Tracing Wittenbergs Liturgical Lineage M

TRACING WITTENBERG’S LITURGICAL LINEAGE:
MECKLENBURG’S RECEPTION OF LUTHER’S REFORMS OF THE MASS
A Thesis
Submitted to Yale Divinity School

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of
Master of Sacred Theology
by
James Ambrose Lee II
Markus Rathey, Advisor
Yale Divinity School

New Haven, Connecticut
May 2012
© Copyright by
James Ambrose Lee II
2012
All rights reserved

CONTENTS
ABBREVIATIONS IV
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION 1
CHAPTER TWO
MARTIN LUTHER AND THE SACRAMENT OF CHRIST’S BODY AND BLOOD 7
2.1 Luther’s Theology of the Lord’s Supper 7

2.1.1 The Blessed Sacrament (1519) 7
2.1.2 Sacrifice of the Mass, Promissio, and Testament 8
2.1.3 Against the Enthusiasts and Radical Reformers 11
2.1.4 The Catechisms 14
2.2 Luther’s Liturgical Reforms 16

2.2.1 Formula Missae et Communionis 17
2.2.2 Deutsche Messe 19
CHAPTER THREE
MECKLENBURG’S RECEPTION OF LUTHER’S REFORMS 26
3.1 The History of the Reformation in Mecklenburg 26
3.2 The Reformation of the Mass in Mecklenburg 30

3.2.1 Johann Slüter’s 1532 Gesangbuch 30
3.2.2 The 1540 Kerkenordenighe 35
3.2.3 The 1545 Ordenige der misse 41
3.2.4 The 1552 Kirchenordnung 43
3.3 Analysis 49
CHAPTER FOUR
THE STATUS OF MECKLENBURG’S LITURGICAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE LUTHERAN

REFORMATION 57
4.1 Examples of Liturgical Reform before Luther’s Mass orders 58
4.2 Examples of Liturgical Reform after Luther’s Mass orders 60
4.3 Analysis 64
BIBLIOGRAPHY 69
ABBREVIATIONS
BOC Kolb, Robert and Timothy J. Wengert, Editors. The Book of Concord: The Confessions
of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000.
CD Irmgard Pahl, ed. Coena Domini I: die Abendmahlsliturgie der Reformationskirchen im

16./17. Jahrhundert. Freiburg Schweiz: Universitätsverlag Freiburg Schweiz, 1983.
LC Large Catechism of Martin Luther (1529)
LW Luther’s Works: American Edition. Volumes 1–30: Edition by Jarsoslav Pelikan. St.
Louis: Concordia, 1955–76. Volumes 31–55: Edited by Helmut Lehmann.
Phildadelphia/Minneapolis: Muhlenberg/Fortress, 1957–86.
Sehling Emil Sehling, et al., eds. Die evangelischen Kirchenordnungen des XVI. Jahrhunderts.
Volumes 1–5: Leipzig; O.R. Reisland, 1902–13. Volumes 6–: Tübingen: Mohr
(Paul Siebeck), 1957–.
Slüter Joachim Slüter. Joachim Slüter’s ältestes rostocker Gesangbuch von Jahre 1532 und der
demselben zuzuschreibende Katechismus vom Jahre 1525. Nach den Originaldrucken wortgetreu
herausgegeben von C. M. Wiechmann-Kadow. Schwerin: Dr. F. W. Bärensprung, 1858.
WA D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe. 73 vols. in 85. Weimar: H. Böhlau,

1883–.
WA Br. D. Martin Luthers Werke: Briefwechsel. 18 vols. Weimar: H. Böhlau, 1930–

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Almost thirty years ago Bryan Spinks’ essay Luther’s Liturgical Criteria and His Reform of the
Canon of the Mass helped to counter popular opinion that in matters of liturgy and liturgical
reform Luther’s efforts were akin to a bull in a china shop or a drunken butcher hacking away
with his trusty cleaver.1 While this work did not become a catalyst ushering in a different
scholarly consensus—nor was he promoting an innovative theory—it did help in dismantling
previous critiques, while shining light on Luther’s theological criteria for liturgical reforms. Since
then other works have advanced the ball beyond the point were Spinks put it down.2
An ongoing debate in Luther liturgical scholarship centers on the role and theology of
prayer vis-à-vis the Lord’s Supper. Through the work of the Liturgical Movement and its traction
in the ecumenical environment of the twentieth century, eucharistic prayer and eucharistic
praying have received a position of prominence in both liturgical scholarship and liturgical
literature and publications across all ecumenical demarcations.3 While it is appears that Luther
left no room for the medieval canon of the Mass, the question arises as to whether Luther’s
rejection was limited to the prayers of the canon, only certain prayers of the canon, or to any
relationship between prayer and the liturgy of the Lord’s Supper.4 Can harmony exist between
Luther’s liturgical thought and eucharistic prayer, or are the two mutually exclusive? Various
voices have emerged arguing an unequivocal yes, others positing a resounding no, and still others
attempting to articulate a mediating position.5
This debate has spilled over from the subject of Luther scholarship to the larger arena of
Lutheran and Reformation scholarship. Rather than confining these questions solely to Luther’s
thought and work, other Reformers and their writings have been probed and tested in order to
1 Bryan D. Spinks, Luther’s Liturgical Criteria and His Reform of the Canon of the Mass (Bramcote: Grove Books, 1982).
2 Here are a few examples: Carl Axel Aurelius, “Gottesdienst als Quelle des chrstlichen Lebens bei Martin Luther”
in 76 Lutherjahrbuch 2009, 221–34 (Vandehoeck & Ruprecht, 2010); Robin Leaver, Luther’s Liturgical Music: Principles
and Implications (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Compnay, 2007); Steven Paulson, Luther for Armchair
Theologians (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), 161–79; Dorothea Wendebourg, Essen zum Gedächtnis:
Der Gedächtnisbefehl in den Abendmahlstheologien der Reformation (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009).
3 World Council of Church, Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1982; Thomas F.
Best and Dagmar Heller, eds, Eucharistic Worship in Ecumenical Contexts: The Lima Liturgy and—Beyond (Geneva: World
Council of Churches, 1998).
4 Peter Brunner, “Die Wormser Deutsche Messe,” in Kosmos und Ekklesia: Festschrift für Wilhelm Stählin zu seinem
siebzigsten Geburtstag. 24. September 1953, edited by Heinz–Dietrich Wendland (Kassel: Johannes Stauda, 1953), 106–
62.
5 For a list of works, see Wendebourg, “Noch einmal >> Den falschen Weg Roms zu Ende gegangen? <<
Auseinandersetzung mit meinen Kritikern,” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 99 (2002): 400 fn. 2.
1
further confirm or disprove contested points. Central sources for this endeavor have been the
sixteenth century Kirchenordungen. These texts help to document the reception, spread,
development, rejection, and revision of Luther’s doctrine and reforms throughout the various
German lands and territories. These various Church orders reveal a complex movement of the
Reformation out from Wittenberg throughout the diverse regions of Germany. The reception
and spread of the Lutheran Reformation by means of the liturgical orders was accomplished
through a convoluted path of cross-pollination, where rites and orders were received, revised,
and shared throughout geography and time.
Current Reformation scholarship has drawn attention to the nuanced and varied ways in
which the Reformation moved throughout the various German territories. Given the diversity of
territorial leadership, both political and ecclesiastical, the reception of the Lutheran Reformation
amongst its eventual territorial occupations, was diverse and unique in each geographical
locality. Theories that would posit a “top-down” or “bottom-up” movement do not do justice to
the intricate ways in which the Reformation flowed from Wittenberg throughout the Germanic
lands. These complexities also affected the manner in which the existing liturgical structures were
reformed. In comparison to England, Germany did not have a Cramner who edited, authored,
and produced liturgical texts, which were subsequently endowed with binding legal status for the
entire reformed church. While Luther’s liturgical writings and texts proved to be quite influential,
they lacked the legislative force that Cranmer’s possessed.6 The German territorial regions each
operated with their respective legislative structures, often comprised of a prince, duke, or elector,
along with various regional counsels. These composite structures of rulers and local governing
bodies, in addition to reform minded clergy, determined the extent and breadth of the liturgical
change. While individuals such as Johannes Bugenhagen certainly exercised great influence in
the spread and instillation of reform, the manner in which this occurred is predicated upon his
work in distinct geographical areas, and the transmission of his liturgical orders from region to
region.7 Local instillation in particular cases was indeed a “top-down” initiative, after receiving
6 Even if this form of power had existed, it does not appear likely that Luther would have wanted his liturgical
reforms to be enacted with binding force throughout the German lands. Luther recognized that the local needs of
each parish, city, and territory were unique and could not be appropriately addressed through a unilateral reform.
An example of this is provided in his letter to the pastors of Lübeck, see fn. 62
7 Kurt K. Hendel, “Johannes Bugenhagen, Organizer of the Lutheran Reformation,” Lutheran Quarterly 18:1 (2004),
43–75.
2
legal status from local government, but this may have been preceded by earlier “bottom-up”
work introduced by local priests and councils.
Some recent American scholarship on the Lutheran Reformation have given more
attention in identifying the spread of the Lutheran reformation, specifically through the
transmission of the liturgy. Joseph Herl’s Worship Wars in Early Lutheranism, Christopher Boyd
Brown’s Singing the Gospel, and Ronald Rittger’s The Reformation of the Keys are three contributions.8
Brown, Herl, and Rittgers through close work with the Church orders, reports of ecclesiastical
visitations, and regional archives, note the convoluted paths the Lutheran Reformation often
traversed in its reception. Although Herl’s work is quite ambitious in documenting an
overwhelmingly large swath of church orders, all three authors note the specificity of the
reception of the Reformation, Rittgers and Brown concentrating their studies on one particular
area—respectively, Nürnberg and Joachimsthal.
In the study I have chosen to investigate the Lutheran Reformation in the northern
territory of Mecklenburg, situated south of the Baltic Sea and north of Electoral Brandenburg.
My reason for selecting the duchy of Mecklenburg is because it offers a fascinating example of
the spread and reception of the Lutheran Reformation. Mecklenburg’s unique political
constitution, bequeathed it following the death of Duke Magnus II (1441–1503), in which his two
sons shared the rulership for the entire territory, proved to be a complex political and
geographical landscape for the advancement of Lutheranism.9
Other studies have been made on the history of the Lutheran Reformation in
Mecklenburg. In 2000 a volume was produced Menschen in der Kirche. 450 Jahre seit Einführung der
Reformation in Mecklenburg, in which Helge Bei der Wieden and Eike Wolgast contributed articles
on important figures in the reception of the Lutheran Reforms.10 Gary Miller’s 1998 dissertation
The Lutheran State Church of Mecklenburg, 1549-1621, focuses on the “confessionalization” of
Mecklenburg in the establishment of a Landeskirche and the ways in which this affected the existing
8 Christopher Boyd Brown, Singing the Gospel: Lutheran Hymns and the Success of the Reformation (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 2005); Joseph Herl, Worship Wars in Early Lutheranism: Choir, Congregation, and Three Centuries of Conflict
(New York: Oxford University Press, 2004); Ronald K. Rittgers, The Reformation of the Keys: Confession, Conscience, and
Authority in Sixteenth-Century Germany, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004).
9 Magnus had a third son, Erich II, who also shared authority with his brothers, Heinrich V and Albrecht VII, and
his uncle Balthasar (1451–1507), but died in 1508.

10 See Menschen in der Kirche. 450 Jahre seit Einführung der Reformation in Mecklenburg, ed. Helge Bei der Wieden (Rostock:
Schmidt Rönhild, 2000).
3
political, ecclesiastical, and societal structures.11 Regarding the liturgical reforms that occurred in
Mecklenburg, Gerhard Bolinski has contributed studies on the early reform efforts of Rostock
reformer Joachim Slüter.12 Wolfgang Gaehtgens’ article “Die Quellen der Mecklenburgischen
Liturgie-Ordnungen” gives a brief but thorough survey of the various liturgical sources used in
the editing and writing of the various liturgical orders.13
While the liturgical reforms of Mecklenburg have not gone unnoticed, what is lacking is a
more focused theological investigation, specifically the theology behind and expressed in the
liturgical texts. In this study I propose to follow in the path of Brown, Herl, and Rittgers in their
work on the spread of the Reformation articulated in the reforms of the liturgy. The manner in
which the liturgical rites and rituals were reformed aids in comprehending how the Lutheran
Reformation was understood and expressed. The texts of the liturgy provide examples of how the
theology of Luther and other Lutheran Reformers was given voice.
In order to concentrate my research, I have limited my investigation to the reforms the
Mass, particularly the liturgy of the Sacrament of the Altar. The Lord’s Supper was a heavily
contested theological locus between Lutherans, Catholics, and other Reformers, the so-called
“radical Reformers” Andreas Boden von Carlstadt, Huldrych Zwingli, Johannes Oecolampadius,
and the Anabaptists. The point of comparison that I have used is Luther. Prior to the
composition of the Formula of Concord (1577) and the Book of Concord (1580), particularly in the
debates that erupted between the Wittenberg Faculty and the so-called “Gnesio” Lutherans of
Jena, in addition to the Augsburg Confession and its Apology, Luther was the standard to which all
parties attempted to demonstrate continuity. Even in matters of liturgical reform, while
Bugenhagen had more direct influence on local reforms, his reforms are also highly indebted to
Luther’s.14
The methodology that I use consists of two parts: textual analysis and comparison.
Liturgical orders are examined in order to explicate the doctrine contained therein. The sources
11 Gary Michael Miller, “The Lutheran State Church of Mecklenburg: 1549-1621,” (Ph.D. diss., Yale University,
1998).
12 Gerhard Bosinski, Das Schrifttum des Rostocker Reformators Joachim Slüuter. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1971; Bosinski, “Joachim Slüterr und Luthers Gesangbuch von 1529,” Theologische Literaturzeitung 108:10 (1983): 705–
22.
13 Wolfgang Gaehtgens, “Die Quellen der Mecklenburgischen Liturgie-Ordnungen” in Monatsschrift für Gottesdiesnt
und kirchlich Kunst 43(1938) 266–75, 1938.

14 Rudolph Stählin, “Die Geschichte des christlichen Gottesdienstes von der Urkirche bis zur Gegenwart,” vol. 1 in
Leiturgia: Handbuch des evangelischen Gottesdiensts. Mit einem Geleitwort der Lutherischen Liturgischen Konferenz Deutschlands,
edited Karl Ferdinand Müller and Walter Blankenburg, 61 (Kassel: Johannes Stauda-Verlag, 1954).
4
that I use are the liturgical orders used in Mecklenburg. The majority of these orders are taken
from Emil Sehling’s Die evangelischen Kirchenordnungen des XVI. Jahrhunderts. Where the Church
orders provide doctrinal sections for instruction for the territorial clergy, I have used the
appropriate sections to provide a further point of reference and analysis.
In chapter two I begin by providing a theological overview of Luther’s teaching on the
Lord’s Supper. I move chronologically, noting the emphases Luther has when his chief
antagonists are the papacy and Catholic Church, and how this shifts when his opponents change.
I will not argue for or against a notion of change or development in Luther’s theology of the
sacrament. Rather, I only seek to highlight the distinctive theological foci that come to light in
these contexts. From here I examine Luther’s two orders of Mass, his 1523 Formula Missae and
the 1525/26 Deutsche Messe. These reforms are then analyzed according to his own sacramental
treatises preceding the publication of these orders, from 1519–1523.
In the third chapter I turn my attention to the various Mecklenburg liturgical orders,
beginning in 1531 and ending in 1552. After a brief overview of the history of the Reformation in
Mecklenburg, I concentrate my attention on the reforms of the Mass and its theology. The
liturgical orders through which the reforms and their theology were introduced into
Mecklenburg where of three sorts: unofficial, semi-official, and official. The differences denote
what official permission—if any— and any legislative force the order possessed. As will be shown,
some of the private orders, while lacking official recognition or support in the territory, were
works of other men, who had received authority in the respective locals in which the orders were
originally compiled. The liturgical orders that I use for this investigation are:
• Joachim Slüter’s 1531 Gesangbuch,15 [unofficial]
• the 1540 Kerkenordenighe, wo idth van den evangelischen Predicanted und kerkendeners mit den
ceremonien und gadesdensten, in deme forstendome Meykelnborch gehold schal werdeni
[Kerkenordenighe],16 [semi-official]
• the 1545 Ordenige der misse, wo de van den kerckhere unde seelsorgern im lande to Meckelnborch, im
fürstendom Wenden, Swerin, Rostock und Stargharde schal geholden werden. 1540/1545
[Ordenige],17 [semi-official]
15 Slüter, Rvi–Siii.
16 CD, 70, 76–80; Sehling 11, 140–283.
17 Sehling 5, 150–55.
5
• the 1552 Kirchenordnung, so in unsern, Johan Albrechts, von gottes gnaden herzogen zu
Mecklenburg, fürsten zu Wenden, graven zu Swerin, der lande Rostock und Stargard herrn,
fürstenthumen und landen sol gehalten wereden [Kirchenordnung]18 [official].
In the fourth chapter I expand the scope of inquiry beyond the boundaries of
Mecklenburg and compare its reforms with those that occurred in other Lutheran Church
orders. I briefly sketch major patterns of reform in order to demonstrate points of similarity and
disparity between Mecklenburg and other territorial orders. In this comparative analysis I pay
particular attention to the presence or absence of prayer(s) in relation to the Lord’s Supper. Some
liturgical scholars have argued that, while Luther virulently banished all prayer from the Mass,
other Lutheran Church orders incorporated various eucharistic prayers, thus providing a
historical basis for the (re)introduction of eucharistic praying into contemporary liturgical texts. A
full-scale participation in this debate is not my objective at this moment. Rather, I seek to probe
some of the historical claims that have been made both pro and contra eucharistic prayer vis-à-vis
Lutheran liturgical history, while simultaneously emphasizing how these issues evolved in
Mecklenburg’s various reforms.
18 CD, 99–104; Sehling 5, 219.
6
CHAPTER TWO
MARTIN LUTHER AND THE SACRAMENT OF CHRIST’S BODY AND BLOOD
2.1 Luther’s Theology of the Lord’s Supper

Luther’s writings on the Lord’s Supper span the years 1518 and 1544, beginning with the
Sermon on the Worth of Preparation of the Heart for the Reception of the Sacrament of the Eucharist19 and
concluding with his Brief Confession Concerning the Holy Sacrament.20 Within this period, no fewer
than thirty-four writings appear addressing the subject of the Sacrament of the Altar, not
including sermons and letters. These texts are addressed to various recipients and arise out of
diverse contexts. Rather than attempting to give a sweeping overview, I will divide this section
into three subsections: part one addresses his 1519 The Blessed Sacrament of the Holy and True Body of
Christ, and the Brotherhoods, part two examines Luther’s writings against the teachings and practices
of the Papacy and Catholicism, and the final section analyzes his debates with the so-called
Radical Reformers. Space does not allow for a thorough investigation of all texts that comprise
these categories, nor the entirety of Luther’s arguments. In stead I will concentrate on defining
characteristics pertinent to each category.21
2.1.1 The Blessed Sacrament (1519)
In this early work on the sacrament, the absence of what are considered common
attributes of Luther’s later and more popular writings is immediately conspicuous. To this is
added the unique manner in which Luther preaches on the meaning and import of the Lord’s
Supper. In this sermon Luther provides an understanding of the sacrament consisting of three
constitutive parts: (1) the sacrament/sign; (2) the significance of the sacrament; and (3) the faith
that is required for points 1 and 2.22
The sacrament or sign is the bread and wine, or its appearance and form. Luther
indicates that it would be beneficial, but not necessary, if both bread and wine were distributed to
the people in order that the sign would be given and received in its “entirety.” Such practice
would be fitting for it would serve well in demonstrating the second part of the sacrament, its
19 Luther, Sermo de digna praeparatione cordis pro suscipiendo sacramento eucharistiae, WA 1, 329–34.
20 Luther, Brief Confession Concerning the Holy Sacrament WA 54, 114–67; LW 38:279–318.
21 This treatment is not a thorough investigation of Luther’s theology of the Sacrament of the Altar. I will not present
an analysis of every treatise. Rather, this is an overview, noting both particularities and focal points of Luther, both
critique and positive articulation.
22 Luther, The Blessed Sacrament of the Holy and True Body of Christ, and the Brotherhoods, WA 2, 742; LW 35: 49.
7
significance.23 Luther identifies the significance of the Sacrament of the Altar as the fellowship
that occurs through participation in the sacrament. This “fellowship of the saints” has two
dimensions: fellowship and incorporation with Christ, and incorporation with all of the saints—
that is the Church of God. On one hand this fellowship is analogous to one’s citizenship in a
particular community. But Luther deeply expounds the meaning of citizenship beyond mere
geographical habitation and commitments. “Christ and all saints are one spiritual body, just as
the inhabitants of a city are one community and body, each citizen being a member of the other
and of the entire city.”24 Citizenship understood as fellowship means incorporation into each
other: first incorporation into Christ, which results in being incorporated into all participants of
the sacrament. Drawing on St. Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians participation in the
sacrament, that is incorporation into the body of Christ—both personal and corporate—results
in changing all participants into “one loaf, one bread, one body, one drink.”25 In this union of
one body with Christ and all the saints, a sharing occurs between the individual and Christ and
the other participants. Everything that one has—sin, suffering, pain, despair, etc.—become the
possessions of all who participate. The trials and tribulations of those who suffer are shared with
Christ and one’s neighbors, and love, comfort, and even material goods are shared with those in
need. As the bread and wine become “the true natural” flesh and blood of Christ, so all who eat
of this sacrament “are also drawn and changed into the spiritual body, that is, into the fellowship
of Christ and all the saints and by this sacrament put into possession of all the virtues and mercies
of Christ and his saints.”26 Christians are to regularly receive the sacrament—with faith and
trust in all that has been said—so that they receive and participate in the mercy and love of
Christ and in the communal sharing with one another.
2.1.2 Sacrifice of the Mass, Promissio, and Testament
While Luther’s criticisms of the medieval Catholic Mass are notorious, these are
conspicuously absent at the beginning of the emerging tension between Wittenberg and Rome.
Neither the 95 Theses, nor 1519’s The Blessed Sacrament of the Holy and True Body of Christ, offer any
noteworthy critique against the theology of the Mass. However, shortly after the publication of
the latter, Luther begins to concentrate upon what he saw as the erroneous doctrine and practice
23 Luther, The Blessed Sacrament of the Holy and True Body of Christ, and the Brotherhoods, WA 2, 742–43; LW 35: 49–50.
8
of the Church in regard to the Mass. Between 1520 and 1521 Luther wrote three treatises in
which he sharply expounds his critiques of Catholic theology and practice, while further
articulating his own theology vis-à-vis the papacy’s, albeit enveloped with heavy polemic: A
Treatise on the New Testament, that is the Holy Mass (1520), The Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520),
and The Misuse of the Mass (1521).27
Given Luther’s loquacious and, at times, vitriolic style, numerous disparaging words are
spelled over the existing rites and theology; however, he identifies three central points of
criticism: the doctrine of transubstantiation, communion under one kind, and the sacrifice of the
Mass. Out of the three, the former two, while certainly considered errors, receive less attention
and censure. Regarding transubstantiation, the error is found, not particularly in the teaching—
although Luther adamantly believes that substances of bread and wine remain post consecration,
not only their accidents—but in its canonization. If it were put forth only theoretically, one that
may be held or rejected, transubstantiation would not be so offensive. The legislating of a
philosophical hypothesis, no matter how respected the theologian, and the binding of one’s
conscience to such speculation, without any clear word from Scripture, must be rejected.28
The retention of the chalice from the laity is more problematic than transubstantiation,
and the reason for its rejection is located in Jesus’ institution of the sacrament under both species
of bread and wine, and in the overthrow of the ‘false’ hierarchical distinction between the
priesthood and the laity.29 While this “Roman tyranny” is to be dismissed, it should be done
patiently, particularly through a conciliar decree, rather than by force.30
The majority of Luther’s rebukes center upon the idea of the Mass as sacrifice—“the very
worst abuse.”31 A sacrificial interpretation of the Mass renders the sacrament into an
anthropological work directed towards God, offered in order to attain mercy and favor. Such
action transforms the very nature of the Mass, refiguring its character and essence from a
27 Luther, A Treatise on the New Testament, that is the Holy Mass, WA 6, 353–78, LW 35:75–111; The Babylonian Captivity of
the Church, WA 6, 497–573, LW 36: 3–126; The Misuse of the Mass, WA 8, 482–563 LW 36:127–230.
28 Luther, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, WA 6, 508–512, 5; LW 36: 28–35.
29 Luther, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, WA 6, 507; LW 36: 27–28; The Misuse of the Mass, WA 8, 485, 29–492,
20; LW 36:137–45
30 Cf. Luther’s 1522 Receiving Both Kinds in the Sacrament, WA 10 II, 11–41; LW 36: 231–67. While desiring the
reintroduction of the chalice, he rejects any compulsory reception demanded by the clergy, as a sin against the
conscience of those not yet prepared to receive it.
31 Luther, A Treatise on the New Testament, that is the Holy Mass, WA 6, 365; LW 35:94.
9
sacrament to work.32 Furthermore, and equally offensive, is that the Mass as sacrifice undermines
and supplants the efficacious and comprehensive salvific character of Christ’s sacrifice upon the
cross. Such doctrine diminishes Christ’s work of atonement, subsequently rendering void any
comfort or consolation given in the cross and the Mass. The Mass, in turns, becomes an idol, that
is a work in which one must place her trust and confidence, in hope of receiving the mercy of
God. Establishing the Mass as a sacrifice to be offered to God results in a de facto rejection of the
comprehensive nature of Christ’s atonement.33
Luther’s antagonism towards the theology of the sacrifice of the Mass is driven by his
reading of the narratives of institution in the Synoptic Gospels and 1 Corinthians. These
accounts say nothing of Christ offering a sacrifice or commanding his disciples to establish one.
Rather than offering a sacrifice, the words of Jesus illustrate him making a promise to his apostles
and the church. In this way, Christ, the Son of God, maintains the common manner by which
God has graciously dealt with God’s people throughout history. It is the foundation for all of
God’s gracious interactions with humanity. From the fall of Adam, to Abraham, God gives
promises to God’s people in which God vows to be their God. To the divine words of promise
God includes a pledge and token. Noah was given the rainbow, while Abraham and his
descendents received circumcision.34 These visible tokens are confirmations of God’s verbal
promise. These promises are to be received in faith, but they simultaneously are the very means
through which one’s faith is maintained and strengthened:
Such a promise was given to Adam after his fall, when God spoke to the serpent, [. . . ]
This promise of God sustained Adam and Eve and all their children until the time of
Noah. They believed in it, and by this faith they were saved; otherwise they would have
despaired.35
32 Luther, A Treatise on the New Testament, that is the Holy Mass, WA 6, 364; LW 35:92; The Misuse of the Mass, WA 8,
511,8–512,30; LW 36: 168–69.
33 See also Luther, The Abomination of the Secret Mass, WA 18, 22–36; LW 36: 311–28. “Now if the gospel is true, then
everything that offers another way or another sacrifice must be false. But in the mass the papists do nothing but
continually ride the words ‘we offer up, we offer up’ and ‘these sacrifices, these gifts.’ They keep completely quiet
about the sacrifice that Christ has made. They do not thank him. Indeed, they despise and deny his sacrifice and try
to come before God with their own sacrifice” (313).
34 Luther, A Treatise on the New Testament, that is the Holy Mass, WA 6, 356–57; LW 35:82–84; The Misuse of the Mass,
WA, 8 516–18; LW 36:174–76.

