So also, who ever heard of the Lord's Supper being received "for the dead;" but it is very common for the priest to say _mass_ for the dead.

Thus, might we add additional sentences from this Article XXIV., which applied to the Lord's Supper, make no sense, but are appropriately and historically true of the mass in its specific sense.

Since then almost the whole article treats of the mass proper, does not common sense, as well as the legitimate principles of interpretation, require us so to interpret the word mass in the caption and passages cited from this article?
The same reason would apply to a comparison of the caption of Article XXII., or I, of the Abuses Corrected, namely, "Of Communion in both kinds," compared with the word mass; but we deem it unnecessary.
2.

That the word mass is here used in its appropriate sense, is evident, _because Melancthon himself, in translating the Latin original into German_, always renders the Latin term for mass (missa) by the German term messe (mass); whereas if he had used the Latin term in its more general sense in Article XXIV., he would at least sometimes have translated it eucharist, or Lord's Supper.

But so far as we have examined, the word mass (messe) is always employed in this article, where the German is a translation of the Latin.