Full Text for What is the Sacrament of the Altar? (Text)

-- Vol. SXXIT Syrjng, 19158 No. 1 - - P ~ - . - - - - I 7 I HI: SPI:I X(:PII:;I.T)EI{ is publislletl quarterlv hy the facol ty of Con-- rorclin "I:'hcological Seminary, SpringfieIc1. fiinois, of the 1.utherall Cllurch -- h lissottri Sy~locl. --- ??,'L)~lrC0HI~\lJ C':Oi\3kI~IrI'7'EE1?, T ~ R I C I I 13. MEINTZEN, Editor IIAY x ~ o x n F. SU.Y.EL'RG, 1300k Revie~v Editor IInvlll 1'. SCAEI:, . / ~ s s o c ~ ~ ~ ~ c ! Editor hJ :IRK I . S-i.set;n, Associntc Editor T?RL.:s~I)Ex\;'.T 1. A. 0. I'IIEUS,, ex officio Contents PAGE 1 II .I :M,INI\ , SA';SJ,,, Irnmanucl Tl~cological S r ~ ~ ~ i l ~ a r ? , bortll ilclelaiclc. Australia ](.)I-IN \ V A I I W IC;T< ;\/IONTC;OMEI~Y, 'rrinity '1:vangelical l l i c i n i t y School. IIcc.rficlt1, Illillois itlrlcxcd in INDEX .ro RELIGIOUS PERIODICAL ITERATURE, pzrblished b y the Atncricrrri Thcologicul Library Association, Syecr Library, Princeton Theo- logicu? Seminnq, Princeton, New Jersey. Clergy changes of address reported to Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, l\lisu)uri, will also cowr mailing change of ?'he Springficldcr. Other changes of ilddrcs~ should be st7nt to the Business Manager of T h e Springfielder, Con- curcti,~ 'I'hcological Seminary, Springfield, Illinois 62702. Addrcss communications to the Editor, a c h H. Heintzen, Concordia Theo- logical Scxninary, Sl)ringfield, Illinois 62702. "What is the Sacrament of the Altar?" 'rhc following, with some small alterations, is repri~zted wi th pern~issioi~ of the azithor ni~cl the editor (Dr. H . 1'. Harrzniciz) frolrz LUTHERAN THEOI,OGICAI, J A ~ i g ~ i ~ t 1 9 6 7, Adelaide, Azrstralin. 1, T he Luthern Church of Australia accepts unanimously and whole- heartedly the doctrine of the Lutheran Confessions on the Lord's Supper.' I t coilfesses unambiguously, in the sense in which Luther understood the words, concerning the Sacraillent of the Altar: "It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and wine, given to us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself ." It is not conservatisin and theological tradition- alism which causes us to take this stand. W e are fully aware of the problems, exegetical and historical, dogmatical and ecclesiastical, im- plied in such a confession in our time. \Vc have learned to regard this consensus not only as a great inheritance of our history, but as a gift of divinc grace. We are a sillall church, a minority within a small nation at the fringe of the vast world of the non-Christian nations of Asia. LVe havc grown together out of many traditions. Our early fathers caine froin Prussia to find a country where they were able to live, without the interference by the state, according to the dictates of their c o n s c i c n c e, and to build up the 1,uthcran Church. They Lvere later joined by immigrants who for different reasons were seeking a new home but who had a Lutheran back- ground in Germany or Scandinavia. When our church had become English speaking, Christians who came froill other denominations joined us. Our first pastors came from Prussia. They wcre joined by inen \vho had been trained at great illission centres such as Her- mannsburg, Bascl and Neuendettelsau. Others came froin America, part11, after of missionarv scrvice in India. The great conserva- tive synods of the American Middle \Vest also exercised 3 strong in- fluence, such as Missouri, Iowa and Ohio. This variety of back- clroun co11c11 tio~~ccl. I t i \ lirll itccl 1)) the l~ossil~ilitics of I a n - ~ L I I I ~ ~ ' '11lt l 41\lc. I ) \ 1 1 1 ~ 5 \~~l~lc l ic- \ tl1,il c'ln or cannot 1)c adccluatel\~ .. 