anglican historian of the liturgy, Dom Gregory Dix, in his classic volume on liturgical history and development, The Shape of the Liturgy (London: Dacre Press, second edition, 1945; reprinted 1970) gives us the historical background:

. . . the practice of kneeling by anybody for communion is confined to the Latin West, and began to come in there only in the early Middle Ages. The ancient church universally stood to receive communion, as in the East clergy and laity alike stand to this day; the apostolic church conceivably reclined in the oriental fashion, though this is uncertain.

It appears to have been the universal tradition in the pre-Nicene church that all should receive communion standing.

(pp. 13, 81; my emphases)

Jovian P. Lang, OFM, in his Dictionary of the Liturgy (New York: Catholic Book Pub. Co., 1989, "Posture in Worship," 512-513) concurs:

(1) Standing. Historically this was the normal attitude of prayer among pagans and Jews, adopted by the first Christians. It indicates a reverence for God. For Christians it took on an added implication, referring to the Resurrection of Christ, and frequently they faced the East toward the rising sun, regarded as the symbol of Christ Himself.

(2) Kneeling. This gesture indicates adoration, or the expression of humility before the greatness of God, fervent entreaty in prayer, a sign of penance or sorrow, even mourning. Historically the congregation knelt more and more instead of maintaining its standing position. Recent rules limit kneeling at Mass. [my emphasis]

Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, S.T.L., in answering a question from a reader, stated:

While you surely have a right to receive kneeling if you so choose, I hope you do not think that kneeling is the only proper way to receive Holy Communion, since the Church of the East has had a tradition of standing for centuries.

(The Catholic Answer Book 2, Huntington, Indiana: Our Sunday Visitor, 1994, 162)

The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia ("Genuflexion", written by Frederick Thomas Bergh) gives further corroboration:

The practice of kneeling during the Consecration was introduced during the Middle Ages, and is in relation with the Elevation which originated in the same period. . . .

Nor have we any grounds for believing, against the tradition of the Roman Church, that during the Canon of the Mass the faithful knelt on weekdays, and stood only on Sundays and in paschal time. It is far more likely that the kneeling was limited to Lent and other seasons of penance. . . . That, in the early Church, the faithful stood when receiving into their hands the consecrated particle can hardly be questioned. . . . St. Dionysius of Alexandria, writing to one of the popes of his time, speaks emphatically of "one who has stood by the table and has extended his hand to receive the Holy Food" (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., VII, ix).

[my emphases]

Seemingly unaware of these historical facts, the late, well-known "traditionalist" Michael Davies opined in 2004:

Standing has never been considered an act of reverence within the Roman Rite. . . . I repeat, standing is not an act of reverence, it has never been an act of reverence, and its imposition has nothing to do with the wisdom of the Church—it is antithetical to that wisdom.

Taking all this into account, we can arrive at the following conclusions:

1) Receiving communion standing was the "universal" tradition in the early Church.

2) In other words, it follows that in the early Church congregants did not kneel to receive Holy Communion.

3) Kneeling to receive Holy Communion was only introduced in the Middle Ages.

4) But David Palm has informed us that standing to receive communion possesses a "distinctive Catholic content" that "is approaching zero," and that it is "objectively" inferior and deficient in terms of "expressing the fullness of the Catholic Faith in word and deed" and also in "holy reverence."

5) Therefore, recipients of Holy Communion the early Church, according to David Palm, must have universally suffered from these lamentable and woeful deficiencies of piety, and (astonishingly enough) the very norm and universal practice of the Catholic Church (East and West alike) inculcated these interior attitudes that are antithetical to true, heartfelt worship and eucharistic devotion.

6) Moreover, when the (Palm-asserted) "correct" practice came in, during the Middle Ages, it must have been intrinsically corrupt, since it had no organic, immediate precedent, just as (so David Palm contends), standing at communion in our present era is a corrupt and (at least relatively) impious practice because it, too, had no immediate historical precedent.

7) If standing at communion cannot be considered an organic development of kneeling at communion (as David Palm has argued), then the opposite also logically holds (since they are not organically related): the earlier innovation of kneeling at communion over against the universal standing at communion of the early Church is likewise, a corruption and no true or genuine liturgical development. It's like apples and oranges.

8) Since this leads to logical nonsense (either one or the other practice is inferior, yet by the same "logic" they cannot be, and one or the other is the genuine liturgical tradition and development, but by the same "logic" they cannot be), we must reject the entire argument as unworthy of allegiance. If standing at communion is a corruption and (at least relatively) impious and inferior now, as an "objective" matter, then it must have been in the early Church as well. And if standing at communion is a corruption because it is essentially distinct from kneeling at communion; thus the latter cannot be regarded as an organic precursor or "seed" of the former (and this is required), then likewise, kneeling when it was first introduced, must have likewise been a corruption, since it was not an organic development of the original standing posture at Holy Communion.

9) Ergo, David Palm must formulate a different argument, since this one utterly fails, logically speaking. It has collapsed as completely irrational; literally nonsensical.

Communion in the hand was likewise, was the widespread and predominant practice in the early days of the Catholic Church (the patristic period) [emphases mine throughout]:

That, in the early Church, the faithful stood when receiving into their hands the consecrated particle can hardly be questioned. . . . St. Dionysius of Alexandria, writing to one of the popes of his time, speaks emphatically of "one who has stood by the table and has extended his hand to receive the Holy Food" (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., VII, ix). The custom of placing the Sacred Particle in the mouth, rather than in the hand of the communicant, dates in Rome from the sixth, and in Gaul from the ninth century (Van der Stappen, IV, 227; cf. St. Greg., Dial., I, III, c. iii).

(Catholic Encyclopedia: "Genuflexion")

In the early days of the Church the faithful frequently carried the Blessed Eucharist with them to their homes (cf. Tertullian, "Ad uxor.", II, v; Cyprian, "De lapsis", xxvi) or upon long journeys (Ambrose, De excessu fratris, I, 43, 46), . . .

(Catholic Encyclopedia [Joseph Pohle], "The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist")

The eucharistic vessel known as the paten is a small shallow plate or disc of precious metal upon which the element of bread is offered to God at the Offertory of the Mass, and upon which the consecrated Host is again placed after the Fraction. The word paten comes from a Latin form patina or patena, evidently imitated from the Greek patane. It seems from the beginning to have been used to denote a flat open vessel of the nature of a plate or dish. Such vessels in the first centuries were used in the service of the altar, and probably served to collect the offerings of bread made by the faithful and also to distribute the consecrated fragments which, after the loaf had been broken by the celebrant, were brought down to the communicants, who in their own hands received each a portion from the patina. . . .

When towards the ninth century the zeal of the faithful regarding the frequent reception of Holy Communion very much declined, the system of consecrating the bread offered by the faithful and of distributing Communion from the patinæ seems gradually to have changed, and the use of the large and proportionately deep patinæ ministeriales grew up for the fell into abeyance. It was probably about the same time that the custom grew up for the priest himself to use a paten at the altar to contain the sacred Host, and obviate the danger of scattered particles after the Fraction. This paten, however, was of much smaller size and resembled those with which we are now familiar.

(Catholic Encyclopedia, [Herbert Thurston], "Paten")

All the solitaries in the desert, where there is no priest, take the communion themselves, keeping communion at home. And at Alexandria and in Egypt, each one of the laity, for the most part, keeps the communion, at his own house, and participates in it when he likes. For when once the priest has completed the offering, and given it, the recipient, participating in it each time as entire, is bound to believe that he properly takes and receives it from the giver.And even in the church, when the priest gives the portion, the recipient takes it with complete power over it, and so lifts it to his lips with his own hand. It has the same validity whether one portion or several portions are received from the priest at the same time.

(St. Basil the Great, Letter 93: To the Patrician Cæsaria, concerning Communion)

When thou goest to receive communion go not with thy wrists extended, nor with thy fingers separated, but placing thy left hand as a throne for thy right, which is to receive so great a King, and in the hollow of the palm receive the body of Christ, saying, Amen.

(St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 23:21)

Wherefore with all fear and a pure conscience and certain faith let us draw near and it will assuredly be to us as we believe, doubting nothing. Let us pay homage to it in all purity both of soul and body: for it is twofold. Let us draw near to it with an ardent desire, and with our hands held in the form of the cross let us receive the body of the Crucified One: and let us apply our eyes and lips and brows and partake of the divine coal, . . .

(St. John Damascene, An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Chapter 13)

Tell me, would you choose to come to the Sacrifice with unwashen hands? No, I suppose, not. But you would rather choose not to come at all, than come with soiled hands. And then, thus scrupulous as you are in this little matter, do you come with soiled soul, and thus dare to touch it? And yet the hands hold it but for a time, whereas into the soul it is dissolved entirely.

(St. John Chrysostom, Homily 3 on Ephesians)

The present counter-argument, using the example of communion in the hand is not as strong as that concerning receiving communion standing, because unlike the latter, it was not the universal practice in the early Church. Yet there was significant usage, as at least eight eminent Church Fathers and three Catholic Encyclopedia articles attest. Thus, the counter-argument from development is not as airtight (though still strong), while the argument opposed to supposed "inferiority" remains compelling. The argument can be put into the following concise form:

1) Receiving communion in the hand was a significantly widespread tradition in the early Church.

2) In other words, it follows that many early Church congregants did not receive Holy Communion on the tongue.

3) Receiving Holy Communion on the tongue began (according to the Catholic Encyclopedia) in, for example, Rome, in the sixth century and in Gaul in the ninth. Likewise, the system of distributing Holy Communion from a metal paten, from which the faithful took the consecrated host with their hands, subsided, according to the same source, only "towards the ninth century." Thus, there was clearly a proportionately great practice of communion in the hand in the early Church.

4) But David Palm has informed us that receiving communion in the hand possesses a "distinctive Catholic content" that "is approaching zero," and that it is "objectively" inferior and deficient in terms of "expressing the fullness of the Catholic Faith in word and deed" and also in "holy reverence."

5) Therefore, many many recipients of Holy Communion in the hand in the early Church (e.g., the first six centuries in Rome), according to David Palm, must have suffered from these lamentable and woeful deficiencies of piety, and (astonishingly enough) the widespread practice of the Catholic Church (East and West alike) inculcated these interior attitudes that are antithetical to true, heartfelt worship and eucharistic devotion.

6) Moreover, when the (Palm-asserted) "correct" practice came in, e.g., in the 6th century in Rome and the 9th in Gaul, it must have been intrinsically corrupt, since it had no organic, immediate precedent, just as (so David Palm contends), receiving communion in the hand in our present era is a corrupt and (at least relatively) impious practice because it, too, had no immediate historical precedent.

7) If receiving communion in the hand cannot be considered an organic development of receiving on the tongue (as David Palm has argued), then the opposite also logically holds (since they are not organically related): the earlier innovation of receiving on the tongue over against receiving communion in the hand is likewise, a corruption and no true or genuine liturgical development. It's like apples and oranges.

8) Since this leads to logical nonsense (either one or the other practice is inferior, yet by the same "logic" they cannot be, and one or the other is the genuine liturgical tradition and development, but by the same "logic" they cannot be), we must reject the entire argument as unworthy of allegiance. If receiving communion in the hand is a corruption and (at least relatively) impious and inferior now, as an "objective" matter, then it must have been in the early Church as well. And if receiving in the hand is a corruption because it is essentially distinct from receiving communion on the tongue; thus the latter cannot be regarded as an organic precursor or "seed" of the former (and this is required), then likewise, receiving communion on the tongue, when it was first introduced, must have likewise been a corruption, since it was not an organic development of the earlier practice of receiving communion in the hand.

9) Ergo, David Palm must formulate a different argument, since this one utterly fails, logically speaking. It has collapsed as completely irrational; literally nonsensical.

Even David Palm's fellow "traditionalist" and comrade-in-arms lately on my blog, Ben Douglass, doesn't buy this particular characteristic "traditionalist" argument:

I am in no way arguing that Communion in the hand has been good for the Church or that it was prudent to reintroduce it. On the contrary, I think the decision to permit Communion in the hand has been disastrous; I think that the practice, in the modern form, is less conducive to reverence and far less rich in symbolism as compared to Communion on the tongue; . . . All I desire to establish with this essay is that Communion in the hand in not a sacrilege and does not necessarily tend toward sacrilege, . . . I would like to point out that the laity received Communion in the hand quite frequently in the early Christian Church. [many of the same examples I have given are then cited] . . .

I would also like to comment that there is a strong point to the ancient form of Communion on the hand which even Communion on the tongue is lacking: it gives the communicant some time for private adoration of Jesus in the consecrated host. This could potentially be a very grace-filled moment and excite the communicant to greater reverence and devotion when he receives. Unfortunately, in the modern form of Communion in the hand (no altar rail and a line of people behind you waiting for you to get out of the way) this opportunity is gone. Thus with the modern form of Communion in the hand we have all the drawbacks of the ancient practice but we lose its central benefit. . . .

Taking Communion on the tongue is a venerable, lower-case t tradition of the Catholic Church. Yet while I am unequivocally opposed to the destruction of venerable lower-case t traditions, by the same token I am against conflating them with Sacred Tradition, the source of revelation. To receive Communion in the hand is absolutely not wrong in principle, as should be clear by now.

Not so, David Palm. He appears to oppose it in principle, irregardless of the logical problems inherent in such a position, given the way he has staked out his argument from development of liturgical practice. In an article on the topic of kneeling, from 27 May 2008, he wrote:

Several friends sent me notices about wonderful news concerning the recent Mass at which the Holy Father distributed Holy Communion exclusively to recipients who knelt and received on the tongue . . . They knew I would be interested in this development not just in a general way, as yet another move by the Holy Father to restore liturgical sanity to the Roman Rite, . . .

Recently a local priest expressed his concern in our diocesan paper that Catholics who regularly attend the TLM sometimes refrain from receiving Holy Communion when they attend the NOM. He surmised that it may be because they doubt the validity of the NOM and perhaps in a few cases that's true, although I think that's a rare position. I think it's more likely that they just don't care to be marginalized and possibly publicly ridiculed because their conscience tells them to follow the immemorial custom of the Church and receive kneeling. . . .

I will have more to say about kneeling before our Lord and the new movement against Communion in the hand in future postings. For now, let's just say that this is the worst possible time to shy away from taking a stand (or, in this case, kneeling down) in support of Holy Tradition. The tide is turning.

Mr. Palm is, of course, free to believe and practice as he wishes (I always, by the way, receive Holy Communion kneeling at an altar rail, from the priest, in my parish, but I'll receive on the hand on occasion in other parishes, because I recognize that that has a serious liturgical history and is a venerable, pious tradition as well). But Mr. Palm is not free to revise the laws of classical logic (they are what they are: a=a, etc.), and he is not immune from being illogical in his reasoning, as proven rather conclusively above: as we all are at times.

St. Peter's Denials and the Cock's Crows: A Biblical Contradiction?

St. Peter Denying Christ, by Paul Gustav Doré (1832-1883)

Dr. Jason Long, an agnostic pharmacist, and author of Biblical Nonsense, has recently written a post about the alleged contradiction of the account of the cock's crows in relation to the denials of our Lord by St. Peter. He was responding to a short treatment by Protestant apologist J.P. Holding.

I'd like to (tentatively) propose a different solution. It's controversial itself, but I am simply throwing it out as a possible solution to seeming difficulties in the Gospel accounts: food for thought and speculation. Some may find it plausible; others may not (but that makes the discussion fun).

First, let's see what Dr. Long states (his words in blue):

Perhaps more than any contradiction in the Bible, the cock crowing contradiction has attracted its share of how-it-could-have-been-scenarios. This is my response to one apology. Comments are welcome.

Shortly before the crucifixion, Jesus tells Peter that he will choose to disavow any knowledge of Jesus on three occasions. After these events manifest, a cock will crow to remind him of Jesus’ words. In the books of Matthew, Luke, and John, Jesus warns Peter that all three of his denials will take place before the cock crows. In these three accounts, the situation unfolds exactly how Jesus predicted. The cock crows after, and only after, Peter’s third denial is made in accordance with what Jesus states, “the cock will not crow until you have denied me three times.” However, the details are different in Mark. Here, we see Jesus warning Peter that he will deny their friendship three times before the cock crows twice. Of course, this is exactly how the events play out in Mark. The cock crows after the first denial and again after the third denial. This is an undeniable contradiction without a rational explanation. If Mark is correct, the cock must have crowed after the first denial – even though Jesus said, in the other three Gospels, that it would not crow until after the third denial. If these three Gospels are accurate, Mark is wrong because the cock could not have crowed until after all three of Peter’s denials. How does the apologist handle this one?

. . . does it make any sense for the author to say that the cock would crow twice (or three, or four, or five, or seventy-two times) if the three denials all took place before the first crow? Of what relevance is the second crowing, and why is it worth mentioning? . . .

Mark is internally consistent. Matthew, Luke, and John are internally consistent and consistent among each other. The only problem is that Mark is not consistent with the other three. The simplest answer is that Mark made a simple error.

And in the combox:

One more thing: Matthew, Luke, and John are explicit that the crowing took place immediately after the third denial. In the exact same place in Matthew, the author mentions the second crowing (implicit in its immediacy). This second crowing can only be the same crowing that the other three mention. If the second crowing took place immediately after the third denial, the first crowing must have taken place before the third denial, which would contradict what Jesus said would happen in Matthew, Luke, and John. What am I supposedly missing here? That the first crowing was understood to be a middle-of-the-night crowing that the other three Gospels did not need to mention? This is wild speculation, is it not?

All four Gospels treat this topic. There are four accounts of Jesus' prediction to Peter, and four accounts of Peter's actual denials:

Predictions: Matthew 26:31-35 / Mark 14:27-31 / Luke 22:34 / John 13:31-38

Peter's Denials: Matthew 26:69-75 / Mark 14:66-72 / Luke 22:54-62 / John 18:15-17,25-27

All these passages can be read in a very handy overview by Edwin K.P. Chong, in the Quodlibet Online Journal of Christian Theology and Philosophy. I'd like to submit as a plausible explanation what is known as "the six-denial solution." Chong describes it as follows:

A more radical solution to the problem is to submit that there were in fact six denials altogether, not three. The rationale here is that Mark's quote of Jesus saying that Peter would deny Him three times before the rooster crows twice means that there would be three denials for each crow of the rooster. The rooster crowed after the third and the sixth denials. . . . it explains why the various people involved in the denials in the four Gospels differ somewhat. Is it possible that the four Gospels together account for six different denial episodes altogether, but that each Gospel only describes three of them?

The six-denials approach was popularized by Harold Lindsell in his 1976 book, The Battle for the Bible [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1976]. The success of the approach relies on being able to reconstruct a cogent account of the six denials that is consistent with all the Gospels. One possible account, due to Michael Cortright, is given below [dead link]:

First denial:

A girl at the door to the courtyard (John 18:17).

Second denial:

A servant girl, by the fire in the courtyard (Matthew 26:69, Mark 14:66, Luke 22:56).

Third denial:

A man by the fire in the courtyard (Luke 22:58).

First crow.

Mark 14:68 (King James Version).

Fourth denial:

Another girl, at the gateway (Matthew 26:71) or entryway (Mark 14:68,69).

Fifth denial:

Some anonymous (standing) people by the fire in the courtyard (Matthew 26:73, Mark 14:70, John 18:25).

Sixth denial:

Another man who happens to be a male servant of the high priest (Luke 22:59, John 18:26).

Second crow.

Matthew 26:74, Mark 14:72, Luke 22:60, John 18:27.

The above reconstruction appears to be largely consistent with the Gospel accounts.

This explanation was provided (perhaps definitively) in the book, The Life of Christ in Stereo, by Johnston M. Cheney (edited by Stanley A. Ellisen, Portland: Western Conservative Baptist Seminary, 1969). This is a Harmony of the Gospels, with a few appendices: one of which (#2: pp. 218-220) is devoted to this textual issue. I shall cite it at great length:

Discrepancy has been charged to this account because the related details are so diverse that they simply refuse to group themselves into just three denials without some very questionable manipulating of the texts. A surplus of details has proved embarrassing . . .

The solution that this harmony has evolved is suggested first of all by noting the differences in the two warnings Jesus gave to Peter. The first, recorded by Luke and John, occurred in the Upper room. John shows that this took place before Jesus' great farewell discourse . . . The second, recounted by Mark and Matthew, occurred much later. It was given when Jesus and the disciples were on the way to Gethsemane . . . Note the difference in the wording of the two warnings. In the first warning, Jesus said:

". . . the cock will not at all crow this day till you have denied three times that you know me." (Italics indicate emphasis in Grk.) (John 13:38)

On the latter occasions he said:

". . . today, during the night, before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times." (Mark 14:30)

From just a simple analysis of these words, it is evident that Jesus predicted Peter would both deny Him three times before the cock crowed at all, as well as three times before the cock crowed twice. The grammar itself demands this . . . The evidence is that Jesus predicted six denials.

The First Three Denials. By noting the first denials in each account, it is evident that the one recorded by John occurred first. It had to, for it took place as Peter gained entrance to where the other denials were uttered. And his second denial was the second recorded by John, for here Jesus had just been taken bound from Annas to appear before Caiaphas. This second denial was a response to the men around the court fire as Peter sat with them.

The third denial occurred also by the fire, this time in response to the query of the high priest's servant girl. Following this, Peter went out into the fore-court. But it was at this point, as Mark records (according to Textus Receptus), that "a cock crowed" (Mark 14:68) . . . interestingly enough, this crowing occurred after only the first denial recorded by Mark. By allowing the Evangelists to minutely supplement each other, the first cycle of denials is seen to be precisely as Jesus had predicted: Peter denied Him three times before the cock crowed at all.

The Second Three Denials. . . . There is "another woman" (Matt. 26:71), a second query by the high priest's maid (Mark 14:69), "another man" (Luke 22:58), "another man" (Luke 22:59), and finally "a kinsman of the one whose ear Peter had cut off" (John 18:26). There is obviously some overlap in these accounts, but they are seen to draw out Peter's additional three denials after the first crowing of the cock. Following Peter's adamant curse and his final denial, Mark declares that the cock crowed "the second time." . . .

It is to be recognized that each of the individual Evangelists recorded and was evidently aware of only one warning by Jesus and only three denials by Peter. They each recorded accurately what they knew.

Edward T. Babinski, another agnostic, recommended in the combox for Dr. Long's article, a tightly-argued treatment by Dave E. Matson. The above scenario resolves many if not all of the alleged difficulties suggested by Matson in his section "The Problem" because there are more denials that occur, thus resolving supposed contradictions in the accounts of each denial (that seem even at first glance to add up to more than three specific denials).

The article, Peter's Denial, by Doug Ecklund, lays out a scenario for six denials, with all the verses laid out for the convenience of the reader.

John Schoenheit, in a (transcribed) 1995 talk entitled The Last Week of Christ's Life, concurs with this theory:

This is his first denial [John 18:15-17] and it happened at the house of Annas. E.W. Bullinger and others have worked out the six denials of Peter. Prophecies were there, and one of them said, “Before the cock crow, thou shall deny me thrice,” another says, “Before the cock crow thrice, thou shall deny me twice.” I have worked on this for some time, and I am satisfied that I believe that six denials by Peter are there. It would have worked something like this that Christ would have said, “Before the cock crow thou shall deny me thrice.” Peter would have kept on saying no it is not going to work that way, no that is not the way it is going to be. Christ would have then said, “Before the cock crow twice, thou shall deny me thrice.” In fact, even if you look at the Gospel records and try to harmonize them, we have one denial here with Annas; other Gospels clearly [refer to] three denials in front of Caiaphas, so you already have four denials; . . . you can get your Bible and get 3x5 cards to line out the various denials. Do this like a reporter using who, what, where, when, why, and how. You will see that Peter makes six different denials.

The Defending the Faith website also offers a scenario for six denials:

i. The First Series of Three.

1. The First Denial, John 18:17. Place: the door (thura) without. Time: entering. The questioner: the porteress (Gr. thuroros).

2. The Second Denial, Matthew 26:70 (Mark 14:68). Place: the hall (aule). Time: sitting. Questioner: a certain maid. Luke 22:56-58 combines the same place and time, with the same maid, and another (heteros, masc.).

3. The Third Denial, Matthew 26:71. Place: the gateway or porch (pulon). Time: an interval of an hour. John 18:25, 26 combines the same place and time, with another maid and bystanders, one of them being a relative of Malchus.

A Cock Crew
(Mark 14: 68. John 18:27)

ii. The Second Series of Three.

1. The First Denial, Mark 14:63. Place: "beneath in the hall". Time: shortly after. Questioner: the maid again.

2. The Second Denial, Matthew 26:73 (Mark 14:70). Place: the gate (pulon). Time: shortly after. Questioners: the bystanders.

3. The Third Denial (Luke 22:59, 60). Place: the midst of the hall (aule; v. 55). Time: "an hour after" (v. 59). Questioner : a certain one (masc.).

A Cock Crew

(Matthew 26:74. Mark 14:72. Luke 22:61)

IV. We thus have a combined record in which there remains no difficulty, while each word retains its own true grammatical sense.

Willmington's Guide to the Bible provides another such outline of six denials.

* * * * *

For those who don't care for this scenario, Protestant apologist Norman L. Geisler offers an explanation with the traditional three denials, in his book Inerrancy (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1980).

The CARM website presents a three-denial schema in a convenient outline form.

Eric Lyons at ApologeticsPress.org gives it a shot by explaining the seeming contradiction by analogy to other similar uses of language (scroll down about 3/4 to the bottom).

St. Augustine's explanation from his Harmony of the Gospels, Book III, chapter 2 is also fascinating.

Birthday Present Suggestion (My Anti-Catholic Buddies Made a T-Shirt For Me!)

Anyone wanna buy me this t-shirt (graciously and lovingly marketed by our old friend Frank Turk -- aka "centuri0n") for my "big 5-0" birthday on July 30th? I'd love to wear this (the lite blue one: large size!) down in Steubenville at the Defending the Faith conference a few days before that (where, last year, I had the distinct pleasure of meeting blog regular Paul Hoffer). That would be the funniest thing . . . the price is outrageous ($5.00 for shipping, too). That's why it'd make a wonderful gift (hint hint hint).

Yep, I'm free all right: free in Christ (Galatians 5:1); free to proclaim and defend the glorious gospel and the fullness of the Catholic message full-time (made possible by your purchases of my books and generous tax-deductible donations); free to refute error from the comfort of my library / office; free to disagree with and contend against ideologies and worldviews that are wrong and harmful; free to worship and live as I please; free to love my dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, my beautiful wife Judy and my four children and my friends and fellow human beings. I love my work and my life: doing what God called me to do.

It was very thoughtful of ol' Frank to make note of how free in Christ and His Church that I am!

Here's my PO Box:

Dave Armstrong
PO Box 3262
Melvindale, MI 48122

Recommended Catholic Scholarly Works on Tradition, Soteriology, and the Eucharist

Protestant graduate student in theology, B. J. Buracker wrote in my comboxes:

I am a student in Biblical Studies at the University of Edinburgh. I really enjoy reading a lot of popular level apologetics (Shea, Howard, Keating, Kreeft, Dave, etc.), but I am hungry for something a bit more scholarly.

Does anyone - Protestant or Catholic - have any suggestions? I would like to see solid exegetical work, paying attention to context, language, linguistics, and history. The things I am most interested in are: Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, and the Eucharist.

Any help would be appreciated.

I don't know if these books fulfill all that you are looking for, but all the men below are actual scholars (and/or priests), with doctorates:

Eucharist and the Mass

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, God Is Near Us: The Eucharist, the Heart of Life, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2003.

Abbot Vonier, A Key to the Doctrine of the Eucharist, Zaccheus Press, 2003.

James T. O'Connor, The Hidden Manna: A Theology of the Eucharist, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2nd edition, 2005.

Peter M. J. Stravinskas, The Bible and the Mass, Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Pub., 1989.

Scott Hahn, The Lamb's Supper: The Mass as Heaven on Earth, New York: Doubleday, 1999.

Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue III: The Eucharist as Sacrifice, 1967.

Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue IV: Eucharist and Ministry, 1970.

Sola fide

Fernand Prat, The Theology of St. Paul, Westminster, MD: The Newman Bookshop, 1952 (two volumes).

N. T. Wright and James D.G. Dunn [Anglicans] are very helpful, along "catholic" lines, for a study of sola fide, because their conclusions often echo what Catholics have argued for centuries:

N. T. Wright, Paul: In Fresh Perspective, Fortress Press, 2006.

N. T. Wright, Paul for Everyone: Romans: Chapters 9-16, Westminster John Knox Press, 2004.

N. T. Wright, Paul for Everyone: Galatians and Thessalonians, Westminster John Knox Press, 2004.

James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2006.

