Nos Non Abolere Missam
Our churches are falsely accused of abolishing the Mass. The Mass is held among us and celebrated with the highest reverence. Nearly all the usual ceremonies are also preserved, excerpt that the parts sung in Latin are interspersed here and there with German hymns. These have been added to teach the people. For ceremonies are needed for this reason alone, that the uneducated be taught what they need to know about Christ. Not only has Paul commanded that a language understood by the people be used in church, but human law has also commanded it. All those able to do so partake of the Sacrament together. This also increases the reverence and devotion of public worship. No one is admitted to the Sacrament without first being examined. The people are also advised about the dignity and use of the Sacrament, about how it brings great consolation to anxious consciences, so that they too may learn to believe God and to expect and ask from Him all that is good. This worship pleases God. Such use of the Sacrament nourishes true devotion toward God. Therefore, it does not appear that the Mass is more devoutly celebrated among our adversaries than among us.”
~ Augsburg Confession 24:1-9
At the outset, we must again make this preliminary statement: we do not abolish the Mass, but religiously keep and defend it. Masses are celebrated among us every Lord’s Day and on other festivals. The Sacrament is offered to those who wish to use it, after they have been examined and absolved. And the usual public ceremonies are observed, the series of lessons, of prayers, vestments, and other such things.
~ Apology 24:1
In 1996, the Spice Girls famously sang: “I'll tell you what I want, what I really, really want.” And when people “really, really want” something that violates Scripture or the Confessions, they become desperate to gainsay the passages that they really, really don’t want to submit to. They find clever ways to work around them. For example, there are a plethora of prooftexts in Scripture that prevent the ordination of women. But there are people who really, really want women in the pulpit and at the altar.
So what to do?
One technique is to distinguish between parts of the Bible that are “prescriptive” from those that are “descriptive.” So when Paul says that women should be silent in church, should not teach or have authority over men, or that the bishop is to be the husband of one wife - those passages become “descriptive” - and based merely on the “fact” that this is just a time- and culture-bound limitation from which we - living in more enlightened times - have been set free. This is just Paul’s personal opinion, so goes the argument, and therefore, it is not binding on us, whether because of our alleged natural progressive evolution as a species, or because the Holy Spirit has revealed to us something that supersedes Holy Scripture.
Another technique is to look to “contradictory” Bible passages and claim that Passage A overrides Passage B. The Muslims do this with the Qu’ran, adopting a hermeneutic that the later Surahs supercede the earlier ones. Christians do this by means of Gospel Reductionism or some other hermeneutical trick to work around what they don’t want the Scriptures to say. For example, Galatians 3:28 is often used to “invalidate” other “contradictory” texts that prohibit women from serving in the pastoral office. It is spun as the Gospel triumphing over the Law, or of love overcoming hate, as Christian freedom displacing outmoded “man-made” Pharisaical rules. Surely, Jesus would not prohibit women from preaching, since the “gospel message” is paramount, and, of course, Jesus is not a toxically-masculine sexist. For Jesus is kind, and love wins.
The advocates of homosexuality and transgenderism do all of the above tricks as well. They also play the numbers game: there are very few passages that address homosexuality, so we should just sweep them under the rug. Besides, the Bible also prohibits trimming the edge of the beard and wearing two kinds of cloth. Therefore men engaging in sex with each other must be just fine as far as God is concerned - if that’s what we really, really want.
See how that all works?
Of course, the proper way to read and interpret Scripture - even those parts that may be difficult to harmonize, or that, when isolated, may appear contradictory - is to read it in a way that all of it is true. You don’t get to say, “I have five passages, and you only have one, so I win.”
The advocates of Entertainment Worship really, really want drums and guitars and dancing girls and no vestments. They really, really want to abolish the Mass. And they practice a similar hermeneutical hocus-pocus on the Book of Concord as the feminists and sexual deviants do to the Bible.
Article 24 in both the Augsburg Confession and the Apology are a big problem to those who really, really want to abolish the Mass. These articles begin as they were cited above: “Our churches are falsely accused of abolishing the Mass,” and, “We do not abolish the Mass, but religiously keep and defend it.”
Over the years, I have heard some clever ways around them in the “Ditch the Liturgy” movement, the “Campaign to Ignore Twenty-Four.”
First is the assertion that Article 24 is “no longer binding.” Well, that’s interesting. When did it become “no longer binding?” Was it February 28, 1537? Or maybe December 12, 1628? Or was it more recently, like April 5, 1946? Was a memo issued? I never got one. All I know is that my own ordination vows mentioned the Unaltered Augsburg Confession and the Apology. I just don’t recall an Article 24 recension clause or expiration date.
Second is the tried-and-true “Article 24 is descriptive, not prescriptive” angle. I’ve spoken and written extensively on this. Of course it’s descriptive. All of the Book of Concord is descriptive. Its documents describe what “our churches” “believe, teach, and confess” “in doctrine and ceremonies.” If that description doesn’t describe your church, than your church isn’t one of “our churches.” There are many Christian churches who confess the Nicene Creed, but not the Unaltered Augsburg Confession, the Apology, or the rest of the Lutheran Confessions. Here are some links:
Third, a more recent workaround (and I have to admit that this one is clever) is that Melanchthon really, really didn’t mean it. He was just trying to butter up the papal theologians. He didn’t actually believe it. He was playing 4D chess. He was just greasing the skids by means of flattery. So (goes the argument) we can just disregard Article 24. Of course, the entire Augsburg Confession is irenic in tone, as Melanchthon was indeed trying to make the case that we are Catholic Christians and not heretics, even as hope was still alive (even if a longshot) for actual discussion and dialogue and debate, and perhaps even reconciliation, between the parties. Of course, with the issuance of the comedically bad Roman Confutation and the Lutheran doubling-down in the counter-response of the Apology, those hopes were dashed the next year. All that said, there is really no evidence that Melanchthon was “just kidding,” allowing our confessional subscription to, like unto the Angel of Death, to pass over Article 24 and go right from 23 to 25. That hermeneutical “do-not-pass-go” reading indicates a desperation among those who really, really want their rock music and dancing girls.
The fourth technique to “Ignore Twenty-Four” is to claim that other articles and statements in the Confessions either contradict or repeal Article 24. And the good old Whataboutism Fallacy is employed in this technique’s service. But serving as a Whatabout bedfellow we have our old friend the Strawman.
The most commonly cited alleged repeal of Article 24 is Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration Article 10. This one is interpreted as “Worship is all adiaphora” and “anything goes.” I wrote a humorous analysis of this abuse of Article 10 here. The gist of it is that if you really, really want to do something, you should just go ahead and do it. But the real controversy is laid out at the beginning of Article 10:
Concerning ceremonies and church rites which are neither commanded nor forbidden in God’s Word, but are introduced into the Church with a good intention, for the sake of good order and propriety, or otherwise to maintain Christian discipline, a dissension has likewise arisen among some theologians of the Augsburg Confession: the one side holding that also in time of persecution and in case of confession [when confession of faith is to be made], even though the enemies of the Gospel do not come to an agreement with us in doctrine, yet some ceremonies, abrogated [long since], which in themselves are adiaphora, and neither commanded nor forbidden by God, may, without violence to conscience, be reestablished in compliance with the pressure and demand of the adversaries, and thus in such [things which are of themselves] adiaphora, or matters of indifference, we may indeed come to an agreement [have conformity] with them. But the other side contended that in time of persecution, in case of confession, especially when it is the design of the adversaries, either through force and compulsion, or in an insidious manner, to suppress the pure doctrine, and gradually to introduce again into our churches their false doctrine, this, also in adiaphora, can in no way be done, as has been said, without violence to conscience and prejudice to the divine truth.
In other words, Article 10’s context isn’t about really, really wanting rock music and dancing girls, but rather concerning persecution. This has to do with the Augsburg and Leipzig Interims when the Lutherans were being compelled by their princes to adopt certain ceremonies by force of law. It’s right there in the opening paragraphs. It concerns being in a “state of confession” (in statu confessionis).
Moreover, Paragraph 7 is clear that worship must be dignified, and it is not a matter of “anything goes” - even if we really, really want something or another:
Likewise, when there are useless, foolish displays, that are profitable neither for good order nor Christian discipline, nor evangelical propriety in the Church, these also are not genuine adiaphora, or matters of indifference.