1 c\l)~'cs\ccl . . . 111.1t I\(. l ~ n ~ c to use human language in theology i\ ,I trui\lii I hat I l t~~nall Ia1igt1,1gc sl~oulcl bc unable to express ob- jcc'th-c 1rt1th \ ~ o ~ l l ( l ~neiiti thC encl not o11l;. of thecllogy, but of all wicncc 3. 1,1h(, c ' \cbr \ grcilt ch'lllgc i l l tllc. Ilistor\ of-' the Church, so also thl\ o n c I r c . g . ~ ~ ~ \lo\\l) :~rl t l ,lhllost i ~ l l ~ ~ c r c ~ t i l > l ~ . But nojv the resulb arc. ~ ( ) l 1 \ l N c t l O t 1 \ in thc' cntire T-~ltheran worli]. \-\7hcn Church Of q\\.c(lc~l In 1'122 ;l~ccptc(I 1ntcrcomlnunion \vitll the Church I-~lgland 11 l ~ l d IWCII prol)oseti by [,nmlletll Confcrcnce of 1920. Soclt.rl)lo~li I\'I(I 10 tlcfend tliic agaillst what ca]lcrl n a r 0 I I t i o r l ~ i i " the confrssion;ll protest 1 1 1 f 1 \ 1 \\'llcn u)lnc lilne ago S\\ edell cstab "\Vhtrt is the Sacramelzt o f the Altar" 9 lished ill the most solell111 way Interconli~~union with the Church of Scotland, e1~e11 Bishop Giertz, thc leader of the Kyrkliq S a ~ n l i n q had no objection. None of the Lutheran churchcs of Scandinavia seeins to have been ablc and ~~r~il l ing to maintain the basic requirements of the Augsburg Confession for altar and church fellowship. Consen- sus concerning the Gospel and the Sacraments is no longer required as a condition of church fe l lo~~~shiy. The American Lutherans of Scandinavian background obviously had no objection to raise against the flagrant violation of the Augsburg Confession in their home churches. So thc first pillar of the Lutheran Church of the world collapsed. T h e other churches of Europe followed. The customary intcrcommunion bctivcen the Reformed (Hervormde) and the Lu- theran Church in the Nctl~erlands was justified in 1 9 5 3 by an agree- illent which leaves the clifferencc between the sacramental doctrines ~~nrcsolvcd. The Lutherans "ask1' the Kcformed whcther they can maintain what is taught in cluestion 47 of the Heidclberg Catechism about Christ's human nature being in heaven and not on earth. The Ilefornled "ask" the T,utherans whethcr "a11 onlnipresence (ubiquity) of thc l ~ ~ u n a n nature of Christ does not actually mean an abolition of the incarnation." Obviously the Lutherans were not quite clear about their own doctrine, other~vise they would have answcred that the "ubicluity" is not a dogma of the Lutheran Church and that thcir doctrine that the body of Christ has nlorc ways of being in one place than the local presence, docs not deny the reality of thc incarnation. But the level of this cliscussion obviously did not pcrmit an intelligent investigation of the problen~s. The aim was not to solvc the problem, but to have a document which could be uscd to justify what had been practised through ignorancc for so long a tirnc. R4uch more serious was the attempt made in Gerillany ih the so-called Arnoldshain Theses." When in 1948 the new "Evangelical Church in Gcrmany" was established which comprises all territorial churches of Gcri1l;lny-l,utheran, Ilcformcd and United- -the de- cisive hour of the C ~ ~ L I ~ C ~ I C S of t h ~ ' 13cfonnation in the liorld had struck. 