35 Luther, A Treatise on the New Testament, that is the Holy Mass, WA 6, 356; LW 35: 83.
10
Luther’s interpretation of Jesus’ words of institution hinges on the concept of promise (promissio).36
But while recognizing the important role that promise has played throughout God’s dealings with
Israel, his theology of the Lord’s Supper is not simply an application of the category of promise.
Distinctions exit between various promises throughout Scripture, recognizing that not all of them
are binding throughout time, particularly for the Church. The Lord’s Supper is a particular type
of promise. It is a last will and testament, namely Jesus’ last will and testament, that centers on his
divine promise.37 A testament has six constituent elements: (1) the testator, the one creating the
testament, which is Jesus Christ; (2) the recipients, the heirs, who receive the testament from the
testator—all Christians; (3) the testament, which is the oral declaration of the testator’s last will—
the words of institution; (4) a seal which certifies the words of the testament—the bread and the
wine, which are the true body and blood of Christ; (5) the blessing [das Gut] that Christ specifies
in his testamental words—the forgiveness of sins and eternal life; and (6) the duty, the
remembrance that the heir does—the preaching and declaration of Christ’s love and grace,
which one is to hear and meditate upon.38 In the institution of the Lord’s Supper Christ himself
qualifies his promise eternally by declaring it as his new and eternal testament in his blood. In
every way this promise is greater than all previous ones: (1) it is Christ’s last will, as such (2) it is
eternally binding because it is (3) sealed and pledged by and with the body and blood of the
eternal Son of God, (4) which bestows the greatest treasure, the forgiveness of sins and eternal
life.
2.1.3 Against the Enthusiasts and Radical Reformers
As early as 1523 Luther began to turn his attention towards another development
regarding the Lord’s Supper. While his former colleague and Wittenberg reformer Andreas
Bodenstein von Karlstadt was the first to illicit a response from Luther, Swiss reformers Huldrych
Zwingli and Johannes Oecolampadius, amongst others, soon became the primary interlocutors in
36 Oswald Bayer, Martin Luther’s Theology: A Contemporary Interpretation, trans. Thomas H. Trapp (Grand Rapids:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2008), 44–67, 270–73; Wendebourg, “Taufe und Abendmahl,” in Luther Handbuch,
2nd edition, ed. Albrecht Beutel, 414–423 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010).
37 Reinhard Schwarz. “Der hermeneutsiche Angelpunkt in Luthers Meßreform” in Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche
89: 3 (1992): 340–64.

38 Luther, A Treatise on the New Testament, that is the Holy Mass, WA 6, 359, 2–360, 2; LW 35: 84–87. See also, Schwarz,
“Der hermeneutsiche Angelpunkt in Luthers Meßreform,” 347–48; Carl F. Wisløff, The Gift of Communion: Luther’s
Controversy with Rome on Eucharistic Sacrifice, trans. Joseph M. Shaw (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1964),
32–33. Luther is not completely consistent with numbering the constituting elements of a testament, cf. Luther The
Misuse of the Mass (1521) where he only lists four: (1) the testator; (2) the oral or written promise; (3) the inheritance;
and (4) the heirs: WA 8, 521; LW 36: 179.
11
what became known as the great controversy over the Sacrament of the Altar. Whereas the
central issue between Luther and his Catholic opponents hinged upon the character of the
sacrament—whether it was a sacrifice or testament—the subject of the debate shifted from
addressing the character of the sacrament to its constituent elements, namely what is in the
sacrament, what are the sacramental elements.39 Zwingli’s and Oecolampadius’ objections were
directed at Luther’s inability to enact a comprehensive rejection of papal teaching. In their
estimation, while Luther had appropriately refuted the notion of the sacrifice of the Mass, his
critiques did not effectively reject the entirety of the Catholic Mass. The primary contentious
issue was Luther’s intractable insistence upon the bodily presence of Christ in the elements of
bread and wine. Their rejection of this position rested upon assertions drawn from exegetical and
dogmatic positions, respectively, a necessary figurative reading of the institution narratives—an
exegetical result following their reading of John 6:63— and the inability of the body of Christ to
have simultaneous presence in multiple locations.40
The heart of Luther’s response to his opponents is recorded in the treatises That These
Words of Christ, ‘This Is My body,’ etc., Still Stand Firm Against the Fanatics (1527) and Confession
Concerning Christ’s Supper (1528).41 Luther dismisses any relevance ascribed to John 6:63 and it’s
“the flesh is of no avail.” First, this text is not apropos: Jesus is not speaking of the Lord’s Supper
at this point. Second, Zwingli’s alleged dichotomy between spirit and flesh is spurious. The words
of Jesus in this disputed pericope demonstrate the disparity between God (spirit) and human
nature (flesh)—not “in the sense of what God created, but in the sense of being devoid of spirit,
existing in its own strength, work, use, wisdom, will, and ability.” A comprehensive repudiation
of humanity would entail a condemnation of God’s own creation. More than this, it contradicts
the very movement of God’s economy of salvation, wherein the Son of God clothes himself in the
flesh and blood of Mary: a dismissal of the incarnation.42
Luther anchors his position, that the body and blood are able to be present in the
sacramental elements of bread and wine, first and foremost through his reading of the narratives
39 This is not to suggest that there was a consensus upon the character of the Lord’s Supper. See Dorothea
Wendebourg, Essen zum Gedächtnis: Der Gedächtnisbefehl in den Abendmahlstheologien der Reformation (Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2009); Hermann Sasse, This Is My Body: Luther’s Contention for the Real Presence in the Sacrament of the Altar
(Adelaide: Lutheran Publishing House, 1977).
40 For a summary the various positions of those involved in the Sacrament controversy, see Wendebourg, Essen zum
Gedächtnis, 92–150.
41 Luther, That These Words of Christ, ‘This Is My body,’ etc., Still Stand Firm Against the Fanatics, WA 23, 64–283; LW 37:
3–150; Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper, WA 26, 261–509; LW 37: 151–372.

42 Luther, Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper, WA 26, 350–351; LW 37: 237–38.
12
of institution. None of the four accounts of the Lord’s Supper give any impetus for a figurative or
symbolic interpretation of the text. All unequivocally invite and demand a literal reading of the
words of Jesus. Luther is quite aware of variants between the four accounts, believing that Luke’s
is more historical.43 Yet despite textual variations, he sees no reason for abandoning the literal,
most natural manner of interpretation. Even an unbeliever, Luther argues, would on account of
the text, rule in favor of his interpretation, despite her unbelief.44
None of the four accounts intimate a symbolic or figurative reading of Christ’s institution
of the Sacrament of the Altar. Furthermore, the various interpretations offered by Zwingli,
Oecolampadius, and others, differ amongst themselves in their respective analysis and
interpretation of the biblical texts.45 Their readings are nothing more than contradictory human
glosses: “If, indeed, we must cling to the naked, bare words, we would rather cling to the naked,
bare text which God himself has spoken than to naked, bare glosses devised by men.”46
While Luther’s insistence on Christ’s bodily presence is based upon his literal reading of
the scriptural accounts of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, his Christology further compels
him to hold this position. The union of the divine and human natures in one person, results in
the communcatio idiomatum, the communication of attributes. While there is not a mixing or
blending of Christ’s two natures—of which Zwingli accused Luther47—because of the union of
natures, what is a natural characteristic of one nature, Scripture attributes to the other. To reject
this is to destroy the Christological union, thus rendering void the salvific work of Christ:
[S]ince the divinity and humanity are one person in Christ, the Scriptures ascribe to the
divinity, because of this personal union, all that happens to humanity, and vice versa. [. .
.] Indeed, you must say that the person (pointing to Christ) suffers, and dies. But this
person is truly God, and there it is correct to say: the Son of God suffers. Although, so to
speak, the one part (namely, the divinity) does not suffer, nevertheless the person, who is
God, suffers in the other part (namely, in the humanity).48
43 Luther, Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper, WA 26, 461,36; LW 37: 316.

44 Luther, Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper, WA 26, 496,30–497,22; LW 37: 359. “Thus we have this strong text in
our favor, still firm and pure, in opposition to the bare, miserable glosses of the fanatics. [. . .] For even if I were a
Turk, a Jew, or a heathen, who thought nothing of the Christian faith, and yet heard or read this scriptural account
of the sacrament, I would still have to say, ‘I do not believe the Christian doctrine, of course, but this I must admit: if
they wish to be Christians and maintain their doctrine, they must believe that Christ’s body and blood are physically
eaten and drunk in the bread and wine.’”
45 Luther, Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper, WA 26, 491,34; LW 37: 355: “What am I do with these erring spirits?
One moment they make ‘bread’ and ‘participation’ figurative. Then, on the contrary, others make ‘bread’ and
‘participation’ spiritual. They run counter to each other as if they were insane, and no one is certain of his course.”
47 Luther, Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper, LW 37:212 n74.
13
Consequently, Christ is able to be present in multiple places simultaneously.49 In fact, contrary to
the objections of Zwingli, since the right hand of God is not a particular location in heaven, but
rather a locution for his divine omnipresence, Jesus Chris is present everywhere.50
Luther takes umbrage at Zwingli’s Christology, particularly his alloeosis, the substitution or
naming of one of Christ’s nature for the other; thus, making it the divine nature that is only
present everywhere, not the human nature. Where Zwingli accused Luther of Monophysitism,
Luther interpreted Zwingli’s Christology as Nestorian. According to Luther, Zwingli’s
Christology results in a chasm dividing the union of the two natures.51 The Christological and
soteriological upshot is the “construct[tion of] a kind of Christ after whom I would not want to be
a Christian, that is a Christ who is and does no more in his passion and his life than any other
ordinary saint.”52
2.1.4 The Catechisms
As the tumultuous 1520s came to an end, saddened and frustrated by the general
congregational and pastoral ignorance, Luther wrote two catechisms for instruction in
fundamental Christian doctrine. Luther’s Catechisms provide a summary of what he considered
to be the most essential and necessary components of the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. These
texts, while certainly not a thorough exposition of his thought, are illustrative of his pastoral
concern for the instruction of both laity and clergy. While Luther and his writings cannot be
severed from their caustic Sitz im Leben, the polemical rhetoric, particularly in the Small Catechism,
is relatively mild, thus permitting more immediate access to the heart of Luther’s theology of the
Lord’s Supper.
What the Catechisms illustrate is that Luther, even a more pastoral and less abrasive
Luther, uses the institution narratives to ground and define his sacramental thought. The
49 Luther identifies three separate modes of presence: local/circumscriptive, definitive, and repletive. See WA 26,
326,29–341; LW 37: 214–31.
50 Luther, Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper, WA 26, 329, 27; LW 37: 216. Luther maintains that this is the repletive,
or supernatural, mode of presence. This mode of presence belongs to God alone, in which God “is simultaneously
present in all places whole and entire, and fills all places, yet without being measure or circumscribed by any place,
in terms of the space which it occupies.”
51 Luther, Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper, WA 26, 319, 27–324; LW 37: 209–213. “If Zwingli’s alloeosis stands,
then Christ will have to be two persons, one a divine and the other a human person since Zwingli applies all the texts
concerning the passion only to the human nature and completely excludes them from the divine natures. But if the
works are divided and separated, the person will also have to be separated, since all the doing and suffering are not
ascribed to natures but to persons” (212–13).
52 Luther, Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper, WA 26, 319, 27; LW 37: 209–10.
14
accounts of Jesus’ institution of the sacrament, define the sacrament—“Was ist das Sakrament des
Altares?”—and illustrate its benefits—“Was nüßt denn solch Essen und Trinken?” : “It is the true body
and blood of the LORD Christ, in and under the bread and wine, which we Christians are
command commanded by Christ’s words to eat and drink.”53 Jesus’ words institute the
sacrament, mandate its use and reception, effect [macht/fit] it, inform the Christian of what she
receives, and strengthen her conscience and faith, while providing sustenance for her soul and
body.54
Setting aside 1519’s The Blessed Sacrament, there appears to be a transition from promise
and testament in the writings against his Roman Catholic opponents, to a concentration upon
the substantial presence of Christ’s body and blood, with emphasis upon the Jesus’ words of
institution serving as a bridge between both groups, as illustrated in his catechetical works. Two
points should be observed at this consideration. First, as Reinhard Schwarz has shown, while the
concentration on promise/testament occupies less space in his writings against the other
reformers, Luther never denounces his use of promise/testament as his hermeneutical key for
interpreting the sacrament. In fact, his confession and insistence on the bodily presence of Christ
is wholly informed through his understanding of promise.55 Second, Dorothea Wendebourg has
observed that the relationship between the words of institution, the promise of the forgiveness of
sins, and the body and blood of Jesus in and under the elements of bread and wine all move into
a closer, more coordinated relationship with each other,56 where the elements of bread/body and
wine/blood are no longer only signs of the promise of the forgiveness of sins, but, in fact, actually
carry and distribute the forgiveness of sins.57 While Luther maintains a distinction between the
53 LC V, 8; BOC, 467.
54 LC V, 23, “Therefore, it is appropriately called food of the soul [eine Speise der Seele] for it nourishes and strengthens
the new creatures; LC V 68, “We must never regard the sacrament as a harmful thing from which we should flee,
but as a pure, wholesome, soothing medicine [tröstliche Arznei] that aids you and gives life in both soul and body. For
where the soul is healed, the body is helped as well.”
55 “In these words the Lord makes himself present, as he does everywhere where his gospel is preached. But he
makes himself present through the Supper also in the particular manner of his body and blood. His presence in
bread and wine has its salvific meaning in the promise of grace of the Words of Institution. Thus also for the older
Luther the action of the Supper has its spiritual center in the promise of the forgiveness of sins." Reinhard Schwarz,
“The Last Supper: The Testament of Jesus” in The Pastoral Luther: Essays on Martin Luther’s Practical Theology, edited by
Timothy J. Wengert (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009), 207–09.
56 Dorothea Wendebourg, “Taufe und Abendmahl,” in Luther Handbuch, edited by Albrecht Beutel, 2nd ed.
(Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 421.

57 Wendebourg, Essen zum Gedächtnis: Der Gedächtnisbefehl in den Abendmahlstheologien der Reformation, (Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2009), 250. Cf. LW 37: 325–26, where Luther, in addressing Oecolampadius’ accusation that the phrase
“blood” is a trope meaning “This cup is a new testament in my, ” :“For the new testament is promise, indeed much
more: the bestowal of grace and the forgiveness of sin, i.e. the true gospel. [. . .] Therefore, he who drinks of this cup
15
words and elements,58 never tolerating an eating without the words,59 the distance between the
two is radically abridged, with Luther emphasizing that the elements of Christ’s body and blood
are given to Christians as their “treasure and gift,” but they “must be set within the Word and
offered to us through the Word [so muß er in das Wort gefaßt und uns gereicht werden], otherwise we
could never know of it or seek it.”60
2.2 Luther’s Liturgical Reforms

In order to gain perspective into the modus operandi of Luther’s liturgical reforms a letter
written to the pastors of the Imperial city of Lübeck in January 1530 provides helpful insight.
The Reformation in Lübeck had slowly been gaining steam since its introduction in 1522. By
1530 the Reformation had moved beyond a minority opinion and was officially organized. A
pressing concern was the organization and implementation of an evangelical liturgical order.
Being no stranger to these issues, Luther offered his suggestions and advice. His recommendation
to the Lübeck clergy is telling. By 1530 it had nearly been seven years since the publication of
Luther’s Formula Missae et Communionis pro Ecclesia Vuittembergensi, and five years since he first
celebrated the Deutsche Messe und Ordnung Gottesdiensts.61 Other evangelical liturgical orders had
also been drafted and printed by this time. Luther neither commends his orders nor any other.
Beyond this, he provides no suggestion for reforms in general. On the contrary, he urges the
pastors to be patient and hesitant before introducing any changes. Needed liturgical reform will
come in due time, if these pastors faithfully attend to what is the central priority:
You should deal first with the center of our teaching and fix in the people’s minds what
[they must know] about our justification; that is, that it is an extrinsic righteousness—
indeed, it is Christ’s given to us through faith which come by grace to those who are first
terrified by the law and who, struck by the consciousness of [their] sins ardently seek
redemption.62
If the reverse order is taken, liturgical reform before doctrinal instruction, no real reformation
will occur, for people will soon grow tired and anxious, lacking a sufficient understanding of the
really drinks the true blood of Christ and the forgiveness of sins or the Spirit of Christ, for these are received in and
with the cup. Here is received no mere figure or sign of the new testament or of the blood of Christ, as would befit
the Jews in the old testament.”
58 LC V, 8–14. BOC, 467–68.
59 LC V, 29–30. BOC, 469.
60 LC V, 29–30. BOC, 469. Cf. LC V, 9: “Rather it is bread and wine set within God’s Word and bound to it”
[sondern Brot und Wein in Gottes Wort gefaßt und daran gebunden].
61 Herl, Worship Wars, 8–9. The first celebration of the German Mass on October 29, 1525, was “a trial basis,” with
its official adoption beginning on Christmas.

62 Luther, To Some Pastors of the City of Lübeck, WA Br 5. 220–21; LW 49: 261–62.
16
doctrine, and will become loathsome to everything. But if instruction in doctrine is given priority,
particularly “the center of our teaching [. . .] our justification,” reforms of the order of worship
will follow.
Luther’s suggestions to the pastor’s at Lübeck are confirmed in his own dealings at
Wittenberg, particularly in contrast to his colleague and fellow reformer Karlstadt. During
Luther’s detention in Castle Wartburg following the Diet of Worms, debate commenced over an
evangelical reform of the Mass, culminating in Karlstadt’s celebration of the first evangelical
Lord’s Supper on the feast of the Nativity, 1521. This evangelical liturgical observance was
characterized by the introduction of the vernacular, the complete absence of any liturgical
vesture, the omission of common ritual, the reception of both species by means of the hand
without prior confession and fasting.63 The immediacy of these measures was furthered through
the adoption of a church order calling for the removal and destruction of all images and altars. 64
While this order was eventually quashed through the ruling of the Imperial Council of Regency,
Luther’s return on March 6, 1522 with the preaching his eight Invocavit Sermons brought a
change of heart, and a reversal of Karlstadt’s brash reforms.65
2.2.1 Formula Missae et Communionis
Following Luther’s return to Wittenberg and the cessation of Karlstadt’s revisions, it is

difficult to determine with precision when Luther introduced his own liturgical reforms into
Wittenberg. During the spring of 1523 he published Von ordernung gottis diensts ynn der gemeyne for a
congregation in Leisnig. On the Monday of Judica (March 23, 1523), the void left by the
abolition of daily private Masses, initiated under Karlstadt, was filled by the introduction of
simple morning and evening services, consisting of the reading of Scripture lessons, prayer, and
preaching.66 This order is important in developing a timeline for Luther’s reforms, but little is
said regarding the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, save that the sacrament should be
administered to those desiring it on Sundays and throughout the week as time permits. It is not
until later in 1523 with the publication of the Formula Missae that a clearer liturgical order is given
for the reform of the Mass.
63 Martin Brecht, Martin Luther: Shaping and Defining the Reformation: 1521–32 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994) 26–34.
64 Brecht, Shaping and Defining the Reformation, 38–40.
65 Brecht, Shaping and Defining the Reformation, 59–61. For the text of the Invocavit sermons see WA 10 III, 1–64; LW 51:
69–100.
66 Luther, Concerning the Order of Public Worship, WA 12, 31–37; LW 53: 7–14. Also see Herl, Worship Wars, 4–6.
17
When examining the Formula Missae what is initially surprising is how little is altered.
From the Introit to the Creed, almost everything is retained with only a few minor emendations.
But from the Offertory onwards, where “almost everything smacks and savors of sacrifice,”
Luther’s “theological radicalism” emerges.67 Without any hint of
Formula Messe 1523
reservation the canon of the Mass is excised, leaving only the
Introit
Kyrie words of institution, (following the Preface), the Sanctus, said after
Gloria
Collect the institution narrative, with the Benedictus qui chanted during
Epistle the elevation,68 followed by the Lord’s Prayer, the Pax, and the
Gradual/Alleluia
Verse/Sequence singing of the Agnus Dei during the administration of the
Gospel
Creed sacrament; optional is pre-communion prayer.69 After reception
Sermon
Sursum Corda/Preface of the sacrament, one may pray an optional post-communion
Verba
Sanctus prayer, before the Benedicamus and the Aaronic benediction.
Lord’s Prayer Luther’s reforms are enacted not only through exclusion, but also
Pax
Agnus Dei through innovation. In addition to the deletion of the canon, the
(optional reception prayer)
Distribution words of institution, previously recited in a manner inaudible to
(optional: post-communion
prayer) the congregation, are to be chanted according to the tone used
Benedicamus
Benediction for the Lord’s Prayer so that all may hear them, although
permission is made for the continuation of their silent recitation.70
67 Leaver, Luther’s Liturgical Music, 175.