James D. G. Dunn, The New Perspective on Paul, Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, revised edition, 2007.

Also, from another Protestant scholar:

E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion, Augsburg Fortress Publishers, 1977.

E. P. Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, Augsburg Fortress Publishers, 1985.

Ecumenical Efforts:

George A. Lindbeck, Walter Cardinal Kasper, Henry Chadwick, Edward Idris Cardinal Cassidy et al, Justification and the Future of the Ecumenical Movement: The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (Unitas Series), Liturgical Press, 2003.

Justification by Faith Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VII, 1985.

Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, [Lutheran World Federation and Catholic Church], Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000.

Louis Bouyer, The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism, Scepter Publications, 2001 [originally from 1958; discusses both sola Scriptura and sola fide a lot, mostly from a comparative historical perspective]

Bible, Church, and Tradition Issues:

Yves Congar, The Meaning of Tradition, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2004.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, God's Word: Scripture - Tradition - Office, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2008.

Avery Cardinal Dulles, Magisterium: Teacher and Guardian of the Faith, Sapientia Press, 2007.

Hans Urs Von Balthasar, Word and Revelation: Essays in Theology I, Herder & Herder, 1964.

Scott Hahn, Scripture Matters: Essays on Reading the Bible from the Heart of the Church, Emmaus Road, 2003.

J. Francis Stafford, Harold C. Skillrud, and Daniel F. Martensen, Scripture and Tradition: Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue IX (Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue), 1995.

Robert A. Sungenis (editor), Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura, Queenship Pub. Co., 1998.

[compilation that has several chapters from scholars: Dr. Philip Blosser, my friend Dr. Robert Fastiggi, Fr. Mitch Pacwa, and Fr. Peter Stravinskas]

Hilarious Observation of the Day About Anti-Catholicism (Mark Shea)

This is a wonderful example of Shea's characteristic flowery, semi-sarcastic style (not to everyone's taste, and sometimes I think he goes overboard and becomes highly uncharitable, but all in all, delightful):

So, for instance, when a Protestant anti-Catholic “apologist” adopts the handle “prosApologian”, you pretty much know where this guy’s sense of identity is invested. He knows Greek and you don’t. He has a degree from Wilbur Weed Unaccredited Boxtop Diploma Mill and is fond of calling himself “doctor” and listing his credentials. He eats and sleeps apologetics. He will fill your screen with enough gaseous ASCII to inflate the Hindenburg in pursuit of the exact parsing and declension of some Greek conjunction (all while asking if your credentials are as big as his credentials). He’s ready to rumble. Right. Got it.

I especially love the Hindenburg line. LOLOL This was from a great article, entitled: "Intellectual Fisticuffs: Some Thoughts on the Apologetics Subculture." Here's more funny stuff from Mark in the combox:

James has lovingly preserved (because he genuinely believes others will be interested) a web thread from (get this) 1997 in which he tried to square the circle and prove that the canon of Scripture was not basically a product of the Church's authority. That he sincerely believes rational people will drop everything and pore over an argument I had with him ten years ago on USENET, marveling at scholarship, sighing at his rhetorical brilliance, and swooning over his forensic prowess is but one tiny indication that something is askew in the ol' Self-Importance Department.

Basically, the argument came down to this:

Mark: How do you know which books belong in Scripture, James?

James: [emit five billion cubic feet of ASCII like a panicked squid and change the subject].

That's essential[ly] all there was to it. There basically is no answer except that Holy Church decided what goes in the Bible by the power of the Holy Spirit and that Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are two sides of the same apostolic coin.

I also like his line near the end of the initial post:

Likewise, those who turn their Fave Rave Apologists into Alternate Magisteria would do well to smash their idols and allow their heroes to be the faithful–and fallible–human beings they are.

Amen!

"Traditionalist" Reaction to Pope Benedict XVI's Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontificum (Allowing the Tridentine Mass Without Special Permission)

For (considerable) background, see my papers:

On the Tridentine Mass, Unnecessary Related Divisions, and Pope Benedict XVI's New Directives regarding Same (vs. John F. Triolo)

Apologia For the Mass of Pope Paul VI, With Massive Historical Documentation From Catholic Tradition / Summary of Vatican II on Liturgical Reform (+ Discussion)

* * * * *

I've written in various entries in the combox of the second paper above:

My position is that of the Holy Father: both the ordinary and extraordinary forms are good. Why do we have to say one is "better" than the other? Why do we have to categorize ANY of the 22 Catholic rites? We don't say one book in the NT is "better" than another. The only reason I even have to defend the Pauline Mass is because it has been savaged and pilloried mercilessly by the "traditionalists" and because of the myriad liberal and ignoramus abuses of it.

* * *

I don't have any burden of trying to prove that the Pauline is "better" than the TM, because that is not my position anyway. It's you guys who say that one is "better" than the other.

What I've argued is that the Pauline Mass has as much support from Tradition as the TM, and that the Church had good reason to promulgate it. It's not merely the largely subjective argument of the trads who aren't arguing for an intrinsic evil or invalidity but that the TM is "better" or "best."

I would say at most (with regard to this comparison thing) that the Pauline Mass does succeed in its aim to be more suited to contemporary times. Even Trent said that was a permissible goal.

* * *

Why the continued carping on and on about how inferior the Pauline Mass is? Why not just worship as you see fit and the allow others to do the same? If the Holy Father has done what Msgr. Gamber recommended (and the latter's book is THE book that "Trads" want to recommend regarding liturgy) then where is the beef? The pope has clearly stated that both are here to stay.

* * *

The Holy Father has given his firm opinion on this issue (with less than ex cathedra authority). Will the "trads" accept this or not? Even Gamber apparently conceded that the Pauline Mass was not going to go anywhere.

But it seems that David Palm wants to continue to quibble with the pope since in his latest blog article he contends that the extraordinary and ordinary expressions of the Roman rite are really two rites, which is directly contrary to what Pope Benedict XVI wrote in Summorum Pontificum:

"These two expressions of the Church's Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church's 'Lex credendi' (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite."

In order to maintain the opinion, he argues that various practices (read: abuses) in how the Pauline Mass is observed amount to it being a different rite (at least in those instances).

Pope says no. Palm says yes. I go with the pope, because he is the head of the Catholic Church.

* * *

You have it exactly backwards. As I've stated several times, I am enthusiastically in favor of letting Catholics worship as they please. I love the new universal indult and think it was way overdue. I'm not arguing that the Pauline Mass is "better" than the Tridentine. I'm saying it is meaningless and divisive to engage in those quarrels, since the Holy Father has stated that both will be maintained and that both are forms of the Roman rite.

I defended the Pauline Mass because "trads" continue to bash it as if it has no rationale or historical precedent. And of course that ruffles lots of "trad" feathers because no one is supposed to make such arguments, even on the stumbling, bumbling, preliminary, introductory level, as in my case.

* * *

I just had at my party yesterday the priest at my parish who celebrated the Tridentine Mass yesterday ( [name] ). He thinks it is atrocious and divisive for "trads" to continue complaining, especially after the universal indult has been granted. Also at my party was a professor of theology, [name]. He said that it was scandalous and unseemly for "trads" to continue this line of protest by virtue of the principles of Catholic assent to magisterial utterances (even if sub-infallible).

* * *

["Trads"] should sensibly cease comparing the extraordinary and ordinary forms of the Roman rite to the detriment of the latter: and that for the good of the Church and unity.

"Trads" have gotten what they wanted: freedom to worship as they please and prefer, and compete latitude for availability of the TM potentially, if not actually, in every parish.

Now, that would seem (to the hypothetical "neutral" observer) more than sufficient to allay their central (?) concerns about the modern Church. But I would have predicted (I don't think I actually did, but I quite possibly COULD have) that this wouldn't be good enough, and that they would continue to gripe and find something in the Church to excoriate.

Looks like I would have been right if I did that, though the new situation seems to have at least taken the wind out of many "trad" sails, and to have stolen a great deal of their fire: which was, of course, part of its purpose. If something is causing schism or significant and troubling sub-schismatic division and discontent (apart from the complex question of causation) and one (i.e., a pope) can do something to lessen that potentiality and tendency, and to strengthen existing Catholic norms and practices, then it is good to do so.

I have been in favor of this latitude in freedom of worship all along. It was wrong to suppress the TM. Likewise, it is equally wrong (and hypocritical, given this recent history) for "trads" to want to suppress the Pauline Mass entirely, in favor of the TM (or to begrudgingly accept it as "valid" and "licit" etc. while constantly running it down).

* * *

I think there has been some confusion in liturgical matters, even at the highest levels. We can wholeheartedly agree on that. My own desire is to see all factions move ahead by accepting the Holy Father's Motu Proprio.

I'm not the one to figure out all these little details. I have no desire to do so and I don't feel that I have to. I can't explain all that. I don't have it all figured out by a million miles. But the Church is our Guide and Mother. We've been shown the way to move ahead and beyond this internal conflict.

I think y'all should drop the incessant criticisms of the Pauline Mass. You don't like it. You have huge problems with it. We get that. But you've now been allowed to worship as you want to, without feeling like you're disobedient or sneaking around in the shadows, wondering whether it is right to go to an SSPX chapel and what-not. That's all history, or should be. Let us worship as we see fit, too, without being regarded as second-class, spiritually stunted Catholics who know little about legitimate liturgical tradition. This is divisiveness. Perhaps my approach (which is the pope's: liturgical tolerance and latitude) is the right way to go?

* * * * *

With those preliminary thoughts, I got very curious as to how "traditionalists" have reacted to the new situation of the universal indult. The first truly I found in my searching was the good ole Remnant, (a radtrad organization: more radical than many -- most? -- "trads") and Michael J. Matt: an article that came out even before the universal indult was granted. The approach was entirely predictable, and perhaps gives indication of what we can expect to see a lot in the future from "trad" circles (or at least radtrad ones):

If and when the Pope does enact concrete measures along traditionalist lines he will be crucified. . . .

The international traditional Catholic movement—including the SSPX, the Fraternity of St. Peter, Independent chapels, the Institute of Christ the King, tradition-minded Indult priests, etc., have—to varying degrees—managed to preserve the traditional Mass through forty years of liturgical “shock and awe”. Do we really want that jealously guarded treasure to become the plaything of Fr. Elton John? Are we ready for Palestrina meets Joan Baez?

On the other hand, wouldn’t Father Elton John and his happy-clappy congregation be about as receptive to the old Mass as are the French bishops? The Tridentine Mass is to the liberal what holy water is to the vampire. Wouldn’t the universal indult, therefore, succeed mainly in providing sanctuary to those priestly prisoners of the Novus Ordo Gulag who have managed to keep the faith but who have grown sick to death of the protestantized new Mass? It would seem so. . . .

The indult has its drawbacks, of course. The Remnant has, in fact, led the charge over the past two decades against the “Indult Mentality,” which would have traditionalists swap their public resistance to the revolution for permission slips to have the Mass they “prefer.” Mirabile dictu, the “Smile and Obey Your Apostate Bishop” crowd seems to be dispersing while militant lay traditional Catholics—in both approved and unapproved Mass centers—are putting jackhammers to the base of the great façade of neo-Catholicism.

Total rejection of the “new ecclesial orientation” of Vatican II is what fueled the traditional Catholic counterrevolution since 1969. It wasn’t Archbishop Lefebvre’s “liturgical preferences” that prompted the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei and brought down modernist wrath upon his head; it was his resounding NO to the New Mass and the destructive “spirit” of the Second Vatican Council. . . .

Look around! The Novus Ordo is dying while Traditionalism is thriving. Why should we change the formula now? . . . The neo-Catholics are falling all over themselves in a desperate effort to appear more traditional, many even applying the term to themselves. . . .

The party, mercifully, is over, and Catholics from the lowliest pew to the throne of St. Peter are coming to realize that something must be done. In a few days, the Holy Father himself is expected to extend his hand over the universal Church and solemnly proclaim that, at least liturgically, the traditionalist resistance has been justified all along. The old Mass must be restored.

Imagine that!

But even when this happens, if it happens, can there be any doubt that, after so much betrayal and revolution, the SSPX lifeboat must remain anchored precisely where it has always been, safely beyond the vortex of the sinking Novus Ordo? The “insurance policy” can not be cancelled until Rome’s recognition of the full extent of the crisis takes the form of a total recall of the disastrous Novus Ordo—liturgically, theologically and philosophically.

"Traditionalist" Ryan Grant (with whom I have had several constructive dialogues lately) made very clear his own opinion shortly before the "MP" came out:

Lastly, it would appear that there is little I can do here to convince you of the repugnance of the Novus Ordo. Yet when one goes to the Traditional Liturgy for a period even years, and then goes back to it, can scarcely recognize it as his liturgy. I know I went because I couldn't afford the gas to make it to a traditional Mass, and I walked out. I felt like a protestant. More to the point I felt like a Muslim who witnesses someone eating in the Mahsjiid during Rhamadan. I couldn't deal with it. When one has such an experience, it forces him to ask the question, the Traditional Mass was used by Catholics in virtually the same form for 1600 years. Going to it makes me view the new liturgy which was composed by a team of liturgists in 1967 as protestant, what is wrong with the new liturgy? Thus I am a traditionalist and I only go to the Traditional Mass.

(20 June 2007)

I support the eventual dissolution of the Novus Ordo and the return to organic development from the old, which is what Vatican II called for. It called for organically developing the liturgy at hand, which was the Tridentine Mass, albeit the Vatican II document short circuits its own goal. The question is how to go about it. We had one liturgical supression and it caused disaster. Intelligent people would not want another one. The solution really is put the Traditional Mass out there, let people experience it, or let Tradition stand for itself. Over time, I believe the Novus Ordo will just disappear.

(24 June 2007)

Once the new decree was promulgated on 7 July 2007, one could trace "trad" reaction and see how the "trads" would react to the continuing legitimate status of the Pauline Mass. Ryan's own reaction is illustrative:

The first problem with the document is the claim that the Novus Ordo and the Traditional Latin Mass are part of the same rite. Two expressions of the same lex credendi. That this is fictitious can be found from the Pope's own words several years ago, when he declared in the preface to Monsignor Klaus Gamber's book on the reform of the liturgy that the Novus Ordo was a "banal, on the spot product." How can such a thing, a theater liturgy tailored to the uses of modern man be the ordinary expression of the "Roman rite"? What he is basically saying with Summorum Pontificum is that what he himself declared a banal on the spot product is a liturgy which has the preference of the Church, over the Mass of the saints. This liturgy, which would claim the role of usurper, is not even 40 years old yet. It is rife with innovation after innovation (even in the Latin), and is in and of itself a hermeneutic of discontinuity. . . .

Thus, call the whole thing what you will, it is not an expression of any kind of the Roman Rite. Is it a Mass? Certainly. That is not the issue, the issue is that it has no part of Latin Catholic patrimony, other than a hodgepodge of different traditions that find their way into the Latin, but bear no resemblance to the recognizable liturgy of 1800 years of Western Catholicism.

This bears down on the heart of the flaw of Summorum Pontificum. If the so-called "ordinary" celebration (a term I reject in fact) is not apart of the same Roman Rite, how can it function as a stabilizing, ordinary liturgy, when it is in itself constantly changing and not even 40 years old? It can not. One must supplant the other, because the stable body of our tradition is stronger than the endless options of a narcissistic liturgy obsessed with itself.

(18 September 2007)

I think it is fairly (though not perfectly) clear in context, that the pope was speaking of abuses of the Pauline Mass, not the thing itself. This is a crucial distinction. If he was not doing this, then he has either contradicted himself or has assumed a less critical opinion of the Pauline Mass itself (celebrated in a non-corrupted fashion, according to its actual rubrics).

"Traditionalist" scion John Vennari doesn't miss a beat in roundly disagreeing with the Holy Father in August 2007, writing in the radtrad rag Catholic Family News:

The Motu Proprio contains numerous oddities, the most prominent of which is its claim that the Novus Ordo and Latin Tridentine Mass are two forms of the one Roman Rite: the Liturgy of Pope Paul VI is the ordinary form, and the Latin Tridentine Mass is the extraordinary form. . . . Pope Benedict’s letter to the bishops that accompanied the Motu Proprio goes on to say “There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal” This is simply not true. . . . Clearly the New Mass represents a destruction of the Roman Rite, not an “ordinary” form of it. So why does Pope Benedict XVI present a new “ordinary/extraordinary” formula that appears to defy reason? Does he really believe in it? Or did he present this novel dichotomy as the only way he perceived the world’s bishops would accept his document? . . . It is absurd to claim there is “no contradiction” between a liturgy that disgusts Protestants (the Traditional Mass, which Luther called worse than the most loathsome brothel); with a liturgy that delights Protestants (the Novus Ordo).

The New Mass was not constructed to be a clear expression of the Catholic Faith, nor was it designed for the proper worship of God that is His due. It was formulated, rather, as surrender to Protestantism for the sake of a bogus ecumenism. . . . The New Mass is not truly a Catholic liturgy, but an ecumenical one. It was designed to accommodate those who reject the most basic tenets of the Catholic Faith; such as the sacrifice of the Mass; the sacrificing Catholic priesthood; and the real presence of Our Lord in the Holy Eucharist. Thus it is absurd to claim this protestantized liturgy is the ordinary form of the Roman Rite. Nothing is gained by pretending this absurdity does not exist.

"Traditionalist" J. Hughes Dunphy waxes eloquent four days after the Motu Proprio came out:

In light of this litany of seemingly endless disrespect and sacrilege can one any longer doubt the denial of Jesus Christ and His Divine Presence as being total and complete by the Judas Priests of the "Novus Ordo Missae" and communion in the hand along with its boon ally, Liberal Protestantism?

Ben Douglass opined (6-23-08 on my blog):

The whole thesis under dispute here is whether the Tridentine Mass possesses an objective and demonstrable theological superiority over the Novus Ordo. Given that I believe this to be the case, not only do I wish myself to be able to attend the Tridentine Mass, but I want the entire Latin Rite to return to the Tridentine Mass (and the unreformed Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Dominican, etc.), for the greater glory of God and the salvation of more souls. . . . It would be harsh and imprudent to suppress the Novus Ordo immediately. It is good and praiseworthy to work and pray that it will be suppressed and replaced eventually.

"Reluctant Traditionalist" David Palm joins the others in denigrating the Pauline Mass:

[M]ainstream critics of the NO does not hold that the myriad changes and innovations are intrinsically evil. Even Davies, an outspoken critic, wrote a book in defense of the validity of the NO. Rather, they contend that a) they were not introduced through organic development, b) that they frequently have no historical precident [sic] at all or were introduced from dissident influences, and c) that the rapidity and all-encompassing nature of the changes has harmed the Church.

(6-21-08)

And, as Ben and I have noted, there are other aspects of the Pauline rite that have no historical precedent at all or were introduced from dissident influences.

I do not argue that the NO is invalid or that these practices are intrinsically evil (that would violate the doctrine of indefectibility.) Rather, I argue that the introduction/imposition of so much non-organic change has (gravely) harmed the Church. I would further argue that it would be good for the Church that many of these features of the NO eventually be suppressed.

(6-22-08; spelling corrected in three places)

So it looks so far like we will see little or no acceptance among "traditionalists" of the sort of "tolerant liturgical pluralism" of Pope Benedict XVI's much-discussed Motu Proprio. They will (by all appearances) continue to clamor and prattle on about how terrible the Pauline Mass is, after having complained, lo these many years, about the Tridentine Mass being denigrated. Their dilemma is that the Holy Father (to the chorus of great acclamations and praise) has given them what they wanted, but alongside that (man, why must there always be a catch?), he has reiterated that the Pauline Mass is the continuing "ordinary" form of the Roman rite.

This is not acceptable to the average "traditionalist" (not even for the non-radtrad ones). They want the Pauline Mass suppressed and abolished. Nothing less will do. But this plainly clashes with the expressed will of Pope Benedict XVI (and I would say, the Mind of the Church). So what do they do? Go against the Church, in persisting in these opinions, or cease the protests along those lines and worship in their fashion without feeling an intense need to run down other legitimate forms of Catholic worship? We'll see! Time will tell.

Apologia For the Mass of Pope Paul VI, With Massive Historical Documentation From Catholic Tradition / Summary of Vatican II on Liturgical Reform

Altar of Santa Cecilia in Trastavere, as arranged in 1700. It is one of many churches in Rome whose altar was at the western end of the church, so that the priest faced east, towards the people, when celebrating Mass. Early Roman churches all had entrances to the east.

[ source ]

Sacrosanctum Concilium, or The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, was promulgated at the Second Vatican Council, on 4 December 1963. Pope Paul VI issued Missale Romanum, or Apostolic Constitution on the Roman Missal, on 3 April 1969 ("MR" below). I shall, before proceeding, present some highlights of both of these documents, categorized by topic:

1. Diversity of Liturgical Rites

Lastly, in faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that holy Mother Church holds all lawfully acknowledged rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way. (Introduction, 4)

In mission lands it is found that some of the peoples already make use of initiation rites. Elements from these, when capable of being adapted to Christian ritual, may be admitted along with those already found in Christian tradition, according to the norm laid down in Art. 37-40, of this Constitution. (Chapter 3, 65)

The major innovation concerns the Eucharistic Prayer. If in the Roman Rite, the first part of this Prayer, the Preface, has preserved diverse formulation in the course of the centuries, the second part, on the contrary, called "Canon of the Action," took on an unchangeable form during the fourth and fifth centuries; conversely, the Eastern liturgies allowed for this variety in their anaphoras. In this matter, however, apart from the fact that the Eucharistic Prayer is enriched by a great number of Prefaces, either derived from the ancient tradition of the Roman Church or composed recently, we have decided to add three new Canons to this Prayer. In this way the different aspects of the mystery of salvation will be emphasized and they will procure richer themes for the thanksgiving. However, for pastoral reasons, and in order to facilitate concelebration, we have ordered that the words of the Lord ought to be identical in each formulary of the Canon. (MR)

2. Revision According to Contemporary Needs, While Maintaining Sound Tradition

The Council also desires that, where necessary, the rites be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition, and that they be given new vigor to meet the circumstances and needs of modern times. (Introduction, 4)

In order that the Christian people may more certainly derive an abundance of graces from the sacred liturgy, holy Mother Church desires to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy itself. For the liturgy is made up of immutable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change. These not only may but ought to be changed with the passage of time if they have suffered from the intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy or have become unsuited to it. (Chapter 1, III, 21)

That sound tradition may be retained, and yet the way remain open to legitimate progress Careful investigation is always to be made into each part of the liturgy which is to be revised. This investigation should be theological, historical, and pastoral. Also the general laws governing the structure and meaning of the liturgy must be studied in conjunction with the experience derived from recent liturgical reforms and from the indults conceded to various places. Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.

As far as possible, notable differences between the rites used in adjacent regions must be carefully avoided. (Chapter 1, III, 23)

With the passage of time, however, there have crept into the rites of the sacraments and sacramentals certain features which have rendered their nature and purpose far from clear to the people of today; hence some changes have become necessary to adapt them to the needs of our own times. For this reason the sacred Council decrees as follows concerning their revision. (Chapter 3, 62)

The Roman Missal, promulgated in 1570 by Our predecessor, St. Pius V, by decree of the Council of Trent, has been received by all as one of the numerous and admirable fruits which the holy Council has spread throughout the entire Church of Christ. For four centuries, not only has it furnished the priests of the Latin Rite with the norms for the celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, but also the saintly heralds of the Gospel have carried it almost to the entire world. Furthermore, innumerable holy men have abundantly nourished their piety towards God by its readings from Sacred Scripture or by its prayers, whose general arrangement goes back, in essence, to St. Gregory the Great.

Since that time there has grown and spread among the Christian people the liturgical renewal which, according to Pius XII, Our predecessor of venerable memory, seems to show the signs of God's providence in the present time, a salvific action of the Holy Spirit in His Church. This renewal has also shown clearly that the formulas of the Roman Missal ought to be revised and enriched. The beginning of this renewal was the work of Our predecessor, this same Pius XII, in the restoration of the Paschal Vigil and of the Holy Week Rite, which formed the first stage of updating the Roman Missal for the present-day mentality.

The recent Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, in promulgating the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium, established the basis for the general revision of the Roman Missal . . . (MR, beginning)

One ought not to think, however, that this revision of the Roman Missal has been improvident. The progress that the liturgical sciences has accomplished in the last four centuries has, without a doubt, prepared the way. After the Council of Trent, the study "of ancient manuscripts of the Vatican library and of others gathered elsewhere," as Our predecessor, St. Pius V, indicates in the Apostolic Constitution Quo primum, has greatly helped for the revision of the Roman Missal. Since then, however, more ancient liturgical sources have been discovered and published and at the same time liturgical formulas of the Oriental Church have become better known. Many wish that the riches, both doctrinal and spiritual, might not be hidden in the darkness of the libraries, but on the contrary might be brought into the light to illumine and nourish the spirits and souls of Christians. (MR)

Also, "other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the earlier norm of the Holy Fathers": for example the homily, the "common prayer" or "prayer of the faithful," the penitential rite or act of reconciliation with God and with the brothers, at the beginning of the Mass, where its proper emphasis is restored. (MR)

3. "Noble Simplicity" of Rites

The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity; they should be short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions; they should be within the people's powers of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation. (Chapter 1, III, 34)

The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, may be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved.

For this purpose the rites are to be simplified, due care being taken to preserve their substance; elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded; other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the vigor which they had in the days of the holy Fathers, as may seem useful or necessary. (Chapter 2, 50)

Concerning the rite of the Mass, "the rites are to be simplified, while due care is taken to preserve their substance." Also to be eliminated are "elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage," above all in the rites of offering the bread and wine, and in those of the breaking of the bread and of communion. (MR)

4. Scriptural Emphasis

That the intimate connection between words and rites may be apparent in the liturgy:

1) In sacred celebrations there is to be more reading from holy scripture, and it is to be more varied and suitable.

2) Because the sermon is part of the liturgical service, the best place for it is to be indicated even in the rubrics, as far as the nature of the rite will allow; the ministry of preaching is to be fulfilled with exactitude and fidelity. The sermon, moreover, should draw its content mainly from scriptural and liturgical sources, and its character should be that of a proclamation of God's wonderful works in the history of salvation, the mystery of Christ, ever made present and active within us, especially in the celebration of the liturgy. (Chapter 1, III, 35)

51. The treasures of the bible are to be opened up more lavishly, so that richer fare may be provided for the faithful at the table of God's word. In this way a more representative portion of the holy scriptures will be read to the people in the course of a prescribed number of years.

52. By means of the homily the mysteries of the faith and the guiding principles of the Christian life are expounded from the sacred text, during the course of the liturgical year; the homily, therefore, is to be highly esteemed as part of the liturgy itself; in fact, at those Masses which are celebrated with the assistance of the people on Sundays and feasts of obligation, it should not be omitted except for a serious reason. (Chapter 2, 51-52)

According to the prescription of the Second Vatican Council which prescribes that "a more representative portion of the Holy Scriptures will be read to the people over a set cycle of years," and of the readings for Sunday are divided into a cycle of three years. In addition, for Sunday and feasts, the readings of the Epistle and Gospel are preceded by a reading from the Old Testament or, during Paschaltide, from the Acts of the Apostles. In this way the dynamism of the mystery of salvation, shown by the text of divine revelation, is more clearly accentuated. These widely selected biblical readings, which give to the faithful on feast days the most important part of Sacred Scripture, is completed by access to the other parts of the Holy Books read on other days.

All this is wisely ordered in such a way that there is developed more and more among the faithful a "hunger for the Word of God," which, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, leads the people of the New Covenant to the perfect unity of the Church. We are fully confident that both priests and faithful will prepare their hearts more devoutly and together at the Lord's Supper, meditating more profoundly on Sacred Scripture, and at the same time they will nourish themselves more day by day with the words of the Lord. It will follow then that according to the wishes of the Second Vatican Council, Sacred Scripture will be at the same time a perpetual source of spiritual life, an instrument of prime value for transmitting Christian doctrine and finally the center of all theology. (MR)

5. The Mass As an Action of Both the Priest and Congregants

. . . in the liturgy the whole public worship is performed by the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, that is, by the Head and His members.

From this it follows that every liturgical celebration, because it is an action of Christ the priest and of His Body which .s the Church, is a sacred action surpassing all others; no other action of the Church can equal its efficacy by the same title and to the same degree. (Chapter 1, I, 7)

Liturgical services are not private functions, but are celebrations of the Church, which is the "sacrament of unity," namely, the holy people united and ordered under their bishops.