'l'hcse arc thc I,uthcran antl thc Ileformcd Presbyterian churches, for iii~glicanisjl~ ccascd to be a Church of the Reformation when it ~ l e jacto abolished the Articles of licligion, and the majority of the l'rotcstr~nt churches of Amc.rica arc only indirectly related to tllc licfori~~ation or arc thc descendants of the Radical Reformation in Iluropc ~vhich could not dcvclop in thc Old World. I t was German-sl~ealtiilg E:uropc, nrhere Lutheranism and Calvinism had first met in that tragic encounter-, which has pro\lcd so fateful for thc hjstory of the Church. It is undc.rstandable that time and again attempts have been made to overcome the great s~hisi11 of thc Rcfor- mation. But the theological incans of thc 16th antl 17th centuries wcrc insufficient for a settlement of the great controversy. And the 18th and 19th centuries could find nothing but political solutions, basccl on the ignorancc of thc churchmen and the indifference of the masses in these territorial cl~urchcs. Not l~ ing is ~ ~ l o r e si~11ific;lnt of thc tragic situation than the fact t11ilt th r ~iilions which llegall ill 18 17 in Nassau, 18 17-36 in Prussi;~, 1 8 18 in thc Pillatinate, 182 1 i n Baden aild \\'alcleck and s i m ~ ~ l t i i n c o l ~ s l ~ or s m n after in other ter- ritories, harl a lnerelv territorial character. Each of the lle\vl?' cir- cllnlscribed states of ' ~ c r m a n ~ \j,:lntccl to 11;ruc its 0n.n cll~ircll, i ts confess io~ l~ l character being mcrcl\l IlesecI on the local coi~ditions ;lllc1 not on n real tllcologicnl consensus: I lcnce in the il~icldlc of tile 1 9 t h ccnturv Gcrlnanv had about scvcn tliffcrcnt union ch~irchcs wi th r~iffcrc;lt thm1ogic;rl b;lscs, the l;lrgst being the Liniol1 ~ h ~ l r c h of I r ~ s s i i \ \hich t11coretic;lllv c l i ( l not ;~bolisli the al~thori tv the old collfcssions i l l the inclividI;;ll congregations, but cle fact0 so011 becallle the grcat unifying factor in G c r ~ n e ~ l ~ , cspcciillly sincc the inajority of the i~~livcrsitics and their thn)lodc;ll faculties \\,as in tllc 11;inds of the l'r~~ssi;in State. 'l'hc l2utIlcr;ll~ Churcllcs joillcd forces ill 1 8 6 8 by forming the "General [I\~:li~~clic:~I i.lltllcr;ll~ Coilfcrcncc" i n close ~ 1 1 - ncction ivit11 S\\1crlcn ant1 the. C;cncral Council in the U.S.11. In 1 9 3 3 Hitlcr forced all territorial Churches into the "German ~ 1 7 a n ~ e l i c a l ChurchVwhich in 1948 transfor~ned itself into thc present EIGD af te r the last attempts of Lutherans in Germany to maintain their i d e l l t i 9 in a federation between n Lutheran, a Reformed and ;I U n i t e d C h ~ ~ r c h hat1 been defeated. 'The new body with an ambiguous con-- stitutjon, which could and can be interpreted ns a feclcratio~l or as a llnificd churcll, (lecidc(1 that ;l colloqu!. on the Lord's Suppcr s h o u l d hc Ilcl(1 with the aim of bringing ahout a colnmon statement on the sacrulncnt whjch would justih full intcrcominunion bct~vecn all arts of tllc I:KiI). Thus thc ~;iloldsllaill Theses wcre written ina in - c1 h! thcolo~i i~ns of the Union 1:aculties of Heidelberg and B o n n . Among thcm were outstanding rcprcsentativcs of Lutl~eranism w i t h i n the. L[nion, namely, I'cter