68 The Sanctus and the Benedictus qui come before Roman Canon.
69 Luther, An Order of Mass and Communion for the Church at Wittenberg, WA 12, 212–13; LW 53:27–29. Regarding
communion under both kinds, Luther states that since two years of instruction have preceded the introduction of this
rite, both the body and the blood should be distributed. Any further delay would only “make allowance for their
weaknesses” and may result in the confirmation of the obstinacy, although both forms will not be forced upon those
not yet prepared (34–35). Taken into consideration with his patient instruction following his return to Wittenberg in
1522, one sees that Luther believes education and teaching must precede reform and change, but eventually one
must move forward, particularly when the issue at hand regards “the institution of Christ” (35).
70 Dorothea Wendebourg, “Noch einmal >> Den falschen Weg Roms zu Ende gegangen? << Auseinandersetzung
mit meinen Kritikern,” 400–440. Wendebourg interprets this transitional concession [Übergangskonzession] as an
indication that the Formula Missae was only a transitional order [Übergangsordnung], to be replaced by the Deutsche
Messe. While I agree that this comment is an obvious concession, allowed for evangelical patience, this does not
necessarily compromise the order as such. Luther’s own comments in the introduction of the Deutsche Messe and the
liturgical history of Wittenberg in the years following its publication seem to contradict this. Cf. Herl, Worship Wars,
8–16. See fn.72.
18
2.2.2 Deutsche Messe71
The introduction of the Deutsche Messe appears to be the fulfillment of Luther’s own words
from the Formula Missae,72 although, as Herl demonstrates, Luther’s 1528 letter to Wilhelm
Pravest of Kiel appears to contradict this common assumption.73 The order was introduced in
Wittenberg in late 1525.74 The two most striking observations are the complete introduction of
the vernacular and the use of vernacular hymns, styled off of the traditional tones, used to replace
various Latin hymns (e.g. Gradual/Verse) or ordinaries of the Mass (e.g. Wir gläuben all an einem
Gott as the Creed).75 While notably the Gloria is omitted,76 up till the sermon the order remains
comparable to the Formula Missae in terms of content.77
At the conclusion of the preaching of the Gospel for the Sunday or the festival day, the
Sursum Corda and Preface are removed and replaced by a paraphrase of the Lord’s Prayer,
followed by an exhortation [vermannung] addressed to those who desire to receive the sacrament.
The exhortation itself is brief, consisting of approximately one hundred words, calling the faithful
to heed the testament of Christ in faith, particularly the words of institution, in which Christ gives
them his body and blood for the forgiveness of sins. Furthermore, they are to give thanks for
Christ’s abundant love that has brought redemption, through his blood, from God’s wrath, sin,
death, and hell. In faith they are to receive the bread and wine, his body and blood, as a “pledge
and guarantee” [zur sicherung und pfand] of this. It concludes with these final words: “In his name,
71 Luther, The German Mass and Order of Service, WA 19, 44–113; LW 53: 51–90. In referring to the title of this order, I
will use current orthography. Regarding the date of composition and introduction of the German Mass, see fn. 61.
72 Luther, An Order of Mass and Communion for the Church at Wittenberg, WA 12: 218; LW 53: 36; Herl, Worship Wars, 6. “I
also wish that we had as many songs as possible in the vernacular which the people could sing during mass,
immediately after the gradual and also after the Sanctus and Agnus Dei. For who doubts that originally all the
people sang these which now only the choir sings or responds to while the bishop is consecrating? The bishops may
have these [congregational] hymns sung either after the Latin chants, or use the Latin on one [Sun]day and the
vernacular on the next, until the time comes that the whole mass is sung in the vernacular.”
73 Herl, Worship Wars, 10. “Finally, by no means do I wish to abolish the Latin mass, nor would I have allowed the
vernacular if I had not been compelled.” To be sure, Luther already states in the Deutsche Messe that he had no
intention of abolishing the Latin Mass, which is supported by the liturgical history of Wittenberg. The question is
whether he even wanted to introduce the vernacular at all? Or, perhaps Luther’s feelings from 1528 are a later
authorial interpretation of his previously held opinion that, in fact, contradicts his earlier sentiments?
74 Luther, The German Mass and Order of Service, WA 19, 72–113; LW 53: 61–80.
75 Herl, Worship Wars, 8–16; Leaver, Luther’s Liturgical Music, 173–274. How much of these German hymns were sung
by the laity, rather than the choir is up for debate. Herl has shown that the common belief that the Deutsche Messe
immediately transformed the Mass into a congregational activity (in hymn) is not accurate. See fn 131.
76 For theories regarding its omission, one being that its composition occurred during Ad te levavi, see Hans-Christian
Drömann, “Kyrie and Gloria in den lutherischen Kirchenordnungen des sechzehnten Jahrhunderts,” In Kerygma und
Melos: Christhard Mahrenholz 70 Jahre, ed. Walter Blankenburg, Herwarth von Schade, Kurt Schmidt-Clausen, and
Alexander Völker, 57-66 (Kasel and Berlin: Bärenreiter-Verlag; Lutherisches Verlagshaus, 1970).
77 Herl, Worship Wars, 29. Herl provides a helpful chart comparing the traditional medieval Roman Mass with both
of Luther’s Mass settings.
19
therefore, and according to the command that he gave, let us use and receive the Testament”
[Dem nach wollen wir ynn seynem namen und aus seynem befehl durch seyne eygene wort das testament also
handeln und brauchen].”78 This immediately leads to the “Office and Consecration” [das ampt und
dermunge] with the words of institution set to the same tone previously used for the reading of the
Gospel. Different from the Formula Missae Luther inserts the
Deutsche Messe 1525/26
administration of the body of Christ between the consecration of
German Psalm
Kyrie the bread and wine, with the singing of the German Sanctus hymn
Collect
Epistle Jesaia dem Propheten, Gott sei gelobet, or Jesus Chritus unser Heiland.
German hymn Nu bitten wyr The administration of the cup, after its consecration, is
Gospel
Creed: Wir gläuben all an einem Gott accompanied by the German Agnus Dei hymn Christe, du Lamm
Sermon
Lord’s Prayer Paraphrase Gottes and the remainder of the previous hymns. Luther also
Exhortation
Verba/with immediate includes a new post-communion collect in which thanks is offered
distribution
Jesaia dem Propheten, Gott sei gelobet, to God for the reception of the salvific gifts [heylsame gabe] just
or Jesus Chritus unser Heiland received, which, should strengthen the recipients in steadfast
Christe, du Lamm Gottes
Post-communion collect faith toward God and in love for each other.79
Benediction
Luther’s liturgical aims are driven by the desire to purify,
rather than goals of destruction or innovation.80 This is significant in that Luther does not see the
order of the Mass as problematic per se. In his estimation, corruptions have been introduced and
imbedded into the rite that obscure the heart of the Mass, which he defines as the communion of
bread and wine, instituted by Jesus Christ, and observed by the apostles.81 Onto this dominical
foundation have been added a variety of rites and rituals that constitute the Latin Mass. Not all
additions are of the same caliber: only some have led to a corruption of Christ’s Mass.
78 Luther, The German Mass and Order of Service, WA 19, 96, 20–27; LW 53:79–80.
79 Luther, The German Mass and Order of Service, WA 19, 102; LW 53: 84.
80 Spinks, “Evaluating Liturgical Continuity and Change at the Reformation: A Case Study of Thomas Muntzer,
Martin Luther, and Thomas Cranmer,” in Continuity and Change in Christian Worship: Papers Read at the 1997 Summer
Meeting and the 1998 Winter Meeting of the Ecclesiastical History Society, edited by Robert N. Swanson, 151–71 (Rochester:
The Boydell Press, 1999). Spinks draws attention to Luther’s desire for a “German reforms”: “Luther was of course
concerned with the Kingdom of God, and the return to an evangelical Church. However, there is a sense in which
Luther was not overly interested in what happed elsewhere, as long as Germany returned to the pure Gospel” (166).
To be sure Luther does not attempt at establishing continental reforms, but as noted above, Luther does not engage
in trans-German reforms either. As a pastor, much of Luther’s liturgical focus is centered upon the context in which
his pastoral care is exercised—Wittenberg, not all of Germany. His understanding of pastoral care, as shown with
the Church in Lübeck (cf. fn 62), reveals itself in how he envisions and encourages liturgical reform throughout the
German lands. What is important to remember, as evidenced in Lübuck, ritual reforms follow doctrinal reforms.
81 Luther, An Order of Mass and Communion for the Church at Wittenberg, WA 12: 206; LW 53:20.
20
For Luther, the center of the corruption of the Mass is the introduction of its sacrificial
interpretation. This error, in addition to compromising Christ’s institution, has created an entire
ecclesiastical and economic structure that governs the Church’s existence.82 The liturgical
expression of this is found in the canon of the Mass. For Luther, the embedding of the verba in the
canon is analogous to the when the Ark of the Covenant was translated into the idolatrous
temple of Dagon.83 But this only provides a reactionary account of his liturgical revisions. As seen
already by setting the narrative of institution apart, particularly through chant, Luther’s liturgical
reform of the Mass constructively illustrates his theology of the Lord’s Supper.
Luther’s liturgical orders are published in 1523 and 1525/6 respectively. His Formula
Missae follows the train of his heated confrontation with the medieval Catholic theology and
practice of the Mass: A Treatise on the New Testament, that is the Holy Mass (1520), The Babylonian
Captivity of the Church (1520), and The Misuse of the Mass (1521). The Deutsche Messe comes out after
his initial response to Karlstadt, Against the Heavenly Prophets (1524) but before his more substantial
texts. As such, Reinhard Schwarz posits that Luther’s liturgical reforms are best interpreted in
light of his earlier sacramental treatises from (1520–21) against Catholic doctrine. As seen above,
these works present a theology of the Lord’s Supper whose central theological concept is located
in the particular and defining word of Christ’s institution, which hinge on the concept of promise
(promissio) and testament. As such, it is constituted by certain particulars: a testator, recipients, the
testament, a seal of the promises, and the blessing.
Luther’s testamental exegesis of the Lord’s Supper leaves no doubt that the testament is
the work of the testator. That is to say, it is a monergistic act of God for the sake of humanity.
Rather than a sacrifice, which is a human work directed towards God, the Sacrament of the
Altar is Jesus’ last will and testament of the forgiveness of sins, eternal life and righteousness,
sealed and delivered to Christians in his own body and blood, under the tokens/signs [Zeichens] of
82 Luther, An Order of Mass and Communion for the Church at Wittenberg, WA 12: 207; LW 53:21–22. Compare with
Luther’s comments in the 1537 Smalcald Articles: “That the Mass under the papacy has to be the greatest and most
terrible abomination, as it directly and violently opposes this chief article. [. . .] This article on the Mass will be the
decisive issue in the council because, were it possible for them to give in to us on every other article, they could not
give in on this one. [. . .] They are well aware that if the Mass falls, the papacy falls.” SA II, 1, 10, in BOC, 301, 303.
(Emphasis added.)
83 Luther, An Order of Mass and Communion for the Church at Wittenberg, WA 12: 211; LW 53:26. “[T]he words of life and
salvation are imbedded in the midst of it all, just as the ark of the Lord once stood in the idol’s temple next to Dagon.
And there was no Israelite who could approach or bring back the ark until it ‘smote his enemies in the hinder parts,
putting them to a perpetual reproach’ and forced them to return it–which is a parable of the present time. Let us,
therefore, repudiate everything that smacks of sacrifice, together with the entire canon and retain only that which is
pure and holy, and so order our mass.”
21
bread and wine. There is a direct contradiction between Christ’s testamental work and a human
sacrifice: one is ascending, the other descending.
Now note the deception of the priests, who have made a sacrifice of the testament. God
bequeaths and gives something to us, but they sacrifice something to him. That is nothing
else than to denounce God as a liar and regard him as a fool, for calling it a testament.
For whoever makes a sacrifice out of it cannot consider it to be a testament, because it is
impossible for a sacrifice to be a testament. The former we give, the latter we take; the
former goes from us to God, the latter comes from God to us; the former occurs through
us, the latter without us.84
The descending work of Christ’s testament and the ascending human sacrifice have
corresponding liturgical actions and directions in the Mass. First and primary is Christ’s last will
and testament, the sacrament of the altar; subsequent and subordinate is the human work of
prayer.85 While both movements are present in the Mass, they are distinct and correlate to
different acts. The contrasting directions and actors of these movements cannot be conflated into
the same act.86 The Lord’s Supper is an act of God to humanity that descends from God
downward. Prayer, on the other hand, is a human act that ascends to God.87 Both descending
and ascending elements are in the Mass in general, but the Mass understood as the Lord’s
Supper, the body and blood of Christ in the elements of bread and wine distributed and received
for forgiveness, is a work of Christ given to humanity.
These theological distinctions bring out the congruity between his 1520–21 treatises on
the Lord’s Supper and his liturgical reforms of the Mass. In the removal of the canon, uncasing
the institution narrative, Luther obliterates the medieval notion that the Mass is an atoning
sacrifice offered to God on behalf of the sins of the living and the dead. Secondly, he
permanently dissociates from the Mass any correspondence of a synergistic work carried out
between humanity and God.88 The Lord’s Supper is Christ’s divine act and work. It is the
84 Luther, The Misuse of the Mass, WA 8, 521; LW 36: 180.

86 Schwarz. “Der hermeneutsiche Angelpunkt in Luthers Meßreform,” 361–363.
87 Schwarz. “Der hermeneutsiche Angelpunkt in Luthers Meßreform,” 341.“Das Gebet ist ein aszendentes
Geschehen; hier redet er Mensch zu Gott. Das Sakrament – das Abendmahl wie die Taufe – ist ein dezendtes
Geschehen; hier erweist Gott redend und handelnd den Menschen seine Wohltat.”
88 Cf. Luther, The Misuse of the Mass, WA 8, 512,10; LW 36: 169: “For this reason we shall find or see in these words
[of institution] nothing but the promise of Christ and the faith of man. Not one iota about a sacrifice is indicated in
them, for sacrifice and promise are further apart than sunrise and sunset. A sacrifice is a work in which we present
and give to God something of our own. The promise, however, is God’s word, which gives to man the grace and
mercy of God. So it is not merely false, but also incomprehensible to human reason to make out of God’s promise a
human sacrifice, and out of the word of divine majesty a work of a lowly creature. Between the word of God and our
work there is no similarity at all, not to speak of their being identical.”
22
testament of the forgiveness of sins, purchased on the cross, sealed and delivered in and through
his true body and blood under the elements of bread and wine. In so doing he liturgically re-
establishes the Lord’s Supper according to Christ’s mandate, as a divine act of love and
forgiveness for humanity. The distinction between Christ’s testamental work and human sacrifice
is further underscored by his refusal to revise, edit, or reinterprets the canon—which he had
previously permitted as a possibility89—or any attempt to compose a theologically appropriate
substitute.
This point has been contested in current scholarship, particularly in light of Luther’s
rendering of the institution narrative in the Formula Missae, namely, he retains the introductory
relative clause qui pridie, subsuming the words of institution into the preceding Preface. Reinhard
Meßner interprets the presence of this relative clause as a bridge between the institution and the
preceding Thanksgiving, where Christ’s words of institution become the center of the Eucharistic
anamnesis, similar to the structure of the early Church’s pattern of anaphora, where Thanksgiving
is the central focus; over and against the medieval Canon and its sacrificial content.90 Thus the
Formula Missae combines the alternating directions of God’s testamental work and humanity’s
sacrificial work, interweaving the two directions into the self-same act. This corresponds with
what he calls the “meta-rule” [die Meta-Regel] of Luther’s liturgical reforms: (1) God’s word is to
be proclaimed; (2) this word is to be prayed in order for the promise to be enacted.91 Reinhard
Schwarz and Dorothea Wendebourg correctly counter Meßner’s claim by noting that any such
connection of the verba to the preceding Preface through the qui pridie is broken through Luther’s
explicit insertion of a pause and the introduction of the chant tone,92 both creating an audible
89 Luther, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, WA 6, 523,30–525,5; LW 36: 52–54: “For this reason the words
‘sacrifice’ and ‘offering’ must be taken to refer not to the sacrament and testament, but to the collections [offerings]
themselves”(53). “Therefore, let the priests who offer the sacrifice of the mass in these corrupt and most perilous
times take heed, first, that they do not refer to the sacrament the words of the greater and lesser canon, together with
the collects, because they smack too strongly of sacrifice. They should refer them instead to the bread and the wine
to be consecrated, or the their own prayers.” Cf. The Misuse of the Mass, WA 8, 526; LW 36: 185, where Luther’s
rejects his former position: “We say that the canon, because it is a human word and work, shall yield to the gospel
and give place to the Holy Spirit. And even if I wanted to support the canon, as I used to do, I will none the less now
do honor not to the canon, but to the gospel, and give credence to it beyond any doubt. [. . . ] Because the canon
was invited to the marriage feast and sat down in a place of honor it shall now get up with shame and give place to
Christ, its master, and sit in the lowest place, as it should properly have done in the beginning.”
90 Reinhard Meßner. Die Meßreform Martin Luthers und die Eucharistie der Alten Kirche (Innsbruck: Tyrolia, 1989), 193.
91 Reinhard Meßner, “Reformen des Gottesdienstes in der Wittenberger Reformation,” in Biblische Modelle und
Liturgiereformen von der Frühzeit bis zur Aufklärung, Part 1 in Liturgiereformen: Historische Studien zu einem bleibenden Grundzug des
christlichen Gottesdienstes, ed. Martin Klöckener and Benedikt Kranemann, 381–416. (Münster: Aschendorf Münster,
2002).
92 Luther, An Order of Mass and Communion for the Church at Wittenberg, WA 12: 212, 23; LW 53:28.
23
and theological disconnect with the Preface. Schwarz substantiates this position through citation
of The Misuse of the Mass, where Luther explicitly rejects the belief that the self-same act can be
both sacrificial and testamental at the same time.93
In unwrapping Christ’s words from any linguistic tie to sacrifice and prayer, and in
vocalizing them audibly and distinctly through chant, Luther changes their liturgical function.
Before his reform the words of institution were consecratory and sacrificial. Removed from the
canon and structure of prayer, the latter feature is subsequently lost. If Luther were to have left
the rite in this form, the verba would only have remained consecratory, being spoken to the
elements of bread and wine: only a liturgical formula. Without comprising a consecratory view of
the recitation of the verba, Luther invests their recitation with a proclamatory character, which is
made explicit in the exhortation of the Deutsche Messe, announced only moments before the verba
are spoken: “I admonish you in Christ that you discern the Testament of Christ in true faith and,
above all, take to heart the words wherein Christ imparts to us his body and his blood for the remission of
sins.”94 Through transformation into an audibly perceptible annunciation these words receive a
new audience. No longer only a ritual formula, they become proclamation: the announcing of
the Gospel of the forgiveness of sins, spoken to the gathered in order to create faith. It is not only
that the words receive a new liturgical function, moving from a ritual recitation over bread and
wine to a ritual speech spoken to the congregation. Unhinged from the sacrificial context,
chanted loudly to the tone of the Gospel95 into the ears of the faithful, the voice of their recitation
is changed:
[Y]ou must above all else take heed to your heart, that you believe the words of Christ,
and admit their truth, when he says to you and to all, “This is my blood, a new testament, by
which I bequeath you forgiveness of all sins and eternal life.” [. . .] Everything depends,
therefore, as I have said, upon the words of this sacrament. These are the words of Christ.
Truly we should set them in pure gold and precious stones, keeping nothing more
diligently before the eyes of our heart, so that faith may thereby be exercised. [. . .] So if
you would receive this sacrament and testament worthily, see to it that you give emphasis
to these living words of Christ, rely on them with a strong faith, and desire what Christ has
promised you in them.96
93 Schwarz. “Der hermeneutsiche Angelpunkt in Luthers Meßreform,” 361–363; Wendebourg, “Noch einmal,”:
400–440; idem, “Travel the Full Extent of Rome’s Erroneous Path?” Lutheran Forum 44:4 (2010): 18–33.
94 Luther, The German Mass and Order of Service, WA 12: 96, 20–27; LW 53:79–80. (Emphasis added.)
95 Leaver, Luther’s Liturgical Music, 180–90.
96 Luther, The German Mass and Order of Service, WA 6: 360, 21–361, 11; LW 35: 88–89 (Emphasis added);
Wendebourg, “Travel the Full Extent of Rome’s Erroneous Path?,” 25. I am indebted to Wendebourg for this
insight. Wendebourg notes, as do the Lutheran Confessions [FC SD VII, 75, 89] that this interpretation is not
24
Christ’s own speaking of the verba is in fact central to Luther’s conception of testament and
promise. The promise made by Christ the testator is not the reading of a dead voice from the
past, sealed in his lifeless flesh and blood. It is the living voice of the crucified and resurrected
Christ, in the present, speaking words of life and forgiveness, sealed in his living body and blood,
to all the sinful mourning their sins.
original to Luther. Both St. Ambrose and St. John Chrysostom are two examples of Patristic sources holding to this
perspective.
25
CHAPTER THREE
MECKLENBURG’S RECEPTION OF LUTHER’S REFORMS
3.1 The History of the Reformation in Mecklenburg

The territory of Mecklenburg was not unfamiliar with attempts at reform. At the
beginning of the 1500s there was a small Hussite presence in and around Rostock. Already in
1516 the sales of indulgences had resulted in protests. In 1520 Conrad Pegel, tutor of prince
Magnus, son of Duke Henry V (1479–1552), began his studies in Wittenberg and was converted
to the evangelical doctrine. While Pegel studied under Luther, and his influence on prince
Magnus was to produce future dividends, the earliest and greatest advocate of the Reformation
in Mecklenburg was Joachim Slüter (1490–1532). In 1523 Slüter was called by Duke Henry V to
be chaplain at St. Peter’s in Rostock, where he became known for his evangelical preaching. This
is not to imply that the Reformation was readily received in Mecklenburg. Its introduction was
by no means fluid and uniform. At the heart of its complicated reception lay its bifurcated
rulership. Mecklenburg had experienced a long, complex history of rulers from the Obotrite
family line, consisting of male heirs receiving shares of the duchy, often resulting in a continual
reallocation of lands. By 1471 geographical sovereignty had been united under a single branch of
the Obotrite family, with Heinrich IV (1417–77) serving as duke. Upon his death, rather than
splitting the territory, his sons Magnus II and Balthasar were both named co-rulers, dividing the
income, but ruling jointly. This co-ruler arrangement passed over to Magnus’ two sons Heinrich
V (1479–1552) and Albrecht VII (1486–1547). Whereas between Magnus II and Balthasar, the
former exercised greater authority, while the latter enjoyed his titular amenities, a similar
allocation of power and comforts would not placate either Heinrich or Albrecht. Tension existed
between both brothers, with Albrecht desiring a partitioning of the duchy, and Heinrich seeking
to avoid any division of power. Finally, in 1520 an agreement was brokered through their uncle,
Duke Bogislaw of Pomerania: each brother received an even share of the income from the ducal
lands, and also a division of the various regional districts [Ämter], with Heinrich residing at
Schwerin, and Albrecht at Güstrow. However, they shared the responsibility for the territory’s
Church, courts, university, and the administration of the various towns.97
97Miller, “The Lutheran State Church of Mecklenburg,”18–30; Franz Schrader, “Mecklenburg,” in Der
Nordwesten, vol. 3 of Die Territorien des Reichs im Zeitalter der Reformation und Konfessionaliserung: Land und Konfession 1500–
1650, edited by Anton Schindling and Walter Ziegler (Münster: Aschendorff, 1990), 167–69.
26
The division of power between Heinrich and Albrecht played a central role in the
sporadic and uneven entry of the Lutheran Reformation into the lands of Mecklenburg. Between
the two brothers Heinrich was more amenable to Luther’s reforms. Upon his return from the
Nürnberg Reichstag in 1523, Heinrich visited Luther in Wittenberg, even hearing him preach.
But he exercised restraint in his tolerance of the spread of the Reformation; his support was not
fully embracive. While he requested evangelical preachers and maintained his support of them—
as long as they did not become embattled in disputes with local authorities—Heinrich was
insistent in his resistance to any reform of the extant liturgical practices, particularly the Mass.
Mecklenburg maintained an “atmosphere of limited toleration.”98 Reasons for his timid support
may be found primarily in Albrecht’s firm adherence to the Catholic faith. While it has been said
that Albrecht’s loyalty to the old faith was driven because it seemed more politically
advantageous—particularly considering neighboring Catholic Brandenburg, whose duke was
Albrecht’s father-in-law, and close connections with the Habsburgs—his disdain for the
Wittenberg Reformation remained constant even to his death.99 Further complicating this
situation was Heinrich’s administrative responsibility of the bishopric of Schwerin. In 1516 his
son Magnus (1509–1550) was elected bishop of the Diocese of Schwerin, but on account of his
age—Magnus was only 7—Henry served as guardian [Vormund] until the confirmation of
Magnus in 1532.
Such tepid support of the Reformation grew burdensome to the growing minority of
Lutheran pastors. Heinrich did not attend the 1529 Diet of Speyer, nor did he join his name to
the list of signatories of the Augsburg Confession. Particularly problematic was his obstinate
maintenance of the liturgical status quo, even participating in the Corpus Christi procession. The
Lutheran clergy took umbrage at this bipartite existence. Lutheran preaching and the Catholic
Mass could not harmoniously coexist.100 The citizens of Malchin lambasted his inconsistent
practice: “for the Gospel brings with it the necessary use of the Sacrament.”101 Finally in 1533,
Heinrich personally embraced the Lutheran Reformation by receiving the Sacrament of the
Altar under both forms at Easter. This did not immediately result in any comprehensive reform,
98 Miller, “The Lutheran State Church of Mecklenburg,” 46.

