Q80. How does the Lord's Supper differ from the Roman Catholic Mass?

This Question is necessary on account of the errors, and horrid abuses which the Mass has introduced into the Church. It is otherwise asked, Why is the mass to be abolished? This question, however, is contained in the above; because the differences which exist between the Lord's supper and the Popish mass, constitute the reasons why the mass is to be abolished. For since the mass has so many things connected with it, which are in direct opposition to the Lord's supper, it must not be confounded with it, nor substituted in the place of it, nor tolerated in the church by godly magistrates; but must be abolished. Before we proceed, however, to point out the differences between the Lord's supper and the Popish mass, it is proper that we should say a few words in reference to the term, "mass". And first, there are some who derive the word "mass" from the Hebrew "masah", which signifies a tribute, or voluntary offering. The word has this meaning in Deut. 16:10, where it is said, ""Thou shalt keep the feast of weeks unto the Lord thy God with a tribute of a free-will offering of thine hand."" This offering was so called, being as it were, a yearly tribute, which was given most willingly and cheerfully. It is also understood by some to signify a sufficiency, meaning that so much should be given as might be sufficient, which, perhaps, is the more correct interpretation, since God in Deut. 15:8, commanded the Israelites to open their hands wide unto the poor, and to lend that which was sufficient for their need. This the Chaldee paraphrast interprets "missah"; from which it is supposed that it is called mass, or missa, as if it were a tribute, and a free-will offering, which should every where be offered to God in the church for the living and the dead. But this is not probable. It is true, indeed, that the church has borrowed some words from the Hebrew; as Satan, sabaoth, hallelujah, &c.; but these and similar words were introduced into the Latin church through the Greek church, and were introduced into the Greek Testament when it was first written in the Greek language; nor have we any Hebrew words in our church which the Greek church had not before. Furthermore, if we examine the writings of the Greek Fathers it will be seen, that the word missa is never used by them; from which we are inclined to believe that the word missa was not derived from the Hebrew.

Therefore the term "missa", which is doubtless a Latin word, seems to be taken from the Fathers, who used "remissa" for "remissio". Tertullian says: ""We have spoken of remission (remissa) of sins."" Cyprian says: ""He who was to grant remission of sins, did not disdain to be baptized."" Again: ""He who blasphemes against the Holy Ghost, obtains no remission of sins."" Hence, as the Latin Fathers used the term "remissa" for "remissio", so they also seem to have used "missa" for "missio", which is derived from "mittendo". But here again there is a great diversity of sentiment For some will have it that "missa" is to be understood in the sense of "missio", from an ancient custom of ecclesiastical rites, which was introduced into the Latin churches from the Greek, that when the sermon and lecture were over, the deacon, before the consecration of the mysteries, sent away or commanded the catechumens, the demoniacs, and such as were excommunicated, to depart, saying, with a loud voice, ""If there be any catechumen still remaining in the church, let him depart,"" so that missa seems to be used in the sense of "missio" (sending away), because it was the last part of divine service. Others suppose that it is called "missa" in the sense of "dismissia", or "dismissio", from the manner in which the ecclesiastical assemblies, or congregations, were dismissed; because, when the prayers and other services were ended, the deacon exclaimed, ""Ite, missa est;"" that is, Go, you may depart. Others, again, understand it thus: "Go, now is the collection of alms;" which they say were called "missa", from being sent, or thrown in for the benefit of the poor. In short, it was that which was transacted in the church after the departure of the catechumens, or the collection of alms. Lombard has a different view of the subject: ""It is called missa,"" says he, ""because a heavenly messenger comes for the purpose of consecrating the vivifying body of Christ, according to the prayer of the priest: Almighty God, command that this be carried by the hand of thy holy angel to the high altar, &c. Therefore, unless an angel come, it cannot be properly called a mass."" Lo the folly of the man! Again: ""It is called mass either because the host is sent, of which mention is made in that service, where it is said, Ite, missa est; that is, follow the host which is gone up into heaven,—go after it; or because an angel comes from heaven to consecrate the Lord's body, by whom the host is carried to the heavenly altar; whence it is also said, Ite, missa est.""

We reject the idea of the mass, and also the term itself, for the reason that it does not belong to the Lord's supper, which has nothing in common with the mass, although some of the ancient writers employed the term. Nor is there any necessity that we should use this term, inasmuch as we have other words which express this mystery in a more striking manner, which are extant in the Scriptures, which call it the Lord's supper, the table of the Lord, the breaking of bread.