Brunner and Edmund Schlinl<, the l a t t e r , howel cr, heing more ant1 more inf ucnced bv the I'cun~cnical Rlovc- P 7 mcnt. Lhcologians from I,uthcr;~n churches; like \j7. Elcrt, rlcclined thc invitation I ) c c i i ~ s ~ t l l q kllcl\. notlring clsc bu t a formula of co in - ~ " ~ l l l i ~ c0 1ltl bc thc result. Tllc autlior of this article refused to take lx~r t I)C 'C ' ; I I IS~~ he co~lltl not rccogni/c the right of the EIil.lt, in the victory of His lordship, SO that w e , belic\linp ill ~ { i s promise, may receive forgiveness of sills, l i fe and salr.ation.' This thesis nus st be read together with t h e rejection of cct.tail> erroneous views in Thesis 5 : Therefore, what happens in the Lord's Supper is ]lot ade- quately described, (a) when i t is taught that, by incans of t h c words o f i ~ ~ s t ~ t u - tion, bread and wine are changed in to a sul>c~.li:~ttl~.al sub- stance, thus ceasing to be breacl a n d xvinc; (b) whcn it is taught that a repetition of t h e act o f \ a [ \ ation takes place in the Lord's Supper; (c) when it is taught that in the Lord's Suppcr eithcr :\ n ; l t ~ ~ i '11 or a supernatural 'matter' is distributed; (d) whcn i t is taught that there are two parallel 1x1 t wpas,~ tc processes, one an eating on the pa r t of t h c l ~ o d ~ a n d the other an eating on the part of the soul; (e) when it is taught !hat the eating on t h e part of tllc botl~ as such saws us, or that participation in thc I)od~ blood of Christ is a purely nlental process. These theses contain a clear rejectioll of t h c Roman ;md thr Zwinglian doctrines. But what about the doc t r ine of the Lutl~cran and of the lrcatl and wine ;is thc clcmcnts of thc first Eucharist at the 1,ast Suppel-. 1:cjccting 3111~ one-sidecl preoccupation \\:it11 t l 1 ~ e1~11ic11ts i n isolatioii, I\C' agree that in the c n t i r e euc1i,irist i~ction tllc I\ llolc Christ is personally present as t~ath subivct ant1 ob jc~ t , i.e. as the 011e 1~110 is at thc same tinlc the G i ~ c r ,mtl tllc Gift. ( 3 ) I n \ i c \ ~ of our I~clicf in C;hrist7s acti1.e presence in the \\hole cucllaristic action, ~1.c iigrec that this action is o u r ~):lrticipation in h i \ rise11 life ancl thc fulfillmcnt of his proinisc. to his cllurch. i d Chriqt's prcscncc ;it I1i5 table follo\\s fronl his promise and o i l . i t 1 4 o1i1\ 111 r c ~ e i i t a n c ~ allel faith that t h e bel~cvcr . . . rrcc~\.cs' the fruits of redemption, i n c l u d i n g thc f ~ r g ~ \ c11c\\ of \itis, justification, sanctification, netv- ncs5 of' life and c o ~ n i ~ u n i o ~ l \\it11 his hrctlircn . . . ' T h e llol\ C 1 o ~ n n ~ ~ i n ~ o n ir a nlcalir of placing us in the p r e s e n c e C'liri\t in .i tot.11 \ r a y . I n his Prcsence rrc arc judged as \\ell ns t'orql\cn / 1 Cor. 1 1 : 17-34). ' " \ t ' l ~ r r t is thc .J'LICI'NIIICIIL of LIIC Altmr-" 1 3 .. .... ~ .~~~~ . -. . ~~ .- .~ . .