99 Miller, “The Lutheran State Church of Mecklenburg,” 46–48.
100 Scott Dixon, The Reformation in Germany (Malden, MA.: Blackwell Publishing Inc., 2002), 119–20. Dixon classifies
Duke Heinrich V, neither as an opponent nor as an active supporter of the Lutheran Reformation. Rather, his
position is best characterized as neutral, tolerating the Reformation, but also severely limiting it.
101 Heinrich Schnell, Die mecklenburgischen Kirchenordnungen. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Entstehung der mecklenburgischen
Landeskirche, (Güstrow: Rathsbuchdruckeri C. Michaal, 1899), 23.
27
given Albrecht’s staunch opposition to Lutheranism. The tension between Heinrich and Albrecht
reached its apex when Lutheran pastor Aegidius Faber (1490–1558), who had repeatedly
preached against a relic of the blood of Christ, published his 1533 treatise “On the False Blood
and Idol at the Cathedral in Schwerin,” with a forward added by Luther.102 The mounting
turmoil was assuaged through a bi-confessional compromise in 1534, in which towns would
divide their parishes between the old and new confession (towns having one parish would have to
share the building) and the allowance of a partial ecclesiastical visitation, limited only to towns
where the dukes enjoyed patronage, but emphasis was placed on examining economic structures
and practices, not reforming the parishes or worship.103
The bi-confessional status of Mecklenburg persisted throughout the remainder of the
1530s and the majority of the next decade. Heinrich permitted a second visitation in 1535 on
account of his fear of the growing number of “radical” reformers. The visitation committee was
only permitted to travel to parishes and areas where the reformation had already been
introduced, in order to ensure that the installation of reforms was accomplished in a proper
manner, avoiding the doctrine and practice of the more extreme reformers. This second
visitation was not intended to spread the Reformation, but only to see to its proper
administration.104 In 1537 Duke Heinrich took a further step for the Reformation cause by
appointing an ecclesiastical superintendent for Mecklenburg, Johannes Riebling. Riebling’s initial
stay was quite brief and it would not be for another three years until he truly was permitted to
exercise his office.
In 1540, following the embrace of the Reformation in neighboring Brandenburg,
Heinrich requested an official Church order for the duchy—it’s first— along with another round
of visitations, which spanned 1541—42. But this step was still limited. The status of the Church
order and the ensuing visitation was ambiguous: Heinrich had ordered it, but neither Albrecht
nor the territorial estates had granted their permission. It was all “thin legal ice”: the visitation
committee could not legally force the order upon anyone. However, it did have the authority to
remove the followers of Zwingli or any Anabaptists. By the conclusion of the visitations, the
102 Luther, Preface to Aegidius Faber, On the False Blood and Idol at the Cathedral in Schwerin, WA Br. 8, 426–30; LW 60: 30–
34.
103 Miller, “The Lutheran State Church of Mecklenburg,” 52–54; Schrader, “Mecklenburg,” 169–70. Out of the
130 parishes visited, only 21 pastors were considered Lutheran, with the majority existing in Heinrich’s Ämter.
28
committee observed that the Reformation had succeeded in the urban centers of the duchy; the
rural parts of the territory retained a stronger Catholic presence.105
The pace of the Reformation in Mecklenburg “was more evolutionary than
revolutionary,” taking decades rather than months or years.106 Nonetheless, Heinrich and the
Lutheran pastors serving in Mecklenburg succeeded in a gradual installation of Lutheranism into
the duchy. Yet it was not until Albrecht’s death in 1547 that the Reformation finally received
traction in the territory. His death and the succession of his son Johann Albrecht II (1525–1576)
were the catalyst for a complete territorial reformation. What ultimately galvanized Heinrich and
Johann Albrecht was Emperor Charles’ persistent demand that both dukes implement the
Augsburg Interim. After months of tactfully skirting the imperial demands, it was at the June
Landtag at Sternberg, with the vote of the estates, that Mecklenburg officially denounced the
Interim and declared itself Lutheran. With the drafting of a confessional statement the “duchy
embraced Lutheranism and made it part of their [princes and people] collective identity and part
of their social and political system.”107
Despite Mecklenburg’s official renunciation of Catholicism and its embrace of the
Lutheran confession, not much changed within the duchy for the next few years. Heinrich still
demonstrated a reserved and conservative rule and it was not until his death in 1552 that the
Reformation was finally given official impetus under Johann Albrecht, “the real architect of
reform in Mecklenburg.”108 For the next three years Johann Albrecht introduced a thorough
reform of the ecclesiastical structures in his duchy. A new Church order was commissioned and
was completed in 1552, primarily the efforts of Superintendent Riebling and Johannes Aurifaber.
After approval and minor revisions from Philip Melanchthon, the new order was printed and
sent to every parish within the territory, a total five hundred copies. While not the first church
order within the duchy, its predecessors paled in comparison to the breadth and volume of the
order. Its popularity of this order spread beyond the boundaries of Mecklenburg, gaining a
reputation as a “model-order of the Augsburg Confession” [ist zu einer Musterordnung der
Augsburgischen Konfession].109 The church order was accompanied by a new ecclesiastical visitation,
ensuring that it was comprehensively installed throughout the territory, seeking to remove all of
105 Miller, “The Lutheran State Church of Mecklenburg,” 58–59; Schrader, “Mecklenburg,” 170–71.
109 CD, 98.
29
the “vestiges of Catholicism in Mecklenburg.”110 Unlike previous occasions, this visitation carried
the complete political force of the duke: if pastors did not accept the new church order after
fourteen days, they were forced to leave the territory.111
While this overview is by no means a complete account of the history of the reception of
the Lutheran Reformation in Mecklenburg, I have attempted to create an initial sketch of the
major contours of its narrative. By doing so, I have provided a context in which to locate the
major liturgical texts through which the Lutheran reforms of the Mass were introduced into the
duchy. An analysis of these texts comprises the remainder of this chapter.
3.2 The Reformation of the Mass in Mecklenburg

What follows is an investigation into the four liturgical orders that carried the Lutheran
Reformation into Mecklenburg. The manner in which I proceed is a textual analysis of the
respective orders of the Mass. The rites of the Lord’s Supper receive priority, but consideration is
given to the first half of the service (the opening act of confession to the sermon). Each liturgical
unit of the Mass is addressed, noting reforms that have occurred and similarities with other
reformation texts, particularly Luther. The exhortation [Vermahnung] preceding the reception of
the Lord’s Supper is especially important given its candid and precise theological articulation of
the sacrament. The two orders that possess a doctrinal subsection which address the Lord’s
Supper, the 1540 Kerkenordenighe and the 1552 Kirchenordnung, are also examined in order to help
provide a further tool of theological analysis and comparison. I then summarize the sacramental
theology of each order, attempting to trace its historical development. After examining the 1552
order, I give an overarching summary, noting the key features of the Mecklenburg orders, and
how they compare with Luther.
3.2.1 Johann Slüter’s 1532 Gesangbuch
Joachim Slüter was a Franciscan friar, who matriculated at the University of Rostock in
July 1518. Slüter’s academic background consisted of a bachelor’s and master’s degree, during
which he studied in the Faculty of Arts and Ecclesiastical law. In 1523 Duke Heinrich V called
110 Miller, “The Lutheran State Church of Mecklenburg,” 73–74

111 Miller, “The Lutheran State Church of Mecklenburg,” 74–76. Miller notes that this visitation was accompanied
by cases of iconoclasm against various images associated with the old faith. Also, despite the call for a complete
visitation of the duchy, the committee focused its attention on those areas that still had a high Catholic population,
ensuring that this remnant would convert or be expelled.
30
Slüter to serve as chaplain at the Church of St. Peter’s in Rostock, where, for two years, he also
served as schoolmaster. Except for a period from the fall of 1525 to the summer of 1526, when he
was forced into exile, Slüter remained at St. Peter’s Church until his death in 1532. This is the
context in which he produced his 1531 Gesangbuch.112
The 1531 hymnal, known as the “double-hymnal” [dat dubbelde Sanckböklin], is in fact, as
its name indicates, two hymnals joined together to form one hymnbook. The first half titled
Spiritual hymns newly amended through Dr. Martin Luther. Printed by Ludwich Dyetz [Geystlyke leder vppt nye
gebetert tho Witteberch dorch D. Martin. Luther. By Ludwich Dyetz gedruckt] has been identified as being
modeled after the first edition of the 1529 Geistliche Lieder published by Joseph Klug in
Wittenberg, with a new introduction from Martin Luther, all of which Slüter translated into low
German. Following two introductions by Luther—one from 1529 and the other from the 1524
Wittenberg Hymnal—is the main body of the first hymnal—fifty hymns, subdivided into six
sections.113 The second half of the hymnal Spiritual Songs and Hymns [Geystlyke gesenge unde leder / wo
ytzundes Gade tho laue nicht allene in düssen lauelike Seesteden / sunder ock yn hochdüdeschen vnnde anderen
landen gesungen werden / ein wol geordent Bökelin myt allem flyte corrigeret / unde myt velen anderen ghesengen
den thovören vormereth vnde gebeterthe. M.D. XXXj] contains sixty-four hymns, subdivided into five
sections.114 In addition to the corpus of hymns, Slüter includes orders for Vespers [de deudesche
Vespers], Compline [de deudesche Conplet], and Matins [de deudesche Metten]. These offices are very
reminiscent of their medieval Catholic predecessors, but simplified, emphasizing the prominence
of Holy Scripture. Following these three orders for the Divine Office, Slüter includes “A
Christian way to Confess to a Priest or to a Christian [Eyne Christlike wyse to bichtende wynem Prester
edder sus eynem Christen minshcen], followed by Luther’s paraphrase of the Lord’s Prayer and
exhortation to reception of the Lord’s Supper taken from his Deutsche Messe.115
Rounding out the hymnal is an order of Mass: “The German Mass, here according to the
Form and Order of a Christian Office of the Mass, for use on Sundays and Feast Days, for the
New Hospital in Nürnberg,” [De dudesche Misse. hyr na volget de Form unde Ordnugn, eynes Christliken
112 For a biographical overview of Slüter, see Gerhard Bosinski, Das Schrifttum des Rostocker Reformators Joachim Slüuter,
(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971), 30–34; Bosinski, “Joachim Slüter und Luthers Gesangbuch von
1529,” Theologische Literaturzeitung, 108: 10 (1983): 705–22.
113 Slüter, Aiii–Hv; Bosinski, Das Schrifttum des Rostocker Reformators Joachim Slüuter, 178–98; Bosinski, “Joachim Slüter
und Luthers Gesangbuch von 1529,” Theologische Literaturzeitung, 108:10 (1983): 705–22; Leaver, Luther’s Liturgical
Music, 248–49.
114 Slüter, Hviii–Pv; Bosinski, Das Schrifttum des Rostocker Reformators Joachim Slüuter, 199–210.
115 Slüter, Pv–Rv.
31
amptes der Myssen / so tho Nörenberch hn dem nyen Spyttale / des Sondages unde Vyrdages geholden wert]. This
order is an amalgamation of two Nürnberg orders from 1525116 and 1526.117 Slüter’s order of
Mass provides an opportunity to see the intricate development of the Lutheran liturgical orders
in the spread of the Reformation; how a Lutheran pastor, not immediately under the tutelage of
Luther and the other Wittenberg reformers, sought to translate Lutheran reforms of the Catholic
Mass into his immediate context.
When analyzing the Mass what immediately becomes apparent is Slüter’s attempt to root
himself within much of Luther’s liturgical reforms—his 1523
Slüter 1531
Latin Formula Missae and the 1525 Deutsche Messe—while
Confiteor
Introit Ath deper nodt schrye yck tho dy simultaneously demonstrating a willingness to part with Luther at
Kyrie
Gloria particular points.118 Slüter’s primary sources are the two
Collect Nürnberg Masses—one German, the other German and Latin—
Epistle
Lauesanck /de hylghen teyn geboth but even these sources are indebted to Luther’s reforms. It
Gospel
Creed Wy gelouen alle or the appears that Slüter’s purpose is to produce a Mass order that is
Apostles Creed
Preface fully German, faithful to the reforms of Luther, but also
Verba
Sanctus maintaining a structure that corresponds with Luther’s Latin
Lord’s Prayer (w/ introduction Mass and its medieval predecessor. The result is a composite
and embolism)
Pax structure that characterizes the entirety Mass.
Agnus Dei
1st Exhortation (Volprecht 1524) Up to the location of the Creed Slüter follows much of
2nd Exhortation (Braunschweig
1528) Luther’s Latin Formula in terms of structure: the priest prays the
Pre-Communion Prayer
Nunc Dimitis Confiteor—which was excluded by Luther—while the choir sings
Collect the Introit. Following this comes the Kyrie and Gloria, the salutation
Benediction
and Collect, Epistle, Alleluia Verse sung by the choir, Gospel,
and Luther’s creedal hymn Wy gelöuen all in eyne Got, which is sung by the congregation. The
second part of the Mass, the service of the Sacrament, is a similar amalgamation as seen above.
Where Luther’s Formula retained the Sursum Corda, and the Deutsche Messe removed it altogether,
Slüter retains it, translates it into German, and establishes it as spoken dialogue between priest
and congregation. After the dialogue, following an abbreviated proper preface, Slüter
116 Slüter, Rvi–Siii; Sehling 11, 51–55.

117 Sehling 11, 56–57.
118 For Luther’s Formula Missae, see Luther, WA 12, 205–20; LW 53:15–40. For the Duetsche Messe, WA 19, 72–113;
LW 53: 61–80.
32
immediately places the Words of Institution in German. The Roman canon of the Mass has been
excised. The choir then sings the Sanctus in German, after which the congregation prays the
Lord’s Prayer, ending with a short embolism, altered to fit Lutheran doctrine. The priest then
speaks “the peace of the Lord be with you always” [De freed des Heren sy alle tydt mit jw] with the
congregation answering “and with your Spirit” [Unde mith dynem geyste]. At this point the choir
sings the Agnus Dei, after which are two exhortations to the congregation for faithful reception of
the Lord’s body and blood—the first from a 1524 Nürnberg Mass [der Messe des Priors Volprecht]119
and the second lifted out of Wittenberg Reformer and Pastor, Johannes Bugenhagen’s 1528
Braunschweig Church Order.120 Following both exhortations, the priest turns to the
congregation and invites them to pray with him this Communion prayer:
O Lord Jesus Christ, you eternal Word of the O Here Jesu Christe du ewige worth des
Father, you savior of the world, you true living vaders du heylandt der werldt du ware
God and man, save us from all sin through leuendige Godt unde minsche erlöse uns dorch
your holy body and blood. Help, that we fulfill dynen hyllighen fronlycham und rosenuarwede
your commandment at all times and that we blodt van allen sünden help dat wy eruüllen
may not be separated from you in eternity. dyne gebot tho allen tyden unde vann dy nicht
Amen. gescheden werden jn ewicheyt Amen.121
After the people are communed, the priest and congregation speak the Nunc Dimitis, followed by
the salutation and closing collect, a final salutation and the Aaronic benediction, concluding with
“Go, in the peace of God” [Ghat hen jn dem frëde Gades].
Turning to the Exhortations, the first [Volprecht 1524] begins by calling the congregation
to self-examination, according to Paul’s exhortation in 1 Corinthians, for the sacrament is not to
be given to those who do not recognize their sin, have a fear of death and God’s wrath, and a
hunger and thirst for God’s righteousness. Such examination reveals that nothing dwells inside of
a person, except for sin and death—which offer no help. But for this reason, Jesus Christ has had
mercy, became man, fulfilled the law, and suffered what people have deserved, and so that
people would strongly believe he instituted the sacrament. Here follow the words of institution
with the following additions: “This is my body given for you, as if he said, ‘That I became man,
and everything else, what I did and suffered, that is all yours. For you, so that it goes well for you
119 CD, 81–86; Sehling 11, 48–9.

120 Slüter, Rviii–Siii; CD, 53–4; Sehling 6, 443–44; Gaehtgens, “Die Quellen der Mecklenburgischen Liturgie-
Ordnungen,” in Monatsschrift für Gottesdiesnt und kirchlich Kunst, 43(1938), 266–68.
121 Slüter, Siii. This prayer is originally from die evangelische Messe des Kaspar Kantz 1522 (CD 8, 15), but is also used in
die Messe des Andreas Döber 1525 (Sehling 11, 54), a source Slüter used. The prayer appears to be a revised version of
the prayer Domine Iesus Christi, Fili Dei vivi, from the Catholic Mass. (Translation mine)
33
[und euch zu gut geschehen]. As a mark/sign [warteken] of this, I give you my body to eat [tho eyner
spyse].’” Similarly with the chalice: “As if he said, ‘I have looked after you. I have laid yours sins
on me. I offer myself for [your] sins as an offering into death, shedding my blood to attain
[erwerben] grace and forgiveness of sins. And therefore, I have established a new testament, in
which your sins shall no longer be remembered eternally. As a sign of this, I give you my blood to
drink.’” The exhortation continues by proclaiming that those who partake of the sacrament, that
is, hearing these words and receiving these signs in faith, abide in Christ, and Christ abides in
them. Thereby in remembrance of his death and in giving thanks, everyone should take up one’s
cross and follow Christ. To follow Christ is to love one another, just as Christ did. For all are one
bread and one cup, just as all eat one bread drink from the same cup.
The second Exhortation [Braunschweig 1528] resembles the first in declaring to the
congregation the utter hopelessness of humanity’s condition, left to its own reason or ability, and
the boundless love of the Father in sending his only begotten Son into death in order to save
humanity. What is unique is its teaching about the spiritual eating and drinking of Christ through
faith, a union into which all believers have been baptized. Furthermore, Christ’s love and
patience, revealed in his death on the cross, should be lived out by Christians in interactions with
neighbors and enemies alike. The prominence of the Lord’s Supper is seen in Christ’s
establishing the sacrament as a special memorial and proclamation of his death in order that
believers do not forget or become disillusioned in their faith. If one desires to worthily receive the
sacrament, this person must do two things: First, believe what Christ says and commands: “This
is my body, which is given for you, this is my blood, which is shed for the forgiveness of sins.
Thus you shall believe.” Secondly, Christ also commands: “Take; eat and drink, all of you in
remembrance of me.”
Slüter’s German Mass illustrates a liturgical trajectory that becomes quite normative for
the spread of the Reformation vis-à-vis the reformation of the Catholic liturgy. First, there is a
great reliance upon Luther, both in terms of theology and liturgical reform. Nowhere is this more
unequivocal than issues regarding the Sacrament of the Altar. The wholesale omission of the
canon of the Mass, particularly any notion of the Mass as sacrifice, is emblematic of Luther’s
central criticism of medieval Catholic sacramental theology and liturgical structure.122 Slüter’s
complete excision of the canon—rather than an attempt at a theological revision as done in other
122 Luther, An Order of Mass and Communion for the Church at Wittenberg, WA 12: 207; LW 53:21–22.
34
places (e.g. hymns, prayer offices), and other liturgical orders—is indicative of his receptive
posture towards Luther. However, Slüter does not obsequiously imitate the totality of Luther’s
reforms. His heavy utilization of the Nürnberg orders is an implicit—if not explicit—critique of
aspects of Luther’s orders. His amalgam of the two Nürnberg orders with Luther’s reveals a spirit
of fidelity to Luther and the emerging evangelical theology and practice, which also seeks to
participate in its development.
3.2.2 The 1540 Kerkenordenighe
The 1535 evangelical visitations permitted by Duke Heinrich furthered the establishment
of the evangelical orders of the Lord’s Supper. This visitation gave occasion for a more complete
Lutheran Church order; however, as previously mentioned, the goal of this series of visitations
was not to advance the reformation cause, but to eradicate the radicalization that had taken
place. The order used for this end was “the Church Order of Brandenberg-Nürnberg 1533” [die
Kirchenordung Brandenburg-Nürnberg 1533], prepared by Johannes Brenz and Andreas Osiander.123
Despite the fact that the visitations lacked complete official support and were severely restricted,
the Church order was distributed three hundred and eleven times.124 The import of the
Brandenburg-Nürnberg Kirchenordnung extends far beyond the limited scope of the 1535 visitations. In
1540, three years following the establishment of the office of superintendent—filled by Johannes
Riebling—the 1533 Brandenburg-Nürnberg Kirchenordnung was introduced as the first official
Mecklenburg Church order under the title, “Church Order where there are Evangelical preachers and
ministers with ceremonies and Divine Services, which shall be held in the cathedrals of Mecklenburg”
[Kerkenordenighe, wo idth van den evangelischen Predicanted und kerkendeners mit den ceremonien und
gadesdensten, in deme forstendome Meykelnborch gehold schal werden]. While Slüter’s Gesangbuch introduced
the Lutheran Mass into Mecklenburg, the order of Brenz and Osiander was its foundation stone.
The Brandenburg-Nürnberg Kirchenordnung contains a lengthy overview of Lutheran doctrine,
devoting eight pages to the theology of the Lord’s Supper [Vom dem abentmal], where the readers
are instructed in the observation of true teaching and the recognition and avoidance of all
perceived errors.125 The foundation and heart of proper teaching and also the means for
distinguishing between false, human accretions lie in the proper observation of the dominical
123 CD, 70, 76–80; Sehling 11, 140–283. For a history of the compilation of the 1533 Brandenburg-Nürnberg
Kirchenordnung see Rittgers, The Reformation of the Keys, 114–37.
124 Sehling 5, 129.
125 Sehling 11, 181–88.
35
words of institution: “One must observe what Christ instituted and what men have added to it”
[soll man fleißig warnemen, was Christus aufgesetzt und was menschen darzu gesetzt haben] (181). Christ’s
words, “which are loud and clear” are to “be held before our eyes” in order to “hold to the
central part of the Supper of the Lord”[Und diese wort sollen wir auch vor augen haben und für das recht
haubtstück des abentmals des Herren halten].126 The errors [irrtumb] are divided between those of the
“papists” and those of the “enthusiasts” [Schwärmerei]. Amongst the Catholics, there are three
central points of contention: the transformation the Lord’s Supper into an offering for the living
and the dead, the invocation of saints, and the various unchristian songs and prayers in the Mass
that are contrary to the word of God (182).127 These abuses [mißbreuch], neither commanded nor
established by Christ or the holy Apostles, contradict the raisons d'être of the sacrament, namely
the “forgiveness of sins, to comfort, and bring about Christian and brotherly love” (182). To
ensure the cessation of these false teachings and rites, both canons [baide canones] are to be
abolished (the canon of the Mass and the Offertory), the invocation of saints is to be stopped, and
all songs, readings, and prayers, either not from Scripture or contrary to biblical teaching, are to
be removed. A further error, related to the sacrifice of the Mass, is the rejoinder that the Mass is
not a sacrifice, but “only a memorial and representation of the first sacrifice” [nur ein gedechtnus und
representation des ersten opfers zu machen] (183). To answer this objection the canon of the Mass is
quoted (the Te igitur and Hanc igitur) to demonstrate the inconsistency of this position with the
current liturgical texts of the Mass. If this were truly the stance of the Catholic Church, a
liturgical reformulation would be necessary.
Other recorded abuses, no less import, regarding the Lord’s Supper involve “the multiple
improper understandings and interpretations” of the words of Christ [vilen unrecht verstanden und
ausgelegt] (184). Fiver erroneous interpretations are listed—however, it is noted that more errors
and false interpretations will arise: (1) those who say it is not the body, but only a sign [zaichen] of
the body; (2) those who say it only signifies [bedeute] the body; (3) those who say the body is like
the bread [der leib sei dem brot gleich]; (4) those who say that the body of Christ is given for us and
the bread should eaten as a memorial of the same [und das brot sol man zum gedechtnus desselben essen];
and (5) those who say that the bread is the body of Christ when eaten by a believing Christian,
126Sehling 11, 182.