Therefore liturgical services pertain to the whole body of the Church; they manifest it and have effects upon it; but they concern the individual members of the Church in different ways, according to their differing rank, office, and actual participation.

27. It is to be stressed that whenever rites, according to their specific nature, make provision for communal celebration involving the presence and active participation of the faithful, this way of celebrating them is to be preferred, so far as possible, to a celebration that is individual and quasi-private. (Chapter 1, III, 26-27)

6. Full and Active Participation of All With Proper Interior Disposition

But in order that the liturgy may be able to produce its full effects, it is necessary that the faithful come to it with proper dispositions, that their minds should be attuned to their voices, and that they should cooperate with divine grace lest they receive it in vain. Pastors of souls must therefore realize that, when the liturgy is celebrated, something more is required than the mere observation of the laws governing valid and licit celebration; it is their duty also to ensure that the faithful take part fully aware of what they are doing, actively engaged in the rite, and enriched by its effects. (Chapter 1, I, 11)

Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that fully conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy. Such participation by the Christian people as "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people (1 Pet. 2:9; cf. 2:4-5), is their right and duty by reason of their baptism.

In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else; for it is the primary and indispensable source from which the faithful are to derive the true Christian spirit; and therefore pastors of souls must zealously strive to achieve it, by means of the necessary instruction, in all their pastoral work. (Chapter 1, II, 14)

With zeal and patience, pastors of souls must promote the liturgical instruction of the faithful, and also their active participation in the liturgy both internally and externally, taking into account their age and condition, their way of life, and standard of religious culture. By so doing, pastors will be fulfilling one of the chief duties of a faithful dispenser of the mysteries of God; and in this matter they must lead their flock not only in word but also by example. (Chapter 1, II, 19)

In this restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community. (Chapter 1, III, 21)

The Church, therefore, earnestly desires that Christ's faithful, when present at this mystery of faith, should not be there as strangers or silent spectators; on the contrary, through a good understanding of the rites and prayers they should take part in the sacred action conscious of what they are doing, with devotion and full collaboration. They should be instructed by God's word and be nourished at the table of the Lord's body; they should give thanks to God; by offering the Immaculate Victim, not only through the hands of the priest, but also with him, they should learn also to offer themselves; through Christ the Mediator, they should be drawn day by day into ever more perfect union with God and with each other, so that finally God may be all in all. (Chapter 2, 48)

7. Outward Actions of the Congregation

To promote active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes. And at the proper times all should observe a reverent silence. (Chapter 1, III, 30)

Especially on Sundays and feasts of obligation there is to be restored, after the Gospel and the homily, "the common prayer" or "the prayer of the faithful." By this prayer, in which the people are to take part, intercession will be made for holy Church, for the civil authorities, for those oppressed by various needs, for all mankind, and for the salvation of the entire world. (Chapter 2, 53)

The words MYSTERIUM FIDEI, taken from the context of the words of Christ the Lord, and said by the priest, serve as an introduction to the acclamation of the faithful. (MR)

Even though the text of the Roman Gradual, at least that which concerns the singing, has not been changed, still, for a better understanding, the responsorial psalm, which St. Augustine and St. Leo the Great often mention, has been restored, and the Introit and Communion antiphons have been adapted for read Masses. (MR)

8. Offering of the Cup

The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent remaining intact, communion under both kinds may be granted when the bishops think fit, not only to clerics and religious, but also to the laity, in cases to be determined by the Apostolic See, as, for instance, to the newly ordained in the Mass of their sacred ordination, to the newly professed in the Mass of their religious profession, and to the newly baptized in the Mass which follows their baptism. (Chapter 2, 55)

9. "Sense of Community" in the Parish

. . . efforts also must be made to encourage a sense of community within the parish, above all in the common celebration of the Sunday Mass. (Chapter 1, III, 42)

10. Use of Latin

1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites. (Chapter 1, III, 36)

Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them. (Chapter 2, 54)

11. Use of Vernacular Languages

2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.

3. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language. (Chapter 1, III, 36)

In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and "the common prayer," but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to tho norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution. . . . And wherever a more extended use of the mother tongue within the Mass appears desirable, the regulation laid down in Art. 40 of this Constitution is to be observed. (Chapter 2, 54)

Because of the use of the mother tongue in the administration of the sacraments and sacramentals can often be of considerable help to the people, this use is to be extended . . . (Chapter 3, 63)

* * * * *

Almost needless to say, I think all these determinations, agreed upon by almost a unanimous decision of an Ecumenical Council, are good things. Many aspects of the Pauline Mass have been grossly and widely abused. Priests in those instances have not followed the Church's instructions, or rubrics. Most of us are familiar with those. But an abuse of something is not the thing itself (the same dynamic very much applies to the Second Vatican Council, too).

Now I shall respond (based on the above, and making reference to the numbered categories above) to several criticisms that have been made about the Pauline Mass, in comparison to the Tridentine Mass ("TM"):

1) More and more varied scriptural readings. The more Bible, the better, in my opinion. How can that be criticized? (4) Adrian Fortescue, in the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on "Liturgy" (1913), noted:

But we find much more than this essential nucleus in use in every Church from the first century. The Eucharist was always celebrated at the end of a service of lessons, psalms, prayers, and preaching, which was itself merely a continuation of the service of the synagogue. So we have everywhere this double function; first a synagogue service Christianized, in which the holy books were read, psalms were sung, prayers said by the bishop in the name of all (the people answering "Amen" in Hebrew, as had their Jewish forefathers), and homilies, explanations of what had been read, were made by the bishop or priests, just as they had been made in the synagogues by the learned men and elders (e. g., Luke, iv, 16-27). This is what was known afterwards as the Liturgy of the Catechumens. Then followed the Eucharist, at which only the baptized were present. . . . In the first half the alternation of lessons, psalms, collects, and homilies leaves little room for variety. For obvious reasons a lesson from a Gospel was read last, in the place of honour as the fulfilment of all the others; it was preceded by other readings whose number, order, and arrangement varied considerably. . . . The place and number of the homilies would also vary for a long time.

Liturgical expert Louis Bouyer remarks in his book, The Liturgy Revived: A Doctrinal Commentary of the Conciliar Constitution on the Liturgy (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1964, 97):

Whatever may be the importance of a wider use of the vernacular, the Council is certainly correct in emphasizing, far more, the absolute necessity of an initiation to the Bible. Not only because the Bible provides us with the readings given in the liturgy, but because it has directly inspired the whole of it, the liturgy will never again become the familiar prayer of the Christians if the Bible remains for them as a sealed book, which it still is, unfortunately, not only for the majority of them, but for too many priests. And it would be a complete betrayal of authentic Christianity to dream of a new liturgy where that could cease to be the truth. To give us the word of God, in its primitive and directly inspired expression, is the basic aim of any liturgy worthy of the name.

Blog contributor Jordanes (though he himself has some criticisms of the new reading structure) has noted the significant difference:

Counting just the Epistle and the Gospel (leaving out the mandatory scriptural proper chants -- the Introit, Gradual, Alleluia or Tract, Offertory, and Communion), the Johannine Missal uses 22.4% of the Gospels, 11% of the rest of the New Testament, and 1.02% of the Old Testament.

In comparsion, counting just the First and Second Readings and the Gospel (leaving out the Psalm and the optional scriptural proper chants -- the Introit, Alleluia or Gospel Acclamation, Offertory, and Communion), the Pauline lectionary uses 13.5% of the Old Testament, 89.8% of the Gospels, and 54.9% of the rest of the New Testament, for a grand total of 71.5% of the entire New Testament.

So, with the new lectionary, one does hear much, much, much more of the Bible than one would hear at a Johannine Mass.

2) General intercessions are made (the TM has none). On the very reasonable and unassailable assumption that prayer is a good thing, then this is a worthy addition to the Mass. (7) Fortescue again provides an overview of early liturgial tradition in the same article:

We also hear very soon of litanies of intercession said by one person to each clause of which the people answer with some short formula. . . . An intercession for all kinds of people also occurs very early, as we see from references to it (e.g., Justin, "Apol.," I, xiv, lxv). In this prayer the various classes of people would naturally be named in more or less the same order.

3) The congregation participates in the "bringing up of the gifts" or offertory procession (absent in the TM). This encourages participation of the laity and gives them a more important role, which is a good, not a bad thing, provided that proper reverence is encouraged by the priest, and observed at all times. (5, 6, 7, 9) Pope Pius XII (Mediator Dei, §90) stated that this was ancient practice:

First of all the more extrinsic explanations are these: it frequently happens that the faithful assisting at Mass join their prayers alternately with those of the priest, and sometimes -- a more frequent occurrence in ancient times -- they offer to the ministers at the altar bread and wine to be changed into the body and blood of Christ, and, finally, by their alms they get the priest to offer the divine victim for their intentions.

The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913: "Offertory" -- by Adrian Fortescue) gives further background information on this aspect:

The idea of this preparatory hallowing of the matter of the sacrifice by offering it to God is very old and forms an important element of every Christian liturgy. In the earliest period we have no evidence of anything but the bringing up of the bread and wine as they are wanted, before the Consecration prayer. Justin Martyr says: "Then bread and a cup of water and wine are brought to the president of the brethren" (I Apol., lxv, cf, lxvii). But soon the placing of the offering on the altar was accompanied by a prayer that God should accept these gifts, sanctify them, change them into the Body and Blood of his Son, and give us in return the grace of Communion. The Liturgy of "Apost. Const." VIII, says: "The deacons bring the gifts to the bishop at the altar . . . (xii, 3-4). This silent prayer is undoubtedly an Offertory prayer. . . .

Rome alone has kept the older custom of one offertory and of preparing the gifts when they are wanted at the beginning of the Mass of the Faithful. Originally at this moment the people brought up bread and wine which were received by the deacons and placed by them on the altar. Traces of the custom remain at a papal Mass and at Milan. The office of the vecchioni in Milan cathedral, often quoted as an Ambrosian peculiarity, is really a Roman addition that spoils the order of the old Milanese rite. . . .

In the Middle Ages, as the public presentation of the gifts by the people had disappeared, there seemed to be a void at this moment which was filled by our present Offertory prayers . . .

Anglican historian of the liturgy, Dom Gregory Dix, in his classic volume, The Shape of the Liturgy (London: Dacre Press, second edition, 1945; reprinted 1970) provides a similar account:

We know that all over christendom the layman originally brought his prosphora of bread and wine with him to the ecclesia; that was a chief part of his 'liturgy'. We know, too, that deacons 'presented' these offerings upon the altar; that was a chief part of their 'liturgy'. What we do not know, as regards the pre-Nicene church generally, is when and how the deacons received them from the laity. . . .

In the West the laity made their offerings for themselves at the chancel rail at the beginning of the eucharist proper. Each man and woman came forward to lay their own offerings of bread in a linen cloth or a silver dish (called the offertorium) held by a deacon, and to pour their own flasks of wine into a great two-handled silver cup (called the scyphus or the ansa) held by another deacon. When the laity had made their offerings, each man for himself, the deacons bore them up and placed them on the altar.

. . . the first witness to the Western oblation of the people before the altar is S. Ambrose at Milan in a work written almost at the same time, to whom this practice is well-known and normal. In Africa the practice appears to have been known by S. Augustine at Hippo, though his evidence as to how the oblations of the people reached the altar is not absolutely decisive. It is certainly attested as the custom there by Victor of Vita in the fifth century.. It is taken for granted by Caesarius of Arles as the normal custom in the early sixth century in S.E. France, as the first information from Gaul that we possess about the offertory. . . . It is an indication of the nature of the evidence available that none of these authors mentions the intervention of the deacons in the collection of the oblations in the West; and that all of them are earlier than the first mention of the Western custom at Rome where it is supposed to have originated. It is just such practical details which every one of the faithful knew by practice that ancient authors naturally take for granted.

(pp. 120, 122-123)

See also another related reference in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

When towards the ninth century the zeal of the faithful regarding the frequent reception of Holy Communion very much declined, the system of consecrating the bread offered by the faithful and of distributing Communion from the patinæ seems gradually to have changed, . . .

(Herbert Thurston, "Paten")

4) The congregation recites the entire "Our Father" (or, "Lord's Prayer) -- only the ending portion is recited in the TM. What in the world is wrong with that? If we say something, we tend to pay more attention to what is being said. The prayer was first taught by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, which was addressed to the common people. The tense throughout is "us." So it is sensible for the congregation to pray it together. (5, 6, 7, 9) Adrian Fortescue, in his article on "Liturgy" stated:

We find too very early that certain general themes are constant. For instance our Lord had given thanks just before He spoke the words of institution. So it was understood that every celebrant began the prayer of consecration -- the Eucharistic prayer -- by thanking God for His various mercies. . . . A profession of faith would almost inevitably open that part of the service in which only the faithful were allowed to take part (Justin, "Apol.", I, xiii, lxi). It could not have been long before the archetype of all Christian prayer -- the Our Father -- was said publicly in the Liturgy.

5) Saying "amen" before receiving Holy Communion (not practiced in the TM). I see nothing wrong with this. It is an affirmation of what is about to happen. (5, 6, 7) And it, too, has an ancient history. Dix confirms this:

His [Hippolytus'] account of the actual communion runs thus:

'And when the bishop breaks the bread in distributing to each a fragment he shall say "The Bread of heaven in Christ Jesus." And he who receives shall answer, "Amen."

(p. 136)

. . . in the fourth century, perhaps in the third. By then in East and West alike the words of administration had acquired a synoptic instead of a Johannine form: 'The Body of Christ', 'The Blood of Christ' -- to each of which the communicant still replied, 'Amen.'

(p. 138)

So does the eminent Protestant Church historian Philip Schaff:

The elements were placed in the hands (not in the mouth) of each communicant by the clergy who were present, or, according to Justin, by the deacons alone, amid singing of psalms by the congregation (Psalm 34), with the words: "The body of Christ;" "The blood of Christ, the cup of life;" to each of which the recipient responded "Amen."

(History of the Christian Church: Ante-Nicene Christianity: A.D. 100-325 [Vol. II], Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1976, from fifth edition of 1889, Chapter Five: "Christian Worship": § 68. Celebration of the Eucharist, 238-239)

6) Communion in both forms (not practiced in the TM). Although this is justified historically, biblically (the Last Supper) and theologically (though the converse is equally justifiable), it was usually not practiced throughout history because of hygienic factors and ease of distribution. If done reverently, however, I don't see how it is intrinsically objectionable. (8) Hence the Council of Trent stated (Session XXI, Chapter Two):

Wherefore, holy Mother Church, knowing this her authority in the administration of the sacraments, although the use of both species has,--from the beginning of the Christian religion, not been unfrequent, yet, in progress of time, that custom having been already very widely changed,--she, induced by weighty and just reasons,- has approved of this custom of communicating under one species, and decreed that it was to be held as a law; which it is not lawful to reprobate, or to change at plea sure, without the authority of the Church itself.

Dix (ibid., 137) describes the early eucharistic ceremony, as reported by St. Hippolytus (c. 170-c. 236), where three cups were received in addition to the consecrated bread (water, milk, and formerly wine):

'And the presbyters -- but if they are not enough the deacons also -- shall hold the cups and stand by in good order and with reverence . . . And they who partake shall taste of each cup thrice . . .'

Schaff concurs:

The elements were common or leavened bread (except among the Ebionites, who, like the later Roman church from the seventh century, used unleavened bread), and wine mingled with water.

(Schaff, ibid., 238)

Bouyer comments on this practice again adopted in the Pauline Mass:

The disappearance in the West of the communion under both kinds of anybody else (laity or not) than the celebrant happened progressively through the Middle Ages, by way of a custom which finally acquired a legal character. It was the fruit of both the practical difficulty of giving communion with the chalice to great assemblies, and a reverence for the sacred species which was not always well conceived . . . When the Protestants reacted against that use, the mind of the Church, at first, seemed ready to accept their protest on that point. It was only eventually rejected by the Council of Trent, primarily because the Protestant Reformers had mistakenly begun to teach that the Church (as they said) "had denied the cup to the laity" in order to reserve full communion to the priests alone . . . But it is nevertheless true that since the sacraments must express as fully as possible their invisible reality in their visible symbolism, the best form of the rite is one in which the full participation of the people is completely expressed. Therefore, without suddenly suppressing a now very old custom, which surely makes the administration of communion easier, the Council suggests at least some limited reintroduction, to begin with, of the primitive practice.

(Bouyer, ibid., 66-67)

7) As for standing or kneeling at various times during the Mass, neither is inherently more reverential than the other. In most countries and in Orthodox and Eastern Catholic liturgies, standing is considered just as reverent and worshipful as kneeling, and predominates. At my parish (just for the record) we all kneel at the altar rail to receive Holy Communion, and I prefer that, but I can't argue that it is an absolute and that standing necessarily tends towards irreverence. (1) Dix provides the early liturgical history:

. . . the practice of kneeling to receive communion. This is universal among Anglicans . . . It is the posture deliberately adopted by many 'protestant' clergy by contrast with the universal catholic tradition that the priest stands to communicate. Yet the practice of kneeling by anybody for communion is confined to the Latin West, and began to come in there only in the early Middle Ages. The ancient church universally stood to receive communion, as in the East clergy and laity alike stand to this day; the apostolic church conceivably reclined in the oriental fashion, though this is uncertain.

It appears to have been the universal tradition in the pre-Nicene church that all should receive communion standing.

(Dix, ibid., 13, 81)

Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, S.T.L., in answering a question from a reader, stated:

While you surely have a right to receive kneeling if you so choose, I hope you do not think that kneeling is the only proper way to receive Holy Communion, since the Church of the East has had a tradition of standing for centuries.

(The Catholic Answer Book 2, Huntington, Indiana: Our Sunday Visitor, 1994, 162)

The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia ("Genuflexion", written by Frederick Thomas Bergh) gives further corroboration:

The practice of kneeling during the Consecration was introduced during the Middle Ages, and is in relation with the Elevation which originated in the same period. . . .

Nor have we any grounds for believing, against the tradition of the Roman Church, that during the Canon of the Mass the faithful knelt on weekdays, and stood only on Sundays and in paschal time. It is far more likely that the kneeling was limited to Lent and other seasons of penance. . . . That, in the early Church, the faithful stood when receiving into their hands the consecrated particle can hardly be questioned. . . . St. Dionysius of Alexandria, writing to one of the popes of his time, speaks emphatically of "one who has stood by the table and has extended his hand to receive the Holy Food" (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., VII, ix).

[my emphases]

Philip Schaff strongly corroborates the above:

From scattered statements of the ante-Nicene fathers we may gather the following view of the eucharistic service as it may have stood in the middle of the third century, if not earlier. . . .

The whole congregation thus received the elements, standing in the act. . . .

[footnote]: The standing posture of the congregation during the principal prayers, and in the communion itself, seems to have been at first universal. For this was, indeed, the custom always on the day of the resurrection in distinction from Friday ("stantes oramus, quod est signunt resurrectionis," says Augustin) . . . After the twelfth century, kneeling in receiving the elements became general, and passed from the Catholic church into the Lutheran and Anglican, . . ."

(Schaff, ibid., 236, 239; my emphases)

Renowned Catholic historian Henri Daniel-Rops writes:

The Council of Nicaea ordered that the faithful should remain standing on Sundays and throughout the Easter ceremonies. Since the services were very long the effort involved was altogether praiseworthy; and St. Augustine alludes to it on several occasions, apologizing for imposing it upon his audience.

(The Church of Apostles and Martyrs, translated by Audrey Butler, London: J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd, 1960; originally 1948 in French, 531)

8) Why should a variety of eucharistic prayers be considered "worse" than one (as in the TM)? As Pope Paul VI stated: "In this way the different aspects of the mystery of salvation will be emphasized." It's like having four Gospels instead of one: there are more ways to express the life and meaning of Jesus than one. Likewise, the mystery of the Eucharist. (1) Dix gives several examples of massive historical precedents for this:

There is evidence that in the first half of the fifth century the system now found in the East, of alternative eucharistic prayers containing no special reference whatever to the day in the liturgical calendar, was coming into force in some places in the West also . . .

We can say with certainty that this special Western principle of variation ["based upon the liturgical commemoration of the day in the calendar"] had been fully developed by c. A.D. 500 all over the West, except perhaps in Africa . . . There is some evidence that it was being developed in Gaul by c. A.D. 450. In Spain we have good evidence that it was already fully operative by c. A.D. 500. We have positive evidence of its acceptance in Italy also by c. A.D. 500 in the shape of the Gelasian Sacramentary . . . If we could be more certain of the origins of the document known as the Leonine Sacramentary we might be able to push the question further back at Rome. . . .

. . . the Roman rite adopted the idea of variable prayers with a good deal of reserve. Except for the preface and two (originally three) of its clauses, the eucharistic prayer -- the most important prayer of the rite -- was always verbally the same on every single day of the year at Rome, as all eucharistic prayers everywhere seem to have been in the fourth century. But there is another type of Western rite found in South France and also in Spain, which shewed no such hesitation about applying the new Western idea. The Gallican and Mozarabic rites are the most mutable in Christendom, varying every word of every prayer said by the celebrant, including the whole eucharistic prayer (except the single paragraph containing the account of the institution) on every liturgical day in the year.

(Dix, 531-534)

9) Why should the people "doing [more] things" during Mass be frowned upon? We are people of action: human beings like to participate in whatever they are doing, as much as possible, and to not be mere passive spectators. It's also more sacramental, and incorporates a physical understanding of spirituality that is in line with the incarnation and purpose of sacramentals. Vatican II (following the thought of popes like St. Pius X and Pius XII) stressed that the entire congregation participates in the sacrifice of the Mass. (5, 6, 7)

10) The priest says the eucharistic prayers including the consecration out loud, as opposed to silently (as in the TM). This fosters more awareness and attention of the congregation as to what is happening. (2, 6) Catholic writer Shawn McElhinney observed:

[S]ilent reading of the canon was not an early practice of the Church in the first four centuries. The canon was not only spoken aloud but even at times sung. In fact, the construction of the canon and many of its parts were written in a way to accommodate singing. . . . What purpose would this serve if the Canon was never recited aloud??? Obviously there is nothing wrong with a silent reading but there is at the same time nothing wrong with the priest reciting the Canon aloud. Neither is improper and neither "demystifies" the Mass one iota. If anything the louder canon approach almost assures that the laity will not either fall asleep or get distracted in other ways from the goings on at the altar - which is where their attention should be.

11) As for revision according to contemporary needs (2), this merely reiterates what the Council of Trent stated (in Session XXI, Chapter Two):

It furthermore declares, that this power has ever been in the Church, that, in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance being untouched, it may ordain,--or change, what things soever it may judge most expedient, for the profit of those who receive, or for the veneration of the said sacraments, according to the difference of circumstances, times, and places. And this the Apostle seems not obscurely to have intimated, when he says; Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God. (2)

Pope Pius XII stated much the same, again, in 1947 (Mediator Dei §61-62):

The same reasoning holds in the case of some persons who are bent on the restoration of all the ancient rites and ceremonies indiscriminately. The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world. They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man.

Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, . . .

Liturgical expert Louis Bouyer is very clear about the authority of Vatican II to implement liturgical reform as it sees fit:

Here, we do not confront a decree on purely disciplinary problems, but a constitution, that is to say an irreformable statement of what the Church's belief is. Even, therefore, if no new definition of any specific detail of doctrine is involved, we find in this text a general declaration of what the Church, first of all, means by the liturgy. Such a doctrine can determine practical developments in the future other than those expressly formulated for today, and even on a doctrinal plane it may have to be supplemented in the future. But it will never be superseded as the Church's fundamental teaching concerning what she does in her worship.

(Bouyer, 6)

12) As for the Mass in the vernacular language (11), Catholic writer Shawn McElhinney observed:

The Latin language was still understood by most people reasonably well at the time of Trent in countries with Romance Languages. Interestingly enough those countries remained Catholic where the Romance languages were the vernacular languages. The countries where the languages were not Romance languages (England, Germany, Scotland) went with the rebellion. Perhaps understanding what is going on at Mass is a positive element and not a negative one. Besides, even after Latin was no longer the vernacular tongue we have Sts. Cyril and Methodius (circa 885 AD) who were evangelizing the Slavs petition the Pope of the time (Hadrian III) for permission to utilize the Slovac tongue in the liturgy (the vernacular of that region) and the pope granted his blessing. Obviously the Roman Church was not opposed to the use of the vernacular in principle where such use would be advantageous. This very principle was enunciated in 1947 by Pope Pius XII at a point when the vernacular movement in the Catholic Church was gathering momentum (see Mediator Dei §60).

The latter reads:

The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth. In spite of this, the use of the mother tongue in connection with several of the rites may be of much advantage to the people. But the Apostolic See alone is empowered to grant this permission. It is forbidden, therefore, to take any action whatever of this nature without having requested and obtained such consent, since the sacred liturgy, as We have said, is entirely subject to the discretion and approval of the Holy See.

Bouyer comments:

It is, indeed, a plain matter of common sense that readings in the liturgy, being directly and exclusively intended for the instruction of the people, should be in a language understood by them. It is merely painful evidence of the sad power of routine (mistaken for tradition) that it could have been forgotten for such a long time. And, as the Council has indicated, this should also be admitted as a matter of fact concerning the variable chants and prayers connected with the readings . . .

However, as the Council also expresses it, we should not, for that reason, suppose that the vernacular must be introduced everywhere in the liturgy, nor, still less, that it would suffice to make the liturgy perfectly understandable.

(Bouyer, 93-94)

Pope Benedict XVI (long before he was pope) wrote in a 1975 article:

It was right and proper to open up the liturgy to the vernacular; even the Council of Trent saw it as a possibility.

(The Ratzinger Report: An Exclusive Interview on the State of the Church by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, translated by Vittorio Messori; San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1985, 120)

13) As for more active participation by the congregation in the Mass (6), Pope Pius XII wrote at length about that fifteen years before Vatican II began, in Mediator Dei (§80,82,85-88):

It is, therefore, desirable, Venerable Brethren, that all the faithful should be aware that to participate in the eucharistic sacrifice is their chief duty and supreme dignity, and that not in an inert and negligent fashion, giving way to distractions and day-dreaming, but with such earnestness and concentration that they may be united as closely as possible with the High Priest, according to the Apostle, "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus." And together with Him and through Him let them make their oblation, and in union with Him let them offer up themselves. . . .

. . . However, it must also be said that the faithful do offer the divine Victim, though in a different sense.

This has already been stated in the clearest terms by some of Our predecessors and some Doctors of the Church. "Not only," says Innocent III of immortal memory, "do the priests offer the sacrifice, but also all the faithful: for what the priest does personally by virtue of his ministry, the faithful do collectively by virtue of their intention." We are happy to recall one of St. Robert Bellarmine's many statements on this subject. "The sacrifice," he says "is principally offered in the person of Christ. Thus the oblation that follows the consecration is a sort of attestation that the whole Church consents in the oblation made by Christ, and offers it along with Him."

The fact, however, that the faithful participate in the eucharistic sacrifice does not mean that they also are endowed with priestly power. It is very necessary that you make this quite clear to your flocks.

. . . Moreover, the rites and prayers of the eucharistic sacrifice signify and show no less clearly that the oblation of the Victim is made by the priests in company with the people. For not only does the sacred minister, after the oblation of the bread and wine when he turns to the people, say the significant prayer: "Pray brethren, that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God the Father Almighty;" but also the prayers by which the divine Victim is offered to God are generally expressed in the plural number: and in these it is indicated more than once that the people also participate in this august sacrifice inasmuch as they offer the same.

Nor is it to be wondered at, that the faithful should be raised to this dignity. By the waters of baptism, as by common right, Christians are made members of the Mystical Body of Christ the Priest, and by the "character" which is imprinted on their souls, they are appointed to give worship to God. Thus they participate, according to their condition, in the priesthood of Christ.

Long before that, Pope St. Pius X expressed the same desire:

Filled as we are with the most ardent desire to see the true Christian spirit flourish in every respect and be preserved by all the people, we deem it necessary to provide before aught else for the sanctity and dignity of the Temple, in which the faithful assemble for no other object than that of acquiring this spirit from its foremost and indispensable fount, which is the active participation in the most holy mysteries and in the public and solemn prayer of the Church.

(John Murphy, The Mass and Liturgical Reform, The Bruce Publishing Company, Milwaukee, 1956, p. 121, citing Motu Proprio on Sacred Music: 22 November 1903)

Pope Pius XI continued the same theme in his Apostolic Constitution, Divini Cultus, issued in 1928:

So that the faithful take a more active part in divine worship, let Gregorian chant be restored to popular use in the parts proper to the people. Indeed it is very necessary that the faithful attend the sacred ceremonies not as if they were outsiders or mute onlookers, but let them fully appreciate the beauty of the liturgy and take part in the sacred ceremonies, alternating their voices with the priest and the choir, according to the prescribed norms.

(section 9; referred to by Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, 192, footnote 173)

Louis Bouyer observed:

[T]he unity of the celebration and its communal character (since in it, the Church itself is built and manifested to the world in its unity) must not be understood wrongly. It does not mean that everybody is to do or to say everything together. In particular, a full participation of the laity does not mean any obliteration of the distinctive function of the apostolic ministry, which is to preside at the eucharist and consecrate it in the name of Christ Himself.

(Bouyer, 68)

14) If we want to accept and foster authentic liturgical tradition, then the Pauline Mass has plenty of that. Shawn McElhinney points out some relevant facts:

If the liturgical reforms of the mid twentieth century were wrong for seeking to restore earlier liturgical forms then why was Pope Pius XII not wrong in restoring Holy Week to a form from 1,000 years previous to 1958??? What made Holy Week in the late tenth century so sacred as opposed to Holy Week as celebrated in the time of Innocent III, Gregory the Great, or Callistus I??? The reform of the liturgy after Trent [was] not wrong for seeking to put to put the liturgy more in accord with the "pristine norm of the holy Fathers" (cf. Ap. Const. Quo Primum) . . . And likewise, the reform after Vatican II was not wrong for seeking to adapt some of the pre-sixth century liturgical forms to subsequent practices. But unlike Pope Pius V, Pope Pius XII, and company, the reforms after the Second Vatican Council are criticized for striving to achieve the exact same thing. (Not to mention succeeding in several parameters where the Tridentine reforms failed.)

In another paper, Shawn makes several salient observations:

Anyone calling the Tridentine Rite of Mass the "Traditional Mass" or the "Mass of All Time" needs to do a lot of studying up on the history of the liturgy. . . . I am not denigrating the Tridentine Rite at all. Being one who believes in liturgical pluralism I support all approved rites of the Church. However, to any "Tridentine" Catholic who is overtly critical of features of the Pauline Rite of Mass (as opposed to abuses of the liturgy or poor pastoral policies that have been detrimental in the post VC II period), I have news for you: the Pauline Rite has a greater similarity to the earliest Mass rites than the Tridentine Rite does. We can dispense with the terms "New Mass" or "Novus Ordo" title now because they are wholly inaccurate. The Tridentine Rite is NOT "the Mass of All Time", it is not THE "Traditional Mass." It is one rite only and was only in substantial form by the second millennium.

The canon was formed primarily out of the fifth to sixth century recasting of the ancient Roman canon which Pope Gregory the Great put finishing touches on in the late sixth/early seventh century. Other non-canon modifications were made in subsequent centuries from the eighth to the fifteenth. (The Confiteors and the Creed were added in the eleventh century, the Offertory from the Offertory Prayer all the way to the Sanctus was added in the thirteenth century, etc.) The form of the Missal which was in place by 1474 was in most respects identical to the Roman Missal of 1570 codified by Pope St. Pius V which was modified in minor ways six times between 1570 and 1962. The Pauline Rite has more things in common with the pre-fifth century Masses than the Tridentine Rite does but at the same time it employs the bulk of its structure from the post fifth century restructurings much as its older Tridentine counterpart does. The Pauline Rite has three readings, communion under both species, simplified rites, is said facing the people, there is often no tabernacle on the altar, the words of Consecration are taken from the Gospels almost literally, there are a multiplicity of Eucharistic Prayers, etc. These are all features prevalent to the early liturgies before the fourth century . . .

It matters not how liberals and Modernists tell us what the so-called "Spirit of Vatican II" was since they have no Magisterial authority for any of their abuses committed the past few decades since the close of the Council.

15) Regarding liturgical diversity, Pope Benedict XVI (as Cardinal Ratzinger) stated:

Prior to Trent a multiplicity of rites and liturgies had been allowed within the Church. The Fathers of the Council of Trent took the liturgy of the city of Rome and prescribed it on the whole Church; they only retained those Western liturgies which had existed for more than two hundred years. This is what happened, for instance, with the Ambrosian rite of the Dioceses of Milan. If it would foster devotion in many believers and encourage respect for the piety of particular Catholic groups, I would personally support a return to the ancient situation, i.e., to a certain liturgical pluralism. Provided, of course, that the legitimate character of the reformed rites was emphatically affirmed, and there was a clear delineation of the extent and nature of such an exception permitting the celebration of the pre-conciliar liturgy…Catholicity does not mean uniformity…it is strange that the post-conciliar pluralism has created uniformity in one aspect at least: it will not tolerate a high standard of expression . . .

(The Ratzinger Report, 124-125)

In a 1975 article, the present pope stated:

[I]t is simply untrue to say, as certain integralists do, that drawing up new forms of the Canon of the Mass is a contradiction of Trent.

(Ibid., 120)

16) As for the increasing lack of understanding of the Latin Mass, Catholic apologist "Matt 1618" provides some very helpful background information:

Many "traditionalists" for example take for granted the missals that people have during the Mass that they attend. They will say "well, the people were able to follow along with the priest saying the Latin Mass because they had the missal. Thus, the people were not ignorant." . . . those who make such statements take for granted something which was only an innovation of the late 19th century. Latin to English Missals were prohibited prior to that point. . . . There was a movement for liturgical change that began approximately in mid-19th century to get people more involved in the Mass. Prior to Pope Leo XIII there was a prohibition on the translation from the Latin to the vernacular. Joseph Jungman in his massive work on the history of the Mass notes that this attempt to get people more involved in the Mass began to bear fruit with Pope Leo XIII:

The liturgical movement, which, especially in its first beginnings was almost entirely a movement promoting the Mass, had come closer to the Mystery of the altar also from another angle. When the movement - a closed movement embracing wider circles - suddenly came into being in Belgium only to spread at once into Germany and other countries, it made itself manifest, above all, by a new way of participating in the celebration of Mass. Growing out of the intellectual movement of the past decade, it had still to overcome many obstacles. The first thing that demanded solution, even if it was not formally expressed, was the question whether the separation between people and celebrating priest, maintained for more than a thousand years, was to be continued. It was certainly continued in law by the prohibition to translate the Mass books. Efforts had been made to shake this prohibition, but even as late as 1857 the prohibition to translate the Ordinary of the Mass was renewed by Pius IX, although, to be sure, its enforcement was no longer seriously urged. However, it was not openly and definitely rescinded until near the end of the century. In the revision of the Index of Forbidden Books, issued under Leo XIII in 1897, the prohibition was no longer mentioned. After that the spread of the Roman Missal in the vernacular took on greater and greater proportions.

(Joseph Jungmann, S.J. The Mass of the Roman Rite: Its Origins and Development, Christian Classics, Volume I, 161-162)

Thus, until the time of Pope Leo XIII, Latin to English missals were in some way put in the same category as heretical books by Martin Luther. Thus, what many "traditionalists" take for granted was an innovation of the very late 19th century. The removal of the prohibition by Pope Leo XIII was an important but first step of getting the people more involved in the Mass. We also see in the 19th century a liturgical movement that saw the need to restore the people's input into the Mass, that was indeed restorative of an ancient tradition. Here we see Pope Leo XIII's blessing of this important step.

Louis Bouyer strikes the proper, characteristically Catholic balance:

Just as a fanatical and exclusive attachment to Latin may be unreasonable and opposed to the good of souls, so a desire to suppress any possible use of an ancient language appears equally unreasonable. While archaism must never blind us to real needs, we should not for that reason forget that a ritual should never be forced into the rigid pattern of contemporaneity. It is a part of Christian ritual, as of any ritual, that it links us with a multi-secular experience, and if we would not accept this we should discard, as well, not only practically everything in our rites, but even the use of the Bible. It is a fact too often neglected that our Lord Himself always worshipped according to the ritual of the Palestinian synagogue, ion which only the readings, with a few prayers immediately connected with them, were in the vernacular. The great fixed prayers . . . were all retained in Hebrew, a language at least as dead then, so far as common usage was concerned, as Latin is now.

(Bouyer, 96)

Dix explains the historical circumstances surrounding the use of Latin in the Mass:

In the fourth-fifth centuries, when Greek was ceasing to be spoken in the West but Latin was still a lingua franca in which e.g. all public notices were posted up from Northumberland to Casablanca and from Lisbon to the Danube, it was natural that all christian rites should be in Latin in the West. In the fifth century the barbarian settlements brought a variety of teutonic dialects into the different Western provinces, and a cross-division of language everywhere between the new masters and the old populations. . . .

This is not our business, though we may note in passing that the arguments by which the retention of Latin for the liturgy is now defended are the precise opposite of those which originally brought about the introduction of a Latin rite at Rome. But in the crisis at the end of the middle ages the use of the liturgy in the now sufficiently evolved vernaculars would have been of incalculable service to the old religion. It would have released the evangelising power of the liturgy itself upon the masses, just awakening to think. Probably nothing else would have sufficed adequately to meet their need of instruction just then. As it was, this potent instrument was left entirely to the reformers, and the masses' ignorance of their own religion left them much more receptive to the new teaching.

There were many on the catholic side who saw this clearly . . . By the time the Counter-reformation had sufficiently restored the church's freedom of action the question of the vernacular had become a partisan issue, which could no longer be decided on its own merits. The great catholic need had become that of unity and the closing of the ranks against the new negations. For this the old liturgy, purged of local diversities and late medieval accretions, and in the same language everywhere, was too valuable an instrument to lose.

(Dix, 617, 619)

Pope Benedict XVI, writing as Cardinal Ratzinger in 1985, concerning the use of Latin in the Mass, observed:

This is another of those cases which are all too frequent in recent years, where there is a contradiction between, on the one hand, what the Council actually says, the authentic structure of the Church and her worship, the real, contemporary pastoral requirements, and, on the other hand, the concrete response of particular clerical circles.

(The Ratzinger Report, 123)

17) As for the Pauline Mass being allegedly a sudden corruption of tradition, promulgated by Pope Paul VI, we have evidence that Pope Pius XII (as well as, of course, Pope John XXIII) desired this.We know this from the report of Pope John himself:

In 1956, while the preparatory studies for the general reform of the liturgy advanced, our predecessor, Pope Pius XII, wished to hear for himself the opinion of the bishops concerning a future liturgical reform of the Roman Breviary. . . . And after having examined the matter well, We came to the decision to place before the Fathers of the future Council the fundamental principles concerning the liturgical reform and not to delay any longer the reform of the Roman Missal.

(Pope Pius XII, Instruction of the Congregation of Rites on Sacred Music and the Sacred Liturgy, September 3, 1958. Text in The Pope Speaks, Vol. 5, No. 2, Spring, 1959, pages 223 ff., as cited in James Likoudis and Kenneth Whitehead, The Pope, The Council and the Mass, [W. Hanover, Massachusetts: The Christopher Publishing House, 1981], p. 75)

Louis Bouyer explains how Catholic Tradition and development of liturgy or doctrine, are completely harmonious notions:

This is why the action of the bishops in the domain of reform or adaptation is described by the Council not as a reversal of, but as a deeper fidelity to, tradition. Tradition is not opposed to progress, but is the living principle of a development faithful to the seed, however altered may be the soil where it has to rise, flower, and fructify. And the Council is careful to make it perfectly clear, in opposition to all false reforms -- which start only from abstract ideas -- that tradition cannot be maintained either by unprecedented innovations or by artificial archaisms. All healthy progress, as well as all true reformations, can only be effected by an organic process. One can neither add wholly foreign elements to the liturgy from the outside, nor make it regress to some idealized vision of the past. One can, and sometimes should, either prune or enrich the liturgy, but he should always keep in touch with the living organism which has been transmitted to us by our forefathers, and he should always respect the laws of its structure and its growth. No innovation, therefore, can be accepted simply for the purpose of doing something new, and no restoration can be the product of a yen for romantic escape into a dead past. The continuity, the homogeneity of tradition in this case must be retained by authority as the sine qua non condition for the perpetuated life of a reality which is not merely immensely sacred but even the very life of the mystical body.

(Bouyer, 54-55)

* * * * *

There are also several arguably less praiseworthy aspects of the Pauline Mass (at least as it is usually practiced):. But they all can be shown to be based on Catholic historical precedent (in other words, they were not mere revolutionary novelties):

A) Priest facing the people (facing the altar is more outwardly symbolic of what is taking place: an offering to God). In ancient Christian practice, the ad orientem posture (priest facing away from the people, or all in the church facing the same way: usually east) was predominant. Contrary to what many people think, Vatican II did not require this to be changed. But there is also historical precedent for the versus populum custom or tradition (priest facing the people). The criticism is that it lessens the connotation of the Mass as a sacrifice. In my parish, the priest faces the altar for the Latin Pauline Mass and now even for much of the English Mass. In an article on this topic, from the St. Joseph Foundation, it is stated:

The ad orientem posture of the celebrant during Mass dates to the earliest centuries of liturgical development. It has enjoyed a consistency throughout history enshrined both in immemorial custom and in law. Numerous scholarly studies have been undertaken which confirm the validity of this practice not only in the Latin Rite but in the Eastern Rites as well. The ad orientem posture is sometime referred to as the ad altare posture. The terms are nuanced and the reader is referred to other studies, which examine the underlying meanings. A fallacy exists among many observers who regard the versus populum posture as entirely new to the Church and that it was first introduced in the reform of Vatican II. On the contrary, the historical proof for its prior existence is substantial although the interpretation of the data is somewhat controverted. The Ritus servandus in celebratione Missae that compiles the rubrical directives for the 1570 Missal of Pius V countenanced the possibility of Mass versus populum. Conversely, the Institutio generalis Missalis Romani (IGMR) which compiles the rubrical directives for the 1970 Missal of Paul VI presume the time honored discipline of Mass ad orientem or ad altare. Consistent with the provisions of the Ritus servandus the Institutio generalis continues to countenance and, indeed, to expand usage of the versus populum orientation of the celebrant.

Catholic Church historian Eamon Duffy recounted how the popes in Roman basilicas faced the people at Mass:

Even the posture of the pope in the Roman basilicas, invariably used as the precedent and justification for "westward" celebrations, is no exception for, unlike most later churches, the Roman basilicas were oriented towards the west, and when the pope celebrated Mass he at least faced the rising sun, visible through the great door at the end of the church.

The Wikipedia article, "Mass of Paul VI" expands upon this fascinating historical information:

It has been said that the reason the Pope always faced the people when celebrating Mass in St Peter's was that early Christians faced eastward when praying and, due to the difficult terrain, the basilica was built with its apse to the west. Some have attributed this orientation in other early Roman churches to the influence of Saint Peter's.^[1] However, the arrangement whereby the apse with the altar is at the west end of the church and the entrance on the east is found also in Roman churches contemporary with Saint Peter's (such as the original Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls) that were under no such constraints of terrain, and the same arrangement remained the usual one until the sixth century.^[2] In this early layout, the people were situated in the side aisles of the church, not in the central nave. While the priest faced both the altar and east throughout the Mass, the people would face the altar (from the sides) until the high point of the Mass, where they would then turn to face east along with the priest.^[3]

In several churches in Rome, it was physically impossible, even before the twentieth-century liturgical reforms, for the priest to celebrate Mass facing away from the people, because of the presence, immediately in front of the altar, of the "confession" (Latin: confessio), an area sunk below floor level to enable people to come close to the tomb of the saint buried beneath the altar. The best-known such "confession" is that in St Peter's Basilica, but many other churches in Rome have the same architectural feature, including at least one, the present Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls, which is oriented in such a way that the priest faces west when celebrating Mass.

1. "For whatever reason it was done, one can also see this arrangement (whereby the priest faced the people) in a whole series of church buildings within Saint Peter's direct sphere of influence"(Joseph Ratzinger: The Spirit of the Liturgy)
2. "When Christians in fourth-century Rome could first freely begin to build churches, they customarily located the sanctuary towards the west end of the building in imitation of the sanctuary of the Jerusalem Temple. Although in the days of the Jerusalem Temple the high priest indeed faced east when sacrificing on Yom Kippur, the sanctuary within which he stood was located at the west end of the Temple. The Christian replication of the layout and the orientation of the Jerusalem Temple helped to dramatize the eschatological meaning attached to the sacrificial death of Jesus the High Priest in the Epistle to the Hebrews" (The Biblical Roots of Church Orientation by Helen Dietz).
3. "Msgr. Klaus Gamber has pointed out that although in these early west-facing Roman basilicas the people stood in the side naves and faced the centrally located altar for the first portion of the service, nevertheless at the approach of the consecration they all turned to face east towards the open church doors, the same direction the priest faced throughout the Eucharistic liturgy" (The Biblical Roots of Church Orientation by Helen Dietz]).

Msgr. Klaus Gamber, as reported by Fr. Thomas Kocik, also noted that the priest facing the people also occurred in North Africa, though (as an exception) the people turned the same way as the priest (east) during prayer. [churches in Hippo, for example, where St. Augustine was bishop, faced towards the west rather than the east]

Henri Daniel-Rops provides some fascinating historical detail:

[T]he bishop celebrated Mass from his episcopal throne behind the altar, facing the people, a position still occupied by the Pope when he celebrates High Mass. He consecrated the bread and wine at the altar, again facing the congregation; it was only later on, when churches began to be orientated towards the East, that the celebrant, in order to consecrate facing the East, that is to say, in the direction of Jerusalem, turned his back on the people.

(Daniel-Rops, ibid., 531)

A participant on the PhatMass forum gives another example:

The traditional rites (including Tridentine/Roman) were done versus populum in many places throughout Church history: for example, Milan [where St. Charles Borromeo was bishop] where the Ambrosian rite was also celebrated.

B) Greeting of peace: arguably it disrupts (at least as commonly practiced) the continuity and solemnity of the Mass (as many people have noted). My own parish rarely observes it. But this, too, has significant historical pedigree, as Dom Gregory Dix explains:

The greatest pains were taken to see that this latter did not degenerate into a formality. We have noted, e.g., the insistence of the Didache on the necessity of reconciling any fellow-christians who might be at variance with each other before they could attend the eucharist together . . .

It is a striking instance -- one among many -- of the way in which the liturgy was regarded as the solemn putting into act before God of the whole christian living of the church's members, that all this care for the interior charity and good living of those members found its expression and test week by week in the giving of the liturgical kiss of peace among the faithful before the eucharist.

(Dix, 105-106)

Dix notes that the kiss of peace was originally preliminary to the offertory, according St. Justin Martyr and St. Hipplolytus. Then its position changed:

[T]he kiss does not happen to be mentioned again in Roman documents for almost exactly two hundred years after Hippolytus . . . its position has been shifted in the local Roman rite from before the offertory to before the communion . . .

It seems likely that in making this, the only change (as distinct from ionsertions) in the primitive order of the liturgy which the Roman rite has ever undergone, the Roman church was following an innovation first made in the African churches, where the kiss is attested as coming before the communion towards the end of the fourth century . . .

In any case, Rome appears to have adopted this new position for the kiss before the communion not very long before A.D. 416, when the matter is brought to our knowledge by a letter from Pope Innocent I . . . S. Augustine . . . [held] that the kiss of charity is a good preparation for communion . . .

So it comes about that while vestiges, at least, of the apostolic kiss of peace are still found all over catholic christendom (except in the Anglican rites), it now stands in its primitive position only among the Copts and Abyssinians.

(Dix, 108-110)

C) Communion in the hand. It seems at the present time (for some reason: probably culturally relative) to often foster a more irreverent and casual attitude than receiving on the tongue, and it wasn't urged by Vatican II. Almost everyone in my parish receives on the tongue. The historical evidence in favor of it from the early Church, however, is surprisingly strong. It seems to have been widespread and perhaps even predominant (my emphases throughout):

That, in the early Church, the faithful stood when receiving into their hands the consecrated particle can hardly be questioned. . . . St. Dionysius of Alexandria, writing to one of the popes of his time, speaks emphatically of "one who has stood by the table and has extended his hand to receive the Holy Food" (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., VII, ix). The custom of placing the Sacred Particle in the mouth, rather than in the hand of the communicant, dates in Rome from the sixth, and in Gaul from the ninth century (Van der Stappen, IV, 227; cf. St. Greg., Dial., I, III, c. iii).

(Catholic Encyclopedia: "Genuflexion")

In the early days of the Church the faithful frequently carried the Blessed Eucharist with them to their homes (cf. Tertullian, "Ad uxor.", II, v; Cyprian, "De lapsis", xxvi) or upon long journeys (Ambrose, De excessu fratris, I, 43, 46), . . . .

(Catholic Encyclopedia [Joseph Pohle], "The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist")

The eucharistic vessel known as the paten is a small shallow plate or disc of precious metal upon which the element of bread is offered to God at the Offertory of the Mass, and upon which the consecrated Host is again placed after the Fraction. The word paten comes from a Latin form patina or patena, evidently imitated from the Greek patane. It seems from the beginning to have been used to denote a flat open vessel of the nature of a plate or dish. Such vessels in the first centuries were used in the service of the altar, and probably served to collect the offerings of bread made by the faithful and also to distribute the consecrated fragments which, after the loaf had been broken by the celebrant, were brought down to the communicants, who in their own hands received each a portion from the patina. . . .

When towards the ninth century the zeal of the faithful regarding the frequent reception of Holy Communion very much declined, the system of consecrating the bread offered by the faithful and of distributing Communion from the patinæ seems gradually to have changed, and the use of the large and proportionately deep patinæ ministeriales grew up for the fell into abeyance. It was probably about the same time that the custom grew up for the priest himself to use a paten at the altar to contain the sacred Host, and obviate the danger of scattered particles after the Fraction. This paten, however, was of much smaller size and resembled those with which we are now familiar.

(Catholic Encyclopedia, [Herbert Thurston], "Paten")

All the solitaries in the desert, where there is no priest, take the communion themselves, keeping communion at home. And at Alexandria and in Egypt, each one of the laity, for the most part, keeps the communion, at his own house, and participates in it when he likes. For when once the priest has completed the offering, and given it, the recipient, participating in it each time as entire, is bound to believe that he properly takes and receives it from the giver.And even in the church, when the priest gives the portion, the recipient takes it with complete power over it, and so lifts it to his lips with his own hand. It has the same validity whether one portion or several portions are received from the priest at the same time.

(St. Basil the Great, Letter 93: To the Patrician Cæsaria, concerning Communion)

When thou goest to receive communion go not with thy wrists extended, nor with thy fingers separated, but placing thy left hand as a throne for thy right, which is to receive so great a King, and in the hollow of the palm receive the body of Christ, saying, Amen.

(St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 23:21)

Wherefore with all fear and a pure conscience and certain faith let us draw near and it will assuredly be to us as we believe, doubting nothing. Let us pay homage to it in all purity both of soul and body: for it is twofold. Let us draw near to it with an ardent desire, and with our hands held in the form of the cross let us receive the body of the Crucified One: and let us apply our eyes and lips and brows and partake of the divine coal, . . .

(St. John Damascene, An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Chapter 13)

Tell me, would you choose to come to the Sacrifice with unwashen hands? No, I suppose, not. But you would rather choose not to come at all, than come with soiled hands. And then, thus scrupulous as you are in this little matter, do you come with soiled soul, and thus dare to touch it? And yet the hands hold it but for a time, whereas into the soul it is dissolved entirely.

(St. John Chrysostom, Homily 3 on Ephesians)

The elements were placed in the hands (not in the mouth) of each communicant by the clergy who were present, or, according to Justin, by the deacons alone, amid singing of psalms by the congregation (Psalm 34), with the words: "The body of Christ;" "The blood of Christ, the cup of life;" to each of which the recipient responded "Amen." The whole congregation thus received the elements, standing in the act. . . .

After the public service the deacons carried the consecrated elements to the sick and to the confessors in prison. Many took portions of the bread home with them, to use in the family at morning prayer. This domestic communion was practised particularly in North Africa, and furnishes the first example of a communio sub una specie."

(Philip Schaff, ibid., 238-239; my emphases)

) Lay eucharistic ministers: these are usually unnecessary (at least in cultures not obsessed with "quickness," as Westerners are). They are supposed (as I understand it) to be used only with very large crowds. We don't have them at all at my parish, and when I receive Holy Communion in other parishes, I try to get in a line with the priest or a deacon, if at all possible. But even this is not without some semblance of historical precedent in the early Church, as Dix informs us:

Justin in his description says little about its details save (twice over) that communion was given by the deacons with no mention of the bishop and presbyters. However this may be (and it strikes me as authentic early practice) Hippolytus insists more than once that the bishop shall if possible give the bread to all the communicants 'with his own hand', assisted by the presbyters. The presbyters are also to minister the chalice, 'or if there are not enough of them the deacons'. . . .

At all events the deacons retained a special connection with the administration of the chalice, even at Rome, and also the right to administer the reserved sacrament under the species of Bread, which is assigned to them by Justin.

(Dix, 135-136)

Fr. Brian Harrison notes that female eucharistic ministers were sometimes allowed through the centuries:

. . . even having women functioning as extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist was not at all unprecedented. In an excellent study on the question of female altar service which was published in France only weeks before the Vatican's fateful announcement in April 1994, Abbé Michel Sinoir, a priest of the Archdiocese of Paris, records evidence that right from ancient times, in convents of cloistered nuns situated far off in the desert where priests and deacons seldom visited, the Church allowed the Mother Superior to take the Eucharistic Body of Christ from the tabernacle in order to give Holy Communion to the other sisters; however she was not allowed to make use of the altar in doing so.

"This condition is very significant, and was also reflected in the wording of the 1917 Code of Canon Law. Canon 813, §2, of the old Code, already referred to, stated: "A woman may not be a minister of the Mass, except when no male is available and for a just cause, and under the condition that she make the responses from a distance, not under any circumstances approaching the altar."

E) An altar table separated from the Tabernacle: the critique of this is (related to A above) that it draws attention away from Jesus in the Tabernacle and the sacrificial essence of the Mass. But in ancient Christian practice, there was an altar table without a Tabernacle. My parish recently ceased using the table even for English masses. The Tabernacle over the altar, however, was itself a relatively recent practice, as the Catholic Encyclopedia article, "Tabernacle" asserts:

In the Middle Ages there was no uniform custom in regard to the place where the Blessed Sacrament was kept. The Fourth Lateran Council and many provincial and diocesan synods held in the Middle Ages require only that the Host be kept in a secure, well-fastened receptacle. . . . From the sixteenth century it became gradually, although slowly, more customary to preserve the Blessed Sacrament in a receptacle that rose above the altar table. This was the case above all at Rome, where the custom first came into use, and in Italy in general, influenced largely by the good example set by St. Charles Borromeo. The change came very slowly in France, where even in the eighteenth century it was still customary in many cathedrals to suspend the Blessed Sacrament over the altar, and also in Belgium and Germany, where the custom of using the Sacrament-House was maintained in many places until after the middle of the nineteenth century, . . .

* * * * *

In case anyone is wondering (and my opinion, of course, carries no authority whatsoever), I take a more or less neutral position on all but D above. I think the abundance of eucharistic ministers is highly unnecessary (though not intrinsically "bad" or anything of the sort). The early Church eventually arrived at the same opinion.

Though I don't oppose B or C on principle, I agree that in the present "liturgical climate" they are, too often, associated with an objectionable irreverence and a certain laxity (mainly among people who are religiously nominal or not actively involved in the Mass in the first place, so that the cause likely lies in those prior factors, rather than the elements under consideration). If this is the case, then it falls under prudential considerations rather than as an intrinsically right or wrong matter. Indeed, if we actually attempt to argue that they are inherently irreverent or "bad", we condemn many early Christians who practiced these things, and that is neither charitable, nor necessary at all.

I also don't have (to hit upon another controversial issue, among many) the slightest objection to women doing scriptural readings. I am in favor of as much participation from women in the Mass as possible, as long as no rubrics are violated, and proper reverence is observed (particularly in clothing!).

On the vexed question of altar girls I am also neutral at present, and desire to look into it further. I could very well come to oppose it with more study, pro and con. It is often viewed suspiciously as a liberal tactic intended to promote the acceptance of female priests (and indeed this was no doubt the plan among some dissidents), but since that possibility has been laid to rest in no uncertain terms by Pope John Paul II, it is arguably a non-issue. Some have argued, beyond that, that having exclusively altar boys leads to a certain "environment" that fosters more priestly vocations. That may be (I don't know).