~ . . ~ ~ . - -- ~ such a statcmcnt, this might be ui~dcrstanclablc Lecause most of them h n \ ~ never tau511t the 1:eal P~.csencc of the body and blood of Christ, thougli it is neltlicr untlcrstandable nor pardonable that the Angli- cans ant1 the 1,~1thcrans (ilmcrican 1,uthernn Church, Augustana I,uthcran Cliurcli, United I ~ t h c r a n Church) failed to follow the cxamlde of the Quakers u.ho did not taltc part in tlie negotiations of this Section, I ~ u t confcsscd later in a statement adtlcd to the rc- port, their "l~elicf in the non-necessity of the out\varcl elements of bread and \vine to inccliatc thc living presence of Christ to thc be- liever in the act of communion with him."" But how is it to be esldaincd that the German thcologians with their thorough historical training do not unc1erst:incl thc connection bctwccn the presence of body and blood of Christ ant1 the prcscncc of the \vholc tlivinc-11uman person? Do they not know the Roman doctrine of the conco~nitancc? I)o they not Itnoby any longer the eucharistic hymns and pra!,crs,-the greatest of which are common to Catholics and l utl~crans-in ~11icli the prcscncc of body ant1 blood is always urlderstood as includilig, the presence of the person? Does not at least l\lo7art1s (since most of them are Rarthians, Rlo~ar t must belong to their saints) Ave verzlnz ring in thcir cars: Ave vcrrirrz c o r ~ ~ z ~ w ~ a t ~ l ~ ~ z / e x A4nria Virgi~~c/Vere passllm, ivrzr~zolatunz irz crzlce pro Izo~~zi~ze/ . . . . 0 J C S ~ L ~iztlcis/O , / C S ~ L pie/Fili Patris et A4ariae. O r do we no longer remember tlic German version of rlquinas' Lazlda Sio~z Salvntore1~z 11.1iich is to be founcl in ciTcr)r Gcrinan hymnbook: Sch~~ziicke ~Zich, o liche Seele? The consequence of the Arnoldshain Thcscs, with their clear rcjcction of tlie oltl Keforn~ed as well as of the Lutheran doctrine, \vould bc that ~ v c should have to givc up our Catechism. \Vilhelm Nicscl (Lelzrgespriich, ed. Nicmeier, 13. 293) discusses the question ~~r l i c t l~e r tlie acceptance of thc 'Theses ~v i th thcir rejection of the tloctriiie of cluestion 47 of the Heitlclberg Cat- ecliisln does iiot necessitate an alteration of this Catechism. Thc same has to be said concerning 1,uther's Catechism. Its clear confcs- sion of the 12eal l'rescncc of the true body and blood of Christ, its afbrmation of the oltl "Substantialisin" in favor of a mcrc "l'crson- alisin", the reaffirniation of the Lutheran Est in tlie ~vords "It is the true body and blood of Christ" cannot bc reconciled ~vit l i Arnold- shain. Honesty woultl dcinand that wc give up J,uther's Catechism, but thcologians ha\lc long ago lcarned to coilfcss with the mouth what they do not believe with their hcart. For what is the dccyest reason for this new attempt to find a new doctrinc of the sacraii~cnt? It is not respect for thc \Vord of God. For evervbody kno~vs that thc lit- eral understancliiig of "this is my body" is the simplcst way of doing justice to the text. It is not l>ossihle to deny that according to 1 Cor. 1 0 : 15f. the eating and drinking of bread and winc constitutes the participation of the body and blood of the Lord. It cannot be denied that 1 Cor. 1 1 :27ff. has thc same realistic meaning. One could argue: This is Paul's view, but what did Jesus mean? Can we really assume that Paul ivho is so careful in rendering the genuine yaradosis ( 1 1 : 2 3 , cf. 1 5 : 1 ff .) should have smuggled in a different, "Hellen- istic" interpretation of the words of Jesus? \Vould none of his ad- versaries have noticed this, even if could assume that Paul was capable of what amounts to a forgcrv? But Jesus as a Jew could no t have meant that, we are told. hi not? In this most solemn mo- ment he did not speak as a Jew