Likewise, in Paragraphs 9 and 10, we read:
Therefore we believe, teach, and confess that the congregation of God of every place and every time has, according to its circumstances, the good right, power, and authority [in matters truly adiaphora] to change, to diminish, and to increase them, without thoughtlessness and offense, in an orderly and becoming way, as at any time it may be regarded most profitable, most beneficial, and best for [preserving] good order, [maintaining] Christian discipline [and for eujtaxiva worthy of the profession of the Gospel], and the edification of the Church. Moreover, how we can yield and give way with a good conscience to the weak in faith in such external adiaphora, Paul teaches Rom. 14, and proves it by his example, Acts 16:3; 21:26; 1 Cor. 9:19. We believe, teach, and confess also that at the time of confession [when a confession of the heavenly truth is required], when the enemies of God’s Word desire to suppress the pure doctrine of the holy Gospel, the entire congregation of God, yea, every Christian, but especially the ministers of the Word, as the leaders of the congregation of God [as those whom God has appointed to rule His Church], are bound by God’s Word to confess freely and openly the [godly] doctrine, and what belongs to the whole of [pure] religion, not only in words, but also in works and with deeds; and that then, in this case, even in such [things truly and of themselves] adiaphora, they must not yield to the adversaries, or permit these [adiaphora] to be forced upon them by their enemies, whether by violence or cunning, to the detriment of the true worship of God and the introduction and sanction of idolatry.
This is far from Aleister Crowley’s dictum: “Do what thou wilt.” This is not a retraction of Article 24. Nor is it an endorsement of liturgical anarchy. The very authors of the Formula of Concord wrote liturgical church orders and compelled their use in their regions! The actual issue is (paragraph 15):
Likewise, the article concerning Christian liberty also is here at stake, which the Holy Ghost through the mouth of the holy apostle so earnestly charged His Church to preserve, as we have just heard. For as soon as this is weakened and the ordinances of men [human traditions] are forced upon the Church with coercion, as though it were wrong and a sin to omit them, the way is already prepared for idolatry, and by this means ordinances of men [human traditions] are afterwards multiplied and regarded as a divine worship, not only equal to the ordinances of God, but are even placed above them.
The key to understanding what this means is: “forced upon the Church with coercion, as though it were wrong and a sin to omit them.” For it is not a sin to, say, use blue as the liturgical color on a Marian Feast. But if a Roman Catholic king were to, for example, command the Lutherans to use blue on August 15, or accuse them of sinning, the correct Lutheran response would be to omit the blue - not because it is sinful in and of itself, but to make a clear confession, both of a right confession of the mother of God, and of our Christian liberty in and of itself.
Other passages from our confessions are cited as somehow overruling and overturning Article 24. For example, those of us who uphold Article 24 are accused of violating Article 7 (of the Augsburg Confession).
Article 7 reads:
Also they teach that one holy Church is to continue forever. The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered. And to the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments. Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike. As Paul says: One faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, etc. Eph. 4:5-6.
The “Ignore Twenty-Four” crowd interprets the “it is enough” (satis est) clause to mean “anything goes” in worship. But that’s not what the text says. It says that it is enough to agree on “the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments." We must agree on how we administer Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. And according to Article 24, we do that by means of liturgical ceremony. Article 24 doesn’t get into a lot of specifics, so of course there is a lot of liturgical leeway as a matter of Christian liberty. But it is liturgical leeway. Sacraments really must be practiced liturgically. For a baptism that ignores the rubrics to use water and the Words of Institution is no baptism. This is indeed an issue in churches that purport to baptize with rose petals, or by using a different formula (such as “in the name of Jesus” or “in the name of the Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier”). It is not a matter of “anything goes.” You cannot ex corde and ad lib your way through the sacraments. You cannot have a lay vocalist sing a paraphrase of the Words of Institution as a “consecration” of the Lord’s Supper - even if that’s what you really, really want.
And interestingly, I cannot get a single person who believes that the Mass is just one “worship style” option among many among confessing Lutherans to actually say that the above example was not a real consecration, and is more along the lines of an abomination, desecration, or an execration. Nor will they defend it. They sidestep the issue entirely. I find that illustrative. Being a confessor means sticking out your neck, sometimes literally, like the princes at Augsburg.
And neither I, nor any of the editors, nor anyone in the Gottesdienst Crowd in our parishes has ever said that it is necessary that “rites and ceremonies instituted by men, should be the same everywhere.” My ceremonies and rites sometimes even change from week to week, such as on a feast, when I might have incense or a procession. I may wear a cope for a baptism. And I may wear only short sleeves and a stole in an extreme situation after a hurricane, when we have no electricity in the sanctuary. It is a Strawman fallacy (in other words, a damnable lie) for anyone to suggest otherwise.
Therefore, Article 7 is not a repudiation of Article 24. Since we believe in the Real Presence in our Sacraments, there is a liturgy, and it must be dignified, and properly confess the Real Presence of the King of the Universe. How can anyone claim that to be a mere adiaphoron, or something optional?