If a boy feels called to the priesthood, I think he will arrive at that divinely-aided knowledge and resolve for reasons other than the mere fact that he was an altar server, or due to vigorous "recruiting" efforts from his priest, and (conversely) that he would not miss his calling merely because he served the altar with girls. To argue in this way demeans (in my opinion) the very nature of vocation, which is not nearly that trivial of a thing, in terms of how one ascertains it. Just my opinion, for whatever little it is worth, that carries no authority whatsoever . . .

* * * * *

For more articles on this general subject of the historical, traditional basis of the Pauline Mass (they have been an indispensable, invaluable help to me in preparing this paper, on a topic that I am relatively less informed about), see:

A Micro Look at the Pauline Mass (+ Part Two), Shawn McElhinney

The Pauline Rite: A True Restoration, Shawn McElhinney

The Uncivil War of Rites: Confusing Culture and "Tradition", Shawn McElhinney

The Red Herring of Communion in the Hand, Shawn McElhinney and "Matt 1618"

Comparing the Tridentine / Pauline Masses, "Matt 1618"

In Defense of the Pauline Rite Mass, "Matt 1618"

Pope St. Pius V and Quo Primum: Did the Pope Intend to Bind His Successors From Changing the Tridentine Mass?, Jeffrey Mirus

The Mass of Vatican II, Fr. Joseph Fessio, S. J. (+ Part Two)

Understanding the Catholic Liturgy Since Vatican II, Dom Alcuin Reid, OSB

See also the related paper of mine:

On the Tridentine Mass, Unnecessary Related Divisions, and Pope Benedict XVI's New Directives Regarding Same (vs. John F. Triolo)

Dialogue: Why Was Martin Luther Excommunicated? / Questions Concerning Luther's Expressed Obedience to the Pope's Decision Regarding His Orthodoxy

Martin Luther Pontificating at the Diet of Worms in 1521

This exchange was brought on by my paper, The "Catholic-Sounding" Utterances of Martin Luther: Concise Overview of 25 Areas of Agreement. Discussion immediately followed in the combox. "Peter" asked: " interesting, but why didn't Luther return then?" I replied (linking to another paper of mine): "Because of the 50 things where he disagreed with the Church." Jay D., a Lutheran, entered into the discussion at this point. His words will be in blue.

* * * * *

He didn't want to leave. He didn't leave. He was decreed outside the Church by some Papal documents of some sort. He didn't say "I'm outta here." [he then cites part of my paper]

Schism: Aversion and Opposition to

Late February 1519 . . . if unfortunately there are such things in Rome as might be improved, there neither is, nor can be any reason that one should tear oneself away from the Church in schism. Rather, the worse things become, the more a man should help and cling to her, for by schism and contempt nothing can be mended. We must not desert God on account of the devil; or abandon the children of God who are still in the Roman communion, because of the multitude of the ungodly. There is no sin, there is no evil that should destroy charity or break the bond of union. For charity can do all things, and to unity nothing is difficult. (1)

5 July 1519 Never have I taken pleasure in any schism whatsoever, nor will I to the end of time. The Bohemians have done wrong in voluntarily separating from our communion, even if they have divine right on their side; for the highest divine right is love and unity of the Spirit. (1)

Asking why he didn't return doesn't really make sense in that context. I believe he would have been glad to be un-decreed outside the Church.

The question you should be asking, if Luther believed all this, why then was he decreed outside the Church?

He had left in spirit by departing in the 50 ways I documented above (and all by 1520 before he was ever excommunicated). He had left de facto. The Church merely declared that he had left, de jure [or should that be the other way around? I trust people understand my meaning . . .]

Note also that in several statements documented in my paper noted above, he claimed that he would obey the pope, whether he agreed with his (Luther's) doctrines or disagreed. But guess what? The pope and the Church disagreed, and Luther broke his own word to the pope, and refused to be obedient and recant his heretical doctrines, as he had claimed that he would. Here are the relevant statements from Luther:

30 May 1518 (Letter to Pope Leo X) Therefore, most holy father, I prostrate myself at your feet, placing myself and all I am and have at your disposal, to be dealt with as you see fit. My cause hangs on the will of your Holiness, by whose verdict I shall either save or lose my life. Come what may, I shall recognise the voice of your Holiness to be that of Christ, speaking through you.

30 May 1518 I expect to receive Christ's verdict through the Papal throne.

17 October 1518 I humbly implore your Reverence to deign to refer this case to our Most Holy Lord Leo X, that these doubts may be settled by the Church, so that he may either compel a just withdrawal of my propositions or else their just affirmation. I wish only to follow the Church.

7 January 1519 For when I have learned my mistakes, I will gladly withdraw them, and do nothing to impair the honor and power of the Roman Church.

3 March 1519 I testify that I have never wanted, nor do I today want, to touch in any way the authority of the Roman church . . . or demolish it by any craftiness. On the contrary I confess the authority of this church to be supreme over all, and that nothing, be it in heaven or on earth, is to be preferred to it, save the one Jesus Christ who is Lord of all.

5 March 1519 I was never of a mind to desert the Apostolic See . . .

13 March 1519 For although in my disputation with Eck I shall have to dispute the assertion that the Church of Rome is superior to all others, I shall do so with the reservation of full submission and obedience to the Holy See.

30 May 1519 Therefore, Holy Father, I lay my work at your feet in all confidence. Whatever your decision may be, it will in any case have its origin in Jesus, without whom you cannot propose or speak anything. If you condemn my book to be burned, I will say: As it has pleased the Lord, so it has happened. If you command that it be preserved, I will say: Praise be to God! . . . all well-meaning readers may know with what pure intentions I have sought to fathom the nature of ecclesiastical power and what reverence I hold toward the power of the keys. . . . Therefore, Most Holy Father, I cast myself at your feet with all that I am and possess. Raise me up or slay me, summon me hither or thither, approve me or reprove me as you please. I will listen to your voice as the voice of Christ reigning and speaking in you.

13 October 1520 But, to say yet more, even this never entered my heart: to inveigh against the Court of Rome or to dispute at all about her.

17 April 1521 (Diet of Worms) [W]hy may not a worm like me ask to be convicted of error from the prophets and the Gospels? If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. I have been reminded of the dissensions which my teaching engenders. I can answer only in the words of the Lord, "I came not to bring peace but a sword." . . .

[Johann Eck replied and issued a direct challenge:

Your plea to be heard from Scripture is the one always made by heretics. You do
nothing but renew the errors of Wyclif and Hus. How will the Jews, how will the Turks, exult to hear Christians discussing whether they have been wrong all these years! Martin, how can you assume that you are the only one to understand the sense of Scripture? Would you put your judgment above that of so many famous men and claim that you know more than they all? You have no right to call into question the most holy orthodox faith, instituted by Christ the perfect lawgiver, proclaimed throughout the world by the apostles, sealed by the red blood of the martyrs, confirmed by the sacred councils, defined by the Church in which all our fathers believed until death and gave to us as an inheritance, and which now we are forbidden by the pope and the emperor to discuss lest there be no end of debate. I ask you, Martin answer candidly and without horns do you or do you not repudiate your books and the errors which they contain?]

Since then Your Majesty and your lordships desire a simple reply, I will answer without horns and without teeth. Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason -- I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other -- my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen. Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise. [Bainton translation]

Roland Bainton (Here I Stand, New York: New American / Mentor, 1950, 139; the above excerpt was on pp. 143-144; Chapter Ten), noted a letter that Luther wrote (to whom is not stated), shortly before the Diet of Worms:

This shall be my recantation at Worms: "Previously I said the pope is the vicar of Christ. I recant. Now I say the pope is the adversary of Christ and the apostle of the Devil."

James M. Kittelson (Luther the Reformer: The Story of the Man and His Career, Fortress Press, 1986, p. 160) provides another Luther "pre-Worms" utterance along these lines (the online available text didn't allow access to further source documentation):

I will enter Worms under the banner of Christ against the gates of hell.

Luther literally thought of himself as a "savior" of the Christian Church, according to his letter to Elector Frederick from this period, recorded by a prominent Protestant historian (J.H. Merle D'Aubigne, History of the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, 1835; translated into English in 1846, Book Seven, Chapter One):

I rejoice with all my heart, most serene Lord, that his imperial majesty desires to summon me before him touching this affair. I call Jesus Christ to witness, that it is the cause of the whole German nation, of the universal Church, of the Christian world. Nay, of God himself......and not of an individual, especially such a one as myself. I am ready to go to Worms, provided I have a safe-conduct, and learned, pious, and impartial judges. I am ready to answer......for it is not from a presumptuous spirit, or to derive any advantage, that I have taught the doctrine with which I am reproached: it is in obedience to my conscience and to my oath as doctor of the Holy Scriptures: it is for the glory of God, for the salvation of the Christian Church, for the good of the German nation, and for the extirpation of so much superstition, abuse, evil, scandal, tyranny, blasphemy, and impiety.

D'Aubigne provides further content of the same letter that Bainton cited above:

The papists do not desire my coming to Worms, but my condemnation and my death. It matters not! Pray, not for me, but for the Word of God. Before my blood has grown cold, thousands of men in the whole world will have become responsible for having shed it! The most holy adversary of Christ, the father, the master, the generalissimo of murderers, insists on its being shed. So be it! Let God’s will be done! Christ will give me his Spirit to overcome these ministers of error. I despise them during my life; I shall triumph over them by my death. They are busy at Worms about compelling me to retract and this shall be my retraction: I said formerly that the pope was Christ’s vicar; now I assert that he is our Lord’s adversary, and the devil’s apostle.

(Ibid., Book Seven, Chapter Six)

Luther's mind was clearly made up before he even spoke at Worms. Hence he wrote to Cuspianus, the imperial councillor, the day before his famous "Here I stand!" speech:

With Christ's help, I shall never retract one tittle of my works.

(Ibid., Book Seven, Chapter Eight)

I find this extremely interesting, since the next day in his second appearance at the Diet of Worms Luther played the game of acting like he would retract portions of his books upon questioning from "Scripture and plain reason" that demonstrated any error on his part. He specifically divided his books into many types, implying (one would assume) that he might be willing to retract some portions of them, if persuaded. And he stated flat-out: "If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire." How, then, does that jive with his private statement the day before, that he wouldn't retract anything, not even "one tittle"? It seems pretty evident to me that he had no intention of retracting anything. He simply assumed that no refutation of his works was either forthcoming or possible. Something stinks to high heaven. This sort of equivocation can, sadly, often be found in Luther.

But (getting back to the discussion at hand): this is the Church's fault, that the Catholic Church decided Luther held to many heretical doctrines, and he refused to abide by this decision? It is not at all. No religious institution is gonna change 50 things (!!!) just because one guy claims to be an oracle from God. It's ridiculous to make out that we should do so, and that declaring Luther a heretic is our fault, rather than a simple statement of fact, based on Luther's freely chosen departures from Catholic orthodoxy. See also my related papers:

Luther Was Not a Revolutionary?! Huh?!

Was Corruption in the Medieval Papacy the Primary Cause of the Protestant Revolt?

Martin Luther: Protestants' "Manner of Life" No Better Than That of the "Papists"

The Influence of William of Ockham and Nominalism on Martin Luther and Early Protestant Thought

Lutheran-Catholic Group Dialogue #2: The Nature of the True Church and Authoritative Christian Tradition / Questions on Institutional Separation (+ Discussion)

Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue #4: "Tragic Necessity" of Reform / Indulgences / Nominalism / Causes of Schism / Luther on "Papists" / Fathers' Authority (+ Discussion)

Dialogue: Martin Luther the "Super-Pope," de facto Infallibility, and Protestant Tradition: A Philosophical and Analogical "Turning the Tables" Argument in Reply to Certain Protestant Rhetoric Against the Papacy (Dave Armstrong vs. Dr. Edwin Tait)

Martin Luther the "Super-Pope" and de facto Infallibility: With Extensive Documentation From Luther's Own Words

But the myth continues in vigor . . .

Luther sincerely believed all his new doctrines, but he was dead wrong. I locate his primary error not in some terrible sin of pride or rebelliousness, but in utterly sincere erroneous doctrines and theological paradigms (that came from many sources: such as the conciliarists, nominalists, Wycliffites, Hussites, etc.).

Luther's problem was in his head: not in the "mental" sense, but in the intellectual, "burdened by false premises" sense.

The pope was asking him to lie. To recant what he believed. To say he didn't believe what he did, in fact, believe. The pope was asking the impossible. "Here I stand. I can do no other."

I think you would have trouble demonstrating that those 50 things were firmly established as fixed doctrine in 1517. There was no catechism back then. Luther posted 95 theses as an invitation to debate those theses. He wouldn't have done that if those 50 things were widely known to be fixed doctrine. He would have left straight away if he knew they were not open for discussion.

Those 50 things were firmly established as fixed Roman doctrine later on at Trent.

How is it impossible for a Catholic who claims to be obedient to the Pope and the Catholic Church, to be asked to recant doctrines that are incompatible with said Church?

Luther either meant what he said or he didn't. If he did, then (following his own statements of adherence to Rome and the pope) he would and should have been glad to recant and retract heresies declared to be such by the Sovereign Pontiff, Supreme Head of the Church. But, alas, he didn't recant. Instead he refused and started making all kinds of excuses, and obfuscating and engaging in sophistry for why he didn't do what he said he would do.

The other choice is that he didn't mean what he said in the first place. This makes him a deliberate liar.

There is a third option, however. Luther meant what he said in these utterances but later changed his mind. But if he did that, it means that he -- somewhere along the way -- ceased being a Catholic, since a Catholic by definition obeys the pope when corrected on doctrine.

And if he ceased being a Catholic, then the entire point under dispute is conceded: he ceased being so; therefore, how can the Church be at fault for merely declaring what was already a fact (and one that derived from a choice freely made by Luther, under no external compulsion)? And if he wasn't a Catholic, then why the game-playing (by many Protestants today) of pretending that he was a good Catholic who was unjustly booted out by the Catholic Church?

You act as if we have no doctrines at all that we feel duty-bound to protect. Lutherans don't act that way. Calvinists don't; why do you require Catholics to do so?

If you disagree with the 50 items that I documented, then make an argument and we'll talk about it. How many dissenting opinions are we required to accept? You deny 50 or think that isn't enough? How about 100? If Luther denied 100 Catholic doctrines (granting this for the sake of argument), would the Church be within her rights to declare him a heretic and excommunicate him?

100 ain't enough? How about 200? 500? 1000? At what point do we have justification for declaring that a person is not one of us?

What this amounts to is the same old theologically liberal attitude of folks wanting to redefine belief-systems rather than be honest and admit that they believe something differently. Luther ceased being a Catholic in many ways (I showed 50 of them). He also retained several other beliefs (as my new paper shows).

I ceased being a Protestant in October 1990. I didn't pretend that I still was, when in fact I had come to agree with Catholic teaching. So why should anyone think Luther was still a Catholic in good standing, when the Church determined (by its own criteria of orthodoxy) that he was not?

The Catholic Church is what it is. We couldn't simply stop on a dime in 1517 or 1520 or 1521 and change the definition and nature and parameters of "Catholic dogma" just because one Augustinian monk demanded that we do so, since God told him he was right and the entire Church wrong.

I obviously disagree with that definition of "a Catholic." I have not personally been corrected on doctrine by Benedict XVI.

You're not the one who determines the definition. That's the point. The Catholic rejects private judgment.

Agreed. And the pope's judgement is just one private judgement among many.

Not in Catholicism. There is a Tradition that is passed down, and the pope is the premier custodian of it. Luther recognized this in his earlier statements, but he didn't follow through with the sentiments he himself expressed.

I'm contending that you, a ["Catholic"] Lutheran, cannot define what [Roman] Catholicism is, anymore than I could define what Lutheranism is. Each group determines its own nature and what is and is not in accordance with it.

By the same token, the Catholic Church could decide that Luther was no longer orthodox by its self-consistent definitions. These definitions are in turn determined by history and Tradition, passed down (apostolic succession) and the consensus of the Fathers and Councils and papal declarations, etc.

Martin added a wry comment in the combox:

If you want to belong to the club you gotta pay the dues and play by the club's rules.

Amazing the people who want the name "Catholic" but don't want to belong by following the rules.

BTW: Both my father's line and my mother's line trace back to Ireland but I prefer you call me Jewish though I hold none of the characteristic beliefs of Judaism.

. . .

Open Forum

Link to previous one. Please be respectful and amiable, especially to our non-Catholic friends. Thanks.

The "Catholic-Sounding" Utterances of Martin Luther: Concise Overview of 25 Areas of Agreement

Further sources which include full primary and secondary documentation are indicated by numbers after the citations, and listed at the bottom.

Anointing (Catholic Sacrament of)

6 October 1520 Now I do not condemn this our sacrament of extreme unction, but I firmly deny that it is what the Apostle James prescribes; for his unction agrees with ours neither in form, use, power nor purpose. Nevertheless; we shall number it among those sacraments which we have instituted, such as the blessing and sprinkling of salt and holy water. (14)

Baptism: Infant

6 October 1520 Little children . . . are free in every way, secure and saved solely through the glory of their baptism . . . Through the prayer of the believing church which presents it, . . . the infant is changed, cleansed, and renewed by inpoured faith. Nor should I doubt that even a godless adult could be changed, in any of the sacraments, if the same church prayed for and presented him, as we read of the paralytic in the Gospel, who was healed through the faith of others (Mark 2:3-12). I should be ready to admit that in this sense the sacraments of the New Law are efficacious in conferring grace, not only to those who do not, but even to those who do most obstinately present an obstacle.(2)

Baptism: Regeneration

16 March 1522 I reason thus: See, my Lord, I have been baptized in thy name so that I may be assured of thy grace and mercy. (3)

1529 Therefore, expressed in the simplest form, the power, the effect, the benefit, the fruit and the purpose of baptism is to save. No one is baptized that he may become a prince, but, as the words declare [of Mark 16:16], that he may be saved. But to be saved, we know very well, is to be delivered from sin, death, and Satan, and to enter Christ's kingdom and live forever with him . . . Through the Word, baptism receives the power to become the washing of regeneration, as St. Paul calls it in Titus 3:5 . . . Faith clings to the water and believes it to be baptism which effects pure salvation and life . . . When sin and conscience oppress us . . . you may say: It is a fact that I am baptized, but, being baptized, I have the promise that I shall be saved and obtain eternal life for both soul and body . . . Hence, no greater jewel can adorn our body or soul than baptism; for through it perfect holiness and salvation become accessible to us . . . (2)

Catholic Church: Authority of

6 January 1519 I shall issue a pamphlet exhorting the people to cleave to the Roman Church, and be obedient and respectful, . . . I agreed to write to his Holiness the Pope, humbly submitting and recognizing that I had been too hot and hasty, though I never meant to do aught against the Holy Roman Church, . . . I promised to send out a paper admonishing every one to follow the Roman Church, obey and honor her, and explaining that my writings were not to be understood in a sense damaging to her . . . (1)

7 January 1519 For when I have learned my mistakes, I will gladly withdraw them, and do nothing to impair the honor and power of the Roman Church. (1)

24 February 1519 I deny that the Roman Church is superior to all Churches, but not that she is our superior, as she now is de facto. (1)

Late February 1519 That the Roman Church is honored by God above all others, is what we cannot doubt. Saint Peter, Saint Paul, forty-six popes, many hundreds of thousands of martyrs, have shed their blood in its bosom, and have overcome hell and the world, so that God’s eye regards it with especial favor. (1)

3 March 1519 I realize that I cannot, under any circumstances, recant anything if I want to honor the Roman church - and this has to be my primary concern. . . . I testify that I have never wanted, nor do I today want, to touch in any way the authority of the Roman church . . . or demolish it by any craftiness. On the contrary I confess the authority of this church to be supreme over all, and that nothing, be it in heaven or on earth, is to be preferred to it, save the one Jesus Christ who is Lord of all . . . I shall publish something for the common people to make them understand that they should truly honor the Roman church, and influence them to do so. . . . I strive for only one thing: that the Roman church, our Mother, be not polluted . . . (1)

5 March 1519 I was never of a mind to desert the Apostolic See . . . (1)

13 March 1519 For although in my disputation with Eck I shall have to dispute the assertion that the Church of Rome is superior to all others, I shall do so with the reservation of full submission and obedience to the Holy See. (1)

13 October 1520 But, to say yet more, even this never entered my heart: to inveigh against the Court of Rome or to dispute at all about her. (1)

1528 We on our part confess that there is much that is Christian and good under the papacy; indeed everything that is Christian and good is to be found there and has come to us from this source. For instance we confess that in the papal church there are the true holy Scriptures, true baptism, the true sacrament of the altar, the true keys to the forgiveness of sins, the true office of the ministry, the true catechism in the form of the Lord's Prayer, the Ten Commandments, and the articles of the creed . . . I speak of what the pope and we have in common . . . I contend that in the papacy there is true Christianity, even the right kind of Christianity and many great and devoted saints. . . . The Christendom that now is under the papacy is truly the body of Christ and a member of it. If it is his body, then it has the true spirit, gospel, faith, baptism, sacrament, keys, the office of the ministry, prayer, holy Scripture, and everything that pertains to Christendom. So we are all still under the papacy and therefrom have received our Christian treasures. . . . We do not rave as do the rebellious spirits, so as to reject everything that is found in the papal church. For then we would cast out even Christendom from the temple of God, and all that it contained of Christ. (14)

1538 The papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and we have received the Holy Scriptures, baptism, the sacrament, and the office of preaching from them . . . we ourselves find it difficult to refute it . . . Then there come rushing into my heart thoughts like these: Now I see that I am in error. Oh, if only I had never started this and had never preached a word! For who dares oppose the church, of which we confess in the creed: I believe in a holy Christian church . . . (14)

Confession / Absolution / Penance

16 March 1522 I will allow no man to take private confession away from me, and I would not give it up for all the treasures in the world, since I know what comfort and strength it has given me. . . . Therefore, no man shall forbid the confession nor keep or draw any one away from it. . . . we have private confession, when I go and receive a sure absolution as if God himself spoke it, so that I may be assured that my sins are forgiven. (3)

1529 What is the Office of the Keys? It is the peculiar power which Christ has given to His Church on earth to forgive the sins of penitent sinners, but to retain the sins of the impenitent as long as they do not repent. . . .

What do you believe according to these words? . . . when they absolve those who repent of their sins and are willing to amend, this is as valid and certain, in heaven also, as if Christ, our dear Lord, dealt with us Himself.

What is Confession? Confession embraces two parts. One is that we confess our sins; the other, that we receive absolution, or forgiveness, from the pastor as from God Himself, and in no wise doubt, but firmly believe, that by it our sins are forgiven before God in heaven. (3)

1537 Since Absolution or the Power of the Keys is also an aid and consolation against sin and a bad conscience, ordained by Christ [Himself] in the Gospel, Confession or Absolution ought by no means to be abolished in the Church, especially on account of [tender and] timid consciences and on account of the untrained [and capricious] young people, in order that they may be examined, and instructed in the Christian doctrine. (3)

Confirmation

15 March 1523 [I would not find fault] if every pastor examines the faith of the children . . . lays hands on them, and confirms them. (4)

Contraception: Opposition to

1544 Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed . . . He was inflamed with the basest spite and hatred . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore God punished him . . . That worthless fellow . . . preferred polluting himself with a most disgraceful sin to raising up offspring for his brother. (13)

Crucifixes

1525 [W]hen I hear of Christ, an image of a man hanging on a cross takes form in my heart, just as the reflection of my face naturally appears in the water when I look into it. If it is not a sin but good to have an image of Christ in my heart, why should it be a sin to have it in my eyes? (6)

1539 The custom of holding a crucifix before a dying person has kept many in the Christian faith and has enabled them to die with a confident faith in the crucified Christ. (6)

Eucharist: Adoration

1523 From these words we understand that there are two kinds of worship: one outward and physical, the other inward and spiritual. It is outward worship when you choose outward places and gestures to express it, as when in the church or before the altar or the sacrament you prostrate yourself, kneel, bend your body, bow your head, look up toward heaven, speak with your mouth and do similar things that can be done outwardly and are signs by which you outwardly acknowledge your God or overlord. . . .

But where worship is offered from the heart, there follows quite properly also that outward bowing, bending, kneeling, and adoration with the body. . . . Now to come back to the sacrament: he who does not believe that Christ's body and blood are present does well not to worship either with his spirit or with his body. But he who does believe, as sufficient demonstration has shown it ought to be believed, can surely not withhold his adoration of the body and blood of Christ without sinning. For I must always confess that Christ is present when his body and blood are present. His words do not lie to me, and he is not separated from his body and blood. . . . one should not condemn and accuse of heresy people who do adore the sacrament. (14)

1526 We do not want to abolish the Elevation but retain it because it goes well with the German Sanctus and signifies that Christ has commanded us to remember Him. For as the Sacrament is elevated in a material manner and yet Christ’s body and blood are not seen in it, so He is remembered and elevated by the word of the sermon and is confessed and adored in the reception of the Sacrament. (14)

Eucharist: Forgiveness of Sins and Salvation

1529 That is shown us by these words, “Given and shed for you for the remission of sins”; namely, that in the Sacrament forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation are given us through these words. For where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation. (14)

Eucharist: Real Presence

6 October 1520 Therefore, I permit every man to hold either of these opinions [transubstantiation or substance of bread remaining with the Body of Christ also present], as he chooses. (14)

16 March 1522 I take to myself the blessed sacrament, when I eat his body and drink his blood as a sign that I am rid of my sins and God has freed me from all my frailties; and in order to make me sure of this, he gives me his body to eat and his blood to drink, so that I shall not and cannot doubt that I have a gracious God. (3)

1524 I confess that if Karlstadt, or anyone else, could have convinced me five years ago that only bread and wine were in the sacrament he would have done me a great service. At that time I suffered such severe conflicts and inner strife and torment that I would gladly have been delivered from them. I realized that at this point I could best resist the papacy . . . But I am a captive and cannot free myself. The text is too powerfully present, and will not allow itself to be torn from its meaning by mere verbiage. (9)

1525 [T]his word of Luke and Paul is clearer than sunlight and more overpowering than thunder. First, no one can deny that he speaks of the cup, since he says, “This is the cup.” Secondly, he calls it the cup of the new testament. This is overwhelming, for it could not be a new testament by means and on account of wine alone. (9)

1525 . . . The bread which is broken or distributed piece by piece is the participation in the body of Christ. It is, it is, it is, he says, the participation in the body of Christ. Wherein does the participation in the body of Christ consist? It cannot be anything else than that as each takes a part of the broken bread he takes therewith the body of Christ . . . (9)

1528 [S]ince we are confronted by God’s words, “This is my body” – distinct, clear, common, definite words, which certainly are no trope, either in Scripture or in any language – we must embrace them with faith . . . not as hairsplitting sophistry dictates but as God says them for us, we must repeat these words after him and hold to them. (9)

1528 I have often asserted that I do not argue whether the wine remains wine or not. It is enough for me that Christ’s blood is present; let it be with the wine as God wills. Sooner than have mere wine with the fanatics, I would agree with the pope that there is only blood. (14)

1532 All right! There we have it! This is clear, plain, and unconcealed: “I am speaking of My flesh and blood.” . . . There we have the flat statement which cannot be interpreted in any other way than that there is no life, but death alone, apart from His flesh and blood if these are neglected or despised. How is it possible to distort this text [John 6]? . . . You must note these words and this text with the utmost diligence . . . It can neither speciously be interpreted nor avoided and evaded. (9)

September 1544 For this is . . . how it was accepted in the true, ancient Christian church of fifteen hundred years ago . . . When you receive the bread from the altar, . . . you are receiving the entire body of the Lord; . . . (8)

Immaculate Conception of Mary

December 1527 But the other conception, namely the infusion of the soul . . . it is believed that it took place without contacting original sin. Therefore the Virgin Mary is in the middle between Christ and all other men . . . for her first conception was without grace, but the second was full of grace . . . Just as men are conceived in sin both with regard to body and soul, and Christ is free of sin - body and soul - so Mary the Virgin is conceived according to the body without grace, but according to the soul she is full of grace. (11)

27 February 1540 . . . in conception the flesh and blood of Mary were entirely purged, so that nothing of sin remained. Therefore Isaiah says rightly, "There was no guile found in his mouth"; otherwise, every seed except for Mary's was corrupted. (11)

1544 God has formed the soul and body of the Virgin Mary full of the Holy Spirit, so that she is without all sins, for she has conceived and borne the Lord Jesus. (11)

1545 . . . the pure Virgin Mary, who has not sinned and cannot sin for ever more. (11)

Marriage: Primary Purpose of (Children)

1536 Today you find many people who do not want to have children. Moreover, this callousness and inhuman attitude, which is worse than barbarous, is met with chiefly among the nobility and princes, who often refrain from marriage for this one single reason, that they might have no offspring. It is even more disgraceful that you find princes who allow themselves to be forced not to marry, for fear that the members of their house would increase beyond a definite limit. Surely such men deserve that their memory be blotted out from the land of the living. Who is there who would not detest these swinish monsters? But these facts, too, serve to emphasize original sin. Otherwise we would marvel at procreation as the greatest work of God, and as a most outstanding gift we would honor it with the praises it deserves. (13)

"Mother of God"

1521 She became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man's understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child . . . Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God . . . None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God. (11)

Papal Primacy and Acceptance of Papal Supremacy to Some Degree

30 May 1518 (Letter to Pope Leo X) . . . evil reports are being spread about me, some friends having vilified me to your Holiness, as if I were trying to belittle the power of the Keys and of the Supreme Pontiff, . . . your Holiness's apostolic authority . . . So all may see from this how I esteem the spiritual power, and honour the dignity of the Keys. . . . Therefore, most holy father, I prostrate myself at your feet, placing myself and all I am and have at your disposal, to be dealt with as you see fit. My cause hangs on the will of your Holiness, by whose verdict I shall either save or lose my life. Come what may, I shall recognise the voice of your Holiness to be that of Christ, speaking through you. (1)

30 May 1518 I expect to receive Christ's verdict through the Papal throne. (1)

17 October 1518 I was assuredly . . . too irreverent to the name of the Pope . . . I humbly implore your Reverence to deign to refer this case to our Most Holy Lord Leo X, that these doubts may be settled by the Church, so that he may either compel a just withdrawal of my propositions or else their just affirmation. I wish only to follow the Church . . . (1)

3 March 1519 (Letter to Pope Leo X) . . . you truly stand in the place of Christ. . . . Most Holy Father, before God and all his creation, I testify that I have never wanted, nor do I today want, to touch in any way the authority of . . . Your Holiness or demolish it by any craftiness. (1)

5 March 1519 I am quite content that he should be called, and in fact be "Lord" . . . and that he wields his authority by the grace of God, because it is certain that he could have no power unless God willed it. (1)

30 May 1519 I know that man can think of nothing unless it be given to him from above. But least of all can that be said of the pope, of whom it is written: The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord. Therefore, Holy Father, I lay my work at your feet in all confidence. Whatever your decision may be, it will in any case have its origin in Jesus, without whom you cannot propose or speak anything. If you condemn my book to be burned, I will say: As it has pleased the Lord, so it has happened. If you command that it be preserved, I will say: Praise be to God! . . . all well-meaning readers may know with what pure intentions I have sought to fathom the nature of ecclesiastical power and what reverence I hold toward the power of the keys. . . . Therefore, Most Holy Father, I cast myself at your feet with all that I am and possess. Raise me up or slay me, summon me hither or thither, approve me or reprove me as you please. I will listen to your voice as the voice of Christ reigning and speaking in you. (1)

5 July 1519 . . . the respect I bear to the sovereign pontiff . . . When Dr. Eck declares that the universal Church must have a head, he says well. (1)

20 July 1519 . . . the Roman pontiff to whom I did not deny a precedence in honor. (1)

Perpetual Virginity of Mary

1523 A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . . Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . . When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom. (12)

1539 Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. (12)

1539 Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. (12)

Prayers For the Dead

1528 As for the dead, since Scripture gives us no information on the subject, I regard it as no sin to pray with free devotion in this or some similar fashion: 'Dear God, if this soul is in a condition accessible to mercy, be thou gracious to it.' And when this has been done once or twice, let it suffice. For vigils and requiem masses and yearly celebrations of requiems are useless, and merely the devil's annual fair. (10)

Sacramentalism

6 October 1520 . . . these things cannot be called sacraments of faith, because there is no divine promise connected with them, neither do they save; but sacraments do save those who believe the divine promise. (4)

1529 We further believe that in this Christian Church we have forgiveness of sin, which is wrought through the holy Sacraments and Absolution, . . . (5)

Sacramentals (Holy Water, Blessings, Etc.)