127Sehling 11, 183–84. Other errors listed are: the celebration of mass without the presence of people nor the desire
on the part of the celebrating priest to receive; the distribution of communion under one kind; and the reservation
and procession of the Sacrament, particularly apart from the celebration of the Mass. All of these practices are
sighted as contradicting the clear words of Christ’s institution.
36
but remains only bread when eaten by an unbelieving Christian [es sei der leib Christ, wann es ein
glaubiger Christ esse; wann es ein falscher Christ esse, so sei es nicht der leib Christi] (184).
To the preachers it is commanded to instruct the congregation to hold fast to the word of
Christ, and “to take reason captive to the obedience of Christ” [die vernunft gefangen nemen unter dem
gehorsam Christi] even when the word contradicts reason. This is the highest battle for Christians.
The subjection of Christ’s word to human reason is the source of the multiple erroneous
interpretations of the words of institution. The word of Christ is to be trusted, even against
reason: “because Christ says ‘this is his body,’ so we should give him the honor and believe his
words, for they are almighty and he calls it—that which it is not—to be it” [Dieweil dann Christus
spricht, es sei leib, so sollen wir ime die eer tun und seinem worten glauben; dann sie sein allmachtig, und er ruft
dem, das nicht ist, des se sei] (184). Since Christ’s word is true, one can be confident and confess, as
the Apostles did, that she receives the body and blood of Christ; even the unbeliever receives the
true body and blood of Christ, just like “Judas who was unbelieving and godless” [dann Judas ist
auch unglaubig and gotlos gewest] (184).
The advent of the Brandenburg-Nürnberg Kirchenordnung introduces into Mecklenburg what
became a common way for celebrating the Divine Service: a bilingual Latin-German Mass. If a
parish had a choir (which consisted of school boys and was normally restricted to city
congregations) parts of the Mass were assigned to the choir to be sung in Latin. In rural or
country parishes, where no such choir existed, German singing was prescribed.128 Such
provisions were made by the Brandenburg-Nürnberg Church order. From the Introit to the
Creed, the Mass, depending upon the location of the congregation, would either be in German,
or a combination of both languages, except for the Collect, Epistle, and Gospel, which were to be
in German.129
The order for the Lord’s Supper [Ordnung des Herren abentmal] is strikingly similar to
Luther’s Deutsche Messe. No provision is made for the Preface, with the order moving directly into
the Exhortation, which is taken from the 1524 der Messe des Priors Volprecht—the first Exhortation
from Slüter’s 1531Gesangbuch. Following its conclusion the words of institution are chanted
according to Luther’s arrangement in the Formula Missae, which ends with the Sanctus. As in
Luther’s Formula Missae, the Lord’s Prayer follows the Sanctus, after which the priest [priester]
Herl, Worship Wars, 36–53.

128
129
Sehling 11, 188–95. Given that this Church order was comprehensive, it contains a larger selection of collects.
Out of the 26 printed (all in German) only 6 are identified with particular times of the Liturgical year.
37
chants the Pax in German. The Agnus Dei is chanted during the distribution, and if enough
communicants are present, other hymns are sung. Christ’s body and blood are distributed to the
congregation with the appropriate text from the institution
narrative: “Take and eat! This is the body of Christ, which is
Mecklenburg 1535/40
given for you,” and, “Take and drink! This is the blood of the
Confiteor
Introit Ath deper nodt schrye yck tho dy new testament, which is poured out for your sins.” After
Kyrie
Gloria reception of the Supper, there is an option of two thanksgiving
Collect
Epistle
prayers [Dankgebet]: the first thanks God for feeding the
Allellua & verse or Gradual congregation with the salvific body and blood of Christ, and ask
Gospel
Creed that God would work in the congregation through Holy Spirit
Sermon
Exhortation (Volprecht 1524) (received in the Sacrament), and with firm faith hold fast to the
Verba
Sanctus divine grace, forgiveness of sins, union with Christ, and eternal
Lord’s Prayer
Pax
life, which are promised in the Sacrament. The second prayer is
Agnus Dei (during distribution) Luther’s post-communion prayer from the Deutsche Messe. The
Collects
Benediction order concludes with the Benedicamus and the Benediction, with
four options given.
What Slüter’s Gesangbuch brought to Mecklenburg, the 1533 Brandenburg-Nürnberg
Kirchenordnung reinforced and developed, but this is not to suggest that the orders were identical,
or that the transition would have gone unnoticed.130 For example, it is very likely that Slüter’s
own parish in Rostock had wholly eradicated Latin from its services. The Brandenburg-
Nürnberg order would have partially reinstated it. But in a rural congregation that had used
Slüter’s order, it is possible that a seamless linguistic transition would have occurred.131 By and
large the units of the Mass between the two orders are quite similar, with the exception of the
elimination of the Sursum Corda and Preface in the Brandenburg-Nürnberg order. Even the
exhortation, a revision of the exhortation from the 1524 Messe des Priors Volprecht, is retained, thus
ensuring a consistent instruction in the Lutheran doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, for parishes that
had utilized the Gesangbuch. Where Slüter’s hymnal was unknown, the introduction of the new
130 Nor is this meant to imply that Slüter’s Gesangbuch and the Mass order contained therein, was familiar and well
distributed throughout the duchy of Mecklenburg.
131 Of course this is all theoretical, particularly the notion of a rural congregation using Slüter’s Gesangbuch. Rural
areas were much more resistant to the advances of the Reformation than the cities. In 1532, shortly after the official
adoption of the Reformation in Rostock, the citizens were prohibitd from attending Mass in neighboring villages,
where the Catholic Mass was still celebrated. Schrader, “Mecklenburg,” 171.
38
order would have carried forward the overall Mass structure, but introduced some potentially
shocking innovations: the vernacular, regular preaching, and congregational participation.132
When studied in light of Luther’s theology and reforms, one sees that the form the
Reformation was taking in Mecklenburg followed Luther closely. The Mass is not identical with
either of Luther’s orders, but that is not to say it represents a departure. The Mecklenburg liturgy
bears close semblance to elements from the Formula Missae and the Deutsche Messe. The structure
of the western rite of the Mass is retained—as with Luther’s, particularly his Latin Mass— and
key features of his reforms have been implemented. First and foremost is the exclusion of the
canon of the Mass. Coinciding with its absence, is the lack of any attempt at revision or
replacement. It is a categorical rejection of the canon, to such an extent that no prayer is located
in the immediate vicinity of the institution. While there is no reformed canon, or any form of
prayer, the order provides an exhortation [ermanung], as Luther had done in his Deutsche Messe.
Although not Luther’s exhortation, its sacramental theology reveals its dependence upon his. The
words of institution are the centerpiece of the entire text. But the importance of the verba is not
only in their constitutive role for the Lord’s Supper: Christ’s institution of the sacrament becomes
the interpretive lens for the entirety of his life and salvific work:
This is my body, which is given for you. That Das ist mein leib, der für euch dargegeben
is, that I became man and everything that I wird. Das ist: das ich mensch bin worden und
have done and suffered, is all for you. [. . .] To alles, das ich tu und leide, ist alles euer aigen. [.
provide certainty, and as a sign of this, I give . .] Des zu einem gewisen anzaigen und zeugnis
you my body to eat. [. . .] This is the cup of the gib ich euch mein leib zur spies. [. . .] Das ist
new testament in my blood, which is shed for der kelch des neuen testaments in meinem blut,
you and for many for the forgiveness of sins. [. . das für euch und für vil vergossen wird zu
.] I have looked after you. I have laid yours sins vergebung.[ . . .] dieweil ich mich euer
on me. I offer myself for [your] sins as an angenummen und euer sünde auf mich geladen
offering into death, shedding my blood to hab, will ich mich selbs für die sünde in tod
attain grace and forgiveness of sins. And opfern, mein blut vergießen, gnad und
therefore, I have established a new testament, vergebung der sünde erwerben und also ein
in which your sins shall no longer be neu testament aufrichten, darinnen die sünde
remembered eternally. To provide certainty, vergeben und ewig nicht mer soll gedact
and as a sign of this, I give you my blood to werden. Des zu einem gewisen anzaigen und
drink. zeugnus gib ich euch mein blut zu trinken. 133
132 The commonly held assumption was that the Reformation’s introduction of the vernacular resulted in immediate
parish participation. Herl’s thesis is that this assumption is little more than a myth: congregational participation
through song required much more time than previously thought. His thesis has been challenged by other
Reformation scholars, who discount his reading of the primary sources. See Christopher Boyd Brown’s critique in
Journal of Religion 87:1 (2007), 99–101.
133 CD, 77; Sehling 11, 196.
39
The words of institution exegete Christ’s sinless life, his expiatory death, while instructing the
congregation regarding what they receive in Christ’s body and blood, the signs of the new
testament in his blood. This exhortation is the liturgical execution of what Luther had previously
written in his 1521treatise The Misuse of the Mass:
For if you ask: What is the gospel? you can give no better answer than these words of the
New Testament, namely, that Christ gave his body and poured out his blood for us for
the forgiveness of sins. [. . .] Therefore these words, as a short summary of the whole
gospel, are to be taught and instilled into every Christian’s heart, so that he may
contemplate them continuously and without ceasing, and with them exercise, strengthen,
and sustain his faith in Christ, especially when he goes to the sacrament. And this is what
the minister is indicating when he elevates the host and the cup.134
The words of institution are synecdoche for the Gospel—of Jesus’ new testament. The gravity of
this is liturgically heightened by the immediacy of the recitation of the verba following the
exhortation, and their use as the distribution formula for the sacrament.
The church order’s sacramental theology further reveals its relation to Luther’s thought
in the stance taken towards the radical reformers. This is most evident in its stalwart rejection of
the various exegetical positions of the verba. Out of the five false interpretations of the words of
institution, the first four address specific reformers with whom Luther debated during the
controversy of the sacrament during the end of the 1520s the 1530s.135 Beyond this, both the
doctrinal section and the texts of the liturgy express an unequivocal belief in the corporal
presence of the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament, as summarized in the post-
communion prayer of thanksgiving: “O almighty, eternal God, we give you thanks and praise for
your divine generosity, that you have fed and imbibed us with the salvific flesh and blood of your
only Son Jesus Christ, our Lord” [O almechtiger, ewiger Got. Wir sagen deiner götlichen miltigkeit lob und
dank, das du uns mit dem hailsamen flaisch und getrenkt hast].136

135 Sehling 11, 184. Oecolampadius, Zwingli, and Johann Campanus (ca. 1500–75) represent the first three positions
that are rejected.
136 It is also worth noting another potential point of connection. The final sentence of the exhortation concludes by
enjoining the congregants to take up their cross, follow Christ and his command to love one another, as Christ has
loved them; for all who partake of the sacrament, from the one bread and cup, are one body and one body. While it
is not certain, this could be an allusion to Luther’s 1519 The Blessed Sacrament. However, it is possible that it is only a
reference to 1 Cor. 10:16–17.
40
3.2.3 The 1545 Ordenige der misse
Five years after the compilation and publication of the Kerkenordenighe, another Church
order was released, titled “Order of the Mass which shall be held by parsons and pastors in the
land of Mecklenburg, in the Principality of Wenden, Schwerin, Rostock, and Starghard.
1540/45” [Ordenige der misse, wo de van den kerckhere unde seelsorgern im lande to Meckelnborch, im
fürstendom Wenden, Swerin, Rostock und Stargharde schal geholden werden. 1540/1545].137 It is
hypothesized that already in 1540 the work for this order had begun, but for unbeknownst
reasons, work was suspended, not to be resumed again until 1545.138 The compiler of the Ordenige
is the Mecklenburg Superintendent Johann Riebling. The Hamburg born Riebling had
previously served as a preacher in Braunschweig. Thus it comes as no surprise that one of the
primary sources of the Kerkenordenighe was Bugenhagen’s 1528 Church order of Braunschweig. In
addition to this order, other likely used orders are: the Bugenhagen-influenced Pomerania
Church order of 1542 and the 1540 Saxon Agenda; and to a lesser extent: Nürnberg 1526,
Hamburg 1529, Lübek 1531, Braunschweig-Calenbergischen 1542, Schwäbisch-Hall 1543,
Slüter 1531, and Brandenberg-Nürnberg 1533/Mecklenberg 1540. To quote Wolfgang
Gaehtgens on the variety of Lutheran sources employed by Riebling to construct this order:
“This order is one of the richest of its time and had deeply influenced the Mecklenburg
liturgy.”139
The Ordenige extended the extant bilingual Latin-German Mass for city parishes and the
exclusive use of German for parishes that were rural or those lacking a school and boy’s choir.
While preserving the overall structure of the 1535/40 Kerkenordenighe, the new order introduced a
more complete catalogue of liturgical propers, while also expanding the breadth of the
ordinaries. The Mass begins with general confession and absolution: after an opening call to
confession, there is an invocation and opening sentences,140 upon which the priest [prester] speaks
a personal prayer of confession, to which another pastor [dener] reads a statement of grace. After
this, the first priest speaks a general statement of absolution.141 Next comes the introit in either
137 Sehling 5, 150–55.

138 Gaehtgens, “Die Quellen der Mecklenburgischen Liturgie-Ordnungen,” 268.
139 Gaehtgens, “Die Quellen der Mecklenburgischen Liturgie-Ordnungen,” 269–71.
140 Sehling 5, 150–51: “Unse hülpe si im name des heren. Antwort. De geschapen hefft hemmel unde erde. De prester. Bekennet
dem heren, wente he is gut. Antwort. Unde sine barmherticheit is ewich.”

141 Sehling 5, 151. A rubric following the general absolution states that the entire church is to be silent, and is to
confess their sins along with the priest, and also learn the absolution.
41
German or Latin.142 The order then provides three Latin Kyries and one German, the Gloria
[Allene gade in der höge si eere or a Latin text], the salutation and the Collect, with thirty-six collects
listed. The Epistle and Gospel are read, with a seasonal Alleluia
Mecklenburg 1545
verse, or another appropriate seasonal option in between. The
Corporate Confession/Absolution
Introit
Creed follows after the Gospel, sung by the parson [kerckhere] in
Kyrie Latin, with the congregation joining in after with Wi geloven alle,
Gloria
Collect after which is the preaching of the sermon. After the sermon the
Epistle
Alleluia or Sequence Hymn pastor reads an exhortation to the congregation and offers
Gospel
Creed prayers for the authorities, and other needs.143 The parson
Sermon
Exhortation/Prayer
chants the Sursum Corda and the Preface, with the Ordenige
Preface providing thirty-five pages of Prefaces—where the Kerkenordenighe
Sanctus
1st Exhortation (Volprecht 1524) did not include a Preface at all. After the Preface, three options
2nd Exhortation (Braunschweig
1528) for the Sanctus are provided, one Latin text and two German
3rd Exhortation (Schwäbisch-Hall,
1543) (Esaia dem prohpeten or Hillich is godt de vader) and three different
Lord’s Prayer
Verba
exhortations are listed: two of them already found Slüters
Communion hymns and Agnus Gesangbuch (and therefore also used in the 1535 and 1540 orders)
Dei
Pre-Communion Prayer and a new exhortation taken from Brenz’s 1543 Schwäbisch-Hall
Collect
Benediction Kirchenordenung.144 Following the exhortation, the priest [prester]
Hymns & Collects
chants the Lord’s Prayer and, after the congregation has sung
Amen, he continues with the words of consecration [verba consecrationis] in German145; however,
the elevation is to be omitted. The congregants, after coming towards the altar, receive the
elements with the following formula: “The body of Christ/blood of the Lord Jesus preserve you
into eternity. Amen.” During the reception of the sacrament three hymns are provided (Jesus
Christis [unser Heiland], Godt si gelavet or Ick danke dem heren van ganzem herten), after which is sung the
Agnus Dei (German or Latin). Two collects, one from the Deustche Messe, precede the Aaronic
142 Sehling 5, 151. Permission is given to sing the traditional Latin introits, where they are not contrary to the
Scriptures.
143 Sehling 5, 154. The Church order states that in cities, on Sunday afternoons, the pastor is to provide instruction
from Luther’s catechism. In rural areas and small towns, however, catechesis should follow the prayers in chief
Sunday service [Up den dörpen schal stedes de kerckhere, na der predike, wend at gebet geschen ist, den catechismum dem volke vorlesen,
unde de worde, wo in klene catechismo van D. Luthero gesettet is].
144 CD, 258–59.
145 Sehling 5, 157. Following the Mass, the Ordenige included a four-paragraph section titled “Reasons and Account
why the words of consecration shall be sung or read in our German language and none other” [Orsake unde bericht,
worumme de verba consecrationis in unser düdeschen unde keiner anderen sprake gesungen edder gelesen schöllen werden].
42
benediction. Following the blessing the priest, kneeling before the altar, and the congregation
also kneeling, sing Luther’s Erholt uns here bi dinem worde and Volrene uns frede gnedichlich, here godt,
after which the priest chants two more collects.
Regarding the new exhortation from the 1543 Schwäbisch-Hall Kirchenordenung, its themes
and structure are similar to the other exhortations, namely the gravity and depth of human sin,
the mercy of God, revealed in the atoning death of the Jesus Christ, the benefits of which Christ
bestows upon his Church in the testament of the Lord’s Supper, where he feeds participants his
body and blood, in the bread and wine, for the forgiveness of sins and eternal life. At the heart of
the exhortation, what receives thematic prominence is the institution of the testament of the body
and blood of Christ, for the “ablution” [abwaschung] and forgiveness of sins, and eternal life—the
sacramental benefits of the supper.
Uncertainty surrounds the extent of the influence of the 1545 Ordenige. The previous
printings of the Church orders in 1535 and 1540, were accompanied by ecclesiastical visitations
of the duchy, but no such visitation occurred in 1546. Nevertheless, what can be identified from
this order is its perpetuation of a liturgical and theological continuity with its ducal predecessors,
and, thusly, with Luther. The expansion of the selection of the ordinaries and the propers does
not constitute a theological deviation. The order and structure of the Mass remains consistent.
Testament and the forgiveness of sins continue to be at the heart of sacramental instruction—in
this instance occurring in the exhortations—and liturgical practice. The banishment of the
sacrifice of the Mass and the canon continues, while the presence of the body and blood of
Christ, contra Zwingli and the other radical reformers, receives greater significance, particularly
in the addition of the new exhortation. Riebling’s Ordenige maintains and furthers the Lutheran
identify of the developing Reformation in Mecklenburg.
3.2.4 The 1552 Kirchenordnung
With death of Albrecht VII in January 1547and the ascent of his son Johann Albrecht the
stage was set for the commencement of the realization of a fully Lutheran Mecklenburg. In 1551,
two years after Mecklenburg’s defiant rejection of the Augsburg Interim and the official
adherence to the doctrine of the Lutheran Church at the Sternberg Landtag, Johann Albrecht
established a commission assigned with the task of drafting a new Church order for
Mecklenburg. The primary theologians assigned to this task were Johannes Aurifaber, professor
43
and pastor in Rostock, and Superintendent Johannes Riebling.146 After its completion, Philipp
Melanchthon provided minor revisions, specifically to the doctrinal sections.147 Their completed
work appeared in 1552 under the title, “Church Order as is to be kept in the principality and
lands of our Johann Albrecht, by the grace of God, Duke of Mecklenburg, Prince of the Wends,
Duke of Schwerin, Lord of the lands of Rostock and Stargard” [Kirchenordnung, so in unsern, Johan
Albrechts, von gottes gnaden herzogen zu Mecklenburg, fürsten zu Wenden, graven zu Swerin, der lande Rostock
und Stargard herrn, fürstenthumen und landen sol gehalten wereden].148 This Church order, like its 1540
predecessor, is a comprehensive work, dealing with the complete governance of the ecclesiastical
ordering of the territory. It is divided into five sections: (1) concerning the true doctrine; (2) the
maintenance of the offices of the Church; (3) the faithful use of the Church’s ceremonies; (4) the
maintenance of Christian schools; and (5) the income of the Church.
As with the 1540 Kerkenordenighe, a section of the 1552 Kirchenordnung was devoted to
addressing the nature of true doctrine of the Lutheran Church. This section provides a critical
interpretive lens for understanding the theology of the Lord’s Supper, and interpreting how this
was realized in the liturgical order. The Sacrament of the Altar is explicated through the means
of four questions and answers: (1) What is distributed and received in the Supper of the Lord
Christ?; (2) To what end should the rightful use of the Sacrament occur?; (3) Why should one
reject the Papist Mass?; and (4) Regarding the difference between the Papist Mass the proper
office [des rechten amts] in the Christian Church.149
The positive exposition of the Lutheran doctrine begins by unambiguously adhering to
the belief in the true and substantial [warhaftiglich und wesentlich] presence of Christ in the supper.
The sacrament, instituted by Christ, is the visible sign that hangs upon the promise [die sichtbaren
zeichen daran gehent], established by Christ’s words. This promise is the new testament—purchased
and confirmed in Christ’s blood—of the forgiveness of sins, grace, and eternal life and
righteousness. Reception of the Lord’s Supper provides strengthening of faith for the believer in
146 Heinrich Schnell, Die mecklenburgischen Kirchenordnungen. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Entstehung der mecklenburgischen
Landeskirche (Güstrow: Rathsbuchdruckeri C. Michaal, 1899), 71–73. Schnell believes that Riebling is the principle
author and compiler of the liturgical order.
147 Miller, The Lutheran State Church of Mecklenburg, 72; Gaehtgens, “Die Quellen der Mecklenburgischen Liturgie-
Ordnungen,” 271–72.
148 CD, 99–104; Sehling 5, 161–219. Internal citations, unless otherwise indicated, refer to Sehling 5.
149 Sehling 5, 173–74. Also included under this heading in Sehling are the following questions: “Regarding
conversion or penitence”; “What do we especially chastise in the papist doctrine in this article on penitence?”; What
is the Christian Church, where is she, and through which signs [zeichen] she is recognized”; and “Why is the
Christian Church laid under the cross?”
44
the promises of Christ. The sacrament is also a means of union between Christ and the believer:
through the proper use of the sacrament, Christ dwells in the faithful [wil in den bekerten wonen],
communicating to the believer his “good things” [ihnen seine güter mitteilen], and is powerful in them
[in inen kreftig sein] (173).
Great stress is also laid upon the concept of visible sign. The sacraments150 and the
preaching of the Gospel are the means of recognizing in this life where the Christian Church is
located. “The Christian Church, in this life, is a visible gathering of all humanity, who receive the
pure teaching of the gospel and have the proper use of the sacrament” [Christliche kirche, in diesem
leben, ist ein sichtbare versamlung aller menschen, die reine lere des evangelii annemen und rechten brauch der
sacrament haben].151 As such the sacrament is not only a sign of the Christian Church, it is also a
means by which Jesus gathers the Church, in which he continues to work in the Church.
Because the sacrament is a visible sign of the Church and instrument of Christ, the order
consistently emphasizes the need of the right use of the sacrament. Corresponding to this is the
attention given to naming all “errors and idolatries” [irthum und abgötteri]. As indicated in two of
the questions, the primary opponent is the Catholic position, the “papist mass.” The central
point of contradiction—the key difference—is still the sacrifice of the Mass. This belief is said to
empty of value and worth the one atoning sacrifice Christ. As a sacrifice, the Mass becomes a
merit that can be purchased and applied to various people and causes—living or dead—ex opere
operato, apart from faith in Christ. Even the suggestion that the sacrifice of the Mass is only an
application [ein adplicatio], and not a merit, is “only a change in name” [Verwechseln nur den name],
that serves to support their position.
A deafening silence is found with regard to the teachings of Zwingli, and the other radical
reformers. To be sure, the teaching of the bodily presence of Christ in the Supper is firmly
150 Sehling 5, 174–77. At this point further study is needed to address the theology of Confession and Absolution in
the 1552 Kirchenordnung. In the division of the doctrinal section of the Church order, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper
appear under the central heading “On the Sacraments.” However, it is also in this section that the Catholic doctrine
and practice of conversion and penance is critiqued. At this point, various criticisms are brought against Catholic
practice and theology of Private Confession, nevertheless, Private Absolution is maintained in the Church, because it
is “the voice of the Gospel” [die stimme des evangelii], the forgiveness of sins, which Christ has mandated the Church to
declare. Following the discussion, the order addresses the visible signs by which the Church is recognized and
through which Christ is present and works, namely the pure teaching of the Gospel, and the proper use of the
sacraments. While private absolution is not explicitly named, given the structure of this section of the Church order,
and that private absolution has been identified as the voice of the Gospel (the forgiveness of sins) and commanded by
Christ, it seems probable that it is to be included amongst the “pure teaching of the Gospel and the right use of the
sacraments” [reine lere des evangelii, rechter brauch der sacrament].
151 Sehling 5, 176.
45
maintained. The wording of the first question and answer in the section of the Lord’s Supper
may be read not only as a statement of the Lutheran position, but as a rejection of any other:
“What is distributed and received in the Supper of the Lord Christ? Answer. The true body and
blood of the Lord Jesus Christ” (173). Yet, it is intriguing that there is not one word that
explicitly addresses these teachings. A possible explanation may lie in the fact that the 1552
Kirchenordnung is the first Church order with complete ducal support, without having to navigate
the bi-confessional relationship that previous orders had to. Where previous orders and
visitations were unable to evict the Catholic vestige, the composition of this order and its
implementation was assigned with the complete and final expulsion of the Catholic Church from
the duchy. Still, given the presence of the followers of the radical reformers within the territory,
and the strong opposition against them, this lacuna remains a nagging question.
Like its predecessors the Mess oder communio preserves the German-Latin Mass tradition,
with the distinction between rural and urban parishes. The Kirchenordnung goes as far as to include
two separate orders: “Order of ceremonies in city-parish churches, and where there are schools”
[Ordnung der ceremonien in pfarkirchen der stedt, und da schulen sind] (197) and “Church order for
villages” [Kirchenordnung uff den dörfern](201).152 Generally, the order of Mass meticulously follows
its predecessors, with some modifications, one more noticeable than others.153 The Mass begins
with a general confession and absolution similar to that found in the Ordenige. After the confession
and absolution, come the Introit, Kyrie, Gloria, Salutation and Collect, Epistle, a sequence hymn or
other spiritual song [sequenz oder andere geistliche geseng], the Gospel, the Creed, 154 and the sermon.
The order then states that as the sermon approaches its end, the people are to be exhorted to
offer God prayer and thanksgiving for the gathering and maintenance of the Church, true
doctrine, true and faithful teachers, for the authorities, and for all needs. The preacher is to
further exhort the people to remain in church for communion [das sie in der kirchen bei der
152 The difference between the two Mass orders follows the previously encountered division: parishes with a school
hold a bilingual Latin-German Mass, with the school boys choir singing the Latin chants and hymns; parishes that
lack a school boys choir follow a completely German order. Frequently the order for rural parishes refers the reader
to the previous order for appropriate texts. This linguistic distinction may have introduced a vastly different musical
repertoire for the singing of the propers for the liturgical year, but such distinctions are beyond the constraints of this
paper.
153 My sources for the 1552 Kirchenordnung are Sehling and CD and as such I am limited as to what is contained
therein. While the text prescribes the use of Introits, Collects, Sequences or other spiritual hymns, and Prefaces,
neither Sehling nor CD contain the texts. According to Gaehtgens, nothing new is added in the Church order, with
the majority of the propers coming from the 1545 Ordenige.
154 Sehling 5, 198. For city congregations it is appointed that the Creed be first sung in Latin, followed by the
congregation’s singing Wire gleuben alle an einen gott.
46
communion bleiben] and the invocation of God, who always keeps the Church, maintains it through
his holy word and the right use of the sacrament, through which he defends the church against
all enemies and heretics, while strengthening and governing it with his Holy Spirit (198).
After the sermon, when those intending to go to
Mecklenburg 1552
communion have entered the choir stalls [alsbald in den chor]—
Corporate Preface
Confession/ Sanctus
separated by gender—and knelt before the altar, the priest sings
Absolution Exhortation the Preface, followed by the choir singing Sanctus or the
Introit (Absolution,
Kyrie Thanksgiving, congregation Esaia dem propheten. After the Sanctus, the priest is to
Gloria and prayer
Collect before the read the prescribed exhortation and instruction on the venerable
Epistle Communion)
Sequence/ Lord’s Prayer sacrament [eine vermanung und unterricht vom hochwirdigen sacrament].
other hymn Verba
Gospel Communion
The priest then sings the Lord’s Prayer and the words of the
Creed (Latin hymns and testament, with the continued proscription of the elevation. The
and German) Agnus Dei
Sermon with Pre- prescribed communion hymns to be sung during distribution155
exhortation to Communion
prayer and Prayer are Jesus Christus unser heiland, Gott sei gelobet, Ich danke dem herrn, and
communion Collect
Benediction O lam gottes unschuldig or Christe, du lam gottes. After the pastor prays
Hymns
Luther’s post-communion collect and gives the Aaronic
benediction, the hymns Erhalt uns herr bei deinem wort and Verleihe und
friede gnediglich are sung.
An interesting rubric allows the priest, when time is short, to drop the preface and
exhortation, and proceed directly from the sermon to the Lord’s Prayer and verba. Associated
with this rubrical option, is an interesting variation at this point in the service within the village
order. In the village order, the end of the sermon is the point in which the general prayers [zu
ende der predigt geschiehet das gemeine gebet] take place, at which time [item] the exhortation is also read,
as described in the order for city parishes. In place of the Preface, the pastor [pfarherr] sings the
German psalm-hymn Es woll uns gott gnedig sein, the Lord’s Prayer, and the words of institution.
Turning to the new exhortation, titled “Exhortation: Absolution, Thanksgiving, and
Prayer before Communion” [Vermanung: Absolutio, danksagung, und gebet vor der commuio], its content
follows the thematic path of its predecessors. Despite its elongation, it addresses similar
theological themes: (1) the nature of sin and the sinful and forlorn state of humanity; (2) God’s
155The order does not prescribe a distribution formula. It does state that, after the singing of the words of institution,
the people are to be communicated “with both forms, according to the institution of the Lord Christ, and noting
else” (199). This may also intimate that the formula is to be the words of institution, as in the 1535/1540 order.
47
anger and wrath over sin; (3) God’s limitless and unfathomable mercy realized in the sending of
his Son as a sacrifice for sins; (4) that the Lord’s Supper as Christ’s particular means by which he
reminds humanity of its need and graciously provides for it with his body and blood, which are
specific, visible signs, that confirm his promise of forgiveness (5) which results in a personal union
with Christ.156
However, the new exhortation further builds upon the foundations of Slüter, the
Kerkenordenighe, and the Ordenige. In the fifth paragraph the very form of the exhortation expands
beyond its previous forms by incorporating an absolution. The priest announces to those who
turn to God, fear his wrath, believe their sins have been forgiven in Christ, and desire to desist
from their sins, absolution, according to the word of Christ. They should receive this voice of the
Gospel, have true comfort in Christ, and henceforth, in faith and good conscience, be obedient to
God.
The expansion of the exhortation continues beyond the inclusion of an absolution.
Following a final admonition to receive the Sacrament as a personal application of the gift of
grace from Christ, and to be made a member of Christ and thereby be strengthened, the
exhortation transitions into an admonition to prayer. The pastor exhorts the congregation to give
thanks to God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, for the great grace, and the comfort and joy
they have provided; for God desires to be with his people, to guide and protect them. Further,
they should pray for the Church [gemeine kirchen], for the common governance, and for themselves
and their children (203).
At the conclusion of this brief admonition, a seven-paragraph prayer is provided. The
prayer is written in the first-person singular, to be prayed by the pastor. This prayer can be
interpreted as the realization of the contents of the exhortation into the form of a prayer. Praise is
given to the Triune God for his mercy and goodness, which moves into an acknowledgement of
the utter depths of the petitioner’s sins, concluding in requests for God’s mercy and grace for the
sake of Christ, through whom the speaker has been justified, ending in a confession of faith in the
promises of the Gospel. The remainder follows this pattern of thanksgiving, confession, and the
request for mercy, but it no longer addresses the Father. A break occurs at which point the pastor
addresses the prayer directly to Jesus Christ, who is acknowledged as the mediator and
intercessor of all: the Emmanuel, who has gathered to Himself a Church, which He continues to
156 CD, 101; Sehling 5, 203. “Wie er spricht: Ich bin in inen, und ich gebe inen ewiges lebe.”
48
preserve. The prayer concludes with a petition that Christ would continue to gather together his
Church, protect and govern the land and authorities, and to graciously govern and protect the
petitioner and his children (203–04).
3.3 Analysis
The advent of the 1552 Kirchenordnung marked twenty-nine years since Slüter’s call to St.
Peter’s in Rostock, twenty-one since the printing of the Gesangbuch, and nineteen since Duke
Heinrich received the Sacrament of the Altar in the Lutheran manner of both the body and the
blood. It had been a long and tumultuous period of time for the Lutheran Reformation, marked
by uncertainty regarding its existence within duchy of Mecklenburg. Yet, by the time of the
printing of the Kirchenordnung, the future of the Lutheran Church appeared more certain than
ever. This does not imply that all challenges and obstacles had been addressed and overcome.
Even so, after the 1549 Landtag, with the full support of the estates and the duke, the Lutheran
Reformation had securely established itself as the Church of Mecklenburg.
But in a span of time that approached three decades, what may be ascertained regarding
the theology and practice of the Lord’s Supper through these various liturgical orders? What
similarities and differences may be identified when looking backwards from the Kirchenordnung?
Beginning with doctrine, four points rise to the forefront: the Lord’s Supper is (1) the
forgiveness of sins, administered in (2) the true and substantial body and blood of Christ, in the
elements of bread and wine, (3) as signs of the promise of Christ’s new testament, (4) which are
spoken by Christ himself in his own words of institution. To this four point doctrinal core may be
added the various sacramental benefits. Looking back to Luther, these may be seen as a
theological synopsis of the reformer’s sacramental theology. Even in the 1552 order, categorizing
the sacrament as a sign through which the Church is recognized, harkens back to Luther’s 1539
“On the Councils and the Church” where the Supper is identified as one of the seven “public
signs” [öffentlich zeichen] through which the true Church is identified.157 In terms of doctrine the
Mecklenburg orders presented a sacramental theology thoroughly indebted to the Wittenberg
reformer.
157Luther, On the Councils and the Church, WA 50, 631; LW 41:153. This is language also harkens back to the 1530
Augsburg Confession VII: “It is also taught that at all times there must be and remain one holy, Christian church. It is
the assembly of all believers among whom the gospel is purely preached and the holy sacraments are administered
according to the gospel” (BOC, 42).
49
But it is not only the positive articulation of Luther’s theology that is represented in the
Mecklenburg orders. His sacramental writings are marked by interaction with his theological
opponents—the Catholics, Zwingli, and the other reformers. His treatises are permeated with the
heavy thrust of polemics that routinely resurface through his sustained interaction with these
parties. The Mecklenburg orders, engaged with the same theological challenges, summarize not
only the constructive articulation of his sacramental theology, but even the acerbic
denunciations. The perennial foil for Luther was the Catholic sacrifice of the Mass. In the
doctrinal sections of the Church orders of 1535, 1540, and 1552 the offering of the Mass as a
sacrifice is continuously depicted as the chief error and abuse of the Catholic Church. Certainly,
as with Luther, the teachings of Zwingli, Oecolampadius, and others are opposed, but by and
large, the Catholic notion of sacrifice—in addition to other Catholic practices—remains the
central point of contention.
Proceeding to the liturgical orders, none of them simply reprinted Luther’s Formula Missae
or Deutsche Messe. In fact, it is unknown if these texts were even consulted, particularly in the
composition of the 1545 Ordenige and the 1552 Kirchenordnung. While it is certain that other
Church orders were employed as sources for the Mecklenburg orders—none more obvious than
the 1533 die Kirchenordung Brandenburg-Nürnberg—I am unaware of the extent to which the authors
of the orders directly borrowed from Luther’s writings. That is not to say that that influence of
Luther’s liturgical ideas are not seen within these texts. First and foremost, the liturgical orders
written by Johannes Bugenhagen, or those influenced by his, were a frequent source utilized for
the construction of these orders.158 The next chapter offers a more in depth look at his work, but
what should be noted here is that Bugenhagen’s work relied greatly upon Luther’s.s While
Bugenhagen became the central architect for much of the Lutheran ecclesiastical reforms, the
success of his liturgical orders proved to be the means of distilling the central features of Luther’s
own liturgical thought.159
This leads to the second point: the limited extent of Luther’s direct influence on the
Mecklenburg orders does not result in a de facto negation of his influence. While Luther’s two
orders of the Mass did not become liturgical standards throughout the German territories that
embraced the Lutheran Reformation, they did effectively serve as liturgical templates that
158 Bugenhagen drafted the following church orders: Braunschweig, 1528, Hamburg 1529, Lübeck 1531, Pomerania
1534, Denmark 1537, Holstein 1542, Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel 1543, and Hildesheim 1544.
159 Hendel, “Johannes Bugenhagen Organizer of the Lutheran Reformation,” 54–67.
50
influenced other revisions. Consequently, while his fingerprints may not be found on the various
Church orders that developed throughout sixteenth century Germany, several of his key opinions
were nevertheless brought to fruition in them, albeit through alternate means (e.g.
Bugenhagen).160
When considering the entire bilingual Latin-German structure that characterized the
celebration of the Mass in city parishes, this is the result of a quasi pleaching of Luther’s two
texts. Aspects of each text were carried over, while others were ignored. The central feature
Luther’s Latin Mass provided, beyond the use of Latin, was the overall structure of the entire
order: the retention of the majority of the propers, in addition to the ordinaries, furnished a
historic shape—based off of the western Mass—for the liturgical orders of Mecklenburg. The
German Mass, in addition to the use of the vernacular, imparted the use of liturgical components
transformed into vernacular hymns; many, in fact, from Luther’s own hand (e.g. Wir glauben all an
einem Gott, Erhalt uns Herr bei deinem Wort, etc.).
Beyond the linguistic and structural influence, two further traits of the Mecklenburg
orders should be identified as belonging to the legacy of Luther; traits that become quintessential
elements, not only of the Mecklenburg Mass, but of the overall celebration of the Lutheran Mass
in the variety of Church orders. First, is the excision of the canon of the Mass. Aside from some
very early examples no Lutheran liturgical order in within the German lands, up to the creation
of the Kirchenordnung, contained the canon or a revised version thereof.161 Luther’s rejection of the
canon, as seen in chapter two, corresponds with his opposition to the theology of the sacrifice of
the Mass. The canon is the articulation of the sacrifice of the Mass. They are mutually inclusive.
This relationship, and mutual antagonism, was not lost on the followers of the Lutheran
Reformation. After Luther’s death, in the wake of the Interim controversies following Emperor
Charles’ rout of the Schmalkaldic League in 1547, Melanchthon, while willing to capitulate to
certain requests of the Emperor, remained adamant in his opposition to the reintroduction of the
canon: “The controversies about the canon were of the highest importance to me, and I thank
160 Hans Bernhard Meyer, Eucharistie: Geschichte, Theologie, Pastoral, vol. 4 of Gottesdienst der Kirche: Handbuch der
Liturgiewissenschaft (Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1989), 406–07.
161 The two early examples are the Kaspar Kantz Kirchenordenung (1522) and the Wormser Deutsche Messe (1524). These
texts will be discussed in the next chapter.
51
God, if I succeed in preventing that these impieties are forced on the pastors.”162 Mecklenburg’s
continued rejection of the canon is a sign of consonance of its liturgical orders with Luther’s.
The second mark that bears witness to the Reformer’s influence is the exhortation. While
the origination of the exhortation extends briefly beyond Luther,163 his role in its establishment as
a quintessential ordinary of the Lutheran Mass is without question.164 His incorporation of the
exhortation into his German Mass bestowed upon it the approval of the Wittenberg reformer.
Despite the fact that Luther did not intend for his order to become a codified order for all
Lutherans, his language does not intimate that the use of the exhortation is merely discretionary.
His request for textual consistency may have precipitated Bugenhagen’s drafting of the
exhortation used in the 1528 Braunschweig Kirchenordnung and its wide dissemination throughout
many Lutheran Church orders.165 Finally, the manner in which Luther included the exhortation
in the German Mass, in the reformed contours of the order without the Sursum Corda and Preface,
conferred upon it a position of liturgical prominence. It was a central feature in the celebration of
the Lutheran Mass.166
The absence of the canon and the incorporation of the exhortation mark the entire
episode of the liturgical history of Mecklenburg currently under consideration. From Slüter to the
1552 Kirchenordnung no Lutheran order of Mass in Mecklenburg existed without these two
features. These liturgical reforms, along with the contents of the doctrinal formulations in the
1540 Kerkenordenighe and the 1552 Kirchenordnung, indicate a strong correspondence in sacramental
thought and practice between Luther and the Mecklenburg orders.
The significance of these traits is highlighted by the later Mecklenburg texts, 1545 and
1552. With the 1540 Kerkenordenighe and Slüter’s Gesangbuch, the case could be made that the
162 Corpus Reformatorum 7, 342, quoted in Oliver Olson, Matthias Flacius and the Survival of Luther's Reform (Wiesbanden:
Harrassowitz Verlag, 2002), 123. Olson also provides a pertinent quotation from the staunch “Gnesio-Lutheran,”
Matthias Flacius: “The whole papacy is in the canon” (121).
163 CD, 84 fn. 52. The oldest known exhortation is from the 1524 Messe der Priors Volprecht, which was then included
in the 1524 Messe der Pröpste. While it commonly thought that Andreas Osiander authored this exhortation, such
identification is uncertain.
164 Luther, The German Mass and Order of Service, WA 19, 96-97; LW 53:79–80. According to Luther’s own testimony in
the Deutsche Messe, it appears that the exhortation, by that time, may have already been well received: “Aber die
vermanung zu eyner offentlihen beicht worden ist.” But no further explanation is provided, so uncertainty remains as to the
identity of Luther’s referent. Be that as it may, the popularization of the exhortation by its inclusion within the
Deutsche Messe cannot be discounted.
165 Johannes H. Bergsma, Die Reform der Messliturgie durch Johannes Bugenhagen (1485–1588) (Kevelaer: Butzon &
Bercker, 1966), 184–85. For a list of the various orders and locals through which this influence spread, in addition to
Bergsma, see CD 49–54.
166 In the 1524 Messe der Priors Volprecht the exhortation is included at the end of the order, seemingly like an
addendum.
52
presence of these two features is accidental, given that both texts are either duplications, or
amalgamations of antecedent orders. Even then, the fact that the compilers intentionally
included these attributes speaks to their intention. But the latter orders undermine any notion of
incidental inclusion. The Kirchenordnung is an official statement of the duchy’s Lutheran
confession, expressing the manner in which Lutheran doctrine and practice was to be instilled in
the territory.167 That the newly composed and legally binding liturgical rite continues in the
rejection of the canon of the Mass and even drafts a new exhortation, provides affirmation that
these two attributes were distinctive markers of a Lutheran pedigree, and that the Mecklenburg
liturgy was to be identified with its Lutheran predecessors.
The 1552 Church order further reveals that a strong desire to retain a Lutheran heritage
was not understood to be antagonistic with liturgical development. Riebling and Aurifaber chose
not to simply reprint a previous rite. Although the context of converting the entire territory
demanded a comprehensive order that saw to the construction and establishment of a new
ecclesiastical reality, the section on worship and ceremony could have easily reproduced an older
text. In fact, much of the order is a continuation of precedent, but there are examples of new
liturgical construction. What makes this development especially curious is that it occurs within
one of the specific emblems of its Lutheran identity, the exhortation.
As previously noted, the 1552 exhortation incorporated an absolution and prayer. The
addition of the absolution is all the more stimulating, for the order already had one: it begins with
one. At the same time, Lutheran theology believed that any declaration of forgiveness of sins, the
living voice of the Gospel, is an absolution. Luther believed that the sermon was an absolution (in
addition to a preaching of God’s law), as was the Pax after the words of institution.168 But in light
of Luther’s reform of the Mass, and Mecklenburg’s own liturgical history, such an addition at this
location within the Mass makes it all the more intriguing.
After the removal of the canon, Luther never reintroduced any form of prayer within
such proximity to Christ’s words of the new testament, except for Christ’s own, the Lord’s
167 Eike Wolgast, “Die Herzöge als not- und Oberbischöfe der mecklenburgischen Landeskirche” in Menschen in der
Kirche. 450 Jahre seit Einführung der Reformation in Mecklenburg, 40. In addition to the Church order the other authorizing
texts for the duchy were the Bible, the ecumenical Creeds, the unaltered Augsburg Confession, the Smalcald
Articles, and Luther’s Small Catechism. The authorial status of these texts helps to attest to the tenor of the Lutheran
confession during the time of its origins in the territory.
168 Cf. Luther, An Order of Mass and Communion for the Church at Wittenberg, WA 12, 213; LW 53:28–29. The integration
of an absolution warrants further study in light of the heated debates over the nature of confession and absolution in
the Lutheran Church, namely whether a general confession was even permissible, particularly when considering how
divisive this issue was in the Reformation of Nürnberg. See Rittgers, The Reformation of the Keys.
53
Prayer. It would seem that by such exclusion, Luther wanted to accomplish two things: First,
ensure that the contrasting works of God’s testament and the sacrifice of human praise were not
confused. The former is God’s descending work of salvation; the latter is an ascending offering of
humankind. While prayer is certainly not bad, evil, or something to avoid, it is not to be
confounded with God’s salvific work. Even thanksgiving, particularly in the Deutsche Messe is
relocated to the hymns of distribution and the post-communion prayer. Thanksgiving is the result
of Christ’s gift.169 Second, the elimination of prayer at this point in the Mass served to further
unite the recitation of Christ’s testamental words with the distribution of the his body and blood,
the signs of the testament, as seen in the immediate distribution of the body following the
consecration, and likewise, the chalice.170
The question is how does one interpret this liturgical development? Liturgical scholar
Frieder Schulz has argued that the Lutheran insertion of the exhortation becomes the evangelical
replacement of the canon of the Mass, both in terms of it location in the liturgical structure and
its theological function within the Mass.171 The inclusion of a prayer within the exhortation of the
1552 Kirchenordnung seemingly appears to give credence to Schulz’s theory. While space does
provide the opportunity to engage the complexity of Schulz’s theory on exhortations in the
Reformation Church orders in general, what follows is a brief consideration in light of the 1552
Church order.
Insight into this liturgical development is provided in the doctrinal section of the order.
The subject of prayer first arises with the question over the differences “between the Papist Mass
and the proper office in the Christian Church?” In contradistinction to the Catholic sacrifice of
the mass, four proper offices [emter] are listed: the preaching of the Gospel, the administration of
the sacraments, thanksgiving [danksagung], and the proper invocation in the public assembly (174).
Later within the order, under the section “On Prayer,” prayer is understood to be comprised of
both petitions and thanksgiving, which form the “highest divine service”[gottesdienst] for in prayer
“one observes who God is, how he has revealed himself, and recognizes him as almighty,
169 Bergsma, Die Reform der Messliturgie durch Johannes Bugenhagen, 200–01; Leaver, Luther’s Liturgical Music, 156–60; 179–
80,188–90.
170 Wendebourg, “Travel the Full Extent of Rome’s Erroneous Path?” 25–26.
171 Frieder Schulz, “Die Funktion der Verba Testamenti in der evangelischen liturgischen Tradition bis heute,”
Liturgisches Jahrbuch 53:3 (2003): 192–201; Schulz, “Eucharistiegebet und Abendmahlsvermahnung. Eine relecture
reformatorischer Abendmahlsordenungen im ökumenischen Zeitalter,” in Sursum Corda. Variationen zu einem liturgischen
Motiv. Festschrift Philipp Harnoncourt zum 60. Geburtstag, edited by Andreas Schnider, 147–58 (Graz: Akademsiche
Druck-u. Verlagsanstalt, 1991).
54
gracious, and a helper” (180). This is why prayer is always Trinitarian and Christological,
because God has revealed himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Prayer is commanded by
God, who himself is the one moving Christians to pray. Turning to God in all times of need, and
also in thanksgiving, is the highest glory humanity can give God because it is recognition of who
God is. To prayer also belongs the promises of grace, forgiveness of sins, and temporal help, all
for the sake of Christ Jesus. Prayer exercises the Christian’s faith and trust, while also
strengthening them, and teaching the Christian who God is and how much God loves humanity.
The order requires that pastors frequently instruct the people over what belongs to prayer, and
exhort them to frequency in it—intercessions, requests, and thanksgiving. In addition to the
Lord’s Prayer, three other models of prayer are provided for the pastor to use in this
instruction.172
This instruction in prayer, along with the rubrical directives, demonstrate that in the eyes
of the authors there was a perceived need for proper instruction on the Lutheran doctrine and
practice of prayer. Twice during the Mass the pastor is directed to exhort and instruct the people
on prayer: at or towards the end of the sermon [zum ende der predigt] and during the exhortation.
The authors deemed it legitimate to address an anemic understanding of prayer by synthesizing
it with an already familiar emblem of Lutheran worship. The exhortation being a point of
instruction functioned as the logical location to engage in corporate instruction on prayer, which
then seamlessly transitions into the act of prayer itself.
In this instance, to equate the Lutheran exhortation with the canon of the Mass, albeit
revised according to Lutheran ideals, appears specious. While the exhortation occurs in the
location of the former canon that by no means indicates that it served as such. Adjoined to the
title “exhoration” [vermanung] is the term “instruction” [unterricht], designating the pedagogical
role of the exhortation. The exhortation is the location for instruction and education in doctrine
and practice. It is a catechetical moment where the congregation is instructed over sin and God’s
wrath, God’s grace and mercy revealed in the atoning death of Christ Jesus, the sacrament of
172Sehling 5, 182. A final informative piece from the order, helpful in providing context, is the question immediately
after the three examples of prayer: “Is it also proper for one to call upon the deceased saints?” (182). The order
vehemently rejects this practice, identifying it as “heathen idolatry and a horrible sin” for it establishes the departed
saints at intercessors and mediators, and Scripture reveals that there is only one mediator between humanity and
God, Jesus Christ. This practice has no command in the scriptures or any word speaking to it, thus the one offering
prayer cannot be certain or have faith that the prayer is heard or is pleasing to God. Rather than prayer, pastors are
to preach about the saints as historical examples of those who have lived the Christian life under the cross and as
such provide models for Christian life and faith.
55
Christ’s body and blood—the certain and visible signs of Christ’s forgiveness—and prayer. Its
function is utterly distinct from the canon. The addition of a prayer neither alters the function of
the exhortation, nor itself becomes the replacement of the canon.
It is indisputable that liturgical development occurred through the introduction of a
prayer, but this prayer is an exercise in the Lutheran understanding of prayer, not the prayers of
the Catholic canon. Also dissimilar to the canon is that neither the exhortation nor the prayer are
understood as necessary. Given that instruction and exhortation have already occurred, the
exhortation and the Preface may be omitted if time does not permit their recitation. Similarly, in
the order for rural parishes, the exhortation and the prayers are read from the same spot as the
sermon (presumably the pulpit or lectern), before the pastor relocates to chancel, thus
corresponding to the first instruction and exhortation at the end of the sermon in the order of city
parishes.
The 1552 Kirchenordnung reveals a theology and practice of the Lord’s Supper that is
intimately bound to Luther’s. For close to thirty years this sacramental theology gradually
ingrained itself into Mecklenburg through Slüter’s Gesangbuch, and the Church orders of 1535,
1540, and 1545. That the 1552 order does duplicate not reproduce every aspect of Luther’s
liturgical texts is a testament to the mechanics of how his influence spread throughout the
German lands and their Church orders mediated through other reformers, most notably
Bugenhagen, in the first generation of the Lutheran reformation. The impression of Luther’s
influence is seen chiefly not in a reproduction of liturgical texts, but in the expression of doctrine,
and its subsequent shape in certain liturgical formulae. This method allows for liturgical growth,
without explicitly compromising its Lutheran confession. So the authors of the Church order saw
nothing problematic with supplementing the exhortation with a prayer. In fact, this prayer served
to give liturgical expression to a Lutheran theology of prayer over and against Catholic practice.
But how do the liturgical rites of Mecklenburg compare with other Lutheran orders? Was
it an anomalous expression of Luther’s theology, or were similar shapes found elsewhere? Does
the development and spread of Lutheran liturgical orders provide a unified narrative or are there
multiple expressions that cannot easily be reconciled with each other? These questions are the
subject of the following chapter.
56
CHAPTER FOUR
THE STATUS OF MECKLENBURG’S LITURGICAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE
LUTHERAN REFORMATION
My focus in this chapter continues to remain the celebration of the Lord’s Supper within
the Lutheran orders of Mass. The first section of this chapter examines a few examples of
liturgical reforms prior Luther. After this I will analyze various orders that were printed after the
publishing of the Formula Missae and the Deutsche Messe, but no order that appears after the
Mecklenburg rites is considered. With the swath of orders selected I wish to draw attention to
similarities and differences that emerge during the spread of the Reformation. Although I am not
able to attend to every order, or even the majority of them, I attempt to illustrate major liturgical
patterns, while also highlighting some of the diversity that emerges. It is my position that despite
the variety between the various orders, enough similarity is found that establishes basic patterns
that constitute an emerging Lutheran shape of the Mass during the period of the Reformation.
Although there is no single Mass text unifying the various Church orders, these texts illustrate
unanimity in general, with variety in the particular. That is to say, that the overarching structure
of the Mass exemplifies a basic order, and it is only individual parts of the liturgy that express
distinction and idiosyncrasies.
These patterns of similarities and differences provide a backdrop that helps to mark the
expression of Lutheran worship within Mecklenburg. Mecklenburg, in addition to the
introduction of the Lutheran Reformation and the various transformations this entailed, had to
navigate the form the Lutheran Mass would take. It was not alone in this task: all territories that
received the Reformation faced this challenge. As seen with Mecklenburg, the influence of
Luther reached far into the territorial establishment of Lutheran orders. Throughout these orders
the imprint of Luther is seen at various points. His theology of the Sacrament of the Altar carried
significant influence. Yet points of diversity come into existence in the orders. In the final analysis
I indicate points of contact that Mecklenburg’s orders share with others, but also how it expresses
its diversity in its own particular manner.
57
4.1 Examples of Liturgical Reform before Luther’s Mass orders
After Karlstadt’s celebration of the Mass in German on the celebration of the Nativity in
1521,173 the next oldest example of a reformed German Mass is the 1522 evangelical Mass of
Kasper Kantz (1483–1544) [die evangelische Messe des Kaspar Kantz]174 The order of the Mass follows
the Western rite very closely. After the sermon, in preparation for the reception of the body and
blood of Christ the priest gives an exhortation [ermanung] to the
Kasper Kantz Mass 1522
congregation to confess their sins to God, and immediately he
Sermon
Exhortation absolves them of their sins, by the command of Christ and in the
Preparatory prayer
Sursum Corda/Preface/Sanctus stead of the Holy Church. The priest then asks the congregation
Prayer to pray for him and his service. He then kneels before the altar
Verba
Lord’s Prayer and invites the congregation to quietly pray with him the prayer
Agnus Dei
Prayer (Domine Iesus Christi, Fili Dei Kumm, heiliger geist. The Sursum Corda, Preface, Sanctus have been
vivi)
Distribution elided into one text spoken by the priest. Then, according to the
Nunc Dimitis/ Te Deum
Post-communion collects text [Nun hebt sich ertst die Evangelisch Meß an], begins the
evangelical Mass with a prayer bearing similarities to the Quam
oblationem from the canon, asking the good and merciful Father to make the bread and wine
become the true body and innocent blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. Then like the canon, it
transitions into the qui pridie, the words of institution. Next is the Lord’s Prayer, Agnus Dei, and a
devotional prayer before the reception of the Sacrament, based off of the prayer from the Mass
Domine Iesus Christi, Fili Dei vivi.175 The distribution follows, at which time the priest elevates the
sacrament before the communicants and invites them to look upon the “holy body” and “the
dear treasure of the precious blood” of the Lord Jesus Christ.176 After distribution, the priest
kneels before the altar and speaks the Nunc Dimitis while the congregation speaks the Te Deum
Laudamus. The Mass ends with two post-communion collects.
An order similar to Kantz’s 1522 Mass, in that the Mass text bears great similarity to its
Catholic predecessor, is the 1524 Worms German Mass [die Wormer Deutscher Messe 1524].177
173 Karlstadt’s celebration of the Mass in the vernacular predates Kant’s Mass, but it is excluded from this overview
on account the fact that Karlstadt only provided a list of constituent units, and not an order with text. See Sehling 1,
698; CD 13.
174 Julius Smend, Die evangelischen deutschen Messen bis zu Luthers Deutscher Messe (Göttingen, 1896), 72–94.
175 See fn 121.
176 CD, 15–16, Smend, 76–77.
177 CD, 9 17–21; Peter Brunner, “Die Wormser Deutsche Messe,” 106–62. Brunner provides a thorough
investigation of the history of the order and its constituent elements.
58
Peter Brunner believes Lutheran reformer Nikolaus Maurus (1483–1539) to be the likely
compiler of the order, but the question of identification remains open.178 Brunner notes that the
most difficult task for the early Lutheran reformers regarding the Catholic Mass was the
purification of the canon. Luther’s Formula Missae presented one potential solution, but the
Worms reformer(s) opted to go a different rout and provided a more conservative answer. The
solution: “the most characteristic piece of the German evangelical Mass of Worms, is one great
prayer extending [from the Preface] to the Greeting of Peace, that
Worms Mass 1524
with a conscious power of creativity was, as it were, carved out
Sermon
Preparatory prayer from the block of the Roman canon.”179 The Worms Mass suggests
Sursum Corda/Preface
Evangelical Canon
that the editor “purified” the text on the basis of two operating
Verba principles: first, remove all language and imagery that explicitly or
Lord’s Prayer
Pax implicitly identifies that the Mass as a sacrifice; second, eliminate
Agnus Dei
Distribution the intercessions to the saints. The outcome was a canon that
Prayer
Post-communion collects retained all of the essential prayers with moderate revisions, except
Nunc Dimitis
for the Memento etiam, Nobis quoque, and Per omnia saecula (Per quem
haec omnia) which all fell out entirely. After the canon the
distribution of the elements follows the same method as the 1522 Kantz Mass. The post-
communion collect appears to be a revision of the silent prayer of the priest said during the
purification of the chalice from the Catholic liturgy. The Worms Mass ends with the Benedicamus,
Trinitarian blessing, and the Nunc Dimitis.
By omitting all sacrificial language, the focus of the canon transitions from understanding
the Mass as an offering of sacrifice to an offering of prayer [Darbringung des Gebets]. This
transformation is already seen at the outset of the Preface. Whereas in the Catholic Mass of the
1488 Worms Missal, immediately prior to the Sursum Corda, the priest prays, “Pray for me,
brothers and sister, that my and your sacrifice may be acceptable to the Almighty God,” the
revised Worms Mass has, “Dear brothers and sisters, pray that my and your prayer is acceptable
[angenehm] to God.”180
178 Brunner, “Die Wormser Deutsche Messe,” 124–25.