only, but 3s the God-Man. And i f he really meant something different, \\.hat did he mean? Up to this very day no oilc has been able to give another explanation which would be acceptable to all New Testament scholars, to speak only of them. Even the Inen of Arnoldshain have not found a comlllon exe planation. For their theses arc differently understood even by their authors. As to the respect for the \\lord of God: Havc we not in Holy Scripture a \Vord of God which is not onlv thc word of Jesus o r the word of Paul or thc word of ;lnothcr apostle; but the \Vord which may find its expression in different terminologies ( 1 Car. 3 : 5ff; 4 : lff.), but is essentially one in tllc ~vhole Nc\v Testii~nent? B u t thc scl~olars of Arnoldsl~ain have obviously lost this \Vord. Let u s bc quite frank: I~ehind this chaos of opinions there is not historical "scholarship," but unbelief. 111 the discussion of the tllescs it hap - pened that sonle naive readers understood the \\lords of Thesis 1 , "The Lord's Sul,pcr \vhich \vc cclcl>ratc is 1)ascd on its having been institl~tetl urld coin~nandcd by Jesus Cllrist,'' as referring to the in- stitution at the l ~ s t Supper. 'Theu had to learn that thc authors of thc thesis \\.lire 1)) 110 n lw~ls agreed on this. Somc find the roots of the sncrnmcllt in prc\?ious nlcals, others regard it 3s instituted by the Riscn TJord in the carliest church. \\T1l~t kind of historical scholar- ship is this? ln all cllurcl~cs OF Christcndon~, in cvcr) mass, in e v e r y : t i o l o C'onlmunion since the ~Zpostolic ~ \ g e the w o r d s occur q l r i prir l ic~ q;irrnl ptl terctl ir , "in the night in \\hich he was be- trayed." Rl~lst C:hristc~ldom rlo\\. stop s:rving this I~ccausc somc Ger- mail "schol;~rs" thi111~ that this s;lcr;in~cni is ; ~ n in\~cntion of the f i r s t c l l l~rc l~? Uut the churches \\ill prol~al~l\ not he convinced that f o r nl~no\t 2,000 \cars i l l tllc nlobt solemn \\orship oC the Church t h e y haw toltl ir stor! \vhich is not true. k'or this st:ltement is the u n a n i - ? ? 1llou5 statcincnt 01' the Xc\\ 'Ccstnnlcnt. I his is not historical schol - L~r s l~ ip h lt ;I Ibri\ oIoi13 pIa\ ing \ \ i l l ) tllc !\'OI-~ of Gocl. X o orlc \\ ho I \ I ~ ( I \ v s C~r111ii11 cllurch life ancl German theology- noultl ha\,c cxpcctcd an~th ing bcttcr. \\'e kno\v the tragedy of Ger- * , 111rtii 1'rotcst;rntism. I'hcrc arc faith t'ul pastors, tllcl-c arc also profes- sors \\.ho slill tilkc thc i r chil~-chl\ ol)liAation.; seriously. There a r e some bishops \vl1osc c\ c< I ln \ c ~ i o t \.ct J~ceii b]in(lcd bt. tllc bri]]ian t stars in thcir I'acultlcs 'antl 11v thc. fi;c\\c!rl,s of tllc lrovidcs assurance tha t i t is the tot;rl Christ. thc rlivinc-human person who is present i n t h e sac'ril~nciit, but it tloes riot explain ho\\ lic is present." This is t he an- swer. I ' h c I,utlicran\ \vho have acc.c.l>ted this document arc n o longer able to conSess !lit11 ;I rlr;lr cana-icilcc ronrer~iing the Sacrament of tlic Altar: "It is tlic. truc hotly ;lild I~lootl of Christ . . . ." ~ncl iv idua l pcrsoiis mil" bclicvc. that. 11ul i t is not esst'ntial for the Sacrament. I t cilnnot. *thcreforc, be tllc dogin:l of the Church. A11 that the Church cijn tcach is thc l~-chcllcc of thc pcrson of Christ. "Chris- tologv" 111:ly gi\c 11\ tllc assur-once that tlic Christ llrcscnt is thc total (:hrist. 