6 October 1520 . . . those sacraments which we have instituted, such as the blessing and sprinkling of salt and holy water. (14)

Saints: Images of

1525 Where however images or statues are made without idolatry, then such making of them is not forbidden. . . . [M]y image breakers must also let me keep, wear, and look at a crucifix or a Madonna . . . as long as I do not worship them, but only have them as memorials. . . . images for memorial and witness, such as crucifixes and images of saints, are to be tolerated . . . And they are not only to be tolerated, but for the sake of the memorial and the witness they are praiseworthy and honorable . . . (6)

Schism: Aversion and Opposition to

Late February 1519 . . . if unfortunately there are such things in Rome as might be improved, there neither is, nor can be any reason that one should tear oneself away from the Church in schism. Rather, the worse things become, the more a man should help and cling to her, for by schism and contempt nothing can be mended. We must not desert God on account of the devil; or abandon the children of God who are still in the Roman communion, because of the multitude of the ungodly. There is no sin, there is no evil that should destroy charity or break the bond of union. For charity can do all things, and to unity nothing is difficult. (1)

5 July 1519 Never have I taken pleasure in any schism whatsoever, nor will I to the end of time. The Bohemians have done wrong in voluntarily separating from our communion, even if they have divine right on their side; for the highest divine right is love and unity of the Spirit. (1)

Sign of the Cross

1529 In the morning, when you get up, make the sign of the holy cross and say: In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen . . . (6)

Sinners in the Church

Autumn 1533 Our manner of life is as evil as is that of the papists. (7)

Tradition: Apostolic

1528 In the first place I hear and see that such rebaptism is undertaken by some in order to spite the pope and to be free of any taint of the Antichrist. In the same way the foes of the sacrament want to believe only in bread and wine, in opposition to the pope, thinking thereby really to overthrow the papacy. It is indeed a shaky foundation on which they can build nothing good. On that basis we would have to disown the whole of Scripture and the office of the ministry, which of course we have received from the papacy. We would also have to make a new Bible. . . .

. . . We recall that St. John was not averse to hearing the Word of God from Caiaphas and pays attention to his prophecy [John 11:49 f.] . . . Christ bids us hear the godless Pharisees in the seat of Moses, though they are godless teachers . . . Let God judge their evil lies. We can still listen to their godly words . . . if the first, or child, baptism were not right, it would follow that for more than a thousand years there was no baptism or any Christendom, which is impossible. For in that case the article of the creed, I believe in one holy Christian church, would be false . . . If this baptism is wrong then for that long period Christendom would have been without baptism, and if it were without baptism it would not be Christendom. (14)

1532 This testimony of the universal holy Christian Church, even if we had nothing else, would be a sufficient warrant for holding this article [on the sacrament] and refusing to suffer or listen to a sectary, for it is dangerous and fearful to hear or believe anything against the unanimous testimony, belief, and teaching of the universal holy Christian churches, unanimously held in all the world from the beginning until now over fifteen hundred years. (14)

Works: Supreme Importance of, as Proof of Authentic Faith

1529 [E]very day should witness the war against the old man and the growth of the new. For, if we wish to be Christians, we must practice the things that make for Christianity. (5)

1537 Good works follow such faith, renewal, and forgiveness. And what there is still sinful or imperfect also in them shall not be accounted as sin or defect, even [and that, too] for Christ’s sake; but the entire man, both as to his person and his works, is to be called and to be righteous and holy from pure grace and mercy, shed upon us [unfolded] and spread over us in Christ. 3] Therefore we cannot boast of many merits and works, if they are viewed apart from grace and mercy, but as it is written, 1 Cor. 1, 31: He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord, namely, that he has a gracious God. For thus all is well. 4] We say, besides, that if good works do not follow, faith is false and not true. (5)

1545 Where is the fruit that shows you really believe? . . . Christ has not died so that you could remain such a sinner; rather, he died so that sin might be put to death and destroyed and that you might now begin to love God and your neighbor. Faith takes sins away and puts them to death so that you should live not in them but in righteousness. Therefore demonstrate by your works and by your fruits that you have faith . . . [Whoever believes] will say it with his deeds – or forget about having the reputation of being a believer . . . Love follows true faith . . . One should do everything that is good so that faith does not become an empty husk but may be true and genuine. (5)

Full Source Documentation is in the Following Papers

(1) Martin Luther's Praise and Proclamations of Obedience to Pope Leo X and the Catholic Church From 1518 to 1520 (+ References to Pope as "Antichrist")

(2) Baptismal Regeneration: Luther, Wesley, and Anglicanism

(3) Martin Luther On the Sacrament of Absolution (and Private Confession)

(4) Martin Luther's Opinion of (the Catholic Sacrament of) Confirmation

(5) Martin Luther on Sanctification and the Absolute Necessity of Good Works as the Proof of Authentic Faith

(6) Martin Luther on Crucifixes, Images and Statues of Saints, and the Sign of the Cross

(7) Martin Luther: Protestants' "Manner of Life" No Better Than That of the "Papists"

(8) The Protestant Sacramentarian Controversies (Calvin vs. Luther vs. Zwingli)

(9) Martin Luther Refutes Zwingli & Other Deniers of the Real Presence

(10) Martin Luther Espouses Prayer For the Dead / Retroactive Prayer

(11) Martin Luther's Mariology (Particularly the Immaculate Conception)

(12) Luther, Calvin, and Other Early Protestants on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

(13) Contraception and the "Fewer Children is Better" Mentality: the Opposition of Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Other Protestants

(14) Martin Luther: Catholic Critical Analysis and Praise

Martin Luther's Praise and Proclamations of Obedience to Pope Leo X and the Catholic Church From 1518 to 1520 (+ References to Pope as "Antichrist")

Pope Leo X (r. 1513-1521)

Let's briefly review the relevant timeline and background for these events. Martin Luther tacked up his 95 Theses in Wittenberg, Saxony on 31 October 1517. This is almost universally considered the beginning of the Protestant "Reformation". The papal bull Exsurge Domine was issued by Pope Leo X on 15 June 1520, and demanded that Luther retract 41 errors: some from the 95 Theses, and others from subsequent works.

Luther completed his treatise, To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation by 23 June 1520. It was published in Wittenberg on 18 August 1520. The Babylonian Captivity of the Church was published on 6 October 1520.

Exsurge Domine reached Luther on 10 October 1520. The Freedom of a Christian was published in early November 1520. Luther was given sixty days, until 10 December 1520 to recant. Of course he did not, and instead burned the bull along with the Canon Law, in Wittenberg, on this very day. Thus, he was excommunicated in the bull Decet Romanum Pontificem on 3 January 1521. Luther appeared at the Diet of Worms on 16-17 April 1521 (the famous "Here I stand" speech). The Edict of Worms was issued on 25 May 1521 by Emperor Charles V. Luther was declared an outlaw and heretic, and his writings were banned.

It is understood that a distinction has often been made (by Luther and other Protestants) between the man and the office of the papacy to some extent. Catholics respect the office, and usually, the men who occupy it, though not the relatively few "bad popes" who besmirched and scandalized it. For Luther it was roughly the opposite: he disrespected the office of the papacy as the "Antichrist" but seems to have had a measure of respect for the man Leo X who occupied it from 8 March 1513 till his death on 1 December 1521. Or did he? I leave the judgment and interpretation of the anomalies in his utterances on the subject below to my readers.

Blue highlighting (my own) indicates a "Catholic-sounding" Luther; red indicates the Protestant protester.

* * * * *

To Pope Leo X: 30 May 1518

[from: The Letters of Martin Luther, Margaret A. Currie, London: Macmillan & Co., 1908, 28-31]

Martin Luther, Augustinian monk, desires everlasting salvation to the Most Holy Father, Leo X. I know, most holy father, that evil reports are being spread about me, some friends having vilified me to your Holiness, as if I were trying to belittle the power of the Keys and of the Supreme Pontiff, therefore I am being accused of being a heretic, a renegade, and a thousand other ill names are being hurled at me, enough to make my ears tingle and my eyes start in my head, but my one source of confidence is an innocent conscience. But all this is nothing new, for I am decorated with such marks of distinction in our own land, by those honourable and straightforward people who are themselves afflicted with the worst of consciences. But, most holy father, I must hasten to the point, hoping your Holiness will graciously listen to me, for I am as awkward as a child.

Some time ago the preaching of the apostolic jubilee of the Indulgences was begun, and soon made such headway that these preachers thought they could say what they wished, under the shelter of your Holiness's name, alarming the people at such malicious, heretical lies being proclaimed to the derision of the spiritual powers. And, not satisfied with pouring out their venom, they have disseminated the little book in which their malicious lies are confirmed, binding the father confessors by oath to inculcate those lies upon their people. I shall not enlarge upon the disgraceful greed, which can never be satisfied, with which every syllable of this tiny book reeks. This is true, and no one can shut his eyes to the scandal, for it is manifest in the book. And they continue to lead the people captive with their vain consolation, plucking, as the prophet Micah says, " their skin from off them, and their flesh from off" their bones," while they wallow in abundance themselves. They use your Holiness's name to allay the uproar they cause, and threaten them with fire and sword, and the ignominy of being called heretics ; nay, one can scarcely believe the wiles they use to cause confusion among the people. Complaints are universal as to the greed of the priests, while the power of the Keys and the Pope is being evil spoken of in Germany. And when I heard of such things I burned with zeal for the honour of Christ, or, if some will have it so, the young blood within me boiled ; and yet I felt it did not behove me to do anything in the matter except to draw the attention of some prelates to the abuses. Some acted upon the hint, but others derided it, and interpreted it in various ways. For the dread of your Holiness's name, and the threat of being placed under the ban, was all-powerful. At length I thought it best not to be harsh, but oppose them by throwing doubts upon their doctrines, preparatory to a disputation upon them. So I threw down the gauntlet to the learned by issuing my theses, and asking them to discuss them, either by word of mouth, or in writing, which is a well- known fact.

From this, most holy father, has such a fire been kindled, that, to judge from the hue and cry, one would think the whole world had been set ablaze. And perhaps this is because I, through your Holiness's apostolic authority, am a doctor of theology and they do not wish to admit that I am entitled, according to the usage of all universities in Christendom, openly to discuss, not only Indulgences, but many higher doctrines, such as Divine Power, Forgiveness, and Mercy. Now, what shall I do ? I cannot retract, and I see what jealousy and hatred I have roused through the explanation of my theses. Besides, I am most unwilling to leave my corner only to hear harsh judgments against myself, but also because I am a stupid dunderhead in this learned age, and too ignorant to deal with such weighty matters. For, in these golden times, when the number of the learned is daily increasing, and arts and sciences are flourishing, not to speak of the Greek and Hebrew tongues, so that even a Cicero were he now alive would creep into a corner, although he never feared light and publicity, sheer necessity alone drives me to cackle as a goose among swans. So, to reconcile my opponents if possible, and satisfy the expectations of many, I let in the light of day upon my thoughts, which you can see in my explanation of my propositions on Indulgences. I made them public that I might have the protection of your Holiness's name, and find refuge beneath the shadow of your wings. So all may see from this how I esteem the spiritual power, and honour the dignity of the Keys. For, if I were such as they say, and had not held a public discussion on the subject, which every doctor is entitled to do, then assuredly his Serene Highness Frederick, Elector of Saxony, who is an ardent lover of Christian and apostolic truth, would not have suffered such a dangerous person in his University of Wittenberg. And also, the beloved and learned doctors and magisters of our University, who cleave firmly to our religion, would certainly have expelled me from their midst. And is it not strange that my enemies not only try to convict me of sin and put me to shame, but also the Elector, and the whole University? Therefore, most holy father, I prostrate myself at your feet, placing myself and all I am and have at your disposal, to be dealt with as you see fit. My cause hangs on the will of your Holiness, by whose verdict I shall either save or lose my life. Come what may, I shall recognise the voice of your Holiness to be that of Christ, speaking through you. If I merit death, I do not refuse to die, for " the earth is the Lord's," and all that is therein, to whom be praise to all eternity ! Amen. May He preserve your Holiness to life eternal.

To Johann von Staupitz: 30 May 1518

[In Currie, 27]

I beseech you to forward my poor "Resolutiones" to the good Pope Leo X., so that they may plead my cause with His Holiness, against the wicked intrigues of evil-disposed persons . . . I expect to receive Christ's verdict through the Papal throne.

To Cardinal Cajetan: October 17, 1518

[From: Preserved Smith, The Life and Letters of Martin Luther, Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 2nd edition, 1914, 52-53]

I confess, as I have before confessed, that I was assuredly unwise and too bitter, and too irreverent to the name of the Pope . . .

I humbly implore your Reverence to deign to refer this case to our Most Holy Lord Leo X, that these doubts may be settled by the Church, so that he may either compel a just withdrawal of my propositions or else their just affirmation. I wish only to follow the Church . . .

To Wenceslaus Link: December 11, 1518

[From: Henry O'Connor, S.J.: Luther's Own Statements Concerning His Teaching and Its Results, New York: Benzinger Brothers, 1884, second edition, 9; primary source: De Wette, I, 193]

I will send you my playful remarks (nugas), so that you may see, whether I am right in guessing, that the true Antichrist, according to Paul, reigns in the Roman Court: I think I am able to prove that he (the Pope) is now worse than the Turks.

12th Proposition Directed Against Johann Eck: Late 1518

[Smith, 59]

The assertion that the Roman Church is superior to all other Churches is proved only by weak and vain (frigidis) papal decrees of the last four hundred years, against which militate the accredited history of eleven hundred years, the Bible, and the decree of the Nicene Council, the holiest of all councils.

To the Elector Frederick of Saxony: January 5 or 6, 1519

[Currie, 39-41]

In addition, I shall issue a pamphlet exhorting the people to cleave to the Roman Church, and be obedient and respectful, and not consider this writing as tending to disgrace the Holy Roman Church, but rather to exalt her. . . . But I fear the Pope will not put up with a judge, and I, too, will not put up with the Pope's verdict.

[Smith, 55]

Charles von Miltitz yesterday pointed out with care the crimes I had committed against the Roman Church, and I humbly promised to make what amends I could . . .

First, I agreed to let the matter alone henceforth, until it bleeds to death by itself, provided my opponents also keep silence . . .

Secondly, I agreed to write to his Holiness the Pope, humbly submitting and recognizing that I had been too hot and hasty, though I never meant to do aught against the Holy Roman Church, but only as her true son to attack the scandalous preaching whereby she is made a mockery, a byword, a stumbling-block, and an offence to the people.

Thirdly, I promised to send out a paper admonishing every one to follow the Roman Church, obey and honor her, and explaining that my writings were not to be understood in a sense damaging to her . . .

But I fear the Pope will allow no other judge but himself, nor can I tolerate his judgment; if the present plan fails, we shall have to go through the farce of the Pope writing a text and my writing the commentary. That would do no good.

To the Elector Frederick of Saxony: January 6 or 7, 1519

[Smith, 56-57]

Miltitz will write to the Pope at once, informing him how things stand, and asking him to recommend the matter to some learned bishop, who will hear and point out the errors I am to recant. For when I have learned my mistakes, I will gladly withdraw them, and do nothing to impair the honor and power of the Roman Church.

To Christoph Schuerl: February 20, 1519

[Currie, 42]

But from henceforth I must proceed in earnest against the Roman Pontiff and Romish pride.

To Georg Spalatin: February 24, 1519 (Letter No. 1)

[Smith, 60-61]

I repress much for the sake of the Elector and university which otherwise I should pour out against that spoiler of the Bible and the Church, Rome, or rather Babylon. For the truth of the Scripture and of the Church cannot be spoken, dear Spalatin, without offending that beast. Do not therefore hope that I shall be quiet or safe in future unless you wish me to give up theology altogether.

To Georg Spalatin: February 24, 1519 (Letter No. 2)

[Smith, 61-62]

I deny that the Roman Church is superior to all Churches, but not that she is our superior, as she now is de facto.

An Instruction on Certain Articles: Late February 1519

[Smith states (p. 56): "In fulfillment of the third proposition in the first day's interview [with Miltitz], he published An Instruction on Certain Articles." The work is mentioned in Works of Martin Luther: With Introductions and Notes (Henry Eyster Jacobs and Adolph Spaeth, published in 1915 in Philadephia by A.J. Holman Co.), as dating from 1519: ". . . Instruction concerning certain Articles, which might be ascribed and imputed to him by his adversaries . . ." (p. 176). It is also alluded to (with the title as I have it in green, above) in Michael A. Mullett's book, Martin Luther (Routledge: 2004), on p. 94. James Isaac Good, The Reformed Reformation (Heidelberg Press, 1916), on p. 70, notes it as well.]

[From: J.H. Merle D'Aubigne, History of the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, 1835; translated into English in 1846, Book Five, Chapter One]

Yet he still felt esteem for the ancient Church of Rome, and had no thought of separating from it. “That the Roman Church,” said he in the explanation which he had promised Miltitz to publish, “is honored by God above all others, is what we cannot doubt. Saint Peter, Saint Paul, forty-six popes, many hundreds of thousands of martyrs, have shed their blood in its bosom, and have overcome hell and the world, so that God’s eye regards it with especial favor. Although everything is now in a very wretched state there, this is not a sufficient reason for separating from it. On the contrary, the worse things are going on within it, the more should we cling to it; for it is not by separation that we shall make it better. We must not desert God on account of the devil; or abandon the children of God who are still in the Roman communion, because of the multitude of the ungodly. There is no sin, there is no evil that should destroy charity or break the bond of union. For charity can do all things, and to unity nothing is difficult.” [Opp. L. 17:224]

[Rupp, 65-66; he calls it simply "Articles"]

The Roman Church is honoured by God above all others, by the undoubted fact that SS. Peter and Paul, 46 Popes and many hundreds of thousands of martyrs have shed their blood there . . . if unfortunately there are such things in Rome as might be improved, there neither is, nor can be any reason that one should tear oneself away from the Church in schism. Rather, the worse things become, the more a man should help and cling to her, for by schism and contempt nothing can be mended. [WA 2.72]

[Henry Eyster Jacobs, Martin Luther, the Hero of the Reformation, New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1902, p. 128 (after citing the above section) ]

But as to the power and sovereignty of the Roman See, and as to how far it extends, the learned must decide.

To Pope Leo X: March 3, 1519

[Smith (p. 55) writes about this letter: "Luther drew up a very humble letter to the Pope, but as it did not satisfy Miltitz he never sent it." This letter is dated March 3, 1519 in Currie (pp. 43-44) and O'Connor (pp. 9-10) ]

[From Luther's Works, edited by Jaroslav Pelikan et al, Vol. 48: 100-102]

Most Holy Father: Necessity again forces me, the lowest of all men and dust of the earth, to address myself to Your Holiness and August Majesty. May Your Holiness therefore be most gracious and deign to lend your ears in a fatherly fashion for a short time, and willingly listen to the bleating of this, your little sheep, for you truly stand in the place of Christ.

The honorable Sir Charles Miltitz, chamber secretary to Your Holiness, has been with us. In the presence of the Most Illustrious Sovereign Frederick he very harshly accused me in the name of Your Holiness of lacking respect for and being rash toward the Roman church and Your Holiness, and demanded satisfaction for this. Hearing this, I was deeply grieved that my most loyal service has had such an unhappy outcome and that what I had undertaken-to guard the honor of the Roman church-had resulted in disgrace and was suspected of all wickedness, even so far as the head of the church was concerned. But what am I to do, Most Holy Father? I do not know what to do further: I cannot bear the power of your wrath, and I do not know of any means to escape it. The demand is made that I recant my theses. If such a revocation could accomplish what I was attempting to do with my theses, I would issue it without hesitation. Now, however, through the antagonism and pressure of enemies, my writings are spread farther than I ever had expected and are so deeply rooted in the hearts of so many people that I am not in the position to revoke them. In addition since our Germany prospers wonderfully today with men of talent, learning, and judgment, I realize that I cannot, under any circumstances, recant anything if I want to honor the Roman church-and this has to be my primary concern. Such a recanting would accomplish nothing but to defile the Roman church more and more and bring it into the mouths of the people as something that should be accused. See, Father, those whom I have opposed have inflicted this injury and virtual ignominy on the Roman church among us. With their most insipid sermons, preached in the name of Your Holiness, they have cultivated only the most shameful avarice and have substituted for sanctification the vile and abominable Egyptian scandal. And as if that had not been bad enough, they accuse me before Your Holiness-me, who opposed their tremendous monstrosities-of being the author of the temerity which is theirs.

Most Holy Father, before God and all his creation, I testify that I have never wanted, nor do I today want, to touch in any way the authority of the Roman church and of Your Holiness or demolish it by any craftiness. On the contrary I confess the authority of this church to be supreme over all, and that nothing, be it in heaven or on earth, is to be preferred to it, save the one Jesus Christ who is Lord of all-nor should Your Holiness believe the schemers who claim otherwise, plotting evil against this Martin.

Since in this case I can do only one thing, I shall most willingly promise Your Holiness that in the future I shall leave this matter of indulgences alone, and will be completely silent concerning it (if [my enemies] also stop their vain and bombastic speeches). In addition I shall publish something for the common people to make them understand that they should truly honor the Roman church, and influence them to do so. [I shall tell them] not to blame the church for the rashness of [those indulgence preachers], nor to imitate my sharp words against the Roman church, which I have used-or rather misused-against those clowns, and with which I have gone too far. Perhaps by the grace of God the discord which has arisen may finally be quieted by such an effort. I strive for only one thing: that the Roman church, our Mother, be not polluted by the filth of unsuitable avarice, and that the people be not led astray into error and taught to prefer indulgences to works of love. All the other things I consider of less importance, since they are matters of indifference. If I can do anything else, or if I discover that there is something else I can do, I will certainly be most ready to do it.

To Georg Spalatin: March 5, 1519

[From: Gordon Rupp, Luther's Progress to the Diet of Worms, New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1964 (orig. 1951), p. 66 ]

I was never of a mind to desert the Apostolic See . . . I am quite content that he should be called, and in fact be "Lord". What is that to me? I know that the Grand Turk should be honoured and that he wields his authority by the grace of God, because it is certain that he could have no power unless God willed it. [WA. Br. 1.356.8]

To the Elector Frederick of Saxony: March 13, 1519

[Currie, 44-45]

For although in my disputation with Eck I shall have to dispute the assertion that the Church of Rome is superior to all others, I shall do so with the reservation of full submission and obedience to the Holy See.

To Georg Spalatin: March 13, 1519

[O'Connor, 10]

I am also looking over the decrees of the Popes for my disputation, and . . . I do not know, whether the Pope is Antichrist himself or his Apostle: so miserably is Christ (that is, truth) corrupted and crucified by him in the decrees.

[Rupp, 66-67]

I don't know whether the Pope is Antichrist himself, or only his apostle, so grievously is Christ, i.e. Truth, manhandled and crucified by him in these decretals.

Resolutions (Or, Resolutiones): May 30, 1519

[Rupp writes (p. 65): "In an almost casual aside, in the course of his Resolutions, Luther had suggested that, in the time of Gregory I, the Romian Church was not over all other churches (non erat super alias ecclesias). [WA 1.571]

[Heinrich Boehmer, Road To Reformation: Martin Luther to the Year 1521, Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1946, 212-214]

"At the same time Luther was also putting finishing touches on the work which, on Staupitz' advice, he was to present to Pope Leo X as a proof of his orthodoxy and loyalty to the Holy See—the Resolutions. On May 30 he was able to send a fair copy, accompanied by a letter to the pope, to Staupitz for forwarding. We still possess one page of the rough draft of this letter written in his own hand, which sheds an interesting light upon the state of his mind at this time. In the draft he writes that he turned to the pope only in order to show the German inquisitors (that is, Tetzel and his fellow Dominicans) that he was not afraid of them. 'I know that man can think of nothing unless it be given to him from above. But least of all can that be said of the pope, of whom it is written: The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord. Therefore, Holy Father, I lay my work at your feet in all confidence. Whatever your decision may be, it will in any case have its origin in Jesus, without whom you cannot propose or speak anything. If you condemn my book to be burned, I will say: As it has pleased the Lord, so it has happened. If you command that it be preserved, I will say: Praise be to God! I lose nothing if it is burned, and I gain nothing if it is not burned. Christ does not need me. He can raise up children from the very stones and destroy mountains in the twinkling of an eye. This, my faith in my Lord Jesus Christ, is enough for me. May He, the Lord, preserve you and lead you, not according to your pleasure or that of any other man, but according to His will, which alone is good and to be praised eternally. Amen.'

