The First Public Reformed “Mass” (What's new is old?)

The First Public Reformed “Mass occurred on Christmas Day, 1521 in Wittenberg, Germany. It was officiated by Andreas Karlstadt, a heretical Catholic diocesan priest who became Lutheran.

Novel and shocking practices and beliefs of this new “Mass” were numerous:

  • Karlstadt eschewed vestments for layman’s clothes.

  • In his homily, Karlstadt said that no preparation is necessary to receive the Eucharist other than one’s personal belief.

  • He denied the sacrificial aspect of the priesthood.

  • Neither Karlstadt nor the communicants had observed the customary communion fast.

  • Neither he nor the communicants had gone to confession before communion, which would have been normative.

  • Karlstadt pronounced the words of institution in the vernacular (German instead of Latin).

  • Karlstadt simplified the Roman Canon (what we call today “Eucharistic Prayer I”), and eliminated all references to “sacrifice.”

  • Karlstadt did not elevate the host and chalice at the consecration.

  • Communion was distributed under both species, instead of under the form of bread alone.

  • The communicants breathlessly took the hosts into their own hands (one communicant reportedly dropped his host to the floor and was too afraid to pick it up).

  • The communicants received the blood by taking the chalice into their own hands.

The details of this first public reformed “Mass” can all be easily looked up in history books of the Protestant Reformation.

How many of these once novel and shocking practices and beliefs have seeped into and have even become common in our Catholic liturgies today? Your thoughts and comments? :confused:

All those aspects were shocking and wicked because they were illicit, contrary to the changeable laws which the hierarchy had made for the time being to govern the Church.

But very few if any of them were novel, i.e. a new invention. All the others had been legally done during Mass in earlier ages.

All of these are still done/believed in (maybe not by everyone, but then again not everyone believes in Jesus Christ either).

On the other hand, all of these are to do with the discipline (small “t” tradition, changeable through the binding and loosing power of the Vicar of Christ). Communion under both species is now normal and encouraged (the Church of the time wanted to make clear that you are receiving the fullness of Christ under each species, while some people thought you had to receive both which is heretical. Receiving both we now call a “fuller” communion, although it’s not needed).

The vernacular has permission by the Vatican by the recognito given to the Mass translation. There’s no point arguing with us, you’ll have to take it up with Rome.

CITH is allowed by Rome. There’s nothing more to say about it (dropping Jesus is still bad). Again, argue it with Rome.
Also, CITH is a tradition in some Religious Orders of Men (as Brother JR has said many times). The Vatican has never mandated that they change their practice.

This would be due to shoddy translation. That’s being fixed now, so this is no longer an issue.

From the old Catholic Encyclopedia:

Elevation, the.—What we now know as par excellence the Elevation of the Mass is a rite of comparatively recent introduction…

…a curious theological view was then being defended by such eminent scholars as the chancellor Peter Manducator and the professor Peter Cantor, that transubstantiation of the bread only took place when the priest at Mass had pronounced the words of consecration over both bread and wine. …

…theologians… by way of protest against the teaching of Peter Cantor, adopted the custom of adoring the Host immediately after the words “Hoc est enim corpus meum” were spoken, and by a natural transition they encouraged the practice of showing it to the people for this purpose…

It will be readily understood from the above explanation that there was not the same motive at first for insisting on the elevation of the Chalice as well as the Host. No one at that period doubted that by the time the words of Institution had been spoken over the wine, transubstantiation had been effected in both species. We find accordingly that the elevation of the Chalice was introduced much more slowly. It was not adopted at St. Alban’s Abbey until 1429, and we may say that it is not practiced by the Carthusians even to this day

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit