John Bull is often told that Anglo-Catholics are very dangerous people who are doing their best to make England Roman Catholic. The principal evidence brought forward in support of this charge is that we are busily engaged in trying to bring back the Mass. When once the Mass becomes general in the English Church, it is said, the Pope will very soon have Englishmen under his thumb. At once John’s flesh begins to creep, and he is prejudiced against Anglo-Catholic teaching straight away. And prejudice is a very bad thing; it clouds the judgment, and tends to make us unwilling to listen to reason. In this, as in so many other matters, prejudice is based on real misunderstanding, and it is therefore very important to get the misunderstanding cleared away.

Is the Mass a Roman Catholic Service?

Now when it is said that we are trying to bring back the Mass, what is meant, of course, is that the Mass is a Roman Catholic substitute for the Lord’s Supper, and that the Church of England got rid of it at the Reformation. Our claim is that the Church of England did nothing of the kind, and that the Lord’s Supper and the Mass are only two different names for the same thing. Indeed, were there space in this tract, it would be most easy to show in detail that the Communion Service in the Book of [1/2] Common Prayer, though it has many faults and blemishes, and is much in need of revision, is the same in all important points as the Mass of pre-Reformation times, and that both the one and the other are a true development of the Lord’s own Service as instituted by him on the night on which he was betrayed, with all essentials unaltered.

The word Mass, then, is only one of several historic names used to describe the service in which the sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ is celebrated. The New Testament name for this service is the Breaking of Bread,
but in course of time it came to be called by other names—e.g., the Eucharist, the Communion, the Supper of the Lord, the Liturgy, the Holy Sacrifice. But Mass has been the common name for the service in Western Christendom from very early times indeed. In the first Reformed English Prayer-Book of 1549, the title of the service was: “The Supper of the Lord, or the Holy Communion, commonly called the Mass.” Notice, commonly called, which means that it was the name in general use. Thus, when we Anglo-Catholics talk about the Mass we mean the Supper of the Lord, or the Holy Communion, and nothing else. And Roman Catholics mean exactly the same thing; they celebrate Mass not because they are Roman but because they are Catholic. The Mass is not a Roman Catholic Service or an Anglo-Catholic Service; it is a Catholic Service, just as the Apostles’ Creed is not a Roman Creed or an Anglican Creed, but a Catholic Creed.

Why we use the Word Mass

Why, then, it may be asked, do we make such a point of the word Mass in view of all the criticism and prejudice which it arouses? The derivation of the word is uncertain; it has no particular doctrinal meaning; it causes needless irritation and offence. If the Mass is the Lord’s Supper, why not call it the Lord’s Supper, and get rid of at least one cause of strife and discord? After all, what does the name matter? “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”

Now we Anglo-Catholics are very anxious to have a better understanding with Evangelicals. We value their goodwill, and we are anxious, so far as is humanly possible, to avoid giving them unnecessary causes of offence. But we really cannot give up using the word Mass. It means a very great deal to us, for two reasons:

1. Because of its practical convenience. It is really necessary to have a short, simple word to describe the service as a whole, and Mass is peculiarly suitable for this purpose, just because it has no particular meaning. Holy Communion describes one aspect of the service. only, and is therefore liable to misunderstanding, since we are often present at the service without receiving Communion. “Going to Communion” and “going to Mass” do not always mean the same thing to us. Other titles given to the rite, such as the Lord’s own Service, the Administration of the Lord’s Supper, and so on, are cumbrous, lengthy, and [3/4] awkward; while Eucharist is a foreign word which has never become popular in England, and which has been commonly used as a name for the Blessed Sacrament itself rather than a title for the service in which the Blessed Sacrament is consecrated, offered, and received.

2. The second reason is even more important. Though it is true that the word Mass has no doctrinal meaning in itself, it has come to be definitely connected with the agelong belief of the Church about the Eucharist. It has been the ordinary name for the Lprd’s own Service in Western Christendom for at least 1,500 years, and it is used to-day by those Christians who believe in the Real Presence and the Eucharistic Sacrifice, and rejected by those who do not. It is the Protestant assertion that the Church of England rejected the Mass at the Reformation which compels us to use the word, in order that we may make clear to all men our belief that the Church of England did nothing whatever of the kind. We could not give up the word without seeming tacitly to admit that the English Communion Service is not the Mass but something entirely different from it.

Bringing back the Mass

Thus, in the strict sense of the word, it is quite unnecessary for Anglo-Catholics to bring back the Mass, because, thank God! the English Church has always possessed it; had she ever lost it she would have ceased to be a true part of the Church of Christ. But there is a sense in which the phrase “bringing back the Mass” does quite truly describe what we are trying [4/5] to do. It is one of our chief aims to teach the English people about the Mass, to urge them to love it, to honour it, and to attend it regularly. We want to restore it to its rightful position as the chief act of Christian worship, and to see it offered daily in every parish church in England. That the Mass is the principal Christian service is plainly taught in the Prayer-Book. It is the only service at which a sermon is directed to be preached, the collection of the alms of the faithful appointed, and notices are directed to be given out, thus plainly showing that it is the service at which all the people are expected to be present. Moreover, it is this service to which the Prayer-Book directs people to come after they are confirmed, after they are married, and when they are giving thanks after childbirth. And once again, at every ordination, whether of bishop, priest, or deacon, the Prayer-Book directs that the Mass shall be celebrated. The witness of the Prayer-Book is clear and conclusive that it means the Lord’s own Service to be what it always has been throughout the Christian ages, the chief and highest act of Christian worship.

It is not possible through lack of space to explain here why the Mass is so very much more important than any other service, and why it, is the bounden duty of every good Christian to be present at it without fail every Sunday and chief holyday, and to come as often as he can at other times. But these matters are fully dealt with in other John Bull Tracts. I hope you will read them, and, if need be, be convinced by them, and give us your help in [5/6] the glorious work of bringing back the Mass to its true position in the English Church. One chief way you can do that is by coming to Mass regularly every Sunday yourself. That will be the very best witness you can give. You will also help by handing on this tract to a non-Catholic friend after you have read it. Even if it does not convince him it may remove a good deal of his prejudice and misunderstanding, and make him think about the whole matter afresh. That in itself will be a very great gain.