179 Brunner, “Die Wormser Deutsche Messe,” 147.
180 CD, 17; Brunner, “Die Wormser Deutsche Messe,” 147.
59
4.2 Examples of Liturgical Reform after Luther’s Mass orders
It has already been noted that the Pomeranian born, Wittenberg reformer Johannes
Bugenhagen exercised great influence on the development and spread of the Lutheran Church
orders. According to Hans-Christian Drömann, except for the Church orders for Grubenhagen
and Mecklenburg, there was not one Low German Church order that did not bear his
influence.181 His work even spread into the Lutheran Churches in Denmark and Russia. It was
also through Bugenhagen, that Luther’s liturgical orders, albeit revised, received popularization
and exercised immediate influence.
In the 1528 Braunschweig Kirchenordnung, after the sermon,
Braunschweig 1528
the priest, from the pulpit [up dem predickstole] exhorts the
Sermon
Exhortation (prayer) congregation to prayer, specifically for the authorities. Then the
German Psalm
Exhortation
congregation sings a German psalm and moves into the choir
[Preface] stalls for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, while the priest
Sanctus
Lord’s Prayer prepares the necessary bread and wine. The priest reads to the
Verba/with immediate distribution
Jesus Chritus unse heyland Got sy gelavet congregants the previously noted exhortation. On Feast days, or
Christe, du lam Gades
Post-communion collect (Luther) when desired, the Preface is to be sung in Latin. The Sanctus is
Aaronic Benediction
next, followed by the Lord’s Prayer. The priest chants the words
of institution, but as with Luther’s Deutsche Messe, the institution is interrupted by the immediate
distribution of the body of Christ, at which time the congregants sing Jesus Christus, unse heyland or
Got sy gelavet und gebenedyet. After the distribution of the body, the wine is consecrated and
distributed, while other hymns are sung, concluding with Christe, du lam Gades. After Luther’s post-
communion prayer of thanksgiving, the Mass ends with the Aaronic benediction.182
In addition to the work and success of Bugenhagen, the sphere of Luther’s liturgical
influence was furthered through two other orders. The first is the Osiander-Brenz Brandenburg–
Nürnberg 1533 Kirchenordnung. Whereas the Braunschweig order more faithfully represented the
Deutsche Messe, the Brandenberg-Nürnberg order was more influenced by the Fomula Missae.
Given its importance on the Mecklenburg orders, and previous treatment in the preceding
181 CD, 50–51 fn.10. Drömann states that these two orders were in modeled after the 1542 Calenberg–Göttingen
order. Nevertheless, as already shown, the exhortation from his 1528 Braunschweig order was well circulated in
Mecklenburg.
182 CD, 53–56; Sehling 6/1, 440–42.
60
chapter, nothing more will be said at this point.183 The other order is the 1539 Albertine Saxon
Church order [Kirchenordunge zum anfang, für die pfarherrn in Herzog Heinrichs zu Sachsen u.g.h.
fürstenthum].184
The order for communion, likely written by Justus Jonas (1493–1555), was heavily guided
by Luther’s German Mass. When the sermon is finished, the pastor reads Luther’s paraphrase of
the Lord’s Prayer and his exhortation to the Sacrament of the
Albertine Saxon 1539
Altar. Occasionally, particularly on Feast days, both may be
Sermon
Lord’s Prayer Paraphrase omitted and replaced with the Preface and Sanctus, to be sung in
Exhortation (Luther)
[Preface/Sanctus]
Latin. The words of institution are chanted, followed with the
Verba congregation singing Jesus Christus unser heiland or Gott sei gelobet.
Jesus Christus unser heiland or Gott sei
gelobet During the distribution the Agnus Dei is sung in Latin, and other
Distribution/Agnus Dei
Post-communion collect hymns as needed. The Mass concludes with the collect
Aaronic Benediction
(presumably Luther’s) and the Aaronic benediction.185
The previous examples illustrate models of liturgical development that exemplify great
similarity, both in terms of structure and content. This level of correspondence is likely due to
their common root in Luther’s liturgical orders. The next three examples evidence forms of
liturgical expression that exhibit other patterns that emerged out of this period. While it would be
hyperbole to label these orders as radical departures, they attest to noteworthy distinctions.
The 1540 Church order of Mark Brandenburg [Kirchenordnng im churfurstenthum der marcken
zu Brandenburge, wie man sich beide mit der leer und ceremonien halten sol. 1540] accompanied the hesitant
embrace of the Reformation by Margrave Joachim II.186 The history surrounding its conception
is interwoven with Joachim’s own misgivings concerning his position between the Catholic
Church and the emerging Lutheran Church. Joachim did not envision himself as casting off
Catholicism and adhering to a new Church, but rather initiating necessary evangelical reforms
for the Church under his immediate auspices that he had originally hoped would be done
through a general council. He considered himself neither Roman nor Wittenbergian, but
Catholic. The new order received approval from Jonas, Luther, and Melanchthon—
Melanchthon having personally advised Joachim on multiple occasions—but others felt it
183 For a list of other orders that borrowed the 1533 Brandenburg–Nürnberg order, see Sehling 11, 122–24.
184 Sehling 1, 264–81.
185 Sehling 1, 271.
186 CD, 71, 87–89; Sehling 3, 67–70. See, Carl Röhling’s painting “Abendmahl des Kurfürsten Joachim II, in der
Nikolaikirche Berlin, 1539.”
61
retained too much Catholic ceremonial187; even Luther identified points that he considered
offensive to evangelical doctrine and practice.188
In the order of the Mass [Ordnung der mess] after the sermon (according to the order of
villages; the order for Thumen und Stiften gives no indication for the location of a sermon), the
Offertory is sung (villages may substitute a German psalm), followed by the Preface and Sanctus in
Latin (even in villages). During the singing of the Sanctus the priest recites three prayers in
German: the first is for the authorities; the second is a request for faithful and godly teachers and
servants of the word; and the third is composed of two petitions:
Brandenburg 1540
the first asking for forgiveness, godly peace, and unity, and the
Sermon
Offertory
second similarly requests God not to look upon the sins of the
Preface people, but to be merciful for the sake of his name, on account of
Sanctus
3 Prayers his Son, Jesus Christ. Each prayer is an individual prayer,
Verba
Respnsorial hymn concluding with an Amen, four in all. It is unclear if these prayers
Lord’s Prayer
Pax are said silently during the Sanctus or if they are heard by the
Agnus Dei
3 pre-communion prayers
congregation; the use of German suggests that they were to be
Exhortation (Volprecht) audible. The verba testamenti in German—with the elevation—
Distribution
Prayer (Domine Iesus Christi, Fili Dei follow the Sanctus and prayers, which are followed by a
vivi)
Distribution responsory hymn (Tua est potencia or a German psalm), the Lord’
Post-Communion prayer (1533
Brand) Prayer, and the Pax and Agnus Dei, both in Latin. Either to be
2 Post-communion prayers
recited during or after the Agnus Dei the order prescribes three
pre-communion prayers from the Catholic Mass, all in Latin, to be prayed by the priest: Domine
Iesu Christe, qui dixisti, Domine Iesu Christi, fili dei vivi, and Sacramentum corporis tui domine Iesu Christe.
The 1524 Volprecht exhortation precedes the distribution of the elements. When the distribution
is complete, the Mass ends with a post-communion prayer of thanksgiving, taken from the 1533
187 Bodo Nischan, Prince, People, and Confession: The Second Reformation in Brandenburg (Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, 1994), 5–24. Nischan notes that this order has been referred to as “the most Catholic of all the
German Protestant orders” (21). He also draws attention to the fact that despite Joachim’s strong support of the
heart of Lutheran doctrine, most notably justification, he persisted in some former acts of devotion greatly censured
by the Reformers, namely his devotion to the saints as mediators expressed through his continued amassment of
relics. One should note that Nischan categorizes a variety of practices under the category “pomp and ceremonial,”
(e.g. Corpus Christi processions, vestments and rituals of the Mass) as remnants of former Catholic practice. He
indiscriminately insists on maintaining that the retention of any of these practices is inconsistent with a more robust
confessional Lutheranism.
188 Nischan, Prince, People, and Confession, 22. For Luther the offensive points were the practice of the communion of
the sick and homebound done in the traditional manner of using consecrated elements (even the blood) processed in
a monstrance; and the anointing of the sick [Olunge]; the latter point was omitted by Nischan. See WA Br. 8, 622–23.
62
Brandenburg-Nürnberg order, but amended by Luther’s post-communion prayer, and then the
priest privately prays two post-communion prayers from the Catholic mass: Corpus tuum domine
and Quod ore sumpsimus.
Three years after the publication of 1540 Brandenburg Church order, another Church
order appeared bearing obvious similarities the

Pfalz-Neuburg 1543
Brandenburg order, the 1543 Church order of Pfalz-
Sermon Neuburg [Kirchenordnung, wie es mit der Christlichen Lehre, heiligen
Prayer of consecration
Verba Sacramenen, vnd allerley andern Ceremonien, in meines gnedigen herrn,
Sanctus
3 Prayers (Brandenburg)
Herrn Otthainrichen, Pfalzgrauen bey Rhein, Hertzogen inn Nider vnd
Lord’s Prayer Obern Bairn etc. Fürstenthumb gehalten wirt].189 When the sermon
Pax
Agnus Dei had been preached, the priest reads an exhortation to the
3 pre-communion prayers
(Brandenburg) people, taken from the Brandenburg-Nürnburg 1533 order.
Distribution
Exhortation (Volprecht) Then the priest at the altar, with the appropriate amount of
Distribution
Post-Communion prayer (Brandenburg)
bread and wine for the number of communicants, recites a
Benedicamus prayer of consecration, written by Osiander. Brunner
Benediction
identifies this consecratory prayer as an appropriate version
of an epiclesis, according to the parameters of Lutheran
Christology and theology of consecration.190 It is addressed to Christ, who gave his body and
blood into death for the forgiveness of sins, and who now feeds all of his disciples with the same
body and blood. At this point comes the petition for consecration:
We bring before your divine majesty these Wir bringen fur deine götliche majestat dise
gifts of bread and wine, and ask that you will deine gaben, brot und wien, und bitten, du
through your divine grace, goodness, and wöllest dieselben durch dein götliche gnad,
power, hallow, bless, and make, that this gute und kraft heiligen, segnen und schaffen,
bread would be your body and this wine das dises brot dein leib und diser wein dein
would be your blood; and all who eat and blut sei, und allen denen, die darvon essen
drink form them would be lead to eternal life, und trinken, zum ewigen leben lassen
[. . . ] gedeihen, [. . . ]191
This petition has noticeable similarities to the Quam oblationem from the canon, and to the 1522
Worms Mass; however, it is not a verbatim reproduction.
189 CD, 72, 89–90; Sehling 13, 70–77.