"In the fair copy the long section dealing with the insolent boasting and threatening of the German inquisitors, primarily Tetzel, with the name and the power of the pope, has been entirely omitted. However, instead of the declaration that it was immaterial to him what the pope did with his book, the fair copy now reads: 'For my own protection I let my book go out under the protection of your name, Holy Father, so that all well-meaning readers may know with what pure intentions I have sought to fathom the nature of ecclesiastical power and what reverence I hold toward the power of the keys. If I were as they describe me, the illustrious Elector Frederick of Saxony certainly would not suffer such a pestiferous boil in his university, for he is probably the greatest zealot for Catholic truth there is at the present time. Nor would the exceedingly intelligent and very diligent men of this university have tolerated me. Therefore, Most Holy Father, I cast myself at your feet with all that I am and possess. Raise me up or slay me, summon me hither or thither, approve me or reprove me as you please. I will listen to your voice as the voice of Christ reigning and speaking in you. If I have deserved death, I shall not refuse to die. For the earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof; blessed be He forever. Amen.'

"Thus in the fair copy he completely changed the conclusion of the letter. All expressions which were peculiarly indicative of his state of mind during these days he struck out and substituted phrases expressed in the conventional, curialistic style. Thus the whole letter, instead of being an open avowal of his inner independence of all human authorities, has now become a profession of his absolute subjection to the authority of the pope. Yet he permitted to remain one sentence which is altogether at odds with the new conclusion; "I cannot recant." Can we make him alone responsible for these changes which are so completely contradictory to the convictions which he elsewhere expressed so frankly and freely? No! The reference to the Catholic zeal of the Elector, which is altogether lacking in the first draft, betrays the hand of a courtier who was more familiar with the style of the Curia than was Luther. This courtier can have been none other than his friend Spalatin, who on later occasions was frequently obliged, generally at the command of the Elector, to cast into court language such high official letters and documents before they were forwarded. This is not to say that the Elector already had a hand in the matter in this instance. It is quite possible that Spalatin rendered him this friendly service on his own risk and responsibility."

Leipzig Debate With Johann Eck: "Papal" Portion From July 4-5, 1519

[in Roland H. Bainton, Here I Stand, New York: New American / Mentor, 1950, 88-89]

Even if there were ten popes or a thousand popes there would be no schism. The unity of Christendom could be preserved under numerous heads just as the separated nations under different sovereigns dwell in concord. . . .

I repulse the charge of Bohemianism. I have never approved of their schism. Even though they had divine right on their side, they ought not to have withdrawn from the Church, because the highest divine right is unity and charity.

[D'Aubigne, Book V, Chapter Five]

At seven in the morning the two disputants were in their pulpits, surrounded by a numerous and attentive assembly.

Luther stood up, and with a necessary precaution, he said modestly:

“In the name of the Lord, Amen! I declare that the respect I bear to the sovereign pontiff would have prevented my entering upon this discussion, if the excellent Dr. Eck had not dragged me into it.”

Eck. — “In thy name, gentle Jesus! before descending into the lists, I protest before you, most noble lords, that all that I may say is in submission to the judgment of the first of all sees, and of him who is its possessor.”

After a brief silence, Eck continued:

“There is in the Church of God a primacy that cometh from Christ himself. The Church militant was formed in the image of the Church triumphant. Now, the latter is a monarchy in which the hierarchy ascends step by step up to God, its sole chief. For this reason Christ has established a similar order upon earth. What a monster the Church would be if it were without a head!”2

Luther, turning towards the assembly. — “When Dr. Eck declares that the universal Church must have a head, he says well. If there is any one among us who maintains the contrary, let him stand up! As for me, it is no concern of mine.”

Eck. — “If the Church militant has never been without a head, I should like to know who it can be, if not the Roman pontiff?”

Luther. — “The head of the Church militant is Christ himself, and not a man. I believe this on the testimony of God’s Word. He must reign, says Scripture, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. Let us not listen to those who banish Christ to the Church triumphant in heaven. His kingdom is a kingdom of faith. We cannot see our Head, and yet we have one.”

Eck, who did not consider himself beaten, had recourse to other arguments, and resumed:

“It is from Rome, according to Saint Cyprian, that sacerdotal unity has proceeded.”

Luther. — “For the Western Church, I grant it. But is not this same Roman Church the offspring of that of Jerusalem? It is the latter, properly speaking, that is the nursing-mother of all the churches.”

Eck. — “Saint Jerome declares that if an extraordinary power, superior to all others, were not given to the pope, there would be in the churches as many sects as there were pontiffs.”

Luther. — “Given: that is to say, if all the rest of believers consent to it, this power might be conceded to the chief pontiff by human right. And I will not deny, that if all the believers in the world agree in recognizing as first and supreme pontiff either the Bishop of Rome, or of Paris, or of Magdeburg, we should acknowledge him as such from the respect due to this general agreement of the Church; but that has never been seen yet, and never will be seen. Even in our own days, does not the Greek Church refuse its assent to Rome?”

Luther was at that time prepared to acknowledge the pope as chief magistrate of the Church, freely elected by it; but he denied that he was pope of Divine right. It was not till much later that he denied that submission was in any way due to him: and this step he was led to take by the Leipsic disputation. . . .

Eck replied by one of those subtle distinctions that were so familiar to him:

“The bishop of Rome, if you will have it so, is not universal bishop, but bishop of the universal Church.”

Luther. — “I shall make no reply to this: let our hearers form their own opinion of it.” — “Certainly,” added he directly, “this is an explanation very worthy of a theologian, and calculated to satisfy a disputant who thirsts for glory. It is not for nothing, is seems, that I have remained at great expense at Leipsic, since I have learnt that the pope is not, in truth, the universal bishop, but the bishop of the universal Church!” . . .

Luther. — I do not like and I never shall like a schism. Since on their own authority the Bohemians have separated from our unity, they have done wrong, even if the Divine right had pronounced in favour of their doctrines; for the supreme Divine right is charity and oneness of mind.

[Latin translation: Nunquam mihi placuit, nec in aeternum placebit quodcunque schisma. Cum supremum jus divinum sit charitas et unitas spiritus. From: L. Opp. Lat. 1:250.

Catholic writer Patrick O'Hare (who exhibits considerable hostility towards his subject), in his work, The Facts About Martin Luther (F. Pustet & Co., 1916), on p. 361, translated this as follows:

Luther before he separated himself from obedience to Rome and when he seemed to abhor such a course, declared: "I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity."

Using an online Latin dictionary, (plus a second one), I shall translate Luther's words about schism:

Nunquam never
mihi me (or I?)
placuit (placitum = accord, agreement)
nec neither, nor
in in, or into, toward
aeternum eternal, everlasting, without end
placebit (placeo = to please, be agreeable to)
quodcunque (?)
schisma schism

In an article, "Martin Luther and His Work: Sixth Paper, the Widening of the Breach," by the Protestant historian Arthur C. McGiffert, published in The Century in 1911, we find another translation:

Never have I taken pleasure in any schism whatsoever, nor will I to the end of time. The Bohemians have done wrong in voluntarily separating from our communion, even if they have divine right on their side; for the highest divine right is love and unity of the Spirit.

D'Aubigne may have botched the precise documentation of the Latin source. Regular commenter on my blog Ben M. provided the following information:

It should be: L. Opp. Lat. 3:56. The quote is from the Disputatio et Excusatio F. Martini Lutheri adversus criminationes D. Johannes Eccii, which is in:

D. Martini Lutheri Opera latina varii argumenti ad Reformationis Historiam, 1866, Curavit, Dr. Henricus Schmidt, [Frankfort-on-the-Main & Erlangen], Heyder & Zimmer, Vol. 3, p. 56.

Also in the Weimar edition:

D. Martin Luthers Werke, Kritische Gesammausgabe, 1884, J.K.F. (Joachim Karl Friedrich) Knaake, (1835-1904), ed., Weimar, Herman Bohlaus, vol. 2, pp. 275-276.

Disputatio lohannis Eccii et Martini Lutheri Lipsiae habita, 1519.

Arguably, we see translation bias in prominent Luther biographer Roland Bainton, since his reading would cause one to think that Luther was only referring to the Bohemians and not schism in general. The other two Protestant historians give a sense far closer to the Catholic Patrick O'Hare's rendering:

Bainton: "I have never approved of their [the Bohemians'] schism."

D'Aubigne: "I do not like and I never shall like a schism."

McGiffert: "Never have I taken pleasure in any schism whatsoever, nor will I to the end of time."

O'Hare: "I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity." ]

To Georg Spalatin: July 20, 1519

[Smith, 64-68]

The next week he [Eck] debated me -- at first sharply about the primacy of the Pope. His strength lay in the words, "thou art Peter," "feed my sheep," "follow thou me," and "strengthen thy brethren," together with a lot of quotations from the fathers . . .

In rebuttal I pointed to the Greeks for a thousand years, and to the ancient Fathers who had not been under the sway of the Roman pontiff to whom I did not deny a precedence in honor.

To Georg Spalatin: February 24, 1520

[Smith, 73]

I am in such a passion that I scarcely doubt that the Pope is the Antichrist expected by the world, so closely do their acts, lives, sayings, and laws agree.

To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation: 23 June 1520

[From: Three Treatises, revised edition of 1970; taken from Luther's Works]

. . . the keys were not given to Peter alone but to the whole community. Further, the keys were not ordained for doctrine or government, but only for the binding and loosing of sin. Whatever else or whatever more they arrogate to themselves on the basis of the keys is a mere fabrication. But Christ's words to Peter, "I have prayed for you that your faith fail not" [Luke 23:32], cannot be applied to the pope, since the majority of the popes have been without faith, as they must themselves confess. . . .

Why, then, should we reject the word and understanding of good Christians and follow the pope, who has neither faith nor the Spirit. To follow the pope would be to deny the whole faith, as well as the Christian church. (pp. 20-21)

There is no authority in the church except to promote good. Therefore, if the pope were to use his authority to prevent the calling of a free council, thereby preventing the improvement of the church, we should have regard neither for him nor for his authority. And if he were to hurl his bans and thunderbolts, we should despise his conduct as that of a madman. On the contrary, we should excommunicate him and drive him out as best we could, relying completely on God. This presumptuous authority of his is nothing. He does not even have such authority. (p. 24)

[T]he Christian nobility should set itself against the pope as against a common enemy and destroyer of Christendom for the salvation of the poor souls who perish because of this tyranny. (p. 45)

. . . to help the German nation to be free and Christian again after the wretched, heathenish, and un-Christian rule of the pope. (p. 49)

. . . popes, bishops, canons, and monks. God has not instituted these offices. (p. 66)

If there were no other base trickery to prove that the pope is the true Antichrist, this one would be enough to prove it. Hear this, O pope, not of all men the holiest but of all men the most sinful! O that God from heaven would soon destroy your throne and sink it in the abyss of hell! Who has given you authority to exalt yourself above your God . . . ? (p. 85)

What else is papal power but simply the teaching and increasing of sin and wickedness? Papal power serves only to lead souls into damnation in your name and, to all outward appearances, with your approval! (p. 85)

The pope suppresses God's commandment and exalts his own. If he is not the Antichrist, then somebody tell me who is! (p. 86)

To Georg Spalatin: July 10, 1520

[Rupp (p. 81) observes: "The letters between Luther and Spalatin reveal the stress within the Reformer's mind and the attempt of the latter to act as a brake upon his leader's impetuosity."]

[Currie, 54-55]

For, even in Bohemia, there are people who will protect me, if I am exiled, against the enemy's thunderbolts. And then with such protection I might attack the Papacy still more vehemently . . .

For me the die is cast, and I despise Rome's displeasure as much as her favour. I shall never be reconciled to her, let her condemn or burn me as she will! But if I can get a fire I shall publicly burn the whole Papal code, this serpentine piece of treachery, and make an end of the humility I have hitherto displayed in vain, so that the enemies of the gospel may no longer vaunt themselves on account of it.

To John Lange: August 18, 1520

[Currie, 55-56]

We firmly believe here that the Papacy is the personification of Antichrist's throne, and feel we are justified in resisting their deceptions and wiles for the sake of the salvation of souls. I declare that I only owe the Pope the obedience due to Antichrist.

[Smith, 86]

From my heart I hate that man of sin and son of perdition, with all his kingdom, which is nothing but sin and hypocrisy.

To Georg Spalatin: October 11, 1520

[Bainton, 124]

The bull condemns Christ himself . . . I feel much freer now that I am certain the pope is Antichrist.

On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church: October 6, 1520

[From: Albert T.W. Steinhaeuser translation, 1915 edition of Works of Martin Luther, English text edited and modernized by Robert E. Smith]

But others, more shameless still, arrogantly ascribe to the pope the power to make laws, on the basis of Matthew 16, "Whatever you shall bind," etc., though Christ treats in this passage of binding and loosing sins, not of taking the whole Church captive and oppressing it with laws. So this tyranny treats everything with its own lying words and violently wrests and perverts the words of God. I admit indeed that Christians ought to bear this accursed tyranny just as they would bear any other violence of this world, according to Christ's word: " If someone strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him also the other cheek." But this is my complaint — that the godless pontiffs boastfully claim the right to do this, that they pretend to be seeking the Church's welfare with this Babylon of theirs, and that they foist this fiction upon all mankind. For if they did these things, and we suffered their violence, well knowing, both of us, that it was godlessness and tyranny, then we might number it among the things that contribute to the mortifying of this life and the fulfilling of our baptism, and might with a good conscience rejoice in the inflicted injury. But now they seek to deprive us of this consciousness of our liberty, and would have us believe that what they do is well done, and must not be censured or complained of as wrongdoing. Since they, wolves, they want to look like shepherds. Since they are antichrists, they want to be honored as Christ. (pp. 536-537)

Nevertheless, since few know this glory of baptism and the blessedness of Christian liberty, and cannot know them because of the tyranny of the pope, I for one will walk away from it all and redeem my conscience by bringing this charge against the pope and all his papists: Unless they will abolish their laws and traditions, and restore to Christ's churches their liberty and have it taught among them, they are guilty of all the souls that perish under this miserable captivity, and the papacy is truly the kingdom of Babylon, yes, the kingdom of the real Antichrist! For who is " the man of sin" and "the son of perdition" but he that with his doctrines and his laws increases sins and the perdition of souls in the Church, while he sits in the Church as if he were God? All this the papal tyranny has fulfilled, and more than fulfilled, these many centuries. It has extinguished faith, obscured the sacraments and oppressed the Gospel. But its own laws, which are not only impious and sacrilegious, but even barbarous and foolish, it has enjoined and multiplied world without end. (p. 537)

Not content with these things, this Babylon of ours has so completely extinguished faith that it insolently denies its necessity in this sacrament; no, with the wickedness of Antichrist: it calls it heresy if any one should assert its necessity. What more could this tyranny do that it has not done? (Isaiah 5:4) Verily, by the rivers of Babylon we sit and weep, when we remember you, O Zion. (Psalm 137:1, 2) We hang our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof. The Lord curse the barren willows of those streams! Amen. (p. 544)

And if pope, bishop or official annul any marriage because it was contracted contrary to the laws of men, he is antichrist, he does violence to nature, and is guilty of lese-majesty toward God, because this word stands, —�"What God has joined together, let no man put asunder." (Matthew 19:6) (p. 555)

To Hermann Tulich: October 6, 1520

[Currie, 56-57]

Eck and Emser opened my eyes as to the Pope's sovereignty; for although at first I maintained his right to the human title, I now see that the Papacy is the kingdom of Babylon, and the tyranny of Nimrod, the mighty hunter.

To Pope Leo X: October 13, 1520

[From the translation by R.S. Grignon, in Harvard Classics, New York: P.F. Collier & Son, 1910, vol. 36, 336-344]

[This was written at the same time as The Freedom of a Christian. Luther had received the papal bull threatening him with excommunication just three days earlier. He backdated it to September 6 to indicate that it was written before he had read the bull. It was published in Wittenberg before November 4, 1520]

Among those monstrous evils of this age with which I have now for three years been waging war, I am sometimes compelled to look to you and to call you to mind, most blessed father Leo. In truth, since you alone are everywhere considered as being the cause of my engaging in war, I cannot at any time fail to remember you; and although I have been compelled by the causeless raging of your impious flatterers against me to appeal from your seat to a future council--fearless of the futile decrees of your predecessors Pius and Julius, who in their foolish tyranny prohibited such an action--yet I have never been so alienated in feeling from your Blessedness as not to have sought with all my might, in diligent prayer and crying to God, all the best gifts for you and for your see. But those who have hitherto endeavoured to terrify me with the majesty of your name and authority, I have begun quite to despise and triumph over. One thing I see remaining which I cannot despise, and this has been the reason of my writing anew to your Blessedness: namely, that I find that blame is cast on me, and that it is imputed to me as a great offence, that in my rashness I am judged to have spared not even your person.

Now, to confess the truth openly, I am conscious that, whenever I have had to mention your person, I have said nothing of you but what was honourable and good. If I had done otherwise, I could by no means have approved my own conduct, but should have supported with all my power the judgment of those men concerning me, nor would anything have pleased me better, than to recant such rashness and impiety. I have called you Daniel in Babylon; and every reader thoroughly knows with what distinguished zeal I defended your conspicuous innocence against Silvester, who tried to stain it. Indeed, the published opinion of so many great men and the repute of your blameless life are too widely famed and too much reverenced throughout the world to be assailable by any man, of however great name, or by any arts. I am not so foolish as to attack one whom everybody praises; nay, it has been and always will be my desire not to attack even those whom public repute disgraces. I am not delighted at the faults of any man, since I am very conscious myself of the great beam in my own eye, nor can I be the first to cast a stone at the adulteress.

I have indeed inveighed sharply against impious doctrines, and I have not been slack to censure my adversaries on account, not of their bad morals, but of their impiety. And for this I am so far from being sorry that I have brought my mind to despise the judgments of men and to persevere in this vehement zeal, according to the example of Christ, who, in His zeal, calls His adversaries a generation of vipers, blind, hypocrites, and children of the devil. Paul, too, charges the sorcerer with being a child of the devil, full of all subtlety and all malice; and defames certain persons as evil workers, dogs, and deceivers. In the opinion of those delicate-eared persons, nothing could be more bitter or intemperate than Paul's language. What can be more bitter than the words of the prophets? The ears of our generation have been made so delicate by the senseless multitude of flatterers that, as soon as we perceive that anything of ours is not approved of, we cry out that we are being bitterly assailed; and when we can repel the truth by no other pretence, we escape by attributing bitterness, impatience, intemperance, to our adversaries. What would be the use of salt if it were not pungent, or of the edge of the sword if it did not slay? Accursed is the man who does the work of the Lord deceitfully.

Wherefore, most excellent Leo, I beseech you to accept my vindication, made in this letter, and to persuade yourself that I have never thought any evil concerning your person; further, that I am one who desires that eternal blessing may fall to your lot, and that I have no dispute with any man concerning morals, but only concerning the word of truth. In all other things I will yield to any one, but I neither can nor will forsake and deny the word. He who thinks otherwise of me, or has taken in my words in another sense, does not think rightly, and has not taken in the truth.

Your see, however, which is called the Court of Rome, and which neither you nor any man can deny to be more corrupt than any Babylon or Sodom, and quite, as I believe, of a lost, desperate, and hopeless impiety, this I have verily abominated, and have felt indignant that the people of Christ should be cheated under your name and the pretext of the Church of Rome; and so I have resisted, and will resist, as long as the spirit of faith shall live in me. Not that I am striving after impossibilities, or hoping that by my labours alone, against the furious opposition of so many flatterers, any good can be done in that most disordered Babylon; but that I feel myself a debtor to my brethren, and am bound to take thought for them, that fewer of them may be ruined, or that their ruin may be less complete, by the plagues of Rome. For many years now, nothing else has overflowed from Rome into the world--as you are not ignorant--than the laying waste of goods, of bodies, and of souls, and the worst examples of all the worst things. These things are clearer than the light to all men; and the Church of Rome, formerly the most holy of all Churches, has become the most lawless den of thieves, the most shameless of all brothels, the very kingdom of sin, death, and hell; so that not even antichrist, if he were to come, could devise any addition to its wickedness.

Meanwhile you, Leo, are sitting like a lamb, like Daniel in the midst of lions, and, with Ezekiel, you dwell among scorpions. What opposition can you alone make to these monstrous evils? Take to yourself three or four of the most learned and best of the cardinals. What are these among so many? You would all perish by poison before you could undertake to decide on a remedy. It is all over with the Court of Rome; the wrath of God has come upon her to the uttermost. She hates councils; she dreads to be reformed; she cannot restrain the madness of her impiety; she fills up the sentence passed on her mother, of whom it is said, "We would have healed Babylon, but she is not healed; let us forsake her." It had been your duty and that of your cardinals to apply a remedy to these evils, but this gout laughs at the physician's hand, and the chariot does not obey the reins. Under the influence of these feelings, I have always grieved that you, most excellent Leo, who were worthy of a better age, have been made pontiff in this. For the Roman Court is not worthy of you and those like you, but of Satan himself, who in truth is more the ruler in that Babylon than you are.

Oh, would that, having laid aside that glory which your most abandoned enemies declare to be yours, you were living rather in the office of a private priest or on your paternal inheritance! In that glory none are worthy to glory, except the race of Iscariot, the children of perdition. For what happens in your court, Leo, except that, the more wicked and execrable any man is, the more prosperously he can use your name and authority for the ruin of the property and souls of men, for the multiplication of crimes, for the oppression of faith and truth and of the whole Church of God? Oh, Leo! in reality most unfortunate, and sitting on a most perilous throne, I tell you the truth, because I wish you well; for if Bernard felt compassion for Eugenius III, formerly abbot of St. Anastasius his Anastasius at a time when the Roman see, though even then most corrupt, was as yet ruling with better hope than now, why should not we lament, to whom so much further corruption and ruin has been added in three hundred years?

Is it not true that there is nothing under the vast heavens more corrupt, more pestilential, more hateful, than the Court of Rome? She incomparably surpasses the impiety of the Turks, so that in very truth she, who was formerly the gate of heaven, is now a sort of open mouth of hell, and such a mouth as, under the urgent wrath of God, cannot be blocked up; one course alone being left to us wretched men: to call back and save some few, if we can, from that Roman gulf.

Behold, Leo, my father, with what purpose and on what principle it is that I have stormed against that seat of pestilence. I am so far from having felt any rage against your person that I even hoped to gain favour with you and to aid you in your welfare by striking actively and vigorously at that your prison, nay, your hell. For whatever the efforts of all minds can contrive against the confusion of that impious Court will be advantageous to you and to your welfare, and to many others with you. Those who do harm to her are doing your office; those who in every way abhor her are glorifying Christ; in short, those are Christians who are not Romans.

But, to say yet more, even this never entered my heart: to inveigh against the Court of Rome or to dispute at all about her. For, seeing all remedies for her health to be desperate, I looked on her with contempt, and, giving her a bill of divorcement, said to her, "He that is unjust, let him be unjust still; and he that is filthy, let him be filthy still," giving myself up to the peaceful and quiet study of sacred literature, that by this I might be of use to the brethren living about me.

While I was making some advance in these studies, Satan opened his eyes and goaded on his servant John Eccius, that notorious adversary of Christ, by the unchecked lust for fame, to drag me unexpectedly into the arena, trying to catch me in one little word concerning the primacy of the Church of Rome, which had fallen from me in passing. That boastful Thraso, foaming and gnashing his teeth, proclaimed that he would dare all things for the glory of God and for the honour of the holy apostolic seat; and, being puffed up respecting your power, which he was about to misuse, he looked forward with all certainty to victory; seeking to promote, not so much the primacy of Peter, as his own pre-eminence among the theologians of this age; for he thought it would contribute in no slight degree to this, if he were to lead Luther in triumph. The result having proved unfortunate for the sophist, an incredible rage torments him; for he feels that whatever discredit to Rome has arisen through me has been caused by the fault of himself alone.

Suffer me, I pray you, most excellent Leo, both to plead my own cause, and to accuse your true enemies. I believe it is known to you in what way Cardinal Cajetan, your imprudent and unfortunate, nay unfaithful, legate, acted towards me. When, on account of my reverence for your name, I had placed myself and all that was mine in his hands, he did not so act as to establish peace, which he could easily have established by one little word, since I at that time promised to be silent and to make an end of my case, if he would command my adversaries to do the same. But that man of pride, not content with this agreement, began to justify my adversaries, to give them free licence, and to order me to recant, a thing which was certainly not in his commission. Thus indeed, when the case was in the best position, it came through his vexatious tyranny into a much worse one. Therefore whatever has followed upon this is the fault not of Luther, but entirely of Cajetan, since he did not suffer me to be silent and remain quiet, which at that time I was entreating for with all my might. What more was it my duty to do?

Next came Charles Miltitz, also a nuncio from your Blessedness. He, though he went up and down with much and varied exertion, and omitted nothing which could tend to restore the position of the cause thrown into confusion by the rashness and pride of Cajetan, had difficulty, even with the help of that very illustrious prince the Elector Frederick, in at last bringing about more than one familiar conference with me. In these I again yielded to your great name, and was prepared to keep silence, and to accept as my judge either the Archbishop of Treves, or the Bishop of Naumburg; and thus it was done and concluded. While this was being done with good hope of success, lo! that other and greater enemy of yours, Eccius, rushed in with his Leipsic disputation, which he had undertaken against Carlstadt, and, having taken up a new question concerning the primacy of the Pope, turned his arms unexpectedly against me, and completely overthrew the plan for peace. Meanwhile Charles Miltitz was waiting, disputations were held, judges were being chosen, but no decision was arrived at. And no wonder! for by the falsehoods, pretences, and arts of Eccius the whole business was brought into such thorough disorder, confusion, and festering soreness, that, whichever way the sentence might lean, a greater conflagration was sure to arise; for he was seeking, not after truth, but after his own credit. In this case too I omitted nothing which it was right that I should do.

I confess that on this occasion no small part of the corruptions of Rome came to light; but, if there was any offence in this, it was the fault of Eccius, who, in taking on him a burden beyond his strength, and in furiously aiming at credit for himself, unveiled to the whole world the disgrace of Rome.

Here is that enemy of yours, Leo, or rather of your Court; by his example alone we may learn that an enemy is not more baneful than a flatterer. For what did he bring about by his flattery, except evils which no king could have brought about? At this day the name of the Court of Rome stinks in the nostrils of the world, the papal authority is growing weak, and its notorious ignorance is evil spoken of. We should hear none of these things, if Eccius had not disturbed the plans of Miltitz and myself for peace. He feels this clearly enough himself in the indignation he shows, too late and in vain, against the publication of my books. He ought to have reflected on this at the time when he was all mad for renown, and was seeking in your cause nothing but his own objects, and that with the greatest peril to you. The foolish man hoped that, from fear of your name, I should yield and keep silence; for I do not think he presumed on his talents and learning. Now, when he sees that I am very confident and speak aloud, he repents too late of his rashness, and sees--if indeed he does see it--that there is One in heaven who resists the proud, and humbles the presumptuous.

Since then we were bringing about by this disputation nothing but the greater confusion of the cause of Rome, Charles Miltitz for the third time addressed the Fathers of the Order, assembled in chapter, and sought their advice for the settlement of the case, as being now in a most troubled and perilous state. Since, by the favour of God, there was no hope of proceeding against me by force, some of the more noted of their number were sent to me, and begged me at least to show respect to your person and to vindicate in a humble letter both your innocence and my own. They said that the affair was not as yet in a position of extreme hopelessness, if Leo X., in his inborn kindliness, would put his hand to it. On this I, who have always offered and wished for peace, in order that I might devote myself to calmer and more useful pursuits, and who for this very purpose have acted with so much spirit and vehemence, in order to put down by the strength and impetuosity of my words, as well as of my feelings, men whom I saw to be very far from equal to myself--I, I say, not only gladly yielded, but even accepted it with joy and gratitude, as the greatest kindness and benefit, if you should think it right to satisfy my hopes.

Thus I come, most blessed Father, and in all abasement beseech you to put to your hand, if it is possible, and impose a curb to those flatterers who are enemies of peace, while they pretend peace. But there is no reason, most blessed Father, why any one should assume that I am to utter a recantation, unless he prefers to involve the case in still greater confusion. Moreover, I cannot bear with laws for the interpretation of the word of God, since the word of God, which teaches liberty in all other things, ought not to be bound. Saving these two things, there is nothing which I am not able, and most heartily willing, to do or to suffer. I hate contention; I will challenge no one; in return I wish not to be challenged; but, being challenged, I will not be dumb in the cause of Christ my Master. For your Blessedness will be able by one short and easy word to call these controversies before you and suppress them, and to impose silence and peace on both sides--a word which I have ever longed to hear.