13ut "('llristolog)" is for I'rofc.ssor Quanbeck and his fol - lo\\cr\ tlicologjcal slwrulation. 50 \vcb arc left with the "consolations of philosol>h\'' :1nt1 I, ; l \c . no lo11qc.1. tlic firm follndatiol1 of the 1Vol-d of thr 1 ,ortl Iliii~wlS. 1,~11hcr ntt\cr- basctl llis doctrine & philosoph- leal-thco10gi~;lI spccul:ltion\, nor 11;1\ ~ ] l c . 1 utllcrall Church after hllll. . r I l ~ 0 1 1 ~ :11id O I I I \ b;lgotia trcl a ~ t n y . \l:c ask our brcthron in /\lnrric;j to u n d e r s t a n d our (lcbcp concern. \\'c. rcfusc. to bclievc that any of tllc L u t h e r a n Cllurchcs in America would endorse thc wsults of A 4 n r h ~ - g Revisi- t d , cvc.11 if ' pri\ atc persons ac.ccpt tll~111. \\ h ) arc \\.e so co~lccrncd? 1t is our tlccp conviction that i n tie- I 'c~nd~~lg thc litcral mc~nin: of "l'llis is mv body", Rl;irtin J.uther d i d not tlcfc~nel ;I theological L I C I I ol' his o\vn 01. of ;I tl~cological school , I ~ u t i4 Oi~sic clopplna of thc Chrr\tia~> Cl~urch . \Vith this est stands a n d fal l3 thc Incnr-ni~tiol~. Ant1 i v i th thc rcalit~. of the Incarnation s t a n d s and falls the CIIIIYCII of TC'SLIS C'llr~st. ~ 1 1 ; s is 1v1y \ve arc c o i l c e r n e d about tllr dcrcloplilc~lt in India. \\c do not want to make the p e o p l e of lntli'i I u t h r r : ~ n ~ \\c. knoiv thc thc highly spiritualising Indian soul nccds thc real Chri\t, not Christ as onc of the rlviltaras, a c l i v i n c hcirrg that for .I \\?hill. dcsu~nlls to t l ~ r cnrth 1;ltcr to return to thc spir- itual a11c1 di\,irlc norld, 1)ut Chricls were written. It is a truth which is in no sensc 'time-conditioned' or 'limitcd by the possibilities of style and lan- guage', still less by 'subtleties that can or cannot be adequately expressed'," (Herder Correspondence, May, 1967, p. 161 ) . 3. Wc quote from thc official English translation contained in "Lehrgesprach ubcr das Heiligc Abendmahl. Stimmcn and Studicn zu den Arnoldshaincr Thesen dcr Kommission fiir das Abendmahlsgesprach der EKiD", her- ausgegcben von Gottfried Niemeier (Munchen, 196 I ) , pp. 3 3 2ff. 4. The Nature of the Unity we Seek. Official Report of the North American Conference on Faith and Order, Sept. 1957, Obcrlin, Ohio (ed. by P. S. Minear, 1958), pp. 199-205; the quotation from p. 202. 5. Ibid., p. 205. 6. Art. 4, "The Lord's Supper": The Lord's Supper is a celebration of the rcconciliation of mcn with God and with onc another, in which thcy joy- fully cat and drink together at thc table of their Saviour. Jesus Christ gave his church this remembrance of his dying for sinful men so that by participating in it they have conlmunion with him and with all who shall bc gathered to him. Partaking in him as they eat the bread and drink the wine in accordance with Christ's appointment, they receive from the risen and living Lord the bcnefits of his death and resurrection. Thcy rejoice in thc forctastc of the kingdom which he will bring to consummation at his promised coming, and go out from thc Lord's Table with couragc and hope for thc scrvicc to which he has called them. The Proposed Book o f Confessions of the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. (Philadelphia, 1966), p. 186. 7. Scc for details H. Sassc: This i s My Body (1959), pp. 266ff.