190 Brunner, Worship in the Name of Jesus, translated by M.H. Bertram (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1968),
300–302.
191 CD, 89–90; Sehling 13, 73. (Translation mine)
63
Immediately [alsobald] after the conclusion of the prayer with an Amen, the priest sings
the words of institution, with the elevation, which even extends to the beginning of the Sanctus,
sung by the choir—unless there is no choir, at which point the priest sings or speaks it.192 Either
during or after the Sanctus the priest is to pray the same set of prayers as done in the 1540
Brandenburg order. After these prayers is the Lord’s Prayer, the Pax in German, the Agnus Dei is
to be either sung or spoken in Latin, but the people may sing the German version after. The
same three prayers that followed the Agnus Dei in the Brandenburg order are spoken by the priest
immediately before distribution. The Brandenburg 1540 post-communion prayer follows the
distribution, as do the two post-communion prayers for the priest. The Mass concludes with the
Benedicamus, and the benediction—four options are provided.
4.3 Analysis
This consideration of liturgical orders is only a thumbnail sketch of the total production of
Mass orders during the first generation of the Lutheran Reformation. A substantial omission
from this overview has been the Lutheran liturgical orders appearing outside of the German
lands, particularly the 1531 Swedish Mass by Olavus Petri with its extended preface, which
directly leads to the institution narrative.193 Despite this sparse sampling, it does provide a
general representation of the development that took place. These examples considered along
with Luther’s reforms and the liturgical orders of Mecklenburg, depict common features that
characterize the aggregate of orders, as well some anomalous findings. I wish to draw attention to
a few points of congruence and divergence. First, the significance of Luther’s Formula Missae and
Deutsche Messe for the Lutheran celebration of the Lord’s Supper is apparent when comparing
examples of liturgical construction before and after the printing of these texts. The two examples
above evidence attempts at renegotiating the canon of the Mass that do not appear again after
Luther’s Masses. As illustrated through their respective texts, neither Kasper Kantz nor the
author of the Worms order accepted the sacrifice of the Mass. Still, both undertook liturgical
revisions that retained the bulk of the canon. It was not beyond salvaging from the perceived
doctrinal errors of the Catholic Church. Following the publication of Luther’s Latin and German
orders, this form of liturgical revision ceased. Luther’s equation of the sacrifice of the Mass with
192 Sehling 13, 73. The rubrics specify that the priest’s actions are to accord with the words he speaks, such that he
takes the large host [großen hostien] and the chalice in his hands as the institution indicates.
193 CD, 113–21; Frank C. Senn, Christian Liturgy: Catholic and Evangelical (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997), 393–443.
64
the canon resulted in its ultimate demise. The canon’s repudiation became a liturgical sine qua non
for Lutheran worship. This leads to a second point. Luther’s rejection of the canon and
subsequent underscoring of the words of institution led to a virtual elimination of prayer in
proximity to the verba testamenti—except for the Lord’s Prayer. Emblematic of the Lutheran orders
was the recitation—often chanted—of the institution narrative isolated from the structure of a
prayer. While some scholars maintain that the status of the institution—its liturgical and
theological function—was contested in the first generation of the Reformation,194 that it does not
reemerge within a prayer structure suggests against any direct identification of the verba as prayer.
Investigation is still required to determine whether this was due to Luther’s distinction between
God’s descending work of salvation realized in the words of institution, and the ascending
anthropological work of prayer. Finally, as previously indicated at the end of the previous
chapter, the exhortation to the Lord’s Supper becomes a fixed feature of the Lutheran
communion service. While its location varies between before and after the words of institution, its
status was elevated to that of a liturgical ordinary, or at times an ordinary that could be
seasonally omitted.195
This sampling also attests to the rise of a certain liturgical feature that is hard to
categorize under one heading: it is not abnormal, but neither is it a definite trait. Within certain
orders there was a marked development of prayer within the context of the liturgy of the
Sacrament of the Altar. The form this took was not uniform between orders. Slüter included a
pre-communion prayer, after the exhortation, but before the distribution. The Brandenburg–
Nürnberg order, following Luther’s example from the German Mass added an extra post-
communion collect. The 1540 Brandenburg order went the farthest in its inclusion of collects to
be prayed during the Sanctus, and private prayers for the priest prior to and following reception of
the sacrament. The Pfalz–Neuburg order came the closet to relocating the institution within the
context of a prayer, with only an Amen separating the petition from the verba. Mecklenburg’s
1552 Church order appears to be the most innovative by uniting the exhortation, with an
absolution, and prayer. At this point of research what makes this resurgence of prayer hard to
194 Schulz, “Die Funktion der Verba Testamenti in der evangelischen liturgischen Tradition bis heute,” 192–201;
Stählin, “Die Geschichte des christlichen Gottesdienstes von der Urkirche bis zur Gegenwart,” 62.
195 The only order that I am aware of that does not appear to have an exhortation within the context of the Lord’s
Supper is the 1543 Church order for Electoral Calenberg—Göttingen (Sehling 6/2, 791–95, 812–17). However,
following the sermon there is an extended “conclusion of the sermon” [Beschlus der predigt] that instructs the
congregation on prayer. This then turns into catechetical instruction over the Lord’s Prayer, Apostles Creed, Ten
Commandments, a recited confession, and absolution.
65
categorize is the ability to discern the possible motivations for the insertion of these prayers. Aside
from the Sanctus-petitions that the Pfalz-Neuburg order borrows from the Brandenburg liturgy,
these prayers all exhibit variations amongst themselves. Such differences prohibit any easy
attempt at locating the authorial intent for their inclusion. Further studies need to consider, in
addition to the liturgical sources used, the theologies of the orders’ authors, in addition to the
political and theological atmosphere of the territory.
What can be seen at this time with regard to Mecklenburg is that the addition has a
distinct character in respect to the other prayers that have been considered. It is not a prayer of
consecration like Pfalz-Neuberg, nor does it seem to have its origins in any of the prayers from
the canon particularly or the Catholic Mass in general, as with Brandenburg. The Church order,
in both its doctrinal section and in the exhortation following the sermon and the one connected
to the prayer, reveals that there was a catechetical focus on instructing the laity over the proper
content and expression of prayer. Viewed in succession with its predecessors, and the context of
its composition and introduction, it does not appear likely that the emergence of this prayer was
understood as a Lutheran canon of the Mass. Riebling displayed no such predispositions towards
Catholic practice on this issue in the previous orders. Furthermore, in light of Johann Albrecht’s
desire to rid from the duchy all vestiges of Catholicism and establish a Lutheran Church, such a
liturgical re-appropriation seems problematic. It seems probable that the insertion of this prayer
was nothing more than the attempt to provide appropriate liturgical catechesis over the nature of
Lutheran prayer. This explanation is supported by two observations: first, in light of preceding
Catholic practices thought to be erroneous (illustrated in the doctrinal section), this exhortation
and prayer supplants previous Catholic rites. Second, the 1545 Ordenige provides precedent for
adjoining exhortation and prayer. The 1552 order maintains this pattern, and expands upon it.
Further research on the Mecklenburg Church orders must be done. This study has only
briefly considered the theology and practice of the Mass. The Baptismal rites, Private Confession
and Absolution, and the prayer offices amongst others, have not received adequate attention in
Reformation Liturgical scholarship. Despite what remains unknown, and the limitations of the
present work, this investigation has illustrated a liturgical and theological trajectory that
attempted to establish itself within the path created by Luther, at least regarding the Sacrament
of the Altar. Various lines of correspondence are identified stretching from Slüter to Riebling and
Aurifaber that unmistakably originate with Luther. The inseparability of practice and doctrine is
66
epitomized in Heinrich’s refusal and eventual acceptance of receiving the sacrament in the
manner practiced by the Lutheran reformers. It does not appear coincidental that following this
event, the displacement of the Catholic Mass began its gradual movement throughout the duchy.
While much of Mecklenburg’s immediate liturgical influences are chiefly the result of
Bugenhagen, it was often Luther’s reforms that helped give shape to the work of the great
liturgical reformer from Pomerania. Mecklenburg’s orders, as with Bugenhagen’s own, are
indebted to Luther’s work, while concurrently exhibiting points of variation—with Luther,
Bugenhagen, and other Lutheran liturgies. To be sure the spirit of innovation is thoroughly
subtle, but there is a willingness to engage in quasi-liturgical creativity within certain parameters.
But in no way was this a peculiarity of Mecklenburg’s orders, or an indication of theological or
liturgical dissonance with the Lutheran Reformation. The degree of Mecklenburg’s liturgical
growth was such that the theological framework of the order was not compromised.
The first generation of Mecklenburg liturgical orders reveals a burgeoning Lutheran
community attempting to establish itself into a new region, amidst the occupation of a perceived
antagonist. Liturgical reform was wielded like a double-edged sword, eradicating Catholic
doctrine and practice, while constructing and fortifying the youthful edifice of the Wittenberg
Reformation. Yet, by and large, the introduction and spread of the Lutheran liturgy remained
consistent throughout these turbulent years, which proved to be vitally important for
Mecklenburg Lutheranism. The years between Slüter’s Gesangbuch and the 1552 Church order
were stamped by instability. Political, ecclesiastical, and familial tension, turmoil, and transition
were features of this time within Mecklenburg and throughout Germany. But in this period of
disorder the importance of the liturgy for the cause of the Lutheran Church was paramount. The
restrained momentum of the installation of Lutheran reforms was an instrumental component to
the success of its eventual territorial establishment.196 The role that Lutheran worship
contributed to this should not be discounted from historical consideration. The regularity and
stability of the Lutheran Mass helped to maintain consistency amidst transition. While the
Lutheran liturgy was itself a transition, it maintained marked consistencies with its Catholic
predecessor. Where it departed from the Catholic Mass (in key places), uniform doctrine and
structure amidst the various orders, through years of chaos, worked to provide a stable and
consistent foundation for the Church, which assisted in its territorial inculcation. The
196 Miller, The Lutheran State Church of Mecklenburg, 38–40.
67
conservative development of the liturgical orders gradually but steadily contributed to the
creation and installation of a Lutheran Church within the duchy of Mecklenburg.
68
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Kolb, Robert and Timothy J. Wengert, Editors. The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the
Evangelical Lutheran Church. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000.
Luther, Martin. D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe. 73 vols. in 85. Weimar: H. Böhlau,
1883–.
———. D. Martin Luthers Werke: Briefwechsel. 18 vols. Weimar: H. Böhlau, 1930–.
———. Luther’s Works: American Edition. Volumes 1–30: Edition by Jarsoslav Pelikan. St. Louis:
Concordia, 1955–76. Volumes 31–55: Edited by Helmut Lehmann. Phildadelphia/
Minneapolis: Muhlenberg/Fortress, 1957–86.
Pahl, Irmgard, Editor. Coena Domini I: die Abendmahlsliturgie der Reformationskirchen im 16./17.
Jahrhundert. Freiburg Schweiz: Universitätsverlag Freiburg Schweiz, 1983.
Richter, Aemilius Ludwig, Editor. Die evangelischen Kirchenordungen des sechszehnten Jahrhunderts.
Urkunden und Regesten zur Geschichte des Reschts und er Verfassung der evangelischen Kirche in
Deutschland. Vol. 1. Leipzig: Ernst Julius Günther, 1871.
Sehling, Emil, et al., eds. Die evangelischen Kirchenordnungen des XVI. Jahrhunderts. Volumes 1–5:
Leipzig; O.R. Reisland, 1902–13. Volumes 6–: Tübingen: Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1957–.
Slüter Joachim. Joachim Slüter’s ältestes rostocker Gesangbuch von Jahre 1532 und der demselben
zuzuschreibende Katechismus vom Jahre 1525. Nach den Originaldrucken wortgetreu herausgegeben von C.
M. Wiechmann-Kadow. Schwerin: Dr. F. W. Bärensprung, 1858.
Smend, Julius. Die evangelischen deutschen Messen bis zu Luthers Deutscher Messe. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1896.
Secondary Sources
69
Bayer, Oswald. Martin Luther’s Theology: A Contemporary Interpretation. Grand Rapids: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Compnay, 2008.
Bei der Wieden, Helge. “Menschen in der lutherischen Kirche Mecklenburgs.” In Menschen in der
Kirche. 450 Jahre seit Einführung der Reformation in Mecklenburg. Edited by Helge Bei der Wieden,
11–27. Rostock: Schmidt Rönhild, 2000.
Bergsma, Johannes H. Die Reform der Messliturgie durch Johannes Bugenhagen (1485–1588). Kevelaer:
Butzon & Bercker, 1966.
Bosinski, Gerhard. Das Schrifttum des Rostocker Reformators Joachim Slüuter. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1971.
———. “Joachim Slüter und Luthers Gesangbuch von 1529.” Theologische Literaturzeitung 108:10
(1983): 705–22.
Brecht, Martin. Martin Luther: The Preservation of the Church 1532–1546. Edited by James L. Schaff.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999.
Brown, Christopher Boyd. Book Review. Review of Worship Wars in Early Lutheranism: Choir,
Congregation, and Three Centuries of Conflict, by Joseph Herl. The Journal of Religion 87:1 (2007),
99–101.
———.“Devotional Life in Hymns, Liturgy, Music, and Prayer.” In Lutheran Ecclesiastical Culture,
1550–1675. Edited by Robert Kolb, 205–58. Boston: Brill, 2008.
———. Singing the Gospel: Lutheran Hymns and the Success of the Reformation. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 2005.
Brunner, Peter. “Die Wormser Deutsche Messe.” In Kosmos und Ekklesia: Festschrift für Wilhelm
Stählin zu seinem siebzigsten Geburtstag. 24. September 1953. Edited by Heinz–Dietrich Wendland,
106–62. Kassel: Johannes Stauda, 1953.
———. Worship in the Name of Jesus. Edited by Martin H. Bertram. St. Louis: Concordia
Historical Institute, 1968.
70
Dixon, C. Scott. The Reformation in Germany. Malden, MA.: Blackwell Publishing Inc., 2002.
Drömann, Hans-Christian. “Kyrie and Gloria in den lutherischen Kirchenordnungen des

sechzehnten Jahrhunderts.” In Kerzygma und Melos: Christhard Mahrenholz 70 Jahre, Edited by
Walter Blankenburg, Herwarth von Schade, Kurt Schmidt-Clausen, and Alexander Völker,
57-66. Kasel and Berlin: Bärenreiter-Verlag; Lutherisches Verlagshaus GmbH, 1970.
Gaehtgens, Wolfgang. “Die Quellen der Mecklenburgischen Liturgie-Ordnungen.” Monatsschrift

für Gottesdiesnt und kirchlich Kunst 43 (1938): 266–75.
Hendel, Kurt K. “Johannes Bugenhagen, Organizer of the Lutheran Reformation.” Lutheran

Quarterly 18:1 (2004): 43-76.
Herl, Joseph. Worship Wars in Early Lutheranism: Choir, Congregation, and Three Centuries of Conflict.
New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Höss, Irmgard. “The Lutheran Church of the Reformation: Problems of its Formation and
Organization in the Middle and North German Territories.” In The Social History of the
Reformation. Edited by P Buck, Lawrence and Jonathan W. Zophy, 317–39. Columbus: Ohio
State University Press, 1972.
Jähnig, Bernhart, ed. Beiträge zur mecklenburgischen Kirchengeschichte. Köln Wien: Böhlau Verlag,
1982.
Leaver, Robin A. Luther’s Liturgical Music: Principles and Implications. Grand Rapids: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2007.
Meßner, Reinhard. Die Meßreform Martin Luthers und die Eucharistie der Alten Kirche. Innsbruck:
Tyrolia, 1989.
———. “Reformen des Gottesdienstes in der Wittenberger Reformation.” In Biblische Modelle und
Liturgiereformen von der Frühzeit bis zur Aufklärung. Volume 1 in Liturgiereformen: Historische Studien
zu einem bleibenden Grundzug des christlichen Gottesdienstes, ed. Martin Klöckener and Benedikt
Kranemann, 381–416. (Münster: Aschendorf Münster, 2002).
71
Meyer, Hans Bernhard. Eucharistie: Geschichte, Theologie, Pastoral. Volume 4 of Gottesdienst der Kirche:
Handbuch der Liturgiewissenschaft. Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1989.
Miller, Gary Michael. “The Lutheran State Church of Mecklenburg, 1549-1621.” Ph.D.
Dissertation, Yale University, 1998.
Nischan, Bodo. Prince, People, and Confession: The Second Reformation in Brandenburg. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1994.
Olson, Oliver. Matthias Flacius and the Survival of Luther's Reform. Wiesbanden: Harrassowitz Verlag,
2002.
Rittgers, Ronald K. “Private Confession and the Lutheranization of Sixteenth-Century

Nördlingen.” Sixteenth Century Journal 36:4 (2005): 1063-1085.
———. The Reformation of the Keys: Confession, Conscience, and Authority in Sixteenth-Century Germany.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004.
Schnell, Heinrich. Urkunden und Akten zur Geschichte des mecklenburgischen Unterrichtswesens: Mittelalter
und das Zeitalter der Reformation. Volume1 of Das Unterrichtswesen der Großherzogtümer Mecklenburg-
Schwerin und Strelitz. Edited by H. Schnell. Berlin: A. Hofmann & Comp., 1907.
———. Die mecklenburgischen Kirchenordnungen. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Entstehung der
mecklenburgischen Landeskirche. Güstrow: Rathsbuchdruckeri C. Michaal, 1899.
———. “Heinrich V, der Friedfertige, Herzog von Mecklenburg 1503–1552.” Schriften des Vereins
für Reformationsgeschichte 72 (1902): 1–72.
Schrader, Franz. “Mecklenburg.” In Der Nor. Volume 2 of Die Territorien des Reichs im Zeitalter der
Reformation und Konfessionaliserung. Land und Konfession 1500–1600. Edited by Anton Schindling
and Walter Ziegler, 167–80. Münster: Aschendorf Münster, 1990.
Schulz, Frieder. “Die Funktion der Verba Testamenti in der evangelischen liturgischen Tradition
bis heute.” Liturgisches Jahrbuch 53:3 (2003): 192–201.
72
———. “Eucharistiegebet und Abendmahlsvermahnung. Eine relecture reformatorischer
Abendmahlsordenungen im ökumenischen Zeitalter.” In Sursum Corda. Variationen zu einem
liturgischen Motiv. Festschrift Philipp Harnoncourt zum 60. Geburtstag. Edited by Andreas Schnider,
147–58. Graz: Akademsiche Druck-u. Verlagsanstalt, 1991.
Schwarz, Reinhard. “Der hermeneutsiche Angelpunkt in Luthers Meßreform.” Zeitschrift für

Theologie und Kirche 89:3 (1992): 340–64.
———. “The Last Supper: The Testament of Jesus.” In The Pastoral Luther: Essays on Martin
Luther’s Practical Theology. Edited by Timothy J. Wengert, 198–210. Grand Rapids: William
B. Eerdmans Publishing Compnay, 2009.
Senn, Frank C. Christian Liturgy: Catholic and Evangelical (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997.
Spinks, Bryan D. “Evaluating Liturgical Continuity and Change at the Reformation: A Case
Study of Thomas Muntzer, Martin Luther, and Thomas Cranmer.” In Continuity and Change
in Christian Worship: Papers Read at the 1997 Summer Meeting and the 1998 Winter Meeting of the
Ecclesiastical History Society. Edited by Robert N. Swanson, 151–71. Rochester: The Boydell
Press, 1999.
———. Luther’s Liturgical Criteria and His Reform of the Canon of the Mass. Bramcote: Grove Books,
1982.
Stählin, Rudolph. “Die Geschichte des christlichen Gottesdienstes von der Urkirche bis zur
Gegenwart.” Volume 1 in Leiturgia: Handbuch des evangelischen Gottesdiensts. Mit einem
Geleitwort der Luthischen Liturgischen Konferenz Deutschlands. Edited by Karl Ferdinand Müller
and Walter Blankenburg, 1–80. Kassel: Johannes Stauda-Verlag, 1954.
Traeger, Josef. “Wiederbesetzungsversuche des schweriner Bischofssitzes im 17. Jahrhundert.” In

Beiträge zur mecklenburgischen Kirchengeschichte. Edited by Bernhart Jähnig, 103-119. Köln Wien:
Böhlau Verlag, 1982.
Wendebourg, Dorothea. Essen zum Gedächtnis: Der Gedächtnisbefehl in den Abendmahlstheologien der
Reformation. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009.
73
———. “Noch einmal >> Den falschen Weg Roms zu Ende gegangen? << Auseinandersetzung
mit meinen Kritikern.” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 99 (2002): 400–440.
———. “Taufe und Abendmahl.” In Luther Handbuch. Edited by Albrecht Beutel. 2nd Edition.
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010.
———. “Travel the Full Extent of Rome’s Erroneous Path?” Lutheran Forum 44:4 (2010): 18–33.
Wisløff, Carl F. The Gift of Communion: Luther’s Controversy with Rome on Eucharistic Sacrifice.
Translated by Joseph M. Shaw. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1964.
Wolgast, Eike. “Die Herzöge als not- und Oberbischöfe der mecklenburgischen Landeskirche.”
In Menschen in der Kirche. 450 Jahre seit Einführung der Reformation in Mecklenburg. Edited by Helge
Bei der Wieden, 29–64. Rostock: Schmidt Rönhild, 2000.
74

Tracing Wittenbergs Liturgical Lineage M

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tracing Wittenbergs Liturgical Lineage M

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TRACING WITTENBERG’S LITURGICAL LINEAGE:

MECKLENBURG’S RECEPTION OF LUTHER’S REFORMS OF THE MASS

Submitted to Yale Divinity School

Master of Sacred Theology

James Ambrose Lee II

Markus Rathey, Advisor

Yale Divinity School

James Ambrose Lee II

All rights reserved

MARTIN LUTHER AND THE SACRAMENT OF CHRIST’S BODY AND BLOOD 7

2.1 Luther’s Theology of the Lord’s Supper 7

2.2 Luther’s Liturgical Reforms 16

MECKLENBURG’S RECEPTION OF LUTHER’S REFORMS 26

3.1 The History of the Reformation in Mecklenburg 26

3.2 The Reformation of the Mass in Mecklenburg 30

THE STATUS OF MECKLENBURG’S LITURGICAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE LUTHERAN

4.1 Examples of Liturgical Reform before Luther’s Mass orders 58

4.2 Examples of Liturgical Reform after Luther’s Mass orders 60

CD Irmgard Pahl, ed. Coena Domini I: die Abendmahlsliturgie der Reformationskirchen im

LC Large Catechism of Martin Luther (1529)

WA D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe. 73 vols. in 85. Weimar: H. Böhlau,

WA Br. D. Martin Luthers Werke: Briefwechsel. 18 vols. Weimar: H. Böhlau, 1930–

his uncle Balthasar (1451–1507), but died in 1508.

Schmidt Rönhild, 2000).

und kirchlich Kunst 43(1938) 266–75, 1938.

18 CD, 99–104; Sehling 5, 219.

2.1 Luther’s Theology of the Lord’s Supper

2.1.1 The Blessed Sacrament (1519)

2.1.2 Sacrifice of the Mass, Promissio, and Testament

WA, 8 516–18; LW 36:174–76.

2.1.3 Against the Enthusiasts and Radical Reformers

89: 3 (1992): 340–64.

3–150; Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper, WA 26, 261–509; LW 37: 151–372.

43 Luther, Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper, WA 26, 461,36; LW 37: 316.

2.1.4 The Catechisms

(Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 421.

2.2 Luther’s Liturgical Reforms

its official adoption beginning on Christmas.

2.2.1 Formula Missae et Communionis

Following Luther’s return to Wittenberg and the cessation of Karlstadt’s revisions, it is

67 Leaver, Luther’s Liturgical Music, 175.

of Luther’s Mass settings.

84 Luther, The Misuse of the Mass, WA 8, 521; LW 36: 180.

3.1 The History of the Reformation in Mecklenburg

98 Miller, “The Lutheran State Church of Mecklenburg,” 46.

Landeskirche, (Güstrow: Rathsbuchdruckeri C. Michaal, 1899), 23.

3.2 The Reformation of the Mass in Mecklenburg

3.2.1 Johann Slüter’s 1532 Gesangbuch

110 Miller, “The Lutheran State Church of Mecklenburg,” 73–74

116 Slüter, Rvi–Siii; Sehling 11, 51–55.

119 CD, 81–86; Sehling 11, 48–9.

3.2.2 The 1540 Kerkenordenighe

126Sehling 11, 182.

Herl, Worship Wars, 36–53.

134 Luther, The Misuse of the Mass, WA 8, 524; LW 36: 183.

137 Sehling 5, 150–55.

dem heren, wente he is gut. Antwort. Unde sine barmherticheit is ewich.”

3.2.4 The 1552 Kirchenordnung

congregation’s singing Wire gleuben alle an einen gott.

texts will be discussed in the next chapter.

investigation of the history of the order and its constituent elements.

178 Brunner, “Die Wormser Deutsche Messe,” 124–25.

Nikolaikirche Berlin, 1539.”