Therefore, Leo, my Father, beware of listening to those sirens who make you out to be not simply a man, but partly a god, so that you can command and require whatever you will. It will not happen so, nor will you prevail. You are the servant of servants, and more than any other man, in a most pitiable and perilous position. Let not those men deceive you who pretend that you are lord of the world; who will not allow any one to be a Christian without your authority; who babble of your having power over heaven, hell, and purgatory. These men are your enemies and are seeking your soul to destroy it, as Isaiah say, "My people, they that call thee blessed are themselves deceiving thee." They are in error who raise you above councils and the universal Church; they are in error who attribute to you alone the right of interpreting Scripture. All these men are seeking to set up their own impieties in the Church under your name, and alas! Satan has gained much through them in the time of your predecessors.

In brief, trust not in any who exalt you, but in those who humiliate you. For this is the judgment of God: "He hath cast down the mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the humble." See how unlike Christ was to His successors, though all will have it that they are His vicars. I fear that in truth very many of them have been in too serious a sense His vicars, for a vicar represents a prince who is absent. Now if a pontiff rules while Christ is absent and does not dwell in his heart, what else is he but a vicar of Christ? And then what is that Church but a multitude without Christ? What indeed is such a vicar but antichrist and an idol? How much more rightly did the Apostles speak, who call themselves servants of a present Christ, not the vicars of an absent one!

Perhaps I am shamelessly bold in seeming to teach so great a head, by whom all men ought to be taught, and from whom, as those plagues of yours boast, the thrones of judges receive their sentence; but I imitate St. Bernard in his book concerning Considerations addressed to Eugenius, a book which ought to be known by heart by every pontiff. I do this, not from any desire to teach, but as a duty, from that simple and faithful solicitude which teaches us to be anxious for all that is safe for our neighbours, and does not allow considerations of worthiness or unworthiness to be entertained, being intent only on the dangers or advantage of others. For since I know that your Blessedness is driven and tossed by the waves at Rome, so that the depths of the sea press on you with infinite perils, and that you are labouring under such a condition of misery that you need even the least help from any the least brother, I do not seem to myself to be acting unsuitably if I forget your majesty till I shall have fulfilled the office of charity. I will not flatter in so serious and perilous a matter; and if in this you do not see that I am your friend and most thoroughly your subject, there is One to see and judge.

In fine, that I may not approach you empty-handed, blessed Father, I bring with me this little treatise, published under your name, as a good omen of the establishment of peace and of good hope. By this you may perceive in what pursuits I should prefer and be able to occupy myself to more profit, if I were allowed, or had been hitherto allowed, by your impious flatterers. It is a small matter, if you look to its exterior, but, unless I mistake, it is a summary of the Christian life put together in small compass, if you apprehend its meaning. I, in my poverty, have no other present to make you, nor do you need anything else than to be enriched by a spiritual gift. I commend myself to your Paternity and Blessedness, whom may the Lord Jesus preserve for ever. Amen.

Against the Execrable Bull of Antichrist: 1 December 1520

[From Bainton: 125-126]

I have heard that a bull against me has gone through the whole earth before it came to me, because being a daughter of darkness it feared the light of my face. For this reason and also because it condemns manifestly Christian articles I had my doubts whether it really came from Rome and was not rather the progeny of that man of lies, dissimulation, errors, and heresy, that monster John Eck. The suspicion was further increased when it was said that Eck was the apostle of the bull. Indeed the style and the spittle all point to Eck. True, it is not impossible that where Eck is the apostle there one should find the kingdom of Antichrist. Nevertheless in the meantime I will act as if I thought Leo not responsible, not that I may honor the Roman name, but because I do not consider myself worthy to suffer such high things for the truth of God. For who before God would be happier than Luther if he were condemned from so great and high a source for such manifest truth? But the cause seeks a worthier martyr. I with my sins merit other things. But whoever wrote this bull, he is Antichrist. I protest before God, our Lord Jesus, his sacred angels, and the whole world that with my whole heart I dissent from the damnation of this bull, that I curse and execrate it as sacrilege and blasphemy of Christ, God's Son and our Lord. This be my recantation, O bull, thou daughter of bulls.

Having given my testimony I proceed to take up the bull. Peter said that you should give a reason for the faith that is in you, but this bull condemns me from its own word without any proof from Scripture, whereas I back up all my assertions from the Bible. I ask thee, ignorant
Antichrist, dost thou think that with thy naked words thou canst prevail against the armor of Scripture? Hast thou learned this from Cologne and Louvain? If this is all it takes, just to say, "I dissent, I deny," what fool, what ass, what mole, what log could not condemn? Does not thy
meretricious brow blush that with thine inane smoke thou withstandest the lightning of the divine Word? Why do we not believe the Turks? Why do we not admit the Jews? Why do we not honor the heretics if damning is all that it takes? But Luther, who is used to bellum, is not
afraid of bullam. I can distinguish between inane paper and the omnipotent Word of God.

They show their ignorance and bad conscience by inventing the adverb "respectively." My articles are called "respectively some heretical, some erroneous, some scandalous," which is as much as to say, "We don't know which are which." O meticulous ignorance! I wish to be instructed, not respectively, but absolutely and certainly. I demand that they show absolutely, not respectively, distinctly and not confusedly, certainly and not probably, clearly and riot obscurely, point by point and not in a lump, just what is heretical. Let them show where I am a heretic, or dry up their spittle. They say that some articles are heretical, some erroneous,
some scandalous, some offensive. The implication is that those which are heretical are not erroneous, those which are erroneous are not scandalous, and those which are scandalous are not offensive. What then is this, to say that something is not heretical, not scandalous, not false, but yet is offensive? So then, you impious and insensate papists, write soberly if you want to write. Whether this bull is by Eck or by the pope, it is the sum of all impiety, blasphemy, ignorance, impudence, hypocrisy, lying- in a word, it is Satan and his Antichrist.

Where are you now, most excellent Charles the Emperor, kings, and Christian princes? You were baptized into the name of Christ, and can you suffer these Tartar voices of Antichrist? Where are you, bishops? Where, doctors? Where are you who confess Christ? Woe to all who live in these times. The wrath of God is coming upon the papists, the enemies of the cross of Christ, that all men should resist them. You then, Leo X, you cardinals and the rest of you at Rome, I tell you to your faces: "If this bull has come out in your name, then I will use the power which has been given me in baptism whereby I became a son of God and co-heir with Christ, established upon the rock against which the gates of hell cannot prevail. I call upon you to renounce your diabolical blasphemy and audacious impiety, and, if you will not, we shall all hold your seat as possessed and oppressed by Satan, the damned seat of Antichrist, in the name of Jesus Christ, whom you persecute." But my zeal carries me away. I am not yet persuaded that the bull is by the pope but rather by that apostle of impiety, John Eck. . . .

If anyone despise my fraternal warning, I am free from his blood in the last judgment. It is better that I should die a thousand times than that I should retract one syllable of the condemned articles. And as they excommunicated me for the sacrilege of heresy, so I excommunicate them in the name of the sacred truth of God. Christ will judge whose
excommunication will stand. Amen.

Biblical Evidence For Invocation of Angels For Intercessory Purposes / Asking For Dead Men's Intercession, and Their Prayers For Us

Archangel Michael, by Guido Reni, 1630

[ source ]

See related papers:

Prayer to Jesus in the NT / Prayer to All Three Persons in the Trinity (Perichoresis / Circumincession)

The Lack of Prayer to the Holy Spirit in the NT as an Analogy to the Invocation and Intercession of the Saints and Angels ("Adomnan")

Protestants (Trinitarians) Who Forbid Prayer to the Holy Spirit and/or to Jesus (Sola Scriptura Reductio ad Absurdum)

All verses are from RSV.

* * * * *

The argument is a rather simple one, based on a combination of different factors. The nutshell (mostly) implicitly biblical argument for asking saints to pray for us is as follows:

1) We ask others to pray for us.

2) Those who die in Christ are still alive and part of the Body of Christ too.

3) Saints in heaven are aware of earthly events.

4) We see them praying for us in at least one instance in the Bible.

5) The prayer of a righteous man avails much.

6) Saints are perfected in holiness and sanctity.

7) Therefore their prayers would have much power.

8) Ergo, we can ask them to intercede to God for us.

My papers fleshing out the biblical data on all this can be found on my Saints, Purgatory, and Penance web page. The argument for asking angels to pray can be constructed in similar fashion:

1) We ask others to pray for us.

2) Angels are messengers from God who are part of His purposes and who care very much about the fate of human beings.

3) Angels are aware of earthly events to an extraordinary degree, being super-intelligent beings.

4) We see them offering the "prayers of the saints" to God in at least one instance in the Bible.

5) The Bible says that the prayer of a righteous man avails much. How much more so, the prayers of angels, who are unfallen creatures.

6) Angels (excepting the fallen angels of demons) always have been perfected in holiness and sanctity.

7) Therefore their prayers would have much power.

8) Ergo, we can ask them to intercede to God for us.

Presently, I'll be doing something a little different, as suggested by recent insightful comments from several Catholic commenters on my blog. Here is the briefest version of the argument:

1) Men talk to angels.

2) What's the difference if they are in heaven or on earth when this happens?

3) Scripture even gives examples of conversation with dead men (Transfiguration, Saul talking to the dead Samuel, etc.)

4) Angels are extremely intelligent and can deduce our thoughts and follow our actions, and they intensely care about us and are able to help us.

5) Therefore we can ask angels to pray.

Men Talking to Angels

[Note: the "angel of the LORD" is, on several occasions, but not always, equated in context with God Himself. Keep in mind, then, that in those instances it may be God Who is being addressed, not a created angel, which is a different scenario than what the present argument is addressing. For more on that, see my paper, The Holy Trinity: Biblical Proofs (section VIII)]

Genesis 19:1-2 The two angels came to Sodom in the evening; and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them, and bowed himself with his face to the earth, and said, "My lords, turn aside, I pray you, to your servant's house and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise up early and go on your way." They said, "No; we will spend the night in the street."

Numbers 22:34-35 Then Balaam said to the angel of the LORD, "I have sinned, for I did not know that thou didst stand in the road against me. Now therefore, if it is evil in thy sight, I will go back again." And the angel of the LORD said to Balaam, "Go with the men; but only the word which I bid you, that shall you speak." So Balaam went on with the princes of Balak.

Psalm 103:20 Bless the LORD, O you his angels, you mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word! (cf. 148:2)

Zechariah 1:9,13-14,19 Then I said, `What are these, my lord?' The angel who talked with me said to me, `I will show you what they are.' . . . And the LORD answered gracious and comforting words to the angel who talked with me. So the angel who talked with me said to me . . . And I said to the angel who talked with me, "What are these?" And he answered me, "These are the horns which have scattered Judah, Israel, and Jerusalem."

Zechariah 2:1-3 And I lifted my eyes and saw, and behold, a man with a measuring line in his hand! Then I said, "Where are you going?" And he said to me, "To measure Jerusalem, to see what is its breadth and what is its length." And behold, the angel who talked with me came forward, and another angel came forward to meet him,

Zechariah 4:1,4-5 And the angel who talked with me came again, and waked me, like a man that is wakened out of his sleep. And I said to the angel who talked with me, "What are these, my lord?" Then the angel who talked with me answered me, "Do you not know what these are?" I said, "No, my lord." (cf. 5:5,10; 6:4-5)

Luke 1:18-19 And Zechari'ah said to the angel, "How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in years." And the angel answered him, "I am Gabriel, who stand in the presence of God; and I was sent to speak to you, and to bring you this good news.

Luke 1:30,34,38 And the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. . . . And Mary said to the angel, "How shall this be, since I have no husband?" . . . And Mary said, "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word." And the angel departed from her.

Revelation 10:8-9 Then the voice which I had heard from heaven spoke to me again, saying, "Go, take the scroll which is open in the hand of the angel who is standing on the sea and on the land." So I went to the angel and told him to give me the little scroll; and he said to me, "Take it and eat; it will be bitter to your stomach, but sweet as honey in your mouth."

Men Making Requests or Petitions of Angels (That Are Granted)

Genesis 19:15,18-21 When morning dawned, the angels urged Lot, saying, "Arise, take your wife and your two daughters who are here, lest you be consumed in the punishment of the city.". . . And Lot said to them, "Oh, no, my lords; behold, your servant has found favor in your sight, and you have shown me great kindness in saving my life; but I cannot flee to the hills, lest the disaster overtake me, and I die. Behold, yonder city is near enough to flee to, and it is a little one. Let me escape there -- is it not a little one? -- and my life will be saved!" He said to him, "Behold, I grant you this favor also, that I will not overthrow the city of which you have spoken.

Genesis 32:24-29 And Jacob was left alone; and a man wrestled with him until the breaking of the day. When the man saw that he did not prevail against Jacob, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and Jacob's thigh was put out of joint as he wrestled with him. Then he said, "Let me go, for the day is breaking." But Jacob said, "I will not let you go, unless you bless me." And he said to him, "What is your name?" And he said, "Jacob." Then he said, "Your name shall no more be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed." Then Jacob asked him, "Tell me, I pray, your name." But he said, "Why is it that you ask my name?" And there he blessed him.

Genesis 48:14-16 And Israel stretched out his right hand and laid it upon the head of E'phraim, who was the younger, and his left hand upon the head of Manas'seh, crossing his hands, for Manas'seh was the first-born. And he blessed Joseph, and said, "The God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked, the God who has led me all my life long to this day, the angel who has redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and in them let my name be perpetuated, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth."

Angels Pray to God For Men and Give Grace

Zechariah 1:12 Then the angel of the LORD said, `O LORD of hosts, how long wilt thou have no mercy on Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, against which thou hast had indignation these seventy years?'

Tobit 12:12a,15 And so, when you and your daughter-in-law Sarah prayed, I brought a reminder of your prayer before the Holy One; . . . I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints and enter into the presence of the glory of the Holy One."

Revelation 1:4 . . . Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne,

Revelation 8:3-4 And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God.

Angels Communicating to Men From Heaven
(Thus Implying That the Reverse is Also Possible)

Genesis 21:17-18 And God heard the voice of the lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven, and said to her, "What troubles you, Hagar? Fear not; for God has heard the voice of the lad where he is. Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him fast with your hand; for I will make him a great nation."

Men Seeing Angels in Heaven

Genesis 28:12-13 And he dreamed that there was a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven; and behold, the angels of God were ascending and descending on it! And behold, the LORD stood above it and said, "I am the LORD, the God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac; the land on which you lie I will give to you and to your descendants;

John 1:51 And he said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man."

Revelation 5:11 Then I looked, and I heard around the throne and the living creatures and the elders the voice of many angels, numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands,

Revelation 7:11 And all the angels stood round the throne and round the elders and the four living creatures, and they fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God,

Revelation 8:2 Then I saw the seven angels who stand before God, and seven trumpets were given to them.

Revelation 10:1 Then I saw another mighty angel coming down from heaven, wrapped in a cloud, with a rainbow over his head, and his face was like the sun, and his legs like pillars of fire.

Revelation 12:7 Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought,

Revelation 14:17 And another angel came out of the temple in heaven, and he too had a sharp sickle.

Revelation 15:1 Then I saw another portent in heaven, great and wonderful, seven angels with seven plagues, which are the last, for with them the wrath of God is ended.

Revelation 18:1 After this I saw another angel coming down from heaven, having great authority; and the earth was made bright with his splendor.

Revelation 20:1 Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain. (cf. also Paul's experience of being caught up to the "third heaven": 2 Cor 12:1-4)

Protection of Angels / Guardian Angels

Psalm 34:7 The angel of the LORD encamps around those who fear him, and delivers them.

Psalm 91:9-12 Because you have made the LORD your refuge, the Most High your habitation, no evil shall befall you, no scourge come near your tent. For he will give his angels charge of you to guard you in all your ways. On their hands they will bear you up, lest you dash your foot against a stone.

Isaiah 63:9 In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them; in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; he lifted them up and carried them all the days of old.

Daniel 6:22 My God sent his angel and shut the lions' mouths, and they have not hurt me, because I was found blameless before him; and also before you, O king, I have done no wrong."

Tobit 12:12b-13 . . . when you buried the dead, I was likewise present with you. When you did not hesitate to rise and leave your dinner in order to go and lay out the dead, your good deed was not hidden from me, but I was with you.

Matthew 18:10 "See that you do not despise one of these little ones; for I tell you that in heaven their angels always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven.

Luke 4:10 for it is written, `He will give his angels charge of you, to guard you,' (cf. also Matthew 26:53)

* * * * *

One Dead Man Petitions Another (Abraham), and is Twice Refused

Luke 16:19-31 "There was a rich man, who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. And at his gate lay a poor man named Laz'arus, full of sores, who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table; moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried; and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes, and saw Abraham far off and Laz'arus in his bosom. And he called out, `Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Laz'arus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame.' But Abraham said, `Son, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Laz'arus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.' And he said, `Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house, for I have five brothers, so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.' But Abraham said, `They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.' And he said, `No, father Abraham; but if some one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' He said to him, `If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead.'"

Saul Petitions the Prophet Samuel After the Latter's Death and is Refused

1 Samuel 28:15-16 Then Samuel said to Saul, "Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?" Saul answered, "I am in great distress; for the Philistines are warring against me, and God has turned away from me and answers me no more, either by prophets or by dreams; therefore I have summoned you to tell me what I shall do." And Samuel said, "Why then do you ask me, since the LORD has turned from you and become your enemy?

Dead Saints Pray For Those on Earth

Jeremiah 15:1 Then the LORD said to me, "Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my heart would not turn toward this people. Send them out of my sight, and let them go!

[Moses and Samuel were renowned among both Jews and Christians for their powerful intercession (Ex 32:11-12; 1 Sam 7:9; Ps 99:6; Jer 15:1) ]

2 Maccabees 15:11-16 He [Judas Maccabeus] armed each of them not so much with confidence in shields and spears as with the inspiration of brave words, and he cheered them all by relating a dream, a sort of vision, which was worthy of belief. What he saw was this: Onias, who had been high priest, a noble and good man, of modest bearing and gentle manner, one who spoke fittingly and had been trained from childhood in all that belongs to excellence, was praying with outstretched hands for the whole body of the Jews. Then likewise a man appeared, distinguished by his gray hair and dignity, and of marvelous majesty and authority. And Onias spoke, saying, "This is a man who loves the brethren and prays much for the people and the holy city, Jeremiah, the prophet of God." Jeremiah stretched out his right hand and gave to Judas a golden sword, and as he gave it he addressed him thus: "Take this holy sword, a gift from God, with which you will strike down your adversaries."

Revelation 5:8 And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints; (cf. Tobit 12:12,15; Rev 8:3-4)

Revelation 6:9-10 When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne; they cried out with a loud voice, "O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before thou wilt judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell upon the earth?"

[these are what is called "imprecatory prayers"; cf. Ps 35, 59, 69, 79, 109, 139; Jer 11:18 ff.; 15:15 ff.; 18:19 ff.; 20:11 ff; Zech 1:12]

Dead Saints Appear on Earth Again and Talk to Men

1 Samuel 28:7-20 Then Saul said to his servants, "Seek out for me a woman who is a medium, that I may go to her and inquire of her." And his servants said to him, "Behold, there is a medium at Endor." So Saul disguised himself and put on other garments, and went, he and two men with him; and they came to the woman by night. And he said, "Divine for me by a spirit, and bring up for me whomever I shall name to you." The woman said to him, "Surely you know what Saul has done, how he has cut off the mediums and the wizards from the land. Why then are you laying a snare for my life to bring about my death?" But Saul swore to her by the LORD, "As the LORD lives, no punishment shall come upon you for this thing." Then the woman said, "Whom shall I bring up for you?" He said, "Bring up Samuel for me." When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out with a loud voice; and the woman said to Saul, "Why have you deceived me? You are Saul." The king said to her, "Have no fear; what do you see?" And the woman said to Saul, "I see a god coming up out of the earth." He said to her, "What is his appearance?" And she said, "An old man is coming up; and he is wrapped in a robe." And Saul knew that it was Samuel, and he bowed with his face to the ground, and did obeisance. Then Samuel said to Saul, "Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?" Saul answered, "I am in great distress; for the Philistines are warring against me, and God has turned away from me and answers me no more, either by prophets or by dreams; therefore I have summoned you to tell me what I shall do." And Samuel said, "Why then do you ask me, since the LORD has turned from you and become your enemy? The LORD has done to you as he spoke by me; for the LORD has torn the kingdom out of your hand, and given it to your neighbor, David. Because you did not obey the voice of the LORD, and did not carry out his fierce wrath against Am'alek, therefore the LORD has done this thing to you this day. Moreover the LORD will give Israel also with you into the hand of the Philistines; and tomorrow you and your sons shall be with me; the LORD will give the army of Israel also into the hand of the Philistines." Then Saul fell at once full length upon the ground, filled with fear because of the words of Samuel; and there was no strength in him, for he had eaten nothing all day and all night.

[the current consensus among commentators is that this is Samuel the prophet, after his death, not a demon impersonator as a result of the occultic practices of the medium (see, e.g., New Bible Commentary, p. 301; Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 292). This was also the view of the ancient rabbis, St. Justin Martyr, Origen, and St. Augustine, among others. Samuel was in Sheol or Hades, which explains his being "brought up" and saying that Saul would "be with" him when he dies. Samuel's true prophecy of the Israeli defeat and Saul's death (28:19) mitigates against an impersonating demon, as does the medium's stunned reaction (28:12-13). Samuel speaks prophetically just as he did while on the earth.]

Sirach 46:19-20 Before the time of his eternal sleep, Samuel called men to witness before the Lord and his anointed: "I have not taken any one's property, not so much as a pair of shoes." And no man accused him. Even after he had fallen asleep he prophesied and revealed to the king his death, and lifted up his voice out of the earth in prophecy, to blot out the wickedness of the people.

Matthew 17:1-4 And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James and John his brother, and led them up a high mountain apart. And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his garments became white as light. And behold, there appeared to them Moses and Eli'jah, talking with him. And Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is well that we are here; if you wish, I will make three booths here, one for you and one for Moses and one for Eli'jah." (cf. Mk 9:2-5; Lk 9:29-33)

Matthew 27:50-53 And Jesus cried again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit. And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom; and the earth shook, and the rocks were split; the tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.

Revelation 11:3-12 And I will grant my two witnesses power to prophesy for one thousand two hundred and sixty days, clothed in sackcloth." These are the two olive trees and the two lampstands which stand before the Lord of the earth. And if any one would harm them, fire pours out from their mouth and consumes their foes; if any one would harm them, thus he is doomed to be killed. They have power to shut the sky, that no rain may fall during the days of their prophesying, and they have power over the waters to turn them into blood, and to smite the earth with every plague, as often as they desire. And when they have finished their testimony, the beast that ascends from the bottomless pit will make war upon them and conquer them and kill them, and their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which is allegorically called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified. For three days and a half men from the peoples and tribes and tongues and nations gaze at their dead bodies and refuse to let them be placed in a tomb, and those who dwell on the earth will rejoice over them and make merry and exchange presents, because these two prophets had been a torment to those who dwell on the earth. But after the three and a half days a breath of life from God entered them, and they stood up on their feet, and great fear fell on those who saw them. Then they heard a loud voice from heaven saying to them, "Come up hither!" And in the sight of their foes they went up to heaven in a cloud.

[The actions of the two witnesses echo those of Moses before Pharaoh and Elijah; especially the turning of water into blood, and the plagues (cf. Mal 4:4-6; Matt 17:11, Transfiguration accounts). As for the stopping of the rain, cf. Elijah: James 5:16-18. Elijah also went up to heaven in a whirlwind (2 Ki 2:1,11). Many Church fathers thought they were Enoch and Elijah, because Enoch, like Elijah, never died (Gen 5:24; Sir 44:16; 49:14; Heb 11:5) ]

* * * * *

In summary, then, what have we learned about biblical data for the notion of asking angels and dead saints to pray for us and intercede before God for us? Plenty:

1) Men talk to angels (16 scriptural examples given)

2) Men make requests or petitions to angels and their wishes are granted (Gen 19, 32, 48).

3) Angels pray to God on behalf of men; they intercede for us (four examples given).

4) Angels even participate in giving grace (Rev 1:4; cf. Tob 12:12,15).

5) Angels talk to human beings from heaven (Gen 21:17-18).

6) Men see angels in heaven (11 examples given).

7) Angels protect and guard men (seven examples).

It is obvious that angels are aware of earthly events, and care about us. All of the data above leads to the deductive conclusion that it is perfectly permissible to ask an angel to pray for us. Three explicit examples occur in Holy Scripture of this very thing. It matters not where the angel is when it hears (#1) and grants the prayer request or intercedes before God, because, in fact, angels are not in space anyway. Our relation to them is the same wherever they "are."

Therefore, since Scripture shows that they can be asked by human beings for their help, and fulfillments of these requests are even granted (#2), and grace given through angels (#4), the doctrine is proven, as they are extremely intelligent and are not confined to space. We know that angels intercede for us (four examples: #3). Therefore, since they are acutely aware of us, and in fact, we all have guardian angels (#7), we can ask them to do so. If the objection is to angels not being in front of us to talk to, we reply that in one instance, an angel talked to a person on earth from heaven (#5) and that men have often seen angels in heaven (#6). Thus, in all respects, the doctrine is proven from Holy Scripture.

The data regarding dead saints is harmonious with the above, and reinforces and expands it:

1) A dead man petitions or "prays" to another dead man (Abraham: Luke 16).

2) Abraham refuses his requests twice, thus showing that dead men can play a part, in conjunction with God, even in turning down (or by implication, also fulfilling) prayer requests.

3) Saul petitions or "prays" to the dead prophet Samuel and his request is declined (1 Sam 28:15-16). But there is no indication that he is forbidden to even make the request. Saul prayed to a dead person, not just an impersonating demon!

4) It's strongly implied that Moses and Samuel continue to intercede for us long after their deaths (Jer 15:1).

5) Onias and Jeremiah pray for the Jews long after their deaths (2 Mac 15:11-16). Even for those who reject this book as part of Scripture (on inadequate grounds), it nevertheless shows that Jews held this belief.

6) Many other dead saints intercede and pray for us (Rev 5:8, 6:9-10).

7) The prophet Samuel appeared on earth again to prophesy to Samuel of his impending death (1 Sam 28:7-20; Sir 46:19-20).

8) Moses and Elijah appear on earth and talk to Jesus within earshot of the disciples (Matt 17:1-4).

9) "Many" dead saints rose and walked around Jerusalem after the crucifixion (Matt 27:50-53).

10) The "two witnesses" (Rev 11:3-12) come back to earth, die, and are raised yet again and taken to heaven in a whirlwind. Most commentators have thought (based on analogies and cross-reference) that these "witnesses" were either Moses and Elijah or Enoch and Elijah.

Thus we can ask dead men to pray for us, according to much evidence from Holy Scripture, because we know that dead saints can hear and answer or decline our prayers, in the power of God (Abraham and Samuel: #1, 2, 3). We know that dead saints are praying for us (Moses, Samuel, Onias, Jeremiah, many others: #4, 5, 6). We also know the crucial premise that these saints are aware of earthly affairs, because of the abundance of examples and the fact that they are described as praying for us in the first place (one can't pray intelligently with no knowledge of what to pray for).

Hence, we see many examples of the "barrier" between heaven and earth and (earthly) life and death being no problem for God (Samuel, Moses, Elijah, possibly Enoch, and "many" dead saints buried in Jerusalem all appear again on the earth and communicate with men (#3,7,8,9,10).

Therefore, since they hear and answer prayer requests, pray for us, are perfectly aware of affairs on earth, and in fact, have come back to earth, thus eliminating a supposed barrier between heaven and earth, we can ask them to pray for us and intercede before God on our behalf, because the prayer of a righteous person like Elijah and these other saints, is very powerful and "availeth much" (James 5:16-17, utilizing the glorious old KJV lingo there). We would be very spiritually foolish not to do so, and not to access such power and sanctity, in light of such an abundance of biblical example and sanction.

See also:

The Communion of Saints: Biblical Overview
[Spanish version]

Reflections on the Communion of Saints

Dialogue on Objections to the Communion of Saints

Witnesses of Hebrews 12:1

Answers For