Article 15 is also not a repudiation of Article 24. In fact, the first paragraph is clear that Article 24 (The Mass) is the default:
Of Usages in the Church they teach that those ought to be observed which may be observed without sin, and which are profitable unto tranquillity and good order in the Church, as particular holy days, festivals, and the like.
But it is important that we understand ceremonies properly:
Nevertheless, concerning such things men are admonished that consciences are not to be burdened, as though such observance was necessary to salvation. They are admonished also that human traditions instituted to propitiate God, to merit grace, and to make satisfaction for sins, are opposed to the Gospel and the doctrine of faith. Wherefore vows and traditions concerning meats and days, etc., instituted to merit grace and to make satisfaction for sins, are useless and contrary to the Gospel.
Nobody in the Gottesdienst Crowd argues that certain ceremonies are “necessary to salvation.” In fact, there are Christians who err who don’t have the Lord’s Supper at all. A redeemed child who dies right after baptism will never take the Sacrament of the Altar, let alone cross himself or kneel during “and was made man” in the Nicene Creed. And yet, he has salvation. Nor does anyone believe that the ceremonies of the Mass (that we retain) somehow “merit grace.” Anyone making that charge is a liar, and should repent. Grace is not merited by performing ceremonies (which would be the error of ex opere operato), but rather the ceremonies involving the Divine Service are a confession of the means of grace. We are saved by grace, not by meritorious works.
So Article 15 is also not a pre-emptive repeal of Article 24.
The assertion that Article 26 on “The Distinction of Meats” overturns Article 24 is simply an exercise in ridiculosity. Once again the issue is that ceremonies are not “useful works for meriting grace and are able to make satisfaction for sins” (26:1). Nobody who advocates that Article 24 is still part of our confession believes this.
Article 28 is also not an overturning of Article 24. Article 28 concerns “Church Authority” or “Ecclesiastical Power” - and is mainly concerned with mixing the civil and ecclesiastical realms. Ceremonies are mentioned in paragraph 30:
Moreover, it is disputed whether bishops or pastors have the right to introduce ceremonies in the Church, and to make laws concerning meats, holy-days and grades, that is, orders of ministers, etc.
The answer is found in paragraphs 35-38:
Now, it is against Scripture to establish or require the observance of any traditions, to the end that by such observance we may make satisfaction for sins, or merit grace and righteousness. For the glory of Christ’s merit suffers injury when, by such observances, we undertake to merit justification. But it is manifest that, by such belief, traditions have almost infinitely multiplied in the Church, the doctrine concerning faith and the righteousness of faith being meanwhile suppressed. For gradually more holy-days were made, fasts appointed, new ceremonies and services in honor of saints instituted, because the authors of such things thought that by these works they were meriting grace. Thus in times past the Penitential Canons increased, whereof we still see some traces in the satisfactions.
So again, Article 28 is not a repudiation of Article 24. And there is no-one who advocates for the use of the liturgy among us who believes, teaches, and confesses that ceremonies “merit grace” or “make satisfaction for sins” or “merit justification.”
The bottom line is that we don’t retain the Mass because we believe that ceremonies merit God’s grace. Nor are human rites salvific. Baptists who put their faith in Christ - even though they don’t follow the Divine Service - are saved. Likewise, Roman Catholics, some of whom continue to worship in Latin, don’t follow any Lutheran Divine Services, and (most importantly) do not confess Article 24 with our churches - likewise have salvation if they put their trust in Christ.
But it is also true that these churches are not “our churches.”
“Our churches” retain the Mass, the Gottesdienst. Those who don’t are simply not part of the designation “our churches.” It is a similar situation that the Reformed have when they claim to be part of the “our churches” and even claim to confess the Augsburg Confession along with us. Their difference with us regarding the nature of the Sacrament of the Altar is an impediment to our being in communion with them. They are not “our churches,” their protestations notwithstanding.
Churches - pastors and laity - who cannot confess all of the articles of the Book of Concord should go in peace and form their own communions based on their own confessional documents, which is what the Reformed have done with, for example, the Westminster Confession. They are not part of “our churches,” and we are not part of “their churches.” There are various union churches with a past Lutheran heritage that are simply no longer Lutheran. Any attempt to hammer the square peg into the round hole is just being dishonest. There have been some recent examples of “Ignore 24” congregations who have done the honest thing and broken fellowship with us.
And just as Luther pounded the table and refused to agree with Zwingli, saying, “Hoc est corpus Meum,” we Lutherans must likewise continue to stubbornly confess: “Nos non abolere missam, sed religiose retinere ac defendere” even if people really, really want that article to be expunged from the Book of Concord.